Anita Harris' chapter, "The
'Can-Do' Girl Versus the 'At-Risk' Girl" explores the discourse of two
paths of girlhood that have developed throughout the 1990s, when the idea of
Girls Studies was initially on the rise.
To Harris, these constructions of girlhood rely less on issues of race
or upbringing, but instead are situated firmly in the field of consumerism and
related to the possession of cultural capital. This dichotomy places the
“can-do” girl as a model of success, whereas the “at-risk” girl is strictly
coded as failure. It is important to note that Harris did not create these two trajectories
of girlhood, but instead is observing their construction and offering her own
interpretation. This chapter takes a distinctly more sociological standpoint
than previous readings, but speaks to this issue of market expansion involving
girls as a profitable niche that we are addressing in our final few weeks.
Reading her description of
“Elizabeth,” a prototypical can-do girl, I felt as though Harris could have
taken the description by interviewing the average female Northwestern student;
she describes someone who possesses professional ambition, as well as the drive
and resources to achieve her goals. While obviously not all women who attend
Northwestern or similarly elite schools come from Elizabeth’s very privileged background,
but this measure of “success” is extremely informed by class distinctions.
I was perhaps most
convinced by Harris’ arguments regarding implicit regulations hoisted on
adolescent girls. The critique of “do this, but not too much” ran throughout
her chapter and really resonated as an issue I had not previously considered. For example, she cites the idea of delayed
motherhood in the “can-do” narrative, stating, “Can-do girls are encouraged to
delay childbearing until their careers are established but not to renounce
motherhood altogether” (23). Similarly,
when discussing the “at-risk” girl’s relationship to consumerism, she states,
“Young women are thus taught that while girlpower is about being confident and
assertive, it should not be taken too far” (29). While it is easy to point out
instances of clear-cut inequality, these less obvious restrictions on the lives
of young women and girls are just as insidious. Although I agreed with this
assertion, I wish that Harris had addressed the ways in which this dichotomy is
institutionalized in Western culture; issues such as generational poverty can
make it nearly impossible for a girl born outside of the middle/upper class to
become a “can-do” girl.
Near the end of her chapter,
Harris states that “What is not highlighted, but is fundamentally important
here, is that material resources and cultural capital of the already privileged
are required to set a young women on the can do trajectory. Instead, the good
or bad families, neighborhoods, and attitudes are held to account” (35) While I do
not disagree that these material resources and a larger consumer culture are essential to the construction of
the can-do and at-risk girl, I see this as nearly inextricable from the other
factors she mentions.
Frannie's exploration of the Harris chapter made some interesting and salient points about the expectations placed on young girls, and the harris article made me hyperaware of how cultural perceptions of what it means to be a "girl" or a "woman" have colored modern coming-of-age processes for young girls. I think what I missed out on was an understanding of the concept of mobility - can one go from being an "at-risk" girl to a "can-do" girl? At one point does the passivity of being "at risk" become the expectation that a girl should become "can-do"?
ReplyDeleteThe answer, as Frannie alluded to, would seem to be class. Frannie writes that "issues such as generational poverty can make it nearly impossible for a girl born outside of the middle/upper class to become a 'can-do' girl," and I agree. I'm also interested in how cultural consumption (what we've been discussing in class) ties into this socioeconomic divide. Is cultural media an aspirational tool for girls? I felt like the shows I watched as a kid revolved around upper-middle class families with "can-do" daughters. What does it mean for "at-risk" girls to be seeing these images? Does cultural media have an aspirational effect on them?
Is this the answer to the question of mobility?
I really liked the way Frannie discussed Harris’s critique of the “do this, but not too much.” I thought Harris’s points regarding can-do girls needing to have both career aspirations but also be prepared for motherhood. The assumed eventuality of motherhood is something that I think a lot of modern women struggle with. In addition, I found the point about not being too confident or too assertive to be very interesting. I think that is something modern feminism is working against in a large way. I still find myself struggling with my own opinions regarding the can-do vs. the at-risk girl. The clip we watched in class and the subsequent questions really got me thinking. Because the decision to get pregnant for the second time as a teen was a conscious choice, was it a product of her being an at-risk girl? I find the definition of the can-do girl to be both problematic but also important. Girls need to be encouraged to pursue careers and be ambitious, but I also think it is important to note that it is also okay to aspire to motherhood. It is difficult to know whether someone is actually interested in motherhood more than a career when you compare an at-risk girl vs. a can-do girl. Is the decision based on her personal preferences? Or are those preferences shaped by her socioeconomic status? Does a girl only want to pursue motherhood when she feels like she doesn’t have the option of career advancement? It is also interesting to think about the implications about motherhood that are instilled in can-do girls. Overall, I found the article to be very interesting, but I could not come up with a solid stance regarding the at-risk girl and the can-do girl. I remain questioning and critical of the argument, but I think it brings up a lot of really important aspects of modern femininity.
ReplyDelete