The arrogant mind at work

A few months ago, reading "Politics of reality" by American philosopher and feminist Marilyn Frye, I ran into an interesting concept: the arrogant mind. It applies to the mind of a person or to the "collective mind" of a group of people who, explicitly or implicitly, call upon themselves the right to define what makes sense and what does not, not only for themselves but also for the society at large. While this posture might seem childish, like the infant who has broken a vase and pictures in their mind that it never happened and that the vase is still whole, it can also be surprisingly effective in denying the reality of facts and concepts that are somewhat disadvantageous for the people in power.

Frye applied this term to the collective mind of men in patriarchal societies who, for all ends and purposes, get to define what is and what is not in their world. This becomes particularly relevant when considering what (or who) is a person in good standing: it is out of the question that children are not "people" in the full sense of the word because, in the same way as the mentally sick and, in some parts, prison inmates, they are not entitled to the full exercise of their rights (e.g. voting) either due to their incapacity to exercise them with good judgement (children, mentally sick) or because through their past actions they have lost their right to them (prison inmates). Notably, there are many rights that are still recognized: forced labor is forbidden in many countries even for inmates and legal systems admit around the world that prisons should not exert health burdens through insanitary conditions on top of the freedom punishment.

Photo: Dave Rutt

Sensible as this approach might seem, it has a very serious shortcoming: the legislative bodies of a nation, who are in charge of defining who is a full-fledged citizen (therefore acting as the arrogating mind of the society) might not be representative enough to cover the full casuistic present in the society. A very obvious example is the US congress, composed entirely by US citizens, and therefore probably not taking into account the significant, but very often neglected, opinion of the many aliens (both legal and illegal) living in the country. There is no doubt that it would be impossible (i.e. impractical) to give everyone full rights from the moment they set foot on the country (tourists should not have the right to participate in the construction of the laws of the country they are visiting) but there are many who have been there for several years and whose opinions, it not heeded, should at least be heard.

Still, there is an even bigger group of people who have been systematically overheard (or plainly ignored) for centuries: women. It is only by today's standards that they are recognized as full-blown citizens, with every right a citizen has, including having a bank account, setting up a business of filing for divorce when the situation does not agree with them. For decades and centuries they have been considered almost sub-human, with some basic rights to survive but certainly incapable (or at least untrustworthy) of managing themselves, let alone have a life of their own, without the assistance of a male person (father, husband, brother) that could "represent her in front of the society". However, this second-hand contribution to society will necessarily be inaccurate or incomplete: in the same fashion that no white congress person can truly represent the incessant suffering of African American or Latino communities, no man can truthfully transmit the oppression and neglect that women have been subjected to (and still are).

This idea has come to me recently because I heard about the distribution of work shifts at the Institute and I have found a surprising situation: years ago maternity leave was considered a necessary evil that companies had to bear with in exchange for being able to attract/retain female co-workers. It was an entirely "female" thing of which males were completely ignorant and about which most bosses did not care other than to accept it with a grunt and waive it away. However, in recent years it has become not only acceptable but even fashionable that fathers also take leave when their children are born. And this means that, all of a sudden, paternity leave has become a thing that not only has to be accepted but even protected. Years ago, it a woman had to work 75% of the time to be able to take care of her children the boss would try to avoid it before, eventually, finding a way to make it possible within the team. Now, if a man asks to have morning shifts instead of evening or night shifts because he wants to help raising his children the request not only has to be heard but also fulfilled, even if that means additional efforts on the part of his co-workers.

The connection with the arrogant mind lies in the fact that parental leave was mostly invisible for many years, but once it got on the radar of men they pushed the society into recognizing just how important this device is. As if a light switch had flicked, it changes from being "nothing" to "something very important". However, this is not the only case of "sudden discoveries": it is rather frequent that, during a meeting, a woman would bring up an idea that is quickly dismissed or even not commented; but if just a few minutes later a male colleague happens to bring it up again, it can be not only accepted, but the imposter can get the recognition for a "great idea" that was not even his in the first place.

What is your experience in this respect? Have you witnessed many cases of "sudden recognition"? Let us just hope that we soon learn to take people for what they are worth and not for the color of their skin, their political opinions or even their genitalia. Have a nice week.