While reading this weeks journals, I was honestly a little glad to see that everyone else seemed to have as hard a time as I had with the essentialist versus deconstructionist articles that we read for class last week. It seemed that everyone was a little confused and put-off, particularly by the Spivak article, due in part to the complex ideas presented, but even more so by the style of writing (again, Spivak!).
The readings for last weeks class focused on the long standing debate regarding how to categorize and define "woman" as well as "women". The articles for class centered around opposing views as to why women are the way that they are. Essentialism argues that women are defined by some "irreducible essence" that defines all women and serves to unite us and create a collectivity. The main problem that many people in class had with this concept is that it then creates a norm, which women are therefore expected to fulfill in order to be called "woman." As Sarah points out in her journal, this idea does not account for differences which exist among women. This normative ideal is based on the white-middle-class-educated "woman" which is extremely exclusive and unrepresentative of women on a global scale. It is extremely ignorant and limiting to define "woman" in such a way. Another point brought up both in class as well as several essay's is the way in which essentialism ties women to their bodies and defines women through biology. Essentialism, as Rochelle states in her journal, ignores the historical context in which the word woman exists. Essentialism is generally ahistorical and therefore cannot account for the diversity of the meaning of the word "woman" nor how the definition of woman has changed throughout history. However, not everyone was against essentialism, in fact several good points were made on it's behalf. Representing essentialism, Lisa and Jennifer both came out, if not in favor of essentialism, at least to it's defense. As Jennifer pointed out, essentialism allows society to re-value what has traditionally been de-valued in society because of it's relationship to "woman." Characteristics of "woman" include a nurturing and caring nature as well as compassion and a non-aggressive nature. While many will contest this as not being representative of all women, it does allow us to de-stigmatize such words and ideas which have traditionally been used to define us as the "weaker sex." Another good point that Lisa brought up was that essentialism does point to the "essential" male/female difference which is the ability of women to reproduce. Though it is difficult to say if there is any onething which unites all women, there is definitely some truth in this line from Lisa's journal, "For some strange reason that I cannot explain, there is some sort of unity that is derived from the shared commonality of a uterus and breasts."
Constructionism was definitely the preferred view among the people in class. In general this idea attempts to historicize the concept of "woman" and to identify how it has changed as society changes. The definition of woman is not a constraint but rather is something that is always changing through "women's" interaction with society. This stance allows us to take agency in the way that we are defined as it does not limit us to our bodies as esentialism does. There was one problem which the class in general seemed fixated on which was the problem of collectivity. If all women are merely constructed and there is no unifying "essence" of woman, how can we form a collective which can demand certain rights in the name of "woman." Is it possible to deconstruct the meaning of the word woman so much that there is no meaning left? Whereas this may seem like an ideal existence where women are not defined in the negative as "other," this would be problematic unless the whole of society changed in relation.
Moving on from the differences between the arguments, it seemed that for many of us, the two ideas go hand-in-hand. Sam states that for her the Spivak article was able to clarify (if I can use that word in regard to the Spivak article) the relationship between essentialism and constructionism and how the can mutually benefit by reexamining their relationship to the other. Both Sam and Karen addressed the way that Spivak's idea of the strategic essentialism can help to blend the ideas so that they do not have to be diametrically opposed; even a constructionist can adopted an essentialist viewpoint by strategically using the ideas of essentialism to attain a particular goal in the name of "woman." This, however, does not mean that we must then allow essentialism to define us, but merely acknowledge how it can benefit us. In general, the class felt that there is some unity between the ideas of essentialism and constructionism, that they needn't always oppose one another. While we are on the topic of Spivak, allow me to bring up another problem mentioned in many journals- the confusing writing style of the Spivak article. For many of us it took several reading, which as Karen pointed out, few people, with the exception of students, have the time for. Her interview was confusing and circular leaving many of us lost and highly confused. There in lies the problem with theory, it is too difficult for many people to understand without a translator, thus limiting its scope.
In a quick conclusion, it seemed that most members of the class turned out in favor of constructionism while wanting to incorporate the idea of the strategic use of essentialism. In addition, for many of us the idea's brought up by Spivak were influential as they pointed to a unity which can by found between the two formerly opposing ideas and how each depends on the other for its own definition.
-Haley Griffin