In 1949, Simone de Beauvoir's 900 page magnum opus, The Second Sex
was published and immediately met with equal measures of enthusiasm and
scorn. It was controversial enough to be banned by the Catholic Church.
The psychiatric community (largely Freudian then) found no difficulty in
diagnosing its author with various alleged pathologies, even though
some contradicted others (e.g. promiscuity and frigidity). Simone de
Beauvoir had already written critically about the patriarchal bias
implicit in psychoanalysis. In The Second Sex she set out to reveal such
patriarchal presuppositions across the board and sweep of human, or
at least western history. What was the author trying to establish or
disestablish? Why all the controversy? After all, there had been Women's
Rights movements since the 18th century. By 1949 women were beginning
to see much progress in terms of voting rights and increasing equality.
But de Beauvoir denied being a feminist (that changed in the '70s), and
said that she was asking a philosophical question that she thought was
vitally important and had not been raised clearly, viz."What is Woman?"
Not what is *a woman* but what is Woman.
Beauvoir is quick to remind us that such a question would never be asked by men. Men don't ask "What is Man?" in the sense of the male portion of the population. Being a man in that sense has been seen in the past as unproblematic; as the standard or default mode of being human. "What is Man?", if asked, refers to human nature writ large, where mankind stands for all humanity. Woman has been treated as something of an afterthought on the question of human nature. Much of the traditional view of women involved the attribution of a mysterious "eternal feminine" essence, which was often alluring and beautiful, yet also inferior to the essence of Man in the sense of "lacking" the alleged virtues of masculinity, i.e. rationality, strength, decisiveness, power and agency. So, when discussed at all, Woman was said to fall short of the norm of human nature, i.e. Humanity. Not quite a slave on the one hand, but not a full rational free man on the other, the status of women was servile-- their function was seen only in relation to Man. So Man was paradigmatic of Humanity and Woman relegated to the status of "The Other"--lacking the full measure of (Hu)Man virtues, and exhibiting special femininity which was ideal for such roles as nurturing men and children and tending to the household. What was "missing" was, allegedly, a capacity to be involved in the public realm of the citizen. Aristotle wrote: "The female is female by virtue of a certain *lack* of qualities." St. Thomas, who defined much of Church Orthodoxy, referred to females as "imperfect man." In de Beauvoir's own time, psychiatrists were referring to women as lacking a certain degree of rationality and "prone to excess emotion." They described women as *lacking* a penis and wanting to have one ("Penis Envy"), having once seen the all-important male organ as little girls. Beauvoir asks if what is envied, if it is envied, might be power and freedom associated with the male sex, rather than the penis for its own sake.
At the time of this book women were, by and large, in a state of dependence on the man, being defined almost exclusively in relation to him. The "eternal feminine," that vague "essence," had been used to conceal the fact that women were relegated to being the subordinate "Other," the secondary and inferior. Beauvoir compares "The Woman" to "The Negro" and "The Jew" in this regard--all are marginalized, none of them encouraged or allowed to become free *subjects* shaping their own lives. But unlike other oppressed groups,women have always been intimate with men, as constant companion, friend, lover, servant, means of fulfilling sexual desires, mother to the children, even as prostitute. They have known all about Man and his desires, while Man, having the upper hand, had only a little knowledge of female subjectivity. This, in turn, contributes to the "mysterious feminine" found in so much literature and poetry. That which is unknown is experienced as "mysterious." Mysterious, subordinate, and objectified, then, women were discouraged from devising existential projects and engaging productively in the world beyond the household until the 20th century. Then women start to get out of the house by working in factories, or helping in the war effort, and even in that limited exposure, begin to glimpse their human (not just female) potentialities; i.e. their freedom. However, many were too frightened of this freedom to take a stand in the world, to engage in projects that are not defined in relation to men. Thus, they become complicit in their own oppression.
This was the situation in 1949; an ambivalence prevailed concerning the question of exiting the role of subordinate other, to claim the human inheritance of freedom that also belongs to females. But why and how did the obscure notion of a "female essence" or "femininity" arise and serve as a basis for subjegation? How was it perpetuated in history? Though Beauvoir does her best to answer these questions in a series of brilliant chapters, I focus here on one of the most important aspects of the answer--the role of biology.
Sex and "The Feminine"
An obvious place to look for femininity or a female essence is biology. Beauvoir does not deny crucial differences in biology and meticulously catalogues them in a chapter on the topic. She is detailed--indeed graphic-- in her discussion of the uniquely female phenomena of menstruation, pregnancy, lactation and other biological facts. Although the world of a woman has to be situated in a female body, (the same is true of men, and she remarks that they seem to forget they have glands too!), the "femininity" associated with being passive, docile, intuitive, irrational, and all the other traits that have been used to justify Patriarchal norms aren't found in the female body. She notes that modern biology doesn't even speak of "essences" and immutable traits anymore. Evolutionary theory did away with all that. The notion of a "female essence" is not a modern scientific one, but an echo of earlier ages--religion and mythology perhaps. In effect, de Beauvoir *decouples biological sex from norms and traits that are supposed to define femininity*. In modern terms, she distinguishes sex from gender. She is, I believe, the first to do so.
The gender-roles, the feminine behaviors that have been so crucially at the center of all older concepts of womanhood, these are not innate biologically. They are socially constructed, and one can trace the history of this social construction and see just how it has played out. But one of the most important theses, and a basis for the later Feminists (of the "2nd and 3rd wave") is that while one is born as a male or female, that is not enough to explain the total set of traits and behaviors called "Man" and Woman" respectively. Each individual has to interpret the "data of biology" as she calls it. There are many ways in principle. As a bi-sexual woman, Beauvoir sometimes discussed ways of being a female that had little to do with the normative constructions of mainstream society. She and Sartre lived as they preached, avoiding marriage and children and opting for an open relationship and the life of responsible public intellectuals. (Though rumors of their sex lives caused scandals.)
We are not free to choose our anatomy at birth any more than the historical period we're born in or country of origin. But none of these things can, in principle, define what each of us is and becomes.
As with her soulmate Sartre, Beauvoir emphasizes each individual's responsibility for what they make of the circumstances they inherit, the objective facts of life. I can "transcend" my biology, not by wishing it away, but by interpreting it as a free and creative agent. The problem with the gender roles for women historically is that they discouraged them from taking initiative, being creative, questioning rules and norms, and interpreting their circumstances not according to Man, but their own individual subjectivities. We don't get to pick the events that befall us, but we do get to interpret their meaning and choose our goals and plans (this is called "situated freedom"). Man has been the Subject, she says, while women have been the"objectified" and treated as instruments and extensions of male desire and intention. Despite this oppression, many women, says Beauvoir, will not renounce the gender roles of "the feminine" for fear of losing the benefits of safety, comfort, a predictable life, material wealth at times etc. However, she warns, there is no true humanity ("Authenticity") without the mixed blessings of a life lived in the unpredictable and risky realm of freedom. Anything less is "Inauthentic."
So What is Woman? By the beginning of Part 2 of the book, Beauvoir is able to state with confidence:
"One is not *born* a woman, but rather *becomes* a woman." Whether this means becoming a social-type and conforming to the norms of femininity or becoming an authentic human female facing up to an uncertain life for which responsibility is taken-- those decisions, she says, are always individual.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
Considerations/Possible Questions:
- Beauvoir anticipates the contemporary distinction between sex and gender. Gender, on her account, is not reducible to biology, nor does it have a fixed essence. Do you agree with this move against gender essentialism? Do you think sex and gender can be completely decoupled? Why? Why not?
Beauvoir is quick to remind us that such a question would never be asked by men. Men don't ask "What is Man?" in the sense of the male portion of the population. Being a man in that sense has been seen in the past as unproblematic; as the standard or default mode of being human. "What is Man?", if asked, refers to human nature writ large, where mankind stands for all humanity. Woman has been treated as something of an afterthought on the question of human nature. Much of the traditional view of women involved the attribution of a mysterious "eternal feminine" essence, which was often alluring and beautiful, yet also inferior to the essence of Man in the sense of "lacking" the alleged virtues of masculinity, i.e. rationality, strength, decisiveness, power and agency. So, when discussed at all, Woman was said to fall short of the norm of human nature, i.e. Humanity. Not quite a slave on the one hand, but not a full rational free man on the other, the status of women was servile-- their function was seen only in relation to Man. So Man was paradigmatic of Humanity and Woman relegated to the status of "The Other"--lacking the full measure of (Hu)Man virtues, and exhibiting special femininity which was ideal for such roles as nurturing men and children and tending to the household. What was "missing" was, allegedly, a capacity to be involved in the public realm of the citizen. Aristotle wrote: "The female is female by virtue of a certain *lack* of qualities." St. Thomas, who defined much of Church Orthodoxy, referred to females as "imperfect man." In de Beauvoir's own time, psychiatrists were referring to women as lacking a certain degree of rationality and "prone to excess emotion." They described women as *lacking* a penis and wanting to have one ("Penis Envy"), having once seen the all-important male organ as little girls. Beauvoir asks if what is envied, if it is envied, might be power and freedom associated with the male sex, rather than the penis for its own sake.
At the time of this book women were, by and large, in a state of dependence on the man, being defined almost exclusively in relation to him. The "eternal feminine," that vague "essence," had been used to conceal the fact that women were relegated to being the subordinate "Other," the secondary and inferior. Beauvoir compares "The Woman" to "The Negro" and "The Jew" in this regard--all are marginalized, none of them encouraged or allowed to become free *subjects* shaping their own lives. But unlike other oppressed groups,women have always been intimate with men, as constant companion, friend, lover, servant, means of fulfilling sexual desires, mother to the children, even as prostitute. They have known all about Man and his desires, while Man, having the upper hand, had only a little knowledge of female subjectivity. This, in turn, contributes to the "mysterious feminine" found in so much literature and poetry. That which is unknown is experienced as "mysterious." Mysterious, subordinate, and objectified, then, women were discouraged from devising existential projects and engaging productively in the world beyond the household until the 20th century. Then women start to get out of the house by working in factories, or helping in the war effort, and even in that limited exposure, begin to glimpse their human (not just female) potentialities; i.e. their freedom. However, many were too frightened of this freedom to take a stand in the world, to engage in projects that are not defined in relation to men. Thus, they become complicit in their own oppression.
This was the situation in 1949; an ambivalence prevailed concerning the question of exiting the role of subordinate other, to claim the human inheritance of freedom that also belongs to females. But why and how did the obscure notion of a "female essence" or "femininity" arise and serve as a basis for subjegation? How was it perpetuated in history? Though Beauvoir does her best to answer these questions in a series of brilliant chapters, I focus here on one of the most important aspects of the answer--the role of biology.
Sex and "The Feminine"
An obvious place to look for femininity or a female essence is biology. Beauvoir does not deny crucial differences in biology and meticulously catalogues them in a chapter on the topic. She is detailed--indeed graphic-- in her discussion of the uniquely female phenomena of menstruation, pregnancy, lactation and other biological facts. Although the world of a woman has to be situated in a female body, (the same is true of men, and she remarks that they seem to forget they have glands too!), the "femininity" associated with being passive, docile, intuitive, irrational, and all the other traits that have been used to justify Patriarchal norms aren't found in the female body. She notes that modern biology doesn't even speak of "essences" and immutable traits anymore. Evolutionary theory did away with all that. The notion of a "female essence" is not a modern scientific one, but an echo of earlier ages--religion and mythology perhaps. In effect, de Beauvoir *decouples biological sex from norms and traits that are supposed to define femininity*. In modern terms, she distinguishes sex from gender. She is, I believe, the first to do so.
The gender-roles, the feminine behaviors that have been so crucially at the center of all older concepts of womanhood, these are not innate biologically. They are socially constructed, and one can trace the history of this social construction and see just how it has played out. But one of the most important theses, and a basis for the later Feminists (of the "2nd and 3rd wave") is that while one is born as a male or female, that is not enough to explain the total set of traits and behaviors called "Man" and Woman" respectively. Each individual has to interpret the "data of biology" as she calls it. There are many ways in principle. As a bi-sexual woman, Beauvoir sometimes discussed ways of being a female that had little to do with the normative constructions of mainstream society. She and Sartre lived as they preached, avoiding marriage and children and opting for an open relationship and the life of responsible public intellectuals. (Though rumors of their sex lives caused scandals.)
We are not free to choose our anatomy at birth any more than the historical period we're born in or country of origin. But none of these things can, in principle, define what each of us is and becomes.
As with her soulmate Sartre, Beauvoir emphasizes each individual's responsibility for what they make of the circumstances they inherit, the objective facts of life. I can "transcend" my biology, not by wishing it away, but by interpreting it as a free and creative agent. The problem with the gender roles for women historically is that they discouraged them from taking initiative, being creative, questioning rules and norms, and interpreting their circumstances not according to Man, but their own individual subjectivities. We don't get to pick the events that befall us, but we do get to interpret their meaning and choose our goals and plans (this is called "situated freedom"). Man has been the Subject, she says, while women have been the"objectified" and treated as instruments and extensions of male desire and intention. Despite this oppression, many women, says Beauvoir, will not renounce the gender roles of "the feminine" for fear of losing the benefits of safety, comfort, a predictable life, material wealth at times etc. However, she warns, there is no true humanity ("Authenticity") without the mixed blessings of a life lived in the unpredictable and risky realm of freedom. Anything less is "Inauthentic."
So What is Woman? By the beginning of Part 2 of the book, Beauvoir is able to state with confidence:
"One is not *born* a woman, but rather *becomes* a woman." Whether this means becoming a social-type and conforming to the norms of femininity or becoming an authentic human female facing up to an uncertain life for which responsibility is taken-- those decisions, she says, are always individual.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
Considerations/Possible Questions:
- Beauvoir anticipates the contemporary distinction between sex and gender. Gender, on her account, is not reducible to biology, nor does it have a fixed essence. Do you agree with this move against gender essentialism? Do you think sex and gender can be completely decoupled? Why? Why not?
No comments:
Post a Comment