Does cognitive dissonance perpetuate misogyny, or just reflect it?

[JeanneDeMontbaston]

Hi all.

I am aware the title is feminist jargon. By 'cognitive dissonance', I mean, that state where you subconsciously hold two incompatible views. Eg., you know perfectly well that, statistically, most rapes do not happen in dark alleyways, and yet, you feel more frightened there than with your random male friend.

As I understand it, holding a position of cognitive dissonance is tiring and stressful. I wondered if it actually makes us transfer blame onto women, so that we don't just hold these contradictory positions about gender, we actually absorb the idea they're somehow women's fault?

I am thinking this because I remember going through that stage (which I think a lot of women mention) of feeling, first, angry about feminism and angry that women were 'rocking the boat' by challenging all my dearly-held cognitive dissonances.

Now, it could be that cognitive dissonance is just a reaction to living in a misogynistic society. Or, it could be that there's something in cognitive dissonance itself, that pushes us to shift the blame onto the subject of the dissonance (ie., women/gender roles). What do you think?

NB - as you might tell from my tortured syntax, this is a research question I am working on. Please be gentle!

Dur, its only taken me 2 pages to get there

Yes, I think that makes total sense to do, almond. But that's class analysis too, surely?

I'm actually not sure that any of it is class analysis! I think it might have another name that people who don't believe in class analysis call it. But whatever it is, I think we all agree it is necessary.

Ah, ok. What's the other name?

I just understand class analysis, very simply, to be the process whereby you look at groups and figure out what patterns members of the same groups share. It doesn't matter if you're applying it to a big group, or to a subgroup within that group.

But I am sure there are more complicated, and probably more accurate, ways to look at it.

I don't know what the name for that is, but it is a definitely a common form of analysis that we all agree is useful, and must have a common name.

I think class analysis refers to a specific idea from Marxism. It is the analysis of how groups are in conflict with each other because of their position within the economic system. So women are the reproductive class - they are expected to do essential reproductive work which is required for society to continue but has no economic value. This puts women as a class into conflict with other groups.

I think if you remove the particular economic and conflict elements of it, it is no longer a class analysis.

Ah, I see. So, you mean, if we happened to find that the subset of men who do the most violence weren't a distinct economic group, at that point it'd have stopped being class analysis? I think that's fair.

But yes, whatever it is, that thing.

Well, I think there is finding a correlation ... men who eat satsumas are more angry and explaining the cause.. satsumas reduce serotonin levels (I made that up, obviously).

For it to be class analysis, your cause would have to be explained in terms of economics and conflict between groups. Who benefits from these particular men being violent? Who suffers as a consequence? How does it promote capitalism?

So we might speculate that straight men are more violent than gay men, and there have been analyses written as to why this in, and how heterosexuality is useful for capitalism and so on, so that gay men occupy a specific class position.

Yes Buffy, but in disciplines like sociology class analysis means that thing that Marxists do. I think it might get confusing if we call any analysis of anything that can be classified a class analysis.

I assume when people on this board say they are talking about a women as a class, they mean it in some sense related to the Marxist sense. They're not just saying it would be interesting to group us all together for completely non political reasons, like seeing if we prefer cheddar to cheshire cheese, or lipstick to lipgloss.

People generally do talk about the economy of violence, don't they? I'm not sure it must be capitalist, but you can use Marx to read backwards into history, so I'm not sure why that would be a problem.

buffy - because your last phrase echoes the assonance pattern of the song?

A huge amount of our literature and culture seems to me to be designed to prompt men (and women) to think using cognitive dissonance. It prompts us into these thought patterns.

Could you maybe give a couple of examples of this? I'm struggling to understand what you mean.

I'm sure that there are plenty of analyses of male violence in that sense, and certainly a lot of people argue that whole economic system ultimately relies on violence and the threat of violence to stay in place.

But yop mentioned examples like what if all the violent men lived in Norfolk. I think then unless there is something very specific about Norfolk, it is not the same thing. Men under capitalism (and various forms of proto capitalism) occupy a particular position which uses violence to enforce unfair relations with the reproductive class so that they are denied resources.

If we instead just view men as a group who happen to be violent because of some kind of historical set of stereotypes that we will gradually legislate and educate ourselves out of, we ignore the purpose that male violence serves.

That is kind of the basic difference between liberal and radical approaches, maybe. I am very tired!

Well, I used Buffy upthread, but if you want more 'cultured' culture examples, I think the classic example would be Richardson's Pamela, which is a first-person narrative by a woman who keeps 'swooning' but is mysteriously able to narrate how she's molested during her fainting spells. Everything explicit in the text tells you she's truthful, and honestly has fainted. But the way the narrative is structured - it's in the first person, so she has to be able to narrate what happens while she's unconscious - makes you doubt her.

Old Master pictures of rapes tend to do it too - Mary Beard was blogging the other week about how images of rape show women who look as if they're deliberately being seductive, so you look at them and second-guess how 'real' the rape is.

Yeah, but almond, there would have to be something pretty specific about Norfolk if all violent men came from there!

I took her to be using Norfolk as an example she knew wasn't likely to be true (excuse me if I'm wrong). So it's not a serious suggestion.

I would honestly be extremely surprised if there were no economic patterning behind which subgroups of people are most violent.

But perhaps I am missing things here.

Oi!

I italicized it all proper like.

Great discussion.

I am probably being an outrageous stodgy pedant but I have just checked the meaning of cognitive dissonance on wikipedia YES I LEAVE NO STONE UNTURNED IN MY RIGOROUS REFERENCE MATERIALS and it says

"In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.[1][2]"

I feel a bit uncomfortable reading this thread because that is what I thought it meant; but the thread seems to be treating CD as the holding of incompatible beliefs rather than the discomfort of holding them (and having it exposed)

To me, this matters, partly because there is a hugely simplistic part-answer there then already: talking about the inconsistencies causes the discomfort which wouldn't otherwise exist (holding two beliefs needn't actually hurt at all unless you are cruelly forced to notice it, we all do it all the time to no one's disadvantage, like when we feign confidence about the weather in the interests of staying cheerful, yet pack an umbrella) - and it is likely going to be women who do this, who cause the pain, and are therefore The Problem.

Sorry if all that is blindingly obvious / missing the point.

Or - is that only one definition and the one Jeanne proposes in her OP also a current / legit one? I have often seen "CD" used as she does on MN and it has always slightly bothered me as it doesn't feel quite right.... but is that just another normal accepted way of using it?

Thanks for the examples, I am not cultured enough to know Buffy so couldn't quite follow the argument. But when you say that such literature/ art prompts us into these thought patterns couldn't it also be that these works of art reflect the existing thought patterns/ culture rather than promting it?

that should be 'prompting', sorry