-
8. Four Perfectionist Principles
- Indiana University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
8 Four Perfectionist Principles The previous chapters have shown that nonperfectionist arguments provide inadequate bases to justify the scope of feminists’ challenge of women’s choices to commodify their sexuality, objectify their sexuality, or become full-time homemakers. I have shown that nonperfectionist arguments can justify challenging only a small subset of the choices feminists commonly challenge. Furthermore, I have argued that seemingly nonperfectionist arguments often rely on perfectionist conceptions of human ®ourishing. This chapter seeks to uncover a pragmatic perfectionism that will avoid the historical problems with perfectionism discussed in chapter 3, yet will provide more adequate grounds for criticizing women’s choices. I argue on behalf of four perfectionist principles: (1) sexual noncommodi-¤cation; (2) intellectual and moral development; (3) self-love; and (4) selfsuf ¤ciency. These principles provide a stronger and more honest basis for criticizing the kinds of choices that many feminists wish to challenge than do the seemingly neutral arguments previously discussed. I. Sexual Noncommodi¤cation Principle Human ®ourishing requires that persons be treated and conceived of as uniquely valuable and nonfungible beings. Individuals, as well as the attributes and relationships that are central to their being, should not be discussed , treated, or thought about in the same way that we discuss, treat, and think about chairs—or, at least, not only in this way. Sexuality is such a central attribute. As a result, sexual commodi¤cation degrades one’s status as a human being. The sexual noncommodi¤cation principle relies on two underlying claims. The ¤rst is a claim about the nature of personhood. Sexuality is an integral and valuable part of the self. It cannot be detached from an individual and used without using the individual as a whole. The second is a claim about the nature of sexuality. Real sexuality is noncommodi¤able. Commodi¤ed sexuality is simply a distortion and imitation of real sexuality; it is not the real thing. Furthermore, real sexuality is fragile. Commodi¤ed conceptions of sexuality endanger the existence of real and noncommodi¤ed conceptions. The ¤rst claim underlying the principle against commodi¤ed sexuality is that sexuality is an essential and fully integrated part of one’s being. It is inextricably linked to one’s body and one’s identity. Sexuality cannot be detached from a person and purchased as a separate thing or service. The purchase of a woman’s sexuality involves the purchase of her whole person. Thinking of persons as things that can be purchased and used for sexual grati¤cation degrades our conception of persons as uniquely valuable,incommensurable beings. Margaret Jane Radin makes this argument. According to Radin, we do damage to our conception of personhood if we think of all aspects of ourselves as discrete pieces that can be separated from the whole and assessed with their own value. Certain aspects of the self are such a part of the person ’s core that they cannot be separated off from the rest of the person. Furthermore , “to see the rhetoric of the market—the rhetoric of fungibility, alienability, and cost-bene¤t analysis—as the sole rhetoric of human affairs is to foster an inferior conception of human ®ourishing.”1 Radin argues: A better view of personhood should understand many kinds of particulars —one’s politics, work, religion, family, love, sexuality, friendships, altruism , experiences, wisdom, moral commitments, character and personal attributes—as integral to the self. To understand any of these as monetizable or as completely detachable from the person . . . is to do violence to our deepest understanding of what it is to be human.2 The inextricability of sexuality from the person as a whole is particularly clear in the case of prostitution. Prostitution involves a more total control over the whole person than do other forms of work. While other forms of physical labor may involve the worker taking orders from an employer and having her physical services at his command, they are not in his control in the same way. A football player or a factory worker can be ordered to move his body in a particular way to perform some physical feat, but the ultimate decision to do so and the ultimate control over his body remains the worker’s. Sex work involves a far more substantial loss of control. Sex work involves a physical manipulation and colonization of another’s body that is not seen in other forms of labor. The woman does not sell services; she sells her entire body for the temporary use...