Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 00:04:03 -0500 From: beverly randall <bev-AT-mail.utexas.edu> Subject: Re: Irigaray; Chanter; Essentialism On 6/9/95 Judith Poxon wrote: In other words, how much of an issue >*is* this whole essentialist debate for those of us who read and post to >this list? I would have thought--and this is NOT intended to be a >flame--that most of us with sufficient interest in French feminist theory >to subscribe to this list would already have deconstructed the classical >liberal presuppositions that the particular "misreading" of Irigaray that >Chanter is concerned with derives from. Is this a bad assumption on my part? I don't think this is a "bad assumption" but perhaps it is not entirely accurate.It is interesting to me to see how someone else is going to work through the this tiresome and age-old problem of essentialism. I have worked many things out for myself but I don't believe that I've worked everything out where French feminism is concerned. I also recall that a few weeks back there were several postings indicating that persons had joined the list in order to learn more about French feminism. > >I can't help thinking about the storm of controversy that was provoked a >couple of months ago by my posting of a Women's Leadership Network >bulletin to this list, in which so many of the responses ran towards a >criticism--not to say a critique--of the possibility or desirability of >anything resembling mainstream feminist political action. One reader, as >I recall, even made a distinction between feminist theory and "pointless >feminism"--although that distinction drew a lot of criticism in its turn. >My point is that, at least at that moment in the history of this list, >there seemed to be little sympathy for the heavy reliance on gender >theory that Chanter is trying to interrogate in her preface and opening >chapter. > I remember this happening and I remember how offensive to me that it seemed at the time. It struck me then, that if everybody already knew everything about French feminism then why even subscribe to a list like this. I'm here to learn and share my ideas. Get criticism and reflectively critique other arguments. And I have already had some success in these purposes. >Am I right about this? And if so, will it be productive to continue >reading a book that seems so intent on "converting" an "Anglo-American" >readership to an understanding of Irigaray's work that moves beyond the >distinction betw. essentialism and non-essentialism? I believe it will be productive to continue the reading and discussion, though it hasn't been discussed much anyway. I don't feel like it's an issue of being converted but of following the practice of the deconstruction itself. This process may shed light on areas some of us have never covered before. That's my two cents. Beverly Beverly Randall bev-AT-mail.utexas.edu http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~ifca335/index.html ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005