A concept under the magnifying glass.
" Women are gentler, more attentive to others... But how talkative are they. It's a story of maternal instinct and left brain! ", " Men are conquerors... But they don't know how to do several things at once. What do you want, the testosterone and the right brain, we can't make up for it... When we talk about stereotypes, one word often comes up in discourse : essentialism.
But what exactly is it? Where does this notion come from, which is frequently related or opposed to other, no less conceptual ones (nominalism or segregationism on the one hand, constructionism or universalism on the other, and in the middle determinism)? To get a clearer picture, the EVE blog takes a closer look at the concept.
The origins of the word are Karl Popper. At the origins of the idea, Plato ?
The original mistake: having classified humans, instead of defining humans
It was the philosopher of science Karl Popper who introduced the notion of essentialism in his book The Misery of Historicism, published in 1945. Instructing the paradigms of the social sciences that were then in full expansion and were looking for a methodology as legitimate as that of the so-called hard sciences, Popper tracked down sanctualized visions, presuppositions and other alleged evidences that were never questioned.
And what Popper starts by challenging is the definition of what human is. He traces the accepted definition of the human essence back to Antiquity, looking in particular at the approach of Aristotle and Plato: for Popper, the first philosophers claimed to designate the essence of the human by constructing not a definition but typologies: a typology that classifies species in which humans fit (rather at the top of the hierarchy as far as we are at it) and then a typology that distinguishes categories within the human species (the best known in Plato being the one that distinguishes males, females and androgynes).
From classification to segregation: the risks of perpetuation without questioning
This is how, on the basis of a process of classification rather than definition, an understanding of the human essence by differentiated categories would have been born: an essence for men, an essence for women...
But also, by extension, an essence for slaves, for " barbarian" foreigners , for some group whose members seem to have more in common with each other than with the rest of humanity. In the darkest pages of history (and sometimes of the present time), these essential classifications will serve as a justification for unequal treatment and separation of worlds.
Thus, some will attribute the sources of segregationism and the principles of discrimination to Plato. But Popper does not make such a shortcut : as a follower of the " quasi-error " that should allow the scientist and the thinker to put forward hypotheses that will eventually prove to be erroneous but allow the work of reflection and debate to take place, he does not hold the ancient philosopher responsible for the excesses inspired by his thought.
It is to those who succeeded him that he reproaches for having accepted and perpetuated the Platonic model of differentiation by essence without ever questioning it.
Essentialism before the letter : from " ontological realism " to " biological determinism", via utilitarian " naturalism "
Medieval ontological realism: the first tensions between the universal and the differential
Dietrich von Freiberg
Indeed, the ancient premise of differentiating humans according to their sex, among other observable criteria, will have a bright future ahead of it.
In the Middle Ages, it took the form of " ontological realism". In search of what makes " being ", the disciple of Augustin Dietrich von Freiberg (thirteenth century) reinforces the idea that the human is a universal distinct from the animal on the one hand and God on the other ; but that within humanity, we must accept the " realist " evidence of fundamental dissimilarities: not so much between women and men (a subject that interests him little) but above all between peoples and civilizations.
The dialectic of the universal and the differential is posed. But to whose advantage will it turn? Those who already believe that the differences between humans are more important than what they have in common (and who rely on the observation of the reality of proximity to prove themselves right), or those who soon argue that the difference between humans is annexed to universal human nature (and who will mostly be referred to a form of idealism that does not resist reality)?
The time of " natural science": biologism as an unsurpassable reading of the fact and its reasons
The balance is clearly on the side of the former, while the natural sciences experienced a tremendous boom from the Renaissance to the present day.
We study the human body with passion, but also with a few prisms: as does, for example, the pioneer of neuroscience Gustave Le Bon, studying the brain to unravel the mystery of the lesser intelligence of women! He " proves " it: they are less clever than men because their brain mass is smaller. Neither he nor anyone else has previously demonstrated that women are really deficient in the things of the intellect, or even that intelligence is lodged in the structure of the brain. But in 1879, Le Bon was more imbued with biologism than Cartesian doubt: he did not suspect the hypothesis of women's inferiority of possible falsification and therefore dispensed with questioning it as such.
In defense of Le Bon and others who will produce works that seem to us at least dated if not completely absurd, for two centuries we have been convinced that biology is able to explain everything about the human condition. As we discover the brain, hormones, and genes, we think we will find in it factors that determine qualities and behaviors : we will look for the genes of intelligence, the hormones of empathy, the DNA of violence or laziness and even the cell of the leg that wriggles or the protein of chatter. Everything, everything, everything would be above all and despite everything a matter of right or left brain, DNA, physiology, endocrinology or metabolism.
Naturalism: nature has no God, but science can do (in its place) the job of telling the cause and end of everything
Willard van Orman Quine
Naturalism will drive the point home even further by establishing the principle that everything has no cause, explanation and end except natural (and by the way that the question of what is " nature " is only that of scientists, no one else being qualified to express his opinion on it, according to Willard van Orman Quine who theorizes naturalism).
For the thinkers of this current, nature is stronger than the human will to go beyond or counter it: even if ultra-civilized, humans would remain creatures driven in spite of themselves by biologically coherent instincts and behaviors (for example, the tendencies to endogamy or, on the contrary, to miscegenation can be explained by a process of selection of sexual partners unconsciously dedicated to ensuring the survival of the species).
In this current of ideas, nature knows no ideal, no ethics or transcendence of any kind whatsoever : it is rather brutal, profoundly unequal, not frankly tender with the weak (Darwin's quick and counterfeit readings have also been there) and sometimes frankly cruel.
But all is not lost, at least for those who have resources, for if nature cannot be changed, it can be understood. For example, women and men are considered to be different and that this difference results in their being unequal, but they can learn how each one works to live in harmony.
And it would be in their best interest : biologism then joins utilitarianism when taking note of what human nature is (even if it is sometimes unflattering) allows us to make the most of it. To illustrate : the privileged individual does not have a priori an interest in equality, but we can try to convince him that it can be profitable in the medium or long term, for example, by protecting him from the conflicts and manifestations of violence that too great a difference in treatment could lead to (this is one of Condorcet's arguments to convince men that society has something to gain from equality).
Nature versus culture, essentialism versus existentialism : " we are born nothing, we become everything "?
Existence precedes essence: the " right " to a chosen destiny
Unsurprisingly, existentialism was to radically contradict the forms of essentialism.
" Existence precedes essence " proclaimed Sartre, who believed that human beings were defined by their values, their actions and the mastery of their destiny. Yes, the observation of reality can lead to the conclusion that there are incoercible differences between categories of humans and that one cannot escape the destiny promised by belonging to one or the other of these categories.
Except that this determinism has nothing to do with nature (which pushes humans to the impulse of freedom), but owes everything to culture (which imprisons humans in obligatory loyalties): differences are as much (and even more) constructed as given.
And this is done in a very insidious way, through collective mental structures that " prophesy " destinies to us that we still prefer to adhere to rather than lose and exhaust ourselves by trying to escape them, says sociologist of science Robert King Merton from his lab in Chicago.
The Second Sex : Against " the mythifications of the feminine " that fail to " grasp the essence " of " the " woman
It is obviously Simone de Beauvoir who adapts this software to the condition of women, in The Second Sex. " You are not born a woman, you become one", the phrase is famous.
Beauvoir believes that humanity is not only a species (within the animal kingdom) but also a " civilization ", and she therefore rejects the idea that women's power of gestation is the sole and ultimate explanation for the differences in treatment of which they are victims. The " essence " of " the " woman seems to her irreducible to motherhood alone and beyond that, perfectly " elusive".
It is a whole historical, religious and social " mythification " of the feminine that she accuses of prohibiting women from living as unique beings, forcing them to define themselves beforehand as women, " in relation to" men. In the background, there is a whole critique of the idea of " complementarity " between women and men, which assigns " useful " roles to each sex on the pretext of a misguided otherness: for Beauvoir, the relationship with the other is corrupted as soon as it is based on the acceptance of a difference that produces inequality.
Essentialism and Intersectionalism : " Multiple Belongings"
What is the essence of the stereotype for poly-discriminated people?
The critique of essentialism found a new lease of life and became even more complex in the early 1990s, when the notion of intersectionality appeared, under the pen of the academic Kimberlé Crenshaw.
An expert in " black feminism", she studies the intersection of discrimination : when being a black homosexual woman, for example, simultaneously exposes you to sexism, racism and homophobia.
If there were an " essence ", what would it be for this person : their gender, skin colour or sexual orientation, or something else that characterises them in terms of self-awareness (accepted and/or chosen) or in the perception that others have of them (imposed)?
This questioning invites us to think about the diversity of beings to themselves at the same time as we think about the difference in treatment between individuals or categories of individuals.
The inclusion of the different in the consideration of its differences
But how can we reconcile this vision that atomizes humanity into successions of perfectly singular individuals (which would make each individual a community in its own right) with an undenying perception of discriminated groups (which presupposes the recognition of the existence of communities, which is only served by the fact of discrimination to which they are subjected)? By not conceiving of differences in terms of essence but of chosen or well-designated belonging, say the thinkers of intersectionality.
So, what is at stake is the possibility of appropriation (or distancing) by each person of the elements of his or her identity and the inclusion of the multi-belongers that we all are. We all have plural identities and loyalties, for some data (such as gender), for others inherited (a social background or a geographical origin) or transmitted (a language, a culture) or even adhesive (personal values acquired outside of family influence, autonomous life choices, etc.).
All of this must be considered, not as margins to the " norm ," but as integral components of it. It could be summarized as follows : we no longer define the difference in relation to what makes " the same ", but we deconstruct " the norm of the same " which would in fact be that of the majority and/or the dominant.
Anti-essentialism and equality, links that are more ambiguous than they seem
Essentialism: A Solid Foundation of Sexism
Before entering into the debate " for or against essentialism ", let us attempt a synthetic definition of the notion in the context of gender equality: essentialism consists in attributing to women and men different psychologies, behaviours, social characteristics, and ways of seeing things because of their observed and/or scientifically proven biological differences.
Essentialism is thus held by a large number of promoters of gender equality as the foundation of sexism. Whether it is malicious and misogynistic (as for example when it attributes " a gossip gene" to women, or assumes that men are incapable of doing several things at the same time) or whether it is benevolent and apparently flattering (as for example, when we expect women in positions of leadership to be more gentle and conciliatory or when we metaphorize masculine courage with valiant attributes located in the underpants !).
Differentialism: for specifically feminine rights
But the relationship between essentialism and the fight for equality is more ambiguous than it seems. A whole so-called "differentialist " current, born in France and in the Anglo-Saxon world in the 1970s (represented by Antoinette Fouque, Julia Kristeva and Adrienne Rich) wants to integrate " the essence of femininity " into discourses and actions in favour of women.
This position will, for example, defend the idea of a privileged relationship that would unite the child to its mother (more than to its father) and claim rights to guarantee good conditions for the exercise of maternity. More broadly, we will defend the idea that the ethics of care is a woman's property (for example, in the work of Hege Skjeie) and shift the fight for the sharing of family tasks to the field of recognition and valuing of these tasks : for women to do the bulk of the work of taking care of people would only be a problem to the extent that this job is free and invisible.
What if the fight against essentialism contributed to increasing certain inequalities?
Some will also worry about the possible counterproductive effects of anti-essentialism on women's rights.
Last year, the philosopher of science Peggy Sastre published an essay devoted to the Sex of Diseases , which warned precisely of the risks of undifferentiated medicine.
While universalist myths are pursued and what biologically differentiates women and men is put on the back burner to combat what makes them culturally unequal, medicine, she says, too often mistakes women for men : drugs tested on exclusively male panels when they may not be suitable for women, typically female conditions (from premenstrual syndrome to endometriosis) understudied due to a lack of research credit and underdiagnosed due to a lack of training for doctors, inadequate prevention programs (which do not take into account, for example, the specific risks of tobacco or alcohol for women)...
To be or not to be essentialist, and if that was not the question ?
Choose your side, egalitarian comrade?
With the same laudable intentions, those of promoting equality and asserting diversity, we therefore have visions of essentialism that are radically opposed (and sometimes very violently, in feminist movements in particular): appealing to the " essence " is for some an absolute trap for women (because it would confine them to narrow perceptions of the feminine and the traditional roles assigned to it) and it is for others a privileged way of recognizing what they are (as such, and not in relation to men).
For a restoration of the posture of critical doubt
Descartes
Does this mean that you have to choose sides ? It seems that the answer lies in our relationship with nature, biology and science.
For we would be in a symmetrical blindness both by having faith in nature and only in nature (like the naturalists of yesteryear) and by cultivating the conviction that everything is culture and nothing but culture. In both cases, we abolish the critical doubt that obliges us to receive what we think is right and true with the indispensable scruple of taking into consideration a different or contrary thought.
As a reminder: the opposite of equality is not difference: it is inequality(ies)!
But far be it from us to commit everyone to the synthesis that relativizes everything and dilutes convictions : essentialist or anti-essentialist, that is perhaps not the question in the end.
And what if the question was: how to treat the different, whatever the perception of its difference that we have in ourselves, as its perfect equal in all fields of existence ?
For it will be recalled here for all intents and purposes : the opposite of equality is not difference, it is inequality ; The synonym of equality is not indifference, it is equivalent consideration for that which presents no distinction either of greatness or quality.
