Practical Philosophy discussion

The Second Sex An engagement with the perspectives offered by de Beauvoir's seminal feminist work 'The Second Sex.' How has the 'eternal feminine' manifested itself culturally and symbolically? How has femininity assumed the role of Hegel's Other? An exploration of de Beauvoir's physiological enquiry, her treatment of sexual differences, Plato, and psychoanalysis. Lastly, how can we realise, if at all, her assertion that women must free themselves from (1) the idea that to become independent she must become masculine, and (2) the socialisation through which she becomes feminised? The practical aim of this discussion is, if applicable, to diagnose modern cultures with the affliction described by de Beauvoir, and identify a way to overcome it.

I'm afraid all contemporary cultures exhibit the affliction described by de Beauvoir, although to varying extent. The secondary place of women in society being universal. For further exploration of the thought, perhaps shedding a light on the questions
I highly recommend Sherry Ortner's work vividly equaling female place in society as compared to men, with the dichotomy of nature and culture. Women are biologically under higher strain, with their bodies physiologically prioritizing reproductory functions over their own wellbeing. This biological strain combined with sacrifices of maternity, leads to the perception of women as closer to nature, with men being perceived as more autonomous, logical and closer to "culture" defined as progress and technology. Interestingly the dichotomy penetrates several axis of dichotomies describing cultural oppositions including culture/nature, man/woman, mind/body, public/private, civilized/primitive, and active/passive.

Woman, Culture, and SocietyWoman, Culture, and Society

(Sherry Ortner "Is female to male as nature is to culture?" )

Taliarochminska wrote: "I'm afraid all contemporary cultures exhibit the affliction described by de Beauvoir, although to varying extent. The secondary place of women in society being universal. For further exploration of..."

Thanks for the recommendation! I admired Ortner's fair-mindedness and her intuitive attempt to explain the perceived phenomenon of female closeness to nature.

It strikes me that Ortner seems to abandon her commitment to maintaining strict dichotomies based on cultural facts. Later in the article, she describes the female position as often ambiguous, acting as a mediator between symbolic couplings. This conjecture accounts for the representation of the feminine in non-traditional roles. Her examples of the Siriono, Nazi Germany, and European courtly love are particularly apt. I would add the feminine yin—the Taoist symbol of darkness, wetness, receptiveness, passivity, and, surprisingly, order—to the list.

Nonetheless, we should specify what we are trying to demonstrate or explain before drawing parallels, otherwise there is no utility in this evidential exercise. Besides Ortner’s investigation of the intuition behind the nature/culture dichotomy and its correlation to gender, there is no hint as to what these dichotomies illustrate.

I notice a stark difference between the quality of ‘second-ness’ and the quality of ‘secondary status’ adopted by Ortner (pp. 5, 9 & 23). In the former, the state of being second is the crux of the claim. It is a claim which infers a positioning of genders within a meta-narrative, with the male ‘subject’ and the female ‘object’ operating as actors within this scheme. This model is confirmed by de Beauvoir’s use of Hegel’s concept of ‘the Other’. The masculine, it is implied, is the active element, while the female is the receptive. Regardless of symbolic specificities, this claim holds true for many well-known cosmogonic myths (any model concerning the origin of the cosmos). For example, the male god Marduk slays Tiamat, the primordial goddess embodying chaos, to form the heavens and the Earth in the Enûma Elish. Similarly, the Chinese god Pan Gu is born from a cosmic egg (symbolic of maternity), after which he proceeds to construct the inhabitable universe. In these meta-narratives, a male actor creates inhabitable order from a feminine or hermaphroditic instantiation of chaos. The feminine may also be emblematic of order, as in the ying-yang duality, but tends also to be receptive (the male yang (growth, culture) balances excessive yin (negativity, passivity)). The foundation of de Beauvoir’s claim is the relative positioning of femininity and masculinity towards action, rather than any claim about the symbolic perception or social condition of women.

This claim about the positioning of the genders within narratives through ‘second-ness’ or ‘otherness’ is sensible, and it is understandable why de Beauvoir would choose these terms. Critically, it avoids a discussion of the nebulous concepts of power, status, and justice. On the other hand, offhand substitutes for ‘second-ness’ (such as ‘secondary status,’ ‘lower order of being,’ ‘prey of the species,’ and ‘more manifest animality’) detract from de Beauvoir’s initial conceptual precision and unduly re-introduce these confused concepts. This is a serious issue with the way de Beauvoir has been received by postmodernist feminists.

These are just simple observations. It would be great to hear your thoughts! Feel free explore whichever themes you feel would be constructive—there’s no need to reply to each post.