The Division of Duties Along Gender Lines - Essay Sample

Introduction

For most societies, the type of roles that individual members of the community are often assigned according to gender or sex. Modern society is currently debunking this age-old precipice as more women take up roles traditionally reserved for men. For example, in the past, providing food and security for the family was reserved for men, while the women took the roles of care providers. In this context, while the origins of such ideals cannot be traced accurately, their effect on society has remained up to today. Consequently, this discussion will explore the ideal of gender role division by comparing Immanuel Kant, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Gender Role Division

Before delving into the ideals behind gender role division within most societies, it is crucial to define the concept regarding either of the philosophers introduced above. According to Kant's enlightenment, one should be able to think for oneself. Therefore, sharing in this precipice is the act of questioning the norms of society (Redding). Here one seeks to ask why they should fit into a pre-set role assigned to them by society due to their sex. While such ideological challenges may not have been present during Kant's or the other two philosophers, it is a question prevalently asked in today's society.

On the other hand, idealism, according to Schelling, refers to a philosophy opposed to materialism. Consequently, for instance, Leibniz had differentiated Plato as an optimist from Epicurus as a realist. With how in the English-talking world, the Irish savant and minister George Berkeley (1685–1753) is regularly taken as a prototypical optimist, the resistance to realism has offered to ascend to the suspicion vision is fundamentally an immaterialist tenet. This suspicion, be that as it may, is mixed up. With the particular conceivable case of Leibniz, the optimism of the Germans was not dedicated to the kind of teaching found in Berkeley as per which irrelevant personalities, both boundless (God's) and limited (those of people), were the at last genuine substances, with obviously material things to be perceived as reducible to conditions of such personalities—that is, to thoughts in a sense implied by the British empiricists.

As Leibniz's utilization of Plato to represent optimism recommends, dreamers in the German custom would, in general, hold to the truth or objectivity of thoughts in the Platonic sense. For Plato, no doubt, such ideas were not considered in any psyche whatsoever—not even Plato's god (Redding). Yet, particularly for the German optimists like Hegel, Plato's way of thinking was perceived through the focal points of more Aristotelian assortments of neo-Platonism, which envisioned the contemplations of a celestial psyche as characteristic in issue, and not as contained in some entirely irrelevant or otherworldly brain. It hence had included nearer to the more pantheistic image of the perfect idea found in Spinoza, for instance, for whom matter and brain were characteristics of the one substance

In a way, one can argue that if Immanuel Kant were alive in the current society, then his ideals would have forced him to encourage the assignment of roles in a manner not limited by the sex of an individual. In his essay about enlightenment, Kant additionally communicates the Enlightenment confidence in the certainty of progress. A couple of autonomous scholars will continuously rouse more extensive social development, prompting more prominent activity and legislative change (Rohlf). A culture of improvement is "practically unavoidable" if there is "opportunity to disclose utilization of one's explanation in all issues." (Redding).

Independent Thinking

The issue is that to some. It appeared to be indistinct whether progress would result if reason delighted in full sway over conventional specialists; or whether independent thinking would instead lead directly to realism, capitulation to the inevitable, secularism, distrust, or even libertinism and dictatorship. In essence, Kant's idealism points toward liberalism, and within a liberal society, roles are not limited by the gender of an individual. In contrast, other skills and attributes influence the assigning of duties and functions in the community.

According to Kant, the objective study of social facts. He believed that such studies would provide insightful knowledge that could be used to determine whether the society was healthy or pathological (188). Kant believed that healthy communities were stable while pathological organizations exhibited a breakdown in social norms among the individuals within. The philosopher even attempted to demonstrate the meaning of his theories in a project titled Suicide in 1897. The publication included statistics collected across different police districts with protestant and catholic communities. Upon analyzing the data, he attributed the differences between the figures as socio-religious rather than psychological.

Kant was an idealist. He believed in using scientific methodologies in the exploration of society since they produced facts rather than postulations. Similar to the natural sciences, Kant believed that philosophy was not a humanities discipline. The application of scientific methodologies was supposed to illustrate his argument (Rohlf). While Kant played a significant role in the transition of philosophy from the humanities into science, it is worth noting that he did not do it singlehandedly. These philosophers insisted on more comprehensive views of the world where evidence could be connected to the social world. They also believed that more efforts should be considered in exploring the social world by observing what happens within it and how it affects people's lives.

Kant was principally impacted by the belief that change conveys bliss and pleasure, directing the differentiation between particular craving and group will. Consequently, a division of work is not an account of how practical man makes society plausible; somewhat, it clarifies the social change, the rise of new social organization, and individual interaction with the desire of by and large. Henceforth, the work division is not a fiscal certainty; instead, it is a social reality.

Two Gatherings

Consequently, the whole society was captivated by two gatherings, one remaining for change and others looking for revivalism. Behind everything noticeable, there is something undetectable. Human science's worry is to set up refutation between the two; it establishes Kant's reasoning (Rohlf). He asserts terminologically, and role assignment implies the progressive degree of the profession, which is tangible and noticeable. However, academic degrees present in a given society are determined by the population, character of the individual's necessities, part of the network, elements of foundation present in the public eye, the function of law, etc.

Subsequently, the division of work can't be concentrated in seclusion to creating the standard of law. Each conceivable type of work division is guided by a given example of social relations that can't be impractically disregarded. Consequently, a solitary adjustable, for example, segment, innovative, recognized, cannot be considered sufficient reason to clarify work division in the public arena. Accordingly, he promotes that gender-based labor division is a truth that the easygoing investigation technique, decreased examination strategy, and a similar approach should be perceived (Rohlf).

Kant's division of work is impacted by the positivistic technique clarifying utilitarian coordination in the public arena. Subsequently, gender roles set up harmony among functionalism and positivism in the public arena. While talking about the labor division, Kant thinks about the idea of individual activity. He accepted that the action of man is sensitive. When his training is administered by aggregate prosperity, it offers ascends to routineness (Bowie). When an individual activity is driven by neurotic incitement, for example, self-driven and practical, it provides to climb to the development of abnormal, undesirable dreary component in public action.

Therefore, in every society or community, there may be a dependable application of deviance. The individuals consider deviant by the organization can serve a purpose for the greater good of the rest. Moreover, each overall population suffers from explicit pieces of psychotic strain in ordinary practice and standard way. Nevertheless, in more prevalent scenarios, routineness wins. The exceptional aching of man finds a path into the conscious and the gathering will of the overall population propelling social grit. Subsequently, a labor assignment is a record of the stratification of public movement where there is a presence of congruity, compromise, accomplishment, and movement

Moving to a more recent approach to philosophy, one considers the theories of Hegel and Schelling. According to these two philosophers, deviance and deviant behavior is an undeniable part of any society. The standard definition of deviance refers to non-conforming behavior among individual members of the community. Such non-conformities include digression from socially constructed norms and expectations by the community. However, it is worth noting that there is a difference between non-conforming and harmful behaviors. According to Becker, non-conforming behavior does not have to be necessarily dangerous (Redding).

Deviance

The definition of deviance within society has changed over time and varies depending on the community's culture. According to Becker, deviance revolves around three main categories: immorality, pathological/mental illness/medicalization, and the things one believes do not work within their society (Bowie). Reviewing the two philosophers' work, it suffices to say that they drew their conclusions based on an individual's behavioral changes. Hegel drew his findings and presented them in theory after observing the behavioral changes that differed from their societies' norms. In essence, deviance, according to Becker, exists within specific social contexts.

Kant, to whose work preceded Becker, bases his theory of deviance on the concept of influence. He argues that deviance can be functional for society. According to Kant, the relevance of deviance in society includes the creation of boundaries. For example, it plays a significant role in the labor division and gender, class, or age. Deviance also allows for the development of social identity. It brings about the "us "and the "them" within specific social contexts (Rohlf).

Moreover, deviance also distinguishes the things that are acceptable within society and those that are not. Subsequently, it provides a way through which punishments for unacceptable actions can be meted on the offenders. Moreover, Kant also asserts the contribution of deviance in the creation of social solidarity and innovation. For the latter, deviance allows the adoption of new perspectives necessary for society's innovation and progress.

Conclusion

Schelling provides a unique transcendental philosophy attributed to Schelling takes a more organic perspective to the role of division in society. The relevance of the notion, as asserted by Schelling (1795–1800), lies in its endeavors to give another record of nature while assessing how Kant had permanently changed the status of naturalism. In a way, the idea dodges a portion of the outcomes of Kant's hypothesis that were viewed as risky by Kant's peers and replacements. For the Kant of the Critique of Pure Reason (1781, 1787), nature is primarily found in the 'formal' sense, as that which is dependent upon vital laws. These laws are available to us, Kant contends, because insight relies upon the subject bringing types of figure, the classifications, to tolerate what it sees.