KEYWORDS

COLONIALISM AND CAPITALISM

During the late 1600s, nations built their economies on a feudalistic backbone of the poor. In exchange for protection, serf-based labor and systems were created to maintain peace amongst those who did the work, versus those who lived off the work of others. The dichotomy between rich and poor still existed much into the 18th century, yet the economic exchange would later evolve into capitalism. The industrialization wave swept through western nations, and with it, economic brains such as Adam Smith, David Hume, and Karl Marx, presented their perspectives on how markets should be accessed, who should have access them, and how this distribution would be considered equitable for all. Expanding markets in search of expanding riches became a cornerstone of the capitalistic mentality. Yet sitting on the outskirts of the socio-economic bell curve, and under the Darwinian “survival of the fittest” perspective, there will always be “winners” and “losers” in the game for expanding one’s financial and political empire.

In their best attempts to make this a reality, political elites of the 18th and 19th centuries expanded into unknown lands across the world. The Berlin Conference of 1884 marked the largest expanse and acquisition of African lands by European elites—most of whom were drawling lines in the sand to land they had never stepped a foot on. Colonialism was the greatest display of who had access to potential riches, and who did not. The repercussions of this androcentric perspective created a social hierarchy that marginalized communities–much of which is still in effect today.

Colonialism and capitalism are discussed here in a symbiotic relationship. This is because it is often difficult to speak about one while negating the context of the other. Colonialism played a major role in the development of capitalism. Culturally, capitalism instigated colonial expansion conferences like ones in Berlin, through the need to compete in global markets. It is in this regard that speaking about both becomes very important, especially when discussing how political expansion (colonialism) and economic markets (capitalism) affect areas of society like healthcare.

______________________________

Flaherty, Eoin. “Geographies of Communality, Colonialism and Capitalism: Ecology and the World-System.” Historical Geography, vol. 41, 2013, pp. 59–79.

Steinmetz, George. Sociology and Empire : the Imperial Entanglements of a Discipline. Duke University Press, 2013.

Steinmetz, George. “A Child of the Empire: British Sociology and Colonialism, 1940s–1960s.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, vol. 49, no. 4, 2013, pp. 353–378.

STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE

First presented by Norweigen philosopher, Joseph Galtung, structural violence is a form of violence in which social structures or social institutions harm people by preventing their ability to meet their own basic needs. Galtung defines violence via the context that “… human beings are being influence so that their actual somatic and mental realizations are below their potential realizations” (Galtung 168). These “realizations,” or basic needs, are obstructed when certain groups are devalued or not prioritized by social structures and institutions. This devaluement of social needs is then considered a form of violence, or social injustice, when these basic needs cannot be met (Galtung 171).

Paul Famer, physician and medical anthropologist, developed his theories on structural violence during his work in Haiti. In his paper “An Anthropology of Structural Violence,” Farmer notes that to define present day structural violences by negating their historical constructions, only further complicates the tasks of describing an “ethnocentric present” (Farmer 309). History and colonialism in the developing ethnocentric present, serve as major actors and actants in the construction of disparities between those with access to meeting basic needs to those that cannot. Basic needs, or social determinants of health, are defined by the World Health Organization as access to medical care needs, access to adequate and nutritious foods, healthy physical and mental health, access to healthy working conditions, access to decent housing, sanitary and clean environments, and access to dependable transportation (Saint).

Examples of structural violence’s can take on many forms and can exist at any level economic development. Even in our own city of Seattle, WA, structural violences against access to quality health care is seen when specialists congregate central to the downtown area, yet those living outside of the city metropolitan burdened with unreliable transportation, often times do not have the means, whether it be financial or in the form of time, to reach the services they need for their treatment. Patient’s often forego treatment because seeking it is not feasible or within their means to do so. Also, those who with state and federal insurances such as Medicare/Medicaid, who’s premiums pay so little to providers, often times have a difficult time finding a provider that accepts their insurance.

The androcentric bias creates a deeper divide between the rich and poor by socially devaluing the needs of marginalized communities. When this bias is coupled with political and economic institutions, the result is what we see as a structural violence. The capitalistic culture perpetuates androcentrism and structural violence by supporting the elites vicariously by depreciating the needs of the gendered and racialed others.

______________________________

Galtung, Johan. “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research.” Journal of Peace Research, vol. 6, no. 3, 1969, pp. 167–191. 

Farmer, Paul. “An Anthropology of Structural Violence.” Current Anthropology, vol. 45, no. 3, 2004, pp. 305–325. 

Galtung, Johan, and Tord Höivik. “Structural and Direct Violence: A Note on Operationalization.” Journal of Peace Research, vol. 8, no. 1, 1971, pp. 73–76.

Gould, Carol C. “Solidarity and the Problem of Structural Injustice in Healthcare.” Bioethics, vol. 32, no. 9, 2018, pp. 541–552.

Saint, Victoria. “GLOBAL ACTION ON THE SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH TO ADDRESS HEALTH EQUITY.” Supplementary Report on Progress in Implementing the Rio Political Declaration on Social Determinants of Health and WHA65.8, May 2015, www.who.int/social_determinants/implementation/WHA68_sdh-resolution65-8-May2015.pdf?ua=1.

ANDROCENTRISM

When explaining cultural dissonances and disparities, not only is knowing the history that produced a present moment helpful, the context that couples that history is vital to understanding how that present moment was formed. With respect to what Charlotte Gilman would later describe as Androcentrism in her 1911 book “The Man-Made World: Our Androcentric Culture,” knowing the history of the patriarch’s development and the cultural context that shaped it, both the development and the context are acknowledgements that are essential to understanding the definition of Androcentrism but also its importance to feminist theory.

Gerda Lerner uses Mesopotamia’s history and context to compare and contrast women’s political and social roles in society pre-Christ. Male dominance during this time-period, or “pre-history,” wasn’t a strong feature of societal causes. It wasn’t till the spread of Christian theology that “dominated historical thought” that a woman’s role wasn’t restricted to her biological function. Yet post-Christ, the spread of this theology set the “preparatory stage for true history” through the birth of Christ (Lerner 15) thus null and voiding any Mesopotamian law or “pre-history,” which was then considered barbaric (Lerner 15). It was in this transition that the female body became a vessel for life rather than a vessel for thought. The generderization of the female body and the roles adhering to it, became domesticated, oftentimes perceived as property, while the “monogamous family changed into the patriarchal family (Lerner 22).” Over the course of the next several hundred years, the appropriation of property, the implementation of imperialism, the application of capitalism, and introduction of Marxist conservatism, the relationship between gendered bodies became intertwined with the ever evolving patriarchal thought (Lerner 22). The blurred lines between body and society degraded and diluted the value in women’s work—yet bred a culture that prioritized and normalized masculinity. This process divided the sexes, giving maleness a sense of privilege. Furthermore, the norming of white male bodies, maleness, and all things masculine, created a sense of othering for all symbols—literal or otherwise—living outside of that construct (Said 8).  This universal epistemology, this monopoly over points of view from history and culture, encompasses the limiting aspects of the androcentric perspective, or as Rosser et. al. would describe as an androcentric bias.

Thus, brings us to the definition of Androcentrism itself: Androcentrism is “the privileging of males, male experience, and the male perspective” (Bem 3). Charlotte Perkins would describe just how far this perspective penetrates culture. From the symbiosis of mental attitude towards the idea of a woman, to the literal definition of what a woman’s role is (Perkins 12), an androcentric perspective is important when addressing the context of a woman’s role, the context of gendered bodies, and understanding the need for feminist thought. More specifically an androcentric perspective is important when considering women’s health, and more broadly, life expectancy and mortality of women and other gendered bodies.

______________________________

Bem, Sandra L. The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality. Yale University Press, 1993.
Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. The Man-Made World; or, Our Androcentric Culture. Charlton, 1911.
Lerner, Gerda. The Creation of Patriarchy. Oxford University Press, NY. 1986

Rosser, Sue. Androcentric Bias in Clinical Research. Women's Health, 1994.
Said, Edward. Orientalism. Random House, 1978.

WOMEN'S HEALTH

In order to understand women’s health and the factors that are limiting it, we must also consider how a woman’s body is defined within the lenses (Bem 6) that are viewing them. Also we must considerer the role of women and the work they produce. It’s within these roles that we can compare and contrast the inequalities amongst genders, and speak in terms of “what makes women sick.”

When describing the full perspective of female gender roles, Leslie Doyal describe these roles in terms of work. In these terms, women’s work has three dimensions: biological reproduction, social reproduction, and physical production. Biological reproduction is the work required to bring new life into this world. This area of work encompasses preconception to intercourse, from childbirth to breastfeeding, from menstruation to contraception. This biological work is the general maintenance to preventing life or producing it, and everything therein. Social reproduction is the work required to bring new generations of workers into the world. From clothing to feeding, to loving and mourning, to scolding and teaching, the socialization of new generations takes work. Last but not least, Doyal introduces physical production, in the forms of creating value or wealth by producing goods and services. From the androcentric point of view in a capitalistic patriarchy, the value is generated by goods produced, not by viable members added to society through biological and social work. But at the heart of Leslie Doyal’s argument, is that while knowing these roles are important for giving someone context to what is valued and what is not, reducing the value of social and biological work reduces the value of women’s physical and mental health.

While Doyal is describing the disparities that contribute to the extra efforts put forth by woman, that are then considered negligible within the androcentric bias (Rosser et.al 12), the gendered lenses (Bem 7) are either congruent with societal coding (Hall 43), or are repelled by it. In the case with men, lenses push in the same direction as their masculinity. Because the patriarchy’s androcentric bias normalizes maleness, the support of maleness becomes neutral. Whereas lenses push in the opposite direction for women. Within the gendered lenses under the androcentric bias, femaleness pushes against these lenses, creating a paralyzing effect on biological and anatomical predispositions. This furthers the androcentric bias, but then complicates the importance of women’s biological and social reproduction duties. It also furthers their devaluement.

This is all important when addressing the concerns to Leslie Doyal’s big question: What makes women sick? When the reality is, it’s many things. From the way a body is gendered, to the expectations placed on that body despite personal feelings, to how that body is seen and viewed in a world that others (Said 8) it, to how that body is devalued in the scope of the society it lives in – all of these factors contribute and affect women’s health through structural violences (Farmer). Which therefore contribute and affect women’s mortality. According to Paul Farmer, these violences are considered structural because they are “embedded in the political and economic organization of our social world.” If it is the form of medical specialists living in the city proper, yet the first affordable housing spaces for a single mother of 2 is an hour bus ride south, the likelihood this mother would have the time and means to see her specialist as often as she needed. The lenses that push against women’s bodies, the androcentric bias that perpetuates those lenses, and the structural violences that cause social-political and social-economical red tape against accessibility to quality care, contribute to women’s health in a multitude of ways.  

​

________________________________

Bem, Sandra L. The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality. Yale University Press, 1993.
Crenshaw, Kimberle. Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics. Taylor and Francis, 1989.
Doyal, Leslie. What Makes Women Sick: Gender and the Political Economy of Health". Rutgers: Rutgers University Press, 1995.
Farmer, Paul. Pathologies of power: rethinking health and human rights. American Journal of Public Health, 1999.
Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. The Man-Made World; or, Our Androcentric Culture. Charlton, 1911.
Hall, Stuart. Encoding/Decoding. Media Studies: A Reader . Edinburgh University Press, 1996.
hooks, bell. Feminism is For Everybody: Passionate Politics. Cambridge: South End Press, 2000.
Latour, Bruno. Reassembling The Social. New York: The Oxfort University Press Inc., 2005.
Rosser, Sue. Androcentric Bias in Clinical Research. Women's Health, 1994.
Said, Edward. Orientalism. Random House, 1978.

FEMINIST RESEARCH

Within the realm of an androcentric perspective, and with the importance of women’s health and the factors contributing to poor life expectancies, the realm of feminist research was born to address the disparity between the support of female bodies and the research needed to keep them healthy.

Sandra Harding describes feminist research as a double dimension or duality construction of new knowledge. That in order to understand the production of social change, we must also consider that the female body is within that process. Harding describes a feminist method both qualitative and quantitative gathering of data through areas of methodology and epistemology (Harding 22). Through her gathering methods of interviewing, surveying, observing, living, and comparing, we create research on what we perceive. Whereas the feminist research approach possesses an epistemology that refers to theories of knowledge—what in our world do we know, and who are those who know it.

For feminist theorist’s producing research, the importance lies in who is producing the research, and for whom the research is supposedly benefiting. Also that this research be free of an androcentric bias (Rosser et. al) that could possibly obstruct research by opinion. Charlotte Perkins gave the example of Sigmund Freud’s powerful gender study that had several contributions to psychology and the mental health discipline as a whole, yet was produced from the perspective of one normal gendered body versus a deviant one (Gilman 19). The male body was considered normal, while the female body was by “his definition, a deviant human being lacking a penis, whose entire psychological structure supposedly centered on the struggle to compensate for this deficiency.” This very obvious androcentric perspective drove a divide between the role of a female body versus that of her male equiparts (Gilman 19). This perspective is especially damaging when conduction research for drugs that are to be used on female bodies, but reserve the actual conducting trails on anyone but women themselves.

This coveting of female bodies, in almost a sense of protecting it, perpetuated by androcentrism and the devaluement of the work female bodies produce, have a compounding effect on women’s health. It also furthers the need to address women’s health through the power of feminist research by highlighting the needs specific to the female body. Challenging androcentrisms and producing research for women, by women, is one way of decreasing the gap between gender disparities.

__________________________________

Bem, Sandra L. The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality. Yale University Press, 1993.
Crenshaw, Kimberle. Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics. Taylor and Francis, 1989.
Doyal, Lesley. What Makes Women Sick: Gender and the Political Economy of Health". Rutgers: Rutgers University Press, 1995.
Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. The Man-Made World; or, Our Androcentric Culture. Charlton, 1911.
Hall, Stuart. Encoding/Decoding. Media Studies: A Reader . Edinburgh University Press, 1996.
Harding, Sandra, and Kathryn Norberg. “New Feminist Approaches to Social Science Methodologies: An Introduction.”. Vol. 30. Signs, 2005. 4 vols.hooks, bell. Feminism is For Everybody: Passionate Politics. Cambridge: South End Press, 2000.
Latour, Bruno. Reassembling The Social. New York: The Oxfort University Press Inc., 2005.
Rachel Alsop, Annette Fitzsimons, Kathleen Lennon. Theorizing Gender: An Introduction. Wiley, 2002.
Rosser, Sue. Androcentric Bias in Clinical Research. Women's Health, 1994.
Said, Edward. Orientalism. Random House, 1978.