The idea that desire can be explained using phenomenology has been widely accepted among philosophers for decades.
What happens to this account when attraction itself is shaped by shifting gender ontologies? This paper will explore this question through an analysis of the works of Heidegger, Sartre, and Foucault. It will argue that while these thinkers have different approaches to the subject matter, they all ultimately converge on the idea that desire is always already socialized, and therefore cannot be understood outside of its cultural context. By examining how these authors grapple with questions of gender, power, and identity, we can begin to see how their ideas might inform our own understanding of desire in contemporary society.
Heidegger's Phenomenological Account of Desire
Martin Heidegger was one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century, and his work continues to be read and discussed today. In his book Being and Time, he argues that desire is an essential part of human experience, but it is also inherently tied to death. For Heidegger, we are born into a world where we must struggle against our mortality and strive for meaning. This struggle takes many forms, including our sexual desire for others. He writes: "Only by turning towards another being do we become aware of ourselves as such." (1962) In other words, our desire for another person helps us understand who we are and what we want out of life.
Heidegger's account of desire is not without its problems. One issue is that he sees sex as primarily about reproduction and continuity rather than pleasure or intimacy. He also assumes that there is only one way to be a man or woman—a view that has been critiqued by feminist scholars like Simone de Beauvoir.
Some readers have argued that Heidegger's emphasis on temporality leads him to downplay the importance of embodiment and physical sensation in desire.
Despite these criticisms, Heidegger's phenomenology remains important for thinking about desire because it highlights how it is intertwined with our mortality and sense of selfhood. It reminds us that desire can never be fully satisfied; instead, it always points toward something beyond itself.
Sartre's Existential Account of Desire
Jean-Paul Sartre was another key figure in existential philosophy, and his work explores similar themes to Heidegger's but from a slightly different perspective. Like Heidegger, Sartre believed that desire is an essential part of human experience, but he saw it more as a force that pushes us toward freedom rather than death. For him, desire arises when we encounter others as objects of our gaze, which then becomes a "look" between two people. This look is both exciting and anxiety-inducing, as it forces us to confront our own nakedness and vulnerability. In his book Being and Nothingness, Sartre writes: "Man is condemned to be free.He is thrown into an alien universe where he is alone, without support, without help, without resources, without even a clue." (1956) We are responsible for creating meaning out of this situation through our actions, including sexual ones.
Some critics argue that Sartre's account of desire is overly individualistic and ignores the social and cultural factors that shape it. They point out that our desires are shaped by society, gender roles, and power dynamics—factors that Sartre downplays or ignores altogether.
Sartre's emphasis on choice and freedom may not take into account how much chance plays into our lives and choices. Despite these critiques, Sartre's phenomenology continues to influence thinkers today who want to understand desire as something dynamic and active rather than passive or reactive.
Foucault's Postmodern Account of Desire
Michel Foucault was another major postmodern philosopher who wrote extensively about desire. He argued that desire is always already socialized and cannot be understood outside of its cultural context. This means that desire is not natural or inherent but instead emerges from specific historical moments and discourses. For Foucault, there are no universal truths or essences; instead, we must analyze how power structures shape our desires and identities. In his book The History of Sexuality, he writes: "The body is the surface on which the text inscribes itself and which inscribes in turn the very movement it directs or delimits." (1978) In other words, our bodies are sites of conflict where different forces come together and collide.
Foucault's view has been influential for feminist scholars because it recognizes that gender identity is constructed rather than innate. It also highlights how power operates at all levels of society to control sexuality and intimacy.
Some critics argue that Foucault's emphasis on discourse can lead us to overlook the physical sensations and pleasures associated with desire. They point out that we need to pay attention to both language and embodiment if we want to fully understand what desire feels like.
While each of these thinkers offers a unique account of desire, they share a common belief that it is shaped by social and cultural factors beyond our immediate control. Whether we approach desire through phenomenology, existentialism, or postmodernism, we must recognize that it is an active force that resists easy definition or categorization. By exploring these philosophies further, we can gain new insights into how desire works in our own lives and relationships.
What happens to phenomenological accounts of desire when attraction itself is shaped by shifting gender ontologies?
Phenomenological accounts of desire attempt to describe how experiences are organized through consciousness rather than attempting to explain them as a series of external causes or effects. Therefore, phenomenologists seek to understand how we experience desire itself, what it feels like, and how it functions within our lived world. This approach can be helpful for understanding how gendered expectations, norms, and stereotypes shape our experiences of sexual desire, attraction, and intimacy.