Navigation
•
Home
•
Members
•
Papers
•
Forums
•
Search
•
Signup
•
Links
•
Contact Us
•
About
Top 10
Popular Essays
Rated Essays
Newest Essays
Report
Print
Add to Favorites
Report
Messages
Rate
Similar Reports
Help
One is Born a Woman (Click to select text)
For as long as humanity has existed, or anthropologically speaking Homo Sapien Sapien, it is intuitive to accept male and female must also exist. Anatomically it is apparent the human species is not asexual, and thus the different sexes must necessarily serve some purpose. Strictly speaking that purpose would be procreative, barring all notions of interpersonal communication bringing such emotions as love, happiness and belonging. In a scientific Darwinian fashion two sexes are necessary not only to perpetuate the species, but also to negate a "monoculture" of sorts and create the crucial adaptability needed to survive. However, it doesn't take science to explain, or solidify, the existence of two sexes; rather it is physically evident that two sexes exist - male and female. Yet the natural notion of two sexes which is taken as a given in recent years has come under scrutiny. In the school of Social Constructionist thought the pervading idea is, all perceived relations between the individual and the external world are a product of the social milieu. Monique Wittig argues dogmatically this very ideal in her essay One Is Not Born A Woman. Wittig is a Material Feminist; consequently she analyzes the definition of what a woman is, and tries to move away from the notion of naturalness in women. She concedes there is no naturalness in male or female, rather the notion of sex is a gross misrepresentation created by the social milieu. Subsequently she argues for a type of class uprising to free "women" from this oppressive label, and likens it to the Marxist idea of the proletariat rebellion against the bourgeois class. Wittig in her reasoning pushes the limits of what can be conceivable and thus becomes absurd in her conclusion, there is nothing natural to a woman - even sex. By virtue of her absurdity Wittig's paper faces a conceptual problem, and has an inherent personal bias that has affected the forcefulness of the paper. Before any elucidation as to the exact argument Wittig sets forth a distinction must first be made clear. According to Wittig there is a fundamental problem between "woman" and "women." "Woman" is a myth, and is consequently the product of a social construction where economic, political and ideological forces are at work. These numerous factors create the category "woman" and thus affect the minds and psyches of "women." The label creates a sense of totality that negates the individualistic nature of the "women." There is a process of socialization which individuals go through; from the moment a child is born there are numerous social influences placed on the child. Historically boys are taught to be aggressive and girls to be passive. Even in the earlier part of this century there was the conception "women" had a particular place in the household and workplace. Thus Wittig wants to argue "woman" is a mythic social construction, creating an oppressive category which the individual "women" has no room to maneuver in the social totality of "woman." To further illustrate how the category of "woman" has been created she offers the example of black slavery as explained by Colette Guillaumin. Before the oppression of blacks the concept of race did not exist, but ever since the oppression race has been taken as a given. What the argument aims to do is show how physical features get re-interpreted by society, thus a construction is made. Hence the myth "woman." In this way the notion of "woman" is an interpretation created by the heterosexual and patriarchal norms which rule society; the same way black identity had been defined through the prejudice eyes of the white man. Furthermore, lesbian society destroys the belief there is a natural group "woman." A lesbian is considered neither man nor woman, and thus "… reveals that the division from men which women have been the object is a political one and shows how [women] have ideologically been rebuilt into a natural group (Course Kit p. 68)." There is a fundamental assumption built into Wittig's reasoning here. Provided there is something natural to man and woman, this would necessarily exclude lesbianism. That is if men and women have natural roles, heterosexuality being normal because of two sexes in the species, then lesbianism should not occur since it would be unnatural. Lesbians are beyond the categories of sex (man and woman). Since what defines a "woman" is a conceptual relation to a man, lesbians are free from this dependence due to their lifestyle of rejecting heterosexual norms. Thus, if a woman chooses to live, love and sleep with another woman this intuitively contradicts any notion of naturalness. Because of this reasoning Wittig is lead to her assertion "woman" is an ideological group and not a natural one. Consequently the problem is a creation of the patriarchal and heterosexual norms which pervade the social milieu, and function to oppress "women." In order to combat the oppression Wittig wants a class uprising to take place, that is for "women" to realize the patriarchal despotism and rise up in revolt to it. The individual woman must first become aware she is the object of an oppressive male category; thereupon she can function as an individual within the category to crush the controlling social norms. "Once the class "men" disappears, "women" as a class will disappear as well, for there are no slaves without masters (Beta p. 70)." Hence there must be an individual awakening which contributes to the creation of class consciousness, so when change takes place ideological transformation will occur as well. To this point there has been a discussion of the basic arguments Wittig sets forth in trying to establish sex as being a categorical and unnatural distinction. There is a large conceptual problem with the assertion there is nothing natural, even sex. She wants to argue there is no biological basis, rather everything is a social construction. Yet her logic is puzzling. If indeed sex is a social construction there must necessarily be some sort of base. By this it is meant something cannot be created from nothing. For example, if a contractor wishes to build a house, the house must first have a base from which the structure will follow. Thus, if it is a small home, semi-detached or townhouse the base for each of these potential buildings will be different. From this base the skeletal outline of the home can be seen and will begin to take shape. The home cannot be built or take shape without having a base first, it is an absolute necessity for the structure cannot be built upon nothing. Similarly, even if sex is a social construction there has to be something upon which the construction is built. Notions of male and femaleness are not created by chance; there is the biological base of sex from which they derive. Moreover, Diana Fuss further illustrates this idea. Her argument concedes the fact a social constructionist like Wittig will always fall back into essentialism. By taking away any naturalness to a woman and replacing it with social constructionism is to implicitly assert a woman is naturally a social animal. The argument within this paper is not one of constructionism vs. essentialism; but Fuss' argument serves well in proving there must always be something essential for creation to take place. Hence, if the social milieu is what defines the psyche of the "woman" it cannot be denied there must be some base from which the creation stems - biology. Thus Wittig cannot deny the existence of biology because to do that would obliterate all matter. Conceptually Wittig errs in her reasoning; she cannot deny the existence of matter (biology) and create a creation from ostensibly nothing. The second major criticism is the inherent personal bias in her paper. Wittig is herself a feminist and a lesbian. She argues lesbianism is outside of the category "man" and "woman" because the lesbian is not part of the socially constructed heterosexual relation. As a lesbian Wittig does not fit into the dominant heterosexual culture and tries to justify this culture as being a construct. Realizing as long as heterosexuality and patriarchal norms are what run society, she will never be able to completely make the transition into this culture. That is why she argues for the obliteration of any notion of sex, for as long as man and woman exist there will always naturally be categories and differences. "This can be accomplished only by the destruction of heterosexuality as a social system which is based on the oppression of women by men and which produces the doctrine of the difference between the sexes (Beta p. 71)[.]" Arguing women have historically been oppressed and wishing to challenge and change the patriarchal domination should be enough for a feminist to suffice in her argument. Yet Wittig does not stop at patriarchal control; she pushes the envelope trying to denounce heterosexuality and biology in general. This is because as long as man and woman exist naturally, lesbianism cannot be seen as natural behaviour. She tries to deconstruct the existing social milieu and replace it with her own construction, one where lesbianism would become an accepted form of social relation. It may be argued this section of the paper commits a bias ad hominem, though this is not true. The question here is not the source of the argument and its validity, rather the purpose of the argument and its forcefulness. Wittig has an inherent bias that does more to serve the lesbian feminist population, then aid in the freedom of "women" in general from patriarchal oppression. Her argument assumes women will readily accept what they perceive themselves to be is a social creation of oppression. Wittig's unconscious bias overlooks those women who wish to combat the oppressive forces, yet feel there is something innate in their biology constituting their character. Thus the fact she is a lesbian does not make her essay fallacious; it damages the forcefulness in creating the Marxist type uprising she wishes, since some women may feel their biology is an important part of who they are. Subsequently they will be reluctant to part with this aspect of their lives, reducing Wittig's audience to those who agree with her extreme position. Throughout history there is no doubt women have been subjugated by men. There has always existed the struggle for women to escape the chains of patriarchal oppression. Wittig wants to deny existence to any natural notion of woman, for that matter sex, and assert the categories of man and woman are social constructions. Conceptually and realistically she cannot do this, because to destroy matter is to destroy the physical world. What then would we be left with? In fairness she doesn't deny the existence of matter, rather she says we interpret what we see (ie..man/woman) as a product of social relations. Though to create the social distinction between man and woman there must be some base from which it originates. Thus biologically there are two sexes from which a social construction is created. Implicit in this would be natural functions exclusive to each of the particular sexes, conceptually Wittig cannot deny the fundamental occurrence of male and female in the human species. This is the base from which all social relations begin. Furthermore, her lifestyle has greatly affected the tone and nature of her writing. Being a lesbian has made her paper seem very egocentric, though unconsciously. This damages the forcefulness of the paper since she may have inadvertently excluded a large part of the female population who don't share the same ideals. While her paper provides an interesting look at the root of oppression for women, she fails in providing a feasible solution. Conceptually it falls apart; and inherent biases may have done more to damage its effectiveness, then aid in its insight.
Recent Board Topics
Please drop by and sign up.
[
Submit Essay
] - [
Privacy
] - [
Disclaimer
] - [
Email Us
]
Copyright 2003 EssayFarm.com