Oh, are we negging? Let me try..

            With an arguably over-interest in the concept of Psychological Oppression as described by Sandra Lee Bartky, I went online searching my very favorite comic, (Randall Monroe of xkcd.), for hints at validating the feminist perspective. I wasn’t sure if I bought the concept of psychological oppression as presented by Bartky, but I went to view feminist materials, on a forum without feminist basis, with an eye toward oppressive features relevant to human psychology. The reason why I immediately jumped to searching for non-feminist platforms was to gauge the accuracy and power of arguments made within the feminist platform- I wanted to see if it actually applied. I thought that this method was potentially grasping at straws, given that the few classes we have had so far suggest a deep-seeded, unconscious predisposition of males, especially white males, for engaging in sexist behavior. I was surprised to find some particularly excellent comics that I felt pertained to the class discussion on psychological oppression. One in particular involved the pick-up method of negging, which at its very core is psychological. Such comic is below.

                But first: For those of you who do not know what negging is: negging is a form of pick-up which (typically) males employ when trying to take a sexual partner home. The oh-so-reliable urbandictionary definition is here. The comic itself explains negging, but blatantly, you degrade a woman by various stereotypical methods (pinpointing weight, other physical appearances, what have you). A particularly dark place of the internet calls this “seduction science”. If you want to get exceedingly enraged, you can read about negging techniques, as well as the bonus of a pathetic rebuttal to negative attention, here. 

                  Anyway, the comic:

The comic presents my initial viewpoint on both negging and psychological oppression. Why can’t the tables be turned? According to our class discussion, the table of patriarchy cannot be so easily rage-flipped. If the socialization of these inequalities is inherent in the structure, then negging, or other various forms which psychological oppression can take, are merely unidirectional, no matter how much we see it occurring both ways. I refuse to believe that the condition of things are truly that hopeless. But are they?

                Maybe if we re-asserted the definition of psychological oppression, it would help. Bartky states that psychological oppression is “dehumanizing and depersonalizing” and thus threatens autonomy in so much as we believe that autonomy is indicative of personhood. The difference then, between oppression and psychological oppression, is that the target of psychological oppression comes to believe that she “lack[s] of capacity to be autonomous.” Negging targets the psychological need for affirmation. Psychological studies has demonstrated that without affirmation, great harm can be done to the development of children and adolescents that can have lifetime effects on their self-esteem, measures of self-worth, and over-all conception of personhood. In conditioning, this effect is known as learned helplessness. Learned helplessness is like the authors definition of psychological oppression in that those who endure egregious occurrences, verbal or otherwise, come to expect them to occur, believe they cannot stop the occurrence, or even believe that they deserve it. (Here's a link to these terms in case you don't believe me. ) In a social structure where these implicit or explicit occurrences contribute to psychological oppression, it is easy to understand how this form of oppression may inflict serious harm to an individual’s sense of personhood. In that sense, the author is correct in asserting psychological oppression as one with serious consequences.

           However, psychological oppression seems to rely essentially upon mere oppression. Without the structural inequality between groups and sub-groups, psychological oppression just becomes negative psychological restructuring or conditioning. This kind of psychological phenomena is the type which can be subverted and re-focused, because it is not contingent upon the pre-existing social dynamic to derive its power. Therefore, belief of non-personhood without the oppression-reinforcing social structure is simply belief.

If it seems like this kind of psychological attack, that negging, can be directed at anyone, why has it become merely associated with women? Bartky would likely argue the association comes from the instantiation of women as a sub-group, and that association is solidified without the presence of disconfirming evidence. Yet it seems to me that associating a change in terminology for a subgroup only fosters the conceived notion of oppression. If we are socialized to believe ourselves a member of a subgroup, and we engage with that belief in terms of oppression, we are only further providing affirming feedback to a social system that needs disconfirmation. We need not believe it to accept it as a belief, and accepting it as a belief does just as much harm as believing it. Autonomy, therefore, is not self-derived, but socially derived, and belief of autonomy is the opposite (Bartky herself admits of this). Beliefs feed the social beast, such that if I believe I’m being oppressed, I will see occurrences as oppressive, and in turn, I will be oppressed. Whatever we put into the social system, we get back, translated, modified and extorted by the inputs of the other occupants. In other words, psychological oppression feeds oppression, just as much as it relies upon it. To break the feedback loop, needn’t we simply stop viewing sexism as oppressive?