Category: Civic Issues

When contemplating the meaning of a “feminist artist,” there are many aspects to consider, from their contribution to the political movement of second-wave feminism to the style of artwork they created to the relevance of their work and how it applies to today.

It can be argued that the most influential feminist artwork is timeless, with themes that transcend the period in which it originated, and correlate to the struggles and collective experiences of women across generations. Feminist art is often hard to digest or unsettling because of its multiple layers and implications, ranging across social, political, and sexual vectors. This “unsettling” nature is necessary because real change is never comfortable.

After defining this idea of the “feminist artist” and certain criteria inherently present in the label, in this blog I would like to reflect on the work of Barbara Kruger and her role as one of the most engaging and interesting feminist artist in modern times.

Kruger’s dive into conceptual feminist art took place in the 1980s and 90s, through the medium of her signature style of work. One of her most famous pieces was created in 1989 and features a black and white close-up image of a woman’s face, split evenly down the middle into positive and negative exposures. Imposed over her face, in red and white ink, are the words “Your body is a battleground.”

This piece was produced for the March on Washington and served to support reproductive freedom. This is an example of one of Kruger’s deeply feminist pieces because it not only sheds light on the objectification of women under the male gaze, but also provides commentary and connects to the deeper societal and feminist issue of abortion and reproductive rights.

Though her work may seem simplistic, it is a testament to her artistic skills and vision that she is able to explore themes of sexualization, objectification, and women’s rights all using only five words.

Another interesting aspect affecting the themes of Kruger’s work is a byproduct of the age and kairotic moment in which she began to produce her work.

Kruger developed her signature style in the midst of the consumer culture craze in the United States, which was brought on by an effort to prove democratic capitalism is superior to Soviet communism . As a result, themes of consumerism, individualism, and power are all also present in Kruger’s work.

This is evidenced in her 1990 piece featuring the words “I shop therefore I am,” which is a play on the French philosopher Descartes famous phrase, “I think Therefore I am.”

With this cheeky jab, Kruger draws awareness to the rampant consumer culture dominating the nation and its negative affects on concepts such as identity and power. Here, Kruger demonstrates how American’s identity is now becoming wrapped up in what they buy and own, and materialistic pleasures take precedence over actual thought and individuality.

Barbara Kruger can indisputably be considered a feminist artist due to the wide range of themes embedded in her work that challenge unfair body politics, reproductive rights, the male gaze and female objectification, and the general silencing of the voices of women in society.

Not only that, but Kruger’s work takes on an activist impetus by incorporating themes such as consumerism, individualism, and power that indirectly affect feminism, but also hold merit on their own.

The issue discussed in this issue brief will address the impact Southeast Asia has on the global plastic waste crisis as well as how actions directed toward Southeast Asia from western countries exacerbate the problem.

This is an intervention in policy discussion because it confronts the current reality of the problem by providing relevant information, analyzing multiple facets of the situation, and then using that analysis to generate multiple viable solutions and policy plans to remedy the situation.

To open my issue brief, I will provide commentary on how this is a relevant issue that affects virtually every person due to its global nature as well as how this is an important issue to confront sooner rather than later because of the affect plastic waste has on our global economy, international relations, and the environment.

The rhetorical situation focusing on the purpose and message of this issue brief will be established in the opening of the brief and will center around how there are key actions and policy instruments that can be pursued by both southeastern countries and western countries that can potentially significantly reduce the amount of plastic waste and its negative global impact.

The audience of this issue brief is state and federal governments who have political clout and influence policy making that contributes to U.S. waste being shipped and dumped onto Southeast Asian countries.

Additionally, the audience is local citizens and governments both in the west and in Southeast Asian countries who can individually help reduce the negative impact by educating themselves on responsible and practical waste management and reduction solutions in their own households.

As far as causes of the issue are considered, there are really two main causes: intentional and inadvertent.

Certain western countries, such as the United States, are intentionally dumping their plastic waste and recycling on Southeast Asian countries and creating more waste that needs to be dealt with and accounted for by Southeast Asia.

Concurrently, Southeast Asian countries are inadvertently worsening the issue by dumping waste into rivers and public areas due to lack of infrastructure and waste management education.

To make a clarification, many, if not all, Southeast Asian countries governments’ are extremely aware of the issue and are working diligently to find solutions, so when referring to “waste management education,” this pertains to the overall education provided to the citizens of these countries and their ability to use this awareness to make an impact, which relies also on improving public infrastructure.

Regarding policy instruments, I believe a combination of inducement and capacity builders would be the most appropriate.

Inducements can function to incentivize individual action, and if implemented correctly, it can be applied to both Western and Southeast Asian countries so that citizens of multiple countries receive reward for improving waste management within their own community level. This is critically important on the western end because less generation of waste on this end leads to less waste that gets shipped over to Southeast Asia.

Capacity builders are also instrumental because they function to educate members of the public and influence attitude and cultural norms. These can occur on the community and statewide level, by raising awareness through workshops and educational programs put on by invested community members or funded by the state. Nationally, PSAs or public TV advertisements could even be shown that advocate for personal waste accountability or proper waste disposal.

The deliberation I facilitated was called “Babies R Us: Morality and Modifying Humans’ Genetic Code” and it was centered on the idea of modifying the human genetic code to prevent certain genetic disorders and the health, safety, and socio-economic effects resulting from such modification.

Overall, the deliberation went exceptionally well mostly due to the willingness of the participants to contribute, the diversity of information provided by the issue guide, and the general level of respect each participant had for one another’s ideas.

My individual role was to act as moderator for the third approach concerning the economic impact of gene manipulation. Because everyone had such great enthusiasm and ideas, the hardest part of moderating was not so much encouraging people to speak, but instead making sure everyone stayed on topic and the conversation didn’t hover on one aspect of the issue for too long.

Even during my own deliberation when I wasn’t moderating, I was impressed with how my classmates navigated the discussion and how I was able to contribute my own thoughts on the topic in a new, fresh way even when I already knew the topic itself well.

The deliberation felt successful in part due to the success of the group’s ability to follow Gastil’s deliberative criteria, particularly weighing the pros and cons of the issue as well as the ability to prioritize the key values at stake. Even when a participant was asserting their own opinion on the matter, they were still able to acknowledge the shortcomings of their own viewpoint and make certain concessions.

Because we had such a diverse group of individuals attending our deliberation, the personal values and moral codes of each individual really shone through in the process of the discussion. However, the respect component of the social process was evident too, because even when a participant made an assertive claim that reflected their unique values, they were quick to acknowledge that other’s may not feel the same way and that was okay.

One of the topics I noticed had a particularly strong moral response for my deliberation was the idea that genetic editing acting as a purchasable commodity presents classist issues. Some people were very passionate about this and asserted that it should never be a free market while others said they believed if people could pay for it, then they earned the advantage. Either way, both opinions agreed that there was no easy solution or “right answer” which enabled civil discourse to occur.

Since the topic of genetic manipulation can be somewhat didactic and scientific, Gastil’s criteria of ensuring mutual comprehension played a big role in the deliberation. Often participants would ask for clarification of the premise or what the meaning of certain scientific language was, and this helped the flow of the discussion and allowed everyone to confidently contribute.

The deliberation that I attended as a participant was called “How Can We Change the Perception that Penn State is simply a ‘Party School’?” This deliberation was set up in a slightly different manner than my group’s, with the three approaches each having different circles of people talking and the moderators periodically switching tables. This different format didn’t permit the same level of intermixing between all the participants, but it was very effective at exploring a broad range of solutions to the issue, a lot of which seemed feasible.

The “Party School” deliberation also did a good job of creating a solid information base; however, because the approaches were all slightly similar in terms of the steps that could be taken to combat this perception, the discussion felt repetitive at times and it was hard to find fresh material to discuss. Regardless, the speaking opportunities were very evenly distributed so even when the content felt repetitive, it was still refreshing to hear everyone’s take on it.

On the whole, I would say I enjoyed both deliberations I attended, and even though they were different in terms of style and amount of content to dissect, I gain a new perspective for both. This new perspective was made possible with these three characteristics that were present at both deliberations, and I think are key ingredients to good discussion: credible information, honesty, and respect.

In the previous blog, the definition of feminism and how prominent figures within the movement characterized their involvement was explored. Now that those nuances have been discussed and teased out, the next exploration hinges on using those definitions, particularly “feminism as movement to end sexism” as defined by bell hooks, to analyze how feminism impacts the real world. This can be done by looking at the intersection between feminism, (especially feminist activism) and art, culture, and politics.

The main theme of second-wave feminism in the 1970s was “the personal is political.” The ‘70s functioned as a golden age for women artists and their personal artwork often turned political in an effort to draw attention to issues they felt were ignored by the general public. The women artists’ activism can be seen in a way as a necessity, not a choice. At that time (and arguably still today), it was difficult to make work as a woman that was not politically charged when the overwhelming majority of work displayed in museums was done by men. In fact, in 1985 it was found that out of the Guggenheim, Metropolitan, Modern, and Whitney museums, only one of the one-person exhibitions in the New York City museums was created by a woman(Guerrilla Girls). When faced with those statistics, as a woman artist it is almost impossible to stay depoliticized when your livelihood is so challenged by sexist institutions.

An activist group called the “Guerrilla Girls” was formed in the mid-1980s by an anonymous group of women artists who made satirical posters that challenged the male-dominated art world. These posters were hung up secretly around SoHo and in the East Village and used humor and statistics to reveal the institutionalized sexism within the art world to the general public. One of these posters retorted, “Do women have to be naked to get into the Met. Museum? Less than 5% of the artists in the Modern Art Sections are women, but 85% of the nudes are female” (Guerrilla Girls). Other posters focused on topics such as abortion, rape, cosmetic surgery, and education. Thus, art, feminism, and politics all came to a head in an effort to challenge sexism.

As the Guerrilla Girls emphasize, it is not even the financial inequality that is so detrimental, even though it is true that a women artist (ages 55-64) earns 2/3 of a dollar compared to a dollar for men (National Museum of Women in the Arts). What is truly detrimental is the history that is consequently being written reflects the interests of a select group men in power instead of the diversities and experiences of a larger community. The history being told is one of a culture of power instead of a culture of reality and inclusion.

In a culture that values certain voices and experiences over others, it can be difficult to stand up and have one’s voice represented. Audre Lorde speaks on this reality in her essay “The Transformation of Silence into Language and Action.” Lorde argues that “what is most important must be spoken…even at the risk of having it bruised or misunderstood” and what she “most regretted were my silences” (Lorde). As a poet herself, when confronted by the fears of censorship, judgment, and lack of recognition, it can be easy to retreat and accept the societal structures that devalue her work as a lesbian and woman of color. However, by emphasizing self-determination and community, as the women activists of the ‘70s did, she is able to advocate for her own voice, articulating that “it is not difference which immobilizes us, but silence. And there are so many silences to be broken” (Lorde).

Today, feminist activism still finds itself a necessity in the art world and in the wider culture. The Guerrilla Girls redid their survey of one-person exhibitions held in New York City museums done by women and found that only five existed between the four major museums (Guerrilla Girls). In thirty years, there were only four more exhibitions created by women than there were in 1985. Now, with the introduction of the internet and social media, there are new methods and mediums of communication that function as conveyors of information and activism. But even though the mode of activism may have shifted over time, the need for challenging institutionalized sexism has remained unchanged.

The word “Feminism” originally stems from the word “femme” meaning woman, and “isme” meaning social movement or political ideology. The term first appeared in France within the context of the French Revolution around the 18^th century. Though there has been over three centuries worth of time to establish a generalized, widespread meaning for
“feminism”, many experts and people across the world still debate the true definition and implications of the word. Seen through the discourse (both civil and non-civil) over even simply the definition of feminism, it becomes evident that the concept of women’s equality, gender roles, and mobility within the workplace still provides such a fertile ground for debate, contemplation, and ultimately improvement. This blog will explore how feminism intersects with civic issues today and how its meaning or purpose often gets misconstrued.

First off, before any of the implications and assessments of relevancy of feminism as it pertains to society today can be discussed, it is important to establish a basic understanding of the word itself, as mentioned above. Bell Hooks is an African American feminist and social activist, and in her essay “Feminist Politics: Where We Stand” she defines feminism as simply “a movement to end sexism.” Hooks argues that as sexism is both systematic and institutionalized as well as interpersonal, the goal of the movement itself should call for “reform as well as overall restructuring of society so that our nation would be fundamentally antisexist.” In this sense, she promotes a radical form of feminism that advocates for a paradigm shift and one that does not just focus on “gender equality – equal pay for equal work” which she believes to be portrayed by women who the patriarchal mass media always promotes. Hooks also warns of the pitfalls of only associating feminism with “white and materially privileged women,” which occurred largely during the second wave of feminism in the 1960s-1980s where the faces of the movement were largely white affluent women. So, it becomes clear that even with the seemingly simple definition of feminism as being antisexist, which everyone arguably should be, the issue still finds complexity in its application in the real world by how it intersects with race, ethnicity, and other factors.

Looking at another American Feminist writer definition of feminism, Jessica Valenti supplies a definition of feminism straight from the dictionary, stating that feminism is “belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes and the movement organized around this belief.” In the first chapter of her book, Full Frontal Feminism, Valenti uses this general definition to assert that as a person taking an interest in this subject matter and discourse, already “you’re a hardcore feminist. I swear.” She goes on to dispel myths about feminists as people, rejecting the harmful stereotypes that they are “ugly”, “old white ladies”, and “feminism is so last week.” By defining feminism in this open way, Valenti makes the case that everyone should be a feminist, but also that feminism looks different to every person. She also touches on one of the most important veins of debate regarding feminism in today’s modern climate: is feminism still relevant? In 1998, the Time magazine ran a cover with the title, “Is Feminism Dead?” with the cut out faces of famous feminists from American history, ranging from Susan B. Anthony to Gloria Steinem. This incurred a wave of backlash from women across the world who associated with the feminist ideology, claiming the title was functioning as a hopeful self-fulfilling prophesy, and it was because of such behavior that tried to shut down feminism that society would avoid confronting necessary issues regarding inequality out of apathy. Since the issue has been published, the mainstream media has more or less accepted the continuation of feminism and the presence of inequality, and the main points of contention surround how to address this inequality.

Addressing this inequality is a difficult task, one full of loaded questions, extenuating circumstances, and a multitude of opinions and viewpoints. Even established feminists themselves have competing views not only on how to address inequality, but on whether “equality” is the most appropriate term to use or goal to strive for. Estelle Freedman, American historian, argues that “equality” is not the most beneficial word for the end goal of the struggle women face because equality to men implies that the male historical standard is the ultimate standard to which women should aspire to. Instead, she believes a better word choice is “worth” or “value.” To her, feminism is the belief that “women and men are inherently of equal worth.” Using this definition, “equal worth” can be achieved by acknowledging male privilege, advancing social movements, and addressing “intersecting hierarchies,” as it pertains to class, race, sexuality, and culture.

Society today is full of inequalities or instances of unequal worth that can be seen through foils like the workplace, education opportunities, and systematic sexism. It can be mutually agreed that though definitions vary and a diverse range of perspectives on feminism exist, even by feminists themselves, this issue is one that deserves attention, time, and respect. It is through civil discourse and societal awareness that change can occur.