Plato, The Second Sex, and Empire of the Senseless

In the novel Empire of the Senseless by Kathy Acker, the characters constantly strive to assign Platonic ideals, as described in Plato’s The Republic, to gender, despite the clear contradictions between their essentialist definitions and experience. This fact supports the argument made in Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex that definitions of gender, specifically with reference to “the myth of woman,” are socially constructed and have no basis in reality.

The characters in Empire of the Senseless have a strong tendency to define gender roles absolutely, mimicking Plato and his idealist theories. Plato believed that there is a transcendental world in which the essences of all things reside. He uses the example of a bed: there is one universal ideal, the capitalized Bed, which exists in this transcendental realm, but can never be perfectly duplicated in our earthly one. Each bed that is crafted on earth owes its essence to the ideal Bed. For Plato, this essential definition exists in all things, including gender. This means that men are essentially and naturally powerful and superior to women, and women are essentially and naturally weak and inferior. He even states this explicitly: “a woman is inferior to a man” (Plato 165), and “women…are the weaker sex” (Plato 167).

In her book The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir attacks this philosophy. She claims that the ideal Woman is a myth, and points out the dangers in assigning an essential definition to the gender. She says that “if the definition provided for this concept [of the mythical woman] is contradicted by the behavior of flesh-and-blood women, it is the latter who are wrong” (Norton 1407). This is a negative consequence of idealist thinking, as all women are expected to conform to an ideal that is often contrary to their nature.

Kathy Acker’s writing in Empire of the Senseless supports Simone de Beauvoir’s arguments. The characters themselves never cease to define genders in absolute terms, however the personalities and actions taken by the characters often contradict these definitions. Thivai seems to be the most guilty of this habit. During the entirety of his first chapter, entitled “Raise us From the Dead,” he almost never refers to a woman as anything other than a “cunt” or a “fuck,” because to him, this sexual objectivity is the essence of women. He also states in this chapter that “there are three types of females: dead, dumb, and evil” (Acker 29). He limits his perceptions of women to these essentialisms, which is damaging not only to these women, but to him and his own psyche. For example, he forces himself to define his relationship to Abhor in these terms, which leaves no room for his loving feelings towards her. He is constantly referring to her as an object, and trying to rid herself of the confusion that comes with loving her. After he writes his letter to turn Abhor in to the CIA, he prays: “I prayed that Abhor would get out of my life forever because I loved her” (Acker 193). Simone de Beauvoir points out that “Man would have nothing to lose, quite the contrary, if he gave up disguising woman as a symbol” (Norton 1413). This is quite true in Thivai’s case; were he to accept Abhor for who she is and let go of his essentialist definitions, he would then be able to explore his feelings for and relationship with her without limitation.

The obvious contradictions between Thivai’s essentialist statements and reality do not end at an emotional level. He also makes statements such as: “Since Abhor was a girl, she didn’t understand political theory” (Acker 189). This accusation is proven to be incorrect many times throughout the novel. Abhor goes off on many tangents, even rants, with regards to politics and sociology. These digressions are extremely intelligent and well thought-out, and demonstrate Abhor’s extensive vocabulary and understanding of the topic. For example:

Logocentricism and idealism, theology, all supports of the repressive society. Property’s pillars. Reason which always homogenizes and reduces, represses and unifies phenomena or actuality into what can be perceived and so controlled. The subjects, us, are not stable and socializable. Reason is always in the service of political and economic masters. (Acker 12)

Clearly, Abhor’s gender in no way affects her understanding of political theory. She is incredibly intelligent and articulate. Thivai’s claim that women do not understand political theory is not based on his experiences, but rather on a preconceived essentialist notion on gender. Thivai makes other such claims as well, including the claim that all women are prostitutes by nature: “Dinosaur was female therefore a prostitute” (Acker 93). There are many women in the novel who are not prostitutes, including Abhor, who Thivai is intimate with and knows very well is no prostitute. He also asserts that “all women are sex maniacs” (Acker 152), a claim that supports the idea that all women tend towards prostitution. These claims seem to have little foundation in reality, especially when one considers that throughout the book women are raped by men, but there is never a case of a woman raping a man. He also contradicts his statements by referring to a man as “protecting his virginity like a girl” (Acker 21). It is impossible for a girl to both protect her virginity and be a prostitute, and yet Thivai never takes notice of this contradiction, preferring to see women as either virginal or wantonly unchaste depending on which label suits him at the time.

Thivai offers further contradictions to his essentialist definitions of genders when he tries to dress up as a girl in order to get food from Parisians. When a rat runs out in front of him, he says: “I didn’t have to lie. I could shriek cause I was a girl” (Acker 179). On one hand, Thivai is saying that only girls can do something as weak as shriek at a rat, assumedly because of their weaker natures. On the other hand, he admits to having these feelings, which would normally be attributed to women, and being free to show them only when he is disguised as a girl. If his essentialist views on men and women were correct, then he would never have these feelings to begin with, as he is male. The fact that he does have these feelings and hides them points to the fact that these ideals do not exist.

The essentialist claims in the novel are not only made by Thivai, but also by Abhor. She says at one point, “Men, especially straight men, aren’t worth anything … most humans are now women” (Acker 109), referring to the idea that all men are unfeeling, and therefore inhuman. She also says that “No man wants to be a worm” (Acker 124), which points to what is often viewed as an inherent desire in men to conquer and be in control. With reference to women, she agrees with Thivai that “The women had all become prostitutes” (Acker 93), a claim that is disproven shortly afterwards, when she describes her haircutter as “one of the few women who wasn’t a prostitute” (Acker 111). Abhor also fails to recognize that she herself is not a prostitute.

There is a distinct difference, however, between Thivai’s essentialist claims and Abhor’s. Whereas Thivai’s claims appear to arise out of a desire to classify and dominate women, Abhor’s tend to respond to this attempted dominance more than anything. There are times, especially towards the beginning of the novel, when she tries to identify with the labels assigned to her. She is confused because internally she does not identify in this way. She accepts herself as being what she is told to be, but is constantly struggling with this idea: “I’ve never been sure what parts of my body have to do with what parts of my body, including my mind heart and cunt” (Acker 81), and: “I’ve always felt as if I don’t belong” (Acker 109). She even goes so far as to do what de Beauvoir states is required of a female in order to be a “true woman” – “she must accept herself as the Other” (Norton 1413). Because she does not fit, Abhor defines herself as “a witch and evil almost inhuman because I am in the act of brewing my own blood” (Acker 51). Over the course of the novel, however, she develops an understanding of her situation and of the fallacies in the Platonist definition of Women. One of the questions she poses is, “If it’s true that a man’s prick is his strength, what and where is my power?” (Acker 127). At first it seems as though she may not have any power, at least the way she is looking at her situation. However, towards the end of the novel, the truth becomes suddenly and startlingly clear when she writes her letter to Thivai and Mark:

Thivai thinks … that I’m shit because I’m a woman … men always protect each other’s asses when it comes to women.
Both of you would be better off if you’ld at least admit that you think that women aren’t human and men are. You believe that women are wet washcloths you can use to wash the grime off different parts of your body or to fling into the fact of another person (a male).
…The whole world is men’s bloody fantasies.
…This is what I’m saying: you’re always fucking deciding what reality is and collaborating about these decisions.
It’s not that I agree with you that I’m a wet washcloth. It’s that I don’t know what reality is. I’m so unsure tentative, tenuous, lonely, uncertain from loneliness, anguished, sad that I’m not certain enough to fight the decisions I should. (Acker 209-210)

Although Abhor has not completely discovered her true identity yet, she has at least hit the root of the problem of essentialism and idealism, and given the reader a glimpse of what her power is.

Simone de Beauvoir also attacks the idea of the feminine mystery. She states that the idea that women are essentially mysterious is another myth, one that has been put into place as the result of patriarchal society. She argues that “the male [is] on the Master side and the Mystery belong to the slave” (Norton 1412), and also that “The truth is that there is mystery on both sides” (Norton 1409). Her point is that women are no more mysterious than men, but because our society is patriarchal, men have the prerogative of dismissing the aspects of femininity that they do not identify with as a mystery rather than attempting to understand them. De Beauvoir also points out that no novel can ever have a “mysterious” woman as a main character, because “Mystery is never more than a mirage that vanishes as we draw near to look at it” (Norton 1412).

The novel also deals with this issue of feminine Mystery. The first chapter of the book is Abhor speaking through Thivai, but before we get Abhor’s words, we get a single sentence inserted by Thivai: “This is what Abhor, who’s my partner, part robot, and part black; told me was her childhood” (Acker 3). Because of this first sentence, Abhor begins as a mystery. All we know about her are the essential definitions; she is part robot (which, as we find out later in the novel, is literal), and part black (which is more important than human), and she is a woman. However, the mystery ends, at least for the reader, as soon as Abhor begins to speak. She describes many details about her childhood and her life, and the reader is privy to her most intimate thoughts.

The mystery does not end, however, for Thivai. He asks questions such as: “Does anyone know what a woman feels? Can a woman feel? No” (Acker 166). Because Thivai does not understand the complex emotions that women feel, he dismisses their emotions as unknowable and even non-existent. Later in the novel, he says that “Women never mean what they say like men mean what they say” (Acker 202). This is yet another common perception: that women, being naturally mysterious, are indecipherable to men, which excuses men from ever trying to understand them. He even justifies the mystery: “Cause women don’t see well, they’re always running after the wrong person … Therefore, it doesn’t matter what a woman looks at: it only matters how a man looks at a woman” (Acker 198). In this way Abhor, as the main female character, is constantly dehumanized and mystified, making her the absolute Other to Thivai, the man, who asserts his power over her by refusing to acknowledge the truth of who she is.

Toward the end of the novel, Abhor makes an interesting statement: “If you follow rules, you don’t follow yourself. Therefore, rules prevent, dement, and even kill the people who follow them” (Acker 219). When put into the context of Plato’s ideals and Simone de Beauvoir’s arguments against them, this statement has the striking effect of not only shattering the feminine mystery with regards to Abhor, but offering an effective alternative to Plato’s ideals. It is important for everyone, regardless of gender, to try to look beyond socially constructed roles and determine who they are by looking within themselves.

The characters in Empire of the Senseless may follow Plato’s lead, but Acker does not, and she supports de Beauvoir’s arguments beautifully throughout the novel.

Works Cited
Acker, Kathy. Empire of the Senseless. Grove Press: New York, 1988.
De Beauvoir, Simone. From The Second Sex. Norton Anthology: Theory and Criticism. Norton & Company, 2001.
Plato. The Republic. Translated by Desmond Lee. Penguin Classics, 2003.