From: Mark   Nunes <mnunes-AT-dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu>
Subject: Re: apocalyptic objects
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 18:15:59 -0400 (EDT)


> > As subjects, we can never seduce; we can only be seduced by the Object, 
> > the other, "the locus of what escapes us, whereby we escape from ourselves."
> > If there is "hope" of some sort in Baudrilllard's writing, it is 
> > in the object's ability to seduce the march of totalization, of 
> > enlightenment, leading it to another "catastrophe," but not, perhaps its 
> > own fatal end (the fractal's derailment of totality, for example).
> > 

> 
> Secondly, although I'm all for the more ecstatic aspects of theory -- the 
> philosophy of a Nietzsche or a Baudrillard is the only kind of philosophy I 
> can muster much interest for -- I would like to try to bring it down to 
> earth a little and point out that, from a feminist perspective, B.'s 
> idea that the object "seduces" the subject, that the subject is actually  
> helpless before the object (despite the illusory power he (and I mean 
> "he") thinks he wields) and is "lead astray" by it, if you will, is 
> hardly anything new.  Of course the object seduces the subject.  Of 
> course she, uh, I mean "it", is in a position of power.  How is this 
> statement any different from the perpetual claims by men that they are 
> totally powerless before the seductive wiles of the female, figured as she 
> is, in our society, as "object" (of male gaze or whatever)?

That is a rather huge criticism that many folks have launched against 
Baudrillard, and certainly his statements against resistance 
(specifically in the context of feminism) are causes of difficulty. Of 
all the Baudrillard I've read, _Seduction_ is one that I've passed over, 
perhaps for these reasons. My reading of "seduction," though, as I stated 
in the last post, owe as much to Derrida (cf _Dissemination_ [egad! 
seeds!]) as anything else. I suppose with Derrida you could make the same 
sorts of charges, although they don't sound quite so negative given the 
nature of Derrida's work. There's a nice piece in Diacritics (I think), 
for example, by Spivak called "Love Me, Love My Ombre, Elle" in which she 
argues that for Derrida "female" serves as a term like supplement: an 
overflow for phallogocentrism.

My question, then, is: given Baudrillard's tendency to "push" a telos from 
behind toward its own catastrophic ends. is it possible to read his discussion 
of the Object, the Other, the Strange Attractor in a way that is 
reconcileable with feminist criticism? Is it possible to read "seduction" 
in a way that doesn't reify notions of the male gaze?

--mark