De Beauvoir, S. (1972). Introduction. In H. M. Parshley (Trans.), The Second Sex. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/introduction.htm (Original work published 1949)
Summary:
In her introduction to The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir established her argument that women have traditionally been treated as other with a woman’s context existing only in relation to men. Thus, she claims, “humanity is male” and women is “not regarded as an autonomous being” (para. 6). She claimed that the category of other is “a fundamental category of human thought” (para. 7) that is juxtaposed against the self. In addition, Beauvoir argued, by creating a division between self and other humans justify treatment of those defined as other as less-worthy of a host of privileges. Hence non-natives are generally labeled ‘foreigners’ by those who are native to a country, and non-white races are often labeled ‘inferior’ by those who are white. Beauvoir also claimed that the notion of other turns that individual inessential; or “the object” (para. 9).
Beauvoir next argued that in most cases where the concept of other exists, people are often awakened to the realization that they, too, can be considered other by changes to their environment, such as moving to another country. Oftentimes the other is defined by virtue of a minority status. But women are not a minority—most statistics show them slightly exceeding men in total world population. Beauvoir noted that power inequities have often created other populations; however there have always been women. She claimed that throughout history women have always been subject to men, and that the bond of subjectivity was created by virtue of women’s biological differences from men.
Beauvoir explored the impact of women living in a world where men make and enforce the rules. She claimed that many of the accomplishments claimed by previous feminists were only those that men had been willing to grant, as a master grants his slave certain privileges, but the slave remains in slavery. Furthermore, she suggested that women have been unwilling to claim complete freedom for fear that they will lose the few privileges they have been afforded in the past. “Refusal to pose oneself as the Subject, unique and absolute, requires great self-denial” (para. 24).
Next Beauvior visited the arguments that are often posed as justification for either men or women to be viewed as superior, including the notion of creation (e.g., Adam was first, therefore Eve is secondary to him vis a vis Adam was a rough draft, and Eve was the culmination of God’s perfection in creation). She proposed that the conflict created by these arguments only adds to notions of superiority and inferiority, and we need to start over. However, she cautioned, a sex neutral individual would not have the understanding of the situation, and it is only women, who have experienced the state of womanhood, who can adequately speak for their state and status.
Finally, Beauvior argued that happiness is not the measurement by which we need to assess women’s place in the world. She posited that much of the world views the state of happiness as equivalent to rest. However, she stated, “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 towards other liberties” (para. 30). Rest is always accompanied by a “degradation of existence . . . and of liberty into constraint and contingence” (para 30). Thus, she stated, she is interested in the “fortunes of the individual as defined not in terms of happiness but in terms of liberty” (para 31). Only by understanding how biological, physiological, psychological, and economic forces have contributed to attempts to control women’s destiny can women “envisage the difficulties in their way, as endeavoring to make their escape from the sphere hitherto assigned to them, they aspire to full membership in the human race” (para 32).
Connections:
The concept of other has been explored by a number of philosophers. Buber (1927/1971) referred to this concept as I and Thou, where the creation of Thou occurs when the I individual views the partner in the relationship as subject rather than object. Otherwise, he described the individuals as I and It. Buber argued that when people view each other as I and Thou, they are able to build relationships with each other. He described the I and It view as merely experience, without engagement. Buber stated that when we view objects (or It) we engage in classification, counting, perceiving, subjugating, dissipating, perpetuating, or any number of actions on the object. Our sentence construction demonstrates this idea: I (subject) tossed the ball (object) away. It is only when we view another as subject or Thou that we engage with that person. Again, sentence construction demonstrates this idea: You and I (subject) discussed our ideas (object). We allow that person the freedom to act for him- or her- self, rather than expecting the person to behave in some manner we have created expectations of or for.
Beauvoir’s arguments echoed Buber’s writings from two decades earlier. In this case, Beauvoir has applied them to an entire group, rather than focusing on a single interpersonal relationship, as Buber did. These views are often placed in the existentialist camp of philosophy—a belief that the agency of humankind allows men and women to direct their own existence, and the quality of their lives will be driven by the choices they make, good or ill. Beauvoir clearly argued that women are not condemned by their biology to a specific destiny; rather women need to find their own path unrestricted by the views of men who classify them as other.
With her insistence that it is women who need to speak for women, and who need to work for their liberty, Beauvoir set the stage for what is now referred to as standpoint theory. Standpoint theory suggests that differences in perception (caused by different lived experiences) are necessary to understand and explain how an individual frames his or her way of knowing and acting. Standpoint theory tends to be critical of claims of objectivity and the scientific method when researching because researchers often do not recognize their own limitations due to unshared experience. Beauvoir’s argument that women need to do their own research laid a foundation for the second wave of feminism—of women who studied their own situation and made claims for their own direction. While many have criticized Beauvoir for her attempt to be inclusive—to create a world where men and women worked towards equality and liberty together—her emphasis that the woman’s voice was required in order to achieve that goal is solidly within the philosophical tradition of standpoint theory.
Finally, Beauvoir introduced the notion that one’s sex does not predestine one’s gender. While she denied the value of a neutral gender, she did object to the idea that one’s biological conformation predetermined how a person should live and act. Rather, she argued that women and men should have the ability to self-determine what characteristics they deemed important, and not some notion of femininity or masculinity. As people increasingly feel the need to understand how the concept of gender plays into their personal identity, we can look to Beauvoir for an initial reading of the difference between one’s biological sex, and one’s gender identity.
On a side note, I found an interesting connection to this concept in part of our scripture reading in church yesterday. The scripture exhorted a man’s sons (biological sex) to rise up and be men (gender identity) (2 Nephi 1:21; Book of Mormon). Our discussion revolved around what it meant to be men. We may believe that sex and gender are one and the same in the religious setting, but they are not.
