There is no Feminism under Capitalism
Why I think Hollywood needs to go down and how Stirner's egoism can help...
Listen to this to get in the mood:
I just finished watching the 2022 movie Luckiest Girl Alive - a psychological thriller based on a book written by Jessica Knoll. The story revolves around the protagonist, Ani FaNelli, a successful young woman living in New York City. On the surface, Ani appears to have it all – a coveted job at a prestigious magazine, a wealthy fiancé, and a carefully curated image. But as the narrative unfolds, it becomes clear that Ani is harboring dark secrets and tons of trauma from her past.
The story dives pretty deep into Ani's traumatic teenage years at her elite private school that continues to haunt her. As Ani prepares for her upcoming wedding, she is confronted with the opportunity to revisit and confront her past. And this past includes a horrifying night where she is raped multiple times, bullying, a school shooting, and a mother who harbors deep seated internalized misogyny.
I thought the movie was pretty good. It was relatable, the main character’s struggle was believable and it felt psychologically consistent with how the trauma of rape often leads to extreme vigilance and a disconnection from oneself. But as I watched the last few moments of the movie, I suddenly felt disillusioned and annoyed.
And I want to tell you why: In the last few minutes of the movie, the proagonist - having finally decided to share what happened to her - is seen walking around NYC and getting on the subway. Narrations of women reading her article and commenting on it are shown as she is standing or walking beside them. There is no communication other than the narration of the women commenting on the op-ed which the protagonist published in The New York Times.
Here are the women which are shown:
So as I am watching the immaculately dressed and beautiful Mila Kunis make her way past these “common ladies” I feel mad. I am thinking “why the fuck can’t they just have one of them play the protagonist”? Isn’t the whole point of showing these women that it is relatable?
So why the front? Why the bullshit?
And this has been a trend lately. To make a movie more compelling, we are shown how it relates to reality in the end. How it holds a message. How we are supposed to feel like we are being represented.
But listen here, Hollywood. You’re not getting away with it that easy.
I know that what is happening here is the common neoliberal finger-pointing “healthy capitalism”-activism which misses the damn point every single time:
There is no feminism under capitalism.
"Whatever is unnamed, undepicted in images, whatever is omitted from biography, censored in collections of letters, whatever is misnamed as something else, made difficult-to-come-by, whatever is buried in the memory by the collapse of meaning under an inadequate or lying language—this will become, not merely unspoken, but unspeakable."
Susan Sontag
The Feminist Facade
Hollywood's commitment to feminist narratives is commendable, but the overemphasis on casting exceptionally beautiful actresses creates a dissonance between the message and the medium.
And this is what it leads to:
The industry's reluctance to cast actresses who deviate from the conventional norms perpetuates the myth that representation is somehow disconnected from the real world.
Constant exposure to a limited representation of women in the media can have profound effects on societal perceptions. Hollywood's reluctance to embrace average-looking actresses potentially alienates a vast portion of the audience. But it doesn’t. And that’s because it reinforces the internalized misogyny we were all taught. Still…we try to be beautiful above all else. And no amount of liberal feminism can use that to make a true dent in the ways in which women suffer emotionally and psychologically due to the sexualization and idealization of our bodies.
True feminist activism in Hollywood should extend beyond appearances. In fact, it should extend beyond collectives, beyond epistemology even. It should be in the hands of the individual.
But for us to get there, we need to have enough individuals see that Hollywood has a massive platform and constantly spouts its commitment to women’s liberation because it doesn’t want us to actually desire women’s liberation. And as long as we keep our brainwashed minds in the realm of aesthetics, we are risking capitalisms co-optation and exploitation of the very psychological issues we seek to erase with feminist activism.
A Brief Feminist Analysis of Hollywood’s ‘Average-Phobia’
To understand that, let’s first look at feminist theory:
First of all, I would like to critique Hollywood's casting choices as perpetuating the objectification of women, and emphasizing the prevalence of the male gaze. The industry's tendency to prioritize conventionally attractive actresses reinforces the notion that a woman's value is linked to her physical appearance.
Examining Hollywood through a feminist lens also involves considering the intersection of beauty standards and reproductive labor. The industry places a disproportionate burden on actresses to conform to certain beauty ideals, which can be seen as a form of emotional labor. There is an unequal distribution of expectations and labor within the film industry.
I would also like to emphasize the importance of intersectionality, and questioning Hollywood's tendency to tokenize certain groups of women. The casting of conventionally attractive actresses disregards the diverse experiences of women across race, age, body type, and other intersecting identities, reinforcing a limited and exclusionary definition of feminism.
Hollywood's claim of empowering women through feminist narratives is bullshit. The exploitation of actresses who conform to beauty standards should raise questions about the authenticity of empowerment.
The agency afforded to actresses in Hollywood is an important focal point as well. Casting decisions that prioritize physical appearance over talent limit the agency of actresses to portray authentic and multifaceted characters. A feminist critique calls for the industry to recognize and celebrate the agency of women beyond their physical attributes.
In brief, it is pretty obvious that Hollywood's feminist activism isn’t driven by a genuine commitment to social change. It is a commercialized endeavor. The industry's prioritization of profit over genuine empowermen is a form of co-optation that dilutes the transformative potential of feminist narratives.
Why There Is No Feminism Under Capitalism
The argument that there is no feminism under capitalism is rooted in a critical perspective that highlights how capitalist structures can perpetuate and even co-opt feminist principles. This perspective draws on the intersection of feminist theory and critiques of capitalism.
The framework I will be using here in this essay to analyze this assumption and phenomenon is the critical work of Deleuze and Guattari in their texts A Thousand Plateaus and Anti-Oedipus. Then I will present some thoughts on how Egoist Anarchism lends a framework for resistance against the cooptation of feminism by capitalism.
Here are the reasons why there is no feminism under capitalism:
Critics - me, included - argue that under capitalism, feminist principles and activism become commodified and depoliticized. The market system tends to absorb and repackage feminist ideas in ways that align with consumerist values, and when Feminism becomes a marketable brand it loses its potential to be a force of challenge to systemic inequalities.
Capitalism tends to promote forms of feminism that focus on individual empowerment through consumption rather than addressing systemic issues. This is how it’s done. A simple representation mechanism. Concepts like "empowerment feminism" or "choice feminism" are emphasized by capitalism because they highlight personal choices within the existing system rather than challenging the structural roots of gender inequality.
Another issue is the weird relationship between capitalism and patriarchy. They are interconnected systems that mutually reinforce each other. Capitalism benefits from traditional gender roles that maintain a reserve of cheap or unpaid labor, often shouldered by women. So if we were to anthropomorphize capitalism, the profit motive is like the foundation of its internal rationale. It needs to perpetuate stereotypes and control desire. And the best way to do that is to make sure that people are so miserable and have such little self-worth, they will literally work themselves to death in the name of capitalism.
Furthermore, capitalism neutralizes any kind of radical potential by aestheticizing it by maintaining the desire rationale within corporations. Corporations engage in performative gestures of support for gender equality without addressing underlying structural issues. It’s like when someone creates another lie to hide an original lie. It works….for a minute.
Most scholars and thinkers will argue that true feminist liberation requires challenging the economic foundations of capitalism- as in exploring alternative economic models that prioritize cooperation, equality, and sustainability that align more closely with feminist principles than the competitive and profit-driven nature of capitalism.
But this is only treating the symptom, not the root cause.
How Capitalism Achieves This …
Before we talk about the root cause, let’s analyze Hollywood’s part in the cooptation of feminist activism through the lens of Deleuze and Guattari's work, particularly their ideas on capitalism and deterritorialization and depoliticization.
Deleuze and Guattari's concept of deterritorialization suggests that capitalism operates by breaking down established structures and reorganizing them in new ways. In this context, the commodification and repackaging of feminist ideas within the market system represent a deterritorialization of the original political and transformative potential of feminist activism. And Hollywood’s rejection of the “average” and tokenism is a facilitator of this effect.
Within a capitalist system, feminist activism undergoes a process of "becoming-commodity," where its radical and political aspects are transformed into marketable products. This commodification detaches feminism from its original territorialized state, turning it into a consumable and easily digestible entity.
In relation to their rhizomatic model, which envisions interconnected and non-hierarchical structures, Deleuze and Guattari show us how this applies to bullshit feminism in Hollywood. The commodification of feminist principles into brief cutaway of real women and then the infinite beauty of the rich and famous disrupts the rhizomatic connections, and turns women’s liberation into a linear, hierarchical brand that aligns with consumerist values.
So in the same way, Hollywood feminism is a vessel for the suppression of anti-production as a resistance against established norms.
But this isn’t even something capitalism does to contain or control minds for the production and maintenance of a stable system, as one could argue with government or religion. The co-optation is a mechanism that neutralizes the revolutionary potential of feminism simply because it is incompatible with the market system. The market can’t work with it. So it changes it.
… & What We Can Do About It
Deleuze and Guattari introduce the idea of schizophrenia as a positive force against the repressive nature of capitalism. In the context of feminism in Hollywood becoming commodified, I agree that the commodification as a form of repressive territorialization hinders the potential for feminist activism to embody a liberating and transformative schizophrenic production. But the answer cannot be found in collective action but rather, in individualist action of individual self-empowerment, detached from any large scale cultural liberation.
Because it is the only way to affect desire.
Egoist anarchism, often associated with Max Stirner, emphasizes individual autonomy, the rejection of external authorities, and the pursuit of one's own desires. Applying egoist anarchist principles in the context of feminist activism and the commodification of feminism involves recognizing and asserting one's autonomy in the face of external pressures and commodifying forces.
Deleuze and Guattari's concept of schizophrenia, in the context of their work "Anti-Oedipus," refers to a mode of thinking and being that resists fixed structures and embraces a fluid, multiplicitous existence. In the context of feminism, embracing a "schizophrenic" approach involves resisting the fixed narratives and commodification imposed by capitalism.
Egoist anarchism encourages individuals to reject repressive territorialization – the imposition of fixed norms and structures that limit individual freedom. In the case of feminism becoming commodified, an egoist anarchist approach involves actively resisting market-friendly narratives imposed on feminist principles.
An egoist anarchist perspective encourages the autonomous production of ideas and desires as well. In the face of commodification, individuals can embrace a schizophrenic, multiplicitous approach to feminist activism, which can foster diverse and autonomous expressions of feminist thought that resist easy assimilation into marketable brands. This can be achieved by unleashing creative and transformative forces that go beyond the commodified representations. Individuals can cultivate a space for diverse, self-determined expressions of feminism that challenge and disrupt repressive territorialization.
So, really…applying egoist anarchist principles to activism means focusing on your own desires. Figuring them out, deconstructing them and isolating them from collective desires, and unapologetically following their call. So first, you have to reject activism altogether. Rejecting the validity of feminism, of activism and of any external authority of meaning. Not because they are stupid and don’t work but because the only way to affect desire is to get to the only thing worth experiencing to your mind - which is whatever the individual desires. If that includes the liberation of women to change the position you take within some grand scheme of things, then it carries exactly the meaning it needs to carry to be power- and meaningful to you. If it isn't desired then it could simply be ignored.
That is a world I want to live in.
Inequality exists for a reason. Because the oppression of a woman gave pleasure and power to an oppressor.
The reason never goes any deeper than desire.
And we are at a point where our desire isn’t our own.
As long as we let the world control what we desire, we let the world control what we do.
Capitalism’s only interest is to control desire to continue producing. For the sake of producing.