From Political Correctness to Quantum Gender

In her book "Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning" [1] Karen Barad discusses how it is physically impossible to separate matter from meaning in practise. She is working towards a theory which she calls agential realism. It is based on the idea that the meanings the conscious agents making the observation have in their mind are conceptually inseparable from the object they are investigating. She says that this would be a generalization of the classical Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. She quotes Niels Bohr and says: Bohr’s argument for the indeterminable nature of measurement interactions is based on his insight that “concepts are defined by the circumstances required for their measurement” [Bohr]. That is theoretical concepts are not ideational in character; they are specific physical arrangements. [1].

To me it seems that Barad’s ideas would somehow touch on something about the connection between matter and discourse that the existentialists and postmodernists have tried to intuitively grasp have for the last 50 decades. But unlike postmodernists in the average, Barad actually knows what she is talking about when she refers to mathematics and QM. Using the agential realism approach she discusses how we could analyze ethics, metaphysics, “topologies of power” and other branches of applied philosophy. Most concrete she gets when she applies agental realistic analysis to “technoscientific practises” and gender roles. In my (not very) humble opinion that analysis raises her in to the front row of contemporary feminist theorists. She also naturally continues from the observations of Judith Butler since I think Barad’s treatment kind of paves a QM theoretical background to Butler’s realization that even sexes, not just gender roles, are fundamentally pejorative: Sexes are in practise created by actions and interactions rather than being a preassigned property of humans.

At this point I need to remind that of course Butler, too, is not denying the existence of biological sexes, but she is making an argument that fundamentally sexes come into being through our actions and interactions. Butler does not want to separate gender roles and sexes in a same way that the traditional 2nd and 3rd generation of feministic theory [2] has usually done, since she is making a convincing argument that there is no reason to do it. And as a bonus it becomes much easier to construct a credible “queer theory”, because after all the lesbians and gays seem to fall into the middle in all classical feminist theories. I am not really an expert on queer theories….but Butler is! If Butler interests you, you must read “Gender trouble” [3]

Now in my previous blog I was making an argument that the progress of equality development has stopped in many fields in western countries, despite the legislation everywhere in west should in principle support it by now. Yet there are many unresolved issues. In many - if not even the most - of disciplines in science and business women (or sometimes men) are underrepresented, in OECD countries women get paid only 70-80 % of what men do in average and very often the fitting of everyday family live and work career is seeing as the problem for women only!!! My claim was that this can be seen as a failure for feministic movement and that it could be because the contemporary feministic theory does yet not give all the building blocks to make further progress from where we are now. Of course there are movements that try to free themselves from the obvious limiting dogmas of 2nd and 3rd generation feminism and call themselves post feministic, but I do not see any whatsoever reason to give up feminism and go post feministic quite yet – we are definetely not there yet! I would rather promote investigating new approaches based on Barad’s and Butler’s ideas. And I have already a cool term to describe this study: Quantum Gender.


So what would it mean in practise? With the title “from political correctness to quantum gender” I meant we need to move on from just being politically correct to something more. Because the legislative means used to achieve the goals of 2nd and 3rd generation feminism are not enough to break the glass ceilings that still hinder people to obtain the same opportunities in work life and society regardless what type of sex organs they have been born with.

If we take Barad’s quantum physical approach, Quantum Gender would mean that our gender (and sex too like Butler suggests) becomes into existence only as a consequence of and with the meaning that an active agent observing the sex gives to it. In work life and professional world it should entail a principle that if we are looking people to perform specific functions, we should not define people in advance based on what irrelevant properties (sex organs, skin color, ethnic background etc) they might have, but only what a person is expected to do. If we assign people irrelevant properties in advance, it affects also the outcome of our judgement. Now that is of course common sense and that’s’ what the equal opportunity legislation in western world tries to achieve anyway, but in practise it’s not enough as we have seen. In the previous blog I gave examples how people still treat exactly similar job applications differently depending whether the applicant’s name is male or female. So I fear the glass ceilings will not get broken by the legislative actions alone.

I suspect that there are very few jobs anymore in the post-industrialized world where biological sex really has any relevance. In fact hardly any work (if any other than being a prostitute) requires specific sex organs to do the job. It may even be sex organs might have relevance only in activities what they are good for, namely reproduction and sexual recreational pleasure. So with the Quantum Gender approach our sex should not come into being at all when we define ourselves as professionals. Of course that has been the goal for feminism at all times, but since the feministic theory has been so far based on the dichotomies, sex has still been a predefined property of individuals. It means that feminism so far has been saying: Let’s be Politically Correct (statement PC)
PC: We are men and women – but hey, it is forbidden treat us such when it doesn’t count
Whereas the Quantum Gender proposal (statement QG) would be more like
QG: We are people - and when we want to think about having sex, let’s observe our sexes then

I think QG approach would make a more easy path to break the glass ceilings in the long run. Firstly I hear a lot of the people complain about political correctness. I think it is because some feel the PC statement is fundamentally saying “We have sexes, but let’s not think about it” and it becomes a bit like saying “Don’t think about a pink elephant” - and of course you end up doing just that. My observation is that for the more simple minded people the PC statement seems to be stressful ;-) Secondly QG should be good also in sense that it should free ourselves from gender role expectations as careerists, household keepers, parental roles…(and anywhere outside bed room activities =) If we assume that there are no sexes, where they don’t count, there should not be any pressure on expectations either. But in order to get there the QG idea should be part of our culture.

Changing culture towards QG makes sense in my opinion. Us humans are self aware intelligent creatures and we have adapted our culture many times to support the life conditions we have lived in. Today we don’t live in caves any longer and in modern information society advancing equality should benefit both the common good and individual happiness by allowing us to use our abilities and properties in ways that are relevant to what we want to do. Not by labelling us in advance according to our sex organs.

Of course I am not saying that legislation everywhere in the western world or OECD countries is fully compliant to move to QG yet. Particularly in terms of maternity leave compensation there is still a lot to do in many countries, although I think EU is in average more progressive than US at the moment. However, I think QG could be the next step…but how to get there?

I don’t have any program how we could move from PC to QG yet. I do not suggest that governements should start tuning their legislations right this instance just because I wrote this blog =)…. But I would rather challenge people to start thinking of the next generation of feministic movement by investigating Barad and Butler seriously, thinking about what differenc QG could make, research what the implementation of Barak’s and Butler’s ideas would mean in practise and how this implementation could be done with concrete actions.

I know also that when I am saying that 3rd gen feminism is promoting PC, I am not giving enough credit to all contemporary feministic studies. There are of course a lot of woman studies scholars that are basically saying essentially the same thing as I outline here as a QG principle. However, oftentimes they reject being called feminists, and that I don’t agree with. I think as long as we are not people first and men and women only where it counts…there is no reason to give up feministic movements. And we are not there yet.

I see the equality train slowing down in the west and I fear it is in a jeopardy of stopping altogether before reaching the station unless it is fuelled with new ideas.


[1] Barad, Karen “Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning”, Duke Unoversity Press

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism

[3] Butler, Judith “Gender Trouble”, Routledge, 1989

-----


Phew…it has been a really busy fall. I haven’t had much time do blogging even though the world is no less full of topics to rant about than before =). Cheers to anyone dropping by here!