Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 09:25:46 +0100 From: "steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk> Subject: Re: Le doeff - derrida quote geof/Eric/All On Levinas Derrida says "....the respect for disymmatry so far that it seems to us impossible, essentially impossible, that it could have been written by a woman. It's Philosophical subject is a man (vir). ..." In a sense I may be being unfair to Derrida in that this text first published in english in 1978 may have been written prior to the realisation that such a statement is neither acceptable or very intelligent (what is an acceptable date - 1971 i would suggest myself) but such a statement places My concern is that 'difference' appears to be being used to reestablish heirarchical relations between the points of difference on what should be a plane on which each singularity is equivilant. It is critical that no statement, such as the above statement, that suggests that woman's knowledge may have anything to do with the social and sexual oppression that existed and still exists can be accepted. In this sense where an admired philosopher of sexual difference (Irigaray) places acute points of feminine difference in terms of cooking, children and the right to motherhood, and reinventing the church with imbecilic references to female deities. It really is no less reactionary than the above which potentially marks philosophical discourse as masculine. Does the 'sexual otherwise' help - doesn't it enable the 'sexual division of capacities' to be maintained ? Before feminism the word 'man' had the status of an unmarked category whilst 'woman' was marked. By saying 'man' one designated the totalty of thinking human beings without even thinking about it. By stating 'woman' one marked the female as seperate and apart from thinking beings. Generally forbidden from even being. No Westerner today would or ahould take the 'man' to be unmarked. Male/female, man/woman, he/she are terms that have slowly taking the place of what was a given. The two labels are now known to be codified. Neither terms can be marked as universal on the basis of the other being placed an eternally seperate other. This is thanks to the extraordinary work of feminists, who have enabled us to gain access to institutions, conceptual ones that is, that enable us to mark the difference not between man and woman (plainly still impossible because of the social inequalities) but between the a highly codified term woman and an uncodified term man... best steve gvcarter-AT-purdue.edu wrote: >Steve/Shawn, > >Another fine source for Derrida's take on feminism appears as an interview >entitled "Choreographies" in Nancy J. Holland's edited collection _Feminist >Interpretations of J.D._ (1997). > >Here, JD considers the 'sexual otherwise' that lies 'beyond the binary >difference that governs the decorum of all codes, beyond the opposition >feminine/masculine, beyond bisexuality as well, beyond homosexuality and >heterosexuality which come to the to the same thing." > >He says, "...I would like to believe in the multiplicity of sexually marked >voices. I would like to believe in the masses, this indeterminate number of >blended voices, this mobile of nonidentitified sexual marks whose choreography >can carry, divide, multiply the body of each 'individual,' whether he be >classified as 'man' or as 'woman' according to the criteria of usage." > >What would Derrida w/ regards to the recent struggle for homosexuals to be >recognized in a legal union, one wonders? Would D put this issue on the same >plane as racial equality, as many have maintained? > >To be sure, JD knows full well that by the innumerable, he is dreaming. But he >asks why not? "Does the dream itself not prove that what is dreamt of must be >there in order for it to provide the dream?" > >Here, dreaming for JD perhaps begin to merge w/ Liebniz folds and the notion of >compossible worlds. > >`geof > > > >Quoting swilbur-AT-wcnet.org: > > > >>The quote is accurate. The context is rather difficult. Derrida is >>following a thread through Nietzsche's work, preoccupied with "the >>question of style" and, of course, working directly - if not >>necessarily simply or transparently - with what follows Nietzsche's >>opening query - "Supposing truth to be a woman - what?" - in _Beyond >>Good and Evil._ Reading a bit of the text, which i guess i've never >>read all the way through, i'm reminded more than a bit of Baudrillard's >>_Seduction_, and suspect some of the same dangerous games are going >>on. _Spurs_ is short, if you want to check it out - only 150 pages, >>of which half are the original French (at least in the U. Chicago >>edition.) >> >>Hope that helps. >> >>-shawn >> >> >> >>>Anyone >>> >>>I don't have a copy of`the derrida text but I read the following quote >>>of Derrida in Le Doeuff's 'The Sex of Knowing' - what I'm looking for is >>>a confirmation that Derrida did indeed say this and perhaps a little >>>context. Thought to be honest the context is probably irrelevant >>>"Feminism is nothing but the operation of a woman who aspires to be >>>like a man. And in order to resemble the masculine dogmatic philosopher >>>this woman lays claim- just as much as he - to truth science and >>>objectivity in all their castrated delusions of virility. Feminism too >>>seeks to castrate. It wants a castrated woman...' (Spurs p65) >>> >>>can anyone confirm the accuracy of the quote ? >>> >>>The Le Doeuff book, which I'm only 15 or so pages into as I type this >>>seems excellent. A good corrective to our unconscious biases.... >>> >>>thanks >>>steve >>> >>> >>> >>> >>--------------------------------------------- >>This message was sent using Endymion MailMan. >>http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/ >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > --- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed --- This message may have contained attachments which were removed. Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005