The investigation into Brett Kavanaugh’s past behavior raised questions about consent, privilege, and embodiment with the American people. Many object to rewarding the actions Kavanaugh took in his youth, and see the disregard of their concerns as a sign of the privilege white men still have in this country. The other side invokes the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ standard, arguing that Kavanaugh’s treatment is oppression. Both sides invoke the harms that Ford and Kavanaugh have endured as evidence of the other side’s hysteria.
Navigating this debate requires understanding it’s context. Women in Philosophy asked several philosophers to provide some for this special edition of the series.
Thanks to the following individuals for their contributions.
Katharine Jenkins (University of Nottingham)
Debra Jackson (California State University, Bakersfield)
Linda Martín Alcoff (Hunter College and CUNY Graduate Center, New York)
Katharine Jenkins
My current work focuses on the nature of social kinds, especially kinds such as ‘woman’ that are linked to oppression. Like many social ontologists, I think to be a particular kind of social being is to be subject to certain social constraints and enablements. In other words, if we want to understand what it is to be a woman (understood as a certain kind of social being) we need to ask: what does being a woman enable one to do, and what does it prevent one from doing, socially speaking? And, more importantly for our purposes, what does it enable others to do, or prevent them from doing, to one? I also argue that we can only answer these questions by looking at what actually happens to people in the world, not by focusing only on what people explicitly think about how they should be answered.
I think sexual violence is particularly significant in this regard. Most people would say that women are entitled to be free from sexual violence, but when we look at the world, we see that when white men commit sexual violence against women, which is often, they almost always do so with impunity. The case of Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh is a particularly striking example of this dynamic. As many people have observed, Ford is the ‘perfect victim’: white, ‘respectable’, clear, co-operative. Moreover, the people considering her testimony have not had to decide whether to use it as the basis for sending someone to prison, but simply whether it provides a reason to refrain from appointing the man who she says sexually assaulted her to one of the most powerful positions in the land. One might reasonably think that if ever a woman’s claim that a man committed sexual violence against her were to have a chance of being taken seriously, this would be it. And yet Ford has been subject to outrageously belittling and hostile treatment, and ultimately her testimony has been rejected by many of those to whom it was addressed. Or – which is still more disturbing – they have judged that she is telling the truth, but that it doesn’t matter for the purposes of their decision.
When we look at the world, then, we see that women do not have a genuine social entitlement to be free from sexual violence. In fact, society systematically facilitates, denies and excuses white men’s sexual violence against women. Credible allegations of sexual violence provide no barrier to white men’s gaining access to social positions of great power and status, such as the position of Supreme Court Judge – or, for that matter, the position of President. And if I am right about how social kinds exist, then this fact is part of what defines the social position of women. What it is to be a woman is, in part, to be someone who can be sexually violated with complete impunity. I think one reason that events such as the Kavanaugh hearings resonate so deeply and painfully with so many women is that they bring this point home. They remind us that we are women, and they remind us what that means.
Debra Jackson
In the rhetorical space of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the nation has witnessed epistemic injustice committed against Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Ford has been physically and psychologically harmed not only by her assailant, not only by those who have harassed and terrorized her and her family in retaliation for her willingness to speak out publicly, but also harmed in her capacity as a knower.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s hand over Ford’s mouth not only muffled her voice during the assault, it silenced her testimony for three decades. And, just as her pleas for him to stop were ineffectual, her testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee was unable to stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Kristie Dotson’s concepts of “testimonial smothering” and “testimonial quieting” are apt. Ford stayed silent for so long because others were unable or unwilling to listen, and when she finally broke her silence, her testimony was ultimately dismissed by many of our nation’s Senators as not credible and/or not relevant.
Few would blame Ford if she regretted her decision to come forward. The Washington Post reported that she had asked herself, “Why suffer through the annihilation if it’s not going to matter?”
But, Ford’s testimony does matter, just as Anita Hill’s did twenty-seven years ago. In 1991, Anita Hill testified that Supreme Court justice nominee Clarence Thomas sexually harassed her while he was her supervisor at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Although her testimony did not prevent his appointment to the Supreme Court, the publicity of the event encouraged victims to recognize themselves as such and report the discrimination they faced. In the years following the hearings, the number of sexual harassment cases reported rose from 6,883 in 1991 to 15,618 in 1998.
Ford’s testimony powerfully contributes to the growing chorus of sexual assault victims fighting for recognition of the harms they have endured and for their status as epistemic agents. The nation’s largest anti-sexual violence organization, RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network), reported record numbers of calls following Ford’s testimony. Between Thursday, the day of the hearing, and Sunday, RAINN saw a 338 percent increase in hotline traffic. The day following the hearing, Friday, September 28, 2018, was reported by RAINN as the busiest day in the 24-year history of the hotline, with more than 3,000 people receiving help.
While the epistemic injustice Ford has experienced is a failure of recognition and has been exacerbated by the ordeal she has suffered, the process of mutual recognition, embodied in the response “me too,” offers a restorative response to this epistemic injustice at both the interpersonal and collective level. What is so powerful about “me too” is that it establishes a symmetrical relationship between the victim-testifier and the hearer-respondent, in which mutual vulnerability and mutual authority to interpret and judge are recognized. In this way, victims are no longer reified as objects of judgement, but are empowered to speak with and be recognized by each other.
Yes, heroism exacts a very high cost. But, we need heroes because, as U.S. Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy reminded us, courage is contagious. By harnessing what #MeToo founder Tarana Burke calls “empowerment through empathy,” we can continue to build a community of solidarity as we struggle toward justice.
Linda Martín Alcoff
My recent work that culminated in my book, Rape and Resistance, speaks to the recent debacle of the Kavanaugh hearings in a number of ways. The book is equally about both rape and resistance, but I argue that the key element that has galvanized the worldwide resistance over the last several decades has been the speaking out of survivors. As in the Kavanaugh case, it was the fact that Blasey Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick had the courage to come forward that gave us an opportunity for intense national explorations and debate. Survivor speech has riveted audiences and most effectively challenged the existing frameworks through which various publics understand this phenomenon. The speaking continues, but the focus now needs to be on the reception of the speech. Who controls the editing and circulation of the speech? How is it judged? The mainstream venues in which our speech circulates are rarely in our control and may have primary agendas that have nothing to do with understanding or reducing sexual violations. I argue we need to cultivate more ‘unofficial venues’ of our speech, forego an exclusive reliance on legal arenas, and develop our own norms for speaking involving truth, a contextualism that reflects variation of conditions, and a commitment to creating spaces where survivors can play a central role in refashioning new understandings of the experience.
In her testimony, we saw Blasey Ford recount a single incidence that reverberated throughout her life. How does this happen, and is it because women, or some women, have weak boundaries or an otherwise inadequate ability to psychologically contain such experiences? In the book, I draw from empirical studies to refute this idea and show how common the long-term effects are, and I also argue that we need to understand such events as having an impact on how our sexual subjectivity, or sexual self, is formed. And I try to make productive use of Foucault to criticize the libertarian tendencies among broad sectors of the public today—even the feminist public—that would counsel against judgment of sexual practices in any form beyond the simple question of “was there consent?” Rather, I develop a concept of sexual subjectivity that can allow us to create a more expansively pluralist but normative approach to our sexual lives.
I apologize for not reading the comments here carefully. But a superficial glance shows that the respondents here all assume that Brett Kavanaugh was guilty of the allegations—yes, allegations—made by Dr. Ford. But FBI investigation showed there were no supporting witnesses for Dr. Ford’s testimony. There were, instead, several alleged witnesses who said that the event as described by Dr. Ford did not happen. It is, of course, possible they were lying, as many, many people do, almost all the time, but the FBI report did not show that. According to the US system of criminal justice, enshrined in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, an accused person is innocent until proven guilty; they have the right to due process and equal protection against false conviction; and there are standards of witness testimony and evidence that must be met before someone can be found guilty of a crime. And all these civil rights protections apply whether the accused is a white man, a white woman, a black man, a black woman, an Asian/Hispanic/Native American man/woman etc. and whether they are accused of sexual assault murder or criminal trespassing. The standards of testimony and evidence, much less of due process, were not met by the Kavanaugh hearings. Therefore, Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed, despite the poor showing he made in defending himself during the Senate hearings. This is still the United States of America, not the Stalinist Soviet Union or Nazi Germany (or the US during the McCarthy era, etc.), where an accused person could be found guilty upon mere allegations without supporting testimony and their life destroyed (or worse…) as a result. And so I cannot help but think that Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation was the correct decision, however I might disagree with the decisions he might make as a justice, which might, unfortunately, be adversely affected by his experience at the Senate proceedings.
I do not know if Dr, Ford’s testimony was true or not. It was emotionally moving and quite distraught, perhaps indicating that she was describing an actual experience, or at least an experience that affected her deeply. Whether Brett Kavanaugh had anything to do with that experience can not be determined beyond a reasonable doubt, or even by a preponderance of evidence, from Dr. Ford”s testimony. Anyone familiar with Freudian psychotherapy should know that when Freud investigated stories of childhood sexual abuse, he found that it was impossible to separate false memories created by stress and trauma from the actual experience that may have given rise to what he called ‘screen memories’ disguising the actual experience. I know myself I often have difficulty distinguishing actual memories from false, distorted memories that have been placed in my mind or appeared during subconscious interludes which often appear quite compellingly real. I do however find it strange that Dr. Ford is a professional psychologist associated with Stanford University, but appears unable to satisfactorally cope with her traumatic experience, when many, many human beings, women men and children, have had enormously more damaging and traumatic experiences and have had to cope with them, without the support of the US psychiatric establishment or US medical facilities. I think of Syrian civilians in Raqqa during the US bombing, who watched their entire city destroyed, their families killed, their children buried under the rubble of destroyed buildings, and dying slowly, in terrible pain for days, because nobody could dig them out… And I have somewhat less sympathy for complaints about the impact of the US system on those, like Dr. Ford. like myself, like many others, who have had painful experiences and had to get over them, and much more sympathy for the millions of suffering people damaged or killed by the US war on terror, which has been supported by US citizens like Dr. Ford, myself, and many others, whether we like it or not, without the slightest whimper of protest from the American public. And which still goes on killing innocent people, while we watch the Senate hearings, and indulge in our pampered, privileged lifestyles as American citizens, who do not have to worry that somebody might start bombing us next. At least not today.
I would also be more likely to accept the position of those who say: ‘We believe all the women!’ had I not personally had the opportunity to witness both men and women fabricating false allegations about things I supposedly said or did, without the slightest shred of truth, knowing that they were false, and still hating me intensely for things they knew were lies, and causing me painful trauma as a result. I have had many, many bad experiences, sexual and otherwise, and have seen my life destroyed, many, many times, and had to get over it without the support of my family, friends, teachers, or colleagues, and without the support of the US psychiatric establishment or US medical facilities, which, I’m afraid, aren’t much help, anyway. And when I tried to speak about what was done to me in classrooms or courts, I have been shut down and silenced, until I no longer believe I will ever be able to tell the truth about what was done to me. I feel sympathy for Dr. Ford, and, yes, Brett Kavanaugh, too, who both were put through painful experiences in the service of somebody else’s political agenda, for the perverse entertainment of the American public. I do not feel the interests of sexual assault survivors were served by the ;proceedings, nor do I believe that what transpired served the interests of justice. The US criminal justice system and the American psychiatric establishment are both still drastically in need of reform. But, under the circumstances, I am afraid that the US Senate had no option but to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, who was duly nominated by President Trump. And if we really want to change that situation, we need to change the procedures by which justices are nominated, we need to change the electoral college that got the president elected, we need to change the procedures by which accused persons are tried and often found guilty upon false pretenses and false allegations, instead of continuing to carry on sham, farcical proceedings like the Senate hearings, by which two people were dragged through the muck without accomplishing anything to make this country more equitable and just to those who suffer from it. As many, many people, not just Dr, Ford, not just Judge Kavanaugh, not just I have suffered from it. But, finally, I also support the basic rights of all people here to speak out what they believe, and hope someday the truth might be told for all of us.
“Credible allegations of sexual violence provide no barrier to white men’s gaining access to social positions of great power and status, such as the position of Supreme Court Judge – or, for that matter, the position of President. And if I am right about how social kinds exist, then this fact is part of what defines the social position of women.”
= = =
I would be interested in understanding how the author knows the allegations here were credible, given that (a) there was no corroborating evidemce; (b) the FBI found nothing; (c) a prosecutor, specializing in sexual assault, found them non-credible.
= = =
“Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s hand over Ford’s mouth not only muffled her voice during the assault, it silenced her testimony for three decades.”
= = =
I would like to understand how the author knows Kavanaugh put his hand on Ford’s mouth, given (a) – (c) above.
= = =
“As in the Kavanaugh case, it was the fact that Blasey Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick had the courage to come forward that gave us an opportunity for intense national explorations and debate. Survivor speech has riveted audiences and most effectively challenged the existing frameworks through which various publics understand this phenomenon.”
= = =
I would like to know how the author knows the women in question are “survivors”, given (a) – (c) above.
= = =
The entries in the post sound like the words of partisan activists, not philosophers. I’m surprised they appear on the Blog of the American Philosophical Association.