Throughout history, the female body has been shaped not merely as a biological entity, but also as a site of ideological, social, and political struggle. Decisions about when, where, and how women should behave, what they should wear, what they can or cannot say, have been regulated not only by patriarchal structures but also by the authoritarian and normative apparatuses of the modern state. As a result, the female body has been pushed beyond the boundaries of politics and the public sphere, confined instead to the private realm, leading to the invisibilization of women as individuals. Words such as “reproduction,” “care” and “obedience” have become synonymous with the female body.
Unfortunately, in many countries today, women’s participation in the public sphere is obstructed, either directly or indirectly and social control over the female body persists. Public debates surrounding issues such as pressure to bear children, the right to abortion, the regulation of female sexuality, and the tabooing of conversations around menstruation are still ongoing, and the politics of a body that belongs to women continues to be dictated. There are many groups disturbed by women defending their own rights and taking action. Yet the very first moment in which a person realizes their humanity occurs through the act of doing and this is what truly makes an individual an individual.
According to Hannah Arendt, if people obey authority unquestioningly and comply with everything without speaking out against what they know to be wrong, they cannot be human before they are free. Arendt uses the term vita activa to give meaning to human life. This concept defines three fundamental activities that determine human existence: Labor, Work, and Action (Arendt, 1958, p. 7). The basic condition of labor is life itself. Labor corresponds to the biological processes of the human body. These are the essential acts performed to stay alive, such as eating. It is an activity that occurs in the individual’s private realm; it concerns only the individual and their closest circle. In this sphere, there is no exchange, no interaction with others.
Work, by contrast, moves beyond the private realm and into the public sphere. Unlike labor, it involves the production of tangible objects and takes place within a framework of exchange. The final activity is action. Action is the only activity that occurs directly between people. It is the first act through which a person becomes aware of their own humanity. It is the foundation of political life; for it is through action that new beginnings become possible. Indeed, according to Arendt, the basis of political life is not death but birth, because every newborn individual carries the potential for a new beginning, and it is through this potential that individuals can take action (Arendt, 1958, p. 9).
Arendt argues that a person becomes truly “human” not merely through their biological existence, but through their capacity to act, speak, and engage in interaction within the public realm. For her, the question of who someone is can only be revealed through action and speech. As Arendt states:
“Men can show who they are, reveal actively their unique personal identities, only through speech and action. Without the accompaniment of speech, action would lose its revelatory character as well as the actor himself. Action without speech no longer appears as action because there is no actor left to appear.” (Arendt, 1958, p. 179)
This line of thought offers a powerful conceptual foundation for analyzing the phenomenon of the “invisibility of women”. The exclusion of women from the public sphere signifies not only the denial of their political rights but also the stripping away of their humanity as individuals. According to Arendt, a life lived without speech and action is, in the truest sense, dead to the world; it ceases to be a human life because it is no longer lived among others (Arendt, 1958, p. 176).
In other words, a person loses their humanity when the possibility of action is taken from them. From that point onward, they are gradually deprived of all rights. What is fundamentally taken away is the “right to have rights”. True freedom -true republicanism- lies in the ability of each individual to determine what their rights are and to possess them.
This is why the right to speak, to debate, and to access the public sphere is essential. If the “right to have rights” is denied, then one is effectively excluded from the public sphere and stripped of participation in human activity. When the possibilities for action are removed from the individual, they become invisible in the world and are no longer a political or social subject.
This condition emerges when authoritarian and totalitarian regimes seek to take away or restrict people’s capacity for action. In Iran, a theocratic authoritarian regime, a woman named Mahsa Amini died on September 13, 2022, after being detained by the “morality police” for allegedly violating mandatory hijab regulations. While eyewitnesses stated that she was beaten inside a police van, Iranian authorities persistently denied any responsibility for her death, claiming that she died of heart failure. However, in March, a United Nations fact-finding mission reported finding evidence of physical trauma on Amini’s body while in police custody and expressed certainty that the physical violence she was subjected to caused her death.
Following Amini’s death, protests erupted; some women cut their hair in public, proclaiming through their act: “I am her”. Mahsa Amini’s detention for not complying with hijab rules and her subsequent death was not merely an isolated act of intervention by a morality officer, it was part of a systematic surveillance and control over the visibility of the female body in the public sphere.
In Saudi Arabia, women were prohibited from driving until 2018. The very purpose of this ban was to limit women’s physical mobility. Preventing women from participating in public life also meant denying their recognition as political beings. As a result, women were kept from engaging in the public sphere and, consequently, were unable to discover their roles among others. This condition arises from the fact that women have long been associated solely with labor, the lowest tier of the vita activa, and have remained confined to it.
In Ancient Greece, the agora was a political space where citizens gathered to discuss common matters and express their opinions. However, Arendt draws attention to the transformation of the agora’s meaning. According to her, many modern social structures have redefined the agora not as a space for political participation, but merely as a “marketplace” where artisans display and exchange their goods (Arendt, 1958, p. 160).
Even though people may believe they do not compromise their views in such settings, every encounter with a new idea leaves a mark on the individual. These encounters, through the clash of subjective opinions (doxai) give rise to new thoughts. For Arendt, this is a positive development, because the act of producing doxa signifies that people have begun to act.
Mutual interaction, the engagement of ideas and indeed, the existence and expression of differences is, according to Arendt, the very nature of politics. This notion provides the theoretical foundation for the deliberative model of republicanism. As Arendt states:
“Plurality is the condition of human action because we are all the same, that is, human, in such a way that nobody is ever the same as anyone else who ever lived, lives, or will live.” (Arendt, 1958, p. 8)
If a political order based on the principle of plurality is established, women can become visible. Arendt emphasizes that in order to transcend the boundaries of the private and access the public sphere, a republican form of government is necessary, specifically, a deliberative republic. That is, a space where debate takes place, and all kinds of ideas can be expressed. However, this republic must not be one imposed from above; otherwise, it may vanish as suddenly as it appeared, because it lacks roots.
Change in the existing order is possible, for the visibility of women in the public realm through action has the power to transform authoritarian structures. As previously stated, the “capacity for new beginnings” possesses the potential to mobilize individuals.
Hannah Arendt’s concepts of freedom, action, and the public sphere offer a highly functional theoretical framework for understanding the political invisibility of women. However, this approach assumes that invisibility stems solely from “inaction” or “lack of access to the public realm,” and it tends to overlook the decisive role of political decision-making processes and power structures.
At this point, Carl Schmitt’s political theory provides a significant complement—or more precisely, a counterpoint, to Arendt’s perspective. According to Schmitt, the “political” is defined through the distinction between friend and enemy (Schmitt, 2006, p. 57).
Schmitt’s definition, “The enemy is, in a real possibility, a collective entity fighting against another collective of people. A collective, especially one grounded in an entire people, inherently carries a public character and therefore the enemy, too, is always a public enemy.” marks a clear contrast with Arendt’s view (Schmitt, 2006, p. 59).
While Arendt defends the public sphere as a space for emancipation and plurality, Schmitt views it as a realm of decision-making and exclusion. In this context, women’s visibility in the public sphere could, within a Schmittian framework, be categorized as that of an “enemy”. When considered through Schmitt’s conception of politics, the exclusion of women from the public realm becomes a matter of sovereignty.
According to Schmitt, “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception” (Schmitt, 2006, p. 68). This statement indicates that sovereignty is not confined to legislating or enforcing laws, but rather lies in the power to make decisions in moments of crisis. In this light, the exclusion of women from public life is often legitimized under the label of a “state of exception” and tied to the decision of the sovereign in many regimes.
In contrast to Arendt’s view, which advocates for individuals to express differing opinions and engage in action, Schmitt argues that people cannot coexist through rational deliberation or consensus. Instead, they come together under a “father” figure. This “father” in essence, is the state.
Individuals surrender their freedom to this figure and relinquish the authority to decide what they may wear, how they may speak, and even what they are allowed to think. In this context, the totalitarian state becomes a determining force not only over the public representation of women, but over every aspect of their social existence as well (Schmitt, 2006, p. 53).
The core argument of Schmitt’s political theory is that the individual binds themselves to a higher power by obeying the force that offers them protection. This understanding is explicitly articulated through the formula: “I protect, therefore I oblige” (protego ergo obligo) (Schmitt, 2006, p. 83).
Therefore, in addition to the lack of action emphasized by Arendt, women’s invisibility becomes, in Schmitt’s view, a mechanism through which sovereignty is continually reproduced. This mechanism does not seek women’s visibility, but rather demands their obedience and silence.
References
Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press.
Schmitt, C. (2006). The Concept of the Political (G. Schwab, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.
