Question 2:

Describe the concept of human nature (including gender) in three of the

following philosophies: Marxism, existentialism, Freudianism, Postmodernism.
If you were creating your own theory of social change, which concept would
be most compatible with your vision and goals?

0942836
Honors 394
December 4, 2013

The distinct philosophies of Freudianism, existentialism, and

postmodernism all offer a starkly unique framework of the world. Delving into
the age-old question, What is the purpose of life? each philosophy pulls us
down a path of social critiques and ideas, delivering a concept of order and
meaning or revealing a lack thereof. The single commonality among these
philosophies is their logical structure, which is built around a core premise: an
explanation of what it means to be human. Each philosophy posits a different
conception of what it means to be human, which causes each to branch out
from the others and structure very different views on morality, society, and
government. My personal views on morality, society, and government are also
built on a core concept of what it means to be human. By first discussing the
roles women and sexuality play within these three social theories, I will address
the root of it all, the concept of human nature, and present my own theory of
social change and discuss its compatibility with postmodernist thought.
Conceived by Sigmund Freud, Freudianism is a philosophy and
psychoanalytic theory entirely centered around repressed human sexuality and
impulses. From gendered temperaments to motivations for reproduction, biology
is the be all end all: human nature is determined by sexuality and gender. The
primacy of sex in Freudianism leads to the conclusion that humans can be
defined by their sexual impulses, many of which may be repressed or
subconscious, starting from the earliest stages of life. As young boys,
Freudianism claims, even though the male develops affection for the mother,
the boy will repress this because of his fear of castration (a fear that remains
prevalent throughout a mans life). The intrigue of the power of the father and

fear of not conforming to the code of males results in a transition from affection
for the mother to father-centeredness, marking the transition into manhood
(Firestone, 58). Men, in interpretation of Freud, are driven by the instinctual,
survival-based mandate to protect their male organ and thus their masculinity.
They become men when they repress their affection for women and instead
become oppressors of women. Women are equally driven by biology from
childhood, according to Freud. If men are driven by fear of castration, women
are driven by a similar obsession with the phallus-- not the fear of losing it but
the desire to own it. A hallmark of Freudian philosophy is the concept of penis
envy, which claims that females are envious of the male phallic appendage and
consequently live with a constant jealousy and vicarious hope of attaining such
for oneself (Lehrman, 85). Freudianism boils down female impulse and
motivation to the theory that from early childhood, a girl yearns for what she
cannot have, epitomized by the desire to be a boy (Freud, 595). However, her
desire for a penis eventually projects into a desire for a man, a necessary means
to attain one (Lehrman, 85). The penis is synonymous with power, a ruling staff
that awards males the access to rights of dominion. Men are driven by the
desire to protect it and wield it; women are driven by the desire to attain it and
be subject to it. Freud crafts a theory that sentences woman to a torturous
existence of nearly reaching but never quite grasping what has been denied her.
Because this theorys conception of human nature is built on the notion
that all women desire a penis, lest they be identified as frigid or lesbian
(Firestone, 59), women and men are dichotomically separated by anatomy. In
Freuds conception of humanity, the phallus is indeed an object of desire and a

sexual determinant, but it is more importantly a symbol and source of power

and agency. All women, by nature, wish for the power to be able to live as men
do, experiencing the world and accessing its knowledge. Furthermore,
Freudianism believes that male biology is indeed superior to female biology.
These assumptions are telling; Freuds concept of human nature is inherently
built on anatomical difference. Womens inability to achieve what men do lies in
their apparent inferiority as beings who do not own a phallus of their own.
Humans innately desire to attain and retain power and some, namely males, are
ascribed this power because of a mass of tissue which is apparently
synonymous with power and superiority. Women can only circuitously attain this
power via men. Any attempt to deviate from this model of gender is seen as a
neurotic condition or the result of some unnatural subconscious state that must
be quickly repaired. Human nature for Freud is then a simplistic progression;
humans are born and required to die in the rigid context of their physical
gender, expected to pursue power in the form of a penis, or by any means
protect that power. Anatomy, therefore, is both the shaping force of human
nature and its destiny.
While sexuality is the driving essence of Freudian philosophy, the absence
of essence is the foundation of existentialism. The core of Sartrean theory is the
lack of any meaning or purpose in the universe; nothingness is the only reality
(MacIntyre, 27). In the existential perspective, whenever humans base their
understanding on anything other than their own experiences or attempt to
transcend meaninglessness by creating a framework on any context, they are
exercising bad faith. This self-deception of weakly convincing oneself that

existence is in any way solid, significant, or destined may allow for a temporary
distraction, steeped in ignorance, but it ultimately falsifies the human existence
and simply delays realization of the only truth in the universe: that there is none
(MacIntyre, 27). In short, life is empty. Life is absurd. We are born, live, and then
die alone. Human nature and identity is therefore quite devoid of deeper,
greater, or higher meaning and purpose. The only way to obtain a sort of
identity is by exercising ones freedom through action. Under the logic of
existentialism, the accumulation of such choices is the only thing to be said
about a human, and only at ones demise. Actions are taken at face value and
decide the nature of individual. While sex may be destiny in Freudianism,
actions are the be all end all in existentialist thought. Human nature is a fallacy,
for there is no greater meaning, and humanity can be boiled down to simply the
sum of ones actions in life.
Throughout life, humans are at constant odds with one another, trying to
exercise freedom of the Self and to master the Other. A perpetual cycle of power
loss and gain is inevitable with human interactions; Others are objects and
impediments of the Selfs intentions and full exercise of freedom (Hampshire,
60). Sartre sets up a world in which individuals, prone to self-induced deception,
are ultimately alone in a vacuum of nothingness we call the universe (Collins,
Pierce, 320). Because neither context nor source of truth or value can exist,
humans have no real nature apart from their choices (Hampshire, 59). This
concept of human nature is incredibly equalizing; all are alone, all make choices,
all are free. Whether positive or negative, this theory sets all individuals on a
level field, in which all are incomplete. The absence of context removes any

hierarchy among humans. Any ideas of preexisting determinants of identity or a

difference in natures are neither legitimate sources of authority nor
representative of the truth. This is truly an equalizing perspective on human
nature.
When extrapolating this existential view of human nature, one would
assume that gender would play no role. For if human nature neither exists nor is
an essence of anything, how can biological and gendered distinctions take part
in the theory of existentialism? However, in his work, Being and Nothingness,
Sartre introduces the concept of the hole. From a young, curious age, he claims,
humans discover the form of a hole and struggle to make sense of it for the rest
of their lives. The hole is a vacancy, which represents the impetus for desires of
the flesh. In their ignorance of the ultimate meaninglessness of the universe,
humans have a tendency to fill holes, to plug the empty existences in a farfetched hope to achieve a fullness and completeness of a being, the in-itself
(Sarte, 318). This tendency can be applied to metaphorical, spiritual, as well as
anatomical fullness. Concerning women, Sartre brands the female sex as the
physical embodiment of this vacancy, going so far as to view womankind as an
obscene demographic and a ravenous, gaping hole in itself (318). Instead of
upholding the existentialist theory of the absence of any meaning, Sartre
ascribes females with an essence--the form of the whole, which requires a
prescription of penetration, as if biology was a sort of womanly condition (Sartre,
318). Without drawing from any individual actions that are supposed to be the
formative force of identity, Sartre automatically stamps a nature to all women.
He goes even further by illustrating them as a clinging, dependent, and feminine

slime that holds men back from exercising their full freedom (Collins, Pierce
321). In doing so, Sartre contradicts the meaninglessness of existentialism by
creating a framework of female identity that is unrelated to actions but built on
their supposed essence as women. The existentialist concept of human nature is
absolute nothingness. Actions play a large role in a hollow, free being, also
allowing a temporary escape from emptiness. While nothing can be said of
individuals apart from their actions, the female sex is in essence a voracious
hole as well as a feminine slime, posing a suckling threat to male freedom.
Ultimately, existentialism is built upon a conception that everything, including
human nature, is meaningless. The society that naturally follows is one that is
driven by no great purpose, but simply by each individuals desire to exercise
freedom and address their personal hole. While this seems inherently
democratic and equalizing, the absence of meaning and the valuelessness
simply lowers all humans to the same plane rather than creating a equal base
for humanity.
Freudianism and existentialism described opposing theories of human
nature but they both decisively concluded some sort of interpretation. In
contrast, postmodernism addresses the debate on reality and nature with a
quick wave of ambivalent disregard. Postmodernists, to put it frankly, care very
little about philosophical arguments over who has a more accurate conception
of human nature. Rather, the postmodern perspective considers attempts to
define reality to be meaningless, because reality is inherently subjective and
thus unknowable. In postmodern thought, all of what we know is nothing more
than our own experience at a certain place in time and within a specific context

(Flax, 624). Beyond that, reality cannot be generalized. By extension, all

institutions, fields of knowledge, and positions of authority are constructs and
creations of humanity. In this way of thinking, the truths are particular only to
that system and the conditions in which it was found. Human beings, therefore,
are automatically equalized. Because all are limited to their contexts, each voice
is equally valuable. Race, age, sex, orientation, appearance, education, height,
personality, etc. are all given and prescriptive, so no judgment can be made in
regard to these constructs of who a person is. Gender, by postmodern thought,
can be defined only within the system it is being evaluated. And that definition
is equally as valid as any other. A distilled conception of human nature then, is
impossible to pin down, and establishing a truth that is transcendent and
completely applicable to all humankind is inherently impossible. No one can
appreciate an individual, and conversely, no one can demean or belittle another.
Each voice is equally valuable and equally negligible.
Each of these three philosophies presents a radical perspective on human
nature that is extended to create a distinct philosophy of life and society. Simply
put, Freudianism viewed human nature as sexual, and thus viewed human
interaction and social structures as a product of sexual impulse and desire. At its
core, existentialism attempted to remove all meaning and purpose from human
nature, reducing humans to just their actions. Viewing everything as essentially
meaningless and lacking deeper or higher purpose, this philosophy fails to
provide a base for social progress. And finally, postmodernism, which values the
experience of the individual over generalization, views each human as creator
and the authority of his or her own existence. Consequently, a postmodernist

view on society will give equal weight to each individual. These three
perspectives on human nature naturally lead to three different ideals for human
society. If I were to create my own theory of social change, it would require
drawing from many political, social, and philosophical perspectives. Most aligned
with my personal views, however, are key concepts of postmodernism,
particularly the importance placed on the experience of each individual.
A crucial first step in creating any deep and lasting social change must be
the downfall of capitalism. Social change is highly dependent on correcting the
economic disparities that have deep and vast impacts on social interaction and
values. Deeply entrenched in our society, capitalism is a frighteningly productive
force in many of humankinds successes, but it is also the institutionalized
embodiment of injustice and a vehicle of exploitation. It is a system formed to
award success to a few at the expense of others, thereby creating and relying
upon the perpetuation of a marginalized population destined to remain
marginalized. At its core, capitalism is built on a conception of human nature as
a workman, a tool, and a competitive being. Conversely, my vision is a sort of
social democracy in which the economy is a collective effort, intended to work
for the people instead of for profit. The economy would serve as a public domain
to serve the needs of society, fuel innovation, and keep people working.
Businesses and employers would seek not to boost profit margins and cut costs,
but to put people ahead of money. This requires a huge shift in the American
value system. The significance of personal improvement and individual
advancement, which so heinously leads to dirty competition, must be replaced
with the values of collaboration, teamwork, and mutual goals. With the decline

of capitalism, social issues such as excessive consumption, insensitive

commodification, and elusiveness of a reasonable, livable salary would
disintegrate over time. Valuing things for the worth that they have may seem
like common sense. But this idea, that people have more value than material
goods, must take root in society for anything memorable to be accomplished.
The vision I have illustrated points out an important facet of humanity: the
tendency to need each other. One may be born and die ultimately alone, but we
do not live alone. Innately, each individual has a longing for acceptance and
intimacy with others. My vision for social change is built upon that principle: that
human nature is defined by needing community, relationships with other
humans, and living well with one another. This kind of social change is built upon
the foundation that human nature is relational.
When human nature is framed in such a context, the relationship between
humans gains priority over pure profit, sexual desires, or individual experience.
Economics, politics, and society through this paradigm would be much more
communal and relational. The replacing guideline for economics would be that
one reaps what one sows. This social change is built on the belief that all
humans are valued and of high worth. A farmer harvesting his coffee beans
would not be paid a fraction of the value while coffee corporations reap the
benefits of his labor. An occupation which requires more education and
responsibilities would receive due payment. However, differences in income
should reflect only the nature of the output of production, nothing more.
Several aspects of postmodernism would be particularly helpful in this case,
especially its ability to undermine anything socially constructed. Our societys

10

current economic structure surely falls under that category. For if the economic
structure in place and all its facets--such as consumerism, wasteful culture, and
ubiquitous competition in the workplace-- are merely a social construct no
greater or more valid than any other, then scraping that old system and starting
anew would be quite reasonable. To extrapolate from postmodernist thought, no
matter what system may be in place, systems were created by society as a
construct, and therefore any system is as arbitrarily valid as any other.
While a transformation in infrastructure is necessary for any change at an
institutional level, even more important is a transition in the values of people.
Nowadays, there is a very limited scope as to who is considered family. The
nuclear family is rigidly confined to an average of about five members, with
even the elderly dropped off at the curbs of nursing homes. But family is not just
described in a biological, bloodline sense, but as a supportive unit of
relationships, each member contributing and reaping the benefits of sharing life
together. In order to enact social change I believe it is necessary to expand the
idea of who family is and who is welcome. Though the diversity within the
human population should be a cause for celebration and enrichment, deviations
from the majority are seen as foreign and therefore unacceptable.
Postmodernism as a philosophy has counteracted this, by deeming every voice
as equal and valid. However, what postmodernism fails to do is reconcile voices
with one another; in effect, postmodernism has the ability to fracture and
fragment groups into an array of distinct voices who value their own
independent identity more than collaboration and community. As we can see in
our current world, one result of this is that society promotes the alienation of

11

certain stigmatized groups, creating a culture with the constant fear of ridicule
and rejection. I believe that valuing individuals, especially marginalized groups,
is an essential aspect of social progress, but unity is equally essential. Extending
who we call family and who wed be willing to sacrifice our time, resources, and
efforts for would truly shatter the current social codes where not everyone is
truly treated equally. If we are willing to broaden our definition of who we relate
to-- if, in effect, we are able to modify our concept of human nature-- others may
not seem so foreign. This familiarity can open the door to a world of more
acceptance, intimacy, and respect. Once again, to a certain degree,
postmodernism can lend its power tools in this shift in values concerning family
and who we deem human. Postmodern thought so accurately captures the
arbitrariness of social stigmatization of difference which dominate every aspect
of society. Because this philosophy relies on the belief that nothing is natural,
the justification for upholding a culture of exclusivity and judgment is essentially
based on nothing. Ever so conveniently, it tears down the barriers erected
between people and denounces them as contextual, tinted views with no power
of authority. Because of its ability to critically remove sacred upheld beliefs from
the pedestal and essentially smash it to pieces, postmodernism offers the
ammunition when attempting to dismantle a system fueled by a cycle of
injustice, ignorance, and prejudice.
The three philosophies of Freudianism, existentialism, and postmodernism
all tackle the human condition in radically different ways, each prescribing a
unique construction of society and human life. Freud places special importance
on the sexual impulses and repressions in form of the unconscious, and derives

12

his concept of human nature on solely sexuality. Existentialist theory, on the

other hand, sees no purpose or meaning in the universe, that the only reality is
built on actions. A postmodernist would agree that there is no essence of human
nature, but adds the provision that nothing is natural and all that we do know is
from our own specific, contextual experience. In my own theory for social
change, my thoughts most closely aligned with a postmodern view.
Deconstructing capitalism, reinventing the purpose of the government, and
broadening the definition of the family are all ideas which can, by some
extension, be drawn from postmodernism. Because this philosophy relies on the
ideal that nothing is inherently natural or based off any higher source of truth,
the system already in place can be dismantled ever so easily because the
current way of living is as arbitrary as any other form of society. In addition, any
justifications or sources of authority which keep the system in place are
illegitimate. Ultimately, however, my conception for social change requires a
shift in the definition of human nature: not driven by sexual desire, a pervasive
emptiness, or a splintered individualism, but by an inherent relationalism and
desire for community and acceptance. However, for a more realistic and holistic
approach towards social change, employment of a blend of several strategies is
apparent. Not one single thought process achieves an ideal society, but it can
pave the way for progressive, positive change.

13