Tuesday, May 03, 2005

for those of you who have been following...

kevin and i have been into some intense discussion about the nature and purpose of feminism in post-modern society and i will continue to comment here because i think it's interesting...and kevin sends me things and says things that y'all should read or hear or whatever.

today: my response is in bold!

I'm not mad at all for you not being alice. good.

I think that as readers of your blog, we have the responsibility not to committ the "fallacy of biography", i.e. when reading a text, one shouldn't jump to the conclusion that the speaker is the same as the author. All you've done at this point is admit that the speaker was lying about its/her/his/ identity :) For me, these kinds of revelations are the neatest part about the internet and anonymus communication. We never really know what the "truth" is; we can only take what read at face value. Every internet writer projects a speaker; the value in blogging is what we learn from how the speaker we've created interacts with other speakers. The fact that you changed speakers mid-blog just makes things more interesting.
wow...thanks. for me it was just a matter of alice getting in michelle's way. i felt stifled by the fact that nothing else i was saying was a lie and so why should my identity. i have become obsessed with the idea of real communication between strangers who will never meet and the only way that this can exist (with anyone) is if there is some understanding that what is written is true...or at least as true and the truth can be seeing as how there is nothing more untruthful or relative than the truth...so yeah...i am simply michelle.

Ok, onto stuff. Dry and dense theory, huh? And you're excited? You really are an academic at heart. i prefer nerd at heart...Open studies sounds nice - I don't really believe in the value of a "well-rounded, liberal arts" education anyway; who needs all those required classes? It just serves to alienate people from subjects they're not immediately good at. statistics and economics immediately come to mind. in the end all those requirements just fuck with your GPA and make getting in to grad school for difficult...i say grrr to university buracracy!

Regarding Kristeva: I've only read the essay "Women's Time". Perhaps better than me trying to discuss her work, here is an exerpt from a page about her.

"Although many feminist theorists and literary critics have found Kristeva's ideas useful and provocative, Kristeva's relation to feminism has been ambivalent. Her views of feminism are best represented in her essay "Women's Time" in New Maladies of the Soul. In this essay originally published in 1979, Kristeva argues that there are three phases of feminism. She rejects the first phase because it seeks universal equality and overlooks sexual differences. She implicitly criticizes Simone de Beauvoir and the rejection of motherhood; rather than reject motherhood Kristeva insists that we need a new discourse of maternity. In fact, in "A New Type of Intellectual: The Dissident," Kristeva suggests that "real female innovation (in whatever field) will only come about when maternity, female creation and the link between them are better understood" (298). Kristeva also rejects what she sees as the second phase of feminism because it seeks a uniquely feminine language, which she thinks is impossible. Kristeva does not agree with feminists who maintain that language and culture are essentially patriarchal and must somehow be abandoned. On the contrary, Kristeva insists that culture and language are the domain of speaking beings and women are primarily speaking beings. Kristeva endorses what she identifies as the third phase of feminism which seeks to reconceive of identity and difference and their relationship. This current phase of feminism refuses to choose identity over difference or visa versa; rather, it explores multiple identities, including multiple sexual identities. In an interview with Rosalind Coward, Kristeva proposes that there are as many sexualities as their are individuals. "

In light of that, maybe you can see why I brought her up. She seems to share some of your complaints that "feminism has become a slogan for corporate woman to convince the rest of that the office tower is where we all want to aspire. 'up here, in our power suits, we're all equal...and we can still be feminine and shave our legs...' since when was feminism about NOT being feminine..." i will admit to not having read this essay (which i WILL read) but i tend to agree with her 'third phase' idea that opens us -as people first-to a multiplicity of identities. i am more than what is evident in what i outwardly appear to be and who i choose to fuck. where i loose it though-and i am sure she doesn't mean this- is that this idea of the potential for multiple identities cannot exist just for woman or just for the GBLT community; it must exist for all people because no person is simply an outward appearance or socially acceptable sexual preference.

Not surprisingly, I had never heard of Lacanian analysis before you mentioned it. When I get a chance, I'll go through the google results and see if I can form an opinion on whether or not Kristeva is Lacanian.

You wrote, "personal responsibility if course important but it cannot exist in lieu of social responsibility." That is beautiful. thanks!

I'd love to read your thesis. Please post it! actually kevin, it's sort of big and i am not sure what sort of copywrite laws apply to blogs so email me your email address and i will send it to you. my email address is in my profile.

Ok, I think that's enough for now. Oh, wait, one more thing. If you get a chance, you should read "The Rebel Angels" by Roberston Davies. I can't decide whether I "liked" it or not, but it is definitely an interesting book about the practice of feminism in academic society. I'd love to what you have to say about it. But of course, your reading list is already probably about a mile long... my reading list is a mile long and it is now a mile and an extra book longer. thanks!

and then a few days later kevin sent me this:

Hi! I read something today that made me think of our discussions. It's an exerpt from a William Gibson novel set sometime in the future. Two people are discussing the current state of society.

"Bohemias. Alternative subcultures. They were a crucial aspect of industrial civilization in the two previous centuries. They were where industrial civilization went to dream. A sort of unconscious R&D, exploring alternate societal strategies. Each one would have a dress code, characteristic forms of artistic expression, a substance or substances of choice, and a set of sexual values at odds with those of the culture at large. And they did, frequently, have locales with which they became associated. But they became extinct.""Extinct?""We started picking them before they could ripen. A certain crucial growing period was lost, as marketing evolved and the mechanisms of recommodofication became quicker, more rapacious. Authentic subcultures required backwaters, and time, and there are no more backwaters. They went the way of geography in general."

Pretty fucking astute, huh? it actually frightens me how true this is. i worry especially about what will happen to this fantastic new culture of protest that has emerged because of george w. bush. i wonder if it will go the way Gibson predicts. i fear it's already becoming trendy!

Anyway, the book is "All Tommorow's Parties", by William Gibson, but if you're going to read it, read "Pattern Recognition" and "Idoru" first. I'm glad to hear you enjoy our discussion.

Fair trade is where it's at too (yes it is...) - but don't let these "real" activists intimidate you. If they live where you live, they've got no right to preach moral superiority. EVERYONE should struggle with the hypocracy of being an activist in our society; being "hard-core" doesn't exempt them. there is an elistism that comes with activism though...which is strange because it should be (and preaches at being) the most welcoming place to be. bizarre...


Sounds like you're in a positive mood. Sweet! Hold on to that thought. i'm trying...

thanks for all the great comments kevin. keep it up!

No comments: