Though it often feels that I have been on this Earth for a long time, I am ever-aware that my young years are trailing not far behind me; a time when I am certain most everyone felt themselves coming into their own, yet not having full control over their lives. There was always a dichotomy between what you wanted to be and what your parents wanted you to be, what your teachers demanded, or any other expectation which you unfortunately might not have fulfilled.
As I read Simone de Beauvoir’s “The Ethics of Ambiguity”, I found much of it resonated with me. There were, of course, many parallels to Sartre’s writings, but I did find Beauvoir’s delivery added something new and convincing which may shed some light on the teenage struggle.
This struggle between being what others want you to be and being what you are is exactly this notion of “ambiguity” Simone de Beauvoir was referring to. Beauvoir calls for the need for one to recognize one’s own ambiguity and thus realize one’s own ability and duty to act. Because there is no God responsible for our actions, and we have the freedom to act, we must recognize the freedom that we are and our corresponding responsibility. Beauvoir also addresses how the gaze of “the other” can be detrimental to one’s freedom. The look of the other is a form of oppression, for it forces one to change their actions accordingly and turn one into what they are not.
When applied to the adolescent period of life, Beauvoir can be said to set forth a very important life lesson: To recognize one’s freedom and subsequent responsibility to act independently from the gaze of the other. Basically, do what is right for you, regardless of anyone else’s expectations or desires. As humans we have this freedom that we must use in accordance with ourselves, and once we recognize this state of constant “ambiguity”, we will be able to be true to our condition and whatever passion we choose to pursue.
Hi Emma,
ReplyDeleteGreat post! Beavoir's Ambiguity of Ethics greatly correlates to many problems related to the dichotomy between etre-pour-soi and etre-en-soi, as the French would say. This distinction is only made clearer in post- or anti-Cartesian philosophy such as in the works of Martin Heidegger, Sartre, and others. For example, Sartre would argue that consciousness only emerges during times when people become self-aware of the gaze of the other as made clear by Beauvoir's works. Furthermore, the intersubjective world that we live in today makes it apparent that the roles that individuals take on for others and for themselves further distorts what it means to lead an authentic life in the existential sense. However, if being-for-others means that the gaze of the other can become so powerful as to alter the individual ambition to pursue our own desires, wouldn't this mean that this self-awareness of the gaze of the other signifies that this second kind of being is "nothing" since this self-awareness separates itself from the kind of consciousness that avoids being an object to be examined by the gaze of the other?
Hi Emma,
ReplyDeleteYour pist made me recall and even laugh about my teenage life. On the other hand, i find that what you say is true..one really struggles to find out who one is..from what others exoect you to be, and a,so from your rebellion that comes from your wanting to be the total opposite..and the end of the oath, you do not know who you are nor who you want to be!
Thanks God, those times pass really quickly and we are latter able to laugh about. It hopefully!