Privilege, Emotional Energy, and the Competition Ritual
I think a lot about happiness, especially within the modern American
heterosexual family. Within this institution more than any other, women
and men spend valuable emotional energy trying to fit into unrealistic
roles handed down from past generations. Sociologists have described
emotional energy as a natural human source for enthusiasm, personal
strength, social-connectedness, and willingness to initiate interaction.
As parents and providers we are building and maintaining our children's
emotional energy. At the same time we are exchanging emotional energy
with everyone we come into substantial contact with. Whether we gain or
lose emotional energy depends on our past experiences, our ability to
cope with stress, and the character of our interactions.
Individual biographies play a large role in determining the amount of
emotional energy a person will have. People come to understand which
interactions are going to build or corrode their emotional energy.
According to Randall Collins's interaction ritual theory, people in
positions of power have more opportunities to gain emotional energy at
the expense of those less powerful. In our patriarchal society, men have
an unfair advantage over women in all social aspects, parenthood
included. Through social rituals, textbooks, academic curricula,
government, and laws, men's needs and successes have been placed over
those of women's. These experiences create a gap in the levels of
emotional energy men and women acquire and retain.
Mothers enter parenthood with less power, less privilege, and less
emotional energy than men. From this lowered platform they must try to
conform to an idealistic role of motherhood prescribed by society. Their
level of emotional energy will rise and fall according to how easily
they adapt to the role of mother. If a mother chooses to resist maternal
prescriptions, she faces extreme discontent from family, friends, and,
most likely, her partner as well. If she chooses to embrace these
prescriptions, she faces extreme loss of independence and agency. Either
way, a mother stands to lose.
As a mother, the pressure to fit into the role of the ideal mother is
so overwhelming that it is one of the main reasons I decided not to have
any more children. As a new and young mother the constant scrutiny from
others, especially other mothers, was unbearable. My every action and
decision was judged, no matter how small or private. Choosing personal
freedom over breastfeeding, a seasoned family practitioner rather than a
pediatrician, and potty training earlier than the "experts" recommended
were all some of the decisions that were harshly questioned and debated.
I felt the constraints of a social structure larger than the structure
of the family my husband and I were trying to create together, and it
left me exhausted and defensive.
Trying to make our mothers fit into the role of the idealized mother
is a largely unattainable goal, one that is more linked to preserving
the status quo and less about reality or accuracy. Ideologies further
privilege the already privileged, and in the case of motherhood, the
privileged people are fathers. Regardless of how much they do and how
involved they are, fathers already come to the table with more privilege
than mothers. They seldom if at all have to defend their roles as
fathers. Only when they choose or slip into the areas reserved for
mothers do they have to defend their every move. The pressure for my
husband to be Superdad is far less great, and, if it were up to him, we
would have 10 more children.
While adapting to the role of mother and trying to do so cheerfully,
many women find themselves in unanticipated circumstances. They
experience what sociologists have termed self rationalization;
this refers to how a person caught up in an overarching system comes to
regulate her own aspirations, life ways, and thoughts in conformity with
the terms of that system. Women commonly bend and reshape their actions,
tastes, and desires so as to accommodate the ideals of the good mother.
It is commonly expected that women, especially mothers, will sacrifice
their own needs for others. I have never been very good at fitting
myself into a marked box. Being the youngest of five children, I have
never been good at sacrificing my own needs for others—I have
never had to. Yet even I cannot escape the ideal of motherhood. It is so
embedded in our culture that it appears natural.
I now know it is the separate-spheres ideology that casts women as
naturally suited to serve men, as in some way naturally built to perform
unpaid labor for men and children. This ideal of separate spheres also
allows men to enter into almost every life endeavor with more emotional
energy than their female counterparts. For the most part, women do not
grow up with the privileged assumption that their households will be
maintained by anyone but themselves. When women do enter the workforce,
they take their home lives with them. They bring to work the stresses,
responsibilities, and concerns that cannot be taken care of on the
weekends or during the few hours before and after out-of-the-house work.
Men can enter the workforce under the assumption that they will have
a mediator between the messiness of everyday life and the structured
world of their chosen career. They have been trained and prepared for a
career life that is separate from their home life. They will be able to
focus entirely for eight or more hours a day on their job because of a
female mediator. Whether it is his wife, girlfriend, hired maid, mom, or
teenage daughter, a man enters adulthood with the expectation that
eventually the everyday needs of his household will be met by a woman.
It is this knowledge of women's necessary role as mediator that led a
male peer to tell Hillary Rodham Clinton that she could not be a trial
lawyer because she did not have a wife at home.
I am my husband's mediator between the messiness of everyday life and
his work responsibilities. This allows for him to get ready for his
out-of-the-house work by himself. To leave for the job site with no
consideration of children's bumpy hair, bunching socks, and misplaced
homework. To leave the house knowing that the children will be taken to
school but not knowing the details of that journey. To leave on time or
late, depending only on his own will and needs, knowing that he can
focus eight hours of his day solely on his work obligations. To leave
knowing that a woman will meet with the teachers, apply the bandages,
and mend the bruised egos.
Most women are so successful at this mediating that their significant
others do not consider these tasks work at all. This in turn allows for
those tasks to basically go unnoticed by anyone other than she who is
performing them, which allows for the false impression that men's work
is more important than women's work, especially the work of mothering.
This unawareness of the emotional and physical energy required for these
tasks is a luxury most fathers have and most mothers do not. Allan
Johnson explains the ease of not being aware of privilege as an aspect
of privilege itself, the luxury of obliviousness. Being unaware of the
middle ground of everyday life allows men to hold on to precious
emotional energy while women feel theirs drained away throughout the
day.
Women are taught these mediating skills throughout their lives in
such a way that they begin to feel as if these skills are naturally
inherent to women. This false sense of nature versus socialization helps
perpetuate patriarchy's permanence and the ideology of separate spheres.
It is what sociologists know as the social construction of reality. The
social world gets constructed through habits and practices of
individuals. Once these practices and habits are passed down to the next
generation, they are thought to be the natural world because that
generation has known of nothing else. This is how institutions such as
heterosexuality, patriarchy, and motherhood come to be thought of as
natural and how the ideologies that go along with them remain so
durable.
When my husband and I begin what sociologists call the "competition
ritual," he does not take into consideration the hours I spend on tasks
to which he is oblivious. The things I inadvertently keep from him drain
me of my emotional energy the most. These are the things I was trained
to keep from him, from the time I received my first baby doll. With an
out-of-the-house job, two children, homework, a dog, a cat, a husband,
family, friends, and community involvement, I do not solely own my time.
On any given day, my cat with a bladder-control problem may be lying in
a bed as I am headed out the door with the two children, schoolwork,
drinks, lunches, notes for teachers, jackets, backpacks, and various
other items in our hands. Getting them all packed into the car and then
remembering the cat on the bed does not get shouted out in the heat of
the competition ritual. When the lights get turned off for lack of
payment or when the clothes pile up in the hamper, the competition
ritual begins and it is an all-out marathon to see who can spew out the
most activities in a 24-hour period. Concrete tasks like paying the
bills or cleaning the kitchen, doing the laundry or mowing the grass,
hold more weight than dirty faces at the bus stop and tummy aches five
minutes before school. These are the things that do not get listed; they
are not deemed important enough for me to win the battle. Yet
cumulatively they are as tiring as any paid labor.
Our understanding of motherhood and our handling of the separation
between home and work life is crucial in our relationships with one
another. The relationships between
stay-at-home moms and
career moms would benefit greatly from an
understanding that neither option lets us escape from the "perfect
mother" ideology. Regardless of whether or not a mom chooses or has no
choice to stay at home, whether she gets paid from an employer, is a
student, starts her own home-based business, or has a nanny and a
gym-membership, she cannot escape the scrutiny of others based on their
sentiment and attachment to the role of Supermom. That image of the
smiling white mother in an apron, baking an apple pie, is feel-good
propaganda and one that is not easily forgotten.
Johnson believes in the necessity and ability to change our current
social structure. He encourages us to create and choose alternatives to
paths of least resistance. He explains how we can fight systems of
oppression every day by choosing different paths from those easiest to
choose. Simply by not laughing at a joke that offends us, we can break
the silence that confirms the acceptability of such behavior. Though
exhausting and uncomfortable, it is in society's best interest for
mothers to choose the path less followed. Women need to choose the
harder path of trying to expose and explain how the institution of
motherhood has become yet another form of disprivilege for women.
Finding our voice and not cowering down or becoming defensive when
asked, "so what did you do today?" is one step. Another is to stop
forming our opinions of each other based on whether or not we have
children, and if we do have children, on how well we resemble June
Cleaver.
I have a great
partnership
with my husband. We have created an environment that
we are comfortable living in, where we are equal entities, where we each
are tired, frustrated, and happy. We sacrifice worldly goods for
priceless moments of serenity among our children, friends, and family.
Yet we engage in the competition ritual, we bicker over who is more
tired, more stressed, and ultimately more important. We know that our
rituals are habitual and that our frustrations are mainly brought on by
constantly swimming up stream in a society that imposes impossible
ideals on us.
In our society we need awareness of how we unconsciously practice our
gender-specific roles every day. For the most part these practices go
unnoticed, and their effects show up in the unequal levels of emotional
energy between genders, ultimately contributing to the perpetuation of
women's subordination. Too often women enter into motherhood believing
that their situation is unique. To begin dismantling these inequalities
takes voice and agency. Those of us who can, need to help build and
maintain other women's emotional energy, ensuring that they are equipped
with the emotional ability necessary to understand the competition for
what it truly is, a social construct in need of change.
Works Cited
Johnson, Allan. Privileges, Power, and Difference. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 2001.
|