A de Beauvoirian Analysis For the Reform of Social Structures Via the Black Lives Matter Movement
In our ever-changing society where social media dominates and controls conversations and ideologies, we are often disconnected from our friends and family, our neighbors, and our political environment but yet connected through common ties and experiences. Perhaps the best explanation of de Beauvoir’s idea of the simultaneous unity and separation of human beings is found in her short essay, “What Can Literature Do?” Here de Beauvoir explains the importance of literature as an irreplaceable communication between humans due to its relevance and its ability to offer readers a completely different view of the world that invites the reader into the realm, while still allowing the reader to remain their own existent—an “I.” De Beauvoir explains it this way:
Kafka, Balzac, and Robbe-Grillet invite me and convince me to settle down, at least for a moment, in the heart of another world. And that is the miracle of literature and what distinguishes it from information. A truth that is other becomes mine without ceasing to be an other. I abdicate my “I” in favor for he who is speaking, yet I remain myself. This confusion is continually initiated and continually undone, and is the only form of communication capable of giving me the incommunicable—capable of giving me another taste of human life. (de Beauvoir, 201)
This is the ultimate purpose of literature, de Beauvoir argues—to give a medium for humans to realize the interconnectivity of the human situation. By emphasizing the need for the expression of our lives and our stories, we are able to discover our own freedoms. I assert that de Beauvoir’s ideas about the good life and ethics are correct and that this idea is the key to living a fulfilling life in the style of Simone de Beauvoir. A Beauvoirian individual in a quest for her own freedom, I assert, would strive to recognize the unity of human beings through her individuality, emphasizing her genuine freedom and transcendence. Acting towards living a fulfilling life, not just for herself but for others as well, she would advocate for the revision and reconstruction of social institutions and constructs to reflect a flourishing human society. The ability of an individual to flourish as a human being entails the need for reform of social structures, as they can exist in bad faith in the eyes of the oppressed and attempt to eliminate the interconnectivity of humanity. In 2016, our Beauvoirian would have an interest in many social and political movements, but perhaps would have a particular passion for the Black Lives Matter Movement (BLM), as this organization uses the freedom of others to free the oppressed.
Before I continue, it is critical that the terms “transcendence” and “immanence” be clearly defined. These ideas have different meanings depending on the usage by certain philosophers, but in the context of this paper, I will use these terms in their Beauvoirian contexts. Immanence stands at the opposite end of the spectrum from transcendence and is defined as the passive, necessary labor to maintain human life or as actions that perpetuate the status quo. De Beauvoir classifies immanence as repetitive, everyday tasks that “consume time and labor but accomplish nothing,” providing no meaning to life (Veltman, 119). Tasks like cooking, cleaning, and doing laundry are all required for the maintenance of life, but are part of an endless cycle of repetitiveness throughout life. While these actions are necessary, they do not create a fulfilling life, as these acts are embedded in a cycle of non-meaningful actions. Transcendence then refers to the change in the meaning of an action to be directed towards a productive end of my own choosing: I believe that I can transcend the given of these tasks of immanence by performing them with some sense of directedness.
Thus, transcendence encompasses activities that enable self-expression, create an enduring artifact, or in some other fashion contribute to the constructive endeavors of the human race. These acts would include activities like writing and social involvement. As de Beauvoir scholar Andrea Veltman explains it through the context of Beauvoir’s Pyrrhus et Cinéas,
Transcendence is the spontaneous directness of consciousness at something, a reaching outward beyond oneself toward some end, or a “[throwing oneself]” toward the future… for every look, act, or thought of an intentional consciousness is an act of transcendence (116).
So these acts give meaning to an individual’s life by allowing him or her to transcend his or her condition, thus himself or herself. I believe this concept of “throwing” oneself towards a cause greater than a person himself or herself is crucial to living a fulfilling life because these transcendent actions enable him or her to recognize his or her own freedom. This freedom, and the sense of ambiguity that existing creates, de Beauvoir writes, is the “source from which all significations and all values spring. It is the original condition of all justification of existence. The man who seeks to justify his life must want freedom itself absolutely and above everything else” (Ethics of Ambiguity, 24).
A slight tweak in de Beauvoir’s thinking occurs when she shifts towards a view that, due to man’s freedom, he has to invent himself and craft a state of being that captures his multifaceted personality into his identity that is ever evolving. One must “design for himself [or herself] a coherent, practical way of life, thus creating an identity for himself [or herself]” (Vintges, 86).
Co-implicated in any act of transcendence (or any project) is also the willing of freedom, because one can’t will anything at all without also willing freedom. This pursuit thereby creates a type of genuine freedom “on the original upsurge of our existence” that forms an element of morality to freedom (Ethics of Ambiguity, 25). This morality becomes a key element in the development of a fulfilling life because, since it gives moral ground to freedom, it becomes necessary for an individual to want to will others to be free in addition to himself or herself. The freedom of others naturally follows from our desire of freedom because it is an implication of rationally willing freedom since the world is filled with individuals and our own existence is determined by the actions, affirmation, and existence of others. Karen Vintges, paraphrasing the work of Robert Stone on Simone de Beauvoir, furthers this idea: “our freedom is interdependent by definition, and we cannot be free if others are not, because interdependence is so far-reaching that the unfreedom of every other person is disadvantageous to ourselves” (Vintges, 68).
When de Beauvoir’s concept of freedom for individuals, and thus others, is applied to social situations, she asserts that it carries a moral necessity that requires standing up for those who experience injustice or whose freedom is oppressed by social structures. All of our freedoms are impacted by social structures that situate or limit our abilities. This becomes oppressive to a particular group of people when the freedom of one particular group thrives and occurs because of the denial of the freedom of another (subservient) group. De Beauvoir argues that men should want to use their freedom constructively, but when they do not, they often seek to use negative actions in the justification of their life: “but it happens that this transcendence is condemned to fall uselessly back upon itself because it is cut off from its goals. That is what defines a situation of oppression” (Ethics of Ambiguity, 81). Oppression arises as a result of the interdependence of humanity when intertwined with the use of negative actions. De Beauvoir elaborates, saying that,
My freedom, in order to fulfill itself, requires that it emerge into an open future: it is other men who open the future to me, it is they who, setting up the world of tomorrow, define my future; but if instead of allowing me to participate in this constructive movement, they oblige me to consume my transcendence in vain, if they keep me below the level which they have conquered on the basis of which new conquests will be achieved, then they are cutting me off from the future, they are changing me into a thing (82).
This restraining of freedom transforms the perpetuating and surpassing of itself into maintaining itself—it alters the state of living into simply “not dying” as well as human existence into “indistinguishable from an absurd vegetation” (83). Actions that have the potential for transcendence are thus changed into ones of pure immanence. Oppression contributes to a group of individuals furthering mankind ahead of itself at the price of other groups in society, causing them to be “hopelessly” stuck in living their lives via repetitive immanent actions. The oppressors “feed” upon the transcendence of the oppressed and refuse to extend it towards productive activities.
Andrea Veltman, in her essay Transcendence and Immanence in Beauvoir’s Ethics, states, following the logic of de Beauvoir, that the ability of an individual to flourish as a human being entails the need for the reform of social structures. This reform must be made with the idea of this interdependence, that stresses the fact that this illusion of a natural state caused by oppression is not, indeed, the natural state of harmony in society. To bring this fact to light, the oppressed must revolt against the oppressors to deny this mirage of human accord (82).
If these social structures, like relationships between people and institutions of society, exist as organizations that create oppression, as de Beauvoir and I would agree they do, I believe the oppressed would see these structures as fostering bad faith for members of society. Known as the denying of one’s freedom and responsibility of one’s actions due to pressure from society to adopt false values and act with inauthenticity, the existence of bad faith within these structures requires action to revise them to promote genuine freedom for all. While de Beauvoir recognizes that one group in their quest for freedom will inevitably claim that those advocating for the freedom of the oppressed is, in turn, oppressing the oppressors, she believes that:
A claim of this kind does not outrage us in the name of abstract justice; but a contradiction is dishonestly concealed there. For freedom wills itself genuinely only by willing itself as an indefinite movement through the freedom of others; as soon as it withdraws into itself, it denies itself on the behalf of some object which it prefers to itself…(90).
Because of my above reasoning, I agree more with de Beauvoir’s subsequent clarification to her previous thought: “we have to respect freedom only when it is intended for freedom, not when it strays, flees itself, and resigns itself. A freedom which is interested only in denying freedom must be denied” (91). Since I have suggested that the control on the possession of ammunition exist, I am still not denying the freedom of individuals to own and use firearms. I am simply asserting the freedom for myself, as an individual, to live and to live a life without the threat of the unsolicited encountering of an armed gunman; therefore I am willing this freedom of life onto all others. Furthermore, de Beauvoir’s definition of one’s own free state of being coincides with my own personal definition of freedom:
To be free is not to have the power to do anything you like; it is to be able to surpass the given toward an open future; the existence of others as a freedom defines my situation and is even the condition of my own freedom (91).
But how does an oppressed individual actually inspire change to reform the social structures that oppress them, ultimately leading to a fulfilling life for all? I believe that as members actively living in society, we must challenge the process of how social institutions are run and ask ourselves how we can inspire social change. This feat requires the use of genuine, individual freedom to become a leader and, through transcendent acts, reaching out to others to empower them to utilize their own freedom in acts of transcendence, by helping to change the actual structures that are situating them. A leader is not a leader without followers to aid him or her in the pursuit of positive change. With the involvement of others, a social movement can be formed, where a large organized group of like-minded activist followers are able to come together with the intention of creating a large, impactful, and long-lasting social change in society. It is necessary for us as leaders and activists to freely join together to help alleviate this oppression and with it incorporate the genuine desire to serve others with a passionate approach to inspire change by challenging the process—without compromising one’s own set of values—and by striving to do what’s right. But what I would argue is the most important feature of leadership is the communication between leader and follower about their individual situations.
A prime example of what the reform of social structures looks like in the style of Simone de Beauvoir is the Black Lives Matter movement. Dedicated to “collectively, lovingly, and courageously working vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension all people,” Black Lives Matter strives to create a community and society of individuals that help each other realize their own freedom ("Guiding Principles Black Lives Matter."). This movement and organization seems to pull from the ideas of Simone de Beauvoir. She calls for the focusing of an individual’s transcendent acts and genuine freedom onto their own groups so that their rights and freedoms may be addressed. In her ideas, it is stressed that since one is free, one should desire and ultimately fight for the freedoms of other people because individuals cannot exist without a society of others. Since we have the freedom we so greatly desired, we should work towards addressing the structural issues that keep others oppressed.