Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 13:16:09 -0600 (CST)
From: Erik D Lindberg <edl-AT-csd.uwm.edu>
Subject: Re: superWOman was here


On Sat, 16 Dec 1995, COMIN TO YOU DIRECTLY FROM THE MOTHER SHIP wrote:

> 
> 
> To Dr. Lindberg:  My comments were made in the heat of anger and
> so did not really target any actual convictions held by Dr. Babich
> or even any tenets of 'feminism' taken as a class (I know,
> feminism's not an organized body of doctrine and so can't really
> be spoken of as having tenets, but you know ehat I mean).  My
> true target was the idea that 'progressive' notions have any
> more os an absolute foundation that 'reactionary' ones.  They
> are usually grounded in some kind of belief - usually inchoate -
> that human beings have some kind of extra-physical quality to
> them which renders them in some sense absolutely equal, whereas
> 'reactionary' views are based on the belief that there is a
> order given to human social existence, be it biologically or
> theologically determined.  The relative truths of these convictions
> frankly cannot be determined and the idea that we liberal
> progressives are somehow in some loftier ethical position than
> anybody else is unfounded and unself-conscious, not to mention
> arrogant.  They both arise out of the same current in Western
> culture - namely, the idea that there is a divine order bequeathed
> to the world by God, be it an order which actual exists here
> on Earth and therefore must be protected - conservatism - and
> the idea that this order does not yet exist but should be
> created - liberalism.  Any attempt on the part of egalitarianism
> to treat conservatism as the 'other' undermines its own basis;
> they are intertwined with one another.

I couldn't agree more with the idea that politics can and are 
anti-foundational, but, from a Nietzschean perspective, politics are 
informed by a kind of history that is at odds with the sort of 
"historical accuracy" you seem to have invoked when you claimed that a 
focus on gender analyses inaccurately makes the male/female or man/woman 
split the ground for historical truth.  As Nietzsche said in his Uses and 
Disadvantages essay, that "we want to serve history only to the extent 
that it serves life."  While many postmodern Nietzscheans replace 
"life" with politics, the pragmatisms and will to usefulness remains.  
Thus when Irigaray writes, "Sexual difference is one of the major 
philosophical issues, if not the issue, of our age.  According to 
Heidegger, each age has one issue to think through, and one only," she is 
not being a historical foundationalist, but a political strategist.  
Although I think there are many feminists who would disagree with me, 
here--and the stakes are high--to my mind Irigaray's statement and 
ensuing project could be seen (in Nietzschean fashion) as a sort of 
cultural self-therapy.  In therapy one does not try to get to the root 
and foundation of their absolute and primal truth, but tries to fix what 
is broke AND what is currently making life (in this case, in terms the 
life of the culture and the way it divides up power) quite unlivable.  
Suggesting that a woman's pursuit of a certain kind of role or power is (as you 
suggested in a earlier post) involves an anachronistic move of 
attributing desires to her predecessors that are historically only hers, 
misses the point.  An analysand is not interested in recapturing their 
original relation, say, to his or her parents, nor, importantly, of 
disavowing it.  Rather, he or she is interested in reconceiving this 
former self or role, changing it, as Nietzsche would say, in the service 
of "life."

> 	Second, isn't there a certain 'masculinist' bias in
> your assumption that 'traditional' feminine roles (which in point
> of fact vary considerably from culture to culture) are less
> desirable than so-called heroic male ones?  One could argue that
> it's better to stay home and wipe the snot off children's noses
> than to go out and get a spear or a bullet in your brain.  Is
> the latter preferable simply because the task of war has typically
> fallen to men?

I would argue, no.  Or rather I would follow Christine Di Stefano's 
argument in "Dilemmas of Difference," which she summarizes as follows.  
Arguing against Carol McMillan's argument that women shouldn't pursue 
masculine forms of power, but rather should revalue the "woman's" sphere, 
Di Stafano shows that this is a dilemma that needs consideration and 
analysis, rather than mere side choosing: 

"We need to stop assuming, argues McMillan, in line with the voluntarist 
account of human agency and rationality, that social restrictions such as 
sex roles are necessarily bad, that is, unjustified infringements on free 
choice and self-determination.  Even though they are conventions, these 
cultural artifacts are not merely arbitrary impositions.  Rather, they 
seek to make sense out of the givens of life; in this case, they seek to 
make sense out of the ontological givens of reproductive sex 
differences.  According to McMillan, the restirction of women to the 
domestic sphere is a violation of their rights ONLY IF domestic 
activities are devalued [more or less your argument, if I read you 
correctly].  This is a strange way of putting it, since we might want to 
ask whether the restriction of women to the domestic sphere would have 
existed in the FIRST PLACE, if such activities had not already been 
devalued.  That is, does devaluing give way to the restriction, or does 
the restriction give way to the devaluing?  Obviously, there is no way to 
answer this question concerning the origins of a denigrated and separate 
female sphere with any satisfactory sense of closure.  McMillan's answer 
to this unarticulate question of origins locates the devaluation in a 
philosophical framework (rationalism) rather than in a viceral world of 
power knowledge relations."

This is of course relevant to a Nietzsche list because of the role N. 
played in convincing "us" to see truth in terms of power and history in 
terms of the present.

Erik

Erik D. Lindberg
Dept. of English and Comparative Lit.
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Milwaukee, WI  53211
email: edl-AT-csd.uwm.edu



	--- from list nietzsche-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------