RCAH 292/PHL 356 - Instrumentality and Lessons of Feminism

Peter Block's discussion of the instrumental imperative makes the subtle argument ("subtle" if for no other reason than his vague style) that socializing forces in American society have the purpose of molding each person into an instrument. The implications of this argument are far-reaching; nothing could fly in the face of our American self-image more than the idea that we are instruments rather than self-determining individuals.

To sort of take Block's argument for a "test drive," I'd like to look at one of the largest socializing factors in America (and indeed the rest of the world) from his instrumental perspective. While he is concerned with the sorts of jobs we're raising people to fill (his economist/engineer archetypes), there's another element to this instrumentality.

The common understanding of feminism is that it's the cause of womens' equal rights, but what we can learn from feminist philosophy goes a bit further. We quickly learn that women face the socialization of society from the moment they are born - dressed in pink rather than blue, given effeminate toys to play with, receiving messages about what a woman is from her mother and later television, school, and other children. Women today are still given the message that they belong in the private sphere, that they are not intelligent, that they must be a dependent of a husband, and that as a result of this dependency the most important thing for them is to be attractive to men.

Obviously these messages have been diluted and broken up by the feminist movement, but they remain strong and surprisingly prevalent (despite the common misconception to the contrary). This seems to relate somewhat to instrumentality regarding women, but the lessons of feminism are in fact useful for looking at every person. With the two genders viewed in a hierarchy as something of symmetrical opposites, what is "feminine" is often defined as what is "not manly;" it's likewise the case that men are expected to exhibit traits that are "not feminine." If women are emotional and irrational, then to be rational men must suppress their emotions. If women are more inclined towards art or other pursuits of immeasurable, impractical value, then manly pursuits are those which are practical or measurably productive.

That brings us more directly to Block's idea of instrumentality. While the concept does include socialization, we don't see gender socialization helping to form people into instruments until we look at the "reflection of sexism." By suppressing emotions and pursuing what is practical and measurable, men in our society are socialized to be instruments - effective workers who can have technical expertise without thinking too much about impractical, "feminine" concerns (art, philosophy, introspection, etc.) which might distract them from their work (that is to say, lead them to question the status quo, as Block does).

I should, of course, clarify what I mean with "reflection of sexism." By no means is it true that men have faced socialization equivalent to that faced by women; to paraphrase Simone de Beauvoir, the genders are symmetrical only on paper. It's often the case that things considered to be "normal, human" things are relegated to males, whereas females are seen as an inhuman other. This adds further problems to the socialization of men I've outlined above; liberated women in modern times sometimes come to believe that all "manly" traits are "normal" traits for a person to have, and as they adopt those traits themselves, these liberated women are likewise made instruments. They were not raised with the socialization of a man, but all the same, they come to value the suppression of emotion and pursuit of only practical, measurable goals. It might even be said that woman professionals feel the need to prove that they belong in male-dominated worlds of business by exhibiting those super-pragmatic traits.

We're seeing that gender socialization has immense impact, and I would argue that gender socialization is equal to the socializing forces Block identifies in public education as a molder of human instruments. How, in fact, could this impact not be immense? All of humanity is divided into these two genders, and the more difference that we enforce upon them, the more we'll find that our identities are informed by them. Considering the public schools that cut arts or philosophy in favor of math and science, this could even be seen from a feminist perspective: since "manly" traits are seen by many as "normal," our schools' curricula are bound to pursue the creation of people who have those traits. Math and science are indeed valued so highly that the majority of students in some places are in advanced classes; the "normal" classes become the ones that are "slow." (It was like that at my High School.) We rightly encourage girls to learn about math and science, rejecting residual sexist notions that women are incapable in these areas, but in so doing we also continue to push our children towards becoming instruments as per Block's explanation.

I've explained how our misogynistic institutions contribute to the instrumentality of all. How, then, can we help solve the instrumental problem with a feminist solution?

The reality is that what we consider "manly" isn't necessarily "normal," despite what we may think. I suggest that, instead of turning into "men," women in our society should join men in considering that our conceptions of both "manly" and "feminine" are severely flawed. We're not even completely certain that there are only two genders (at birth, babies who seem to have "mixed" genitalia are surgically changed to fit one of the two sexes whose existence we accept). It's not that easy, of course; any decision impacted by one's gender identity will still appear to be a "free choice." But if we can educate ourselves about the nature of gender/sex relations and work to change the socializing forces that separate men and women into predefined categories, we may be able to mitigate or even remove one of the obstacles to "acting on what matters" and living a meaningful life.