In order for us to examine the ambiguity of freedom we need to understand the basic element of respect for other’s freedoms as we respect our own. Even though this is a general notion relating to humanity it can be specified in parts just as Simone De Beauvoir says in one of her main thesis that we all need one another in order to have freedom. With this, she implies a sub-thesis that we are both subject and object. She elaborates this by addressing the idea that we have the freedom to choose how we act, think and respect others as well as ourselves. To sum it up, this is clearly an existentialist view because it entertains the idea that individuals and humans as a whole make their own essence and have a choice in who they want to be. Now, as far as us being of an object, this idea is because even in our freedom we are limited by our body and social constraints. This idea of us being of both subject and object is where one of the ambiguities arises according to De Beauvoir; therefore I will elaborate more on both the idea of our freedom and our limitations, and explain why I agree that it is important to understand De Beauvoir’s notion of the importance of other’s freedoms. She states “we see that no existence can be validly fulfilled if it is limited to itself” (De Beauvoir, 67). By this, she means that we need other’s to bring meaning to everything we do. For example, when I graduate CSUN, it would not be an accomplishment if society did not acknowledge the value of a college degree.
The first topic we are going to address is that of subjectivity and the fact that we need to take responsibility for our actions as opposed to give the excuse that our wrong doings or lack of responsibility derives from something innate or something that we do not have the power to control. The subjectivity in people is that people have many meanings, and are forever changing as opposed to an object, and these differences should be embraced and respected. The main argument many people have to this existential view is the notion that if man is free to do and act however they want without God setting guidelines and rules, won’t there be anarchy and everything would be allowed? De Beauvoir’s response to this is “He bears the responsibility for a world which is not the work of a strange power, but of himself, where his defeats are inscribed, and his victories as well” (De Beauvoir 16). This passage is significant because she shows that people need to respect their freedom and other people’s freedoms in order to change the world and society in a way that they would satisfy their own expectations and morals. In other words, if I want to live in a society where people are free to speak their minds and everyone is able to have the proper means in life to live happily, I myself need to take actions towards that goal first, as my actions make the world a certain way. On the other hand, if I live my life with the notion that I don’t have this type of freedom and every law of society, being good or bad, is what I must live by, then I would not contribute to any kind of positive change nor should I expect any positive change in the world. De Beauvoir gives account to several types of people, even some that don’t believe they have this type of freedom. She starts off bringing childhood as the initial problem by saying, “The child’s situation is characterized by his finding himself cast into a universe which he has not helped to establish, which has been fashioned without him, and which appears to him as an absolute to which he can only submit.” (De Beauvoir, 35). Therefore, De Beauvoir is asserting that childhood is where the problem originates. Further she refers to this child’s mentality as “serious”, when in actuality it is quite playful and leaves no responsibility on the child by not subjecting them to making decisions for themselves. Once childhood has passed, this child has embedded the idea that there is no such freedom for him and this is where he will never respect and embrace other people’s freedoms, for lack of respecting his own. These type of people are, what De Beauvoir refers to as “sub-man”, “There are beings whose life slips by in an infantile world because, having been kept in a state of servitude and ignorance, they have no means of breaking the ceiling which is stretched over their heads” (De Beauvoir, 37). One important note on these types of people is what she brings up regarding women, she says “Even today in western countries, among women who have not had in their work an apprenticeship of freedom, there are still many who take shelter in the shadow of men;” (De Beauvoir, 37). This notion is extremely severe because this shows the big picture of oppression occurring, when people do not take responsibility for their choices. For example, if I were not to educate myself, never work, and only know how to cook and clean, therefore ending up as a housewife, this does not only effect my life. If my sister’s come over to my house often and see that this is all I have done in my life because I felt I had to choice but to be a house wife, they too will think the same and this causes a chain reaction amongst more and more women because it is an affirmation of that type of life. Therefore it is very important to understand this subjectivity in people and break away from the ignorance of thinking we are not free and therefore other people should not be free. Then she goes on to examine types of people who recognize their freedom but do not abide by any rules, believing that everything is meaningless, such as the “nihilistic man”. De Beauvoir would look at the nihilistic man as using their freedom in a negative way and I agree with her, because I consider this person selfish to only their own personal interests. Because of the fact that their mentality is that of nothingness, they do what they want to do with their freedom without a positive end and furthermore they do not respect other’s freedoms. “He feels himself as a negation and a freedom, but he does not realize this freedom as a positive liberation.”(De Beauvoir, 53). The reason why I call this person selfish goes back to the fact that when people decide not to embrace and practice their freedom it causes the same chain reaction as the example of women and housewives. Again, this is why I believe it is important to embrace our freedom just as much as other people’s freedoms because we are planting the seeds to our future and the change for a better society as a whole.
Lastly she describes the person of “genuine freedom”, who acknowledges their freedom and knows that they need other people’s freedoms in order to embrace their own. This genuine freedom has traits of the adventurer – which is one who seeks not an ultimate end but only pursues the journey – and because no adventure is driven by an individual, rather it needs the will and excitement of others to arouse it. It also has the traits of the passionate man – a person who becomes intrigued and consumed by one thing – because the passion from wanting to find and define them leads them to unity with other people’s freedoms. “One admires the pride of a subjectivity which chooses its end without bending itself to any foreign law and the precious brilliance of the object revealed by the force of this assertion” (De Beauvoir, 65). This genuine freedom not only realizes its freedom, but teaches others of their own freedom, for a greater good. This is the ambiguity of freedom in ethics that De Beauvoir is referring to, and this ambiguity is one that we can define in ourselves with our own freedom, by embracing other’s freedoms. Then there is the objectivity that I believe is society which has a set of rules and regulations that cause oppression and generalizations.
We discussed in class that it is wrong to generalize, even if it is positive, because people are subjects, which by definition are impossible to define objectively because of their freedom. An example of this would be if someone who has never met an Armenian person but has heard they are mean, to meet me and immediately be defensive. His is a limitation because if there is a pre-notion of other’s then there is no freedom. Another limitation to freedom would be a physical one. When I say physical I mean a limitation and oppression deriving from sexes, namely male and female. For example, if women are irrationally generalized as needing to be thin to be beautiful, then this negative idea can become their own view of themselves. After internalizing this judgment on themselves they may find themselves turning to unhealthy alternatives to fit this mold society has set on a woman’s body. I personally believe that this is where anorexia and bulimia come from. Society is something that we refer to as a separate entity outside of ourselves and therefore leaving it unchangeable, but this mind state is us choosing to participate in these wrong limiting constraints it sets upon us. Once we realize that we are partaking in the building of society, we can open endless possibilities of positive change and reduce oppressions and generalizations. Another example would be Disney and Barbies, portraying women as fragile and dependent on men for a “happily ever after”. This is another way, from childhood; one may think that they have no freedom because these types of ideals have been placed in society even before they were born. It is reasons like this that the issue of our own subjectivity needs to be taken into account in order for change to occur as a whole.
However, the problem in this is that it may seem almost impossible not to generalize. There is on the other hand a beneficial generalization and that would be the responsible generalization. A responsible generalization is one that is second guessed and thought out, minimizing oppression amongst others. It also allows us to put ourselves in the shoes of others therefore embracing differences. We know that the mind gives meaning to objects prior to experiencing them because of the noema. We discussed early in the semester Husserl’s idea of noema being separate from the object and this is where another problem arises. It is the notion that we need to practice responsible generalization over and over again for it to become a natural practice. Therefore when we immediately give meaning to something or someone prior to experiencing them, that meaning would be the idea of openness to learn something new. I further believe this is why De Beauvoir believes we need to make ourselves the other for us to understand the bigger picture that all individuals are pieces to a bigger whole, namely humanity. Furthermore, it is important to think of the idea that if other people didn’t exist all of the things and activities we partake in become meaningless. For example if I complete my goal of becoming an attorney and dedicate all my life in education and studies to finally achieve it, it would be meaningless with no clients or judges, and many others. This is why it is vital for us to truly understand the importance of others and how their will and freedom effects our own directly. Once we have acknowledged other people’s freedom as well as our own, we recognize that we have the ability to change the world. This type of acknowledgment would send this world into a positive revolution where the end result would be that of humanity and respect. This revolution would also bring down oppression and segregation that occurs every day. It is interesting that in a world where we get emails on our phones, we have been to the moon, and accomplished many other achievements that may have seemed impossible in the past – yet the human race is still so far behind in having love and respect for one another. I believe this is what De Beauvoir is trying to achieve in the third part of her book. She immediately asserts, “Thus, every man has to do with other men. The world in which he engages himself is a human world” (De Beauvoir, 74). I may be a somewhat bias to this paper because I have an existential point of view as well. I hold myself responsible for my actions and choice, and I know that what I do in life defines humans as a whole. Although I do partake in social norms, I choose to participate in social constructs that benefit every person, and people to come. This book is not only beneficial on a phenomenological level but it also sets guidelines for a human level. It sets guidelines for us to realize other’s freedoms and the significant role it plays for us to address our own freedoms. It also allows us to see that our mind states towards others are the seeds we plant for our own life. I think humanity has come a long way, however, only when we all as a whole acknowledge and embrace everyone’s freedoms can we accomplish the type of revolution De Beauvoir believes would be the answer to the human problem. Not only do we need to want freedom just as she states, “one of the chief objections leveled against existentialism is that the percept ‘to will freedom’ is only a hollow formula and offers no concrete content for action” (De Beauvoir, 78). Furthermore, I really enjoyed reading about the sick girl, when people would tell her that her only worry in life should be to get better. She then turned and asked the question if that should be the only thing to worry about then why is it worth worrying about in the first place, (De Beauvoir, 106). The fact of the matter is that every single human plays a role to themselves and to everyone else in the world. This is why revolutions exist and protests and civil wars have come to be. People need to stand up and take responsibility for their decisions and judgments to create a wave of freedom amongst all of mankind.