Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 17:59:51 +0000
From: H.Robinson-AT-ulst.ac.uk (Hilary Robinson)
Subject: Re: Irigaray and mimesis


beth wrote:
>I am wondering if you (or anybody else out there!) has seen any
>>criticism explicitly discussing Cixous' work and I's mimesis/mimicry? 

Hello Beth
I'm not sure about HC but there are one or two for Luce I. Many mention it
in passing: Elizabeth Grosz in Sexual subversions (p. 135-8), Volatile
bodies (p. 46-48), Space, TIme, Perversion (p.87-91, 189-190); M Whitford p
70-2; N Schor in Burke et al, Engaging with Irigaray, p.67. Also look at D
Chisholm in Burke et al; A E Weinbaum, 'Marx, Irigaray, and the politics of
reproduction' in differences v 6 n 1; E Weed in Burke et al, Bradotti, in
Burke; S Kozel, 'the diabolic strategy of mimesis', Hypatia v 11 n 3. I
also found useful for background a book by Gebauer and Wulf, *Mimesis*, U
of Cal press 1995, and P, Ricoeur 'mimesis and representation', Annals of
Scholarship no 2 1981 pp 15-32.

I started looking at this because there seemed to be obvious links to
making art and to learning visual languages; but it became a full chapter
because I found conflicting usage of the terms mime, mimicry, mimesis,
masquerade etc. So I started tracing through how LI uses each term. She
says that there are two forms of mimesis: first is that which reproduces
that which has gone before in order to maintain it. This is found within
patriarchy - all those 'father-son' power struggles which actually maintain
patriarchal structures, politics, language etc. This confirms man in his
sameness: what LI calls hom(m)osexuality (the representation of woman is
then constructed in the patriarchal structure, as not other, but
other-of-the-same, ie confirming his sameness). The second is like that of
musicians, an interpretive mimesis, necessary because that which is being
copied is not sufficient for the subjectivity of the person who is
mimeticizing.

Thus 'femininity' in a patriarchal structure is nothing but a
representation. Here we find for women the activities of mimicry and
masquerade. LI links mimicry with hysteria. The productive form of mimesis
suggests a 'reserve', something that escapes the cycle of maintenance. The
hysteric's reserve underlies her desire to wrest control by mimeticising to
the nth degree that which is required of her (Grosz links anorexia to this
too). This is potentially fatal. For LI, the masquerade *is* 'femininity',
made by man: to masquerade is to act like that femininity supplied for us.
In a patriarchal system we are always aready masquerading.

The reserve of the hysteric, and the reserve of the musician, offer LI the
possibility of 'a cultural reserve yet to come', and strategies for women
wresting control of their subjectivity. (See this Sex pp138, 76-77) This is
political - recovering a place of exploitiation - bodily, playful.

>One aspect of Irigaray's brilliance IMHO is her talent for
>>gesturing through language.

Right! which is why she so tricky, and so interesting. Mimesis is both
theory and practice, and traces of it are found in the body.Hence its
political uses too.
This is getting far too long - I've tried to condense a chapter of 15,000
words! Suffice ti to say that LI constantly speaks of/in the visual
throughout this thread. I'm trying to find structures of practice for the
making of art, rather than 'a visual model' - ie a reductive style or
medium or intent or 'what Irigarayan art would look like'. This would be to
'capitaize' all over again, in a phallomorphic pattern....

best

hilary





     --- from list french-feminism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---