Essentialism and social constructionism? Isn't this another application of the nature vs nurture question? I can see this discussion becoming highly philosophical. The subject is women, because feminism can not survive without the existence of women and those complex implications and interactions that shape women's lives. The question is once again how to define or not define women. We can not deny the existence or dismiss the defining of women however, if one agrees with cultural feminism, it is important to keep in mind that in order for the feminist movement to be forward looking, women must be able to find a way of historicizing the ever-evolving conception of women. Cultural feminism is valuable to women in that it reclaims and glorifies women's biology or essence. However, cultural feminism does not provide solutions for overcoming the negative obstacles and conditions of oppression that give rise to those attributes, ie forced parenting, lack of physical autonomy, dependency for survival on mediation skills...(336). To be an essentialist in terms of the cultural feminist group then women are defined in reaction to the standard set by man on the basis of their biology. In summary,"essentialist formulations of womanhood, even when made by feminists, "tie" theindividual to her identity as a woman and thus cannot represent a a solution to sexism"(336). This biology is in essence what makes them women and touches all other life aspects. If there is no essence or no nature then is it possible to create social attributes through physical relation and development? If there is not an essential definition of women then the position becomes a standpoint from post-structuralism.
Post-structuralism dismisses the idea that women can be defined at all. Alcoff takes a positionality stance in defining women by saying that subjectivity is due to the constant contact with the world. Women are not defined in relation to their biology, rather they are defined by their stance. We are all of the world and thereby constantly creating our own positions, whether it is done uncounsciously or consciously. We are constructs, but we have a shape and form that is predetermined, thus we are not completely malable forms. Because there is a division in the basic essence of ourselves, delineated by sex, we can not ignore the natural groupings. So in part by birth we are subjectified, however the constructionists assert that there are multiple interpretations and positions that can be created through social interaction. Identity is thereby created in relation to its politics. "When the concept "woman" is defined by a particular set of attributes but by a particular position, the internal characteristics of the person thus identified are not denoted so much as the internal characteristics of the person thus identified are not denoted so much as the external context within which that person is situated...The essentialist definition of woman makes her identity independent of her external situation"(349). Alcoff arguesthat the subjectivity and identity of women are determined by women's position (349). Who are you, a woman or a person first, and which supercedes what? If I say I am a person I can define myself as a product of my experiences and opinions which are subject to change in time. As a person I am afforded veritability. So have I diverged this train of thought to humanism? I imagine I have, and perhaps this would be a good point for feminists to embrace humanistic ideals and use them in their favor to define women as individuals who stress dignity, worth, and capacity for self-realization through reason.
-Jayna Turchek