Dignity, Hierarchy and Demonization: 'Dressing Like Sluts' Edition

breakingranks and Intrepid Liberal Journal have written some fascinating diaries about the work of Robert W. Fuller, who articulates a critique of “rankism” defined as “abuses of power associated with rank,” and advocates for the creation of a “dignitarian society.”

I think it's a tremendously powerful concept. (See diaries here and here, for example.) I've just been exposed to it for the first time, but it is certainly congruent with a lot of other ideas I've long been familiar with.  A key, two-fold, difference is, I think, both a strength and a weakness.  Fuller is not criticizing rank per se, but rather abuses of rank, and he appears to characterize such abuses primarily in individualist terms--though he is certainly quite aware of how abusive cultures spread.

This approach constitutes a strength, in that it opens the way for powerful, successful individuals to engage on behalf of fairness.  Indeed, the more vigorously and sincerely they advocate for fairness, the more legitimate their success becomes.  This is certainly far preferable to the blind defense of power and privilege which is so commonplace today.

And yet, this approach constitutes a weakness, as well, since it can blind us to the inherent, systematically destructive aspects of hierarchy.  Which brings us to the part you've all been waiting for, Dressing Like Sluts.  For which you'll have to JUMP!

I believe a very strong case can be made that gender hierarchy is the prototypical seed for all other hierarchy in human affairs--not as a matter of necessity, and not as a model (at least not in all cases), but as a matter of empirical and historical fact.  And a powerful exposure to what is so demeaning and destructive about this can be gotten by starting with a post by Jill at Feministe yesterday, "Dressing Like Sluts".  It has lots of good insights, including the following:

And the whole sluttiness thing is pretty cultural and situational, too. A while back I made a little trip to Cairo (which my parents don’t know about — don’t tell them! — and which I’m only posting about now because my dad is in Ecuador and, I hope, too busy to be reading regularly) and was careful to only bring culturally-appropriate attire: Long skirts, long-sleeved shirts, etc. I wore the headscarf in mosques, I made sure everything was covered from my ankles to my wrists whenever I went outside, and on and on. And how did I get treated on the street? Like a whore. I got hissed at, stared at, glared at… the women mostly glared, the men mostly stared, and when they were in groups and could work up the courage, they’d ask to have their picture taken with you. At one point, some Egyptian teenagers even ran over and handed me a piece of paper, on which was carefully scrawled in English, “Do you have sex?”

But her conclusion is relatively flat and superficial. Almost Pollyanish, unfortunately, IMHO:

If there’s actually no such thing as a “slut” — and I’ll argue that, since it’s a word that’s impossible to define, there really isn’t (the other option is that we’re all sluts, which I’m also fine with) — there’s certainly no way to emulate her style of clothing. And yet the straw-slut keeps coming back and beating women and girls over the head for their fashion choices, at least some of which are ironically made to please other women and men by giving off a vibe of sexual attractiveness.

So let’s drop the “dressing like sluts” thing, shall we? It’s silly, unproductive, hateful and just plain innaccurate. And, “slutty” dresser that I’ve been, I take it personally.

In response, nexyjo points out, in effect, that this is all just a surface reflection of something much deeper:

i think it goes beyond that. the entire “slut” concept garners effectiveness because the term is wholly reflective, almost in its entirety, of the patriarchal view of women. that women exist only for use by men, mainly for their sexual pleasure, that women personify and embody sex as an act, that women “selfishly” control sex (at least in the eyes of those men who are too weak to control their women, and are therefore not “real” men - directly caused by the “slutty” women), and most importantly, that women who have sex are bad, while men who have sex are good - and the more sex women have, the more “slutty” and bad they are, while the more sex men have, the more “manly” and good they are.

Now, of all the hierarchical dualities in human experience, gender is by far the most universal, commonplace and inescapable.  In a very real sense, every hierarchical relationship is informed by the male/female hierarchy.  And nexyjo has just hit the nail on the head about why the logic is inherently inegalitarian: Sex, which is not just intensely pleasurable, but biologically imperative, is interpreted to exalt male status--raising the individual beyond criticism or accountability in many ways--and to demonize female status--condemning the individual categorically regardless of anything else (such as facts, for example.)  And, of course, the context for all of this--from Jill's original post--is that you don't even have to have sex for this logic to kick in.  This is the logic of how language is used to pre-define the world of possibilities.

My argument, from here, is simple: The cultural duality of gender just illustrated is virtually universal in human societies; and the privilege that men experience from it becomes the template for virtually all other hierarchical relationships, beginning with those of group dominance that privilege one race, ethnicity, religion, or tribal group over another.  In each case, the practice of a double standard judges dominant and subdominant groups differently.  For example, the "noble lie" of the dominant group is praised, and deemed essential for the survival of civilization.OTOH, any lie whatsoever from the subordinate group--even to save a child from rape or sexual slavery--is condemned as a mortal sin.

While such assymmetry is easy to see, particularly for those getting the short end of the stick, the reasons for it--aside from the obvious material benefits--are obscure, to say the least.  But not in light of  the precedent I've cited--the difference in valuation that nexyjo nailed:

the more sex women have, the more “slutty” and bad they are, while the more sex men have, the more “manly” and good they are.

There are, of course, other forms of hierarchy.  Age, experience and skill are common alternative foundations, for example.  But age hierarchies are frequently incsribed within gender hierarchies--in many cultures, men rise with status in age, and take younger wives, for example. In turn, experience and skill are often rewarded via gifts--either transitory, or positional, via elevated status--dispensed by group dominant hierarchies, making them functionally dependent on hierarchies that they are logically quite separable from.

What I'm saying, in effect, is that even hierarchies that seem entirely merit-based, and removed from any odious and unfair foundation are almost inevitably influenced--directly or indirectly--by an ancient, deeply-interconnected web of inherently degrading hierarchical relationships.  To recognize this is not in any way to denigrate Robert Fuller's work.  Nor is it meant to displace it in any way.  In fact, I see his work as offering a significant promise of hope, precisely because it does articulate an egalitarian ethic in a manner that competent, successful, powerful people can readily embrace.  But I am saying that the most easily identifiable instances of rankism represent only the beginning of the struggle ahead.