Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

What’s wrong with essentialism?

By Anne Phillips

Abstract

This paper identifies and discusses four distinct meanings of essentialism. The first is the attribution of certain characteristics to everyone subsumed within a particular category: the ‘(all) women are caring and empathetic’, ‘(all) Africans have rhythm’, ‘(all) Asians are community oriented’ syndrome. The second is the attribution of those characteristics to the category, in ways that naturalise or reify what may be socially created or constructed. The third is the invocation of a collectivity as either the subject or object of political action (‘the working class’, ‘women’, ‘Third World women’), in a move that seems to presume a homogenised and unified group. The fourth is the policing of this collective category, the treatment of its supposedly shared characteristics as the defining ones that cannot be questioned or modified without undermining an individual’s claim to belong to that group. Focusing on these four variants enables us to see that the issue is sometimes one of degree rather than a categorical embargo

Topics: H Social Sciences (General), HQ The family. Marriage. Woman
Publisher: University of Aarhus
Year: 2010
DOI identifier: 10.1080/1600910X.2010.9672755
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.lse.ac.uk:30900
Provided by: LSE Research Online

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1989). Essentially Speaking New York: Routledge Hacking, Ian
  2. (1994). Gender as Seriality: Thinking about Women as a Social Collective’ Signs, 19/3: 713 – 738 Young, Iris Marion doi
  3. (2006). Sexual Justice/Cultural Justice: Critical Perspectives in Political Theory doi
  4. (2005). The Gender Similarities Hypothesis’ doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.