“How sad.”
“Simone de Beauvoir attempted to apply existentialism to feminism.
Sartre had already said that man has no basic ‘nature’ to fall back on. We
create ourselves.”
“Really?”
“This is also true of the way we perceive the sexes. Simone de Beauvoir
denied the existence of a basic ‘female nature’ or ‘male nature.’ For instance,
it has been generally claimed that man has a ‘transcending,’ or achieving,
nature. He will therefore seek meaning and direction outside the home.
Woman has been said to have the opposite life philosophy. She is ‘immanent,’
which means she wishes to be where she is. She will therefore nurture her
family, care for the environment and more homely things. Nowadays we might
say that women are more concerned with ‘feminine values’ than men.”
“Did she really believe that?”
“You weren’t listening to me. Simone de Beauvoir in fact did not believe
in the existence of any such ‘female nature’ or ‘male nature.’ On the contrary,
she believed that women and men must liberate themselves from such
ingrown prejudices or ideals.”
“I agree.”
“Her main work, published in 1949, was called The Second Sex.”
“What did she mean by that?”
“She was talking about women. In our culture women are treated as the
second sex. Men behave as if they are the subjects, treating women like their
objects, thus depriving them of the responsibility for their own life.”
“She meant we women are exactly as free and independent as we
choose to be?”
“Yes, you could put it like that. Existentialism also had a great influence
on literature, from the forties to the present day, especially on drama. Sartre
himself wrote plays as well as novels. Other important writers were the
Frenchman Albert Camus, the Irishman Samuel Beckett, Eugene lonesco,
who was from Romania, and Witold Gombro-wicz from Poland. Their
characteristic style, and that of many other modern writers, was what we call
absurdism. The term is especially used about the ‘theater of the absurd.’ “
“Ah.”
“Do you know what we mean by the ‘absurd’?”
“Isn’t it something that is meaningless or irrational?”
“Precisely. The theater of the absurd represented a contrast to realistic
theater. Its aim was to show the lack of meaning in life in order to get the
audience to disagree. The idea was not to cultivate the meaningless. On the
contrary. But by showing and exposing the absurd in ordinary everyday
situations, the onlookers are forced to seek a truer and more essential life for
themselves.”
“It sounds interesting.”
“The theater of the absurd often portrays situations that are absolutely
trivial. It can therefore also be called a kind of ‘hyperrealism.’ People are
portrayed precisely as they are. But if you reproduce on stage exactly what
goes on in the bathroom on a perfectly ordinary morning in a perfectly
ordinary home, the audience would laugh. Their laughter could be interpreted
as a defense mechanism against seeing themselves lampooned on stage.”
“Yes, exactly.”