From: meaghan-AT-utdallas.edu Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 12:20:17 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Help... Florence, interesting question. One example of a style being coopted by the mainstream would be Rap music. It has a twenty year history of development (don't ask for a citation, I'm telling you what I remember hearing) and in the 80s and 90s got so "big" (that is mainstream) that white kids in rich suburbs bought most of the cds and began to dress in the fashions of hiphop and rap artists. Of course, those white kids in the rich suburbs do not live the lives and social experiences that rap describes, criticises, or valorizes. I giggle when I see 19 year olds >from my home town (one of those well off little towns) whose daddys are comfortable white lawyers, etc, singing the lyrics of gansta rap -- there's a strange and scary moment when the one sings the song and dresses in the style of an artist who is deeply critical of power structure you represent. That's one, the new hippie fads are another... AS to Irigaray and "ecriture feminine" the same double edge applies. Almost anything can coopted -- especially when you talk about a style of writing or thinking. When I read James Joyce I see elements of his style I associate with "e.f." No, he's not writing JUST like Irigaray, but I see some similarities. Kristeva was in fact, I heard, criticized for writing about poetic language which seems to resemble "e.f." in many ways, but all of her examples are works by men: Joyce, Beckett, Trakl and a few others. I wonder, then, if men can write this way, does their doing so lessen the potential impact of this style of writing-thinking on the conventions of patriarchal writing-thinking (as in the style of analytical philosophy or non-experimental poetry)? What's the boundary between a man writing and the attitude of patriarchy? What's the boundary between a man writing speculatively, or experimentally (in philos and lit respectively) and patriarchy coopting a style which resists in both form and content its values and agenda's? A question which has been bothering me is: if Irigaray's style is irreducible, or not iterable, if it cannot be picked up and used by others (women or men) in disciplines or on problems other than only hers, then how useful or effective is it as an intervention in patriarchy and its values? I think it all depends on how the new style or new mode is picked up. When the white suburban teens who drive mazdas to school sing about getting shot or about shooting up in the gheto -- this is empty mimicry and the cooptive power of the center at work. When Rap evolves in gansta rap (I think in part in response to this cooptation) it moves out to find new territory from which to resist. An it will likey be coopted again. That seems to be how this works (See um, Althusser "Ideology and the State Apparatus" for a short but DENSE description of this movement in history). But, let's say that a style like Irigaray's (which has the rare combination of insight, eloquence, and rigor) is piked up in away that does not empty it of its force, by men and women who are looking for new and more (soemthing) way of doing philos or psychoanalysis or historical critique, then what you have a movement. Finally, given my reading around (which is not as extensive as it might be) I don't the current academic or philosophical world chomping at the bit to coopt Irig's methods. They seem much more interested in ignoring them to death if possible. I hope that response was of some use to you. Great question. Happy New Year, m Meaghan Roberts-Jones | ... for never will [we] be able Ph.D. Candidate - Humanities | to quench a longing which is Lit.&Fem.Philos. | eternally regenerated out of University of Texas-Dallas | the abundance of gratifications. MS JO 31 Box 830688 | Friedrich Schlegel Richardson, TX 7503-0688 | meaghan-AT-utdallas.edu | On Sat, 21 Dec 1996, Florence Pastoor wrote: > > I know this is a crazy time of year to be asking for help - but for those > of you who happen to be around over the holidays, I have a quick > question... > > I am writing a paper in which I am talking about how Irigaray's writing > style -- which is, as Irigaray claims, "irreducible." Actually here is an > exact passage: > > "Even if fashion does try to take it over, even if imitation does > caricature it or use part of > its content, [this] 'style' remains irreducible." (taken from her article > "The Three Genres.") > > In an attempt to expand upon this citation, and clarify it, I thought I > would use an example of how subversive works of art are often co-opted by > precisely the mainstream art community they had hoped to rattle. Their > work is actually turned into (reduced to) cute 'fetishes' - or fashion. > This, of course, rather undermines intent behind this work. In fact, it > can be rendered impotent through its appropriation by the powers that be... > > My question is: can anyone help with an example of a 'style' of art that > actually sucuumbed to this fate. or any other example. I want to > juxtaposition that example against Irigaray's claim that this new feminine > style of writing will not and cannot actually be co-opted by the > patriarchy. ... > > Does this make sense? hope so. > > thanks for any suggestions. > > Have a merry christmas! > > Florence Pastoor > MA Candidate, Trinity College, Ireland > > > > > > > --- from list french-feminism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > --- from list french-feminism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005