Research Archives - bas itna coffee hai

Paper Review: “Global Care Ethics: Beyond Distribution, Beyond Justice”

Vidhi — Tue, 19 May 2020 12:31:33 +0000

Introduction

The article “Global Care Ethics: Beyond Distribution, Beyond Justice,” published in the Journal of Global Ethics (2013), by Fiona Robinson, sets out to critique theories of distributive justice and the workings of hegemonic masculinities, and replace it with an ethics of care approach which would actually work towards diminishing unequal power relations between individuals and groups. Robinson introduces a new model of thinking about global justice, not in terms of currently existing theories, which assume autonomous and impartial subjects, but in terms of an ethics of care approach that starts with an ontology of the subject as embodied and relational.

Robinson’s article begins with the question of ethics itself and lays out definitions of central concepts of ethics of care and distributive justice. She points out that this ideal theory that talks about ethics as if it came before lived experiences is deeply problematic and should not become an abstracted principle in a systematised manner. She takes care to define terms like theory and justice, by analysing the concept of global justice. Care is at the very core of global justice, and is not the same as distributive justice. She reiterates that distribution of primary goods is not the issue, and by revealing the causes of injustices, for which she provides empirical data, following a bottom-up approach, the issue could perhaps be solved. Thus in the first part, she present a critique of the global distribution by providing empirical accounts of injustices, and draws attention to the fact that justice theories have narrow focus and only concerned about primary goods when there is a whole economy of care that needs to be talked about. She clears her position and makes a shift from ideal theory to embodied subjects in relation with one another.

In the second part of the article she presents empirical data. She discusses the effects of Neoliberalism, which is a myopic idea, on those who do not even have access to it, like working women from poor nations who migrate to the global north in search of work. She also discusses the idea of hegemonic masculinity which leads to care work being ascribed only to women.

In the final section, she talks about all discourses intersecting at an individual, national, and international scale. The same injustice is perpetuated when women in income-rich countries who want to work outside of home, hire women from poorer nations to do care-work in their place, do not care about their well being and relegate that responsibility to the state.

Critique of Hegemonic Masculinity and Neo-liberalist Conceptions of Individuals’ Autonomy

She states that when we think of distributive justice, we only think of it terms of people having unequal access to the same material things and their financial disparities are the cause of the problem. She does not deny that this issue does not exist, but she points out that this is not the root cause of the problem. She then presents an alternative approach, that should be the core approach, which is that people’s lived lives have problems, not because of lack of money, but because their lived relations are not how they ought to be.

She argues that one of the reasons for this is hegemonic masculinity that lets care work fall on women, more specifically on racially identifiable women who due to the stigma attached to their kind of work, continue to be marginalised and underprivileged. This marginalisation has a flip side as well, for example there is a heroic status instituted by the Philippine state to these migrant workers who bring back foreign currency.

Another way in which hegemonic masculinity perpetuates injustice is when poor people who are forced to take care of their sick children lose wages and become poorer still. If men and women were equally responsible for children the they wouldn’t need to outsource domestic help that leaves those women underprivileged. It could be argued why the global north feels the need to help the impoverished global south in the first place, when really it creates more problems than it probably solves. It praises accomplishments that happen in confined spaces but tosses out care and increases global injustices for which solutions exist, solutions that have been employed by countries like Honduras, Vietnam, and Mexico. Moreover, the labour of care itself is undervalued. Since all household work is unpaid work, it is not seen as valuable.

Thus critiquing the idea of distributive justice, Robinson clears her position, which is a very embodied idea of ethics emerging from people’s lived realities, and not ethics as an abstract discipline. Campbell and Shapiro differentiate between ethics as a noun and ethics as an adjective, that is, ethics as an abstract discipline as opposed to the ethical. The ethics-first approach is different from the literature on global justice.

Further, Robinson critiques Rawls’ distributive paradigm since his theory of justice restricts the meaning of social justice to “benefits and burdens.” Rawls focussed on the state while, as previously mentioned, care should be at the core of every idea of society. Care is often dismissed because it is subsumed by the larger liberal distributive paradigm. This is why Robinson takes a completely different starting point: the ontology of subjects / groups rather than abstract top-down model. This means that we need to critically analyse institutions and structures to find out the root cause that gives rise to these injustices. This is also where she brings in a feminist ethics of care that is inherently critical of the analytic, top-down approach and always takes the embodied lived experiences of women into account.

Existing theories of distributive justice are also primarily procedural and neutral, while Robinson is of the view that nothing is neutral. The distributive justice model is a rational model that advocates a theory where people’s vulnerabilities are not to be concealed, and are instead the source of this alternative theoretical paradigm. From this vulnerability emerges ethics of care and shows problems of distributive justice. This of course, goes back to Enlightenment project where the focus was on hiding and concealing vulnerability and only speaking of its extreme — human potential.

Robinson explains that the heart of care ethics is that people do care, it constitutes us, makes us who we are. She is also cognisant of the fact that caring activities and labour are not evenly distributed, that carers are flawed.

The last paragraph of this section which talks about the need for descriptive and empirical analysis, for thinking about actual lived realities, is a summary of the section which clearly underlines her points.

She talks about Simon Caney’s work on global justice that ignores the issues a global political theory should address. Her approach provides a critical lens and a “weak normative basis” for policy making. Her position is that, the moment you become prescriptive, you move away from realities, from the “contingencies and complexities of the ethical.”

A defining feature of global political economy is that care is commodified and is transnational. She states: “The rise of the ‘competition state’ and the opening up of financial markets for foreign investment has led to a dramatically altered environment for work and care.” This means that if cheaper labour is not found, factories will move elsewhere, which will force workers to accept low paying jobs, which in turn would lead to job insecurity and informal work culture. This also means that the social spending of already impoverished families’ conditions will worsen. All these intersecting issues affect the other.

Another negative effect of this is that individuals in income-rich countries that outsource their own care-work, lose the ability to focus attention on others, thus proving that morality is not about actions. Without engaging in care-work, the moral fabric is harmed in some way.

Further, globalisation’s face becomes masculine when all care-work becomes feminised. The public private dichotomy always remains the same because care-work is still understood as feminine, it is only the women who remove themselves from that a masculinised work space.

Lastly, Robinson argues that morality is experienced relationally, which means that we always already care, it is part of our moral being. She writes “the way we think and act morally emerges out of the thick context of our relations and responsibilities for others,” which points to the fact that it is a rich context. She discusses how unjust structures and institutions exist and power operates on intersecting basis.

Robinson, in her conclusion writes “[c]are ethics continues to be widely resisted by the ‘global justice industry,” wherein she seems to use the word “industry” ironically. She also introduces the term “emotional imperialism” for the first time here which may throw the reader off-balance. What she means here is that migration from global south to global north is kind of an imperialism whereby people’s emotion becomes a commodity— emotional labour for which they are not paid extra.

Towards the end, Robinson says that “neoliberalism ignores and de-politicises care” which is now changing with the actual realisation that caring is not a sign of weakness.

She also uses the words “natural features of human social life and emphasizes the moral importance of the values and practices of care in the effort to achieve greater well-being across the globe,” which can be critiqued and may her be replaced with the word “naturalised.”

Conclusion

This paper noted how Robinson critiques the theories of distributive justice and the workings of Neo-liberal and hegemonic masculinities, and replaces it with an ethics of care approach, which is a bottom-up approach, which would help rectify the unequal power relations between groups. This ethics of care approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of rights and duties, by changing the paradigm in which we think about duties. Duties are not about distributive justice (“benefits and burdens”) but about accounting for people’s vulnerabilities and the need for giving and receiving care.

The post Paper Review: “Global Care Ethics: Beyond Distribution, Beyond Justice” appeared first on bas itna coffee hai.

“Definitely Male [-centric]”: The Shifting Images of Women in Indian Advertisements

Vidhi — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 21:34:16 +0000

Advertising has seen tremendous changes even over the last decade. Advertisements tend to co-opt whatever is the new cool trend to market their products. For instance ads like the My Choice campaign, #ShareTheLoad, beauty products for dark-skinned women, and so on (discussed later) talk about women’s agency, sharing domestic responsibilities and taking pride in being dark-skinned. But do these symbolise a move away from the binary that either objectifies women or valorises them in familial roles of mother/ wife?

This essay will analyse the portrayal of women’s identity in Indian advertisements, be it product advertisements or social ad-campaigns, without necessarily considering women as a homogenous social group united by its gender identity. There are significant differences and stratification in women and their circumstances and preferences, and in a sense ads must also be seen targeting select groups of women and men.

One can question whether it is advertisements that should even be called out for regressive ideas or be seen as a neutral reflection of existing social prejudices. One can also question whether there can actually be a metric for assessing and labelling an ad as regressive or progressive given the complex messages that every advertisement seems to be sending out and the mixed responses it seems to evoke. For example, beauty creams might have regressive campaigns in valorising white/clear skin, but they also appear paradoxically progressive when they show women working on themselves, taking control of their appearance and advancing their careers, going out there and experiencing adventures, and so on.

Advertisements that objectify women as sex-objects might be clearly objectionable, but others that glorify women as mothers and wives who are central to the maintenance and happiness of the family be it through their careers, their efficiency in domestic work, in taking care of the nutritional needs of family members and the like, might not be dismissed so easily.

Nancy Pilar Perez in her book Roles of Women in Advertising: The Objectification of Women and the Shift to an Empowering Ad Frame (2013) discusses how most advertisements have a tendency to employ means that they believe will help sell their product better, even if that requires them to reinforce certain stereotypes about women. Such advertisements bring into existence the image of an “idealised woman” which is so distant from that of an ordinary woman that they put unfair expectations on women around the world. This idealised woman is tall, thin and has the most perfect features and skin. Her appearance is highly sexualised and eroticised while she continually floods consumers’ minds leaving them feeling inadequate about themselves. Despite this superficial and artificial portrayal of women’s bodies that damages the female psyche, the “sex sells” mentality remains pervasive, and appeals to both men and women steeped in patriarchal ideology.

Perez states three elemental aspects of any sexist advertisement— The Artificial Look, as explained above; Dismemberment wherein the body of a woman is literally separated into pieces that can be ogled at, and Commodification wherein their bodies are objectified to the extent that they become property that can be evaluated.

These issues have led to a number debates where people have argued that irrespective of whether or not the content of these advertisements is unethical, one cannot deny that it has created a more open society which is more comfortable with its sexuality. However, one also cannot deny that there is added pressure arising from the same issues. Sociologists too have taken a stand and criticised the subordinate and subservient depiction of women. Sociologist and writer John Berger in his book Ways of Seeing (1972) says, “…men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at. This determines not only most relations between men and women but also the relation of women to themselves. The surveyor of woman in herself is male: the surveyed female. Thus she turns herself into an object — and most particularly an object of vision: a sight.”

The advertisements that came out in the early 2000s were shamelessly misogynistic and remarkably sexist in their content. Some well-known examples of these would be the evergreen Fair and Lovely advertisements where the woman in focus suddenly starts to do well and provide for her family because people are willing to pay more now that she is fair- skinned. Subsequently, the industry started producing ads that not only objectified women to great lengths, but also portrayed them as pushovers and as people who can’t think for themselves. For instance, most deodorant ads would suggest that if you wear this cologne, women around you will fantasise about engaging in an intercourse with you, as seen in ads by Wild Stone and Zatak where Zatak’s tagline was “Zatak her.”

Michele Barrett in her essay Ideology and Cultural Production of Gender (from her book: Women’s Oppression Today, 1980) discusses how severely limited images of women are presented in a sample of advertisements. Women are projected to be these self-sacrificing, chaste individuals always categorised either in the role of a housewife or a decorative element, “oscillating between the glamorous and efficient hostess and the dutiful, caring mother.” For instance, MTR and Dalda’s ads had housewives and mothers as their target audience. Their marketing strategy was to persuade women into buying their products by assuring their family’s satisfaction if they do so. So much so that Dalda sold their oil with the name “Dalda Husband’s Choice.” Thus what the target audience is comprised of also becomes an important matter of discussion. A kitchen utensil would be sold with the underlying idea of keeping the husband happy while a baby product will be sold to award women with the title of a “good mother.”

Then there were others, fairly recent adverts where the woman in focus was a successful working one refusing her pestering parents to get married, thereby breaking some established patriarchal notions that place high value to marriage and its components. However, the ad takes an opposing stand when it ends on a scenario where she’s suddenly interested in the man suggested by her parents solely because it allows us to guilt-freely purchase the jewellery she is fond of. Barrett talks about how such adverts “that play with the notion of an independent woman are aimed at a market of female purchasers” (Newton,1985).

Other examples reinforcing these notions would be Bajaj Pulsar “definitely male” motorcycles, Micromax Aisha application that is considered to be the ideal woman, Clean and Dry vagina whitening cream and Airtel’s advertisement where the woman who is in a position of power is still the quintessential wife who cooks dinner for her husband after his day at the office.

Certain brands have taken deliberate steps in the recent past to overturn these offensive messages by coming up with ads which have a sarcastic undertone. Examples of these would be the new Havells ads wherein a woman refuses to be tied to her domestic duties, and a man decides to take on his wife’s name in the other. Similarly Vir Das endorsed a new brand of deodorant called “HE” which could have been problematic except that he used an approach that was intertextual — making direct references to other ads which are known to have undermined women’s worth.

Washing powder Ariel came up with an ad called “#ShareTheLoad” which emphasised on sharing household duties with male members of the family. Other examples that can be contrasted with sexist ads are Forest Essentials’ Warrior Princess featuring a powerful woman and Titan Raga watch ad where the woman turns down a proposal to focus on her career.

As opposed to products advertisements like the ones mentioned above, a number of ad campaigns endorsed by popular Bollywood actresses rolled out of the Indian advertising industry, where they believe they created ground-breaking, radical and empowering ads. While these ads upheld what they had set out to achieve, they either represented a very small minority of advantaged section of the society or were straight-up unclear in their message.

For instance, the “My Choice” campaign led by Deepika Padukone in 2015, produced by Vogue focussed on bridging the gender gap by valorising women’s choice. While the campaign managed to empower women to a certain extent, the ambivalent reaction of the audience showed that it was not an unproblematic ad. The ad features some of them most elite and highly privileged women even though it directed at tackling issues about “people like us,” who are not urban upper class professional women. The “My Choice” campaign appeals to groups of women who have very specific liberal values and backfires for women don’t stand for those values.

Overlooking issues like female foeticide, rape, harassment at workplace, domestic violence, intrusive male gaze and the like, the video only seems to talk about bodily images and characteristics exhibited by women. At some point she says “To be a size zero or a size 6, they don’t have a size of my spirit and never will…” This statement is ironic since the “attractive” female body type features in glossy magazines like Vogue itself. Moreover, the many women appearing in the video are models who do in fact adhere to size zero.

Again when she says, “To marry or not to marry, to have sex before marriage, to have sex outside of marriage, to not have sex, my choice…,” women committing adultery just as some men do might not actually be on the feminist agenda, and hence this part of the ad invited criticism. It is possible that men espousing adultery may have invited none or perhaps even more criticism depending on the way one looks at it. And thus, the idea of adultery in the ad complicates what is valued as gender equality.

Then again, one can’t completely disregard their effort since any choice can be empowering because it is an act of agency. Although making choices can lead to making regressive choices, like a lot of women justify wearing heels by stating that it makes them feel powerful. Practices such as getting breast implants and waxing bodily hair are gendered and unequal. Whether this ideal of beauty is embraced as empowering, or denounced as objectifying is a difficult question to answer.

A very similar ad-campaign featuring Madhuri Dixit rolled out recently with the name “Boys Don’t Cry.” The central point of video is that instead of teaching men to bottle up their feelings, we should teach them to be sensitive to women. What the video portrays accurately is that men too are expected to live up to this bizarre notion of masculinity where crying necessarily compromises their identity as men. However instead of furthering this point by discussing how that affects the male psyche, it takes a different turn to another issue altogether, that is, of men generally hurting women and domestic violence. The video seems to suggest that men who are forced to curb their emotions like to hurt women instead. It suggests that repressing their emotions makes men violent towards women.

Although it acknowledges that even well-to-do individuals face domestic violence and not just the lower classes of society, it implies the idea that crying is the exclusive behaviour shown by women. It reinforces the idea that women are the weaker sex by placing the power back in the hands of men, asking them to take this responsibility of not making women cry.

To conclude, one can question the role of men and women in society and how exactly advertisements envision these roles. Regressive ads appeal to male consumers by feeding into their patriarchal beliefs, and to female consumers with the idea that they want to appease men. While conventional ads target male consumers by objectifying women as well as female consumers by objectifying women themselves and upholding their own patriarchal beliefs, new ads are simultaneously invoking “real men” and “rebellious women” in response to conventional ads.

This essay noted the ambivalences in assessing and labelling ads as regressive or progressive and the complex messages that every advertisement seems to be sending out, and the mixed responses it evokes. It observed how even ads such as the “My Choice” campaign and “Boys Don’t Cry” that focussed on empowering women and being sensitive to women respectively, have remained problematic about their idea of equality.

Bibliography

Barrett, Michele. 1980. “Ideology and Cultural Production of Gender.” Women’s Oppression Today. Verso Press.

Berger, John.1972. Ways of Seeing. Penguin Press.
“Deepika Padukone – “My Choice” Directed By Homi Adajania – VOGUE Empower,” YouTube video, 2:34, posted by “VOGUE India,” March 28, 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtPv7IEhWRA&t=60s

Newton, Judith, and Deborah Rosenfelt. 1985. Feminist Criticism and Social Change (RLE Feminist Theory): Sex, class and race in literature and culture. Routledge.
Perez, Nancy Pilar. 2013. Roles of Women in Advertising: The Objectification of Women and the Shift to an Empowering Ad Frame. Report, University of Texas.

Heraclitus’s Theory of Opposites

Vidhi — Mon, 08 Jan 2018 18:30:54 +0000

B48: the bow’s name: life; its work, death

B80: One must know that war is universal, justice strife, and everything happens by Strife and necessity.

Heraclitus, famously called the ‘riddler’ and ‘the obscure’ lived in 500 BC. His surviving fragments prove to be difficult to understand because, as his nickname suggests, they are highly obscure and puzzling. They’ve been described more as poetic utterances rather than pronouncements that can be analysed into arguments. His fragments are known to be paradoxical and open to interpretation which is undoubtedly his personal style of writing. Here, his writing style is appropriate since the content itself is abstract. Thus, as mentioned in Ancient Greek Philosophy by Vijay Tankha, one can draw a parallel between his paradoxical language and a paradoxical world.

His fragments use metaphors to point to a variety of topics that can be loosely tied together to explain the worldly processes. He developed sets of opposites and the idea that things are in a state of flux.

Theory of Opposites

According to Aristotle, “all things that come into existence in the course of nature are either opposites themselves or compounded of opposites.” Heraclitus deals with the tension of opposites and gives instances of opposition. He generalises the nature of opposition and includes elements with correlated powers, natural processes and abstract terms like justice. As stated in Ancient Greek Philosophy, the fact of opposition is generalised by him into a principle but he doesn’t articulate this principle himself.

To further his Doctrine of Opposites, we will take into account other prominent philosophers’ take on the same and note the disparities between their ideas. For instance, Aristotle understood pairs of opposites like waking/sleeping, birth/death and good/bad, most opposed within the same genus, one of which lacks the other positive term. Milesians on the other hand focused on elements which seem to be naturally opposed, as explained through the above mentioned examples.

Plato too believed that opposites exclude each other, which means if one is present the other must necessarily be absent. However, an important point here is that opposed predicates can characterise the same subject successively if not simultaneously. This can be explained with the help of fragment B67 that states, “God: day night winter summer war peace satiety hunger. It is altered, just as when (fire?) mixed with incense is named according to the flavour of each.”

This just points to the fact that opposites aren’t always opposed to each other in the sense that they are mutually exclusive. Sometime ‘opposites’ prove to be part of the same process and become contraries by way of occurring at different points of time. So from B67 we can conclude that incense differs from fire in terms of its smell and smoke giving quality, but is part of the same genus. This similarity of opposites of the same subject constitutes the paradoxical part of Heraclitus’ philosophy.

Further, there is a claim that opposites are identical. This can be explained using B60, “road above and below one and same”. Here, Heraclitus suggests that the road up and down is the same but is described differently depending on the perspective of the observer. The opposites become identical in the sense that they’re different aspects of the same thing. Up and down are opposite but not entirely because it is the same road one is travelling.

Significance of Harmony

Now as mentioned before, Aristotle gives a systematic analysis of the concept of opposition, which eventually led him to believe that Heraclitus violated the principle of non-contradiction. Plato uses Harmony and quotes B51 that states “they do not apprehend how being at variance it agrees with itself: a reversed harmony as of bow and lyre”, and takes sides with Heraclitus. He defines harmony as consonance, agreement and rhythm produced by fast and slow which was at variance initially but later came to agree. W. K. C. Guthrie in his book A History of Greek Philosophy talks about how Heraclitus makes use of Harmony in music to speak of a concord being in discord, factors which are in discord when they are composed but subsequently in concord. If we look at the example of the bow and lyre, the bow appears to be a static object but in actuality there is a continuous effort being put which will become evident if the string is not strong enough or is allowed to perish. A similar state operates in a tuned lyre. A smooth functioning of both the instruments is therefore dependent on this balance of forces which is therefore ‘good’. This bow and lyre symbolise the whole cosmos which without this struggle would disintegrate (B48- the bow’s name: life; its work, death). We will return to this point.

Despite several arguments, Aristotle sticks to his ideology and asserts that contraries cannot belong to the same thing at the same time and continues to accuse Heraclitus for violating the law of non-contradiction. Heraclitus rebuts this by putting forth the same theory of opposites even as contradictories, may transform from one to another or replace each other. In fragment of B49a “into the same rivers we step and do not step; we are and we are not.” Here, re-reading would take away the claim of violation of this principle. Aristotle’s further analyses of the same states that if the opposites of the same subject exist in same respect then it defeats the purpose of questioning and renders all statements true.

We can summarise the above arguments using B88 that says, “the same in (us) living and dead and/ both the waking and the sleeping and young and old, for these turning around are those, and those again turning around these”, Vijay Tankha, in his book goes on to explain that static and stable condition “conceals a dynamic condition and what is changing reveals order and harmony, where one condition passes into its opposite and then perhaps back again.”

Coming back to war serving as a metaphor for the opposition inherent in things, war is the universal creative and ruling force. The significance of this term can be explained by using bow and lyre again. It goes beyond the understanding that tension between different parts contributes to the functioning of the whole to include, that their functions are also opposed. Bow stands for war while lyre stands for peace. In addition to this, opposites come together at the level of phenomena and are held together by harmony that is hidden to the ordinary observer. Here we may use the fragment B80 that states “one must know that war is universal, justice strife, and everything happens by Strife and necessity”, because opposition is perpetuated to natural processes along with manufactured objects. Such opposition is mandatory for the proper functioning of both animate and inanimate objects on one hand, and whole that is constituted of them on the other. The “war and Strife” of the fragment provide the metaphor that captures this dynamic opposition.

To conclude the above stated ideas, we link them to the cosmos in which there is high need for things to be in opposition for only when the warring sides reach a state of continual tension do we find harmony.

Doctrine of Flux

Closely related to the identity of opposites, specifically from B88, is the doctrine of continuous change or the doctrine of Flux. One of his most famous sayings is “you cannot step into the same river twice”, which is easy enough to gather since water isn’t constant. Another fragment B12 states, “everything is moving like a river, nothing stays still”, and other fragments B91 and B49a (above) connect rivers with change. With the help of these fragments we arrive at the statement “all things are always changing”. Further translated as “on those who step into the same rivers, different and then different waters flow”. If we were to instead put emphasis on the human element, it would translate as “on those same persons who step…”. Following this we can claim that both rivers and persons are subject to the same process, continuous change.

B12 is a statement of coincidence of opposites but also specifies rivers as same. Though the statement is paradoxical, it isn’t necessarily false. A body of water (river) consists of changing waters and if it ceases to flow, it would just be a dry streambed. Thus, river becomes a constant existence that changes what it contains. Coming back to “all things are always changing”, we can positively conclude that some things stay the same by changing. Persons too then, can be understood in the same way, as living and continuing by virtue of constant metabolism, according to Aristotle. Based on this Heraclitus believes in flux, paradoxically a necessary condition of constancy, similar to the tension operating behind the bow and lyre.

The post Heraclitus’s Theory of Opposites appeared first on bas itna coffee hai.