What does everyone think of Monique Wittig, a lesbian feminist, and her claims that sex ("male"/"man" or "female"/"woman") is a social construct in her "one is not born a woman"?

submitted by AllInOne from (self.GenderCritical)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]AllInOne[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Every analysis of Monique Wittig I have read concludes that she says "sex is imaginary and is a social construct", I don't know if there's much depth in this, for example, this;

Once the class “men” disappears, “women” as a class will disappear as well ... For “woman” does not exist for us: it is only an imaginary formation, while “women” is the product of a social relationship.

What could this mean besides "woman as a category is imaginary and doesn't exist"?

Wittig in her essay The Category of Sex also refers to natural differences between men and women as the ideology of sexual difference. She said sex doesn't actually exist and this ideology exists to justify the exploitation of women. She says;

the ideology of sexual difference functions as censorship in our culture by masking, on the ground of nature, the social opposition between men and women. Masculine/feminine, male/female are the categories which serve to conceal the fact that social differences always belong to an economic, political, ideological order. Every system of domination establishes divisions at the material and economic level. Furthermore, the divisions are abstracted and turned into concepts by the masters… for there is no sex. There is but sex that is oppressed and sex that oppresses. It is the oppression that creates sex and not the contrary.

[–]DogeWalker 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Every analysis of Monique Wittig I have read concludes that she says...

Well, then every analysis about Wittig is in agreement. What's wrong with focusing on the source material, Wittig's actual writing?

Once the class “men” disappears, “women” as a class will disappear as well ... For “woman” does not exist for us: it is only an imaginary formation, while “women” is the product of a social relationship.

What could this possibly mean besides "woman as a category is imaginary and doesn't exist"?

How are you getting that from those lines? I think the part you elided was crucial to that section. Here is that part in context, emphasis mine:

Once the class “men” disappears, “women” as a class will disappear as well, for there are no slaves without masters. Our first task, it seems, is to always thoroughly dissociate “women” (the class within which we fight) and “woman,” the myth. For “woman” does not exist for us:

It's clear to me that she is talking about the categorization of "women" from two different angles: mere existence as humans who happen to be female, and what she calls the myth of woman.

Why does she say, "Once the class 'men' disappears, 'women' as a class will disappear as well"?

Is it because she envisions a future that is a literal gray jumpsuit dystopia, where all humans are literally, completely, physically identical?

Or, is she talking about the current state of the world, where the simple "mere existence" sex categories are all tangled up with social norms and stereotypes?

To me, that line is about the way women are only defined as "other," or defined as not-men. She's saying that, if we could get beyond that entanglement, then those social meanings would fall away or disappear.

ETA: I see the added part about The Category of Sex now. What do you make of this part specifically? Again, emphasis added by me.

Furthermore, the divisions are abstracted and turned into concepts by the masters… for there is no sex. There is but sex that is oppressed and sex that oppresses. It is the oppression that creates sex and not the contrary.

Edit 2: typo fix.

[–]AllInOne[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I see the added part about The Category of Sex now. What do you make of this part specifically? Again, emphasis added by me.

I understand your interpretation actually, about what I make of "there is no sex, there is but sex that is oppressed and sex that oppresses", I think the way the sentence is structured leads to confusion. Either she means there are no sex roles (that the roles men and women are expected to have are socially constructed), while not denying sex (male or female) exists itself, or she means sex (male or female) does not exist, and that oppression creates sex instead of oppression being something that is caused by the sexes.

I think if she really meant stereotypes or roles by the word sex, she should have said "there is no such thing as sex roles" as in stereotypes associated with male or female are social constructs instead of saying "there is no sex" followed after saying the categories of "male or female" are created for political and economic reasons which all lead to most readers being confused interpreting her to mean "sex as in male or female does not exist"

[–]DogeWalker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Either she means there are no sex roles (that the roles men and women are expected to have are socially constructed), while not denying sex (male or female) exists itself,

or she means sex (male or female) does not exist, and that oppression creates sex instead of oppression being something that is caused by the sexes.

I take it you believe she meant the latter one, right? Can you expand on that, because what you wrote isn't clear to me. If she meant sex does not exist, then how does it follow that oppression creates sex? You said, "oppression creates sex instead of oppression being something that is caused by the sexes." How does that work, can you explain? Or is the first interpretation the one you think is more viable?

... she should have said...

From what I understand, English is not Wittig's first language, although she clearly knows it well enough to produce some of her works in English. In fact, it's not clear to me which of her writings were originally in French vs. English. Do you agree that the language barrier could be a reason she happened to choose the phrasing she did? I think we have to meet in the middle with authorial intent all the time.

Unless there is more evidence about what she meant, I don't see any good reason to go with the simplistic interpretation of "human sex does not exist," ... because I don't see support for that interpretation when I read the actual text she wrote.

Her thesis certainly seems more complex than "human sex does not exist." If it was that simple, why does she keep writing about women at all?

[–]AllInOne[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree with you, it seems since English is not Wittig's first language she chose the word sex instead of sex roles or stereotypes which has led to confusion and didn't get the essays proofread for clarity. What I meant is if we take the second interpretation (which is the one I see being used in the analysis and summaries of Wuttig's essays), it will lead to the conclusion that the entirety of Wittig's arguments fall apart. As you pointed out, if she meant sex does not exist, she can not talk about oppression of women because what is a "woman"? If she can not talk about sex, she herself can not talk about being a woman let alone being a lesbian, and so her essays would be complete nonsense. But if we look at the first interpretation, which is she forgot to say sex roles instead of sex and actually meant sex roles are a social construct while understanding sex itself exists, then her essays are not nonsense and actually make sense in some parts.