Simone de Beauvoir write about women being ‘the Other’. The Other is identified as a conceptualizing what is being defined, as different from oneself. It refers to that which is different from the first concept, and is identified by its difference. It has no original definition on its own, it is defined by its difference to another, original concept. Othering creates mental boundaries, stigmas, and dehumanizing thought patterns. Simone argues that this is the fate of femininity. To be female, you become the Other to males. Females seem to be defined only by the difference they bring to mankind. She writes that females and males are intertwined in a necessary partnership, but it is the partnership of a slave and master, in which each participant in reliant on each other, and yet one is afforded the power. Even the question of how to define a woman, in itself gives clues that their definition isn’t independent from what it is to be male, and that males can be defined with ease. It has been seen in history that mankind has viewed womanhood as a secondary evolution of man, and sees humanity as male in origin. The duality of the self and other seems to be a natural propensity for navigating the world, and the genders are no exception. She describes it as a fundamental category of human thought, and continues that its a fundamental hostility for Other’s consciousness. Racism and income differences among classes can both be explained using this theory. Even though the relationship between the genders seems to be reciprocal, it has taken so long for revelations regarding gender equality to immerge. Compared to race or religious groups, Beauvoir argues that women find it harder to organize as a group against inequality, as th...
... middle of paper ...
...ere is an inherent power shift that makes the capitalists profit by other’s suffering. The capitalists have a need to harness and keep power and money, and to keep the workers believing they are being fairly treated in an economic trade for their services. Marx believed this because he could observe the obvious power difference between those who owned business and those who worked for them. He saw a large difference between the wealthy and poor, and this seemed to suggest that the capitalists were exploiting the sensitive position of those less fortunate in class. Average people cannot survive without selling their labour to those more fortunate, and do not have as much power. I believe Marx is correct and it seems that to this day, people who are in a position of less social power will be exploited for their ability to give others power for little in return.
Marx’s ideals of communism were drawn from the realization that the cycle of revolutions caused by the class struggles throughout history lead society nowhere. Society as a whole was more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes that were directly facing each other—bourgeoisie and proletariat. According to Marx, in order for society to further itself a mass proletarian revolution would have to occur. The bourgeois, who were the employers and owners of the means of production, composed the majority of the modern capitalists. It was these individuals that controlled the capitalist society by exploiting the labor provided by the proletariats. For example, the bourgeoisie make property into a right because they are the ones with the property. However, without their power force of labor behind them, the bourgeoisie class would crumple. To accomplish a revolution, the workers (proletariats) would need to rise up against the bourgeoisie and take back the factors of production. Marx believed that after the inevitable revolution of the proletariats against the oppressive force of the bourgeoisie, a communistic form of government would take hold.
Marx believes there is a true human nature, that of a free species being, but our social environment can alienate us from it. To describe this nature, he first describes the class conflict between the bourgeois and the proletariats. Coined by Marx, the bourgeois are “the exploiting and ruling class.”, and the proletariats are “the exploited and oppressed class” (Marx, 207). These two classes are separated because of the machine we call capitalism. Capitalism arises from private property, specialization of labor, wage labor, and inevitably causes competition.
Beauvoir says that everyone is free, but how one approaches their freedom is often irrational and/or paradoxical. Few men are ‘truly’ free and can firmly grasp reality, glorifying themselves as well as others. Beauvoir offers five types of men who are dishonest about their perception of their freedom. These men develop what Beauvoir calls bad faith. The sub-man, serious man, the nihilist, the adventurer, and the passionate man. These types of men are all around us and are often portrayed in movies. This analysis will evaluate the adventurer’s attitude. We shall see under what circumstances a young adventurer declares himself free and explore how he manages his new insight. While Beauvoir claims this man is close to morality, the adventurer is pretentious and ultimately turns into his tyrannical enemy.
Most importantly for those who Marx feels capitalism has an adverse effect on, the proletariat. Marx in The Communist Manifesto explains what capitalism is and what it is to be a capitalist: "To be a capitalist is to have not only a purely personal but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion." (Marx, K., Engels, F. and Berman, M. (2011)). Through such a definition of capitalism, he adamantly stresses that capitalist state is selfish, one that has been manufactured by the desire of individuals to have a greater material wealth than his societal
Marx speaks of a life to be free from working for someone who receives far more from a group of laborer’s who are part of a lower class party. However, there is more to it. What Marx promotes is a take over of all industrial factories, or businesses. A literal revolution of the lower class, so that instead of the business owners reaping all the benefits by the “proletariat” doing all laboring earning little, they need to gain total control of businesses of production and share amongst themselves equally everything. Sounds good to the ear that there could be no more struggles for the little people who are doing all the work, making someone else rich, but Marx...
In Marx’s opinion, the cause of poverty has always been due to the struggle between social classes, with one class keeping its power by suppressing the other classes. He claims the opposing forces of the Industrial Age are the bourgeois and the proletarians. Marx describes the bourgeois as a middle class drunk on power. The bourgeois are the controllers of industrialization, the owners of the factories that abuse their workers and strip all human dignity away from them for pennies. Industry, Marx says, has made the proletariat working class only a tool for increasing the wealth of the bourgeoisie. Because the aim of the bourgeoisie is to increase their trade and wealth, it is necessary to exploit the worker to maximize profit. This, according to Marx, is why the labor of the proletariat continued to steadily increase while the wages of the proletariat continued to steadily decrease.
The construction of gender is based on the division of humanity to man and woman. This is impossible ontologically speaking; because the humans are not divided, thus gender is merely an imaginary realm. It only exist in the language exercises, and the way that cultural products are conceived in them. This essay is a preliminary attempt to offer an analysis of ‘One Is Not Born a Woman’ by Wittig and ‘The Second Sex’ by Simone De Beauvoir holds on the language usage contribution to the creation of genders and the imagined femininity.
The capitalist is motivated by being rewarded wealth. Capital can only multiply by giving itself in return of labor power. This exchange is based on specified percentages. For example, after a long 12 hours of weaving the worker is only compensated two shillings. They attain residual wealth by taking advantage of workers. These workers are being compensated less than the value of their work. The workers endure great deals of exploitation. Workers put their labor power into effect to acquire means of survival which makes existence possible. The amount of commodities is based on the cost of life and the workers’ work ethic. Marx foreseen that class conflict between the bourgeoisie and proletariat would result in the collapsing of capitalism. The motivations of the capitalist and the workers create conflict because the capitalist attempt to uphold capitalism by advocating their principles, beliefs, and fabricated perceptions that prevent proletariats from rebelling. Once the two classes conflict with one another the cla...
However, the advancements that he listed as enriching the human experience are merely a product of progression, which can occur in any economic system, not just capitalism. Goldberg then went on to discuss capitalism’s creation of “intangible capital” and the value it brings (Goldberg, 12). However, the capitalist elite control the means of distributing this “intangible capital”, and often access to “natural capital” as well. The inequity of this system is what results in the powerlessness of those in poverty, who find themselves unable to challenge those in power. Marx perhaps best envisioned this in his concept of a class struggle between the proletariat (working class) and bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production), and proposed socialism as an alternative economic
Marx is able to demonstrate the consequences that result from transforming values into productions suited for profit, as he writes, “This boundless greed after riches, this passionate chase after exchange-value is common to the capitalist and the miser; but while the miser is merely a capitalist gone mad, the capitalist is a rational miser” (Marx 63). There is no sense of abhorrence for a particular individual in Marx’s interpretation of capitalism and instead focuses on the capitalistic economic structure. However, it is through this quote that a sense of inequality starts to emerge. As a result, a hierarchy is produced, creating an enduring structure of capitalism, where those who control the circulation of money are granted unlimited power. This has become evident in recent years, as in 2008, a social power analysis by Dr. John S. Atlee and Tom Atlee was published. In “Democracy: A Social Power Analysis” Altlee describes the power of money and status as he states, “People with lots of money, muscle, status, intelligence, etc., can usually successfully influence other people. In most (but, significantly, not all) circumstances, they have more social power” (Atlee). Economic power is proven to be pivotal in attaining another individual’s attention and status of capability. Thus, the capitalist is free to develop their own sense of
When Karl Marx first penned his shaping works on communism, he assumed that the relationship between workers and capital would always be opposing. While most rejected his overall theories, they did not argue with the basic idea that the interests of workers would always be at odds with those of owners. This is one of Marx's only theories that has proven to be true. As a consequence, over the years, that thought has guided the marketplace in terms of deciding wages, working conditions and other worker centered benefits.
There has been a long and on going discourse on the battle of the sexes, and Simone De Beauvoir’s The Second Sex reconfigures the social relation that defines man and women, and how far women has evolved from the second position given to them. In order for us to define what a woman is, we first need to clarify what a man is, for this is said to be the point of derivation (De Beauvoir). And this notion presents to us the concept of duality, which states that women will always be treated as the second sex, the dominated and lacking one. Woman as the sexed being that differs from men, in which they are simply placed in the others category. As men treat their bodies as a concrete connection to the world that they inhabit; women are simply treated as bodies to be objectified and used for pleasure, pleasure that arise from the beauty that the bodies behold. This draws us to form the statement that beauty is a powerful means of objectification that every woman aims to attain in order to consequently attain acceptance and approval from the patriarchal society. The society that set up the vague standard of beauty based on satisfaction of sexual drives. Here, women constantly seek to be the center of attention and inevitably the medium of erection.
The political philosopher believed that communism could only thrive in a society distressed by “the political and economic circumstances created by a fully developed capitalism”. With industry and capitalism growing, a working class develops and begins to be exploited. According to Marx, the exploiting class essentially is at fault for their demise, and the exploited class eventually comes to power through the failure of capitalism.... ... middle of paper ...
In Simone De Beauvoir’s book, The Second Sex, the term the other is used in reference to women. Women are regarded as the inessential and the dependent sex who needs the one in order to exist (De Beauvoir, 1989). The one is referred to as man who is the norm that we need to conform to or else we will be marginalized if we fail to do so. This ideal norm has been present in society since the very beginning of time. Maybe it is because man was created first before woman in the creation story of Genesis and how the religion, Christianity, has a man as their Savior. This is why women are regarded as the weak ones as they are incapable to comply with the norm and are alienated in society. In addition, those men who fail to prove their manliness and do not meet the standards of what it means to be a man are often referred ...
Marx believed that capitalism was unfair because the rich middle and upper class people manipulated the system and used it for their own benefit while we got the short end of the stick. We, being average Americans— like myself— who go to college full-time, juggle a job, and yet are constantly struggling just to make ends meet: the unappreciated, exploited and underpaid every day heroes.... ... middle of paper ... ... 6.