Essentialism

Essentialism is a theoretical concept denoting a primacy of essences, that is, a permanent, unchanging, and “real” core that lies “behind” temporary, changing appearances. The concept is most commonly understood as a belief in the real, true essence of things, the fixed properties that define a given entity.

Historically, the most common theories of essentialisms are the Platonic doctrine of universal types and the originally Aristotelian doctrine that things in a particular category all have at least one common characteristic without which they could not be members of that category. But the concept is also ambiguous and has inspired a large amount of debate. Locke defined essence in two parts: nominal essence and absolute essence. A nominal essence refers to a conceptual entity defined or produced by language. That is, nominal essence of a thing includes those attributes perceived to be necessary to it and without which it would cease to be the same thing. An absolute essence refers to a real entity defined by internal, objective, and intrinsic properties on which the thing depends. Here, Locke distinguishes between the ontological and linguistic orders and essentialism and demonstrates that it is equally important to investigate their complicities as types of essentialisms.

The concept of essentialism has been particularly important to feminist theory and debates concerning modern social theory and postmodern social theory. While the concept of essentialism is used in a variety of ways, it is most frequently deployed in opposition to the concept of social constructionism. Essentialism, similar to modern social theories, assumes a stable, coherent, and knowable self. While the characteristics of this self are not agreed upon, modern social theory would assert that this self is conscious, rational, autonomous, and universal—no physical conditions or differences substantially affect how this self operates.

These assumptions, while not indicative of all essentialisms, stand in opposition to postmodern theories. In the latter, the concept of the self is severely severed; in its place emerges ideas about multiplicity, fragmentation, social change, and flexibility. Not only is the self built up in social interactions, that is, constructed, but it is also fragmented, unstable, irrational, and constantly changing. This emergent concept of selves as multiple and fragmented are embraced by most constructionist theorists (with roots in the symbolic interactionist theory of George Herbert Mead), many of whom align themselves with postmodernism. Such articulations of the self threaten theories of social and political change that rely on identity politics as a foundation from which to articulate political demands.

As poststructuralism and postmodernism emerged in social theory, Western feminist theorists, driven by convictions that politics and theory should work together for political and social change, engaged in extensive debate concerning the meaning of gender, race, and other identity components and their place in political work. In terms of gender, essentialist theories assume a pure or original femininity, a female essence (or core self) that exists outside the bounds of the social and is therefore untainted by history and culture. This belief can be found in discourses of feminist theory that rely on the unity of its object of inquiry (women) even when it is attempting to demonstrate differences within this category. At the same time, in feminism, the essentialist idea that womanhood is taken to be an absolute substance in the traditional metaphysical sense is not only strongly contested, but the very meaning of womanhood varies. Some feminists have presumed a unity of specific properties, qualities, and attributes of woman, thus deploying selective essentialist logic. Thus, while the concept of essentialism has been primary to understanding the category “woman” in feminism, it is not only a contested term but also one that has undergone much revision.

...