You Must Find An -Ism Or Else No One Cares

There is a scene early in Frank Capra's great comedy, You Can't Take It With You, where Lionel Barrymore's character, Martin, gives advice to his wife, Penny, about a possible play she could write in the form of 'ism-mania.'

Penny:  Ism-mania?

Martin: Yeah, sure, you know, Communism, Fascism, Voodoo-ism, everbody's got an -ism these days.

Penny: Oh [laughs]

Penny: I thought it was some kind of itch or something.

Martin: It is just as catching. When things go a little bad nowadays, you go out, get yourself an -ism and you're in business.

This scene is played in a nonchalant manner, but its message is one of the most poignant in the lighthearted film. This came in 1938, yet this strange issue is just as pertinent today. To begin to discuss this what the problem Martin is referring to, we must ask ourselves this question: What does it mean to have a specified ideology? In other words, what does it mean to be communist, deist, feminist, liberal, conservative, humanist, environmentalist, et cetera? In this day in age, all it takes is an announcement that you are a certain -ism and people carry with them ready-made expectations of you. And why not? That's really what these -isms are meant to do, clarify a certain way of thinking amid an infinite array of other ways of thinking. But really, to what degree does that define someone? For example, if I proclaim myself a communist to everyone at my school then everyone would most certainly carry their expectations of who I am because of my proclamation. 

Yet, there are two issues that arise with this simple scenario: what does it mean if I do not proclaim myself a communist and just because I say it does it really mean I act upon it? Let's tackle the latter issue. Saying that I am a communist and and living as one are two different things. Sometimes, we use these -isms as shallow labels to fit into a group, maybe part of some sort of social integration. Or, in a slightly different situation, if you are a communist and suddenly (hypothetically, for the most part, mind you) communists believe in flying on planes naked, that means you will have to fly on planes naked, right? Some individuals would probably endorse it (maybe not actually acting upon that endorsement) while others would have second thoughts. For those that have second thoughts, why? If communism seems to have encapsulated your way of thinking, then why should you? Can you really proclaim yourself a communist anymore if you are not going to act upon its ideologies?

Alright, let's look at the other issue, the omission of any sort of proclamation of a specific -ism. What if I don't proclaim I am communist? Are people to believe that I do not advocate what communists advocate? I mean, I didn't say I was against communist thought. How about this (and I know some of the controversial significance but bear with me, please), if I proclaim to be an ardent capitalist, does that officially me I cannot adhere to one iota of thought within the communist construct? This -ism word seems to carry a lot of weight and people's perceptions of them are avid and, to a large extent, adamantine. Maybe it is because in an uncertain world, the allure to constantly fine some graspable concept to achieve an amount of relativity towards another individual has people hinge upon these terms as a zero sum form of reality clarification.

I was perusing the internet where I caught sight of an intriguing interview of famed actress, Susan Sarandon, where the title read, 'Susan Sarandon: 'Feminism is a bit of an old-fashioned word.'' This attracted me just of the basis that I wanted to hear what she had to say. Though, I must admit, I have a slight distaste in the way we throw around feminism as some sort of cure to many of our problems (for reasons that should be clear in this post). Nevertheless, I read the interview, and here is what Sarandon said about feminism:

"I think of myself as a humanist because I think it's less alienating to people who think of feminism as being a load of strident bitches and because you want everyone to have equal pay, equal rights, education and healthcare. It's a bit of an old-fashioned word. It's used more in a way to minimise you. My daughter [Eva Amurri, from Sarandon's relationship with Italian film director Franco Amurri] who is 28, doesn't even relate to the word "feminist" and she is definitely in control of her decisions and her body."

She is blunt in her honesty (but honest, nonetheless), yet she doesn't denounce feminism. She just thinks there is a better solution, a more general and accepting solution, to identify her ways of thinking. In regards to her daughter, she thinks its just not even necessary. Fine, that's just fine. A women rejecting feminism as a label for strong personal reasons is fine and shouldn't be attacked ruthlessly, right?

"Right. A massive Hollywood star and her daughter, living lives of complete material security and huge social privilege, have no need for feminism.

Might it be because they never have to struggle with discrimination in the workplace, sexual harassment on the street and public transport, unequal pay, unequal social support, poverty in old age and every other shitty thing that the majority of women living in the 'ordinary' developed world are disproportionately affected by. That's not even thinking about the gross abuse of girls and women in less developed parts of the world, just because they happen to be female.

Kindly STFU."

Oh...well, I can see why people get mad, especially with the, "...strident bitches," portion but she never said feminism is bad. She said it was obsolete, and in her case she may be right. She isn't calling for the end of feminism and she certainly isn't advocating for, I dunno, the raping of women or unequal social support or whatever. Yet, this is what this poster is arguing. Nevermind that their basis has nothing to do with her gender but more to do with her occupation, a connection that is shallow when generalized in a comment as brief as that. 

I won't say much, this post can easily be turned into a novella, but I will say that -isms have come to be a tool to easily define an individual, even though that is always a tough task to do. I don't have answers to try and solve this problem, none at all. I am only reacting to observations I see. I just hope that we can go beyond the restricting usage we have turned these -ism to in order to continue discussion and not come to rash and generalized conclusions. Here is a film I made last semester, or rather, a part of it that has to do with this whole ism-mania. Go to the 9:51 part. I mean, you can watch the whole thing but it is long and my pacing is definitely off, but I am definitely content with it. Just remember not to narrow our exploration into issues and such because of these -isms.