In her book “The Second Sex” Simone de Beauvoir discusses the role and nature of women in society, saying that “She is defined and differentiated with reference to man and not he with reference to her; she is incidental, the inessential as opposed to the essential. He is the Subject, he is Absolute - she is the Other” (Beauvoir 1993, p. 16). Beauvoir’s argument indicates the presence of male dominance in society that has existed for thousands of years. Furthermore, her argument indicates that problems related to class and race will inevitably become man-made problems because of their economic dominance over women. Criticism of the Beauvoir's position can be based on the notion that she did not produce any viable solutions to the problems that she had discussed. Her argument, however, demonstrates the level to which the dominance of men has permeated the social circumstances by which women live throughout much of history. Beauvoir's examination of the female role was correct, despite her inability to do anything about it. Society strongly advocates gender, meaning that the tenuous relationship that clearly exists between men and women will continue to be a dominant aspect of social life, even in the modern world.
Beauvoir's argument makes the claim that there is an underlying bias within society that considers the male gender to be more valued than that of the female. This relates to the dominance that men have had over women throughout the centuries. The suggestion that the quote makes, that men have created an “essential” gender, can be seen in exploring the values that have been held by society throughout the centuries. The idea of “essential” seems to express a basic necessity and is a clear indication of the importance of the male gender within society. Women are considered to be the “other” gender, rather than one of equal value to men. In “The Second Sex” Beuvoir argues that “women lack concrete means for organizing themselves into a unit” (Beauvoir, 1993, p. 19). Beauvoir’s assertion that women are treated as an “other” or some sort of inferior gender indicates that she saw a level of gender inequality within society. This idea, in opposition to the “essential” nature of males, argues that females are not necessary and unimportant within the context of social and cultural needs. She believed that through the pursuit of a deeper relationship between the individual and society a more advanced equality can be created, which allows for a more personal connection with gender and its roles. While her position presupposes a reality that is present within the social circumstance, and has been throughout history, Beauvoir's argument is primarily that inequality exists and has existed for a long time. She argues that the oppressed “carry this ostracism so far that we can even reach the point of turning it against ourselves” (Beauvoir, 1973, p. 4). She shows that women are viewed this way by demonstrating that the whole of history has been mad-made. It is therefore easy to agree with her claim that this is an unfair bias built into the very structures of society.
There is truth to the argument that is made by Beauvoir. In looking at the historic background of women in society there is a great deal of evidence that suggests the subjugation of women. This form of dominance in relation to gender roles dates back throughout history. Her quote reflects a viewpoint grounded in discrimination, which has traditionally cast woman as the “other”. While the basic duality between male and female is not an issue, there is a deep concern with the idea of “woman's fixed status as the absolute Other and man's occupation of the position of absolute Subject” (Gatens, 1991, p. 51). This presents a duality based one the subjugation of one to the other. This view regarding the female gender continued all the way into the twentieth century. This provides support for the argument made by Beavoir. History shows that men have never had to fight for basic gender equality as women have. However, “an understanding of woman's situation requires a study of not simply biology, but also psychology, history, and sociology” (Gatens, 1991, p. 52). Economic worth, for example, is significant in relation to how much power and control one has access to. This idea acts as an analogy between men and women, because men have usually held more economic wealth and thus had more power than women. In comparison, it has often been, and still is in many places, obligatory for women to stay at home as housewives, unable to work or live within the same standards of men.
Furthermore, these roles can be seen to be expressed through the underlying cognitive conditioning of women within their social lives. Beauvoir suggests that women are generally perceived to be the “other”, and that while men are “essential” women are conditioned to be “unessential”. The situation of women continuously enhances the superiority of men within society while, at the same time, repressing women. For example, the objectification of the female body and how women view themselves through social perceptions of beauty are reflected in her quote. Conceptually speaking, “a man is and remains a subject that directs himself towards an object, the female as the object of desire” (Gothlin, 1999, p. 86). Because the female body is so overtly sexualised, it can be easy for women to become obsessed with how they look. This can result in them falling in love with physical beauty as opposed to true inner beauty. This is essentially the result of the female body being considered to be passive and therefore prone to being molded into whatever society desires from it. Women are the “other” or “inessential” because their sexual disposition is considered to be passive compared to males, whose sexuality is more dominant. Beauvoir's argument suggests the importance of consideration of the cultural and historic origins of male privilege rather than basing views of gender on the bias inherent in modern society. “The sexual union of separate bodies resembles thus a psychoanalytic drama of symbiosis and separation being lived through” (Gothlin, 1999, p. 89). This psychological disconnection establishes the principles by which her quote can be related to the real world. For this reason, Beauvoir's position regarding the subservience of women and the underlying psychological processes that have gone to shape their circumstances can be successfully related to the historic context of women in culture and society in general.
There are, however, issues with Beauvoir's argument. While she is able to develop a strong sense of purpose regarding the need to reexamine the roles of women in society, her arguments are unable to provide any deeper insight into how the underlying problems associated with this relationship can be alleviated. The major issue in regards to Beauvoir’s work is that she highlights this issue but offers no potential alternatives or solutions. This inability justifies support of the claim made by Beauvoir, demonstrating the need for developing a way to overcome these problems. “If the doctrine of authenticity leads to such a miscomprehension, of every form of constraint, using it to to describe the oppression of women must already seem paradoxical” (Le Doeuff, 1980, p. 28). However, Beauvoir's argument also presents the possibility for major changes potentially occurring within the social order that she is criticizing. This would work to promote the equality of women within society as a whole. This issue could be the result of the power difference between genders, which needs to also be addressed by the social order in which these discreteness exist. Cooperation is necessary for the establishment of gender equality, which, as her quote suggests, is inherently difficult. While some might argue that notions of gender are not present within the biological world, questioning whether or not there is such a thing within nature, Beauvior would likely address these claims through the establishment of the importance of the social conditioning of culture and civilization. In Beauvoir's position, “a woman who has had some means of affirming herself, of creating, and has not been fully capable of exploiting her opportunity, down at once comes the moral re-probation” (Le Doeuff, 1980, p. 288). This level of criticism is challenged by the idea that gender can be taught and learned until it is standardized through language, actions and communication. This can have profound effects on the underlying values that are present and conditioned for each gender. The notion of he and she as “essential” and “inessential” are necessary to consider in relation to the positions of men and women within society. These cultural values of gender and the roles and responsibilities assigned to those within these categories should be considered so that gender dominance can be eliminated as a concept all together. Awareness of the quote from Beauvoir’s work is necessary in order to contribute to further discussion regarding these roles and how they are assigned. This could help to present a way to overcome these problems of inequality through the enactment of fundamental social changes.
In looking at the role of women in society, throughout much of human history and up until the modern day it is clear that women are generally regarded as the “other” gender. Even tremendously contentious issues related to class and race can be classified as ‘man-made’ as a result of the economic dominance over women that has persisted. Economic inferiority has left women with less influence within the gender power struggle. The psychological explanation for gender has also been discounted by her argument. However, a major criticism of Beauvoir’s position is that she did not offer a political alternative to gender inequality and a means of political resistance, as it would be impossible to implement change without the dominant gender’s support. Contemporary sources justify the claim that the female gender has struggled to gain just and equal rights within society.
References
Beauvoir, S. d. (1973). The coming of age. New York: Warner.
Beauvoir, S. d. (1993). The second sex. London: D. Campbell.
Gatens, M. (1991). Feminism and Philosophy: Perspectives on Difference and Equality. Polity Press. 48-59.
Gothlin, E. (1999). Simone De Beauvoir's Notion of Appeal, Desire, and Ambiguity and their Relationship to Jean-Paul Sartre's Notions of Appeal and Desire. Hypatia, Vol. 14. No. 4.
Le Doeuff, M. (1980). Simone De Beauvoir and Existentialism. Feminist Studies. 6(2). 277-289.
