Remembering Simone de Beauvoir’s ‘ethics of ambiguity’ to challenge contemporary divides: feminism beyond both sex and gender

IF 1.9 3区 社会学 Q2 WOMENS STUDIES
L. Nicholas
{"title":"Remembering Simone de Beauvoir’s ‘ethics of ambiguity’ to challenge contemporary divides: feminism beyond both sex and gender","authors":"L. Nicholas","doi":"10.1177/1464700120988641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article returns to Simone de Beauvoir’s philosophical oeuvre in order to offer a way of thinking beyond contemporary feminist divisions created by ‘gender critical’ or trans-exclusionary feminists. The ‘gender critical’ feminist position returns to sex essentialism to argue for ‘abolishing’ gender, while opponents often appeal to proliferated gender self-identities. I argue that neither goes far enough and that they both circumscribe utopian visions for a world beyond both sex and gender. I chart how Beauvoir’s ontological, ethical and political positions can be used to overcome the material/cultural, sex/gender bind that the contemporary divide perpetuates. I outline Beauvoir’s ‘ambiguous’ non-foundational ontology that attends to both the cultural origins, and material effects, of both sex and gender, and to the extent that humyns are fundamentally social. After outlining Beauvoir’s definition of freedom as purposive action, I then outline how the existence of the humyn-made and intersubjectively-upheld ‘situations’ of both sex and gender delimit this, urging feminists to return to the lost question of eradicating both. I use the utopian impulse in Beauvoir to argue that an ethics of reciprocity is an alternative mode of understanding the self and others. Beauvoir also calls for a political strategy that I call a ‘utopian realism’ that I apply to the contemporary divide. A way forward that is attentive to the concerns of both positions is the pragmatic use of identity politics that is nonetheless mindful of identity’s limits, alongside Beauvoir’s proto-intersectional vision of solidarity politics based not on identity but on a position of alterity and shared political strategy. Ultimately, I use this to argue that feminism would do better to unite around a shared commitment to challenging alterity, rather than further contributing to it.","PeriodicalId":47281,"journal":{"name":"Feminist Theory","volume":"22 1","pages":"226 - 247"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1464700120988641","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Feminist Theory","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700120988641","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"WOMENS STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

This article returns to Simone de Beauvoir’s philosophical oeuvre in order to offer a way of thinking beyond contemporary feminist divisions created by ‘gender critical’ or trans-exclusionary feminists. The ‘gender critical’ feminist position returns to sex essentialism to argue for ‘abolishing’ gender, while opponents often appeal to proliferated gender self-identities. I argue that neither goes far enough and that they both circumscribe utopian visions for a world beyond both sex and gender. I chart how Beauvoir’s ontological, ethical and political positions can be used to overcome the material/cultural, sex/gender bind that the contemporary divide perpetuates. I outline Beauvoir’s ‘ambiguous’ non-foundational ontology that attends to both the cultural origins, and material effects, of both sex and gender, and to the extent that humyns are fundamentally social. After outlining Beauvoir’s definition of freedom as purposive action, I then outline how the existence of the humyn-made and intersubjectively-upheld ‘situations’ of both sex and gender delimit this, urging feminists to return to the lost question of eradicating both. I use the utopian impulse in Beauvoir to argue that an ethics of reciprocity is an alternative mode of understanding the self and others. Beauvoir also calls for a political strategy that I call a ‘utopian realism’ that I apply to the contemporary divide. A way forward that is attentive to the concerns of both positions is the pragmatic use of identity politics that is nonetheless mindful of identity’s limits, alongside Beauvoir’s proto-intersectional vision of solidarity politics based not on identity but on a position of alterity and shared political strategy. Ultimately, I use this to argue that feminism would do better to unite around a shared commitment to challenging alterity, rather than further contributing to it.
记住西蒙娜·德·波伏娃的“模糊伦理”,挑战当代的分歧:超越性别和性别的女权主义
本文回到西蒙娜·德·波伏娃的哲学作品,以提供一种超越“性别批判”或跨性别排斥女权主义者所造成的当代女权主义分裂的思考方式。“性别批判”的女权主义立场回归性本质主义,主张“废除”性别,而反对者往往呼吁激增的性别自我认同。我认为两者都不够,都限制了一个超越性别和性别的乌托邦世界。我描绘了波伏娃的本体论、伦理和政治立场如何被用来克服当代鸿沟所造成的物质/文化、性别/性别束缚。我概述了波伏娃的“模糊”非基础本体论,它既关注性别和性别的文化起源和物质影响,也关注幽默从根本上是社会性的。在概述了波伏娃将自由定义为有目的的行动之后,我概述了幽默的存在是如何形成和主体间支持性别和性别的“情境”的,并敦促女权主义者回到消除两者的迷失问题上来。我用波伏娃的乌托邦冲动来论证互惠伦理是理解自我和他人的另一种模式。波伏娃还呼吁采用一种我称之为“乌托邦现实主义”的政治策略,我将其应用于当代的分歧。关注这两种立场的一个前进方向是务实地使用身份政治,尽管如此,也要注意身份的局限性,以及波伏娃对团结政治的原始交叉愿景,这种愿景不是基于身份,而是基于相互矛盾的立场和共同的政治策略。最终,我用这一点来论证,女权主义最好团结起来,共同致力于挑战争吵,而不是进一步助长争吵。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Feminist Theory
Feminist Theory WOMENS STUDIES-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Feminist Theory is an international interdisciplinary journal that provides a forum for critical analysis and constructive debate within feminism. Theoretical Pluralism / Feminist Diversity Feminist Theory is genuinely interdisciplinary and reflects the diversity of feminism, incorporating perspectives from across the broad spectrum of the humanities and social sciences and the full range of feminist political and theoretical stances.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信