Beauvoir speaks much on the conceptualization of Woman as 'other'. I am struggling with exactly what is meant by this moniker, but with some thoughts of mine on a previous post and a contribution by Alexandra, I want to try to work through but one facet thereof.
I think that a feeling of alterity can be extremely healthy especially when paired with a comprehensive understanding of similarities as well. It is important to understand how we are different from those around us; it is through such comprehension that tolerance and empathy is begotten. What is concerning is that alterity seems to be applied to women only which is patently false. In a nigh tautological fashion, if women are other, then so too must men. If we have two letters A and B, we cannot claim that B is the other letter without also noting that A is also an other letter from B.
While alterity and difference are important, it is more important to note the bi-directionality of otherness.
I think (and here I hope Matt will correct me if I err) that alterity implies a hierarchy - the Other is not only different, but lesser. We may not be comparing the letters A and B, but rather comparing a capital A with a lower-case a.
ReplyDeleteA real-life illustration: I may be less intelligent than you, but not by very much - yet when considering myself, I do think of myself as a woman first. This is a peculiar thing, and something not caused by reading Beauvoir's work. This may be an isolated case, but it was also seem that if one were to ask Beauvoir this question (and here is someone who was probably more intelligent than the both of us put together), she too would say she thought of herself as a woman first.
I have not read Levinas in a while but I do not believe it denotes a hierarchy, though I admit the possibility of such a connotation existing. I echo your request for correction if I am mistaken.
ReplyDeleteIt is peculiar as I noted before that the identification of being female comes before anything else. What puzzles me the most is the reason for the phenomenon. Is it because men have stressed the differences and used the differences to discriminate and oppress? Or, is it, perhaps, a defense mechanism, a mechanism by which women identify as a woman with pride, as a difference by which they can distance themselves from their oppressors?
I think the idea of Otherness is not so much to simply denote a difference between two equally different things (or persons as the case may be). I think the idea is more of a case of one being the default, and the Other being the variation on the default. In this case, men would be the default gender, and therefore, women are the variation. This would explain why men are able to think of themselves by their qualities first; their sex is the default and is irrelevant. Women, on the contrary, would think of themselves as women first because it makes them different from the default position, and then they would think of other qualities.
ReplyDelete