Philosophy, the love of wisdom, is an enigmatic thing.

It is something that
has existed among us for thousands of years and like many surviving ideologies it
has morphed and adapted many times to remain relevant. Unsurprisingly,
philosophy tends to follow the ebb and flow of dominant culture. At times when
the Church was most powerful God was the ultimate reality, as science grew to
popularity the material world was suddenly supreme. However, something that
didnt change much until recently was philosophys general disregard for women.
In most cases it can be argued that philosophers are talking about humanity as a
whole but the lack of regard for women when they are mentioned seems to
downplay the significance of half of the human race. Whether you interpret man
to be universal or not it is undeniable that women are conspicuously lacking in
many treatise of philosophical theory.
As western culture shifts towards a more inclusive attitude towards women
it seems to follow that predominant philosophical thought should as well. In order
to reflect modern ideas philosophers will have to reconcile the traditional pillars
of reason and virtue and reevaluate how to apply them to the entirety of the
human race not just dominant groups.
One of the biggest obstacles women have previously face in the field of
philosophy has been their dismissal as less rational beings by nature, due to their
physiological or mental inferiority. Deeming this prejudice as natural gives little
room for argument by dissenters because if it is natural for women to be inferior
there isnt much room for change without making women unnatural and alienating
them further. However, we can examine more modern philosophies such as
Freudianism, Existentialism and Post Modernism where reason does not occupy
the highest level of reality and analyze what this means for gender equality and
the natural state of women.
Conceptualized in the early 1900s, Existentialism was a departure from
typical philosophical thought. Unlike its predecessors Existentialism put
significant emphasis on the idea that human beings are a constant work in
progress, and that a persons choices shape how their future forms (Macintyre, 27).
This is contradictory to the more traditional philosophical ideas of Plato and
Aristotle who would say that everything has a role in life that is predetermined,
that essence doesnt evolve over time. However, an existentialist would respond
that to try to fill prescribed roles falsifies the human experience (Macintyre, 27).
According to existentialism, to be human is to be alone in a world of
nothingness. While this may seem daunting, it actually gives humans the freedom
to shape themselves. Every choice we make is intentional and applies to our
future. Because all people are making individual choices based on their own
unique situations, there is no central feature that is found universally among
human beings (Hampshire, 60). Due to this individuality reason plays a very
minor role in existentialism, it is seen more as a rationalizing tool for our will
than a major component of the human experience.
Sartre uses the term bad faith to describe the action of assuming meaning
or subscribing to universal truth. It is impossible, in his opinion, to know that
absolute essence of something because it is always developing. Humans must
create their own meaning, through experience and action (Macintyre, 30). To
acquire knowledge an existentialist must experience things as opposed to
learning about them through a secondary source. We behave as if we were
determined; we present our choices as if they are unavoidable (Macintyre, 29).
Breaking out of gender roles and the perceived notions of the natural state of
women is possible within existentialism. If women were to stand up to and start
saying I can where previously they have said I cant or Im not allowed it
would start to change the way in which they are perceived. There is always a
choice in existentialism and breaking from this cycle of bad faith, accepting other
peoples meanings, is a way in which women could use existentialism as a
framework for empowerment.
This conspicuous lack of reason as a staple in philosophy continues into the
theory of Post Modernism. Post Modernism is more about deconstructing
preexisting notions than building new ones, they claim that reality is unknowable
so trying to define it is meaningless. Post Modernism aims to disrupt the beliefs,
or narratives, that we typically hold at the center of our web. Essentially they are
taking all the beliefs ingrained in western culture since the Enlightenment and
either throwing them in to serious judgment if not out completely. To the
postmodernist there is no coherent self or substance, since there is no universal
substance of anything people and things can exist only in a specific context (Flax,
624).
There is no field of study or discipline that can claim to understand the
universe because nothing can exists beyond its own circumstances. Reason and
science no longer have universal concrete meaning, they arent transcendent
anymore (Flax, 634). Following this vein, reason again severely lacks the power it
has previously held. If something like reason did in fact exist it would only be
understood within its context. It can no longer be an overarching truth because
reason could be mean different things to different people. Post Modernism doesnt
allow for generalizations because it would transcend context (Lecture 11/29).
This idea is somewhat limiting however because if things you know in one context
are only true within it that knowledge is only useful and relevant in that specific
instance.
For example, the sense of self in modern thought is like a collection of
experiences and defining moments all connected by some underlying core
essence, like beads on a string. In Post Modernism the self is still made of
experiences and beliefs but they arent connected, they are unique to each
context. Your position and location defines what you know and how you know it
(Lecture 11/29). So if you were to move to another context would the knowledge
you acquired previously become irrelevant?
Human nature is nonexistent in Post Modernism because that would be
akin to a meta-narrative. Everything is explained in relation to itself and the ideas
connected to it (Flax, 624). For women this is mostly good. Little judgment can be
passed on individuals because there is nothing to compare or relate them to. It
essentially makes the best/worst dichotomy irrelevant. However, women would
have to overcome the fact that they could be segregated into only their own
context and since there are many contexts they may be excluded from some.
Elimination of universal truths is both liberating and alienating. While it allows
for equality in some regards it also divides people because each context or system
of behaviors is so different that there seems to be no reconciling them (hooks, 27).
Unlike existentialism and Post Modernism, Freudian Theory does have a
definite view on the human condition and reality. According to Freud everything
can be explained in terms of the material world, specifically the body. Purely
scientific things like biology and anatomy are what defines humans. The mind
according to Freud is divided into three parts: the id, which deals with base
desire, the ego, your conscious self and the super ego, which functions as your
moral center. All actions are determined by biological drives, this reverses the
traditional mind/body hierarchy so that now the body is more important (Lecture
11/15).
Humans tend to sublimate urges through the super ego that society deems
inappropriate in order to be accepted into a community (Freud, 23). Human
behavior is a constant struggle between the id and the super ego, our actions are
the resulting compromise of the ego. Freud doesnt view reason in the traditional
sense he sees it more as a function the mind uses to rationalize behavior,
something the impulses can use to circumvent repression.
The super ego, debatably the most important part of the psyche, is
developed through the example of your father. Children grow up learning how to
function in the world in connection with their fathers, boys fear them and girls
love them (Lehrman, 87). Freud hypothesizes that fathers recognize the love of
their daughters so they are less strict with them leading to an underdeveloped
super ego. Women are at an immediate disadvantage because they are seen as less
moral. Within this theory women are less moral and devalued for their lack of a
penis, starting at such a disadvantage it is hard to see how this modern framework
could be used successfully to achieve gender equality.
However, Freudianism does normalize sex, which is often used against
women in a context that is demeaning. Freud is clear that sexual drive is the
biggest motivator in the human existence. Everyone, not just women, must work
to redirect their sexual energy towards more productive means (Freud, 24). This
concept that sex is simply a biological imperative is good for women in the sense
that it promotes the idea that sex isnt a bad thing and it is desired by men and
women. Women no longer have to be blamed for their body and its influences.
While Freud may have eased womens ridicule in the realm of sex he
simultaneously developed a hierarchy in which men are at the top because they
have a penis. Freud viewed women as castrated men, who are constantly searching
for a way to replace their lost penis. He even goes as far to say that women marry
and have children as a result of their penis envy (Lehrmen, 85). Now the obstacle
for women isnt their lack of reason but their lack of a penis. Within this
framework it is nearly impossible for women to achieve any sort of equality.
Freudianism forces women to derive their power from the men they are
connected to and Post Modernism segregates women into contexts that could
easily become oppressive. Therefore, I think Existentialism is the best philosophy
within which to achieve womens empowerment.
The absolute freedom of will in existentialism is the most forgiving
towards the development of empowered women. The most powerful concept in
existentialism is that there is always a choice. If there is a choice there is
opportunity for upward mobility and growth. People may say that in some cases
there isnt, no one would choose to be a slave which may be true but you can
choose to not stay a slave.
The main problem for women usually stems from the fact that many
philosophies assert that they are unable to reason to the extent of a man. Now, in
the context of existentialism where reason is no longer as important women still
struggle with being an equal human being. Though Sartre says that we should
respect all peoples freedoms (Macintyre, 31) the nature of human relationships
limits the freedom of women.
In existentialism everything is viewed from the self and all other things
are objects. Women are perceived to have more defined or determined roles so
they fall much closer to the object side of the self-other spectrum. Being an object
takes away the ability of choice, which is the most important component of
existentialism. Simone De Beauvoir, another crucial existentialist, attributes this
objectification to institutions that perpetuate oppressive attitudes and to women
for not fighting to resist these oppressions (De Beauvoir, 61). Such personal
accountability is frightening because the individual is wholly responsible for
themselves, any excuse is just bad faith. If enacted correctly existentialism
removes the perceived barriers that force people to fit into a category or behave a
certain way.
It may be argued that since women are seen as closer to the object than the
subject that existentialism wouldnt be a good framework for equality. However,
the meaning of an object is to be defined or predetermined. Objects cant make
choices, so as long as women have the ability to choose there is hope within the
framework for empowerment.
True Women are seen as objects to men, meant to satisfy needs and fit
societal norms. However, the true woman and the real woman are different beings.
De Beauvoir argues that women are created, being female doesnt necessarily
mean you are a women (De Beauvoir, 67). True women have such defined roles
that it makes them into objects but if women were to choose to reject this
stereotype it would be the first step towards empowerment. It comes down to
personal responsibility, if women choose to they could be free but they would be
giving up the security, acceptance and wealth that comes along with conforming
to the construct of the true woman. Liberty should come before happiness
(Lecture 11/27), it takes immense courage to give up what is safe for the
unknown but with the risk comes potential for enormous gain.
If they are motivated women should be able to be powerful within the
framework of existentialism. We create our own meaning in life, so what it means
to be a women can differ amongst people. No one can tell you that view is wrong
and if you accept the definition of what other people think a women should be that
would be in bad faith. We create the meaning of the body and therefore the
significance of being male or female (De Beauvoir, 67).
Existentialism has the potential to be empowering to women because there
is no preordained essence. Choice and action shape individuals identity, so each
person is solely responsible for their station in life. The core of what is holding
women back is their acceptance of the definition of women. If they were to reject
this restrictive assumption there would be nothing else to separate them from
men.
Existentialism and feminism have a tenuous relationship. Its founders were
predominantly male, the only female Simone de Beauvoir was only accredited
because she was thought to have the mind of a man. Although historically it has
been shaped by people with weak feminist tendencies the ideas at their core are
applicable to promoting gender equality. If existentialist lack of preordained
structure and rationality were applied to society it would break down the
foundation sexist and discriminatory beliefs are built on. Creating room for a
framework in which people are judged on their choices not their gender, class, or
race.
Humans are condemned to be free(Sarte, 316). In existentialism life is
what you make it. The thought of having so much personal accountability for our
situation is nearly unbearable. Freedom is a burden, but it a burden that lifts us. A
burden that allows us to reach our full potential.