One of the concepts we discussed this week
is the role of linguistic norms in conditioning the available ways to
communicate consent. Many feminist activist campaigns use slogans such as “only
yes means yes” and previously “no means no” to communicate the standard of
consent. These slogans are designed to call out perpetrators who do not respect
the agency of individuals that express consent or non-consent. Although
ambiguous conduct and/or silence cannot be interpreted as consent under the
affirmative consent law, historically behaviour that is considered ‘irrational
risk management’ has negated the standard of explicit consent. Consequently
non-consent has often been depicted as an assertive no. Other strategies, such
as disrupting the rape script, explored by Marcus draw on similar expectations
to develop strategies to resist rape culture and sexual assault.
However, as the readings for this week
point out, linguistic norms do not allow individuals to simply say no. In other
contexts, such as a friend or acquaintance asking you to hang out, an
appropriate response would never include no on its own. Often we say that we
have other plans, other responsibilities or provide another excuses to avoid
hurt feelings. Why then, do we expect people in circumstances fraught with
gender inequalities and power dynamics (Mackinnon) to act counter to dominant
norms and express non-consent by saying no?
Campaigns that illustrate consent and
non-consent in these terms reflect the influence of neoliberal governmentality.
There is an emphasis on personal responsibility and the underlying assumption
that we are rational actors participating in transactions. With this in mind, I
am curious to know if there are feminist theorists who describe tools for combating
sexual assault by making use of existing norms, linguistic or otherwise. In
some ways this seems counter-intuitive because dominant norms are situated in
an environment of rape culture. Not to seem to pessimistic, but that suggests
that any effort to express consent, non-consent or disrupt the rape script
would be counter to dominant norms.
I think one of the major reasons why 'no' was advocated for so strongly is that, in theory, a firm no brokers no miscommunication. A no is basically the ultimate way to end a conversation -- you can't work around it, you can't argue with it. The answer is simply no.
ReplyDeleteBut as was mentioned in class, we rarely if ever just say no to something in our day to day lives. Social construction dictates that we have to work around almost every potentially awkward situation in our lives as opposed to speaking freely about what does and does not work for us. Like you say, the pressure not to hurt another person's feelings trumps having our own feelings hurt, and that means that 'no' discourse falls apart.
I don't know of any feminist theorists who are directly engaging with current norms, but I imagine they must exist. The unfortunate thing about theories is that they can be easy to dismantle, but difficult to navigate and almost impossible to replace. That's not to say that it can't be done at all -- the fact that no means no and yes means yes discourse emerged at all is a testament to the fact that dominant norms are not permanent norms -- but when we have something that society has latched onto it can be difficult to replace it.