April 2009 Archives

Throughout Antigone's Claim, Butler illustrates that Antigone does not represent kinship, or at least not the type of kinship that Hegel proposes Antigone represents.  On page 24, Butler states, "Antigone represents not kinship in its ideal form but its deformation and displacement, one that puts the reigning regimes of representation into crisis and raises the question of what the conditions of intelligibility could have been that would have made her life possible, indeed, what sustaining web of relations makes our lives possible, those of us who confound kinship in the rearticulation of its terms?"

In this post, I would like to investigate the implications of "alternative kinship arrangements" in Antigone's family as well as in current-day society. 

It seems apparent that the abnormal structure of Antigone's family was the root cause of their tragedy, though this is not conclusive.  Butler states, "some might conclude that the tragic fate [Antigone] suffers is the tragic fate of any and all who would transgress the lines of kinship that confer intelligibility on culture" (72).  As a sister (and brother, as Butler suggests) to Polyneices as well as a sister and daughter to Oedipus, Antigone disobeys Creon's law, which ultimately leads to her tragic death.

Yet, what other role do Antigone's family relationships play?  Butler questions whether Antigone's actions problematize heterosexuality in its normative sense.  Is there a normative heterosexual family structure?  Butler mentions that socialist feminists have made attempts to show that there is no ultimate basis for normative heterosexual monogamous family structure and that "utopian projects to revamp or eliminate family structure have become important components of the feminist and contemporary queer movements" (73).

If there is no normative heterosexual family structure, then what does this mean for gay marriage?  On page 69, Butler questions "and when there are two men or two women who parent, are we to assume that some primary division of gendered roles organizes their psychic places within the scene, so that the empirical contingency of two same-gendered parents is nevertheless straightened out by the presocial psychic place of the Mother and Father into which they enter?"  That is, are there always symbolic positions of Mother and Father?  Furthermore, what are the effects of two same-gendered parents on their children?  Opponents to same-sex marriage "argue that any children raised in a gay family would run the immanent threat of psychosis" (70).  Is there any truth to this argument, considering the outcome of Antigone's abnormal kinship arrangement?

I am inclined to agree with the notion that there is no normative family structure.  Yet, I also believe that kinship plays a great role in the development of individuals and the structure of society.  Does anyone else have thoughts regarding the effects of alternative family structures on individuals and/or society?  

Professor Long brought up an interesting point in class that generated some good discussion but I feel it warrants being extended to our digital domain here. The basis of the question was, "what will politics look like after phallocentrism." I have a few points that I would like to make regarding this topic.

Scott asked the question in class of why we would want to make a change to the system we have now because it is 'working.' I don't want to steal what Professor Long said but he was very quick to respond with, "that depends on what your definition of working is," but those words were pretty much the same ones that ran through my head at that time. While things may be getting progressively better, there is still an enormous amount of war, death, and corruption in the word. I don't completely disagree with Scott however. I think that we do need structure as we have now in many aspects of society.

That being said, I do not think there is any feasible way of replacing the system we have now. While starting with education and attempting to rewire the way society thinks is a route that could be taken, the prospect of it being successful is not very high. It would take a monumental shift in civilization for a change like that to occur. So what does everybody else think? I know a lot of people were able to air their opinions in class but I feel we should continue the discussion as it is an extremely relevant one.

This past weekend author Malcolm Gladwell appeared as a guest on Fareed Zakaria's GPS in order to promote a new book. During the course of the interview, he caught my attention while discussing the inherently hierarchical (read: phallocentric?) nature of language. He cited an example from his book: research connecting higher rates of plane crashes with poor communication in the cockpit, a relationship that he argues is a causal one. According to the argument, the high power distance (the perceived "distance" between subordinates and their superiors) nature intrinsic to certain cultures results in hesitation, which, compounded with other factors, can translate into crashes. He speaks specifically about Korean airlines in this excerpt from a Fortune Magazine interview:

"Korean Air had more plane crashes than almost any other airline in the world for a period at the end of the 1990s. When we think of airline crashes, we think, Oh, they must have had old planes. They must have had badly trained pilots. No. What they were struggling with was a cultural legacy, that Korean culture is hierarchical. You are obliged to be deferential toward your elders and superiors in a way that would be unimaginable in the U.S.

But Boeing (BA, Fortune 500) and Airbus design modern, complex airplanes to be flown by two equals. That works beautifully in low-power-distance cultures [like the U.S., where hierarchies aren't as relevant]. But in cultures that have high power distance, it's very difficult.

I use the case study of a very famous plane crash in Guam of Korean Air. They're flying along, and they run into a little bit of trouble, the weather's bad. The pilot makes an error, and the co-pilot doesn't correct him. But once Korean Air figured out that their problem was cultural, they fixed it."

How did they fix it? By teaching the pilots English. The resulting decline in crashes appears to support this theory to some extent, suggesting that the language (and, by extension, the culture) fosters an egalitarian dialogue not found in some of its linguistic peers. Thinking about this in an Irigarayan context (who, I can only assume, would disagree with the claim), I then wandered over to the International Society of Women Airline Pilots web site where I found some rather dismal statistics; according to the FAQs, of approximately 80,000 airline pilots worldwide, only around 4,000 are female (although the site reassures us that the majority are from the Unites States, perhaps further argument for the democratic nature of the English language?) with a mere ("speculative") 450 Captains.

So does English promote a more lateral mode of communication? Or is this true only as long as the actors speaking are male? Using Gladwell's argument, I think it would be interesting to see the statistics of incidents for all-male (insert phallocentric dominance of language and/or airlines joke here:) cockpits, all-female cockpits, and mixed pilot/co-pilot teams, perhaps illuminating (or disproving entirely) Irigaray's critiques of language with some quantifiable measurements.

Here is the podcast produced by Carely and David for the week of April 20th to the 24th.  Enjoy.

Ok so this might seem like a weak post but bear with me for a moment. For the past few days, I have been skimming through Butler's book trying to piece together a substantive blog post that covers some new ground and invariably, I always end up setting the book down in frustration and saying, "maybe tomorrow." Every time I do this, I always look at the cover of the book and try and decipher what exactly is going on. Now, if you open the book to the second full page you see a picture of a Greek mosaic or something that goes in line with story of Antigone. However, what we have on the cover is a picture of a beach and what seems like red flowers of some sort in the vague shape of a human being lying on the still sand. If you look at the pictures, they are clearly different from each other. The top one is much fuller and seems to be made of even a different type of flower then the human shape in the bottom picture. Also, you can notice that there is wet sand going up to the waistline of the top picture and it stops right below where the feet would be of the bottom figure. Thus, we have two noticeably different pictures of red flowers in the beach.

As I said, I have been trying to decipher the meaning of this for days and have come to no intelligent conclusion. I speculate that the thinning of the red flowers from the pictures shows a transformation from a much fuller person to one with less substance, but I don't think that accurately describes Antigone. It could be that these were meant to be the same photographs but there was just a mistake. Regardless, I ask your opinions and wonder if anybody else has been puzzled by the cover. Any theories or ideas about what message it is trying to convey?

Our final class of the semester will be held at the Collegium of Black Women Philosophers conference held on campus at the Hintz Alumni Center.  For information on the conference, click here.

In class (and in Kwame's post below) we have been discussing speech versus action specifically in regards to Butler's claims towards Antigone. I did some research on it and I found quite a bit so I thought that it would be more appropriate as a completely new post rather than a comment. It seems to me that many people feel that words and actions are mutually exclusive, that it is either one or the other. I have further observed that many believe that Butler is attempting to degrade Antigone's initial act of burying Polyneices. I think that we need to look more closely at the text. On page 7 Butler writes:

"Antigone acts, but what is her act? She buries her brother, indeed, she buries him twice, and the second time the guards report that they have seen her. When she appears before Creon, she acts again, this time verbally, refusing to deny that it was she who did the deed."

I think that if we look at these passages carefully, we can see that Butler is not trying to demean Antigone's act of burying Polyneices, rather she it trying to show quite the opposite. Butler is attempting to uplift the act by stressing the importance that language places upon it. This then got me thinking about what Butler later says on page 7:

"The act is everywhere delivered through her speech acts: the guard reports that he has seen her; she reports that she has done it. The only way that they doer is attached to the deed is through the linguistic assertion of the connection."

I did some research on speech acts and what I found was pretty interesting. In a few words, a speech act is an action performed by means of language. I think that the actions that Antigone took through her speech can be qualified as an "illocutionary act" which Wikipedia describes as "...an act (1) for the performance of which I must make it clear to some other person that the act is performed..."

So what does this mean? I think that this again goes to show how the words that Antigone speaks are an action within themselves that work to further the importance of the initial deed of burying her brother. If the burial itself was not important then there would not be a need for the speech acts.  I hope this makes sense, it got kind of confusing towards the end..

In Antigone's Claim, Butler believes that Antigone is not rebelling against Creon by burying her brother. Butler also believes that Antigone is not selfless or noble by burying her brother. In class, I think that we came to the conclusion that Antigone was a hero for doing these things and I think it's valid to discuss Butler's opposition to our beliefs. 

In class we discussed Kristeva's claim in "From Filth to Defilement" the possibility that Oedipus positioned himself in between Jocasta's ambiguity and reversal. Kristeva identifies this as being "Janus-like perhaps as any woman is, to the extent that any woman is at the same time a desiring being, that is, a speaking being, and a reproductive being, that is, one that separates itself from its child. Oedipus may have placed himself between these two aspects of a woman: the mother and the woman. 

Please post your thesis proposals as comments to this post.  The proposals are due on Wednesday the 22nd.

    The story of Antigone, as interpreted by Irigaray, I find to be very flawed. Not only did I find her arguments lacking textual proof but also counter productive.

    In The Eternal Irony of the Community, Irigaray criticizes Hegel's dichotomous claims on femininity vs. masculinity, especially with regards to divine vs. human responsibilities. Summing-up his theory she claims, "Just as man must strive to make this negativeness into an ethical action by sacrificing his life for the city - in war for example - so woman must be that external and effective mediation that reconciles the dead man with himself by taking upon himself the operation of destruction that the becoming of mind cannot manage without (Irigaray, 215)." And then later elaborates that a main difference between men an women lies in the concept that, "... the brother has already been invested with a value for the sister that she cannot offer in return, except by devoting herself to his cult after death (Irigaray, 217)." She discredits the idea that woman and men must play these specific roles, or at least it seemed that way until she leaped into the story of Antigone.

    It is with Antigone that she went astray. In her attempt to disrupt the male paradigm, she jumped over who Antigone really is and simply created a reading that is befitting with a female paradigm. Her ultimate claim is that Antigone acted the way she did because of mother issues. Really? Mother issues? Antigone as a character is the epitome of a woman breaking all the rules of a phallocentric model of what is femininity. And yet, Irigaray brings it all back to the mother, essentially making Antigone even more feminine. Irigaray in her critique of Freud was effective in showing what sexual development might look like if viewed through the lens of a female-centric world, an alternative to the male-centric one provided by Freud. In the case of Antigone, however, I find this style to be ineffective. Firstly, there is little textual proof to back her claims and secondly, it is counter productive. Why is it better that Antigone acts as a result of her mother, rather than her father? The end result is still a rigid dichotomy of sexes. Antigone is the one person who can't be classified into just one category and she certainly can't be explained as re-acting to the choices and actions of others, especially not her mother or father. Below are some of the more ridiculous claims that Irigaray makes concerning Antigone:

"However guiltless, she feels she bears the burden of her mother's fatal marriage, feels guilty for being born of such terrible embraces (Irigaray, 218)." Firstly, this is a quantum leap she is making and one in which she provides not a single shred of evidence. To claim that she feels guilty for her mother's actions is completely unwarranted. This also implies that Antigone feels she is responsible to and should act in accordance with other people, that she is submissive. Her defiance of Kreon should prove otherwise. And while technically she feels a responsibility towards her brother, it is a familial responsibility one that would extend to any member of her family. Her actions regarding her brother are not out of submission to her brother but rather a realization of her own values and the fact that she had to act true to herself.

"Whatever her current arguments with the laws of the city may have been, another law is still drawing her along her path: identification with her mother (Irigaray, 219)." Again, Irigaray moves the central focus away from Polyneices, a man, to Antigone's mother, a woman. It is demeaning to Antigone to claim that her actions meant to honor a fallen family member and her refusal to subject herself to Kreon's unjust laws are all a result of her desire to be like her mother and to connect with her.

"Thus the sister will strangle herself in order to save at least the mother's son (Irigaray, 219)." Again, all that Irigaray has done is rewrite the story so that it is centered on Jocasta. She also claims that Antigone is mimicking her mother in her suicide. Rather, it is more likely and textually proven that she was avoiding a fate she wished not - a marriage to Haimon. It is a shame that Antigone should be read as acting in submission to anyone or that her actions are intended to mimic.


    This is Irigaray's fatal flaw in her reading of Antigone. In trying to discredit the phallocentric representational economy, she over zealously created the female version of one. In that respect, she is just the other extreme of Freud and therefore no better.

Updated Fresh Air podcast

"The culture wars have gone international and at the center of them is who controls women's fertility. That's the premise of the new book The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power and the Future of the World by guest Michelle Goldberg. She says reproductive rights are the place where many of the crucial forces shaping and changing women's lives intersect; religious authority, globalization, patriarchal tradition, international law, feminism, and American foreign policy."

I woke early this morning in an attempt to accomplish some work in silence and get the weight of mounting responsibilities off of my mind, but all that I achieved was a headache and a sense of confusion both springing from our most recent article From Filth to Defilement. The article epitomizes a problem that I have always had with philosophical and psychological texts. Rather than giving a summary of the direction and content of an article prior to its elaboration, the author will more often than not jump directly into the details of a topic, taking full advantage of complex and specific vocabulary, concepts, and trains of thought which usually originate within the very small field of knowledge to which the article pertains. At its worst they are even defined in the article itself after they are used in excess. Authors, such as Irigaray and Kristeva, make no attempt to inform the reader of the meanings of the vague and dynamic ideas and terms they apply so liberally. They are either extremely ignorant of the public's knowledge of psychological/philosophical theories or they are arrogant. I believe it's the latter. I wish Kristeva and Irrigaray would drop the unnecessary air of over-professionalism for the sake of a sensible discourse on what is definitely a set of important and reasonable arguments. Maybe a more exact approach to the topic, where the immense body of specific terms, italics and concepts is more clearly defined would work better. It would be helpful to have a brief summary of the concepts contained in the article before leaping into them in depth. Proponents of Kristeva's writing style might argue, in accordance with our recent Hegel text, that to gain the full and proper understanding of an idea we have to experience the particulars, but, in an instance such as From Filth to Defilement, when the particular only confuses, the general needs to be laid out as a foundation. This foundation can then be the base for the further enrichment of a topic by its particulars.

 

Today's class made me wonder whether any of the male characteres that we've read about this semester took the effort to integrate female qualities without force, like many of the female characters we've read about. It appears to me that females in our readings problematize the masculine/feminine dichotomy far more often (if not wholly more so) than the male characters.

For example, we've addressed that Zeus swallowed Metis and that one possible way of looking at it is that Metis still remains operative and advises Zeus on good and evil. We've discussed that there could be an indication that stability relies on the combination of male/female dimensions. Still, like Sam addressed today, I believe that Zeus, simply by pursuing and tricking Metis , clearly displayed a masculine and authoritative characteristic by swallowing her and leaving her no other choice. Being that Zeus is in the limelight with Metis inside of him, he takes the credit for whatever actions Metis influences him on. It can also be said that Zeus worried about his future child taking over, which therefore stresses that he was more concerned with his power rather than integrating the female/male dimensions.

We pointed out earlier this semester that all of the male deities wanted feminine qualities and therefore, the first two generations (Ouranos and Kronos) swallowed/ate their children in order to obtain it; it was Zeus, however, who realized that one needs to swallow the female. Is this true? Did these male deities seek feminine qualities? And if so, it is ironic that they would only attempt to obtain it in a forceful manner--not only are their attempts to obtain female characteristics associated with force, but their reasoning (to avoid being overthrown) follow the traditional dichotomy. Where are they truly integrating the feminine qualities? If they are aggressively and forcibly pursuing feminine qualities, doesn't that destroy the overall purpose of having the feminine qualities since a masculine underpinning will exist? I can think of many examples where Clytamnestra, Antigone, and Athena show examples of natural duality without neither forcing nor passively accepting those qualities. 

 Can you think of examples from our readings that have truly displayed a natural and unforced bridge between female/male characteristics, stemming from a male character? I'd argue that Oedipus, after being blinded, started to show more of the traditional/stereotypical female qualities--for one, he was reliant on another being and therefore could not independently make certain decisions. In terms of the basic duality addressed by Hegel, he was now more focused on his death and had more intuition; he also no longer cared as much for the nation or community. However, if Oedipus does indeed show some feminine attributes, it would be because of the "divine" and his destiny, not by his unaided choosing.

It's swell that the women in the readings are problematizing this seemingly rigid dichotomy, but unless there are signs of more men attempting to disrupt the system in a nonaggressive manner, we cannot claim that there is truly a subversion of the dichotomy. The patriarchal force will still be operative.

Here is the weekly roundup podcast that Kaitlyn Randol and Corey Kirkwood put together for the week of April 6th through the 10th.

We have had quite a few discussions regarding the significance of Irigaray's purpose (if, in fact, she has a concrete purpose), so I thought I would try one last time to defend Irigaray.

In the first section of Speculum of the Other Woman, it appears as though Irigaray critiques Freud throughout its entirety.  As stated in The Irigaray Reader (page 6):

"In summary, the main points of her critique of Freud are as follows.  Firstly, psychoanalysis is unaware of the historical and philosophical determinants of its own discourse.  Secondly, psychoanalysis is itself governed by unconscious fantasies which it has not been able to analyze.  Thirdly, it is patriarchal; it reflects a social order which does not acknowledge what it owes to the mother.  As a consequence of these factors, its phallocentric bias is taken for universal truth; psychoanalysis is blind to its own assumptions."

This summary clearly delineates the importance of Irigaray's critique of Freud.  Irigaray makes known the patriarchal nature of Freud's psychoanalytic theories as well as the phallocentric bias underlying much of society.  Yet, besides this critique of Freud, what other purpose does Irigaray have?

I have found that a major purpose of her work lies within her attempts to "bring about a change in discourse".  In class, we discussed Irigaray's desire to "make room for the feminine".  The following statement, which Professor Long has referred to before, seems to clarify what we have discussed:

"It is not a matter of toppling that order so as to replace it - that amounts to the same thing in the end - but of disrupting and modifying it, starting from an 'outside' that is exempt, in part, from phallocratic law." (Irigaray in The Sex Which is Not One)

Although Irigaray does not explicitly state this purpose within Speculum, I feel that she exemplifies such disruption and modification of the current order of things through her method of writing.  Irigaray employs a technique of ventriloquising, which allows her to make arguments without actually participating in or submitting to the patriarchal economy of representation. 

Finally, I would like to draw attention to a statement by Irigaray in regards to overcoming the current (mis)understanding of sexual difference:  "For the work of sexual difference to take place, a revolution in thought and ethics is needed.  We must reinterpret the whole relationship between the subject and discourse, the subject and the world, the subject and the cosmic, the microcosmic and the macrocosmic." (An Ethics of Sexual Difference) 

Here she stresses the need for a revolution.  And what better way to start this revolution then for Irigaray to provide an avenue to reinterpret the relationship between the subject and discourse within her own philosophical texts?

While I understand everyone's frustration with Irigaray, I actually appreciate her indirect and, at times, confusing techniques and theories.  From my understanding, she is not merely arguing for equality; rather, she is arguing for something much more significant:  a change in discourse and a recognition of difference, one in which the feminine is not just defined by the masculine. 

Please add your research progress assignments as comments to this blog post.

In class on Monday, the questions and comments I sought to pose made sense in my head, but I feel that I failed to translate them into comprehensible ideas once it put them into audible words. I am going to attempt to rectify that in this post, but because I'm not so sure I'm perfectly clear in how to articulate my thoughts, I can's make any promises. 

    After reading Rob's post and commenting myself, I began to rethink the processes espoused by both Hegel and Marx and wonder if they can be combined into one, as Jonathan proposed, especially with complex dilemmas people face. To claim that all people act without thoroughly analyzing it beforehand is too definitive and untrue for some human actions. Marriage proposals, buying a home, taking a job; all of these choices are ones usually influenced by careful cost/benefit analyses and conscious reasoning. But then again, these decisions are still made with unknown outcomes and they never occur in a predictable manner. This means that a large component of each of these decisions are not ruled by reason but rather instinct or emotion, lending credence to the theory of act first, thought second.

    Fortunately, an article in the New York Times today by David Brooks, The End of Philosophy, happened to address just this question. It discussed the manner in which people evaluate morality in their lives and essentially whether we act on moral choices first, and consider the repercussions second or vice versa. The conclusion Brooks came to although surprising, aligned with my own current opinion (closer to Marxist model) and clarified some questions. Firstly, Brooks quoted Michael Gazzaniga from his new book that said, "it has been hard to find any correlation between moral reasoning and proactive moral behavior, such as helping other people. In fact, in most studies, none has been found." I was shocked to read this at first but then realized it made a lot of sense. When we make choices concerning morality it is based on what we FEEL to be right. Little of it has to do with reason based debates between conflicting ideas that we have in our head eventually forming a synthesis. If this is the case, the obvious question then: is what influences moral actions? To answer this, Brooks creates an analogy between tasting food and immediately recognizing its value with making similarly immediate moral choices. We act immediately because we are acting on the basis of what we instinctively feel to be or know to be right. He went on to quote Jonathan Haidt of the University of Virginia who said, "The emotions are, in fact, in charge of the temple of morality, and ... moral reasoning is really just a servant masquerading as a high priest." Essentially, emotions dictate our moral decisions without any influence from reasoned thought or "Spirit". The concept simply stated: We make snap moral decisions, act upon them without knowing exactly why we made such decisions and then analyze later the outcomes of said decisions. It is from the reasoning after the fact that progress is made and learning occurs.

    Brooks answer for the basis of our emotionally dictated moral choices, however, is less convincing. Still, the points he brings up are very applicable to our class, specifically our discussion of cooperation vs. self-interest. He is under the impression that human society has only survived and progressed because of cooperation. This cooperation throughout history has led humans to care for "loyalty, respect, traditions, religions" which then has manifested itself into our moral decisions. I may be overreaching, but it seems that he is proposing that we make moral decisions based on emotion which is influenced by our biology! If this is the case, then we have in fact reached the end of philosophy, in the Hegelian sense at least.

    At any rate, the article was quite interesting and helpful in the understanding of the process of decision making and progress in general.

Today we began discussing an excerpt from Hegel's The Phenomenology of Spirit. Dr. Long brought up the dialectic model of Thesis v. Antithesis which eventually yields a synthesis. Although this may be a very simplistic way to view the progression of societies and the broader aspects of history, I feel that it is fairly accurate.

Hegel claims we are always in contradiction with other ideas and the "Spirit" constantly moves us to a certain "perfection." Ideas develop as we act on the world. Better ideas produce progress in history. Each idea, theoretically, transcends the previous in a strive to achieve a sort of perfection. Isn't this what we witness on a daily basis? Because of our consciousness and this everlasting strive to achieve a certain perfection, there are constantly new ideas and innovations. These new ideas are always competing with other ideas and the result of this conflict is theoretically the best of these ideas which creates a synthesis that  evolves into a practice. Like the bud-blossom-tree analogy, this practice is combated by new practices and the process repeats; thus, solidifying the notion to achieve a "perfection".  

A brief mentioning in one of my class texts of a book entitled Intellectual Impostures struck my curiosity. It is basically a critical discourse analysis on serious scholars in which the authors ( Alan Sokal [see Sokal Affair] and Jean Birchmont) reveal French intellectuals who are guilty of wasting ink on irrelevant and sometimes highly discrepant information --not for the purpose of furthering their arguments, but instead, to befuddle normal people like us into the mistaken view that what they are writing is breathtakingly profound...OK.

Upon cursory research, I was surprised to see Luce Irigaray as one of those who Sokal and Birchmont spent a good chapter dismissing, apparently. As a review on the book (follow the link below) mentions,

"And the lack of relevance of the flaunted erudition is a constant finding in Intellectual Impostures: it is there merely to impress and terrorise. The appearance of relevance is sometimes sustained by treating metaphors as if they were literal truths. This is particularly evident in the writings of Luce Irigaray..."

The website gives a brief description of other 'scholarly' works written by Irigaray and where it went terribly wrong. I think you'll find the first interesting and humorous, although it's important to understand that we ourselves do not know the entirety of Irigaray's argument in the following:

"S&B's main concern is with the way she uses hydrodynamics to underpin some pretty large assertions about sexual politics and the oppressed and marginalised situation of women. Her conclusions are, to put it mildly, somewhat underdetermined by the science she invokes.

Irigaray has famously argued that science is sexist; for example E=Mc² is `a sexed equation'. The reasons she gives for believing this are extraordinary. The equation

"privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possibly sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather its having privileged what goes the fastest ... (quoted p. 100)."

The muddle here is so dense that it is probably not worth unpicking it. Suffice it to say, as S&B do, that Einstein's equation has been verified to a high degree of precision. Whatever Irigaray might feel about privileging the speed of light over `other speeds that are vitally necessary to us', the equation would not be valid if the speed of light (c) were replaced by another speed -- by, for example, the speed of a woman running after an escaping toddler in a supermarket. To put this another way, if the equation is sexist, so is nature; if scientists are sexist in respect of this equation, it is because matter is. And if matter is sexist, so are women, who are made of matter (though on that there is more to be said, as we shall see)."

 

This one is perhaps just a bit more closely in line to what we were reading:

"One would think that misrepresenting the facts, misusing specialised terminology (Irigaray is even worse on mathematical logic than she is on fluid dynamics), and using metaphors that are tendentious to the point of lunacy, would be a high price for an intellectual to pay. One is curious to know what end would justify these desperate means. Astonishingly, Irigaray's goal is to support conclusions that no male chauvinist pig would dare shout out in his sleep:

But every stage in this development [of the female sexual economy] has its own temporality, which is possibly cyclic and linked to cosmic rhythms. If women have felt so terribly threatened by the accident at Chemobyl, that is because of the irreducible relation of their bodies to the universe. (quoted pp. 113-4)

This is not an isolated episode of redneckery. Elsewhere Irigaray links rationality and objectivity with masculinity and emotion and subjectivity with the female. To `reduce women to their sexuality, their menstrual cycles and rhythms (cosmic or not)' is, as S&B point out, `to attack everything the feminist movement has fought for during the last three decades. Simone de Beauvoir must be turning in her grave.' There is a bitter irony in the deployment of so much mystification and intellectual dishonesty to bien pensant ends only to discover an unexpected commonality of view with the rednecks. The reason that Luce Irigaray has not attracted the anger of ordinary oppressed women is the obscurity in which the works that have brought her international fame among academics are wrapped."

 

I'm interested in knowing whether this affected anyone's thoughts on the Irigaray piece we read at all, more so for those who were in support of her. Also, what now can you make out of her long-winded approaches in arguing with Freud? I could still support the fact that she went away from the masculine in her approach, but after briefly reading some of the information based on Intellectual Impostures, I'm not so sure what her [other] intentions were--was it to sound more scholarly and through complication, make her arguments arresting? If so, I can't attest to its effectiveness.

 I like these reminders posted at the end of the same website and definitely think we should be mindful of them in whatever we read:

1. It's a good idea to know what one is talking about.

2. Not all that is obscure is necessarily profound.

3. Science is not a `text'.

4. Don't ape the natural sciences.

5. Be wary of argument from authority.

6. Specific scepticism should not be confused with radical scepticism.

7. Ambiguity may be a subterfuge.

 

On Marriage:
In class on Friday the topic of marriage came up, as well as ways to "mess" with it.  In terms of Biological Anthropology, marriage (in a single pair bond) is viewed as a public display of reproductive monopoly over one's partner (aka: spouse).  This bond is made for security of resources and reproduction (and in some cases love).  Fun fact time: the female in the pair bond is more likely to forgive their partner cheating on them if it is a one time occurrence rather than a long term scenario because in a long term offense more resources are diverted towards the other individual.  The male however, is much less likely to forgive a one-time offense due to the fear of being cuckolded into caring for someone else's offspring.  

Now that that tidbit is out of the way, I couldn't help but be taken aback by the line on page 121:

"As well as being an undeclared work contract, the marriage contract will also have disguised a purchase agreement for the body and sex of the wife, "who differs from the ordinary courtesan in that she does not let out her body on piecework as a wage worker, but sells it once and for all into slavery" (Engels, p. 134)." (Irigaray, p. 121).

As Professor Long suggests, it seems that Irigaray believes marriage to be nothing more than prostitution.  I for one find this point of view to be slightly bizarre.  When I discussed this with one of my friends, she brought up the time period where dowries were the norm, and women were basically financial exchanges between the fathers of two particular families, which could fit the idea of prostitution, but not so much in our society (Europe, North America, etc.) so recently.  What do the rest of you guys think about this and what it contributes to her challenge to our way of thinking?

On Prairie Dogs:
When I went back to double check my statement on Prairie Dogs, I discovered that I had misspoken about the social hierarchy of the species.  They do apparently have a social system of "families" where there is a dominant male and multiple females in the same family.  There is however, a sentinel system where the Prairie Dogs will send out a general alert in the form of a barking sound to alert others at the presence of a predator.  I will attempt to locate the particular species described in lecture, which exhibits the grazing techniques I mentioned in class, and I apologize for the false information.  I am reasonably certain it was with regards to a desert/Savannah dwelling creature, but the idea is still the same, where individuals in a group act in ways to benefit the group/community without it being a structured/status-assigned task, and the each individual benefits from other individuals merely being there.

In class on Friday, someone asked the question "What is wrong with a representational economy?". This question I feel was never truly answered because the topic of our discussion shifted so quickly. I wanted to find out what people feel are the negatives to a representational economy. Also, I would also be interested in knowing what people feel are the positives.

We have been discussing, searching for, and experimenting with alternatives to phallocentricism as a way to view and operate in society and more specifically within the classroom. In our attempts we have purposefully avoided anything that contained elements of or even slightly resembled the phallocentric economy of representation. We attempted to create a structure were everyone was on an equal playing field, with no hierarchy or status. We believed that by eliminating all rungs on the social ladder we would bring about a more egalitarian structure, but all we really succeeded in doing was eliminating the incentives that cause us to participate. How can there be a structure with no authority, no status, and no dichotomy without total anarchy? The answer is rational self-interest, economics most fundamental concept. The economy is the world's greatest, most successful non-hierarchical structure. There is no president in the economy, no authority figure. Everyone is in it for themselves and in turn everyone who participates benefits. By interjecting some of the aspects of the economy into our societal structures we could benefit greatly. The phallocentric economy of representation is comparable to a mixed economy, what we created could be termed a communal economy, and what we need is an inclusive/democratic economy. This would provide a non-discriminatory, non-dichotomous, and non-phallocentric structure to operate within and view society through. It would be beneficial to students who would be able to orient themselves toward long-term goals rather than grades, and teachers/professors who would see in increased quality and depth of work.

Today, I experienced a very odd coincident in two of my courses. This was between this course, Philosophy 298H, and my Sociology course, Soc 001. The material covered in the Sociology course today was concerning social stratification, which is basically the study of different class-type systems in society. The connection really struck home, when the professor was about to show clips from a documentary entitled Lakshmi and me. Before playing the clips, he wrote on the board three things to look for in these clips which signaled to me the need for this post due the intimate connection with our recent discussions on Irigaray:

Separation

Division of Labor

Hierarchy

Then came the documentary, Lakshmi and me, and I knew that this was definitely related to our discussion in class. The documentary shines light on the persistent caste system in India. For those of you who did not have the privilege of taking a sociology-type of course, the caste system is similar to the class system, which we are used to, in that certain jobs and salaries are associated with different castes. However, the big difference is in the was people get into their different castes. In a class system, we enter into a new class by achieving a job and salary associated with that class. If we want to be in a high class, then theoretically, all we have to do is work for it. However, in a caste system, you are born into or assigned to your caste, which is a grouping similar to class. This means you are stuck with the caste and corresponding set of jobs/salaries, which you are born into or assigned to and there is nothing you can do to change it, especially in an upward fashion.

In the documentary, this system is further exposed as operating in modern times. We see the problems encountered by Lakshmi, who is of a lower caste, and her relationship with the film maker Jain, a professional of the caste similar to our middle class. You will also see in the trailer, a little about the feminist movement in that country and how women of privileged castes can now hold professional jobs, such as filmmaker. This is in contrast to the increasing need for jobs occupied by those in the lower castes such as Lakshmi, mainly as maids. It is also interesting how a feminist, Jain, who refuses to clean on grounds of gender inequality, has, at first, no problem with giving the job to another woman of a lower caste for a monthly pay equivalent to the cost of a fancy dinner. I thought these clips and insights were very interesting in light of what we have been discussing in class. I hope you all get a chance to watch them.

The clips I have talked about can be found at the following websites:

The Lakshmi and me trailer

More clips and corresponding article from PBS

We talked briefly about marriage in today's class. I thought it would be interesting to look at the marriage vows and relate it to the course material. I'm interested to see what everyone thinks about it.

MINISTER:

Dearly Beloved, we are gathered together here in the sign of God - and in the face of this company - to join together this man and this woman in holy matrimony, which is commended to be honorable among all men; and therefore - is not by any - to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly - but reverently, discreetly, advisedly and solemnly. Into this holy estate these two persons present now come to be joined. If any person can show just cause why they may not be joined together - let them speak now or forever hold their peace.

Marriage is the union of husband and wife in heart, body and mind. It is intended for their mutual joy - and for the help and comfort given on another in prosperity and adversity. But more importantly - it is a means through which a stable and loving environment may be attained.

Through marriage, GROOM'S NAME and BRIDE'S NAME make a commitment together to face their disappointments - embrace their dreams - realize their hopes - and accept each other's failures. GROOM'S NAME and BRIDE'S NAME will promise one another to aspire to these ideals throughout their lives together - through mutual understanding - openness - and sensitivity to each other.

We are here today - before God - because marriage is one of His most sacred wishes - to witness the joining in marriage of GROOM'S NAME and BRIDE'S NAME. This occasion marks the celebration of love and commitment with which this man and this woman begin their life together. And now - through me - He joins you together in one of the holiest bonds.

Who gives this woman in marriage to this man?


BRIDE'S FATHER OR ESCORT:

Her family and friends gathered here today do.


MINISTER:

This is a beginning and a continuation of their growth as individuals. With mutual care, respect, responsibility and knowledge comes the affirmation of each one's own life happiness, growth and freedom. With respect for individual boundaries comes the freedom to love unconditionally. Within the emotional safety of a loving relationship - the knowledge self-offered one another becomes the fertile soil for continued growth. With care and responsibility towards self and one another comes the potential for full and happy lives.

By gathering together all the wishes of happiness and our fondest hopes for GROOM'S NAME and BRIDE'S NAME from all present here, we assure them that our hearts are in tune with theirs. These moments are so meaningful to all of us, for "what greater thing is there for two human souls than to feel that they are joined together - to strengthen each other in all labor - to minister to each other in all sorrow - to share with each other in all gladness.

This relationship stands for love, loyalty, honesty and trust, but most of all for friendship. Before they knew love, they were friends, and it was from this seed of friendship that is their destiny. Do not think that you can direct the course of love - for love, if it finds you worthy, shall direct you.

Marriage is an act of faith and a personal commitment as well as a moral and physical union between two people. Marriage has been described as the best and most important relationship that can exist between them. It is the construction of their love and trust into a single growing energy of spiritual life. It is amoral commitment that requires and deserves daily attention. Marriage should be a life long consecration of the ideal of loving kindness - backed with the will to make it last.


Exchange of Vows


MINISTER TO GROOM:

Do you GROOM'S NAME take BRIDE'S NAME to be your wife - to live together after God's ordinance - in the holy estate of matrimony? Will you love her, comfort her, honor and keep her, in sickness and in health, for richer, for poorer, for better, for worse, in sadness and in joy, to cherish and continually bestow upon her your heart's deepest devotion, forsaking all others, keep yourself only unto her as long as you both shall live?


GROOM:

I will.


MINISTER TO BRIDE:

Do you BRIDE'S NAME) take GROOM'S NAME to be your husband - to live together after God's ordinance - in the holy estate of matrimony? Will you love him, comfort him, honor and keep him, in sickness and in health, for richer, for poorer, for better, for worse, in sadness and in joy, to cherish and continually bestow upon him your heart's deepest devotion, forsaking all others, keep yourself only unto him as long as you both shall live?


BRIDE:

I will.


Exchange of Wedding Rings

MINISTER:

What token of your love do you offer? Would you place the ring(s) in my hand?

May this/these ring(s) be blessed as the symbol of this affectionate unity. These two lives are now joined in one unbroken circle. Wherever they go - may they always return to one another. May these two find in each other the love for which all men and women year. May they grow in understanding and in compassion. May the home which they establish together be such a place that many will find there a friend. May this/these ring(s) on her/their finger(s) symbolize the touch of the spirit of love in their hearts.


Handing ring to the Groom


MINISTER TO GROOM:

GROOM'S NAME, in placing this ring on BRIDE'S NAME finger, repeat after me: BRIDE'S NAME), you are now consecrated to me as my wife from this day forward and I give you this ring as the pledge of my love and as the symbol of our unity and with this ring, I thee wed.



Handing ring to the Bride


MINISTER TO BRIDE:

BRIDE'S NAME, in placing this ring on GROOM'S NAME finger, repeat after me: GROOM'S NAME, you are now consecrate to me as my husband from this day forward and I give you this ring as the pledge of my love and as the symbol of our unity and with this ring, I thee wed.


Pronouncement


MINISTER:

May you always share with each other the gifts of love - be one in heart and in mind - may you always create a home together that puts in your hearts - love - generosity and kindness.

In as much as GROOM'S NAME and BRIDE'S NAME have consented together in marriage before this company of friends and family and have pledged their faith - and declared their unity by giving and receiving a ring - are now joined.

You have pronounced yourselves husband and wife but remember to always be each other's best friend.

What - therefore - God has joined together - let no man put asunder.

And so, by the power vested in me by the State of ______ and Almighty God, I now pronounce you man and wife - and may your days be good and long upon the earth.

You may now kiss the bride.

There was an interesting point brought up in class concerning a society without structure. It was suggested that their could be a society where there was no "leader" but instead there would be a community where everyone took responsibility for one another like a prairie dog colony. 

During our Class on Wednsday, I made a very interesting observation: we want to be ruled. This stems from the fact that in Wednesday's class, the discussion seemed to always lead back to Professor Long with some people even raising there hands to be called upon.  This was after Professor Long tried to relinquish his authority.  This, I believe, leads to a conclusion that holds even outside of the classrooms.  It shows that in society we seek an authority, which eventually leads to a structured government.  In our society, we learn this from our parents and our education.  At home, we are taught to obey our parents and respect their authority.  This authority is transferred into our teachers and eventually to the government and other community leaders.  With this structure in place, it becomes very difficult if not impossible to completely uproot this structure.  

Also, I would like to propose that this goes beyond a humanly made invention.  A structured hierarchy exists in other non-human societies as well.  For example, most studies of wolf packs have concluded that they too have an alpha dog and certain structure in how the pack interacts with one another.  This seems to suggest that this domination mentality is something natural.  Upon thinking about this I am left with more questions than answers.  I ask myself is this natural, or is this just our humanly trained mind imposing the structure of our society on the natural world? Can we find an alternative to a phallocentrically structured society?  Can we do this without reverting to a chaotic anarchy?  Is there a way we can create an overreaching equality without a powerful government?  Is there a way to propose this with out falling victim to the dichotomy that supports what it should have replace?  Am I just another victim of the frustrating ideas of "Speculum"?  

Despite my meditation over these questions I seem to be unable to find an answer to these questions except: probably, maybe, possibly, probably not, don't think so, and definitely yes.   Maybe someone else can do better.
    

 

 

Since reading August's post concerning the Quiverfull movement, I have been questioning why there are still women in our society who readily accept submissive positions.  Why are there so few feminists in current-day society when today's average woman is the most educated in the entirety of American history?  Why are there not more women attempting to bring awareness to the inequalities prevalent in society and its underlying phallocentrism?

The women in the Quiverfull movement place enormous faith in a completely patriarchal system.  I feel that a similar, slightly less apparent system is at work all around us and continues to function regardless of attempts to change it.  I question whether an aversion to change allows this system to continue or if patriarchal force itself is the cause of this unwavering system. 

Specifically, I believe the importance of a "healthy" family in our society perpetuates the typical patriarchal structure that is still prevalent in families.  In class, we referred to Irigaray's view of the patriarchal family in relation to Marxism.  On pages 120 and 121, Irigaray states, "Marx defines man's relation to woman as an index of his relations to all his fellows, notably insofar as exploitation is concerned".  ... "Sexual relations clearly cannot be dissociated from the general economy in which they operate." ... "Within the family he is the bourgeois and the wife represents the proletariat."

These assertions are significant, especially in relation to the exploitation of a married woman.  She is not only deemed the less valued partner, but she is also considered "a commodity" bought for her body and sexual capabilities.  I believe that Irigaray's reference to Marxism solidifies the view that sexual differences between males and females and their gender roles are socially constructed rather than the result of biology.  Differences in wealth and private property result in both sex and class oppression.  I support the viewpoint that class and sex oppression are linked and are the result of a patriarchal society.  However, I do not fully agree with the assertions of Marxist feminism, which state that the root cause for women's oppression is capitalism.  This is far too simplistic.  And, as described in "The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism" by Heidi Hartmann, the Marxist theories of class oppression fail to acknowledge many of the other factors that contribute to the oppression of women and the continuance of the patriarchal family.  

Ultimately, there are countless factors that contribute to the existence of patriarchal society as well as the patriarchal family.  While the components of Marxism help explain the significance of the patriarchal family, I believe there are additional reasons which we may not even acknowledge.

On Wednesday, we attempted to temporarily withdraw ourselves from the phallocentric representational economy that defines our classroom. The discussion,without any set agenda, seemed to be rather slow but eventually the class was able to engage phallocentrism in sports. This topic overall concluded that historically sports were developed for the masculine physique and today's women's sports are modified versions that accomodate the feminine physique. We also discussed how sports are so encompassed by phallocentrism that women are rarely commentators of sports. Is this to say that women lack the capacity to aquire knowledge about sports or overall appreciate sports as a whole...no. This is just another example of the grasp phallocentrism has on our everyday lives.

While this was a very interesting discussion, I believe more importantly it displayed our own need for phallocentrism in the classroom. Order in the classroom via a sylabus featuring course subject matter, requirements, etc., is important to aid us in our learning endeavors. Without such structure what would we do? The obvious answer is talk about sports, but other than that, what would we do without someone actively, in a patriarchal manner, teaching us and providing course requirements and expectations? How would we be graded? Would grades even matter? And honestly, if grades don't matter, what incentive is there to work hard in school? 

Here stands a movement wielding patriarchal dominance and its byproduct as weapons (especially menacing when one considers the metaphoric origins of the name).  Male reproduction and (re)production (if the former can be considered propagating life and the latter propagating lies (or deceit)) provide the foundation of the group's existence. While the Quiverfull Movement remains a fringe group, espousing extreme interpretations of seemingly benign source material, these sentiments betray a larger trend in line with many of our classroom discussions.

And how isolated are such beliefs when a one-time front-runner for the Republican Presidential nomination has signed onto their principle doctrines? Incidentally, the interview draws a very strong correlation between Christianity and this patriarchy. I find it worthwhile to ask - to what degree does religion perpetuate and legitimize this phallocentric economy of representation, motivating even women to willingly submit to its laws?

To use Irigaray's words, women play an essential role in propagating this economy, although not quite with the fervor of the Quiverfull women: "Her "phallicized" body will support its currency, prop it up, defend its exchange rate, guarantee its stock-holdings, while the father, the man, is busy with other investments." (73)

Today we discussed what would be required for a different type of class room structure, one that was more open to the input and design of the students, to work and be effective. One of the main issues involved with this is how to get the students to engage in the learning process without a very rigid structure of grades and assignments to provide the "motivation" to work. How do we spark a desire for intellectual growth and understanding in people?

Most people simply don't care enough to learn on their own. 1/3 of Americans don't graduate from high school. Even the majority of college students are not in college for an education. They are there to get a degree, so that they can get a job, and have a better quality of life. In cave man terms, they want a bigger cave, with a bigger fire to warm it. They are smart enough to recognize that putting in the work now will pay off latter, but they don't actually care about their studies for the sake of their intellectual merits. 

Most of this is because they don't see how much of it is relevant to what they will do in their life. And when we think about how much of what we learn and are exposed to actually ends up being used "on the job", its easy to see why. To change this we would have to create a culture that actively supports and values intellectual study for its own merits, and this would involve, as was mentioned in class, starting from the very beginning of a persons childhood.

However making this stick for most people would still be a waist of effort. Human society has not evolved beyond our basic instincts, we've just learned to satisfy our need for food, shelter, and security in ways that are efficient and reliable enough to let the majority of the population pursue other activities. The majority of children raised in this new atmosphere of intellectual validation where they help to drive their own learning process, in the course of their exposure to society, would fall back on their basic human nature and take the lazy route, and would need the structure imposed by grades, tests, and even the force feeding of facts during lectures to learn anything. Until we find a way to give students a valid, clear necessity to stimulate their own learning process, such a system would fail for the majority of the population.

There is one group of people who are highly motivated 'self learners", who actively and often engage in discussions of history, politics, human nature, morality, and how to restructure human society in a productive and practical way, and most of these people do not have college degrees, even though they are more widely read and spoken than the vast majority of the college educated population. These are the Non Commissioned Officers in the US military. These people are Sergeants and Chief Petty Officers (and not the Hollywood versions). But they engage in this learning process because of the nature of their work. For them intellectual study comes down to a bullet, a young 19 year old Private Smith from a small town, and a letter home to a mother trying to tell her why that bullet means her son isn't coming home, and why her son had to be their in the 1st place.  They don't need anyone to motivate or ask them to learn, they are constantly asking questions of how to reorder society in a way that prevents these things from happening, and how to make the work they do give sacrifices like this meaning. This is also true of the officers in the military (though this is slightly less surprising since they had to go to college to get that commission). This is one of the reasons some of the most brilliant people in history come out of the military. Even with these though you can find a divide among those who see the military as a bureaucracy to be taken advantage of and those think of it as privates who need to be taken care of, and to the extent they subscribe to these points of views. If you want need an example of this, read The Unforgiving Minute, A Soldiers Education by Craig Mullaney, a Rhode Scholar who after graduating from Oxford commanded an infantry platoon in Afghanistan and lost a soldier in a firefight along the Pakistan boarder.

As I write this I'm looking at 27 books that I have on my shelf; military histories, books on the psychological trauma associated with taking life, group dynamics, the organizational structure of different insurgencies and terrorists groups, and the like. None of these are for class, and they make up the majority of what I have studied and learned since I arrived here last semester. I keep a journal of my notes on these books, and look over it regularly, and review it with others (mostly the above mentioned NCO's). The only reason I do this, and the only reason that several of my cadet friends participate in a similar practice and have their own small and ever growing libraries is because we want to be infantry officers, and are deathly afraid of being incompetent, and the possible consequences of that could bring. Our future soldiers deserve to have the most intelligent officers available to lead them, and we will do anything and everything we can to provide that for them. If it weren't for this though, I doubt any of us would be as interested in our studies as we are, or as willing to participate in our own education. We would do what we had to to graduate and get a job, purely for the sake of the quality of life associated with it. 

The message here is that without a clear grasp of the relevance of self motivated learning, people won't engage themselves in it. Our basic human instincts our too easily satisfied without the effort. We can evolve beyond this, and probably will some day, but like most evolution this is a slow process that will take place over several thousands of years, rather than the decades it would take to start a new batch of kids in a newly structured education system and see how they preform on the other end.