Why Do Individuals Support their Own Subordination? Evidence from Saudi Arabia.

• In Event: Responsive Autocrats? Representation in Authoritarian Countries

Abstract

Why do individuals who are either poor or socially and politically excluded in their given community, often support their own subordination? And, more specifically for this article, why do many women in various countries, do so? This article extends the study of this global paradox. Earliest studies of subordinate groups, such as much of the early 20th century Marxist scholarship, ascribe these subordinate groups (in their case workers) a “false consciousness” that blinds them to their material subordination. Later studies, argue that poor or politically excluded groups are conscious of their subordination, and find means to resist it either through “everyday acts” of resistance, or outright rebellion. However, many groups not only do not resist their subordination, but engage in actions that deepen or defend their apparently subordinate position. What then, explains this variation – resistance or acceptance -- in the way poor or socially excluded groups react to their own subordination?

I first draw a distinction between two ways of conceptualizing subordination: “objective subordination” consists of objective or empirically observable excluded material and social conditions, whereas “subjective subordination” occurs when a group perceives itself to be subordinated. I argue that existing studies mistakenly assume that objective subordination is sufficient to indicate subjective subordination. Instead, I hypothesize that objective subordination only becomes subjective subordination when individuals’ objective situations no longer align with their expectations of social reality. Such expectations, in turn, depend on the presence of a hegemonic ideology, defined in terms of its coherence and inclusivity. The less coherent and inclusive a given ideology, the more likely it is that objectively excluded material and social conditions will also be interpreted as subjective subordination. The opposite is also true: the more coherent and inclusive an ideological hegemony, the less likely it is that an objectively subordinated group will perceive itself as subjectively subordinated.

I test this hypothesis first by briefly reconsidering existing studies of subordinate groups, such as peasants (Scott 1985) and workers (O’Brien and Li 2006). These cases represent different degrees of coherence and inclusiveness in ideological hegemony and, as hypothesized, demonstrate different degrees of resistance on the part of these groups, as a result of the nature of the ideological hegemony present in each case.

The largest part of the paper tests the hypothesis through a close analysis of women in Saudi Arabia. I establish the nature of ideological hegemony in Saudi Arabia and I then examine women’s reactions to their social position in the country through an original survey of 1,400 women in Jeddah and Dhammam, as well as fifty-six personal interviews with working women. Since the social position of Saudi women matches the ideological description of their role in society, survey results and interviews support the hypothesis that most this group does not perceive itself to be subordinated. While this conclusion partially mirrors that of studies of gender politics in Muslim societies, it places women’s studies in the broader context of subordinate groups.

Author

• Silvana A. Toska, Davidson College