Friday, August 10, 2012

Rebecca Hazleden - Dragon-slayers and Jealous Rats: The Gendered Self in Contemporary Self-help Manuals

 
This is an intriguing essay from Rebecca Hazelden that appeared in the March, 2011, issue of the Cultural Studies Review Journal. Hazeldon looks at some of the variations of the gendered self that one finds in self-help books and argues that they are more accurately seen as political variations of the nature of the self than representations of patriarchal vs. feminist gender roles.

I don't agree with some of her assertions, but in general this is a better approach than to see everything as gendered - sometimes gender beliefs reflect more about political agendas than anything else.

Dragon-slayers and Jealous Rats: The Gendered Self in Contemporary Self-help Manuals


Rebecca Hazleden

Abstract

This article traces two broad discourses concerning gender in a selection of relationship manuals from 1974 to 2004. On the one hand are manuals promoting traditional gender roles, and on the other are those that promote financial and emotional independence for women.(1) In contrast to other analyses, I argue that these approaches cannot be categorised into a simplistic dichotomy of ‘feminist’ and ‘patriarchal,’ but that they are better understood as being bound up with conservative and liberal discourses of the self. I further demonstrate that these approaches both assume and require types of self that are somewhat removed from their historical antecedents and should be understood as neo variants. 

Full Citation:
Hazelden, R. (2011, Mar). Dragon-slayers and Jealous Rats: The Gendered Self in Contemporary Self-help Manuals. Cultural Studies Review, Vol 17, No 1; pp. 270–95.
 
The abstract also functions as the first paragraph of the paper, so here are the next two paragraphs, which form a bit of an introduction.


Although
 the 
term 
‘bestseller’ 
is 
hard 
to 
define, 
it 
is 
likely 
that 
each 
book 
in this
 study
 at
 some
 point
 held
 the
 position
 of
 best‐selling
 therapeutic
 relationship
 manual 
in 
the 
United
 States, 
and 
often 
also 
throughout 
the
 world.(2)
 By 
‘therapeutic
 relationship
 manual’,
 I
 mean
 a
 book
 grounded
 in
 popular
 psychology
 that
 has
 the
 putative
 aim 
of 
aiding 
the 
reader 
in
 developing 
and 
managing
 more
 harmonious 
and
 fulfilling 
intimate 
romantic
 relationships.
 This 
is
 a 
popular
 format 
that 
encompasses hundreds of 
new 
titles
 each 
year,
 as
 well
 as
 having
 produced
 some 
of
 the
 enduring
 classics 
of 
self‐help—the
 therapeutic 
relationship
 manuals 
in
 this 
study
 are 
all 
still in
 print, 
with 
the
 exception 
of 
Marabel 
Morgan’s 
The 
Total 
Woman. 
Books 
offering
 advice
 on
 finding
 a
 partner
 were
 excluded,
 as
 were
 dating,
 etiquette,
 household‐management 
and 
sex
 manuals.(3)
 There 
is
 a
 certain
 amount
 of
 diversity 
between
 these
 books
 and
 I
 do
 not
 claim
 that
 all
 relationship
 manuals
 fall
 into
 the
 two
 categories
 used 
here,
 or
 that 
all 
books 
within 
a 
category 
are 
consistent 
with 
each 
other. 
Neither do
 I
 imply
 that
 readers
 simply
 accept
 and
 absorb
 the
 intended
 messages
 within
 these
 texts.
 Numerous
 studies
 have
 been
 made
 demonstrating
 that
 women
 read
 sceptically,
 interpretively
 and
 resistingly.(4)
 Nonetheless,
 the
 unabated
 proliferation
 of
 self‐help 
books 
and 
the
 saturation 
of
 our
 culture 
by 
psy 
truths 
tell 
us 
something important
 about
 our
 values,
 both
 on
 the
 societal
 level
 and,
 as
 self‐help
 books
 are
 increasingly
 translated
 into 
numerous 
languages 
and 
spread
 across
 the 
world,
 at
 a global 
level 
as 
well.(5)
 As
 Elias
 has 
pointed 
out, 
an 
advice 
book
 has 
to 
relay 
a 
message with
 which
 its
 audience
 can
 identify.(6)
 In
 other
 words,
 the
 prescriptions
 and
 proscriptions
 within
 self‐help
 are
 ‘already
 constituted’ 
realities
 for
 the
 readers.(7)


It 
is 
also 
important
 to
 acknowledge 
that
 women
 overwhelmingly 
constitute
 the 
readership. 
Relationship 
manuals
 are 
usually 
aimed
 at 
women
 and 
women 
are more
 likely
 to
 purchase
 and
 read
 them.(8)
 Some
 self‐help
 authors
 even
 assert
 that
 men 
are 
uninterested 
in 
self‐help:
 ‘Men
 don’t 
read
 magazines 
like 
Psychology
 Today,
 Self,
 or
 People’
 because
 ‘they
 are
 more
 concerned
 with
 outdoor
 activities,
 like
 hunting, 
fishing,
 and 
racing 
cars 
…
 and
 couldn’t
 care 
less 
about 
…
 self‐help 
books’.(9)
 One 
author 
includes 
a 
small 
section, 
near
 the 
end 
of 
his 
book, 
which
 he
 encourages
 his 
readers 
to 
show 
to 
their 
partners 
and 
begins 
‘I’m 
assuming
 that
 this 
letter 
is 
the first 
thing
 you’re
 reading 
in 
this 
book 
…
 give 
me 
three
 minutes 
to 
talk 
to 
you
 man 
to man’.(10)
 That
 the
 presumed
 audience
 is
 gendered
 is
 of
 crucial
 importance,
 because
 the
 ‘injunction
 to
 understand 
one’s 
life,’
 or 
one’s
 self,
‘ for
 example
 as
 an 
autonomous
 individual
 …
 can
 come
 to
 mean
 something
 entirely different when we look across the designations of ... gender and sexuality.(11)
Here are a few more paragraphs that get into the role of feminism in self-help - and how this becomes a political issue as much as or more than a psychological self-help issue.
In
 the
 1970s,
 a
 new
 feminist
 model
 of
 sexuality
 began
 to
 appear—that
 of
 individualistic
 sexual
 autonomy.
 Sex
 manuals
 began
 to
 focus
 on
 the
 private
 sexual
 experience
 of
 women:
 ‘It
 is
 a
 very
 self‐centred
 experience
 …
 your
 focus
 must
 be
 solely
 on
 your
 sexual
 stimuli
 and
 whatever
 increases
 it’;
 ‘you
 must
 assume
 responsibility
 for
 your
 own
 sexual
 pleasure’.28
 This
 outlook
 saw
 orgasm
 as
 a
 right,
 and
 a
 product
 of
 learning,
 not
 of
 instinct.
 It
 was
 argued
 at
 the
 time
 that
 placing
 a
 strong 
emphasis 
on 
non‐coital 
techniques
 rendered 
the 
man 
dispensable 
to 
female
 pleasure,
 further
 reinforcing
 women’s
 sexual
 independence.29
 This
 latter
 view
 politicises
 female 
sexual 
autonomy,
 on
 a 
model 
of
 sex
 among
 equals.30
 Sex
 began
 to be 
understood 
as 
part 
of
 the
 total
 life 
experience—competence 
and 
independence
 in
 sexuality
 were 
to 
be 
attained
 as 
part 
of 
a 
broader,
 more
 general 
social
 pattern,
 and
 sex 
manuals 
promised 
that
 this 
type 
of 
sexuality 
would
 pay 
off
 in
 other
 areas
 of 
life
 as 
well.31
 These 
sexual
 relations 
both 
reflected 
and
 produced
 more 
general 
cultural
 attitudes
 and
 values,
 stripping
 away
 the
 moral,
 sentimental
 and
 romantic
 notions
 that
 had
 surrounded
 female
 sexuality.
 They
 made
 respectable
 the
 unmarried
 sexually
 active
 woman,
 giving
 women
 more
 freedom
 to
 leave
 unsatisfactory
 partners.32
 At
 the
 same 
time, 
however,
 women 
became
 obliged 
to
 be
 actively 
sexual
 beings 
in
 a 
way 
that
 they 
had 
not 
before.33
 That 
is, 
women
 were
 now
 obliged 
to 
be
 free
 with 
their 
sexuality—competent,
 skilled,
 proficient 
in 
their 
own 
pleasure, 
multi‐orgasmic—and
 open
 to  new
 pathologies
 of
 frigidity,
 emotional
 over‐sensitivity,
 dependence
 and
 sexual
 dysfunction.
 These
 new
 capacities
 required
 new
 interventions: 
self‐interrogation,
 self‐examination
 and
 work
 upon 
the
 self.34 
Indeed,
 the
 obligation
 to
 work
 on
 oneself
 was
 adopted
 by
 many
 feminist
 writers,
 such
 as
 Susie
 Orbach,
 for
 whom
 feminist
 self‐improvement
 and
 self‐liberation
 included
 investigating,
 nurturing
 and
 developing 
the
 inner 
self.35


By 
the 
late
 1980s, 
self‐regard 
and 
self‐liberation 
had
 become 
an 
imperative
 in
 self‐help 
to 
the 
extent
 that 
women
 who 
did
 not
 prioritise 
their 
own
 self‐fulfilment
 were
 characterised
 as
 psychologically
 disordered—’loving
 too
 much’
 or
 co‐dependent.36 
I
 have 
discussed 
this
 phenomenon 
elsewhere, 
but
 will
 mention 
that
 co‐dependence 
can 
be 
characterised 
as 
a
 pathologisation 
of 
femininity, 
or 
as 
a 
reverse
 discourse 
with
 the
 potential 
to 
liberate 
women 
from 
positions
 of 
subordination.37
 In
 this 
latter
 view,
 women 
use 
expertise
 to 
liberate
 themselves
 in 
opposition
 to 
their
 putative 
feminine
 nature—or 
at 
least 
to 
furnish
 themselves
 with 
a 
limited
 space
 in
 which
 they 
can 
refuse 
to 
play 
their 
appropriate
 gendered 
role.38



In
 her
 classic
 study
 of
 relationship
 manuals,
 Hochschild
 bemoans
 the
 tendency
 of
 1980s
 and
 1990s’
 self‐help
 to
 exercise
 a
 general
 ‘paradigm
 of
 [emotional]
 caution’.
 She
 suggests 
that
 feminism 
may be 
‘escaping 
from
 the 
cage’ 
of
 a
 social 
movement,
 to 
endorse
 and
 develop
 a
 capitalist 
ethos 
of
 private 
life
 that
 is
 foreign
 to 
its 
original 
aims 
and 
that 
is 
emotionally
 barren. 
She 
argues
 they 
allow
 ‘the
 worst
 of
 capitalist
 culture
 to
 establish
 the
 cultural
 basis
 of
 the
 struggle
 for
 equality’.39
 While Hochschild 
sees
 a
 paradox 
between 
what
 she 
calls 
the
 emotional
 ‘warmth’
 and
 the
 ‘patriarchy’
 of
 the
 ‘traditional’
 books,
 and
 is
 surprised
 by
 the
 emotional
 ‘coolness’
 of
 the
 approach
 she
 calls
 ‘feminist’,
 these
 are
 part
 of
 a
 long
 tradition
 of
 such
 tensions
 within the debate about the nature and role of women—a point to which I shall return.

No comments: