Category: Binaries

Raise the Red Lantern: Women against Women

On By Bella M.In Binaries, FilmLeave a comment

‘Raise the Red Lantern’ is a Chinese film that focuses on the new life of Songlian, who at the beginning of the film has just become the Fourth Mistress of a rich household. The plot of this film is far from cut and dry, with twists and turns, and occasionally confusing plot points too.

The most important characters of ‘Raise the Red Lantern’ are its female characters. ‘The Master’, as he’s referred to, is one of the few major characters who are male, and his face is never shown directly in shots. It is obvious that the avoidance of the Master’s face is purposeful, however there are a multitude of different reasons why this was implemented into the film’s cinematography. One possible reason could be an attempt to make the Master appear almost god-like by keeping him as a hidden figure lurking but never completely on screen. Another, and more likely, is to keep the focus on the Mistress’s of the household.

Each of the Mistresses are distinct and well thought out characters, you can sympathize with all of them to some degree. However, they all fall victim to one thing; The Gender Binary. Despite being independent and interesting individuals, they fight desperately for the love of Master, who controls their lives with his family traditions. This dynamic pits the mistresses against each other, all trying to sabotage one another in some way.

Whats interesting about a binary like this is that one would assume the women would band together to overcome such a boundary, however, throughout ‘Raise the Red Lantern’ they all try to use one another as stepping stones rather than allies. In the first half of the film, this is seen as nothing more than annoying competition, however by the end of the film its clear that everything could have been avoided only the relationship between the Mistresses and the Master were different. We’ve seen this type of competition among women all throughout history, and it does nothing but further strengthen the patriarchal system.

For the women of ‘Raise the Red Lantern’, there is nothing but suffering and unhappiness. All of which is inflicted not by the Master, but by the other women who they are supposed to consider sisters.

Society and Gender in Raising the Red Lantern

On By CADEN PIn Binaries, Comedy/SatireLeave a comment

In the move Raising the Red Lantern there are very key moments and times that clearly show the society and how they operate and what the roles of men and woman had. Songlian a young woman who father had just died moves to the masters household and becomes the fourth mistress one out of four. After she settles in she begins to live the life of a mistress and fight over the masters attention and his time. But after a year of living the live she goes insane. Which shows how important roles that effect the woman living in a society created for men.

At the beginning of the movie when Songlian becomes a mistress she doesn’t understand the point of having the master around her and being around him. She just does her own thing and learns about the other three mistresses and the household. There is a shift in her ideals and mindset when she finds her servant sleeping with the master in her bed. When this happens a big toll gets put on her and how she thinks of the master. But the master uses his power over her and he knows that she needs to stay there because her family is poor and has to marry rich. Knowing this fact Songlian starts to sabotage the other mistresses. She even lies to the master which is against the rules of the household.

Overall the movie was a very good movie, it was something different and a movie that was very unique and the way it told the story was very well and directed very well. It was very noticeable of the ideas of the movie of how the society worked and how it benefited the mistresses, but mainly the men who was the master and it works in patriarchal society even though it would benefit the woman’s lives who live there.

Raise the Red Lantern

On By SOPHIA PIn BinariesLeave a comment

“Raise the Red Lantern” is a film based in 20th century China where we follow Songlian as she enters a system of being a fourth mistress in a household.

I found the movie very interesting and I think it connects to a lot of the ideas in the literature we read in class. Gender and class binaries are present throughout the entire film. Songlian brings herself into this system for money. She starts off on the path of university and perhaps a job, but ends up bankrupt because of her fathers death, forcing her to turn to a marriage for money. She falls into a system where the goal is for women to compete for attention from a man (the master) and have their lanterns lit. The women in this system will do anything for the attention of the master. The women often turn against each other or even lie in order for their lanterns to get lit. These red lanterns symbolize wealth and prosperity.

Songlian feels trapped mentally, and physically she never leaves the house, symbolizing her mental state. At the end of the film, she “goes mad” as the other characters say, but this “madness” is what sets her free. She is no longer a part of the cycle mentally because she has freed her mind from the trap she was in. The brutal cycle that this story is, is emphasized in the end as well when a new mistress is married to the master, repeating the cycle all over again. This shows how hard binaries, power, and systems are to be broken sometimes.

Many film techniques are used to highlight these ideas. For example, Songlian is seen a lot being framed by things like windows or doorways. This adds to the idea of her feeling trapped and how as a woman in this time, she is opressed.

Juggling Power and Chaos

On By Jhaden J.In Binaries, Drama/Theater, King Lear, Power and Identity2 Comments

King Lear is a story of authority and familial roles and dynamics. Lear is a king where is power and authority make up his identity, so when he gives away his kingdom to his daughters, who have nothing but evil intentions. By doing this, this sends himself and all his kingdom into chaos, we are able to see how seeking control is able to destroy a person as well as those around them. In the beginning Lear represents the hierarchy found within society, however, when Lear loses all of his authority it warps all the binaries known in the play. This allows disorder and madness to become leading themes of this play.

These themes come to a head when Lear is put out into the storm by his daughters, he is able to reflect and all his power yet how little he had done for others who did not have much. Being in the force of the storm Lear is humbled and now understands how insignificant himself and the power he had was. This is a revelation not only of his loss of social control but also the need to re-evaluate the things valued and found significant, this then allows for the character development of becoming more compassionate and sympathetic. Once Lear fully understands this he is able to understand himself, after confronting the chaos and letting go of the need for power he allows himself to find peace and sanity amidst what is continued to go on around him.

Servitude by Serve-a-tude

On By Elijah MIn Binaries, King Lear, Power and Identity1 Comment

While King Lear houses many characters and motifs to delve into conveying some serious themes around identity, power, and family, one of the most notable moments of the play exists early on in the play during the fight between Oswald and Kent within Act 2 Scene 2.

While the fight itself serves as a fun and intense moment in the play as Kent curses Goneril’s servant in Shakespearean tongue, what makes the moment profound is the distinction between Kent and Oswald as characters throughout the play, and the overall question of what makes a good servant?

Upon Kent choosing to attack Oswald initially, the surrounding characters along with the audience are under the misconception that he is in the wrong for doing so, when in reality his aggression towards Oswald can be dissected far further. Kent, as seen in Act I, is a loyal subject of Lear. His servitude extends beyond simply doing what the King asks, as we see him challenging Lear banishing Cordelia, and harboring his best interests in mind. Upon being banished, Kent still chooses to serve the Lear in disguise in order to carry out his duties but also to try and help support his status as his power remains in limbo between him and his daughters. Finally, we see the greatest extent of Kent’s loyalty at the end of the play when upon Lear’s death, Kent takes his own life in a noble fashion, exclaiming that his journey as a subject of Lear is far from over and that his master calls upon him in the afterlife.

Oswald on the other hand represents a different type of servitude which conjures a conflict between the two characters. While, similar to Kent, Oswald is the right hand man of the Kings eldest daughter Goneril his servitude revolves around the ideology that by obeying every command given, he will later be able to position himself in a higher power. This type of “servitude” so to speak is seen upon Oswald attempting to end Gloucesters life in Act IV in hopes of being recognized for his loyalty and valeince in doing so.

Understanding these two personas of a servant helps to better contextualize the reason for Kent and Oswald brawling it out during the second act. Oswald willingly chooses to deceive the king by carrying out Goneril’s will, attempting to deliver letters that would be used against the king in order to gain himself a promotion. Kent’s response to this is taking on Oswald in order to maintain his morality and loyalty to the king. In the end, despite his short-coming in Act I serving a ‘tude to the King, Kent can be understood as the definition of pure servitude, with no other motives or outside interests than to serve Lear throughout the story, while Oswald can be perceived as a yes-man to most of the characters in the play, while in reality he uses his servitude as a tool for subliminally gaining power.

Misogyny in Shakespeare (Spoiler: There’s a Lot)

On By Ariana MIn Binaries, King Lear, Poetry2 Comments

Shakespeare is extremely notable and that is an undeniable fact. But it also remains true that while his works contain female main characters, something that was not common in his time, they fall short of having any substance outside of men or are portrayed as the most monstrous things known to men. In most of Shakespeare’s plays, a lot of people die in the end, to put it simply. But what makes death different for women in Shakespeare is that when it happens, it is primarily portrayed as their fault and when the men die, it somehow is still the woman’s fault.

In these plays, everything a woman does is wrong and men can do no wrong, and when they miraculously do, it’s seen as honorable.

Although it’s my personal favorite, Shakespeare manages to incorporate nearly every female stereotype in Hamlet. Gertrude is the betraying, selfish whore and Ophelia is the over-emotional and naive crybaby who ultimately commits suicide because there is no man for her. Not only are the women reduced to very crude stereotypes, but they are also portrayed as the personification of evil. From the start of the play, it’s clear that Hamlet resents his mother for remarrying to her husband’s brother but Hamlet actually directs most of his hatred toward Gertrude than Claudius, despite him being the one that manipulated the whole situation. It’s also clear that Hamlet has a general disdain for women because of how he treats Ophelia, even though she is as a woman “should” be: sensitive and submissive. Hamlet delights in tormenting Ophelia, often making blatantly sexual jokes to her that are also directed at his mother, frankly a whole other issue. Overall, it’s clear that women cannot win in Hamlet; unknowingly remarry your husband’s killer and you’re the devil incarnate, or do everything you’re supposed to but receive the most awful treatment that drives you to suicide. Take your pick?

Macbeth, another profound play does the same thing to women in Hamlet, but arguably worse. Lady Macbeth is portrayed as the opposite of what a woman should be; not motherly, cold, domineering in the marriage, and is therefore a villain. Lady Macbeth is ambitious and gets what she wants but she still kills herself in the end (what is it with Shakespeare and marrying women to suicide). In the beginning, it’s obvious that Lady Macbeth does not believe her cowardly husband will be able to pull off the task of killing Duncan so she calls upon spirits to give her the power to do it by “unsex”ing her and stripping of femininity. Enough said there. Throughout the play, she taunts and emasculates Macbeth, making her Shakespeare’s ultimate ball-buster, if you will. Even when Lady Macbeth gets what she wants, she suddenly can’t handle the guilt, which is not to say female characters can’t feel guilt for doing bad things, but Shakespeare doing that to Lady Macbeth felt cheap.

I would consider the portrayal of women in King Lear to be more of a commentary on misogyny than stereotyping of female characters but it ultimately is still quite flawed. While King Lear does a pretty good job of critiquing the way men view women in power, the way in which the story ends just falls back on what Shakespeare always does to women. Goneril and Regan, while obviously having done bad things to gain power, receive much worse treatment than their male counterparts. Though, the snide and disgusted comments from side characters do a better job as a societal critique than a writing failure. But, while the argument that the nasty Goneril and psycho Regan had it coming could be made, the same could not be said for Cordelia. Shakespeare portrays her as the perfect woman: sensitive, compassionate, emotional but not overly emotional, loves her father, blah, blah, blah been there and done that. Had she been left standing in the end, I think Cordelia had amazing potential as a character but Shakespeare effectively rendered her a useless woman by killing her off and it felt like the ultimate cop-out. Whether Shakespeare did this intentionally or not, he still heavily reinforced the notion that women cannot be in power, even if they are “perfect”.

Another awful honorable mention would be The Taming of the Shrew, aka the famous 10 Things I Hate About You, which I don’t think needs much more commentary (taming a headstrong and extremely intelligent woman because that is somehow revolting and undesirable, come on, seriously?)

So while Shakespeare wrote complex and compelling male leads, he had a nasty habit of writing his female characters as heinous bitches. Entertaining, yes. Profound? Definitely not.

Hot Take- We Need More Female Villains

On By Katie G.In Binaries, King Lear, Power and Identity2 Comments

Historically, books, especially children’s books, have been filled with female characters playing the damsel in distress. Think of all of the fairy tale stories that are traditionally read to children at bedtime- the Cinderellas and the Rapunzels, always the prey of an evil queen or wicked witch, and always saved by a handsome prince charming. As a result of these stories, little girls all around the world are taught that talking to birds and squirrels is normal, and that true love’s kiss is the ultimate salvation. Luckily, these traditional stories have largely been regarded as out-of-date, both because of the restrictive example they set for young girls and because of the villanization of powerful women as snarl-toothed, long-nosed wicked witches and evil queens.

Of course, I believe that the dreams of little girls around the world should not be limited to true love’s kiss and Prince Charming. I also believe that there are not merely two types of female in the world- the princesses and the wicked witches. However, while I am okay with decreasing the amount of books that revolve around princesses and princes, I have a hard time totally erasing evil queens and wicked witches from the narrative. My reasoning is as follows: Is it really always necessary for women to be altruistic in their endeavors? Why is it so taboo for a woman to be strong, independent, and powerful, if not a little cruel-hearted? It’s normal if men are, after all. If we are to totally eradicate female villains, then we are only reinforcing the gender norms of women to be selfless, and upholding the patriarchal mirroring of women focusing their existence on others, rather than themselves.

If we are to increase the amount of female villains in literature, there are a few caveats:

  1. We must begin to view female villains less as villains, and more as anti-heroes. Take Goneril and Regan from King Lear, for example: if we viewed these two sisters as villains, we’d be missing out on much of their characters’ substance. However, if we view them as anti-heroes, central characters who lack conventional heroic and altruistic attributes, we open doors to analyze them as developed and complex characters. Rather than merely viewing them as power-hungry and evil, we can see that they are extremely calculated and witty women who are able to unhinge (and rehinge) the social framework to flip the gender binary and gain power. They began the play with very limited power, but by understanding the weaknesses of those conforming to power binaries, they quickly became the puppet masters controlling those who had once been considered superior to them. If you can empathize with Cordelia, who is a much more conventional heroine than her sisters, you must also be open to empathizing with Goneril and Regan, who have just as complex of an arc.
  2. Furthermore, it is important to understand that when I call for more female villains, I do not necessarily mean that we need more of the traditional female villains, such as the wicked witch/evil queen stereotype, or the more recent addition to the list, the femme fatale. Female villains (anti-heroes) cannot be boxed into categories because of their appearances. Not all independent and powerful women are green with long noses and pointed caps. While some very possibly might be, most women with these characteristics are normal people. It isn’t a woman’s looks that make her who she is, it is her wits, confidence, drive, and values. In order to continue having a platform for non-altruistic women vying for power, we must separate the woman from her appearance.
  3. Finally, we need to have more female villains prevail! Why should so much potential go to waste, time and time again? Again drawing from Shakespeare’s King Lear, the play’s two primary female characters, Goneril and Regan, were killed off before they could even truly gain the power that they had won. Their fight to shatter the male dominance of society was wasted with their untimely deaths. While some might believe that Regan and Goneril would not have been any better in power than a man, due to their cruelty, and thus are better off dead, I find this argument hard to believe. Who is to say that the sisters wouldn’t have changed the system from the inside, once they acquired power? If they were smart enough to nearly overthrow the entire framework of a society, surely they could have been smart enough to merely use cruelty and savagery as a tool, knowing that it had worked in the hands of the men before them. Why root against women whose acquisition of power sets a new norm for girls and women everywhere, that it is possible for a woman to have power?

In my opinion, female villains are the best type of villains. This is because female villains are feminists working against the patriarchy, rather than with it. Beneath the seemingly cruel surface lies their motivation- a justified bitterness towards the patriarchal system which has time and time again oppressed independent and power-seeking women. While ultimately it is necessary to destroy the underpinnings of patriarchy, which lie in the core values of what it means to be a good leader, in the meantime it is vital for women to have leadership positions. It is impossible to put an end to male dominance, male centeredness, and male identification, the roots of patriarchy, if women are never in power. Therefore, it is important to celebrate and uplift the female villains who represent the driven and power-hungry women out there, unwilling to patiently wait their turn for the spotlight.

Gender Roles in King Lear

On By SOPHIA PIn Binaries, King Lear1 Comment

In Shakespeare’s King Lear, the theme of gender roles is clear. In some ways, he brings power to women through his characters by putting them in powerful roles. Specifically, Regan, and Goneril are put in powerful positions because they have been given kingdoms of their own. On the other hand, he implements the idea that women aren’t deserving of power. Although they are in powerful positions, the women are also made out to seem evil and crazy in positions of power. At points in the play, Cordelia and Regan become angry, loud, and violent. For example, Goneril wants Gloucester’s eyes plucked out. The sisters also turn on each other. The women of King Lear can be compared to stories like Snow White, where the Queen is powerful, but evil. In these types of stories there is usually also a more “feminine” character who helps to accentuate the evilness of the one in power. In Snow White, this character would be Snow White. In King Lear, this character is Cordelia. Cordelia is a more ideal feminine character in traditional gender roles. She is calmer than her sisters and not as power hungry. Overall, Cordelia’s “feminine” presence makes her sisters look bad in comparison and helps to push this idea of how women should act.

Nothing But Animals: An Exit West Analysis

On By Elijah MIn Binaries, Empathy, Exit West, MigrationLeave a comment

 “She felt fear, a basic, animal fear, terror, and thought that anything could happen”

Exit West by Mohsin Hamid

In his novel Exit West, Mohsin Hamid uses vignettes to display the effects of the migration through the eyes of different people across the world. Unpacking these vignettes is always a pleasure to do in class as they always bring us as readers closer to the story, immersing us into the world.

In one of his vignettes following a woman facing the effects of the greater world migration in her home country of Vienna, Hamid conveys the theme of people exhibiting reactions of nativism, and activism in response to the civil unrest. Hamid does this through displaying the native peoples of Vienna reverting to a sense of comfort in power dynamics, inevitably losing their humanity, with the woman displaying courage, and hope, actively protesting the invasion of the militants and supporting the migrants. Hamid conveys this distinction metaphorically through an an extended metaphor of animals representing nativism. 

In lines 34-35, upon entering a train on her way to protest, she’s met with hostility from other citizens she considers family due to their shared nationality. “She boarded the train and found herself surrounded by men who looked like her brother and her cousins and her father and her uncles, except that they were angry, they were furious, and they were staring at her and at her badges with undisguised hostility, and the rancour of perceived betrayal, and they started to shout at her, and push her, that she felt fear, a basic, animal fear.” Here Hamid points out their animal like behaviors of the men on the train towards the Woman, showing how the civil unrest in the country has caused them to lose their humanity, attacking one of their own for advocating and maintaining humanity towards the migrants.

In lines 40-44 of the vignette, we see the Woman going to begin her journey to protest the militants occupying her country, going towards a zoo to do so “She gathered her courage, and she began to walk, and not in the direction of her apartment, her lovely apartment with its view of the river, but in the other direction, the direction of the zoo, where she had been intending to go from the outset, and where she would still go.” The choice of the location where she protests being a zoo, alludes to the overall inhuman actions of both the militants Viennas citizens toward both the Woman attempting to support those seeking asylum in the country.

The exact moment Meursault finds happiness.

On By Shane CIn Albert Camus, Binaries1 Comment

“And I felt ready to live it all again too. As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself — so like a brother really — I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again” (122).

In Albert Camus’ The Stranger, the main character, Meursault rejects the traditional societal structures that many people value. For example, he doesn’t want to marry his girlfriend, Marie, he doesn’t cry at his mother’s funeral, and he doesn’t believe in God. Meursault believes these relationships create false hope for people that death isn’t certain. People don’t want to face the meaninglessness of death and death itself, so they grasp onto these societal structures to escape it.

In the last chapter of the novel, Meursault rises above these societal structures and realizes the indifference of the world. After waiting in his prison cell, hoping for the appeal to his eviction to come back positively, Meursault finally grasps the certainty and reality of death. “Everybody was privileged. There were only privileged people. The others would all be condemned one day. And he would be condemned too” (121). No matter what anyone did in their lives, they were all elected to the same fate. During their lives, people are never satisfied because they always try to reach greater success.

Through Meursault, Albert Camus argues that one isn’t truly happy until they face the certainty of their death. They can live their lives with meaning once they accept their inevitable fate. In The Stranger, once Meursault accepts his appeal will never come back positive, he spends every waking hour appreciating his last days. The guards were going to take him away to be exiled at night, so he takes peace when dawn comes around knowing that he will live another day.

Once Meursault accepts death, he finds happiness.

The Power of Self Recognition in “202 Checkmates”

On By Maya SIn Binaries, Short Stories3 Comments

At the end of “202 Checkmates” by Rion Amilcar Scott, the main character of the story–a 12 year old girl–lets her father win a chess game that she could’ve beaten him at, even though he has won and gloated about it the other 201 times they’ve played. Throughout the story, she has been getting better and better at chess by learning from expert players at the park and studying the flaws in her father’s strategy. Her goal has always been to eventually beat him. At the same time, she’s been watching him struggle with unemployment, drinking, and marital issues, while using chess with her as an outlet/distraction from her problem. So, when she is finally poised to beat him at his own game–one move from winning–she decides to throw the game. She realized that he needs that win more than she does. He uses chess to maintain their power dynamic of FATHER/child, in order to comfort his own insecurities about his life and marriage. She is is growing out of that power dynamic, as she seeing her father’s issues and finds her own autonomy. But for her, finding agency and confidence doesn’t have to mean winning. Knowing that she can win is enough, because she is giving herself the recognition she needs, not waiting to get it from her. She outgrew his childish demeanor around chess, and she is willing to let him win the game in order to affirm to herself that she doesn’t need the that recognition to know that she won in the long-term.

The Secret Remains (A “The Secret Woman”)

On By Elijah MIn Binaries, Jessica Benjamin, Power of Stories/Storytelling, Short Stories3 Comments

“The Secret Woman,” is a short story following a man and his wife, who both lie to one another in order to attend an ball. Upon arrival, the man witnesses his wife engage with several men and women, cheating on her him.

The story is masterful, in that the lack of length the story contains forces the reader down a rabbit-hole of dissection of what’s already there. There’s so much to pick apart from the story off of such little content.

The narrative and dynamic between both the wife and husband creates a patriarchal binary between the man and woman, as we see the husbands attitude towards the wife do a complete 180 after seeing her self liberation at the party, introducing her as dainty and almost docile, and ending by calling her evil and black. Moreover, the husband initially lied to the wife which leaves readers uncertain towards what his intentions were at the ball in the first place.

The use of the wife’s costume also is a curious metaphor for the secrecy of the wife as I personally interpret it as a double meaning for the reader and the husband not entirely understanding the true identity of the wife. The story is all told through the husbands perspective, so we only ever get to his perception of his wife, when in reality, the wife may have been putting up a front for the husband the entire time, using her social life as a ways to reject/free herself from the binary.

Overall, the story definitely served as a change of pace from some of the other stories we’ve read whilst maintaining a lot of room to dissect, and discuss.

Manipulation of Power Dynamics in Good Country People

On By Liam LIn Binaries, Power and Identity, Short Stories2 Comments 
Mrs. Freeman's gaze drove forward and just touched him before he disappeared under the hill. The she returned her attention to the evil-smelling onion shoot she was lifting from the ground. 'Some can't be that simple,' she said. 'I know I never could.' (9)

We talk about power dynamics a lot in class, how they form, why they exist, and especially the effects they have on our society. But one thing we haven’t yet talked about is manipulation of these dynamics for personal gain. Manley Pointer in “Good Country People” fools both the simple, religious Ms. Hopewell, and the atheistic, educated Hulga through manipulation of power dynamics which the characters held, and both of their individual value systems.

Ms. Hopewell represents the stereotypical “good country people,” lacking higher education, being religious, hard-working, and disapproving of the modern, atheistic philosophy of Hulga. Pointer represents her idea of “good country people.” She says, “He was so simple…I guess the world would be better off if we were all that simple.” (9) Ms. Hopewell follows the Christian idea that simplicity and humility bring wisdom and holiness, and Pointer fully encapsulates the idea of simple, well-intentioned country people. It seems like she believes in a power dynamic of FAITHFUL/sinning (or something like that), with Pointer’s simple persona placing him on the faithful side along with Ms. Hopewell, and against the atheistic Hulga. This persona turns out to be completely fake, but it fooled Ms. Hopewell easily enough.

Hulga represents the well-educated, atheistic, modern person (generally). She acted very much superior towards Ms. Hopewell and her outlook on life. Hulga very much underestimated Pointer due to this haughty superiority over the “country people” around her. She believed her entire relationship with Pointer was governed by the SMART/dumb power dynamic, on which she was smart, while Pointer was simple. She thought she had all the control, even fantasizing about seducing him. But in the end, he flipped this dynamic on its head, she was the dumb one. He says towards the end “And I’ll tell you another thing, Hulga…you ain’t so smart. I been believing in nothing ever since I was born.” (9) By completely reversing the power dynamic, he completely surprises Hulga (and probably all of the readers, too) and takes away all the control Hulga thought she had.

There is of course more going on in this story than what I’ve pointed out, I didn’t mention Hulga’s leg, or Ms. Freeman, or the contents of Pointer’s bag, or Pointer’s motivations, but this interaction is what I found most striking about this story.

Response to Benjamin’s “Bonds of Love”

On By ELISE C.In Binaries, Empathy, Jessica Benjamin, Mutual RecognitionLeave a comment

Jessica Benjamin believes that love is facilitated through power dynamics in relationships. She explains many ways binaries can be seen in society and how the gender binary is the one that sets up the rest. Due to the fact that sex is the first indicator of who someone is when they are born, it sets people up to be seen as dominant or submissive in the gender binary and then in other ones as they grow up. She explains that one’s entire sense of identity is based on these binaries. These power relationships, whether binary or not, define people’s lives and make power central in everyone’s lives, ultimately contributing to people feeling like they lack fulfillment in their lives. She contradicts Freud’s ideas about one’s sense of identity revolving around their father’s role, also symbolizing society, law, and authority, in separating them from their mother. She argues that identity is found by making efforts to relate to others, rather than by separation but that society makes that difficult because of the way people are socialized. She explains that if people can accomplish this, mutual recognition is possible.

Benjamin’s theory can be seen across most aspects of life, from personal relationships to a global scale. In my life, it operates as all of my relationships feed into some sort of binary whether it’s the MALE/female one or something more specific like MOTHER/daughter. These all impact my ability to have autonomy and how I interact with others. According to Benjamin, if there wasn’t a difference of power in these relationships, I would feel like my life is more fulfilling. I agree mostly with this theory, lots of these binaries, especially more obvious ones such as gender and race can lead to a lot of oppression which is interwoven into all aspects of one’s life and can have many negative effects on someone’s life and their perception of it. Another example of this is binaries based on class, this can alter our perceptions of others and how we perceive our ability to impact their lives. Even if it is done out of sympathy, it can easily perpetuate the idea of dominance as we feel like their lives can be better because of our actions or charity.

The ideas of Benjamin and her ways of Power

On By CADEN PIn Binaries, Jessica Benjamin, Power and IdentityLeave a comment

Jessica Benjamin argues that the key to freedom is through intersubjectivity and those who seek powerful figures early on. She believes that the people who submit power as well as exercise the usage of power are more dominant. The struggle for power in most cases is between the father and the son and it resonates from that into real life situations. There are steps to show the structure of how power forms and the domination of power as well. Jessica firmly believes that opposite sexs have different sorts of power but that one always has less than the other in certain situations. In order to understand the split between femininity and masculinity there must be critics of the masculine side but also the feminine side. But then to also to be focused on the power and dualistic structure between the two major factors. The Binary usage between many ideas that she has is very important to look at comparing two different types of people and seeing what they can and what they cant do to show which one of them has more power over the other. Because there will always be leaders and there will always be followers.

Abused or Acknowledged: A Benjamin Application

On By Elijah MIn Binaries, Jessica Benjamin, Mutual Recognition, Power and Identity3 Comments

I love movies, and recently, someone very close to me recommended that I watch the movie Whiplash. The film had been lingering on my mind for quite some time as it is critically acclaimed and has been mentioned by many friends and family as of late.

Upon watching, I couldn’t help but draw the similarities of the relationships of characters in the movie to the theories of Jessica Benjamin regarding power dynamics that involve a person subjecting another.

The movie follows Andrew Neiman, played by Miles Teller, a student of the most prestigious music university in the country, who’s obsessed with reaching a level of greatness through becoming a outstanding figure in the Shaffer Conservatory Jazz Band. Throughout the movie, Neiman endures forms of psychological and physical abuse from maestro Terence Fletcher, played by J.K Simmons in his goals to find and create the next great Jazz Musician.

Fletcher is seen practically torturing Andrew by throwing objects at him whilst playing, slapping him for missing tempo, and verbally insulting him time and time again for mistakes whilst playing. But this harm only reinforces Andrews obedience to Fletcher and motivation towards achieving his goal of greatness. Conversely, it allows Fletcher more opportunity to enforce his cruelty in hopes of achieving the goal of his own.

This relationship between the two creates an compelling power dynamic or teacher/student or conducter/musician that’s followed throughout the movie, and ends up resulting in an unforeseen conclusion to the twos relationship that begs the question on whether or not either Fletcher or Neiman achieved a level of Mutual Recognition.

In the end, Andrew plays a final time for Fletcher, disobeying his conducting and reversing the roles of the power dynamic in order to play the set on his own terms. At first, Fletcher doesn’t take kindly to this, mouthing silent threats to him in order not to provoke the audience, however, he eventually submits, and relishes in Andrews talent shining through. The conclusion seems lighthearted and displays the power dynamic fizzling into mutual recognition through Fletcher accepting Andrews rebelling, but it poses the question of the power dynamic being reinforced through Fletcher having his goal achieved of finding solace in Andrew being the next “great” so to speak and Andrew feeling as if he has achieved that status through the approval of his disobedience through Fletchers supposed smile in the final frame of the movie.

Mutual Recognition and Capitalism in America

On By Sadie F.In BinariesLeave a comment

The entire time I read Benjamin’s theory, my mind strayed to the capitalistic system within the United States, and how it might fit into her theory that both sides have to participate in order for a binary to exist. At first, I questioned if this system even had participation on both sides. How were lower or working class people supporting the system? Why were the supporting the system? Were they even aware of it, and if they were aware, why would they willingly support something that kept them financially oppressed?

I began to think about the history of the United States. Our entire country was built around an idea of independence, especially financial. For years, this idea developed and deepened until it became the backbone of the Republican party. On the surface, it makes sense. Keeping the majority of your hard earned money for yourself, by lowering taxes and putting personal gain ahead of community growth, a person should theoretically be able to achieve the ‘American Dream’ and become very rich. In actuality, this practice has protected the upper class, keeping them rich, while portraying themselves as people who worked a little harder to make a little more.

This is where the bonds of love come into play. By fighting for lower taxes, a working class person might believe they are on track to achieving the ‘American Dream’. The upper class, however, continues to prosper and get further ahead, deepening the wealth divides, often while encouraging lower economic class people to support this system. Both sides contribute and keep this system in place, creating an endless cycle of wealth disparity with no end in sight.

Benjamin’s Theory and Saviorism in America

On By Ma'ayan KIn Binaries, Jessica Benjamin, Power and IdentityLeave a comment

In Bonds of Love, Benjamin elaborates on the mutual aspect of power dynamics that involve a dominant and submissive side, explaining that in order to fully access their productive potential, equality must be achieved. This can be observed in the typical American “savior” attitude. The United States and the majority of European countries are generally considered to be a part of of the “developed” world. Even in elementary school, I can recall presenters flipping through slideshows of malnutritioned children. “Believe it or not, this child in Africa is a kid – just like you!” From a young age, my peers – no matter our varied statuses in our own society – have been instilled with the suggestion that as a developed nation (superior, powerful), the rest of the developing world (inferior, helpless) needs our help. While this dynamic may seem one sided, as Benjamin explains, such power dynamics of superiority and inferiority are mutual, although not mutually beneficial. Current projects and foreign aid – while accepted – usually only serve to corrupt nations and provide them with what we think they need. Instead, according to Benjamin, these nations should be recognized as equals. Their decisions and policies should be acknowledged and aid should be considered in accordance with their that. The mindset of superiority and separation in many Americans must be broken down in order to identify equally with others. 

To what extent is domination enabled by both parties?

On By Khylie A.In Binaries, Jessica Benjamin, Power and Identity2 Comments

To understand this obscured question one must understand Jessica Benjamin’s theory on Mutal Respect & Domination. In Bonds of Love, Benjamin proposes a seemingly normal question: Why don’t we have gender equality when society wants it? Benjamin goes on to explain how gender stereotypes, binary norms, and expectations feed into this unnatural dynamic of Domination/Submission. Elaborating that when looking at identity most people look at negotiation and conflict which creates the unnatural power struggle. This idea leads to a controversial take on domination and submission. While it’s noted that this power dynamic is not only unnatural but unhealthy it’s also emphasized how in certain regards it is allowed. Benjamin notates how domination is a two-way street and in some capacity, the one being oppressed is allowing for the dynamic whether it be consciously or unconsciously. However, a possible solution is proposed and that solution is the concept of mutual recognition which essentially moves out of the binaries and deconstructs unnatural power dynamics through connection, understanding, and respect.

Where do I stand?

I feel that Benjamin has a very different and interesting perspective in regard to the power dynamics of society. While I agree to some extent that domination/submission bias is allowed by both parties, I also believe that there are instances where the dynamic is not allowed and happens forcefully. Of the aspects I agree with I have gained an understanding of how certain power dynamics are allowed like teacher/student and parent/child. The respect given to an extent is out of societal expectations, however, part of it is also genuine respect that is constantly changing through experiences. Benjamin’s ideas have led me to contemplate the idea of mutual respect and really work to get rid of those biases I carry whether it is something simple or complex.

An Analysis Of Jessica Benjamin

On By Ben Ko.In Binaries, Jessica Benjamin1 Comment

According to the philosophies of Freud a person has two distinct breaks in their childhood, one from their mother and one from their father. In Bonds of Love, Jessica Benjamin argues otherwise. Instead, she argues, this connective break does not factor into the need to connect to others but instead, the discovering of self in the connection to others. Benjamin expresses her belief that it is not a binary issue, disconnected or connected, but rather a need to have an almost paradoxical balance of interconnectedness and separation

I definitely understand her theory and definitely agree with her thinking. Broadly, as a theory built upon the theories of Freud, I think she fills in the holes of his theories and effectively stretches them to not only apply to men but to women as well. First of all, her analysis of the binaries that show up in human society is spot on, in my opinion, and I think the way that we not only put ourselves into such binaries but put others into those same binaries separates us from those we therefore characterize as “different” or possibly “less than”. While, as humans, we rely on and are evolved to need socialization and connection, it is also very important for us to see ourselves as individuals who do not belong in the same category as others.

We cannot all embody the same societal roles, therefore, we feel we must differentiate ourselves from others through binaries- man, woman, employee, boss. While that disconnection is healthy, we have too effectively separated ourselves from others and have lost the mutual recognition we crave. By living in and accepting such binaries we are distancing ourselves from the mutual recognition of “us” and “other”. I would take these lessons and urge others to at least consider and understand the binaries that are ingrained in society and try to go against the urge to follow them. While I believe it is impossible to fully separate ourselves from all binaries- society is too powerful and binaries are too ingrained in us to allow for such a separation- the closest we can get is recognizing and fighting against as many as we can.