After finished reading ‘”What Remains? The Language Remains”: A Conversation with Günter Gaus’, I have had much self reflections going on in my mind. I have always been fascinated by Hannah Arendt; she was such a brilliant thinker, and what I love most is how beautifully and simply she explains such complex theories in a way bereft of flowery, extra diction. Simple, yet profound.
One of the qualities of her writing that I found particularly striking when I first read Arendt is her use of masculine pronouns. For some feminists (I venture to say “many”, but won’t be able to qualify with empirical proof, so I chose “some” instead), using “him” or “he” or “men” in place of “humans” is sexist and degrading to women. While I acknowledge and understand perfectly well the problems with using sexist language, personally, I think that one ought not to get too caught up or too offended; after all, words carry meaning because humans collectively impose certain concepts and thereby carry certain connotations. In some languages, like Chinese and Latin, there is no sex distinction between “him” or “her” or “human”. So I find this fascinating because Arendt reminds me of another female thinker, Rosa Luxemberg (socialist thinker and revolutionary). The link: while both being female in a male-dominated society, not only do they use the same so-called sexist language using “men” while referring to both men and women, humans in general, not only were they not bothered by the distinctions imposed and categorised by both men and women, in their intellectual spheres their voices are ostensibly rather “masculine” (i.e. powerful, influential). And yet, on a private level, they can also be considered quite “feminine” (i.e. nurturing, loving caring). While concerned with affairs dominated largely by men, they did not renounce the traditional, old values of women, e.g. being a wife, mother, daughter, ad infinitum. In other words, depending where they are and what is needed of them, they simply assume their roles and responsibilities without complaint and resistance. Now, whether or not these roles and responsibilities is “forced” upon them by society is another matter, one which I do not wish to take up now because I believe that the matter is not that simple, and neither is it something I find – personally – particularly relevant.
Quoting from Arendt’s response to Gaus about the question of women’s emancipation: “there is always the problem as such. I have actually been rather old-fashioned. I always thought that there are certain occupations that are improper for women, that do not become them, if I may put it that way. It just doesn’t look good when a woman gives orders. She should try not to get into such a situation if she wants to remain feminine. Whether I am right about this or not I do not know. I myself have always lived in accordance with this more ore less unconsciously–or let us rather say, more or less consciously. The problem itself played no role for me personally. To put it very simply, I have always done what I liked to do.” I don’t think she was ever really concerned with the problem at all. And when Gaus inquired the purpose of Arendt’s writing was to invoke influence, she replied that that question itself was framed in very masculine terms, i.e. the need to be influential, powerful.
I sympathise. I really do.
I think in them, I’ve found the reason why I’m not particularly moved by feminist theory and their claims. By all due respect, it is not that I find feminist theory to be ridiculous or irrelevant. On the contrary, I think they are valid claims and need to be taken seriously. On a personal level, however, I find it interesting, but believe there are other things that strike me just as (if not more) interesting.
I mean, I am a woman, and I am also Asian (double plus the minority level). If I am working, I do my duties required of me to the best of my ability. I take orders and if needed I give orders. If I have to, I can discuss feminism, and I can also take their side. But at home, I likewise resume my duties, call it housewife or not, which include but is not limited to, cleaning, cooking, be a loving mother and wife. I rarely take my philophising into our home. One of the reasons, of course, is because Mr. Worm (for those of you who know him) isn’t exactly the perfect interlocutor for a philosopher. To simplify my reasons, it might just be because I like to keep private and public matters separate. That is not to say I don’t philosophize at home; I do.
Perhaps part of the reason as to why I’m a bit indifferent (though indifferent might be too strong a word) to sexism or racism is because I’ve never really experienced such phenomenon. I am not oblivious to it, because when it happens around me, I am aware of it. But as of today, I haven’t been personally affected. I hope I am not offending any adamant feminist out there, and if I have, please don’t take it too personally, as I have nothing against feminists or feminism per se.
I think there is also a deeper aspect as to why women like Arendt refrain from using any sort of antifeminist or feminist diction. Whether you use it or blatantly attack those who use it, it seems you are still caught within that dialectic. One could also argue that refusing to use that kind of language is also a kind of feminism. But I would venture that while this is true, on the other hand, it can also simply mean one does not wish to partake in distinguishing a woman for her sexuality. Either way still means that you are caught in that opposition. What does it really mean to address woman as woman? Why not woman as simply human, just as man is simply human? Arendt would have never wanted people to recognize her as, say, the Jew who had an affair with Heidegger–neither as a woman, as a Jew, or as a philosopher. Rather, I think, simply as Hannah Arendt. That is, Arendt as one distinguished by her thinkings and what she deemed as important; Arendt in her own right, not as Arendt attached to something/one else.
“I have never in my life “loved” any people or collective group, neither the German people, the French, the Americans, not he working class or anything of that sort. I indeed love only my friends, and the only kind of love I know of and believe in is the love of [particular] persons. Moreover, this “love of the Jews” would appear to me, since I am myself Jewish, as something rather suspect.” This was in her response to Gershom Scholem, who accused her as an intellectual from the German Left and as a Jewish unaware of the “Jewish problem”. For those of you interested, I recommend reading first some biographical background on Arendt, and her controversial report Eichmann in Jerusalem. So as I was saying, I believe there is something quite profound in this statement of hers. The more I think about it, the more I think that she is right in pointing out the practical impossibility of a true love for a group/collective of people… at least for me. Who knows? Many there are some out there who, like Jesus, love people. I just find that kind of love too abstract. Admittedly, I am not a person of such profound integrity. If anyone knows of such a person, consider yourself one-in-a-million lucky.
