I recently read a piece by Corey Robin in the Dec. 12 issue of the New York Review of Books, “Empathy and the Economy.” It was the first of two articles (the second was “The Trouble with Money”) ostensibly about the economy; in fact, Robin takes a penetrating look at how human beings treat one another and, with Adam Smith as his guide in the first piece and Keynes in the second, how they might treat one another in a more harmonious and humane society. What he has to say is important—vital, in fact, if we hope soon to put a stop to the dissolution of all social exchanges into selfishness and contention.
I just want to make that clear before I go on to question a particular aspect of “Empathy and the Economy”.
I just want to make that clear before I go on to question a particular aspect of “Empathy and the Economy”.
“Empathy and the Economy” seems to have a second objective, a lesser one—specifically, a grammatical one: vigorous support for the continued substitution of the indefinite singular personal pronoun she/her for the traditional he/his—almost ubiquitous today in academic writing and coastal journalism. I suspect Robin has his sights on a proposal, which has won the imprimatur of Wikipedia, to establish the they/their as grammar's singular indefinite personal pronoun.
As a rule, the indefinite she/her’s that appear in scholarly essays, op-ed pieces, magazine articles, book reviews are intended to be as unobtrusive as possible, the idea being that they just flowed, without thinking, from the writers’ minds. The she/her’s of “Empathy and the Economy” however are far from unobtrusive; they are purposeful and insistent.
One passage in particular struck me as a ringing paean to the indefinite she/her.
To feel empathy for a friend, I must know the details of her situation. I observe what she appears to be feeling. Because sensory evidence can be misleading—my friend may not have an expressive face or tone—I speculate on what she might be feeling, given what I know about her character and situation.
But then, what are we to make of the following sentence from “Empathy and the Economy”?
The con artist does not care about his mark; he seeks to fleece her.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The con artist does not care about his mark; he seeks to fleece her.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I should put it in context. Here is the whole passage:
Think of the actor, the poet, or the con artist. Each has a deep appreciation of the experience of other people. An actor puts herself, with equal facility, into the shoes of the wicked (Goneril and Regan) or the good (Cordelia). The poet, as Keats says, “has as much delight in conceiving an Iago as an Imogen.” Neither need care about the fate or well-being of their creations. The con artist does not care about his mark; he seeks to fleece her.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think of the actor, the poet, or the con artist. Each has a deep appreciation of the experience of other people. An actor puts herself, with equal facility, into the shoes of the wicked (Goneril and Regan) or the good (Cordelia). The poet, as Keats says, “has as much delight in conceiving an Iago as an Imogen.” Neither need care about the fate or well-being of their creations. The con artist does not care about his mark; he seeks to fleece her.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did Corey Robin break his own rule for the singular impersonal pronoun? To be grammatically consistent the sentence should read:
The con artist does not care about her mark; she seeks to fleece her.
In grammatical terms, it is a trivial lapse. What it reveals about the place of feminism in today’s society—at least in middle- and high-brow society—is not at all trivial.
The con artist does not care about his mark; he seeks to fleece her.
The con artist does not care about her mark; she seeks to fleece her.
In grammatical terms, it is a trivial lapse. What it reveals about the place of feminism in today’s society—at least in middle- and high-brow society—is not at all trivial.
The con artist does not care about his mark; he seeks to fleece her.
That sentence raises questions.
I could tell you what I think the answers are to some— not all—of them. But I’m not 100% sure I’m right.
So, you’ll have to come up with your own answers. (I’ll assume you’ll agree with me that the answer to 1] is “yes.”)
1] Was Robin’s use of he/his a conscious decision?
2] Did Robin first write “con man” then replace it with the gender neutral “con artist” but neglected to change the pronouns?
3] Is the use of he/his in this sentence a concession to readers who might be upset to find a feminine pronoun applied to an unsavory character like a con artist?
3a] If so, for how long did Robin ponder which pronoun to use?
4] Is the sentence intended to epitomize the entrenched universal victimization of women by men?
5] Is the sentence a knee-jerk expression of collective male guilt?
6] In general, (taking Robin's sentence into consideration) is the motivation behind the replacement of he/his by she/her a conscientious effort to redress a long-standing grammatical inequity? or is it militant, seizing an opportunity to gain an important objective and take the enemy captive in what is perceived as a war of the sexes?
6a] At what point does a patriarchy become a matriarchy?
6b] Can society be structured so that it is neither one or the other?
I could tell you what I think the answers are to some— not all—of them. But I’m not 100% sure I’m right.
So, you’ll have to come up with your own answers. (I’ll assume you’ll agree with me that the answer to 1] is “yes.”)
1] Was Robin’s use of he/his a conscious decision?
2] Did Robin first write “con man” then replace it with the gender neutral “con artist” but neglected to change the pronouns?
3] Is the use of he/his in this sentence a concession to readers who might be upset to find a feminine pronoun applied to an unsavory character like a con artist?
3a] If so, for how long did Robin ponder which pronoun to use?
4] Is the sentence intended to epitomize the entrenched universal victimization of women by men?
5] Is the sentence a knee-jerk expression of collective male guilt?
6] In general, (taking Robin's sentence into consideration) is the motivation behind the replacement of he/his by she/her a conscientious effort to redress a long-standing grammatical inequity? or is it militant, seizing an opportunity to gain an important objective and take the enemy captive in what is perceived as a war of the sexes?
6a] At what point does a patriarchy become a matriarchy?
6b] Can society be structured so that it is neither one or the other?