Schor quotes Toril Moi 1985 139 Having shown that so far femininity has been

Schor quotes toril moi 1985 139 having shown that so

This preview shows page 54 - 56 out of 93 pages.

" (Schor 1989, 46). Schor quotes Toril Moi (1985, 139): "Having shown that so far femininity has been produced exclusively in relation to the logic of the same, [Irigaray] falls for the temptation to produce her own positive theory of femininity. But , as we have seen, to define 'woman' is necessarily to essentialize her" I disagree with Moi's statement at every step. First , I believe Irigaray had no alternative but to go on to some positive construction. Until a positive category of women is historically constructed, the man/woman distinction will be the A/not-A universal and exclusive dichotomy it has historically been in many of its deployments; it cannot be dismantled or "deconstructed" by being folded in on itself (erase not-A). Second, I do not see that the positive construction to which Irigaray is committed has to be understood as "defining 'woman .'" 9 Third , even if it does, I do not agree that defining "woman" necessarily commits one to any essentialism or to (what is to Moi and others the same thing) a simple replication of A/not-A construction (with "us women" as A)—as though the only possible logic of categories is this pseudodualistic monistic logic. Moi is saying it is philosophically and politically wrong, incorrect, to construct a positive category of women. Others have suggested it is flat out (onto logically impossible to do so. I think that they are wrong about this and that this mistake, by reiteration among prestigious academic feminist theorists across color and class affiliations, has generated one of the rifts between feminist theory and feminist practice. That means we outweigh—anti-essentialism is worse for women Whitford 91 [Margaret, Luce Irigaray: Philosophy in the Feminine , 1991, p. 12-13] Irigaray's work is of crucial importance, particularly if one regards the modernism/postmodernism debate as the principal intellectual debate of our time (see some of the articles in Linda Nicholson (ed.) Feminism/Postmodernism (1990), and Susan Hekman's book Gender and Knowledge (1990), which puts forward this argument from a feminist position). For this debate confronts feminists with a dilemma. On the one hand, they share with postmodernist thought the radical critique of the modernist Enlightenment inheritance; on the other hand, the emancipatory thrust of feminism is rooted in the Enlightenment. Feminist politics, up to now , appears to be grounded in a modernize category, 'woman', with essentialist impli cations, while the possibility of founding a political programme on a postmodernist base is , to say the least, still a matter for debate . Irigaray 's contribution here is to point to the dangers for women of embracing postmodernism too hastily or too uncritically. If , as she argues, all western theory - including the theories of postmodernism - fails to recognize sexual difference, then we have to examine postmodernism for its sexual subtext. She warns against displacing the male/female binary before the female side has acceded to identity and subjectivity. To omit the question of [khirn] pg. 54
[File Title] [khirn] Michigan Debate 2015-2016 Page 55

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture