Final Exam (Take-home)
Student Essay
A Complementary Interpretation of Maternity by Beauvoir and Kristeva
The Second Sex by Simon de Beauvoir has attracted a lot of critical attention since its publication. It is a monumental book in that it marks a new age for feminist studies. Many feminist theorists and critics find the ideas expressed in this book worthy of attention. On
Kristeva accuses Beauvoir of rejecting “the attributes traditionally considered feminine or maternal” and of pursuing an “identity between the two sexes” (193, 195). She thinks that by rejecting maternity, Beauvoir and the first generation of feminists have foreclosed the question of what the desire for motherhood corresponds to. But Zerilli points out that Beauvoir does not foreclose the question but makes it possible by “creating an alternative space” in which to consider the problem (115). She thinks that what Beauvoir suggests is not a rejection of motherhood, but a rejection of the beautified image imposed by patriarchal society on mothers. In other words, Beauvoir is using a new discursive strategy to unsettle the traditional image of the mother, or rather, the female.
This discursive strategy refers to the idea that we can use patriarchal language to reinterpret what it means to be a mother and what it means to be a female. In patriarchal society, female desire is wholly equated with maternal desire. And men impose this ideology on women to silence their complex and diverse experiences and feelings. For example, pregnancy is seen by many as “a blissful coexistence between the fetus and the mother-to-be” (Zerilli 119). They think it’s a “normal process” that is “not harmful” but “beneficial” to the mother (Beauvoir 33). This is what patriarchal society takes it to be. But Beauvoir, in The Second Sex, gives us a horrific picture of the maternal body. She describes that the fetus is like “a parasitic body” residing in the mother-to-be (Beauvoir 25-26). Her unconventional description is quite bold and astounding to the proponents of patriarchal society. By speaking of pregnancy in a different way, Beauvoir marks the on
However, Kristeva disagrees in that she thinks women cannot use patriarchal language to describe her fluid, rhythmic and diverse desires. She sees the maternal space as the preconscious womb or chora, defining it as a “matrix space, nourishing, unnameable, anterior to the On
Beauvoir has also been accused of her “naive acceptance of biological facts” (Seigfried 308). She is charged with this because she adopts the authoritative scientific discourse to talk about female biology. Zerilli finds Beauvoir mimicking this scientific language on
Then where does this monolithic view of maternity come from? Why does society show us the image of sacred mother who is nurturing and comforting? These questions can be best explained by Kristeva’s theory of abjection and Beauvoir’s horror of the maternal body combined. According to Elizabeth Grosz, “abjection is a reaction to the recognition of the impossible but necessary transcendence of the subject’s corporeality, and the impure, defiling elements of its uncontrollable materiality” (Fletcher 87). In other words, the maternal body reminds men of their animal ties, their mortality and the impure elements in them. In order to be completely separated from this undesirable and dirty part of them, men project it on
In order to debunk this kind of masculinist values of maternity, Beauvoir helps us find a space from which women can show us the diverse sides of what it feels to be a woman. However, Kristeva thinks that since women exist in such a chaotic and heterogeneous maternal space, it is impossible to describe it in paternal time which is characterized by order, system and logic. In this case, Zerilli sides with Beauvoir and thinks that women can not become subjects not because of their position in unnamable space, but because they are constrained by patriarchal ideology. Thus on
Therefore, Zerilli writes this paper to clarify that Beauvoir is not a spokesperson of masculinist ideas who upholds rationality and logic but a daring rebel who subverts the patriarchal myth of maternity. She thinks the discursive strategy proposed by Beauvoir and Kristeva’s theory of abjection is complementary. Thus on
Works Cited
Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex. Ed. and trans. H. M. Parshley. New York: Vintage Books, 1974 [1949].
Fletcher, John, and Andrew Benjamin, ed. Abjection, Melancholia and Love: the Work of Julia Kristeva. New York: Routledge, 1990.
Grosz, Elizabeth. “The Body of Signification.” Abjection, Melancholia and Love: the Work of Julia Kristeva. Ed. John Fletcher and Andrew Benjamin. New York: Routledge, 1990. 80-103.
Kristeva, Julia. “Women’s Time.” Feminism: an Anthology of Literary Theory and Criticism. Ed. Robyn R. Warhol and Diane Price Herndl. New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1997. 860-79.
Seigfried, Charlene Haddock. “Second Sex: Second Thoughts.” Hypatia Reborn. Ed. Azizah Y. Al-Hibri and Margaret A. Simons. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1990. 305-22.
Zerilli, Linda M.G. “A Process without a Subject.” In Signs 18.1 (1992): 111-35.
评论