Janet Halleys Perspective on Fighting Bodies - Literature review Example

Janet Halley’s Perspective on Fighting Bodies, Fighting Words: A Theory and Politics of Rape Prevention Janet Halley’s Perspective on Fighting Bodies, Fighting Words: A Theory and Politics of Rape Prevention In her article Fighting Bodies, Fighting Words: A Theory and Politics of Rape, Marcus (1992, p166) presented her extended views and perceptions about feminism and rape prevention in a broader context. These views have been perceived and discussed differently by different literary critics, feminists and sociologists to linkup these views with reality. Janet Halley’s ideology is to understand the power, root and language of rape in order to create a politics and prevent rape. This is a new-fangled theory which is closely related to feminism (Hackett and Haslanger, 2012, p24). Basically, what Halley thinks is that feminism has a convergence problem. She takes a break from feminism and she expresses her views widely as she speaks to all the women, no longer using their race, colour, class, religion or ethnicity as the ground of feminism. She develops a theory for an account of all the modes of oppressions and avoids centralizing to just one. Socialist feminism is, for instance, an issue highlighting capitalism, and poststructuralist theory raises imperialism where gender has no race and race has no gender. Here, the major ground for oppression is gender. As critically analysed, rape can be best defined as the sexualized and gendered attack which imposes sexual difference along the lines of violence. It has a very close relation to the gender factor but the rapist has many undesirable consequences which would attract him towards such an act. The rape as a linguistic fact, the rape script and the rape prevention are the arguments of this draft (Armstrong, 2006, p101). Janet Halley contradicts the claims made about rape in her ideology. She has a queer perspective about these claims in her essay. She has written in convergence as she brings together conflicting thoughts about rape. These claims are that rape is real; that to be real means to be determined to understanding; and that feminist politics should understand rape as one of the real facts of a woman’s life. However, the victims account to the rape experience should be determinant of their truth value. Some legalistic terms such as ‘standards of evidence’ and ‘norms of truth’ derive the prestige of the rape claims on rapists to apply equally. But the initial point of feminist politics should be the reality of rape, considering the value of truth as the woman unfolds her experience. Though it will be perceptually believed that the rape is real, there are many other feminist political aspects that need to be covered. It is equally important to know the real political perspective of the action. There is no declining to the fact that rape has taken place, but at the same time the rape language and script are to be known without which any political decisions can be formed (Zalewski, 2000, p32). According to Sharon Marcus, rape is a linguistic fact (Young, 1999, p54) and to have a broader view, rape has to be understood as a language (Mann, 2006, p14). By sight, it is unthinkable to say that a woman is already raped or intrinsically rap-able. The foundation of rape is the man who thinks of him as powerful enough to physically overcome his weak target. The rapist believes that he is stronger than the target and he can use that against her. The male creed of rape is the thought that he has certain weapons that can be used to rape a woman, and thus he perceives it. Sharon Marcus in her essay made claims about the ideology of rape in today’s society. She claimed that in today’s society, a woman is seen as already been raped or inherently rape-able. This is greatly because of what the media proposes a woman to be. The society and the media take a woman as a weak, powerless silent figure. The image of a woman is portrayed through various forms of media such as Dolce and Gabbana advertisement in which a woman was shown being physically abused by a male dominant figure. The advertisement showed a weak woman who could not physically untangle herself from the male grip. We are generalized to think that the male dominant society would lower the female strength and target them. Marcus, however, believed that it was necessary to re-position the status of women in the society, and also re-define the meaning of rape in order to prevent it. One of the major steps that can be taken in order to prevent rape is to reduce the stereotype women shown in the every-day advertisements as weak, powerless and rape-able. These should be replaced by women who are strong, so that the perceptions are changed and are according to the post modernization. Upgrading the status of a traditional woman with a modern, strong woman would greatly affect the perceptions of the males in the society. The feminist legal literature and policy about rape shows how we overestimate the incident by taking in view only the post-rape events (Dietz, 2003, p431). When it is about the legal system intervened in politics, there can be cases seen in which a woman has to prove with the standard of evidence that there has been wrong committed with her (Robbins, 2000, p12). To blame the men for the brutalization, she has to react in self-defence (Cossman et al, 2000, p602). There are many ways to understand rape as a linguistic fact and one of them is the presence of speech in the act of rape. To prove that the rape is not a matter that is accepted or acknowledged, there are several ways in which you can use the language. The physical language of opposing the act of rape can prove that it is unacceptable. But why does the woman show aggression in order to prove that she is opposing what is happening with her, and will that not invite the rapist to be more forceful on her (Francis, 2002, p54). The legal preventions that can be structured in order to undermine post-rape events, evidence and complications should include the penalties and convictions. These would decrease the incidents of this crime. There should also be legal deterrence to persuade men not to rape. Men assume they have the power to rape and to bring their morale down there should be threats for punishments (Felski, 2003, p3). The linguistic factor in rape would include both the physical and the speech notion. There can be several ways in which this can be taken in regard of both the one being attacked and her rapist (Gruber, 2009, p657). Rape is usually assumed as a wordless, impersonal attack, but most rapists include the speech factor as well as the physical aggression. There are two aspects to this; either the rapist would be too friendly or he would be threatening. A woman is tending to stay quiet even though she has been forced to speak up because of fear. However, some responses to rapists by woman which are friendly and polite might keep her away from the action of rape. The continuum theory of rape and language has been defined by the action of verbal threat and immediately followed by sexual assault. This shapes up both the verbal and the physical language between the rapist and the target. Language is however, a social structure of meanings which enables people to experience themselves as speaking, acting and embodied subjects (Gardiner, 2007, p4). A rapist does not only attack because he is a male who is biologically stronger than a female, but he follows a rape script which is structured to provoke the female to get in a dialogue with the rapist that is used against her. This provides that a rapist mind does not overpower the woman who is weaker, but the one who can be played with. The rapist does not simply have the power to rape; the social script and the extent to which that script succeeds in soliciting its target’s participation help to create the power of the rapist (Felski, 2003, p3). The rape script takes its form from the gendered violation which includes the rules and structures which assign people to positions within a script. When there is a rape script, a development of feminist discourse has begun on rape which displaces the emphasis of men violence against women, as the script imposes, to what the script excludes; women’s will and capacity for violence. Theories from “Stopping Rape: Successful Survival Strategies” suggest that a women’s anger would usually result in making the rapist angrier and more injury caused by the incident. It suggested that women showing resistance are successful in stopping the attempt of rape being made on them. It can be a strong kick or a scream, or there have also been cases in which women have threatened rapists with a knife or gun (Halley, 2008, p337). Further, Janet Halley has critically analysed how there are different names given to the rape incidents such as subject-subject rape. Also, different perceptions are discussed about the women in the social script who are either considered as am object that can be subjected to fear and threats at the hands of men. Or the women who are considered as property that only men can own. Although self-defence is not merely a practical strategy that can be implied, but the absence of fear can play a very important role. Janet Halley’s draft has shown a new track to the concerned groups. Her expressions on ‘How and Why to take a break from feminism’ proved to hold immense importance in the society. She has outlined some postmodern concepts that have reshaped the meaning of rape in the Western feminism. It is necessary to look at Janet Halley’s imagination to recognize that life, law and politics are complex and we should embrace the complexity, revel in it, pursue it and look forward to it. Mary Hawkesworth made the three claims about rape at the beginning of this essay, that rape is real; that to be real means to be fixed, determinate and transparent to understanding; and that feminist politics must understand rape as one of the real, clear facts of women’s lives. As Janet Halley unfolds her arguments mentioned above, she critically contradicts each of these three claims. She contradicts that rape is real and there should be no ‘standard of evidence’ to prove this as a women who has been attacked will not be inclined to tell a fake experience about her life. The second claim uses the word ‘rape’ and the third sentence quotes ‘the victims account of these experiences’. This substitution of account for event implies the very inseparability of text which Hawkesworth has previously criticized in postmodern thought. Janet Halley’s project accesses the aspects of her genealogy of feminism, feminist theory and feminist legal theory. She ignited her own firestorm amongst the feminists reacting over the different theories given by Marcus. She agrees with the facts about the social construction of rape, as in linguistics. A feminist politics would fight rape without the understanding of the true meaning, and the language of rape. However, Halley disagrees and reacts on the fact that rape has to be understood as a language and using this view, a woman will be imagined as neither already raped nor inherently rape-able. Arguing that feminisms first principle of sex equality might be in stress with projects and methodologies centred on sexual liberation, Halley invited progressive thinkers to "Take a Break from Feminism." In a series of articles and talks that culminated in a book, she argued that sexual acts feminists indict as abuse might be applauded as liberator according to other political scripts, while Marcus has been concerned about the events before rape and the social construction of rape. She concerns that the elimination of rape fully from the society is something that we won’t be able to see in the near future, at least. A woman’s fear on a true fact that she can be raped does not mean that she is ‘rape-able’. Perhaps, even a strong woman could be attacked just because she is a woman and the perception tells that she is weak. Thus, this is why rape is idealized as a language and a script. Janet Haley’s project work shows her limits to create the anti-rape politics that can claim women’s rights rather than securing the rights to alienate and own a specialized sexuality. The limits of an empiricist as approach can be eluded by developing a politics of fantasy and representation. She believes that rape exists in the society because of our experience and deployment of our bodies is the effect of interpretations and fantasies which often position us in the ways amendable to the realization of the rape script: as paralyzed or fearful. The new cultural productions of our bodies and geographies can allow us to reconsider the grammar of violence and to represent ourselves in new ways. As concluded by Marcus, it is just a matter of our perception; we can imagine our female body as a subject of change in place of a weak cavity as a powerful object of fear and agent of violence. Self-defence seems to be no final solution; the final verdict is to wipe off rape from the culture. There are legal and ethnic burdens over the rapists and we shall wait to see a society free from rapists, free from fear. References Armstrong, Nancy. (2006). “What feminism did to novel studies,” in The Cambridge Companion to Feminist Literary Theory, edited by Ellen Rooney, Cambridge and New York. Cossman, Brenda, Dan Danielson & Janet Halley. (2000). Gender, Sexuality, and Power: Is Feminist Theory Enough? Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 12:3, p602. Dietz, Mary. (2003). ‘Current Controversies in Feminist Theory’, Annual Review of Political Science, 6: 399-431. Felski, Rita. (2003). Literature after Feminism. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. Francis, Becky. (2002) ‘Relativism, Realism and Feminism: An Analysis of Some Theoretical Tensions in Research on Gender Identity’, Journal of Gender Studies, 11(1): 39-54. Gardiner, Anne Babeau. (2007). Feminist Literary Criticism: From Anti-Patriarchy to the Celebration of Decadence, MA 49:4. Gruber, Aya. (2009). ‘Rape, feminism, and the war on crime’, Washington Law Review, 84:581, 2009 582-657. Hackett, Elizabeth & Sally Haslanger. (2012). Theorizing Feminisms - A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Halley, Janet. (2008). Split Decisions: How and Why to Take a Break from Feminism, Princeton University Press, p337. Mann, Bonnie. (2006). Women’s Liberation and the Sublime, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marcus, Sharon. (1992). ‘Fighting bodies, fighting words: A theory and politics of rape prevention, Gender Struggles’. Practical Approaches to Contemporary Feminism, p166. Robbins, Ruth. (2000). Literary Feminisms, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Young, Robert. (1999). At War with the Word: Literary Theory and Liberal Education. Wilmington: Isi Books. Zalewski, Marysia. (2000). Feminism after Postmodernism: Theorising Through Practice, London: Routledge. Read More