Danielle Weekes
Leah Robinson
Liz Knight
Karl Marx “The Alienation of Labor from Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844”
Summary:
In Marx’s article he describes the political economy as he sees it, broken down in to two different classes: those with property and those propertyless souls who labor. He states that political economy begins with private property. Private property in his definition is property that you own, that you make a profit from, therefore you are profiting off the labor of others. Marx states that the more the laborer produces the less value he actually has because the commodity he is producing goes down in value as he can produce more of the product, faster. It in turn creates an objectification of labor to the laborer (it doesn’t much matter what it is they are producing, they are no more than a means of production). The laborer becomes a slave to the object, and becomes estranged or alienated from his work. As this process continues the worker loses his sense of reality, “the more he produces, the fewer he can own and so he plunges deeper under the mastery of his product: capital.”
The laborer needs nature to be able to create: nature provides the means of life: object, but also the means of life: the means to sustain the physical existence of the laborer. He becomes a slave to the labor, “the result of this slavery is that he can maintain himself as a physical subject only if he is a laborer, and that he can maintain himself as a laborer only if he is a physical subject.”
What makes up the alienation of labor?
- The labor is alien to the laborer, it does not make up his existence.
- The labor does not belong to him (the laborer).
Labor has two senses.
- The relationship of the laborer to the product of labor as a strange object having power over the laborer.
- The relationship of labor as an act of production within labor itself. An activity which turns against him, does not depend on him, does not belong to him. This is self-alienation, where before we had the estrangement of the thing.
Nature becomes and inorganic body of human beings, it is a direct means for life and the material which humans uses to sustain life-activity.
Estranged labor estranges human beings from,
- Nature
- Themselves in their own active function
Estranged labor works by:
- The species being of humanity, in that nature and its mental species-property, confronts humanity as a strange existence, as a means to its individual existence.
- A direct consequence of the estrangement of the humans from the product of their labor.
Because of all this estrangement from labor and productivity, humans then estrange themselves from the individual within, as well as from relationships with other individuals. The labor obviously does not belong to the laborer, it therefore belong to some other being. Political economy begins with the notion that labor is the soul of production, yet it gives nothing to labor and everything to private property. A rise in wages would not fix the problem, it would only mean a better salary for slaves. Even an equality of salaries would not fix the problem, society would then become an abstract capitalist. We can only fix the problem with a liberation of society from private property and the emancipation of the laborer.
Important Quotes:
“In political economy and its terminology, we have shown that the laborer sinks to the level of a commodity and indeed becomes the most miserable commodity possible.” (400)
“The only wheels which political economy sets in motion are greed and the war between the greedy: competition.” (401)
“The laborer becomes poorer the more wealth he produces, indeed, the more powerful and wideranging his production becomes. The laborer becomes a cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates.” (401)
“The more the laborer labors, as well as the more powerful the alien, object world which he builds over himself becomes, the poorer he himself becomes, that is, his inner world, as he owns less.” (401)
“Just as nature provides the means of life for labor, in the sense that labor cannot live without objects, which it uses, but also it provides the mean of life in a narrower sense, namely the means to sustain the physical existence of the laborer.” (402)
“Labor produces wonderful works for the rich, but it produces poverty for the worker. It produces palaces, but hovels for the laborer. It produces beauty, but deformity for the laborer. I replaces labor with machines, but at the same time it throws the laborer into the most barbarous labor and at the same time makes the laborer into a machine. It produces intelligence and culture, but it produces senselessness and cretinism for the laborer.” (402)
“The result, therefore, is that the human being (the laborer) does not feel himself to be free except in his animal functions: eating, drinking, and reproducing, at his best in his dwelling or in his clothing, etc., and in his human functions he is no more than an animal. The animal becomes human and the human becomes animal.” (403)
“First labor appears to human beings, labor which is the life-activity, the productive life itself, only as a means to meet some need, the need of maintaining physical existence. The productive life is also the species life. It is life engendering life. In the art of life-activity lies the entire character of the species, its species-character, and the species-character of humanity consists of free, conscious activity. Life itself manifests itself as a means of life.” (403-04)
“When his activity is agony to the laborer, it can only be a delight and joy to another. Not gods, not nature, but only human beings themselves can be this strange, foreign power over other human beings.” (404)
“Therefore, through estranged, alienated labor the laborer gives birth to his relationship to his labor as something alien and external to him. This relationship of the laborer to his labor gives birth to the relationship of that labor to the capitalist, or whatever one wishes to name the “labor-master.” Private property is also the product, the result, the natural consequence of alienated labor, of the alienated relationship of the laborer to nature and to himself.” (405)
Karl Marx “Consciousness Derived from Material Conditions from The German Ideology”
Summary:
In Marx’s article he defines for us consciousness, he says that men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness. (A level of producing their means of subsitence.) We continue to see separation not only in classes but even amongst nations as their means of production define them. The divisions of labor lead to the separation of town and country. And they go on and on with in systems breaking down further and further.
The first form of ownership is tribal, this is when people lived by hunting or fishing, their division of labor was within families and was under a patriarchal order. The second form is ancient communal and State ownership, here we see the development of private property, but we still see communal private property. The division of labor is already progressing within this state. Here we see slavery. The third form of ownership is feudal or estate-property, it is also based on community but within the community instead of having slaves you have the upper class and peasantry. There was little division of labor in feudalism. There was little division within a working system.
Marx ends his article by stating that “life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life.”
Important Quotes:
“What they [men] are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and how they product. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production.” (406)
“The relations of different nations among themselves depend upon the extent to which each has developed its productive forces, the division of labor, and internal intercourse.” (406)
“Consciousness can never be anything else than conscious existence, and the existence of men is their actual life-process.” (409)
Karl Marx “On Greek Art in Its Time from a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy”
Summary:
Marx’s lays out for us his superstructure of which the basis is the society and their production. Any culture produced: art, literature etc. is a reflection of the consciousness of the people.
Important Quotes:
“In the social production which men carry on they enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will; these relations of production correspond to a definite stage of development of their material forces of production. The sum total of theses relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society – the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.” (410)
“No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have been developed; and new higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself.” (410)
Assumptions of the Theorist:
Marx’s theories about society, suggest that human societies progress through class struggle: Those that labor and those that oppress the laborer. He thought that eventually the working class would produce a revolution and therefore self-destruct capitalist society. He thought that then a socialist society would take place and be governed by the working class. His hope was that then the people would become a classless society and live in a communist society. This was his hope but it did not happen.
Value and Contribution:
Marx’s works contain value to us today mainly because our system has not changed as much as we would like to think, as we look in to his work we can still see his dream for a utopia type society. I don’t think we need to agree with everything he says to see that his work holds value and truth to our society today. Marx contributed greatly to the world of criticism as we can see that even today his works are widely read and debated. He has shaped the way that many people think and feel about society.
Other References:
Karl Marx – The Theory of Socialism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcqvULx2hGY
Marxism Made Simple
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ztVeUX8Hpo
Marxism: A Quick Introduction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDFrO9GB4JQ
Marx’s Social Theory on Class Structure
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqcMy3cOiW4
Biographical information on Marx
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
Lots of different articles and information from Marx himself
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/
Peter Singer on Hegel and Marx: Section 1 (there are various other sections with lots of information)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxjnG1X510A
Karl Marx “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844” Sparknotes
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/marx/section1.rhtml
F. R. Leavis “The Great Tradition”
Summary:
Leavis makes it clear up front that he does not buy in to the normal canon of good literature. He believes that literature should make a difference in human awareness. He loves Jane Austen and said that she “exemplifies beautifully the relations of “the individual talent” to tradition.” Leavis wants to create a strong tradition for others to follow in, and he believes Austen does this. He states that other authors are too worried about form and sticking to form, if they would focus their efforts elsewhere then the form would work itself out. Overall Leavis believes in a more compact canon of works, works that make a difference in human awareness.
Important Quotes:
“They [major novelists and poets] not only change the possibilities of the art for practitioners and readers, but that they are significant in terms of the human awareness they promote; awareness of the possibilities of life.” (653)
Assumptions of the Theorist:
Leavis believed that authors should focus more on what a difference they can make in society rather than just creating “great novels.” Though his dream was a good one, to help further people in society by writing good literature it was a tall order to fill.
Value and Contribution:
Leavis contributed to the world of literature by defining what good literature is and isn’t, though I don’t necessarily agree with everything he said. Literature holds more value than just raising awareness, but that doesn’t mean that it cannot include both.
Other References:
F. R. Leavis
Biographical Information and more
http://mypages.surrey.ac.uk/eds1cj/f-r-leavis-life-and-work.htm
F. R. Leavis and Raymond Williams – Two Very Different Positions on ‘Culture’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atU2PYBq4s8
Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”
Summary:
This lengthy article covers a wide expanse of topics, all centering around the issue of authenticity in a work of art’s reproduction. Benjamin summarizes his ideas with the statement: “Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be” (1234b). He discusses a variety of art forms, including woodcutting, printing, engraving, lithography, etc., which have always been reproduced via imitation. Mechanical reproduction, or the increase of speed and improvement of technology, has defined a new period in reproduction and expanded the limits of possibilities. It has also introduced new repercussions of reproduction.
A work’s authenticity is dependent on the original’s presence in a specific place and time. Mechanical reproduction confuses this, enabling a piece to be placed in situations different from the original, attributing to it traditions other than what the creator originally intended. The piece becomes less unique as additional copies are made.
Benjamin defines the aura of an art object as “that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction” (1235a). This may be clarified (somewhat) by labeling it the sense of uniqueness, the something that makes the piece “work,” or the rituals involved in its creation. The rituals for the original piece will be very different than those for a reproduction (the sole purpose behind this piece is to produce something for reproduction). Traditionally, we have always expected art to be unique. The rise of socialism coincided with technological improvements which enabled a new type of art in photography. The immediate result was art for art’s sake. Benjamin worried that at this time, art was becoming more based on politics than ritual.
The politics of art in Benjamin’s time was often about the need or desire to display pieces of art. In the past, works of art were seen as primarily functional, with the benefit of being aesthetically pleasing (e.g. architecture, frescos, poetry, etc.). The art of Benjamin’s day fulfilled different purposes, reaching different audiences. With the development of mechanical reproduction, the audience was more inclined to adopt the role of art critic, to claim the role of expert. Greater exposure to works of art led to greater investment on the part of the audience. Benjamin discusses the role of film in the art community. Film is able to communicate more, and is more easily analyzed.
Art has always created a demand which could be not be satisfied by the present means. This demand could only be fulfilled by advancement in the technical standards, or a formation of a new art form. Therefore, each innovation will aim past its means.
The Dadaists created or chose works, which they called “reproductions with the very means of production.” These could be anything including old, disembodied urinals. These objects defied the traditions of art, especially the required aura.
Paintings invite the spectator into a state of contemplation, where their associations can be abandoned. Films do not allow the viewer to think, because no sooner has the image been presented then a new one replaces it. Therefore the film offers no participation from its viewers.
The reason for the success of the film is due in part to the fact that the masses seek distraction, while art requires the viewers’ attention and concentration:
A man who concentrates before a work of art is absorbed by it… In contrast, the distracted man absorbs the work. The film puts the public in the position of critic, yet the movie is in a position, which requires no attention, making the public an absent-minded critic.
Important Quotes:
“During long periods of history, the mode of human sense perception changes with humanity’s entire mode of existence. The manner in which human sense perception is organized, the medium in which it is accomplished, is determined not only by nature but by historical circumstances as well” (1235b).
“The surgeon represents the polar opposite of the magician. The magician heals a stick person by the laying on of hands; the surgeon cuts into the patient’s body. The magician maintains the natural distance between the patient and himself; though he reduces it very slightly by the laying on of hands, he greatly increases it by virtue of his authority. The surgeon does exactly the reverse; he greatly diminishes the distance between himself and the patient by penetrating into the patient’s body, and increases it but little by the caution with which his hand moves among the organs. In short, in contrast to the magician—who is still hidden in the medical practitioner—the surgeon at the decisive moment abstains from facing the patient man to man; rather , it is through the operation that he penetrates into him” (1243b).
“The act of reaching for a lighter or a spoon is familiar routine, yet we hardly know what really goes on between hand and metal, not to mention how this fluctuates with our moods. Here the camera intervenes with the resources of its lowerings and liftings, its interruptions and isolations, its extensions and accelerations, its enlargements and reductions. The camera introduces us to unconscious optics as does psychoanalysis to unconscious impulses” (1245b).
“Let us compare the screen on which a film unfolds with the canvas of a painting. The painting invites the spectator to contemplation; before it the spectator can abandon himself to his associations. Before the movie frame he cannot do so. No sooner has his eye grasped a scene than it is already changed. It cannot be arrested….The spectator’s process of association in the view of these images is indeed interrupted by their constant, sudden change. This constitutes the shock effect of the film, which, like all shocks, should be cushioned by heightened presence of mind. By means of its technical structure, the film has taken the physical shock effect out of the wrappers in which Dadaism had, as it were, kept it inside the moral shock effect” (1246b-1247a).
“The distracted person too, can form habits. More, the ability to master certain tasks in a state of distraction proves that their solution has become a matter of habit. Distraction is provided by art presents a covert control of the extent to which new tasks have become soluble by apperception. Since, moreover, individuals are tempted to avoid such tasks, art will tackle the most difficult and most important ones where it is able to mobilize the masses. Today it does so in film. Reception in a state of distraction, which is increasing noticeably in all fields of art and is symptomatic of profound changes in apperception, finds in the film its true means of exercise” (1247b-1248a).
“Mankind, which in Homer’s time was an object of contemplation for the Olympian gods, is now one for itself. Its self-alienation has reached such a degree that it can experience its own destruction as aesthetic pleasure of the first order. This is the situation of politics which Fascism is rendering aesthetic. Communism responds by politicizing art” (1249b).
Other References:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g3wTRjQQjs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO43J4Fgim4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI38tC-RhT0
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/21/060821crbo_books
Max Horkheimer & Theodor Adorno, from “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception”
Summary:
In this article, Adorno and Horkeimer assert that advancement in entertainment/artistic technology, such as film, radio, print publications, etc., consumers are led to believe that they have more choice than they actually do when selecting their preferred forms of entertainment. The culture industry, as they call it, presents a small number of options and allows viewers to choose from among them, giving the impression that those few options are all that are available. “Capitalist production so confines them, body and soul,” they write of the public, “that they fall helpless victims to what is offered them” (1262b). Naturally, close examination of such a system, or industry, is discouraged. This industry, they argue, is built on style, rather than truth, though style has an equally powerful – albeit different – method of persuasion. Those who seek further options, who refuse to conform to the standards set forth by this industry, are “rendered powerless, economically and therefore spiritually” (1262b).
Assumptions of the theorists/theory and a critical engagement with those assumptions:
This piece was written in 1947, on the heels of the Second World War, when both the public and the intellectual community to which these two theorists belonged were still very much focused on the lessons learned from the war. The totalitarian dictatorship of Hitler had driven both men from their homeland and ignited a sense of independence and nationalism in the citizens of the country in which they currently resided. Additionally, advancements in media and other technologies were resulting in a public more heavily influenced by the reach of the culture industry. It was this social climate that motivated Adorno and Horkheimer in many of their writings from this period, particularly ”The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception.”
The culture industry is essentially a business, a capitalistic machine, according to Horkheimer and Adorno. The continued existence and functionality of this machine is assured by its assurance to its consumers
However, to a contemporary eye they seem to be somewhat overstated. That is not to say, however, that they were not also somewhat prescient. Some of their warnings about the alert consumption of media “even in a state of distraction” and the pressure to keep up so that “no one…appear stupid even for a moment [while] emulating the smartness displayed and propagated by the production” are now a part of modern life. Furthermore their analysis of the culture industry and consumers as part of a larger capitalistic machine rings true, both from a historic and a present perspective. The culture industry, regardless of its products, is a business first and its continued existence is only guaranteed so long as it convinces consumers that its version of culture is not only correct but also indispensable.
Important Quotes:
“Sharp distinctions like those between A and B films, or between short stories published in magazines in different price segments, do not so much reflect real differences as assist in the classification, organization, and identification of consumers.”
“On the culture industry’s focus on detail rather than the larger picture: “Lacking both contrast and relatedness, the whole and the detail look alike.”
“The whole world is passed through the filter of the culture industry.”
“[F]ilm denies its audience any dimension in which they might roam freely in imagination…”
“[P]eople can still make their way, provided they do not look too closely at their true purpose and are willing to be compliant.”
“By artfully sanctioning the demand for trash, the system inaugurates total harmony. Connoisseurship and expertise are proscribed as the arrogance of those who think themselves superior, whereas culture distributes its privileges democratically to all.”
“This principle requires that while all needs should be presented to individuals as capable of fulfillment by the culture industry, they should be so set up in advance that individuals experience themselves through their needs only as eternal consumers, as the culture industry’s object.”
“The advance of stupidity must not lag behind the simultaneous advance of intelligence.”
“Beauty is whatever the camera reproduces.”
“What is repeated is healthy – the cycle in nature as in industry.”
“Formal freedom is guaranteed for everyone. No one has to answer officially for what he or she thinks. However, all find themselves enclosed from earl on within a system of churches, clubs, professional associations, and other relationships which amount to the most sensitive instrument of social control. Anyone who wants to avoid ruin must take care not to weight too little under the scales of this apparatus. Otherwise he will fall behind in life and finally go under.”
Other References:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7f_6yGiI-g
http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201305141843-0022754
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5Lq6S0b9Ic
Virginia Woolf, from A Room of One’s Own
Summary:
In “Shakespeare’s Sister”, Woolf presents a fictitious scenario in which Shakespeare’s imaginary yet equally brilliant sister, Judith, faces rejection and oppression of her creative genius before tragically ending her own life in despair. Woolf discusses the probability that women born with a creative genius the likes of men of Shakespeare’s stature possessed have existed throughout the history of time, but that those creative abilities have been snuffed out by the roles that society has forced upon them. She makes the point that the ability to create, as well as the pressures involved in the creation process, is equally distributed to men and women, but that the societal setup of history has prevented the craft to flourish in the female sex. While men face the difficulties of a world indifferent to their efforts to contribute to the literary world, women face the almost impossible opposition of a scornful response to even attempts at creation.
“Austen-Bronte-Eliot” presents the novel as the introductory genre for most female authors, and discusses the works of Jane Austen, Charlotte and Emily Bronte, and George Eliot to analyze the author’s ability to write despite their circumstances. In the beginning of the excerpt, Woolf guesses at the possible genres for female writers like George Eliot and Emily Bronte that would have served their genius better than the novel, such as history/biography and poetic plays, respectfully. Additionally, she explains that Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre fails to maintain a divide between author and character. Several times throughout the novel, Jane’s narration turns to irritated longing that reflects Charlotte’s own frustrations, mainly the longing to travel while unable to. Woolf argues that this indicates a failure of the text. Austen, on the other hand, is able to put her own pressures aside to write pure fiction.
Finally, “The Androgynous Vision” is a discussion about the genders of the brain. Woolf suggests that each author brain, be it that of a male or female, has both a male and female voice hidden within. The key to the most successful literature, she says, is when an author listens to both voices, though one may be dominant over the other. She refers to this as being either woman-manly or man-womanly. You cannot ignore one gender or the other to have successful writing.
Important Quotes:
“…I would venture to guess that Anon, who wrote so many poems without signing them, was often a woman” (600).
“But for women, I thought, looking at the empty shelves, these difficulties were infinitely more formidable. In the first place, to have a room of her own, let alone a quiet room or a soundproof room, was out of the question, unless her parents were exceptionally rich or very noble, even up to the beginning of the nineteenth century” (601b).
“The indifference of the world which Keats and Flaubert and other men of genius have found so hard to bear was in her case not indifference but hostility. The world did not say to her as it said to them, Write if you choose; it makes no difference to me. The world said with a guffaw, Write? What’s the good of your writing?” (601b).
“Women never have an half hour…that they can call their own.” (602a, quoted from “Miss Nightengale”).
“Women are supposed to be very calm generally: but women feel just as men feel; they need exercise for their faculties and a field for their efforts as much as their brothers do; they suffer from too rigid a restraint, too absolute a stagnation, precisely as men would suffer; and it is narrow-minded in their more privileged fellow-creatures to say that they ought to confine themselves to making puddings and knitting stockings, to playing on the piano and embroidering bags. It is thoughtless to condemn them,
or laugh at then, if they seek to do more or learn more than custom has pronounced necessary for their sex” (603b, emphasis added).
“It is clear that anger was tampering with the integrity of Charlotte Bronte the novelist. She left her story, to which her entire devotion was due, to attend to some personal grievance” (605a).
“One must have been something of a firebrand to say to oneself, Oh, but they can’t buy literature too. Literature is open to everybody…. Lock up your libraries if you like; but there is no gate, no lock, no bolt that you can set upon the freedom of my mind” (606a).
“…it is fatal for anyone who writes to think of their sex. It is fatal to be a man or woman pure and simple; one must be woman-manly or man-womanly” (610b).
“Some collaboration has to take place in the mind between the woman and the man before the act of creation can be accomplished…. The whole of the mind must lie wide open if we are to get the sense that the writer is communicating his experience with perfect fullness” (610b).
Other References:
http://www.bridgew.edu/soas/jiws/may00/bechtold.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN_lpbEOzbM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFBDu6prDwg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5abnf7S8hPk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN4uhX4URr4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP-Ih1ENGn4
This recording is the only surviving record of Virginia Woolf’s voice. It is not of our readings, but it is interesting to put a voice to the face. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8czs8v6PuI
Assumption of the theorists/theory and a critical engagement with those assumptions:
Feminist theory operates on one basic assumption: women are generally subordinate in societal functions. Researchers base their investigations in the roles and expectations for women in societies. Though it is often associated with political groups, feminist theory branches into every form of society. Virginia Woolf, obviously, focuses on the literary oppression and inequality of women.
Woolf’s fight for feminist theory has been named by some as the first big push in literature for women’s rights. She defends the needs of women to create and write. She maintains that it is not just a man’s need or right to think and scribble and read. It is a basic human necessity to create from the genius of the mind.
What strikes me most about Woolf’s excerpts from A Room of One’s Own is the almost gentle nature of her argument. She does not discredit men or their works. In fact, she praises them openly, saying, “Indeed, it was delightful to read a man’s writing again. It was so direct, so straightforward after the writing of women. It indicated such freedom of mind, such liberty of person, such confidence in himself” (608a). But she goes on to point out the main cause of the biggest difference between the writing of men and women: “One had a sense of physical well-being in the presence of this well-nourished, well-educated, free mind, which had never been thwarted or opposed, but had had full liberty from birth to stretch itself in whatever way it like” (608a).
Woolf doesn’t deny that men have given genius contributions throughout history. She cites several male authors of import that have contributed literarily—men like Shakespeare, Lamb, Keats, Coleridge, and more. But she defines them as great because they are androgynous, not because they are male. It is the lack of gender in their writing that influences Woolf toward believing that their works are successful. Though feminism has taken a turn in the twenty-first century toward overcompensating for the discrepancies between men and women, Woolf praises the differences and demands that successful literature must acknowledge both gender voices. Authors will naturally have a dominant voice, but the opposing voice must not be absent. Absence of both perspectives leads to works such as those by Kipling; they are not universally understandable. “It is not only that they celebrate male virtues, enforce male values, and describe the world of men, it is that the emotion with which these books are permeated is to a woman incomprehensible” (609b).
Men and women do not have to be separated or compete for dominance in literature. Instead, to truly allow a piece to succeed, they must join together to provide deep, well-rounded ideas and perspectives that make them universally true.
Simone de Beauvoir, “Myths: Of Women in Five Authors” from The Second Sex
Summary:
Simone de Beauvoir discusses five authors in this excerpt: Montherlant, Lawrence, Claudel, Breton, and Stendhal. Through their writing, she identifies and defines woman as each author sees her. There are six myths she introduces in the opening paragraph:
Woman as Flesh
“the flesh of the male is produced in the mother’s body and recreated in the embraces of the woman in love” (676a).
Woman is related to nature
“she incarnates it: vale of blood, open rose, siren, the curve of a hill, she represents to man the fertile soil, the sap, the material beauty and the soul of the world” (676a).
She holds the keys to poetry
She can be mediatrix between this world and the great beyond
“grace or oracle, star or sorceress, she opens the door to the supernatural, the surreal” (676a).
She is doomed to immanence
“through her passivity she bestows peace and harmony—but if she declines this role, she is seen forthwith as a praying mantis, an ogress” (676a).
Woman is the privileged Other through whom the subject fulfills himself
Beauvoir discusses each of the authors in relation to the others. Montherlant believes that woman is beneath man. He may bring her up to his level for his own purposes, but never will he descend to her level. Lawrence says that women are grace and power, but that they should give up all personal transcendence to devote themselves wholly to that of their men. Claudel says that men and women are exactly equal in the eyes of God, but that man’s role is to act and woman’s role is to serve him in order to allow him to act. Breton sees women as peaceful, siding with Lawrence on the immanence myth, and Stendhal, finally, regards woman as a free human being, without supernatural or transcendent qualities. Stendhal wants an intelligent, free female.
But all of the authors see women as the means of furthering their own humanity or power. “The sole earthly destiny for the equal, the woman-child, the soul-sister, the woman-sex, the woman-animal is always man! Whatever ego may seek himself through her, he can find himself only if she is willing to act as his crucible” (677b). Women are seen in several different ways by the five authors, but when it boils down to it, they are all the “Other” that will serve to better man and find him powerful and successful.
The most interesting discovery through reading these five authors, however, is the telling of their fears and personal gaps. “…when he describes woman, each writer discloses his general ethics and the special idea he has of himself; and in her he often betrays also the gap between his world view and his egotistical dreams” (678b).
Important Quotes:
“…it is as though man reaches manhood for another: but still he needs to have the lending of the other’s consciousness. Other males are too indifferent toward their fellows: only the loving woman opens her heart to her lover and shelters him there, wholly” (677b).
“She is required in every case to forget self and to love…allows him to measure his virile potency…gives up being herself for his sake…submits to God in submitting to the male…is capable of total love for her child or her lover…. They help man fulfill his destiny” (677b-678a).
“All their works show that they expect from woman that altruism which Comte admired in her and imposed upon her, and which according to him constituted a mark at once of flagrant inferiority and of an equivocal superiority” (678a-b).
Assumption of the theorists/theory and a critical engagement with those assumptions:
As a feminist critic, Beauvoir scorns the similarities amongst the five authors’ views of women. Women are either filthy, subservient creatures or angels of salvation, but no matter the view of women, their role always serves to heighten the stature and power of man. Her language in scorning these men is necessarily presented as a direct attack. She is very factual about what each author believes, but when placed within Beauvoir’s text, the stark contrast of her factual language with the bare-bones presentation of information creates a sense of disconnect, and the reader is left with the very strong impression that something is not right. Even an antifeminist reading this text would surely feel the disconnect created by Beauvoir’s masterful presentation.
Unlike Woolf, Beauvoir’s voice in her essay is unaccepting of the writing of men. Where Woolf gives a nod of respect and acknowledgment to several male authors and then advocates for the equal right of voice for women, Beauvoir gives a sideways glance and a raised brow to the writing of some men. Her approach to feministic theory is much more in line with what most people associate feminism with today. Though she never says anything negative in her own voice, she presents the negative arguments in such a masterful way that they can be taken with nothing other than ridicule by her readers. In this segment of text, she doesn’t even actively promote women’s writing. She simply allows the text to speak for itself and do the job for her. She advocates for the rights of women by highlighting the flaws in the creations of men.
Other References:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6hmVO7t_Bs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGn0O2ECunk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpC6KCOEXqw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efWqbzRB-1k
