A majority of philosophers today criticize “essentialism” in gender theory as an error that uses traditional cultural stereotypes to define men and women in ways that are needlessly narrow and harmful in their application. I believe that there are many examples of gender stereotypes that merit the critique.
I have a new theory of gender, with added complexity as a result of my thinking about transgender questions.
Philosophy has struggled to do justice to two truths of the relations of men and women: their equality and their complementarity. Each truth can be stated in ways that obscures the recognition of the other truth. Equality theorists have found occasion to criticize complementarity (or difference) theory for betraying the equality of women with men to the social forces of our dark world. And difference theorists have found occasion to criticize equality theory for being an inhumane, modernist intellectual abstraction.
In principle, it is possible to make a distinction of levels, recognizing equality on one level and difference on other level. For example, there can be a basic spiritual (or human) equality on the one hand, and a functional complementarity on another level. If a functional complementarity is right and proper, then even if it involves a superior-subordinate relationship, it should be possible to live that practical asymmetry in a manner that conserves the truth of spiritual equality. “Those who would be the greatest among you should be the ones who serve everyone.” When spiritual equality is conserved, each partner in an asymmetrical relation serves the other.
Notice that asymmetry in relating may depend on the particular project in which persons are engaged. The person who has the responsibility of leadership in one project may be co-leader or a team member in the next project.
Complementarity theory regarding men and women is a type of difference theory that claims that the differences between men and women are complementary. On this view, the differences between men and women are beneficial. They work together in such a way that their cooperation can achieve results that will not be forthcoming in the cooperation of two men or two women (obviously I am not only referring to procreation). How can this idea be stated in a way that is appropriately qualified? I will propose what I call vector essentialism to answer this question.
In this conversation, essentialism claims that there is a set of characteristics that is necessarily a part of being a human being, for example, our freedom or our being created in the image of God, that makes us equal. As regards the complementarity of men and women, essentialism claims that there is one set of characteristics (such as volitional initiative) that are necessarily part of being a man and another set of characteristics (such as personal responsiveness) that are necessarily a part of being a woman. In the essentialism proposed here, the essential difference has to do with the proportion of these two characteristics.
Vector essentialism (as regards the complementarity of men and women) is a modified essentialism that acknowledges the variety of factors operating in the system of an individual person. Thus the essential male or female “vector” can be outweighed by other vectors in the system so that a particular person’s conduct may be more or less masculine or feminine. In other words, some men could act in ways that are more “womanly” than some women, and vice-versa.
The term vector is a metaphor taken from diagrams used in high school physics to symbolize the composition of forces affecting, for example, a cannon ball launched (1) upward and (2) forward in (3) the earth’s gravitational field. The diagram is created, first, by drawing a vertical ascending arrow (or vector) whose length represents the upward force imparted to the projectile. Next, starting from the end of the ascending arrow, a second, horizontal arrow is drawn representing the force imparted to the projectile carrying it, say, north. Last, starting from the end of the horizontal vector, a vertical downward arrow is drawn, whose length represents the distance toward the earth that the gravitational force will have carried the projectile, during the time represented by the diagram. One then draws a line from the point of origin of the first vector, to the end point of the third vector to locate the position of the projectile at end of the trajectory’s represented duration. Obviously such diagrams could be made very complex.
The composition of force diagram for men and women would include vectors representing different proportions of volitional initiative (greater in men) and personal responsiveness (greater in women). I make no claim about whatever other such essential characteristics there may be. The advantage of vector essentialism is that is only predicts a statistical difference between the behavior of men and women, since so many other factors help determine what we are, and these other factors—such as genetics, early childhood experience, and personal decisions—can override the expression of gender-essential vectors.
Thus, vector essentialism has no need for stereotypes, yet it can help us understand typical differences of men and women as observed in many historical cultures. Vector essentialism also promotes empirical openness; it would not shut down all difference-oriented research on apriori grounds or on the grounds that all such research runs an unjustifiable risk of reinforcing oppression. Taken together with humanistic or spiritually based equality theory, vector essentialism liberates research into the complexity of who we are. We shall know the truth, and the truth will make us free from sexisms and free from egalitarian repression of the recognition of difference.
In my opinion, the deepest source of illumination comes from the higher truths of the universal family found in Trinitarian theology, which goes beyond the scope of this weblog. And when ethical questions arise and we have exhausted our human capacity for making adjustments, we come to the ultimate frontier in our quest for divine wisdom–prayer.
Photo credit: presto44 http://mrg.bz/SbEZGi
This is a difficult concept to untangle. I think the difficulty arises because of the failure to recognize the total dimension of what it means to be human. As hard as it may be to realize for some, there is more to being human than the physical, emotional, and intellectual aspects. As long as our standard for judging equality is based upon material and intellectual, the treatment of females in ways that differ from the male gender will continue. Many of the disadvantages that we attribute to the female gender are in reality complementary traits to the male gender though unappreciated as such. The truth solution this problem as you have indicated lies on higher levels of the human dimension.
Dr. Perry
It’s been a while, Dr. Wattles, since I checked in on your always engaging blog. Lots of fun times with the kiddo at the pool and beach!
Taking a quick stroll through your more recent topics I was drawn to this one, not because it is necessarily important to me on a personal level, either connected with anyone in my immediate circles, or, conversely, because of purposes of advocacy. Rather, I find it an important topic as yet another example of the manner in which our culture over the last two decades or so has increasingly responded to threats of essentialism by going so far in the other direction as to strip away those good traditions that give life meaning and value. I am reminded of a Rabbi’s words on the Torah: those wise laws that make men free.
I found your response and the metaphor of vectors compelling, and your distinction between basic human equality and functional complimentarily to be both good and useful.
Since the question of transgenderism has become a hot topic, along with more and more people identifying as such, as well as other kinds of “trans” identifications, my conversations with friends have led me to something of a Heideggarian consideration, having to do with the idea of thrownness. While in no way is our facticity fatalistic, or our thrownness deterministic, I do contend that part of encountering this life that we have, and giving it force, is to live through the conditions into which we are thrown. Some of these are obviously alterable for good reasons. Moving away from a warring culture to make a better life for oneself is clearly good. Seeking the best medical treatment for what might otherwise be a fatal or debilitating disease is noble and values life. Other examples abound. But what distinguishes things like gender? My intuitive response is that our gender is foundational in both its biological essence and its cultural expression. From what I can gather the hard sciences agree, and the social sciences, while mixed, may at least agree that biological and cultural gender are not just up for grabs.
This is a thought in the making, and is therefore incomplete. It is not one about which I think often, but I do find it worthy of consideration, and not the least reason of which is the brutal suicide rate among post-op transgendered people.
Nice to see you back, Charles. Thanks again for these helpful reflections; I had not heard the sad fact at the end.