The 1789 Discourse: Arendt VS MacKinnon
Fred Stein Archive/Harvard Law School
Feminism is an important topic, especially in regards to equal treatment and application of the law to both sexes. At what point though, does it eclipse all other topics? If the sole focus of feminism is to talk about feminism, is it amplifying voices of women, or merely stifling intellectual discourse on the myriad of other subjects women have many opinions about? Do we need to even the playing field, as Catharine MacKinnon suggests? Or do we need only speak our minds like Hannah Arendt, whose writing is lauded by men and women alike? While Arendt didn’t have very much to say about feminism, it was and continues to be MacKinnon’s sole focus. Both are powerhouse women with strong opinions—so let’s dive into what they have to say upon the subject.
Hannah Arendt, 20th-century political writer and commentator, didn’t go into great detail on her views about feminism, but we can learn a lot from a statement she made in an interview in 1964. “I’ve never loved any people or collective group. Neither the Germans, nor the French, nor the Americans. Nor the working class. I only love my friends. I’m incapable of any other kind of love. Moreover, the love of the Jews would appear to be suspect, as I am myself a Jew.”
From this quotation, it seems obvious that Arendt eschewed belonging to any particular group. Her real devotion was to individualism. Her writing, which focused on the human condition and the threats of totalitarianism, as well as the “banality of evil” that coincides when people do not think for themselves, was atrocious to her; not because it posed a danger to a group or demographic—but to the individual.
She did say it was a natural thing to belong to a group, but differentiated between the groups you are born into (family, country) and the secondary groups that you choose to associate with. To belong to an organized group that is based on common interests is another thing entirely.
Arendt went toe-to-toe intellectually with men her whole life. She was a woman, but that wasn’t what she talked about. She entered the fray and discussed the issues at hand. In her intellectual life, she wished to be known for her opinion. Not for her opinion “as a woman” or any other qualifier she could choose. As she followed the academic template that she laid out for herself, she burst onto the scene and became respected in circles that were primarily dominated by men.
Conversely, Catharine MacKinnon’s work revolves around feminism. A prestigious lawyer and feminist activist, it is the principal turret from where she mounts her arguments—the prism through which every argument is framed. Feminism must be brought to the forefront of conversation because if it is not, women won’t be brought to the conversation at all.
This viewpoint can be seen clearly in her first book, Sexual Harassment of Working Women. In it, she describes harassment as an offense that transgresses the law, instead of what harassment was considered tp be at the time; “the usual dynamics that can happen in a relationship between two individuals.” She argued that if a person is discriminated against because of their sex, it falls under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which “forbids differential treatment in the workplace on the basis of group membership, race, sex, religion, or other classification).”
Why is this important? It was the first time a high-level court “went on record as opposing the popular notion that harassment is an inevitable fact of life and that for the law to try to protect against such treatment is equivalent to tampering with the laws of nature.” MacKinnon fundamentally changed how the government viewed harassment, and because of her work, it has become codified into law.
Arendt, I believe, would object to this line of argumentation. As someone who escaped Germany in the ’30s, she didn’t let her intellectual opinion be defined as a Jewish one, even though she had experienced extreme persecution for being a Jew. It was part of her identity, of course, but she expressed herself as Hannah Arendt—the individual. Doing so didn’t prevent her from making her mark, and by the 1960s, she could be seen on television matching wits with the interviewer (a man) surrounded by the whirling smoke of her aloft cigarette.
No matter which woman you agree with more, it is important to take note of the extraordinary opportunities women have in the western world today. Intelligent and passionate women like Hannah Arendt and Catharine MacKinnon have led the way in participating in the grand exchange of ideas. Will you?
