The
concept of deprivation is key throughout Anderson’s commentary on Sen’s
argument regarding preference. Deprivation is deeply intertwined with the
status and perception of women in many societies, in addition to serving as a
factor to achieving individuality. Anderson writes, “Seriously
disadvantaged people often adapt their self-interested preferences to their
limited opportunities: they lower their aspirations to avoid frustration. 'The extent
of a person's deprivation . . . may not at all show up in the metric of
desire-fulfillment, even though he or she may be quite unable to be adequately
nourished, decently clothed, minimally educated, and properly sheltered' (Sen,
1992, p. 55)” (Anderson 23). To a certain extent Anderson implies
that societal disadvantage affects
the true preferences of an individual. In fact, this issue specifically applies
to and affects women in many societies, some more than others. Women often
become blinded of their actual
preferences by their societal ranks and presumed responsibilities. From a young
age, women grow up with the impression of taking care of the children,
depending on their husbands and being only in charge of household duties; this
allows for the problem of systematic
disadvantage of women to arise on a universal level.
The greatest issue is that women have become inferior to men. As Anderson writes, “… the cost of exiting marriage is higher for women than for men, and men therefore enjoy a threat advantage that they can exploit within marriage” (Anderson 34). Considering the fact that women often do not pursue an education and therefore lack in obtaining a substantial job, they are at an immediate disadvantage, which gives way for exploitation, especially in marriage. The problem of exploitation also affects the preference of women. To support this claim note Anderson’s following interpretation on one of Sen’s claims: “Their wide preferences include the interests of other people, often to such a high degree that they have difficulty conceiving of their own interests as distinct from those of their family members. When Indian women are asked about their own welfare, they typically answer in terms of how well their family is doing (Sen, 1990, pp. 125-6) (Anderson 34). The example of Indian women, demonstrates how women have become subconscious of their true preferences because of social status and the exploitation men have proposed of them. Overall, the issue of exploitation and inferiority among women mostly affects Individuality within a society. Women are often forced to identify themselves as mothers or housewives, thus creating a barrier to their true individualism; there become unknown of their true personal desires. Nevertheless, I wonder if and how a woman could break free from inferiority? Would such be possible in a society like India’s or China’s, where men are most dominant? Are such women even familiar with the idea and possibility of Individuality?
The greatest issue is that women have become inferior to men. As Anderson writes, “… the cost of exiting marriage is higher for women than for men, and men therefore enjoy a threat advantage that they can exploit within marriage” (Anderson 34). Considering the fact that women often do not pursue an education and therefore lack in obtaining a substantial job, they are at an immediate disadvantage, which gives way for exploitation, especially in marriage. The problem of exploitation also affects the preference of women. To support this claim note Anderson’s following interpretation on one of Sen’s claims: “Their wide preferences include the interests of other people, often to such a high degree that they have difficulty conceiving of their own interests as distinct from those of their family members. When Indian women are asked about their own welfare, they typically answer in terms of how well their family is doing (Sen, 1990, pp. 125-6) (Anderson 34). The example of Indian women, demonstrates how women have become subconscious of their true preferences because of social status and the exploitation men have proposed of them. Overall, the issue of exploitation and inferiority among women mostly affects Individuality within a society. Women are often forced to identify themselves as mothers or housewives, thus creating a barrier to their true individualism; there become unknown of their true personal desires. Nevertheless, I wonder if and how a woman could break free from inferiority? Would such be possible in a society like India’s or China’s, where men are most dominant? Are such women even familiar with the idea and possibility of Individuality?
Rachelle,
ReplyDeleteI think the answers to most of your questions could be answered in part two and probably summarized in my blog post. I'll try my best to answer them here.
First, I do not think that women are being "forced to identify themselves as mothers or housewives." To get at the flesh of Anderson's argument, we need to remove this underlying assumption. The role of women as a collective is narrowly defined through the norms of a patriarchal society. Thus, the problem is that they are simply not expected to hold the same ambitions as men that lead them to adopt the identities of different social groups throughout their lives.
Anderson is proposing that women should do their best to ignore society's expectation and to tap into their natural ambitions as human beings by going out into the world and adopting a sense of individuality. This individuality can only be accomplished by belonging to a variety of social groups. This is why Anderson urges women to actively seek employment - it opens the door to individuality by introducing a variety of different social groups outside of the family.