essay:
The Bounds of the Essential

After an argument with Heather last night, I find myself asking, where the line is, in regards to essentialism, and essentialist formulations of gender and sex.

I offer you a quote:

“‘man’ and ‘woman’ are fictions, caricatures, cultural constructs” and that “we are . . . a multisexed species.”

I’ll offer reference upon request… but it’s surprising at least to me.

Monique Wittig, also (very much in the tradition of Simone de Beauvior) offers a similar statement that locates the notion of “woman” and “man” (as well as “lesbian”) as being historically and contextually meaningful.

Are these people off the hook? I mean, if you put the post-structrual disclaimer in, does that in some way de-essentialize the argument? Perhaps is there a way to say, this kind of argument may not actually essentialize identity completely, but leads to essentialism?

Can/do post-structuralists essentialize identity still/too? Is that splitting hairs?

If so, and even if not, is identity and collective identity still a meaningful site of analysis? I mean I certainly think that identity groups are meaningful and helpful, but at the same time, it’s a huge can of worms….

Just some thinking Cheers, sam

permalink coments
tagged:

Comments: »

  1. I think I caught about half of what this post is saying…I think we should make manditory post slugs of “Social jargon ahead!”

    Just a thought ;)

    Comment by Chris Knittel — 4 November 2005 @ 10:02 am


  2. What a man is and what a women should be(or the other way round for that matter) is certainly greatly influenced by style, attitude and fashion. However, to remove the bandages of media label you will find two distict sexual attitudes: the male and the female. A lesbian may approach her sexualty from a male perspective just as a Homosexual may appraoch his from that of the more feminine. My point is that regardless of how you get your rocks off you approach from one of two basic starting points. As far as idnetity goes, it is a human condition to badge & label. Perhaps this pidgeon holing is part of seeking ones own true identity.
    But what do I know :o)

    Comment by Clarkie — 10 November 2005 @ 1:05 pm


  3. Clarkie, I think I couldn’t disagree more, I think you compleatly misundestood my argument. You are, in my reading compleatly and totally wrong on so many levels.

    Essnetialism is bad, and is thrown around as a dirty word in cultural and feminist studies, and for the most part I agree this useage, but I find myself exploring the edges of the rejection, to see where it ends.

    Cheers,
    sam

    Comment by Sam Kleinman — 10 November 2005 @ 11:00 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment