Language, power, work, sacrifice

Sonia Johnson gives us excellent insight into the use of language to create power – or rather, the perception of power it can create. (Maybe this is what Foucault is saying somewhere in there…) She explains, “when men name patriarchy powerful, women believe themselves to be powerless because they do not behave as men behave” (FRT, 302). She wants women to learn that their power comes from within (like Starhawk), and underscores the importance of making change in ourselves, today, to make things happen, to make the women’s world reality.

However, she is opposed to working or learning because, she claims, such acts are just doing things for the future, and we should be living in and for the present. “Individuals should do exactly what they want at every moment….We must figure out how everyone’s needs can be completely filled without any of us doing a single thing we don’t really want to do, without even the smallest sacrifice” (FRT, 318).

Instead, she advocates gift giving to fulfill needs of others in society. “In the process of gift giving, no one’s needs or desires are compromised, and no one is ‘working’ or striving to meet those needs” (FRT, 319).

Perhaps my definition of a gift is much different than hers, but I fail to understand how Johnson can be so sharply critical of self-sacrifice and work when they can be such an essential part of giving. One can maintain a profound respect for oneself, and still make a sacrifice in order to give to another. Why can’t self-sacrifice be a gift? And what gift doesn’t involve work – and if it doesn’t, is it really a gift or just something being discarded or handed on?

Johnson seems to see self-sacrifice and work as a relinquishing of her power to others. She finds great freedom in being able to just be herself, do exactly what she wants, and not have any responsibility for the feelings, beliefs or behaviors of others. (RFRT, 300). But with such a self-centered perspective, she has isolated herself from family, friends and children in order to remain free of hierarchical relationships and other power structures.

I can appreciate her desire to step away from situations that place her under the control of the patriarchy. But I fear she’s taken this to such an extreme – i.e. her decision never to listen to a man again, including refusing to take questions from men in audiences at her lectures. (which I imagine Booth would be quite disappointed at this blatant refusal to attempt LR). She won’t enter the traditional rhetorical realm because she believes that only legitimizes the patriarchy and therefore, her efforts would be fruitless. But I think by failing to establish a bond with others whereby they are helped or taught or benefit from her work is equally as fruitless.