Advertisement

The Good and Bad in Sexual Relations: A Reconsideration of Winch’s Limiting Notions

  • Camilla KronqvistEmail author
Chapter
  • 9 Downloads
Part of the Nordic Wittgenstein Studies book series (NRWS, volume 6)

Abstract

At the end of his influential article “Understanding a Primitive Society” (1964), Peter Winch suggests that sexual relations, together with birth and death, are not to be considered as events or experiences in the world, but rather as having a more fundamental role in shaping what we make sense of as human life and morality. In this article, I discuss some senses in which sexual relations, perceived as such a “limiting notion”, can be said to “determine the ‘ethical space’ within which the possibilities of good and evil in human life can be exercised” (Winch 1964). I argue first that sexual relations, understood in a broad sense to include both sexual desire and the possibility of forming intimate relationships, as well as an understanding of ourselves as in some way sexed or gendered, interestingly differ from the other limiting notions of birth and death, in that they by necessity involve us in (desired, imagined or actualized) encounters with other human beings. Through a discussion of Maggie Nelson’s The Argonauts (2015), I then consider the ethical character of such encounters, to show how varying and conflicting conceptions about sexual morality, and to some extent, politics, in our present society, reveal forms of disagreement that go deep with us.

Keywords

Sexual relations Vico Social science Moral philosophy Political philosophy 

References

  1. Anscombe, G. E. M. (1981). You can have sex without children: Christianity and the new offer. In The Collected Philosophical Papers of G.E.M. Anscombe Volume III: Ethics, Religion and Politics (pp. 82–96). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Chödrön, P. (2005). When Things Fall Apart. Boston: Shambala.Google Scholar
  3. Gaita, R. (2011). After Romulus. Melbourne: Text Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Hendry, J. (2016). Introduction to Social Anthropology. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  5. Hertzberg, L. (1997). Voices of the will. In L. Alanen, S. Heinämaa, & T. Wallgren (Eds.), Commonality and Particularity in Ethics (pp. 75–94). Houndmills/Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  6. Hertzberg, L. (2009). What’s in a smile? In Y. Gustafsson, C. Kronqvist, & M. McEachrane (Eds.), Emotions and Understanding: Wittgensteinian Perspectives (pp. 113–125). Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  7. Irigaray, L. (1985). This Sex Which is not One. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Motturi, A. (2003). Filosofi vid Mörkrets Hjärta: Wittgenstein, Frazer och Vildarna. Göteborg: Glänta.Google Scholar
  9. Murdoch, I. (1997). Existentialists and Mystics: Writings on Philosophy and Literature (Peter J Conradi, Ed.). London: Chatto & Windus.Google Scholar
  10. Nelson, M. (2015). The Argonauts. London: Melville House UK.Google Scholar
  11. Richter, D. (2011). Anscombe’s Moral Philosophy. Plymouth: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  12. Sedgwick, E. K. (1990). Epistemology of the Closet. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  13. Vico, G. (1968). The New Science of Giambattista Vico. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Winch, P. (1958/1990). The Idea of a Social Science. 2nd Ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Winch, P. (1964). Understanding a primitive society. American Philosophical Quarterly, 1(4), 307–324.Google Scholar
  16. Winch, P. (1972). Ethics and Action. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  17. Winch, P. (1987). Trying to Make Sense. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Winch, P. (1989). Simone Weil: The Just Balance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Winch, P. (1997). Can we understand ourselves? Philosophical Investigations, 20(3), 193–204.Google Scholar
  20. Wittgenstein, L. (1953/2009). Philosophical Investigations (4th ed., P. M. S. Hacker & J. Schulte, Eds., G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker, & J. Schulte, Trans.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Wittgenstein L. (1967). Zettel (G. E. M. Anscombe & G. H. von Wright, Eds., G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Wittgenstein, L. (1993). Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough. In J. Klagge & A. Nordmann (Eds.), Philosophical Occasions: 1912–1951 (pp. 119–155). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Åbo Akademi UniversityTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations