Simone de Beauvoir
Simone de Beauvoir, author of The Second Sex , and famous French existentialist philosopher, was born on January 9th, of 1908, in Paris France. She was born during a time period and within a country where a woman’s worth was dependent on her dowry, and where arranged marriages were still practiced. Beauvoir was encouraged by her father to pursue education. She passed the baccalaureate in mathematics and philosophy in 1925, received certificates of higher studies in French literature and Latin in 1926, in 1927 received certificates in the history of philosophy, general philosophy, Greek, and logic, and in 1928 obtained certificates in ethics, sociology, and psychology. She became the youngest professor of France at the age of 21. Beauvoir became acquainted with John-Paul Sartre, entered his elite circle of friends, and remained “open lovers” until his death in 1969. Many scholars debate whether her works influenced Sartre or if Sartre influenced her works. The Second Sex was published in 1949, was banned by the Vatican, and became one of the most influential texts for philosophy, feminism, and women’s studies. Beauvoir died on April 14, 1986 (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Beauvoir sees that women are defined in relation to men, and because of this women are considered the “other.” She begins her argument by stating that humanity,
“ . . . is to be defined by the manner in which it deals with its natural, fixed characteristics . . .” (195) Based on this excerpt from the Second Sex, I believe she thinks that fixed characteristics are such things as sexed bodies, and innate desires, which are common to the majority of human kind. The desire, common to all humans, which Beauvoir finds particularly concerning to women, is liberty. She says, “Every subject plays his part as such specifically through exploits or projects that serve as a mode of transcendence; he achieves liberty only through a continual reaching out toward other liberties” (194). Beauvoir believes that depriving women of the ability to transcend and achieve liberty is what creates the oppression of women (194). She believes the reason why women have been subjected to this oppression is due to the fact that many philosophers and thinkers of the past have deemed the male as the representative of the human form, and women as the peculiarity of the human form (191). Thus, I conclude from this excerpt, that Beauvoir believes that males have become the norm, and females, the “other,” leading men to believe that women are inferior, as they are not the “human ideal,” and must be denied liberty. Beauvoir believes that femininity and masculinity are constructs of society that need to be broken down in order for women to transcend “immanence” and obtain liberty (195).
Within Beauvoir’s idea, that gender is a social construction, lies the idea that we can shape and play with our reality; in other words, we possess free will. Previously, women and men who believed in the constructs of the “eternal feminine” and “eternal masculine” (or those fixed essences within the female and male), have imprisoned themselves within an idea that they believed was immutable. But these rules are not unchangeable, as we often believe, and apply not only to our gendered situations, but also to the world around us. Perhaps there are other social constructions that shape the way we live that should be analyzed, such as our concepts of happiness. If one is not happy, perhaps it is due to our concept of happiness. America is a material culture in which, I think most of us will agree, defines happiness by the amount of money or material possessions. But this may not be what makes us truly happy. Often times these constructions make us forget that there are other modes of existence beyond those that society presents to us. Either way, I believe what Beauvoir is getting at is that the freedom to be creative and productive transcends (raises us above) our socially constructed concepts, and I believe that this should not be limited to constructs of gender, and is applicable to a majority of our thought patterns.
Beauvoir believes that if society rids itself of the “eternal feminine” and the “eternal masculine” then homosexuality will disappear, but I disagree, and believe that homosexuality is not a negation of heterosexuality. Beauvoir says, “The excessive sentimentality, homosexual fervors, and platonic crushes of adolescent girls, with all their train of silliness and frivolity, are much more injurious than a little childish sex play and a few definite sex experiences” (202). In this sentence Beauvoir has lumped homosexuality, or a least the tendency, with sentimentality and crushes. By doing this she is suggesting that homosexual tendencies are a fabrication of the mind, just like a crush, or excessive emotions. This excerpt does not explain her position fully, so I will include a quote from the full text, which explains this more clearly. Beauvoir says, “The lesbian, in fact, is distinguished by her refusal of the male and her liking for feminine flesh; but every adolescent female fears penetration and masculine domination, and she feels a certain repulsion for the male body; on the other hand, the female body is for her, as for the male, and object of desire” (The Second Sex 407). In other words, lesbians exist as a result of their fear or dislike of masculinity. She does not mention male homosexuality, but I would conclude that it has something to do with the gender constructs as well. However, humans are sexual beings, and I do not believe they would limit themselves to sexual experiences with one particular sex, even if gender constructs did not exist, or were not a limited. I believe humans could even possibly construct a world were homosexuality was used as a form of birth control, or perhaps even a world were penile penetration of the vagina was not the “sexual norm.” Beauvoir sees homosexuality as a peculiarity that is resultant of heterosexuality, and I believe this is a result of her “lack of imagination” (205).
Although Beauvoir believes that males and females should be allowed access to the tools necessary to promote their creative and productive interests, still she also concludes that for the modern women this will be rather difficult. She says,
“At this moment they [liberated women] have been realized nowhere, in Russia no more than in France or the United States; and this explains why the women of today is torn between the past and the future. She appears most often as a ‘true woman’ disguised as a man, and she feels herself as ill at ease in her flesh as in her masculine garb. She must shed her old skin and cut her own new clothes” (201).
What she’s trying to say is that no matter which part of the dichotomy a liberated woman adheres to (male or female) she will feel out of place, for these are constructs of the old which she no longer identifies with. New attitudes, new clothing, new methods of marking the self need to be created in order to affirm a new identity that differs from the old standards. How can a woman create a new identity when she is rewarded for acting feminine and shunned for being too masculine? What ways can we help to create a new identity for women, or should there even be a new identity for women? Aren’t we all individuals? Instead, should we be celebrating individuality?
Works Cited
Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex. New York: Vintage Books, 1949.
Mussett, Shannon. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Villanova University. Feb.
27, 2005. < http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/beauvoir.htm#The%20Second%20Sex>
Beauvoir sees that women are defined in relation to men, and because of this women are considered the “other.” She begins her argument by stating that humanity,
“ . . . is to be defined by the manner in which it deals with its natural, fixed characteristics . . .” (195) Based on this excerpt from the Second Sex, I believe she thinks that fixed characteristics are such things as sexed bodies, and innate desires, which are common to the majority of human kind. The desire, common to all humans, which Beauvoir finds particularly concerning to women, is liberty. She says, “Every subject plays his part as such specifically through exploits or projects that serve as a mode of transcendence; he achieves liberty only through a continual reaching out toward other liberties” (194). Beauvoir believes that depriving women of the ability to transcend and achieve liberty is what creates the oppression of women (194). She believes the reason why women have been subjected to this oppression is due to the fact that many philosophers and thinkers of the past have deemed the male as the representative of the human form, and women as the peculiarity of the human form (191). Thus, I conclude from this excerpt, that Beauvoir believes that males have become the norm, and females, the “other,” leading men to believe that women are inferior, as they are not the “human ideal,” and must be denied liberty. Beauvoir believes that femininity and masculinity are constructs of society that need to be broken down in order for women to transcend “immanence” and obtain liberty (195).
Within Beauvoir’s idea, that gender is a social construction, lies the idea that we can shape and play with our reality; in other words, we possess free will. Previously, women and men who believed in the constructs of the “eternal feminine” and “eternal masculine” (or those fixed essences within the female and male), have imprisoned themselves within an idea that they believed was immutable. But these rules are not unchangeable, as we often believe, and apply not only to our gendered situations, but also to the world around us. Perhaps there are other social constructions that shape the way we live that should be analyzed, such as our concepts of happiness. If one is not happy, perhaps it is due to our concept of happiness. America is a material culture in which, I think most of us will agree, defines happiness by the amount of money or material possessions. But this may not be what makes us truly happy. Often times these constructions make us forget that there are other modes of existence beyond those that society presents to us. Either way, I believe what Beauvoir is getting at is that the freedom to be creative and productive transcends (raises us above) our socially constructed concepts, and I believe that this should not be limited to constructs of gender, and is applicable to a majority of our thought patterns.
Beauvoir believes that if society rids itself of the “eternal feminine” and the “eternal masculine” then homosexuality will disappear, but I disagree, and believe that homosexuality is not a negation of heterosexuality. Beauvoir says, “The excessive sentimentality, homosexual fervors, and platonic crushes of adolescent girls, with all their train of silliness and frivolity, are much more injurious than a little childish sex play and a few definite sex experiences” (202). In this sentence Beauvoir has lumped homosexuality, or a least the tendency, with sentimentality and crushes. By doing this she is suggesting that homosexual tendencies are a fabrication of the mind, just like a crush, or excessive emotions. This excerpt does not explain her position fully, so I will include a quote from the full text, which explains this more clearly. Beauvoir says, “The lesbian, in fact, is distinguished by her refusal of the male and her liking for feminine flesh; but every adolescent female fears penetration and masculine domination, and she feels a certain repulsion for the male body; on the other hand, the female body is for her, as for the male, and object of desire” (The Second Sex 407). In other words, lesbians exist as a result of their fear or dislike of masculinity. She does not mention male homosexuality, but I would conclude that it has something to do with the gender constructs as well. However, humans are sexual beings, and I do not believe they would limit themselves to sexual experiences with one particular sex, even if gender constructs did not exist, or were not a limited. I believe humans could even possibly construct a world were homosexuality was used as a form of birth control, or perhaps even a world were penile penetration of the vagina was not the “sexual norm.” Beauvoir sees homosexuality as a peculiarity that is resultant of heterosexuality, and I believe this is a result of her “lack of imagination” (205).
Although Beauvoir believes that males and females should be allowed access to the tools necessary to promote their creative and productive interests, still she also concludes that for the modern women this will be rather difficult. She says,
“At this moment they [liberated women] have been realized nowhere, in Russia no more than in France or the United States; and this explains why the women of today is torn between the past and the future. She appears most often as a ‘true woman’ disguised as a man, and she feels herself as ill at ease in her flesh as in her masculine garb. She must shed her old skin and cut her own new clothes” (201).
What she’s trying to say is that no matter which part of the dichotomy a liberated woman adheres to (male or female) she will feel out of place, for these are constructs of the old which she no longer identifies with. New attitudes, new clothing, new methods of marking the self need to be created in order to affirm a new identity that differs from the old standards. How can a woman create a new identity when she is rewarded for acting feminine and shunned for being too masculine? What ways can we help to create a new identity for women, or should there even be a new identity for women? Aren’t we all individuals? Instead, should we be celebrating individuality?
Works Cited
Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex. New York: Vintage Books, 1949.
Mussett, Shannon. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Villanova University. Feb.
27, 2005. < http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/beauvoir.htm#The%20Second%20Sex>
posted by Karen Jarboe at
12:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home