In Spite of Plato: A Feminist Rewriting of Ancient Philosophy by Adriana Cavarero – Stella Crouch

While reading Adriana Cavarero’s work, I couldn’t stop thinking about the sexist messages and ideas that I consumed without even realizing it while reading many philosophical texts. Attempting to reframe ancient philosophy in a less misogynistic way is no easy task, but I believe in doing so, we can all begin to unlearn both the explicit and more subtle sexism embedded in philosophy. In reading the piece, I felt like I was battling the misogynistic and patriarchal gaze of Plato - which is fitting for the title. I also enjoyed the accessibility of the text as I feel you don't need to have read all of Plato and his contemporaries' works to understand In Spite of Plato.

Cavarero engages with a variety of subjects, from reproductive justice to the socialization and sexualization of women to sexism in the broader academic world. One of the arguments that is made is that male philosophers have historically been obsessed with mortality and death, and as a result, they fail to see the female wisdom and knowledge contained within birth and life. When men have listened to women, they have exploited their knowledge to further the patriarchy. An example of this is Plato’s writings in Symposium, where ‘womb envy’ is described. 

‘Supposedly, the documented evidence of the existence of an original matriarchy, though abundant, does not add up to the kind of proof accepted by every scholar. But here documents and proofs are not the issue. In fact, my hermeneutical project consists of investigating the traces of the original act of erasure contained in the patriarchal order, the act upon which this order was first constructed and then continued to display itself. This is how my technique of theft works: I will steal feminine figures from their context, allowing the torn-up fabric to show the knots that hold together the conceptual canvas that hides the original crime’. (Cavarero, p. 5) 

This section really stood out to me as it gets at the difference in attempting to prove a woman's philosophical work vs a man’s. We tend to be alright with gaps in evidence and surviving work for European men. The Pre-Socratics that never wrote down their philosophies are rarely questioned as valid philosophers, yet indigenous philosophers are undermined and scrutinized for lacking the same surviving evidence. It is a double standard that clearly lays out that the more privilege a philosopher has, the less they will have to prove their work. The system ultimately is reinforced by those that control the narrative as they can legitimize their fellow privileged and renowned philosopher’s work. What are the ‘academic standards to which we hold different philosophers? This is a subject I am greatly interested in learning more about. 

This system of the ‘patriarchal order’ is a cycle that repeats itself throughout history. Citing these dead European white men is seemingly a golden ticket to being accepted by the broader academic world. To challenge these ‘founders of philosophy’ is radical and an act that shakes the very foundation of patriarchal academia. This system is why the people that ascend within the philosophical discipline largely look the same. It is no coincidence that Plato, Immanuel Kant, or Niccolò Machiavelli are far more well-known, and their works are assigned to a far greater number of students than those of Hipparchia of Maroneia, Hypatia, Juana Inés de la Cruz, Emma Goldman, Rosa Luxemburg, Gloria Anzaldúa, or any of the countless other women philosophers whose theories and teachings continue to be erased from history. I believe a radical turn must be made away from only teaching ‘the greats’ and put more emphasis on and give more time to women, LGBTQ+, BIPOC, and disabled philosophers. Having more diversity on the syllabus will help build a more inclusive and comfortable space for everyone. I think it is slowly becoming reality in present-day universities. Including diverse philosophers and their works obviously is the bare minimum and not enough on its own, however, it is a simple step in the right direction and one that has long been overdue.