Feminist Construction of Power and Autonomy Applied to Prostitution - Essay Example

Feminist Construction of Power and Autonomy Applied to Prostitution In the popular conscience the modern era, in the global media, global culture, and in much historiography, is often portrayed and understood within the context of Western cultural hegemony. The roots and causes of this are many and varied. The political, economic, and social predominance which Western countries and culture came to assume by the early twentieth century was historically unprecedented. This resulted not only in the global diffusion of technology but also in the worldwide propagation of myriad social, economic, and political ideas and ideologies. These ideas and ideologies have assumed a global and even pan-human application. When applied they claim a universalism. When dissected, however, they show themselves to have a decidedly Western origin and influence. This has been shown to be the case in the global spread of various ideas and power systems like democracy, capitalism, industrialisation, colonialism, internationalism, and even socialism. The global reach of many of these ideologies and social structures inevitably incited reaction and dissent. Capitalism spawned socialism. Industrialisation gave way to workers movements. Colonialism yielded to Third World political rumblings and international ideologies like global Marxism, Pan-Africanism, and Pan-Arabism (to mention a few). To all this must be added twentieth century feminism. Though it may seem an oversimplification, much of twentieth century feminism sought to voice a discourse largely critical of the sexual inequality inherent in capitalism, be it in its national and/or its international forms. From the viewpoint of Marxism, the State is ‘a reflection, if not the instrument, of the power of the dominant economic class’ (Newman 2004, 141). From a gender perspective, the State largely mirrors the interests of males vis-a-vis females on an individualised basis. The modern State of capitalist society lies at the centre of what feminism sees as the tyrannical, patriarchal system of domination over the bodies and lives of women. This same State figures prominently in the structure of globalisation which has served to propagate Western power systems across the globe. Whether one approaches the role and place of women from an international, global perspective or from an individual State perspective, the question for feminists is for the most part a matter of the imposition of power and the limitation and circumscription of female individual autonomy. With respect to prostitution, particularly its criminalisation, the State has assumed a role fully commensurate with the perpetuation of patriarchy. Power concerns, albeit not uniquely, the use of force which those who wield it can exert over other persons in society. Its specific place has changed with both time and perspective. ‘From its beginnings, political theory has always conceived of power as emanating from a central, symbolic place or position in society. For Hobbes, power was centred in the political body of the sovereign, whose temporal authority was preferred to the ‘rapine savagery’ of war’’ (Newman 2004, 139). In more recent times, this has changed. In many countries, the traditional sovereign (king, emperor, etc.) has been replaced with the will of the people (that is within democratic societies). Even in countries where a sovereign formally exists, his/her role is only symbolic. The concentration of power is more diffuse, that is it lies in the proverbial hands of the State. The State, however, is not as disparately assembled as one might think. It often reflects, as Marxism has long claimed, the interests of the ruling class. With the near-universalisation of bourgeois values under the guise of globalisation, the State has come to stand as the apotheosis of power usurpation and imposition. With respect to women, this has not only meant the encouragement of traditional gender roles but also the propagation of a fixed notion of what ‘a woman’ is. The State is the ‘centrality through which power and...identity are invested...’ (Newman 2004, 140). Thus the State has immense power to affect the way people, especially women, feel and think about themselves and their bodies. The imposition of identity, and thus power, is conspicuously played out in the enactment, criminalisation, and enforcement of anti-prostitution laws and statutes. With respect to prostitution, the use and display of power on the part of the State necessarily entails a marked level of limitation and hindering of individual, female autonomy. In a general sense, individual autonomy ‘involves a lack of preoccupation with others’ attitudes about oneself...it reflects indifference to or independence from potentially negative evaluations by others...’ (Van Gundy 2002, 349). The expression of individual autonomy within a modern, allegedly ‘free’ democratic society can involve inter alia the choice of one’s partner(s) and the individualized formulation of sexual interests and orientations. It has been said that ‘sexuality is to feminism what work us to Marxism: that which is most one’s own, yet most taken away’ (Lie 1997, 251). Feminism is by its very nature and definition an ideology and movement which seeks to liberate women from the overbearing rule of patriarchal society and advocate for their right to determine their own sexuality. The modern State of democratic society claims as its modus operandi, in an official sense, the institution and protection of individual autonomy and freedom. This freedom runs into contradiction in the case of prostitution. Autonomy is a ‘traditionally masculine quality’ (Van Gundy 2002, 346). As such capitalist, democratic society’s concept of autonomy has ever been coloured and distorted by the informal yet ever-present power of patriarchy. Autonomy is male autonomy writ large. From the perspective of feminism, this has meant that men are free and women are free as long as they conform to and do not violate the confines of the male conception of womanhood. ‘Power in the patriarchal sense...is predicated on men’s control of women’s sexuality’ (Lie 1997, 251). The modern State, while preaching a discourse of individual autonomy has at the same time criminalised the act of a woman selling her body for sex. This should in theory only concern her individual choice as to the use and disposition of her body and the subsequent decision to enter into a private contract (a term all too sanctified in capitalist society) with a customer of her choice. Despite that, the State has long claimed the power to supersede individual rights to enter freely into a contract, though only in certain cases and often for arbitrary reasons. The State, though nominally instituted to protect individual autonomy, exists as a nexus through which power is asserted. In modern society, political authority institutes a discursive relationship between the individual, that is the subject, and the edifice of power itself. ‘Power’ and the subject are necessarily inter-subjective and mutually dependent. ‘The identity of the subject is constituted only through its relationship to the power that denies it’ (Newman 2004, 143). Conversely, ‘power’ (i.e. the State) exists only insofar as it can exert itself over the subject. Because the State stands as the reflection of patriarchal interests and tendencies, in the case of prostitution it has sought to single out women. There is of course male prostitution, but women are usually more often arrested and prosecuted (Britton 2000, 60). In the case of prostitution, the autonomy of women, specifically with respect to sexuality, is severely hampered in direct proportion to the imposition and use of State power. The influence of patriarchal conceptions of the female body is evident not just in the laws instituted to ‘combat’ prostitution, but also in academic perceptions of women. ‘Criminology remains one of the most masculinised of all social science fields...’ (Britton 2000, 58). This affects governmental attitudes and perceptions of women and prostitution. By criminalising prostitution, the State asserts its power and in doing so establishes its meaning as a social and political institution. The woman prostitute, as the subject, ‘finds’ and internalises her identity as a criminal and as a subordinate of the overall male-dominated, that is patriarchal, power structure. The paradigm then is one of power subsuming the ability of the individual to express his/her autonomy. Thus the ‘freedom’ so often valued and praised in democratic society has some obvious limitations. Feminism, in response to the global dissemination of capitalism and thus patriarchy, has sought to critique this power structure. The issue of prostitution has in large part served as a call-to-arms for feminists. It involves all the issues which they seek to combat and hopefully triumph over: the State, masculine power, control over the body, and inconsistent applications of individual rights and autonomy. For them, the power of the State has assumed an oppressive and unjust policy and systemic approach to female sexuality. The State values autonomy as long as it conforms to traditional notions of female propriety. This lies at the heart of what feminism sees as the edifice of male-dominated power and authority which has enacted laws to forcibly assert its conception of women. Works Cited Britton, Dana M. “Feminism in Criminology: Engendering the Outlaw.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 571 (2000): 57-76. Lie, John. “The State as Pimp: Prostitution and the Patriarchal State in Japan in the 1940’s.” The Sociological Quarterly 38:2 (1997): 251-263. Newman, Saul. “The Place of Power in Political Discourse.” International Political Science Review 25:2 (2004): 139-157. Van Gundy, Karen. “Gender, the Assertion of Autonomy, and the Stress Process in Young Adulthood.” Social Psychology Quarterly 65:4 (2002): 346-363. Read More