weininger for download

8/9/2019 Weininger for Download

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/weininger-for-download 1/26

It’s What You Do With It That Counts: Interpretations of

Otto Weininger i

Judy Greenway

Vienna, 1903: a twenty-three year old Jew, Otto Weininger, shoots

himself through the heart. His oo!, Geschlect und Charakter , "Sex

and Character #,1 $ulished four months $re%iously, immediately

goes into a se&ond edition, e&oming a est-seller in 'ustria and

(ermany) fourteen editions y 191*.+ he 190 nglish translation

is still eing re$rinted in the 19+0s.3 he notoriety of the oo! is

inse$araly entwined with the s&andal of the sui&ide) though little is

!nown aout Weininger himself, Sex and Character e&omes a

ma/or sour&e of s$e&ulation and analysis. isogynist, anti-semiti&,

anti-seual, the oo!2s themes highlight the anieties of the age.

Weininger was one of the eam$les used to de%elo$ essing2s

theory of Jewish self-hatred. 4eminists indignantly re$udiated this

5horrile oo!2,* and e%en many anti-feminists found it ne&essary to

distan&e themsel%es from it in $uli&.

6nowing this 7 was sur$rised to find Sex and Character e&er$ted

and seriously dis&ussed in the nglish anar&hist-feminist $a$er The

Freewoman in 191+. Why did it gi%e him s$a&e8 ' li!ing for $olemi&,

$erha$s the editor $oints out that nglish anti-feminists are

mu&h less interesting than (ermans "si&# ut maye there was

more to it. 7 egan noti&ing fre;uent referen&es to Weininger2s wor!

in early twentieth &entury deates aout homoseuality. 7t seemed

that Weininger2s &ontem$oraries too! him seriously, and some

&am$aigners for women2s and homoseual lieration were ale to

i <ulished in u&y =land and aura >oan "eds.#, 199?, Sexology in Culture:

Labelling Bodies and Desires, @amridge, <olity, and @hi&ago, Ani%ersity of@hi&ago <ress, $$.+B C *3. his download is for $ersonal use only, and &o$yrightremains with the $ulishers.

http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0745619827.html






find something %aluale in his wor!. y initial attem$t to find out

more aout Weininger in relation to these seemingly &ontradi&tory

images e%entually led me into a wider in%estigation of some of the

&om$leities of early twentieth &entury feminism and seualradi&alism.

Deology at that time was $art of a wider deate aout gender and

seuality, ut its role and influen&e &annot e understood sim$ly

from an analysis of seologi&al tets. Sex and Character was

$ulished in ngland at a time of intense feminist a&ti%ity. 'lthough

the oo! &an e seen as an eam$le of anti-feminist a&!lash, it is

im$ortant to loo! at how su&h wor!s were a&tually used y their

readers. 's$e&ts of Weininger2s theories were ta!en u$ y dward

@ar$enter, whose etensi%e writings on seuality had already gi%en

him a !ey role among those who were trying to thin! aout the

relationshi$ etween seual and so&ial &hange in their own li%es.

Dele&ti%e use and &omination of @ar$enter2s and Weininger2s ideas

enaled some readers, in&luding feminists, to rethin! seual and

gender &ategorisation.

* * *

Weininger was orn in Vienna in 1??0 and attended uni%ersity

there, studying mainly $hiloso$hy and $sy&hology, ut also ta!ing

&ourses in medi&ine, e$erimental Eoology and iology. He was one

of a grou$ of young men who dis&ussed new theories in all these

areas, as well as the wor!s of su&h writers as 7sen, Dtrinderg and

Fola. He read 4reud and =reuer on hysteria, and showed some of

his early wor! to 4reud.B 7n 190+, Weininger2s do&toral thesis, whi&h

forms the first $art of Sex and Character , was a&&e$ted. Dhortly

afterwards he &on%erted to <rotestantism. >uring the net few

months he wrote the se&ond $art of his oo!, and it was $ulishedin June 1903. hat O&toer, he !illed himself.



Fin-de-sicle Vienna in the last years of the 'ustro-Hungarian

m$ire has een &hara&teriEed as oth a 5&ity of dreams2 and 5the

$ro%ing ground for world destru&tion2.?

7ntelle&tuals $ondered thefate of the indi%idual as old &ertainties were &hallenged y new

s&ientifi& ideas, modernist aestheti&s, feminism and mass nationalist

mo%ements. he &ity fermented with new mo%ements in art, musi&,

ar&hite&ture, law, $oliti&s, and $sy&hology, and Jews $layed a

$rominent $art in most of these.9 Gumering aout 10 $er &ent of

the $o$ulation, many Viennese Jews were highly assimilated.

Howe%er, the emerging (ermani& nationalist mo%ement &ast them

as outsiders, or enemies within) Vienna was the nursery for ra$idly

growing anti-Demitism, as well as the Fionism whi&h res$onded to

it.10

isogyny was intelle&tually &ommon$la&e and institutionaliEed,

ta!ing on new modernist forms. <rostitution was legally regulated in

Vienna, though it was alleged at the turn of the &entury that only

aout one in twenty $rostitutes was registered with the $oli&e.

=ehind this &laim lay a notion of so-&alled 5hidden $rostitution2: any

woman, howe%er res$e&tale she seemed, &ould e se&retly a

5$rostitute2 "that is, engaging in illi&it se#, and the $oli&e o$erated

a system of informers and agents !ro"ocateurs to dis&o%er su&h

women and for&e them to register.11 his suggests that notions of

the seualiEed woman were wides$read) the 5hidden $rostitute2 idea

is $arti&ularly rele%ant to Weininger2s wor!.

Viennese feminists &riti&ised $rostitution for redu&ing women to se

o/e&ts, and &am$aigned for e&onomi& and so&ial reforms, as well

as se edu&ation and a modernisation of seual morality. i!e their

o$$onents they drew on new ideas from $sy&hology and so&iologyaout the nature of men, women, and seuality.1+ =oth male and



female homoseuality were illegal, and there seems to ha%e een

no organiEed homoseual mo%ement in Vienna efore 1911, though

the a&ti%e &am$aigns for women2s and homoseual rights in

(ermany would &ertainly ha%e een influential.13

Weininger himselfsays that agitation for women2s rights seems to &oin&ide with what

he &alls the effemina&y and Jewishness of the age, an in&rease in

homoseuality and mas&uliniEed women.1*

Sex and Character is Weininger2s answer to the 5Woman uestion2.

7n it he attem$ts 5to $la&e the relations of De in a new and de&isi%e

light I... to refer to a single $rin&i$le the whole &ontrast etween

man and woman I... it is a gradual a$$roa&h to the heart of

$sy&hology.2 1 he oo! sets out to $ro%ide a new rationale for the

relations etween men and women, ased on the ethi&s of the

trans&endent indi%idual.

<art One, 5Deual @om$leity2, draws etensi%ely on iologi&al and

$sy&hologi&al e%iden&e to demonstrate that all organisms are

fundamentally iseual) that the &ategories 5male2 and 5female2 are

no longer ade;uate. 7n the &ase of humans, Weininger argues that

there is no su&h thing in reality as a man or a woman. an and

Woman, he says, are ideal ty$es) anatomi&ally and $sy&hologi&ally,

a&tual men and women &ontain elements of oth. 7n $rin&i$le the

amounts of mas&ulinity and femininity in us &ould e re$resented

mathemati&ally, our destiny in lo%e wor!ed out in the form of an

e;uation. "We are attra&ted to those, of whi&he%er iologi&al se,

who will together with us add u$ to the ideal sum total 1Ian

K1WIoman#. 7n $ra&ti&e, our &onstitution is not fied) we all

os&illate etween the mas&uline and the feminine within oursel%es,

o%er time and in relation to our en%ironment.1 He also says that 57n

my %iew all a&tual organisms ha%e oth homo-seuality Isi& and



hetero-seuality Isi&2,1B and therefore re/e&ts oth legal $enalties

and attem$ts at 5&uring2 homoseuality.

He argues that all indi%iduals should e ale to de%elo$ their fullest$otential, so women should not e e&luded from edu&ation or

$arti&ular o&&u$ations. On the same grounds, he &riti&ises the

mo%ement for women2s eman&i$ation eman&i$ation should e

ased on the indi%idual, not on memershi$ of a &ategory.

hroughout this se&tion Weininger follows tradition in &hara&teriEing

mas&ulinity and femininity as $olar o$$osites, with mas&ulinity

re$resenting a higher degree of de%elo$ment. He deri%es from this,

howe%er, the une$e&ted &on&lusion that the highest ty$e of woman

is the mas&uline lesian.1?

<art wo, 5he Deual y$es2, sets out a ty$ology of an and Woman

in so&ial &ontet. 5he ideas LmanM and LwomanM &annot e

in%estigated se$arately) their signifi&an&e &an e found out only y

$la&ing them side y side and &ontrasting them.2 'lthough he

re$eats that he is not tal!ing aout a&tual men and women, this is

not a distin&tion he maintains &learly. Woman, he says, 5is de%oted

wholly to seual matters IN to the s$here of egetting and of

re$rodu&tion2, while 5the male is something more than seual.2 He

mentions the $ossiility that this, 5the most signifi&ant differen&e

etween the sees2 &ould e histori&ally $rodu&ed, ut does not

de%elo$ the $oint.19

here are, moreo%er, two ty$es of Woman, the other and the

<rostitute. 'gain, any a&tual woman will ha%e %arying amounts of

these "as will men#. =oth ty$es de%ote their li%es to $romoting

"hetero#seual inter&ourse, sim$ly engaging in different ty$es of

mat&hma!ing. he other re$resents the false morality of theourgeois family. otherhood is merely animal, non-moral, a means



to re$rodu&ing the ra&e) $rostitution, howe%er, is human, anti-

moral, a more authenti& e$ression of seuality.+0 Howe%er, 5to $ut

it luntly, man $ossesses seual organs) her seual organs $ossess

woman.2 an, in other words, &an trans&end seuality, 5&an !nowaout his seuality, whilst a woman is un&ons&ious of it and &an in

all good faith deny it, e&ause she is IN seuality itself.2 Women

are in&a$ale of self !nowledge. hey ha%e no oundaries: 5as there

is no su&h thing as one-ness for her there &an e no $lurality, only

an indistin&t state of fusion with others.2 +1 hey la&! the

$rere;uisites for a trans&endental morality. Only men &an e

se$arate indi%iduals, re&ogniEing and res$e&ting the oundaries of

others li!e themsel%es.

Jewishness is $resented in an analogous way. Judaism is seual,

feminine, family-&entred, la&!ing in indi%iduality, sla%ish. Howe%er, 57

mean y Judaism I... neither a ra&e nor a $eo$le nor a re&ognised

&reed. 7 thin! of it as a tenden&y of the mind, as a $sy&hologi&al

&onstitution whi&h is a $ossiility for all man!ind, ut whi&h has

e&ome a&tual in the most &ons$i&uous fashion only among the

Jews.2 'gain he mentions, then dro$s, the $ossiility of histori&al

rather than innate &auses for this. He atta&!s the $erse&ution of

Jews. %ery indi%idual, man or woman, Jew or @hristian, deser%es

e;ual /usti&e, e;ual freedom. 5IWhoe%er detests the Jewish

dis$osition detests it first of all in himself I... Hatred, li!e lo%e, is a

$ro/e&ted $henomenon) that $erson alone is hated who reminds one

un$leasantly of oneself.2 ++ 'nti-Demitism is a form of self-hatred. 7n

$assages li!e these, Weininger &ould e analysing himself.

Jewishness and femaleness, he says, are the enemies within our

own souls, to e trans&ended if we are to e&ome authenti& moral

indi%iduals. 5IWoman, as woman, must disa$$ear I... not theeman&i$ation of woman from man, ut rather the eman&i$ation of



woman from herself.2 @an a woman &ease to e 5Woman28 es, ut

5N only if Ishe &an $la&e herself in relation to the moral idea, the

idea of humanity.2 +3 he only way in whi&h this &an ha$$en is y

men and women refusing seual inter&ourse with one another:women e&ause they must re/e&t the seuality whi&h ensla%es

them) men e&ause it goes against the &ategori&al im$erati%e whi&h

says human eings must not use one another as means to an end.

7n the $resent state of so&iety, he says, men and women are unale

to en&ounter one another as free and e;ual indi%iduals.+*

What 7 find most remar!ale aout Weininger is the &larity of his

insight into his own intense misogyny. ' few feminists of the time

re&ogniEed the %alue of this.

Iany women IN feel instin&ti%ely that, as Weininger e$resses

it, the man does des$ise them and hold them in &ontem$t, and

they des$ise themsel%es.+

he real im$ortan&e of this oo! lies in its so fully &on&entrating

and &arrying to its logi&al &on&lusion the andro-&entri& %iew of

humanity.+

What nglishman has the &ourage and &larity to s$ea! his inmost

thoughts li!e that8+B

His attem$ts to e$lain male su/e&ti%ity, his $er&e$tion of the

&onne&tions etween misogyny and self-hatred, and his &riti;ue of

femininity as destru&ti%e to women are rare among feminists or

anti-feminists of his time. "Weininger &ites no feminist author in his

13+ $ages of iliogra$hy#.+? Howe%er, his &hara&teriEation of

Woman2s diffuse $hysi&al and $sy&hologi&al sel%es in%ol%es a dee$ly&onfused and &onfusing sli$$age etween Woman and women. i!e



4reud and many others he &on&ludes that Woman is a mystery,

un!nowale. =ut he e$lains why:

he highest form of eroti&ism, as mu&h as the lowest form ofseuality, uses the woman not for herself ut as a means to an

end to $reser%e the indi%iduality of the artist. he artist has

used the woman merely as the s&reen on whi&h to $ro/e&t his

own idea IN

Woman is nothing ut man2s e$ression and $ro/e&tion of his

own seuality. %ery man &reates himself a woman, in whi&h he

emodies himself and his own guilt. IN Dhe is only a $art of

man, his other, ineradi&ale, his lower $art.+9

He &ould hardly e$ress more &learly the asis for men2s hatred for

women as a form of self-hatred. lsewhere he says, 5he hatred of the

woman is always an unsu&&essfully o%er&ome hate of one2s own

seuality.2 30 7n the end, then, it is the enemy within who has to e

!illed. 5o%e is a $henomenon of $ro/e&tion /ust as hate is, not a

$henomenon of e;uation as friendshi$ is IN IDeual union,

&onsidered ethi&ally, $sy&hologi&ally, and iologi&ally, is allied to

murder) it is the negation of the woman and the man I... o%e is

murder,2 e&ause it destroys the reality of the woman.31 'lthough in

theory this lea%es o$en the $ossiility of lo%e etween men,

Weininger2s all-im$ortant logi& im$lies that su&h a lo%e would ha%e to

e non-seual.

* * *

>is&ussing the re&e$tion of Weininger2s oo!, author 4ord ado

4ord writes:



I7t had an immense international %ogue. 7t was towards the middle

of 20 Iwhen the nglish translation &ame out that one egan to

hear in the men2s &lus of ngland and in the &afPs of 4ran&e and

(ermany IN singular mutterings amongst men IN %en in theAnited Dtates where men ne%er tal! aout women, &ertain whis$ers

might e heard. he idea was that a new gos$el had a$$eared. 7

rememer sitting with a tale full of o%erearing intelle&tuals in that

year, and they at on&e egan to tal! aout Weininger IN under

their reaths.3+

1903, the year of first $uli&ation, also saw a new wa%e of agitation

for women2s suffrage in ngland, initiated y the Women2s Do&ial

and <oliti&al Anion "WD<A#. =y 190 militant &am$aigns were well

under way, and $oliti&ians &ould no longer s$ea! in $uli& without

eing interru$ted y &ries of 5Votes for Women.2 '&&ording to 4ord,

ad%an&ed young men, 5serious, im$ro%ing, ethi&al, IN &areless

aout dress and without e&e$tion oung ierals,2 dis&ussed

Weininger in relation to these unruly suffragettes, and their tones

5&ontained a miture of relief, of than!sgi%ing, of &hastened

/uilations, of regret and of os&enity. IN 4or Ihe had $ro%ed to

them that women were inferior animals IN 'nd they were IN

unfeignedly than!ful.2 Go longer need they 5li%e u$ to the idea that

women should ha%e /usti&e INQ 7n this res$e&t they would at least

e ale to e at one with the ordinary male man. 7t made them

%ery ha$$y.2 33

4ord de$i&ts Weininger eing used to %alidate misogyny, or rather to

re&onstru&t it in a new form. His a&&ount sustantiates the theories

of those feminists, in $arti&ular Dheila Jeffreys, who see seology as

$art of an antifeminist a&!lash.3* he editor of The #ndi"idualist

wrote that the worst as$e&ts of men2s &hara&ter had een roused ythe ad%an&e of the women2s re%olution, and that Weininger2s



5aominale2 oo! &ould not ha%e sold so well 5were not the demand

for e$ression of foul hatred of woman $re%alent in a &ertain

;uarter2.3 =ut although Weininger2s wor! was o$enly wel&omed y

some (erman anti-feminists, their nglish &ounter$arts, whate%erthey said in low %oi&es among themsel%es, in $uli& re$udiated his

wor! for its seualiEed a&&ount of womanhood. 'n anonymous

re%iewer in The Times Literary Su!!lement wrote:

Anderneath all this %eriage there is little more than an assertion

in te&hnologi&al $hraseology of the ahomedan or ormon %iew

that woman is merely an unintelle&tual and non-moral organism

for the $er$etuation of the ra&e IN the dis&ussion of matters

whi&h IN are &ommonly e&luded from &on%ersation IN seems

to ha%e een well re&ei%ed IN in (ermany.3

he ma/ority of nglish readers, the writer &ontinues, &an

&onfidently e e$e&ted to re/e&t it. isogyny, it seems, &onforms to

national &hara&ter. ' similar &omment in an 'meri&an &ontet is

made y feminist @harlotte <er!ins (ilman who in her re%iew of the

oo! a&&uses Weininger of ta!ing the 5oriental2 $osition that women

ha%e no souls.3B 7n fa&t, in his own twist of orientalist rhetori&,

Weininger e$li&itly re$udiates what he &alls the 5'siati& system2 of

women2s seual o$$ression whi&h he sees o$erating in his own

so&iety.3?

' more &om$le res$onse to Weininger &ame from influential

(erman seologist 7wan =lo&h whose oo! The Sexual Li$e o$ %ur

Time was $ulished in nglish in 190?. =lo&h, denying that male

homoseuals are ne&essarily women haters, laels misogynists su&h

as Weininger a 5fourth se2. He &alls Weininger 5the a$ostle of

asexuality 2 "em$hasis in original#, 5whose %iews are un;uestionalystrongly $athologi&al IN the wor! of a lunati&2.39 >es$ite these



&omments, elsewhere in his oo! =lo&h treats Weininger2s theories

&riti&ally ut seriously, rather than as the ra%ings of a madman.

'lready we &an see that there is no one sim$le way in whi&hWeininger2s wor! was eing understood. His re$udiation of seual

inter&ourse etween men and women, whi&h =lo&h ta!es as a sign

oth of misogyny and of madness, &ould e seen in a ;uite different

light. Re%olutionary &elia&y was a &all eing heard from some

strange edfellows at this $eriod. olstoy, for instan&e "&ited y

Weininger#,*0 ad%o&ated &elia&y as a means to greater s$irituality,

and his writings on the relations of the sees were deated in

ngland y @hristian so&ialists and anar&hists among whom the 5se

;uestion2 was at the forefront of deates aout how to li%e a new

life.*1 any feminists and their male su$$orters res$onded to the

seual doule standard with a &all for &hastity for men. ' few went

further, &laiming that until women were fully eman&i$ated, e;ual

seual relations were im$ossile. Dheila Jeffreys $oints out that for

many women su&h arguments led to a &ons&ious $oliti&al &hoi&e of

s$insterhood.*+ Dome men were also $utting forward similar

arguments. 4or eam$le twenty-year-old anar&hist-&ommunist (uy

'ldred argued in The &eligion and 'conomics o$ Sex %!!ression that

marriage is a li&en&e to ra$e, that as long as women are

e&onomi&ally, legally and so&ially unfree they are o$$ressed y

seual inter&ourse in or outside marriage, and that men and women

should ideally relate as non-seual friends and &om$anions.*3

Dome homoseual men, most notaly dward @ar$enter, used

e%olutionary theory to argue that humans were e%ol%ing towards a

s$iritual stage eyond gender and seuality, and that uranians were

in the %anguard of this $ro&ess."5Aranian2, 5urning2, or, after 190?,

5intermediate2 were $referred to 5homoseual2 as terms of self-identifi&ation y oth men and women in the early years of the



&entury.# heoreti&ally, for them aseuality was not a transitional

demand, ut a desired end. Din&e e$ression of their own seuality

was illegal, this &ould e seen as merely an e$edient $osition,

although the idea a$$ears in $ri%ate &orres$onden&e as well,suggesting genuine elief. Dimilar notions were shared y some

lesians, for instan&e those in%ol%ed with the 'Sthni& Anion, whi&h

ho$ed for an androgynous, aseual future.

@ar$enter himself, howe%er, was not $re$ared to renoun&e se

$uli&ly or $ri%ately, and as 7 will show, &hose to fo&us on other

as$e&ts of Weininger2s wor!. @ar$enter holds an uneasy $la&e in the

$antheon of seology, and is often omitted altogether. here are

se%eral $ossile reasons for this, not least the $ro$ensity of writers

on the su/e&t to &onstru&t theoreti&al lineages whi&h lend su$$ort

to those $ers$e&ti%es and methodologies they themsel%es fa%our.

@ar$enter did not write as a s&ientist ( although ;ualified to do so,

and he $refigured modern radi&al &riti;ues of s&ien&e, &laiming that

it often emodied the $re/udi&es of the day. His methodology was

e&le&ti&) his writings draw on so&ialist uto$ianism, feminism, Hindu

mysti&ism, anthro$ology and e%olutionary theory with e;ual

enthusiasm. Anli!e other seologi&al writings of the $eriod, all his

wor! was intended for a general readershi$. Deology was to ha%e a

long and ne%er entirely su&&essful struggle to estalish itself as a

re$utale dis&i$line, and @ar$enter, with his anar&hist and so&ialist

&onne&tions and his un&on&ealed homoseuality, &ould hardly e

&laimed as an o/e&ti%e s&holar. "Heteroseuality is rarely seen as a

dis;ualifi&ation for writing on the su/e&t.#

's his writings show, for him the $ersonal in&luding the seual

and the $oliti&al were inse$arale. Ha%elo&! llis was to &all him 5a

$ioneer in li%ing almost o$enly a homoseual life, whi&h needs arare &omination of s!ill and &ourage IN He su&&eeded where



Os&ar Wilde miseraly failed.2 ** llis soli&ited @ar$enter2s ad%i&e,

information, and life e$erien&es when writing his own oo! Sexual

#n"ersion, de&lared an os&ene liel after its nglish $uli&ation in

1?9B. 7t was many years efore llis was again ale or willing to$ulish in ngland on seuality, or to $uli&ly asso&iate himself with

radi&al &auses. 7n the early years of this &entury, then, @ar$enter

stands in ngland as a lone figure writing in $ositi%e terms aout

homoseuality and arguing for seual and women2s lieration as an

integral $art of $rogress towards a good so&iety. He &ould $erha$s

e &alled an intermediate seologist, his wor! ridging those

$ur$ortedly o/e&ti%e writings aimed at an elite audien&e of e$erts

and $rofessionals, and the $ri%ate s$e&ulations of indi%iduals

un&ertain how to understand their feelings and e$erien&es. Well

!nown as a le&turer and writer, his wor!s dealing with seuality

rought him letters and $ilgrims from all o%er the world) he was

seen as someone who li%ed his $oliti&s and &ould hel$ others do

li!ewise.

arly in 1?9 @ar$enter $ulished, for $ri%ate &ir&ulation only, the

$am$hlet )omogenic Lo"e: and its *lace in a Free Society( in whi&h

he argued that same-se lo%e was natural, had a $ositi%e $art to

$lay in so&ial $rogress, and should not e $erse&uted. ater that

year, amidst huge $uli&ity, Os&ar Wilde was tried and im$risoned

for homoseual a&ts) @ar$enter was one of his few $uli&

su$$orters. 't the time, @ar$enter was $re$aring to $ulish Lo"e+s

Coming o$ ,ge, in&or$orating re%isions of earlier $am$hlets on se,

marriage and women ut although at this stage he was not

$ro$osing to in&lude )omogenic Lo"e, his $ulisher too! fright,

&an&elling the &ontra&t. 5he Wilde trial had done its wor!) and

silen&e must hen&eforth reign on se-su/e&ts2, &omments

@ar$enter.

*

He e%entually managed to get the oo! $ulished in1?9 y the aour <ress in an&hester and it sold so well that y



190+ it was ta!en u$ y Dwan Donnens&hein in ondon, who also

that year $ulished @ar$enter2s #olaus: an ,nthology o$ Friendshi!,

&elerating same se friendshi$s "mainly male# through the ages.

=y 190 Lo"e+s Coming o$ ,ge was in its fifth edition and in&luded anew &ha$ter &alled 5he 7ntermediate De2, ased on an 1?9B arti&le

5'n An!nown <eo$le.2 7t was in a 190 re%ision of that arti&le that

@ar$enter first used the term 5intermediate2 a &on&e$t he was to

de%elo$ most fully in his oo!, The #ntermediate Sex , $ulished in

190?.*

@ar$enter, a feminist and su$$orter of the suffrage mo%ement,

elie%ed that uranians not /ust intermediates ut intermediaries

&ould hel$ heteroseual men and women towards a etter

understanding of one another, and that male uranians were more

naturally sym$atheti& to women and their fight for freedom. When

Sex and Character a$$eared in nglish, one of his women friends

ho$ed that he would 5$ulish a &ounter last.2 *B 7nstead, when The

#ntermediate Sex a$$eared two years later, @ar$enter too! its

e$igra$h from Weininger. 7n $art, it reads: 5he im$roaility may

IN e ta!en for granted of finding in Gature a shar$ &lea%age

etween all that is mas&uline IN and all that is feminine IN or that

any li%ing eing is so sim$le in this res$e&t that it &an e $ut wholly

on one side, or wholly on the other, of the line.2 *?

7gnoring Weininger2s misogyny, @ar$enter &hooses ;uotations firstly

to strengthen his own arguments for the naturalness of different

forms of seuality, and se&ondly to suggest tentati%ely that $erha$s

all men and women, not /ust uranians, ha%e oth male and female

&hara&teristi&s. @ar$enter2s &on&e$t of the intermediate se thus

has more fleiility than other &urrent &on&e$ts li!e seual in%ersion

or the third se, whi&h de$end on notions of fied gender&hara&teristi&s and identifialy different sugrou$s. Weininger



himself writes: 5Do long as there are two sees, there will always e

a woman ;uestion, /ust as there will e the $rolem of man!ind.

IN truth will not $re%ail until the two e&ome one, until from man

and woman a third self, neither man nor woman, is e%ol%ed.2 *9

Anli!e third se theories whi&h lea%e un&hallenged the dualism of

an and Woman, Weininger2s 5third self2 is not an additional

&ategory ut may e inter$reted as trans&ending &ategory

altogether. =oth @ar$enter and Weininger argued that

homoseuality was natural and re/e&ted the $re%alent $athologi&al

models and the multi$li&ation of seual &ategories $rodu&ed y

&ontem$orary seologies. While @ar$enter suggests that it may e

the &ase that there is some degree of intermedia&y in most $eo$le,

Weininger &laims that all humans are oth heteroseual and

homoseual, mas&uline and feminine. his &laim that all men and

women are to a greater or lesser degree intermediate was ta!en u$

with $arti&ular enthusiasm y some readers, who inter$reted the

idea %ariously in their struggle to formulate ways of thin!ing aout

their feelings and e$erien&es. he &omination of Weininger2s

uni%ersalism with @ar$enter2s high %aluation of intermedia&y

$rodu&ed a self-affirming &ontet in whi&h to dis&uss their own li%es.

his &reati%e inter$retation and a$$ro$riation of Weininger,

@ar$enter and other seologists &an e seen among memers of the

friendshi$ and $oliti&al networ!s around The Freewoman0 7ts

editor, indi%idualist anar&hist >ora arsden, was a former

suffragette organiser. he $a$er2s o$en editorial $oli&y meant its

readers and &ontriutors &ame from a wide range of o&&u$ations

and $oliti&al $ers$e&ti%es, and it e&ame notorious for its o$en

dis&ussion of seual matters. @ar$enter, a sus&rier and

&ontriutor, ga%e $uli& su$$ort for its 5roadminded and

&ourageous2 &ontriution to 5the &ause of free and rationaldis&ussion of human $rolems.2 1 The Freewoman+s readiness to



dis&uss $oliti&al and seual re%olution meant that it was denoun&ed

in The Times, anned y W. H Dmith, and su/e&t to harassment y

the $oli&e. ore than /ust a $a$er, it seeded s$in-off grou$s, and its

>is&ussion @ir&le meetings attra&ted large numers to hear tal!s onsu&h su/e&ts as se o$$ression, eugeni&s and $rostitution.

7n 1911, >ora arsden was intending to write a $hiloso$hi&al wor!

in&or$orating a &riti;ue of Weininger+) her friend ary (awthor$e

urged her to allow herself the time $ro$erly to 5set the alan&e to

the Weininger-GietE&he-4reud e&esses.2 3 he &losest arsden

&ame to this was to $ulish long sele&tions from Sex and Character ,

&ommenting on them in an editorial in whi&h she oth $raises and

&riti&ises Weininger. His genius, she says, was to re&ogniEe the two

great o$$ositions, $ersonality and amor$housness) his 5oyish

misstatement2 to lo&ate these res$e&ti%ely in men, and in Jews and

women. 7f 5femaleness2 is not &o-etensi%e with the term 5women2,

ut refers to a loss of $ersonality, then it is, she agrees, 5the (reat

>enial the thing to e o%er&ome2 in women and men. * Dome

suse;uent &ontriutors atta&!ed the de&ision to $ulish

Weininger2s 5$oison2, ut his influen&e is e%ident in a numer of

arti&les on seuality, $arti&ularly those deating homoseuality.

he su/e&t is first roa&hed in The Freewoman y Harry =irnstingl

in the arti&le 5Aranians2. =irnstingl, an ar&hite&t, was a su$$orter of

women2s suffrage) his aunts, 6ate and thel =irnstingl were WD<A

memers and early sus&riers to The Freewoman. thel and her

long-time &om$anion 'li&e <ollard ran a feminist oo!sho$ in

ondon. Harry, a friend of >ora arsden and her &om$anion (ra&e

Jardine, wrote fre;uently for the $a$er and ga%e tal!s to the

>is&ussion @ir&le. 7n 5Aranians2, $erha$s drawing on the e$erien&e

of his friends and relati%es, he $oints out that many women in thewomen2s mo%ement, far from eing seless s$insters, form



romanti&, $assionate relationshi$s with one another ased on their

&ommon struggle. 57t is s$lendid that these women IN should

suddenly find their destiny in thus wor!ing together for the freedom

of their se.2 He &ites @ar$enter2s $ositi%e &omments on uraniansand in language &learly drawn from Weininger says: 5he atoms

whi&h go to &om$ose the normal male and the normal female are

&a$ale of infinite &ominations.2 B

=efore $ulishing this arti&le >ora arsden had a$$roa&hed >r.

@harles Whity as 5a medi&al man2 for ad%i&e.? Whity, a so&ialist

who had $re%iously wor!ed at a dis$ensary in i%er$ool,

re&ommended $uli&ation, followed y a re$ly y himself. "He was

$aid ten shillings and si$en&e for this. Din&e &ontriutors were

normally un$aid, the transa&tion suggests $arti&ular aniety aout

the 5Aranians2 arti&le.#9 <referring 5homoseual2 to 5uranian2, using

the language of in%ersion and $er%ersion, anormality and

aerration, drawing on the s$e&tre of &hild ause, Whity at least

&on&edes that the $a$er is right to 5let the light of day into these

dar! and dusty &orners.2 0

7n re$ly, =irnstingl uses Whity2s own arguments to &laim, e&hoing

Weininger and @ar$enter, that 5all men and women are in a greater

or lesser degree 7ntermediates2, and &riti&ises Whity2s %iews on

mas&ulinity and femininity as well as uranianism.1 Whity2s

res$onse &on&edes that 5%ery human eing is in some sense an

in&arnate &ontradi&tion2, ut draws on iologi&al and ra&ial

dis&ourses of e%olution and degeneration as well as stereoty$es of

$athologi&ally "ut not &onstitutionally# effeminate men. 5here are

men, as r. =irnstingl must !now, with whom it is more

&om$romising for another man to e seen in the street than with a

$rostitute2, he writes.

+

' similar note of heteroseual $ani& &an eseen in another &ontriutor, 4aian lawyer .D.<. Haynes, who



"des$ite the fa&t that he li!es and agrees with =irnstingl# is so

anious aout a$$earing in the same /ournal ne%er mind the

street with him, that he as!s to e $ulished only as .D.<.H. o

use his full name would e 5li!e wal!ing through in&oln2s 7nn in$y/amas.2 3

=irnstingl $arti&ularly wanted his full name used. Other &ontriutors

used $seudonyms. 7n a letter drawing dire&tly u$on Weininger2s

seual e;uations, 5D&ython2 writes aout his real, inner self, 5?04 K

+02 "eighty $er &ent 4emale $lus twenty $er &ent ale#, &on&ealed

from all ut a few friends 5who !now me as 7 am.2 * Weininger2s

attem$t to $ro%ide mathemati&al formulae for an indi%idual2s $re&ise

;uantities of mas&ulinity and femininity may seem rigid and

s&ientisti&, if not ;uaint, ut in $ra&ti&e it allows the s&o$e to

enun&iate indi%idual %ariaility and to elude the &rude &lassifi&ations

of the seologists, as well as $ro%iding an ada$tale way of thin!ing

through $ersonal e$erien&e of gender dissonan&e.

'nother &ontriution, 5he 7ntelle&tual imitations of the LGormalM2

&ame from 'lert Twy, a trainee soli&itor who was a friend of

=irnstingl and ary (awthor$e. 7t was $ulished shortly after he

returned from a life-&hanging %isit to @ar$enter. "57n the mar%el of

your tou&h 7 learned the magi& se&rets of lo%e IN 7 !now now IN a

life-&ourse IN a ho$e-for&e.2# 7n his letter to the $a$er, Twy

argues that the %ast ma/ority of $eo$le are intermediates, neither

in%erts nor monoseuals. Related ideas &an e seen in the letters

of >a%id hom$son, a &lose friend of @ar$enter2s from 1?90s

Dheffield so&ialist &ir&les. On reading The #ntermediate Sex

hom$son, now married and wor!ing at the irary of @ongress in

Washington, wrote, 57 feel more and more that 7 am somewhat in

that &ategory2.

B

ater, a widower %isiting ngland, he wooed RuthDlate, a so&ialist feminist memer of the 4reewoman >is&ussion



@ir&le and fellow @ar$enter fan. 5<sy&hi&ally 7 thin! 7 am mu&h

nearer to women than to other men2, he wrote to her, 2ut &omined

with this intermediate tem$erament are most unruly mas&uline

odily desires Ii.e. for women.2 ater he s$ea!s of 5the woman $artof me.2 ? Other friends also drew on the fruitful amiguities of the

&on&e$t of intermedia&y. ' married man wrote se&retly to his lo%er

Jessie, "who li%ed with another woman#, &alling her a 5&hild of

Aranus2, and 5my dear, healthy, gay, $hiloso$her, wife, my oy and

&omrade.2 9 inna Dimmons, who had a $assionate $hysi&al

relationshi$ with %a Dlawson, as well as with men, is lent a &o$y

of The #ntermediate Sex and identifies herself as 5an eaning Isi&2.B0

4or all of them, the &on&e$t of intermedia&y o$ens u$ rather than

fore&loses ways of thin!ing aout gender and seuality.

u&y =land argues that The Freewoman generated a s$a&e for the

$uli& dis&ussion of new ideas aout gender and seuality, with

women &ontriutors in $arti&ular ma!ing sele&ti%e use of seologi&al

ideas in an attem$t to re&onfigure heteroseuality for themsel%es.B1

7f heteroseuality is re&onfigured, so also is homoseuality. hough

>ora arsden &alled in The Freewoman for the %oi&e of dire&t

e$erien&e,B+ she and other women in%ol%ed in $assionate

relationshi$s with one another generally !e$t $uli& silen&e on these

issues. Howe%er $ri%ate letters show women as well as men were

drawing on seology as $art of the $ro&ess of formulating an

identity.B3 's =land says, the language of seuality was y no means

fied during this $eriod.B* arsden &alls Weininger a $oet, and

although she had earlier argued for the im$ortan&e of $re&ise

definitions in order to dis&uss se 5s&ientifi&ally, &leanly, and o$enly,2

she says elsewhere 5the LDe-$sy&hologistM should e a $oet, not a

$hysi&al s&ientist.2 B he Freewoman arti&les and &orres$onden&e

and the $ri%ate letters and diaries all show their writers using termsinter&hangealy from ;uite different &on&e$tual framewor!s,



ost a&&ounts of seology, whether $resenting it as ste$$ing

stone, osta&le, or something to e negotiated, are emedded

within a narrati%e of $rogress towards &ontem$orary seualenlightenment, and tend to fo&us only on those figures who &an

e seen as on the right tra&!. <erha$s this is ine%itale as

@ar$enter &ogently argued, there are limits to how far we &an

es&a$e the $resu$$ositions of our own time?1 ut a more

&areful attention to the uses and users of seology gi%es us a

more &om$le %ersion of how $arti&ular seologies affe&ted and

were affe&ted y li%ed e$erien&es 7n s$a&es they &ar%ed out for

themsel%es, we &an see women and gay men e&oming the

authors rather than the o/e&ts of dis&ussion, and &an egin to

understand something of how they negotiated their identities and

understood their dee$est feelings. he sear&h for truth, says >ora

arsden, is the sear&h for a di%ersity of %oi&es, all with their own

tales to tell.?+ What matters ao%e all is what tales a tet ma!es

$ossile. &le&ti&ism, seen as a wea!ness y the theoreti&ally

in&lined, &an also e seen as a strength. hose readers who

ignored the un$alatale as$e&ts of Weininger2s wor! were not

endorsing them) they were ta!ing what they needed in order to

&onstru&t their own %ersions of the world.



1 5(es&hle&t2, as well as &arrying the amiguities of the nglish word 5se2, also means

ra&e, s$e&ies, family, generation. his linguisti& o%erloading adds to the &om$leity of the

symoli& &onne&tions rehearsed in the oo!.

2 Ja;ues le Rider, Le Cas %tto .eininger : racines de l+anti$/minisme et de l+antis/mitisme

"<resses Ani%ersitaires de 4ran&e, <aris, 19?+#.

3 han!s to Jean Rose for this information.

4 (ra&e 4reud to @ar$enter, +0 O&t. 190, @ar$enter @olle&tion, Dheffield.

5 >ora arsden, 5he man&i$ation of an2, Freewoman, 1:+0, '$ril *, 191+, $$.3?1-+.

6 >a%id 'rahamsen, The 0ind and Death o$ a Genius, "@olumia Ani%ersity <ress, Gew

or!, 19*#.

7 Vin&ent =rome, Freud and )is 'arly Circle, "Heinemann, ondon, 19B#) e Rider, Le

Cas %tto .eininger .

8 Roert usil and 6arl 6raus ;uoted in 'llen Jani! and Dte$hen oulmin, .ittgenstein+s

1ienna, "Weidenfeld and Gi&olson, ondon, 19B3#, $$. 33, B.

9 7id) @arl . D&hors!e, Fin-de-Sicle 1ienna, "6no$f, Gew or! 19?0#.

10 Josef 4raen!el, ed., The 2ews o$ ,ustria( "Vallentine, it&hell and @o., ondon, 19B#)

e Rider, Le Cas %tto .eininger

11 6arin J. Juse!, 5Deual morality and the meaning of $rostitution in fin-de-si&le Vienna2,

in From Sa!!ho to de Sade: 0oments in the )istory o$ Sexuality , ed.Jan =remmer

"Routledge, ondon, 1991#, $$.1+3-*+.

12

Harriet 'nderson, 3to!ian Feminism: .omen+s 0o"ements in $in-de-sicle 1ienna,

"ale Ani%ersity <ress, ondon, 199+#.

13 @harlotte Wolff, 0agnus )irsch$eld , "uartet, ondon, 19?#.

14 Weininger, Sex and Character , "Heinemann, ondon, 190#, $$.B+-3, 3+9.

15 7id, $. i.



16 7id, $$.*-.

17 7id, $.*?.

18 7id, $$., B.

19 7id, $$.+9+, ??-?9.

20 7id, <art wo, @ha$ter 10.

21 7id, $$. 9+, +?B.

22 7id, $$.303-*.

23 7id, $$.3*?-9.

24 7id, $$.3*3-9.

25

' (rateful Reader, Freewoman, 1:+, ay 9, 191+, $.*9B.

26 @harlotte <er!ins (ilman, 5>r. Weininger2s LDe and @hara&terM2, Critic , :*?, ay 190,

$$. *1*-B.

27 arsden, 5he man&i$ation of an.2

28 Otto Weininger, Geschlecht und Charakter: 'ine *rin4i!ielle 3ntersuchung, "=raumller,

Vienna and ei$Eig, 1903#.

29 Weininger, Sex and Character , $$.+*?, 300.

30 Weininger, Taschenbuch, &ited in Dander . (ilman, 2ewish Sel$ )atred: anti-semitism

and the hidden language o$ the 2ews( "Johns Ho$!ins, ondon, 19?# $.+*B

31 Weininger, Sex and Character , $$.+*, +*?-9.

32 4ord ado 4ord, .omen and 0en, "@onta&t ditions, <aris, 19+3#, $.30.

33 7id, $$.30-3+.

34 Dheila Jeffreys, The S!inster and her 'nemies, "<andora, ondon, 19?#.

35 5Gotes and @omments2, #ndi"idualist , GD+:31?, ar&h-'$ril 191+, $.1?.

36 Times Literary Su!!lement( 4eruary 1, 190, *&.

37 (ilman, 5>r. Weininger2s LDe and @hara&terM2.



38 Weininger, Sex and Character , $.3*3.

39 7wan =lo&h, The Sexual Li$e o$ %ur Time, tr. den <aul, "Heinemann, ondon, 190?#,

$$.*?1, 9, 11B-1?.

40 Weininger, Geschlecht und Charakter( $.9.

41 eo olstoy, The &elations o$ the Sexes, "4ree 'ge <ress, @. W. >aniel, ondon, n.d.# is

$roaly the $am$hlet &ited y Weininger and read y Ruth Dlate and %a Dlawson. Dlate

to Dlawson, +* 4e. 190?) Dlawson2s diary, 1 '$ril, 1913, Dlate @olle&tion, ondon. Dee

also ierl hom$son ed., Dear Girl: The diaries and letters o$ two working women 5678-

5758( "Women2s <ress, ondon, 19?B#) >ennis Hardy ( ,lternati"e Communities in

9ineteenth Century 'ngland , "ongman, ondon, 19B9#.

42 Jeffreys, The S!inster and )er 'nemies.

43 (uy 'ldred, The &eligion and 'conomics o$ Sex %!!ression, "=a!unin <ress, ondon,

190B#.

44 Ha%elo&! llis, &ited in Dte$hen Winsten, Salt and )is Circle( "Hut&hinson, ondon,

191#, $.1+.

45 dward @ar$enter, 0y Days and Dreams( 3rd edn., "(eorge 'llen and Anwin, ondon,

191?#, $. 19.

46 dward @ar$enter, ,n 3nknown *eo!le( "'. and H.=. =onner, ondon, 1?9B, 190#) The

#ntermediate Sex : , Study o$ Some Transitional Ty!es o$ 0en and .omen, "Dwan

Donnens&hein, ondon, 190?#.

47 (ra&e 4reud to @ar$enter, +0 O&toer, 190, @ar$enter @olle&tion.

48 @ar$enter, The #ntermediate Sex( e$igra$h.

49 Weininger, Sex and Character , $. 3*.

50 7t e&ame The 9ew Freewoman, 5'n 7ndi%idualist Re%iew2 in 1913, efore finally

metamor$hosing into a non-feminist literary /ournal, The 'goist , in 191*.



51 dward @ar$enter, 9ew Freewoman, 1:+, 1 July, 1913, $.*0.

52 es (arner, , Bra"e and Beauti$ul S!irit: Dora 0arsden 566-57;<( "'%eury:

'ldershot, 1990#, $.1**.

53

ary (awthor$e to arsden, +9 De$t. 191+) +0 'ug. 1913, arsden @olle&tion,

<rin&eton.

54 >ora arsden, 5De and @hara&ter, Freewoman, +:30, 13 June, 191+, $$.1-3.

55 5rue Womanhood2, Freewoman, +:+?, 30 ay, 191+, $.3?.

56 WD<A 'nnual Re$orts 190?-13 "WD<A, ondon#) further information than!s to artin

=irnstingl.

57 Harry J. =irnstingl, 5Aranians2, Freewoman, 1:B, * Jan., 191+, $$.1+B-?. his is

$roaly the $ie&e whi&h led Roert Ross, "friend and sometime lo%er of Os&ar Wilde# to

en;uire aout him. .D.<. Haynes to arsden, 1 4e. 191+, arsden @olle&tion.

58 @harles J. Whity, 5ertium uid2, The Freewoman, 1:9, 1? Jan., 191+, $$.1B-9.

59 Whity to arsden, +9 >e&. 1911) + 4e. 191+, arsden @olle&tion.

60 Whity, 5ertium uid2.

61 =irnstingl, 5he Human inority2, Freewoman, 1:1+, ? 4e., 191+, $.+3.

62 @harles J. Whity, 5' atter of aste2, Freewoman, 1:11, 1 4e., 191+, $$.+1-.

63 .D.<. Haynes to arsden, B Go%. 1911) +9 ar. 191+, arsden @olle&tion.

64 D&ython, Freewoman, 1:1*, ++ 4e., 191+, $.+B*. 5D&ython2 may ha%e een '.I8

Damuel or Harold <i&ton. Dee letters from Damuel, 1+ Go%. 191+ and <i&ton, +* O&t.

1913, arsden @olle&tion.

65 'lert Twy to @ar$enter, 9 O&toer, 1911, @ar$enter @olle&tion. r. and rs H. Twy,

sus&riers, and friends of ary (awthor$e, were $roaly his $arents. Dee Freewoman

a&&ounts, n.d.) letter to arsden, * ay, 1911, arsden @olle&tion.



66 'lert . Twy, 5he 7ntelle&tual imitations of the LGormalM2, Freewoman, 1:11, 1 4e.,

191+, $.+1+.

67 >a%id hom$son to @ar$enter, + De$t. 1909, @ar$enter @olle&tion.

68 hom$son to Dlate, 10 >e&. 1913) 30 ar. 191, Dlate @olle&tion.

69 <oul ittler to Jessie arsh, 10 June, 19+1) ? Go%. 19+1, Dlate @olle&tion.

70 inna Dimmons to Dlate, Jan. 191B, Dlate @olle&tion.

71 u&y =land, Banishing the Beast: 'nglish Feminism and Sexual 0orality 566=-575>(

"<enguin, ondon, 199 ?, @ha$ter B.

72 >ora arsden, 5On 'ffirmations2, Freewoman, 1:13, 1 4e., 191+, $$.+*3-*) 5Views

and @omments2, 9ew Freewoman, 1:9, 1 O&t., 1913, $.1.

73 Dee =land, Banishing the Beast , @ha$ter B) iE Dtanley, 5$istemologi&al 7ssues in

Resear&hing esian History: he @ase of Romanti& 4riendshi$2, in Hilary Hinds, 'nn

<hoeni and Ja&!ie Dta&ey, eds., .orking %ut : 9ew Directions $or .omen+s Studies,

"4almer <ress, ondon, 199+#, $$.11-1B+.

74 =land, Banishing the Beast( @ha$ter B.

75 >ora arsden, 5he Gew orality2, Freewoman, 1:, +? >e&., 1911, $.101-+) 5ore

<lain D$ea!ing2, 1:1B, 1* ar., 191+, $.33+) 5Views and @omments2, $.1.

76 @ar$enter, The #ntermediate Sex , $.1*.

77 Twy, 5he 7ntelle&tual imitations of the LGormalM2.

78 =irnstingl, 53ranians2.

79 6ate Dalt to @ar$enter, ++ O&t., 1909, @ar$enter @olle&tion.

80 =irnstingl, 5he Human inority2.

81 dward @ar$enter, 5odern D&ien&e: ' @riti&ism2, in @ar$enter, Ci"ilisation: its Cause

and Cure, "'llen and Anwin, ondon, 19+1#, $$.B9-119.

82 arsden, 5On 'ffirmations2) 5Views and @omments2.

weininger for download

Documents