Another kind of strength

by Alessandra Chiricosta

The consensus enjoyed by this paradigm is shared by many, across divisions and positions. It represents, to date, a starting point for reflections, analyses and solutions, shared by virtue of its naturalness and objectivity. The difference between positions is almost always found downstream of this paradigm and opens debates and conflicts regarding the strategies to be used to limit the exercise of force-violence – whether this should pass through the recognition of the status of “victim” of a woman or, on the contrary, aim at a strengthening of her “power”, for example – or, in different contexts, whether this biological asymmetry should simply be accepted, leaving individuals the duty to take charge of it on a personal level.

The link between gender and strength appears to be linear and simple, evident in reference to a biological destiny that cannot be configured differently. So what is the need to investigate it further?

My answer, personal and therefore political, is that the clarity of the statements reported above is much more murky than one might think, that it is our eyes, accustomed to seeing through distorting lenses, that are no longer able to observe in how many ways and at how many levels the nexus that articulates the relationship between force and gender is intricate, culturally determined, based on tautologies and self-fulfilling prophecies. How it takes on the function of a biopower device aimed at articulating and confirming a hierarchy based on gender and is therefore one of the cornerstones of patriarchal and sexist ideologies.

Not only that: the close connection that strength, this kind of strength, has assumed in the construction of the concept and practices of virility has overshadowed, to the point of making them almost invisible, other paths, other forms in which strength can be conceived, expressed, and become embodied. The absolutization of one of the possible configurations of the gender-strength nexus as a natural element has blocked other experiences and ignored other theoretical frameworks in which the two elements interact differently, conditioning not only the vision of the relationship between genders and strength, but also, in a related way, severely limiting the exploration of how the concept of strength can be otherwise interpreted and embodied.

There are many, many devices put in place to transform the ideology that absolutizes the strength of a single kind in nature. First of all, a completely partial definition of what is defined as natural and what is called cultural and the clear divide that separates the two terms. Conceived in an oppositional relationship, of domination, in which, depending on the circumstances, greater value is assigned to one or the other, the two concepts have come to trace rigid boundaries, absolute categories that prevent us from thinking of anthropic body-realities as the outcome, always in progress, of particular configurations and disciplining pressures in which the two terms of the apparent dichotomy constantly interact and redefine each other.

The opposition nature/culture intersects with the dichotomy that establishes a binary division of genders, in which behaviors, attitudes, potentials are ascribed to one gender or another on the basis of conformity to one’s nature, thought, precisely, as an absolute and self-evident category. Defining what belongs to a body-reality on the basis of one’s sexuality and what does not, with the exception of very few aspects, is already a biopolitical device, which imprisons bodies in predefined and rarely further investigated binaries, a mythos that becomes disciplined bodies and prevents from experimenting with other possibilities of self-expression.

In particular, as regards to the path I have articulated in this book, the definition of strength, understood as fighting strength and attributed to an anthropomorphic body, is inextricably intertwined with that of virility, leaving, in a perspective that does not allow third spaces, little room for thinking and, above all, experimenting with the potential that bodies that do not respond to the characteristics of strength expressed by virility can express. If strength characterizes virility – and strength is always interpreted as subjugating, blind, aggressive, destined to transform into violence if not controlled by culture – feminine nature will have to place itself outside of this order, showing itself as a propensity for care and availability.

The reasoning that is allowed in this scenario is only one: force defines a gender, ergo there can only be one gender of force. This double bind has sealed a potentially fluid relationship in a diktat that has effectively precluded the possibility of posing the question in other terms, of opening up to other questions: is there only one gender of force or is there also another, or many? Can force be expressed and embodied only in these modalities? Is it possible to articulate other discourses on force, conceive it in another way, see it acting in other bodies and in other forms?

My reflection on the fighting force of another kind, in the double sense in which the concept can be interpreted, has been articulated in a very long path, unraveled in a spiral motion in time and space, and has involved every fiber of my carnal and mental tissue, modifying it, or rather, making it aware of the continuous transformation that constitutes it. It arises from the concrete experience of many years dedicated to the practice of martial arts of East Asia and Southeast Asia, of the life spent in those countries and of the study of local societies, cultures, languages and philosophies. An experience that has intertwined with philosophical, anthropological and gender research conducted following approaches more in line with our scientific tradition. An intercultural dialogue that has taken place inside my epidermis: I have tried to summarize some aspects of it in the pages of this book.

Excerpt from the introduction to the book by Alessandra Chiricosta, Another Kind of Strength, Iacobelli, 2019. Courtesy of the author and the publisher.

Alessandra Chiricosta is a Philosopher, expert in Gender Studies, Historian of Religions specialized in continental Southeast Asian cultures, where she has carried out field research for many years. In the past, she has taught at Hanoi University, Vietnam, University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, ‘Urbaniana’ University, Venice International University and in the degree course in Global Governance, Tor Vergata University and worked for international governmental and non-governmental organizations (Oxfam, MCNV, etc.). She has collaborated with the AT BECK Institute in Rome as a trainer and consultant.