Gender Theory

Judith Butler, Luce Irigaray

Judith Butler sees gender as a social construct; Luce Irigaray emphasises the differences between the sexes. Both authors invite readers to see past what is made obvious. The two perspectives, respectively, allow readers to imagine a freedom from the social constraints placed on them through their bodies, then whips them, particularly women, into a righteous indignation after seeing their lives through the looking glass of custom, commodity and exchange.   

Central criticism of both authors seems to point to a utopian aspect to their arguments, as though they were writing in expectation that their imaginations and ponderings were actual reality. Perhaps they are. If the two women are visionaries of a sort and in their own manner, perhaps they are themselves living what to their critics and others seems irreal.

The role of women in society today is so comically outlined and prescribed, and yet too so nuanced that it is no wonder that women are said to appear to understand a language among themselves that at times puts men on guard. Even if Irigaray’s argument were to be factually refuted - that today’s women of modern society in the West are exchanged in just the same manner as Lévi-Strauss described was done in primitive societies – the structure and function of society today would nonetheless allow for an understanding of why Irigaray believes this, and might too provide a clear cut example that would support her views. There is scarcely a young woman in western culture who would feel comfortable agreeing to obey the man she marries. Still, many a young women dreams of being ‘given away by their fathers’ into the protective hands of their desired husbands-to-be. Is this society clinging to quaint custom? Or, is there some truth to Irigaray’s argument?

Irigaray’s critics accuse her of essentialising the feminine: she dares to define it. There is an unsettling irritation reserved for any person attempting to define anyone, or any gender. But Irigaray’s attempt may have been to actually free the feminine, the female, woman from the strictures of labels with which it, she, has been burdened, and to invite women to define themselves. 

Or, even to exist without labels, in much the same way as Butler suggests is possible.

Bibliography

Fuss, Diana J. Winter 1989.

“Essentially Speaking”: Luce Irigaray’s Language of Essence. In: Hypatia, Vol. 3, No. 3. French Feminist Philosophy.

Haas, Lynda. Autumn 1993.

Of Waters and Women: The Philosophy of Luce Irigaray. In: Hypatia, Vol. 8, No 4., pp. 150-159.

Leitch, Vincent B. (ed) 2001.

The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Post-colonial theory and feminism

-->

Spivak and Najmabadi

It is imperative to maintain, to use, the language of feminism in order to ensure adhesion to and clarity of the cause of feminism, Spivak says. It seems as though she may believe that it is easier to stay close to the cause if one remains close to its roots, even in terms of language. Or, as Spivak advocates, primordially in terms of language. In this way, it does seem easier to remain not just true to the cause but to ensure that neither the cause nor the follower is corrupted.

The need for violence in support of the cause, of feminism or of whatever other case needs fighting for? Spivak feels that those people who oppose protesters, meaning the status quo, may through their efforts in fact invite the very action they are trying to quell. In effect, people who seek to block all avenues of resistance instigated by agitators also block the one peaceful means that agitators have of making their case: passive resistance. Thus, agitation must lead to action, from where it is a short slide to violence. 

Critics of Spivak have leveled at her that she has issued, or at least is in support of a muted call to action. This, from an academic who may not want to be seen to incite violence but who would nonetheless understand an expressed need for it. And, if Spivak does not outright condone violence, critics say she nonetheless seems to employ a passive support for it, along with the feeling that agitators may be justified in by-passing all passivity.

Spivak and Najmabadi are interested in discerning and bringing forward the feminine presence in history, the female perspective, her voice. Spivak wonders if the feminine can speak; supposes it can and wonders if the time for passive action has … passed. 

Najmabadi looks for evidence that the feminine has spoken, did speak, and, if so, how? If it did speak, there must be evidence of it. How is it now that this evidence does not seem to be part of the historical record? Rather, it must somehow be deduced from the fact that, if the world is binary – at the very least, and if there is a male voice, of necessity, there must be its opposite.

Bibliography

Najmabadi, Afsaneh 2006.

Beyond the Americas: Are Gender and Sexuality Useful Categories of Analysis? In: Journal of Women's History, Vol. 18, Issue 1, Spring 2006.

Spivak, Gayatri. 

A Critique of Post-Colonial Reason.

In: The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Leitch, Vincent B. (et al) 2001. New York: W.W. Norton Company, Inc.

Post-colonial Theory

Fanon; Said; Bhabha; Bhabha; Young

The study of post-colonialism helps to reveal the hidden structures that continue to reference themselves as they organise and legitimise thoughts and discourse. The danger of post-colonialism is that many believe it is the study of what was. They fail to realize the depth to which post-colonialism has shaped their very approach to the subject – and subjects - they are studying.

The study of post-colonialism is one of subtlety as it involves the study of the psyche, and thus of the structure of an individual. To study post-colonialism is to look into the psyche of the created other, whether the other is the creation of the subjected or the creation by the subjected of the subject.

With post-colonialism, both sides of humanity are necessarily dealing with creations/ illusions before they come into the contact with the individual, who may forever remain elusive if that individual does not survive intact the de-veiling of their psyche. This fear may be what stops individuals from exploring further, preferring out of fear to remain comfortably couched in the upper echelons of post-colonial thought that allow the thinker to seem enlightened as he holds onto an identity into which much has been invested and without which too much would be feared to be lost. The presence of this fear best highlights Bhabha’s opinon that theory is the indispensable backbone to politics as well as post-colonial studies because it provides a guiding line of thought in an area littered with potential pitfalls and unintentional slides back into the comfortable framework of colonial thinking.

Bhabha also speaks of hybridity, of how there is no unity within a nation because a nation, particularly one such as India, is composed of so many elements that unite to form the country. Hybrid best addresses that which comprises nations. And hybrid helps to describe an aspect of post-colonialism and why it may be so elusive to fully grasp, especially from the perspective of the subjected.

Is not the aim of post-colonial studies to try to make former colonialists and their descendants understand what was wrought under their reign? And to make descendants of subjects understand what has happened, to open their eyes? The opening of eyes can create anger at the past, and at what may still be happening in the present. This is, it would seem, the most sensitive aspect of post-colonialism: addressing its reach into the present and beyond. It is the insistence upon addressing this aspect that can send descendants of one-time colonialists back into themselves, shutters down, for self-protection.