Simone de Beauvoir: What is ‘Woman’ ?
In “The Second Sex” de Beauvoir states the dilemma of ‘woman’ is that she finds herself in a world where value and meaning have been ascribed by men. In the present essay I shall argue, firstly through an analysis of the dualistic concepts, immanence (in-itself) and transcendence (for-itself), and subsequently through a critical reflection on how we ought to consider the gender-construct, ‘woman,’ that, in agreement with de Beauvoir, authentic projects are essential in the emancipation of women.
By calling upon her own lived experience, de Beauvoir suggests there is no universal metaphysical essence that can ever define ‘woman.’ Rather, it is social construct fashioned through woman’s subordinate and circumscribed role in society. De Beauvoir argues that women have been relegated to a life of ‘immanence’; a concept that suggests women are passive, static, and ‘within themselves.’ This is in stark opposition to the male-dominated notion of ‘transcendence’, understood as an extension outward, a becoming, and an entity ‘for itself.’
As I comprehend it, since women have been excluded from equal participation in society, ranging from education, politics and career opportunities, de Beauvoir’s ability to grow, achieve and essentially obtain freedom, has been stifled. Additionally, as she is subservient to her reproductive body, woman has been locked into domestic labour and child-rearing responsibilities that suggest nature has mapped her future. In other words, woman has been imprisoned within immanence. But why? One would assume that if historically man has defined what it means to be human, then it is of no wonder why woman has been “defined and differentiated with reference to man.”[1] Women’s bodies, through male gaze have become nothing more than a sexualised object. Consequently, not only does woman become the Other, and the object of possession, but she is alienated from her very own body.
Conversely, men, historically with more open opportunities, move towards an indeterminate ‘becoming,’ and are therefore able to transcend the present. In a somewhat contingent and temporal happening, man utilises the woman as a medium for his own transcendence. Woman, complicit in the system of oppression, internalises the expectations of her ‘gender’ and becomes the muse in the creative exploits and projects of a man’s evolvement. I can’t help but think of Kiki de Montparnasse, Dora Maar and Edie Sedgwick amongst many, many other women. You are most probably unaware of these artists, or their work within literature, art, photography and fashion, as I was also. They were the ‘muses’ for Man Ray, Pablo Picasso and Andy Warhol respectively. Yet we hardly know of them as individuals, with their own passions, interests and direction. De Beauvoir would argue these women were unknowing of their own transcendent capabilities, remaining instead within an immanent existence.
I find myself in agreement with de Beauvoir in that history has belonged to the domain of the man, and we are only just now beginning to critically rewrite versions of her-story[2], in an attempt to broaden the field of opportunities for women that allow for more transcendent paths. However, it is also of my opinion that de Beauvoir relies too heavily upon Cartesian language, such as man/woman, immanence/transcendence and subject/other, that further propagates gender as a binary condition.[3] Indeed, she begins her novel by questioning, “Are there even women?,”[4] and further on, “one is not born, but rather becomes woman.”[5] Such statements are suggestive that de Beauvoir is sympathetic to the distinction between sex and gender, in that gender is contingent and does not necessarily follow directly from sexual anatomy. Whilst the reproductive systems we are born with are a biological given, we are apparently able to either mute, disagree or recreate our gender identities.
If so however, how are we to understand sexual difference? If woman is not a metaphysical essence, and is also not purely dependent upon sex organs or hormones, then what is it? De Beauvoir admits herself that she does not have the answer. In fact, the answer lies in ‘woman’ emancipating herself from being a willing participant in patriarchal standards, and instead accepting her own radical freedom. Just because women have not been free in the past, it does not follow that she cannot be free. However, for de Beauvoir, women obtain freedom, like men, via projective transcendence, and engaging in the concept of life as a project. My objection to such an argument is that it follows that the female body becomes an intrinsic obstacle, and negative factor that must be overcome in order to obtain such freedom.
What if say, as a ‘women,’ I decide that my ‘project’ in life is to get married and take on the role as primary caregiver for my children, and thus also take on the majority of responsibility for domestic labour. Would this mean my life is reduced to mere immanence, and I would never truly be able to obtain freedom? Would I, in de Beauvoir’s account, be living either inauthentically or in ‘bad faith,’ subscribing to a stereotypical role in society? Is there no middle zone between either an immanent or transcendent life? However, de Beauvoir would refute this objection, and would in fact support my ‘project’ on the proviso my choice was made authentically and not by deferring responsibility to another.
Potentially, as suggested earlier, de Beauvoir’s work is still restricted by the male cogito, an objection that can be found in the work of Genevieve Lloyd.[6] Whilst this may be true, it is more so evidence of woman’s current condition. Women have grown up from an early age in a world made by and for men. They have read books, watched movies, listened to music and gone to school to inherit how to be a woman. And yet, in her projective transcendence she is expected to be beyond this; want more than this. If she marries, has children and leaves work she is ridiculed and condemned as being anti-feminist.
In order to ensure that the future of woman is permitted relationships with both immanence and transcendence, we must as a society, as de Beauvoir suggests, stop creating a paradigm of what we expect woman to be. In this respect, women can begin to have conceptions of themselves without the distortion of the male perspective that has positioned her as inessential, and the Other.
[1] Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, trans. Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany-Chevallier (New York: Vintage Books, 2011), 6.
[2] A feminist metaphorical take on the term ‘history’ that excludes the masculine pronoun his and replaces it with her
[3] And as such, excludes non-cisgender individuals
[4] Ibid., 2.
[5] Ibid., 301.
[6] Genevieve Lloyd, “Masters, Slaves, and Others.” Radical Philosophy, no. 34 (Spring, 1983).