Issues of Gender

I have chosen to discuss Butler’s analysis of Wittig’s call for a “destruction of sex” in Boyarin’s article on “Gender”.

Butler vs. Wittig: The Battle of the Sexes?
Wittig has some very strong ideas about gender and female sexuality. She strongly ascribes to the ideas of Simone de Beauvoir who asserts that women are not born women, rather they become women through sexual intercourse. It is through this act that a women is produced and becomes set into her role as a women. In other words Wittig views the role of women as socially constructed through a women’s role as a wife and mother. The idea that “one is not born a women” is similar to those from the writings of Philo of Alexandria and Paul from the early Jewish and early Christian periods.

As a method of eliminating this extremely hegemonic construction, Wittig calls for a “destruction of sex” as the only way to “liberate” this class of people from their socially constructed roles (126). She believes that the only ones who are not reduced to the role of women are lesbians and nuns. Her main purpose is to allow women to assume the status of universal subjects through the destruction of “sex” (126).

Butler’s points out that Wittig’s notion of women and when they become women is predicated upon the assumptions of “masculinist ideologies of transcendence” (126). He also criticizes that she associates the pregendered individual with freedom. By claiming this assumption Wittig subscribes to the very categorization of sex as natural that she is trying to disprove and deconstruct.

I would agree with Butler in saying that by making this claim Wittig is ascribing to the same ideologies which existed in the times of Philo and Paul in that women who did not get married and remained virgins were not considered women, but rather were viewed as men. This is predicated upon the assumption that there remains a higher, more desirable class. It also reinforces hegemonic ideas about gender and male-female relations. Butler clearly argues from the other extreme from Wittig when he defines gender as “the discursive/cultural means by which “sexed nature” or “a natural sex” is produced and established as “pre-discursive”, prior to culture, a politically neutral surface on which culture acts” (117). For Butler “sex” is a natural phenomenon which is developed before culture and provides a starting point for which culture is built upon.

What do we do now?
How are we as scholars to approach our research with this in mind? This was a question about which I have pondered as I always seek to understand the purpose behind what it is that I am studying. Here are some of the reasons for which the study of gender and the question of “sex” as pre-social or not are of relevance.

1. Characteristics of gender are deeply ingrained into our thinking as scholars. Even in today’s society there are activities, clothes, games and colours that are generally ascribed to a particular gender (blue=boys, pink=girls, as an example). As a result it is important that as scholars we are careful to approach our subjects by not imposing our views of gender upon our subjects, whether they be texts or people.

2. The status of marriage. In North America marriage is not as valued as it was in Israel in the first century (to use an example). In those days it was absolutely necessary to be married in order to continue one’s family line. For women the raising of children was often considered their most important role and therefore being able to provide for one’s family was a key feature in choosing a husband.

3. Gender and class. In the ancient world these were closely related. Women could not achieve the same class as men unless they “became men” (refer here to the examples given in Boyarin about women who became highly praised in society).

Can Anything Exist Pre-socially?
As I conclusion I would like to state my personal views on the question on the existence of anything presocial. I believe that there are certain things that we are born with although often these are reinforced through culture and our navigation through society as we grow up and learn. For example, humans are born with the ability to communicate through language, whether it be speech, hand gestures, facial expressions, etc. This is a universal phenomenon which is presocial. However, as we grow we learn new and different ways of communication. The best example of this is to watch a newborn baby develop into a toddler. Babies already know how to communicate from birth. However from birth to their school years they makes incredible strides in their ability to learn different modes of communication. This shows that while culture/society does produce communication, it is also an innate human quality.

I also think that the notion of sex is presocial, however that being said it is also socially constructed. Sex (and by this I mean the ability to distinguish between male and female) is something that we are born with, however the hegemonic idea that the male is superior to the female is socially contructed. Gender roles, on the other hand, are not presocial, but socially constructed.

If this blog entry seemed a bit chaotic and scattered it is because it is a reflection on my mind this particular week. I have a particular interest in women’s studies, but sometimes have trouble with different theorists’ application to my own field of study. The final question which I will end with is one which I do not yet have a clear formulation for but have been thinking about in light of some of my interests.

How do my personal views on gender relations and the determination of sex as a pre or post social phenomenon affect how I will conduct my research?