Sunday, April 8, 2007

Zoe's Post on Sexual Difference and the Problem of Essentialism

In terms of questions, also consider how this piece illuminates or organizes the different approaches we’ve seen in terms of their confinement or commitment to revisiting patriarchal disciplines (psychoanalysis, physics etc)
Grosz identifies “an untheorized locus” in feminism’s “self-formation”. She identifies two major critiques of feminist theory: 1.) That feminist theory simply confirms pre-given commitments rather than objectively demonstrating them, and 2.) that feminist theory subversively re-inscribes the male dominant structures it seeks to interrogate. Both of these critiques, she says, are defined by desire for what she calls a “purity of position” (intellectual purity and social purity respectively). She uses the debate between the “so called” feminists of equality and feminists of difference to discuss the possibility of a self-reflexive critique of feminism. Does the notion of sexual difference liberate women from male categories or does it recontain women within essentialist patriarchal frameworks? She discusses four “touchstones of assesmnet within feminist theory which are taken to be “ self-evident” guidelines for analysis: essentialism, biologism, naturalism, and universalism. These ways of critiquing must themselves be interrogated
Equality feminists locate the potential for women’s liberation in the disruption of an expressive model of gender which they see as limiting the possibility of women to a fixed, biological destiny.
This second wave of feminism was characterized by a “logic of identification” which involved the disavowal of characteristics typically seen as feminine or maternal (and thus in conflict with participation the work-force). Equality feminists wanted to eliminate sexual difference, but this means:
• taking patriarchal values as something to which women should also aspire- this leaves the system itself unquestioned
• achieving equality between sexes would mean minimizing what distinguishes women from men( she cites the common disavowal of maternity in egalitarian feminists)
• the notion of equality reduces all specificities such that the oppressed and the oppressor become indistinguishable, struggles for women’s equality get reduced to a more generalized struggle for social justice- this allows men to claim that they too are oppressed by patriarchy
• even if equality between sexes could be gaurenteed, it would only be enforceable in the public and civic spheres
• Even if both sexes do the same jobs, perform the same duties etc, the social and symbolic meanings of the activities remain the same, unchallenged
In the 1980’s a feminism based in difference emerged. This notion of sexual difference is different than that which is espoused by repressive patriarchal notions in that it advocates for pure difference as opposed to difference from a pre-given norm. Patriarchal notions of gender difference are characterized by a binary structure in which one term is defined only by the negation of the other, while pure difference “refuses to privelege either term”. Difference feminism, unlike equality feminism, does not pre-supposes an acceptance of masculine values. It leaves open the possibility to reject the terms of evaluation and to “define oneself on different terms”. *The idea of difference suggests a change to the patriarchal social and symbolic orders – but this difference is easily reincorporated *Difference feminism resists the reduction of feminism to a broader humanitarian project* difference feminism safeguards women’s struggles for autonomy from being conflated with those of men*A politics of difference involves the right to define oneself on ones own terms- thereby necessitating a critique/reorganization of the structures of representation, meaning and knowledge which produce identitiesAfter laying out these two camps, the equality feminists and the difference feminists, Grosz expresses frustration: “are these the only choices available to feminist theory- an adherence to essentialist doctrines, or the dissolution of feminist struggles” she asks. Drawing on Spivak, she advocates for the notion that all politics is always already bound up in whatever it is contesting; feminism will never be pure, and she says it shouldn’t want to be. Just by orienting ourselves towards that which we seek to contest, we loose theoretical purity: she cites Spivak “You pick up the universal that will give you the power to fight against the other side, and what you are throwing away by doing this is your theoretical purity. Grosz says we need to acknowledge, not disavow feminism’s implication in patriarchal structures of power. The focus should not be on weather the politics or theory is pure, but on what it enables, how useful it is. She seems to say that the feminist movement actually draws its strength from its emersion in the system which it contests- “the ability to use patriarchy and phallocentrism against themselves” is the most powerful feminist theoretical weapon”p57. Do you agree with Grosz that the greatest power is to be able to turn the tools of a system against itself? What is to be gained by recognizing feminisms immersion in the system it aims to contest?

8 comments:

Carolynn O'Donnell said...

I keep thinking of Audre Lorde's quote "the master's tools can never dismantle the
master's house." This is of course contradictory to Grosz's claim that feminism is
already always working within patriarchy. In a sense, it IS hard to imagine how feminism
would ever "step out" of patriarchy, if patriarchy is assumed to be totally encompassing
of all (of society? of the world?). I think it is important, as Grosz and Spivak argue,
that feminism should be aware of the tools is it using (and what their origins are), but
it is also important to keep imagining ways of trying to get around patriarchal
structures.
Carolynn

anderson said...

I found this a very useful essay and very in line with my own thoughts although directing them at the field of feminism. I have oftentimes felt that the
conventional notion among radical movements and radical thinkers is that there is indeed an exterior to the system that is to be opposed or assailed. Because of how terrible and corrupt the system, the interior, is, radicalism may find a
place of purity in the exterior. Once that position has been obtained two fairly self-righteous and, I think, ineffective options present themselves. Indifferent
separatism: just remaining in the purity of the exterior, anarchist wolfpack that kind of thing. Or, militancy: some form of attack upon the interior, the system. At this point in my own thoughts I find both these alternatives not only politically misguided and ineffectual, but philosophically antique. On a socio-political level I do not think the exterior is ever an option for one whose life has been as bound up in the system. Even if I could remove my body to a hole in the wall cave in the middle of nowhere I would still have statism and institutionalism and patriarchy and hundred other little splinters of the system in my head. This is crucial; systems of power take power by becoming symbiotic with the very workings of our psyches. A pure position, a pure
outside, is foreclosed. This is by no means a call to quietism. As very intelligent thinkers like Grosz seem to affirm, there is a place for a creative disloyalty. The difference between reformism and radicalism, if not one between
interior and exterior, may truly be the difference between the pious and the impious. I think there is a place for an affirmative and creative impeity in the university, the family, etc

Jenny Strandberg said...

To continue the discussion of the role of deconstructivism and feminism's immersion in patriarchy - and in response to Carolynn's desire to keep imagining ways of getting around patriarchal structures, and Anderson's call for for an affirmative and creative impeity within the system:

I agree with Grosz that feminism is implicated in the patriarchal frameworks, methods and presumptions, and that we need to acknowledge that. In order to contest, critique and finally transform the patriarchal framework, feminists of difference, like Grosz, Irigaray, etc., suggest sexual autonomy over equality, pure difference over adaptation to the dominant system. In other words - feminism is situated within patriarchy and an presumed difference from it will work as the catalyst for transformation. The only problem is that difference here is assumed, not investigated. There has to be a difference or else there would be no transformation, only adaptation. Sexual difference becomes intrinsic to the idea of sexual autonomy. The question of whether or not sexual difference is ontological is never really asked. Grosz seems to resign to the fact that there is no pure theoretical position and that the question is rather ”which commitments, despite their patriarchal alignments, remain of use to feminists in their political struggle?” Strategically there should be/has to be sexual difference.

I think that the idea that there is no theory outside of politics demonstrates a fear of what theory might produce and inflict on politics. The fear of conducting an ontological investigation and finding out that there is no sexual difference, or even worse, that there is sexual difference and yep, women are and should be oppressed! Why else is the question ignored: is there sexual difference? I see the use of the framework of sexual difference and the understanding of the feminine to get beyond a masculine, patriarchal notion of reality, but only in order to investigate reality from a new perspective: not from the cave, the radical exteriority, the beyond, but to get to a point where assumptions of reality have been exposed and bracketed. In other words, I don’t see the framework of sexual difference as an end station, I see it rather as a form of clearing, purgatory. I’m not sure if this is in line with Grosz or not…

Abraham Adams said...

It is hard to imagine, anyway, transcending a system that we are commited to by automatic identification within it. One still claims a gender while thinking of gender, like race, to be an organ of power that algorithmically clothes itself in changing criteria. The fluid status of attributes is both the doing and undoing of privelage groups. I am beginning to think that Butler's idea of exhausting the discourse is quite beautiful, besides being unavoidable. One is involuntarily inscribed with scripts of different kinds of essentialism. Grosz's point seems to be that there is a space of pure difference outside the prescriptions of normative conceptions of sexual difference. What do arguments in the spirit of pure difference, rather than dissent, look like?

Abraham Adams said...

I was, I guess, writing about gender just then. But, considering that we have had what were then called 'gender 101' discussions in class, there seems to be a somewhat pervasive confusion about the difference between gender and non-essential sexual difference.

Bec Chapin said...

Can feminisim, does feminism exist outside of patriarchal sociality? I think Grosz strikes a very important point in this article that echos and reinforces what other feminist theorists have laid down as the foundation; that we are operating in a self-generating patriarchal understading of socio-cultural interaction and epistimology. In order to speak other - to speak woman - we must deconstruct the modes of understanding, the epitomology and the interaction itself. Grosz has a critical point in using the tools of the system against the system. It's hard to make change or even an argument if you don't use the same language (and why mimicry is such an effective philosophical tool). Let's talk about using the master's tools to dismantle the master's house, and new, different, 'other' tools (if you will) to build a new one.

Bec Chapin said...

(I meant my last post for Anderson's response. This one is for Zoe)
In order for feminism to effectively block arguments against it, it is critical that it recognizes it is equally a part of the system it is trying to fight. It is a classic problem in epistomology to forget to look at oneself critically. In anthropology, it took over a century, until right about the time of this article, that anthropologists actively realized they were a part of the systems they picked a part. For western anthropologists specifically, that they were from a culture, from a stand point that changes their 'objective' perspectives. Two points to Grosz.

kra said...

I was impressed by Grosz's discussion of Derrida with regard to feminism. I think that Derrida can be wrongly accused of being critic of all and advocate
of nothing. I feel rather that he describes the way in which the network of relations in which we who live in the world find ourselves shapes us. I find
myself feeling in accord with anderson's response in that these networks are never really exterior to us because they always implicate our psyche and in doing so our psyche becomes invested in them. This does not negate the possibility for resistence but it will never be a resistence of the fresh slate. Instead the possibility is one of strategic engagements that work to oscilate in between fixed positions which will always be static. through this
ongoing process of interacting selectively, thinking critically, the life we each leads moves in new directions. because i think it is also important to remember that after any revolution, life will go on. so long as people are (as
in, live in being)life will be the process of living. there is never a point of arrival, only growth and change.
in response to carolyn, I feel that what comes after deconstruction is more deconstruction. If deconstruction is viewed as a positive strategy of defining a position which is moving away from but is still coming from, then this process must be ongoing. yet in its ongoing movement, the direction will become ever more satisfying, ever less partiarchal. I guess your question, carolyn, was
whether derrida offers a mdescription of this process. I feel like thinking and acting differntly than yourself is that positive description.
In response to jenny, i'm not entirely sure what you mean by Heidegger's discusison of neutrality. I do agree that the way in which being implicates possibility is exciting. But i think that heidegger's possibility is, like derrida, potentially more limited than it has to be. the possibility of dasein is endless variation which always leaves us connected to what has been. it is
change rather than abosulte difference. it is a world of redefining what attributes composed feminine and masculine categories rather than a world of potentially resisting such blanket categories all together. for with heidegger,
i think that there's always enframing, always our position, situation in the
network.
so having said all that, i dont want to sound too entirely on board with derrida. i feel that there is a way in which our actions and our thoughts leave interactions tied to a past, no matter how recent. but i do wonder if maybe imagination leaves us always feeling our way to a world that is ientirely new, entirely different. I think grosz, derrida and heidegger offer powerful understandings of change. but i think that the motor behind change is a little more irigorayan; i think it is imagining that we can imagine what we cannot imagine.