Historically, among the most debated issues in philosophical rhetoric has been the influence of circumstance—determining or modifying factors of our time—on our self identity. Is our personal sphere (i.e. morality, sense of self etc.) independent of a larger social milieu?

Many philosophers agree that our predispositions are inclined to independently act and view ourselves in a certain way. However, we cannot disregard the institutionalized dogmas and social constructs that undoubtedly influence our way of thinking and acting. Are certain individuals or groups (i.e. females) ignorantly perceived to be something they are or are not based on ill-founded assumptions?

In order to have a just and socially equitable society, we must first try understanding ourselves apart from history and culture; with this autonomous identity, we then must suspend prejudices and openly consider what is ethically good for the public, as opposed to what is selfishly good for ourselves. The following texts try to prove that ignorance and selfishness as an individual will result in harm to the self and to society: In Mencius, the argument explains how our predetermined ethical ideals direct most of our growth as individuals, and how our matured sense of identity influences one’s political role/relationship to the public sphere and visa versa. Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra tragically portrays a protagonist whose sense of self is blurred and in opposition to his duty as a heroic political figurehead. And lastly, Simone de Beavoir’s The Second Sex provides the most convincing argument that dismantles the logic behind a patriarchal controlled society.

Section I: A comparison of the arguments: Mencius and Antony and Cleopatra

Mencius views ethical morality as part of our nature originally, and as a result he views us as inherently good, at least until we give into our unethical desires as the heart/mind weakens and is destroyed by way of maltreatment. From birth, we have an acute sense of morality as well as our self interest as we define it. He argues that the balance of self interest and selfless morality influences the society around us. The text accentuates the idea that human beings have desires and appetites that are controlled by a “true heart” which has the ability to think, but Mencius warns that if the heart doesn’t do its job, the person will be directed solely by their untamed desires. If the person does not commit a conscious effort to deep moral and righteous thinking then he will inevitably become too distant from his heart/mind to be a moral person anymore. Mencius was not referring to scholarly thinking, for instance, but instead he was referring to moral thinking.

He believed that our heart must be consciously utilized to concentrate on priorities such as social moral duties, and about “the purpose and destiny of man and his position in the universe” (xv). Sometimes self-interest and morality come into conflict with one another. Mencius states: “Life is what I want; dutifulness is also what I want. If I cannot have both, I would choose dutifulness rather than life. On the one hand life is what I want, there is something I want more than life” (128). Though he appreciates life, he would rather die then pursue harmful, selfish interests.

The tendencies of the heart are for compassion, shame, courtesy/modesty, and right/wrong, all of which make it possible for humans to become sages. Mencius provides us with an example of goodness inherent to man’s nature:

Suppose a man were, all of a sudden, to see a young child on the verge of falling into a well. He would certainly be moved to compassion, not because he wanted to get in the good graces of the parents, nor because he wished to win the praise of his fellow villagers or friends, not yet because he disliked the cry of the child (38).

The spontaneous goodness illustrated by the man passing by illustrates how the man has an unconscious germ of morality in him.  Mencius stresses that we should be courteous, know the difference between right and wrong/good and evil, behave righteously to our neighbors, and be concerned with the well-being of those around us in our home, namely our parents and children, as well as those in the public sphere.

If utilized and paid attention to, the “four beginnings” make us better people and because of our strongest motive of “goodness” to our neighbors, we are in affect joyful and gratified. “The heart of compassion” encourages us to be benevolent towards those closest to us first, and then to those in the larger community. By having the “heart of shame,” we feel bad if we are not constantly trying to be morally better.

The “heart of courtesy” makes us put the interest of others in front of our own. The “heart of wisdom” encourages us to make decisions based on what is “right” and what is “wrong” according to an ethical code of goodness.

If the man ignored the “thinking” of the heart, then his animalistic desires would be at the mercy of their respective objects likely resulting in the adverse effect on those in the public. He argues that a benevolent leader “decreed” by heaven will never face any considerable competition from below him if he treats his followers as if they were his children, with compassion and kindness.

Mencius believed that “the people” governed had the eyes of heaven and because heaven decided who the ruler was, heaven mandated the ruler by a democratic-like selection by the people.

Antony and Cleopatra illustrates further the role of self identity in relation to the public sphere; focusing here primarily on a self-interest in conflict with public interest. Shakespeare utilizes the once admirable (perhaps naturally good), tragic protagonist Antony to illustrate how the needs of the heart and the needs of mind cannot be in opposition. As noted in Mencius, the heart and the mind are the same. And while Shakespeare may not be saying quite the same thing, the idea of a heart and mind that is connected is seen in both texts.

Antony tried to make the two forces coexist as polar opposites. The first force—a force of reason—was pulling at him to fulfill his duties as a hero to the Roman Empire. The second force—a force of private interest, lust, and emotion—was nagging at him to commit himself solely to Cleopatra.

Antony’s abandonment of his duties to go to Egypt with Cleopatra was solely in his own interest. Mencius would say that his “heart of shame” became too distant and unable to think because he did not use it enough.

While Mencius was would rather die than sacrifice goodness and morality in pursuit of self-interest such as wealth or power, Antony found death the best option after he foolishly listened to Cleopatra as opposed to letting his honor be decried for eternity. As predicted by Mencius, the objects untamed desires will surely be negatively influenced by the subjects disregard for morality.

Section II: Further comparison with The Second Sex: most convincing explanation for why the “other” sex is socially constructed as inferior to men.

            Lastly, The Second Sex philosophically, socially, and scientifically provides proof and explanation in order to repudiate the dogma that woman are inherently subordinated by men. In relation to the aforementioned texts, ones morality is not autonomous, and is in fact influenced by social circumstances and constructs. She explains that an enigmatic idea of femininity—in which woman is naturally inferior to men—cannot be accurate. She questions just where these claims are derived. The answer is a social construction that has been around so long that few even question and most indolently accept it.

            “…firmly anchored in masculine hearts is that of the feminine “mystery.” And first it permits an easy explanation of all that appears inexplicable; the man who “does not understand” a woman is happy to substitute an objective resistance for a subjective deficiency of mind…he perceives the presence of a “mystery” outside himself…that flatters laziness and vanity at once (256).

Has history some how perpetuated a claim that has no substance? With an existentialist vantage point, Beauvoir explains why the female has been bound to her body like an animal while the man is comparatively free, by the demands of the species. She notes that men are afraid of women because of the competition that they inevitably bring to the table.

Men’s glacially slow acceptance of women as equals is due to their self-interest. Who would want to give up dominant power if no additional harm was done to anyone as of status quo? Men, Beuavoir claims, saw themselves as an “autonomous active force,” in pursuit of “self fulfillment as individuals” (56).

The standard of equality between sexes has traditionally albeit unfairly been the male body. Beauvoir draws attention to this inequity which is so obvious but often just accepted as the way things are. In trying to discovering reasoning, she compares biological compositions. Is a man considered dominant to a woman because he, on average, is physically stronger? Does that constitute superiority? What about all of the strengths and comparative advantages women have over men? Beauvoir believes that we cannot simply dismiss the characteristics of the body that make men different from women. Women definitely suffer in their sense of self because of this injustice.

Beauvoir implies that we should abandon our chauvinistic prejudices and reexamine the differences between sexes in a way that helps us see not better or worse but simply different. By this process, we should come to accept women as the “other” just as we men are the “other.”  Both sexes are essential to humanity, and with the welfare of the public in mind, acknowledgment and reciprocity as equals would be the product of the “the benevolent/compassionate heart.” Women, formerly alienated from their bodies and locked up in “the feminine domain”, would be comfortable in their own embodiment (65). What woman “demand today is to be recognized as existents by the same right as men and not to subordinate existence to life, the human being to its animality” (65). This comfort would be best for the social good, and as individuals, both sexes would be better off. Men, having less shame, more compassion and courtesy, would begin to think with their heart/mind; resulting in joy from goodness, as well as justice and equity among sexes.

The Second Sex provides the most convincing argument of the three texts because it backs up its claims with evidence how the relationship, namely the physical, between men and women is directly related to morality and self interest versus public interest. The public interest lies with the well-being of woman, which can be made better by giving them justice and equity.

The male resistance to devoid himself of his prejudices as opposed to being open and compassionate of the woman’s differences represents the selfish private interest. I found the explanations, such as the workings of intercourse for instance, convincing because of its truth and universality among our species. Though I am in no way chauvinist, the text made me see women in a different light—with a kind of sympathy I previously did not have.

Section III/Conclusion: Defining the issue of self (private) in relation to society (public).

As a personal reflection, I find it hard to define what I might consider my sense of self if it weren’t for my experiences in the public sphere. Perhaps that is the problem. Have people defined who I am, or have I truly defined myself? A person’s character may be viewed as inborn, but one must acknowledge that it is further developed by experiences, and largely influenced by the social constructs and expectations that have developed over time. Some philosophers, as exampled in Mencius, believe that we are born with certain ethical traits that help direct our self development as we grow and mature. But if we are all born with a keen sense of what ethical morality is, then how does so much injustice develop and perpetuate over time? We seem to validate claims of superiority with superficial evidence that really has no substantive meaning. As exampled by Antony and Cleopatra, our selfish desires in the private life sometimes hinder our ability to reason and act justly in the public life. These selfish desires, as evidenced by the history of patriarchal domination in The Second Sex, have over time have been a circumstance that has negatively influenced female’s sense of self.

All three texts are in agreement that an ethically good public derives from an individual’s sense of self. If that sense of self is in touch with the mind and heart, than that individual can “think” for himself while prioritizing the rights and feelings of his neighbors as opposed to oneself.