Academic attainment and feminism?

You: "what concrete political effects does their work have? In other words in what way does their work improve things for women?"

Me: Concrete? None, I suppose. But I have certainly found what I learned there to be helpful and provocative, and it has coloured my world-view, so inasmuch as I engage in the world as a feminist, I would say that I have drawn from it. Students of mine have responded similarly. So if they all go out into the world having taken something from reading Cixous, Irigaray, etc?... ("The horror!", I hear you exclaim... ).

You: "So for example, Dworkin's book Pornography provides a set of tools to address pornography, and in fact may persuade many readers to reject pornography as harmful to women (that's what she did for me)."

Me: Me too. At 20yo, it (and "In Harm's Way") was one of the most horrifying things I'd ever read.

You: "I think we're back to this different viewpoints thing again. I'm looking at this through a political lens, in other words what will improve the condition of women, whereas you seem to be seeing these authors purely through the lens of literary criticism, so the work really stays on the page and in the classroom or in the head at the most. Certainly I don't know of any concrete improvements to women's lives that Cixous or Kristeva's work has led to - maybe the opportunity for a few PhD students to write theses or some teaching and conference opportunities - but smashing the patriarchy, no. But do tell me if I'm wrong about them."

Me: Well, this is the age-old criticism levelled against all literature, philosophy, etc. What difference does it really make? Why bother? Etc.

I guess I would respond in part with what i said before, that this shouldn't be a zero-sum game where one brand of feminism inevitably pushes out another.

But I would also say that just because one cannot measure obvious, concrete improvements (such as those following or inspired by MacKinnon & Dworkin contra porn), this does not mean that the cumulative effect of reading feminist literature and philosophy cannot have some kind of effect. Both - concrete and indirect - can be feminist - in my opinion.

You: "(Did you see Dworkin's explanation of her style that I posted upthread. Very exciting stuff)"

Me: Yes, and yes!

Night.

Sorry, didn't respond to your point about Berger's, etc., admiration for Dworkin. Well, yes, sadly...

"And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house." Matt.13:57

Yes, Dworkin's writing is literary (cue snake eating its tail moment where one could argue that all writing is literary... ), though I do not believe that its literary qualities are the most important feature; Dworkin does not use style in the way that, say, Cixous does to exemplify Écriture féminine.

Kristeva is refuting the collective political identity of all groups there. Since she does not name feminism at that point, thought you have logically inferred it, I could equally logically infer that she is aiming her comments at male collective identity, or male supremacy, as well.

In the context of a seminar on feminism with students, I would discuss the "early" Kristeva and her influence on feminism; I could then use this article (plus whatever work this totalitarian stuff is alluding to - do you know?) to demonstrate how she is no longer a feminist - or any "-ist" - and what this means for contemporary feminism, etc.

Psychoanalysis has been understood as a very plural body of ideas, and many feminists have appropriated its ideas. I know you reject this feminism, so I won't bother to go on about that any more, but this is, as you know, the context for Kristeva's and Cixous' psychoanalytical work.

Bonsoir - I remarked that Cixous was Algerian; perhaps it would have been better to write that she was born in Algeria of German-Jewish-(Sephardic & Ashkenazi)-French/Pied-noir descent, and that to label her simply a "French Feminist" is to miss out a significant element of her literary, philosophical, and political identity.

I was just trying to be succinct.

Thanks for pulling me up on that!

Her Algerian identity is important to her though (think, for instance, of her word-play around Oran-je, etc.).

dittany - I accept that that paragraph is contradictory, although of course it was not meant to be; I meant, simply, to correct any impression this thread might give that French Feminism (of whatever vintage) is wholeheartedly and universally embraced within the academy. It is not. Radical feminism is, of course, embraced even less...

You asked: "What effect do you think their writing has Penthe?"

In the context of what I wrote I meant that (particularly) Dworkin's writing is rooted in activism and the texts reflect this. They communicate in a very particular manner with their readers.

Cixous and Irigaray, in my opinion, do something different, in that their writing is more literary or philosophical and their styles, etc., reflect this. Neither of these thinkers is a writer-thinker-activist in the manner of Dworkin or MacKinnon. Both (as OF COURSE do Dworkin and MacKinnon) can, however, enable their readers to re-imagine the world. In this respect, they are influential.

A spectacularly sexist first line to that article from which you quoted - "In France, Julia Kristeva is best known as the wife of Philippe Sollers, a high profile French novelist." Nice.

I agree that the idea that feminism, ethnic interest groups, etc. should be labelled "totalitarian" is pretty gruesome. In the context of a patriarchal world, it is not helpful to give such ammunition to the enemy.

But it seems clear from the article that one ought to understand her rejection of "the group identity adopted by some feminist, gay and ethnic leaders as a pedestal for their revindications" in the context of a rejection of any collective political identity, so that any ideology is incompatible with individual freedom.

I would say, however, that I have not read any of her more recent work which talks of this totalitarianism; and that that paragraph is largely a paraphrase of the journalist. I would like to read exactly what she had to say on the matter before I pontificate further!

Have you read it or know where I might find it? Where does it appear, other than the in this interview/article?

LRD didn't, however, mention them even remotely in the context of Cixous's work, thank you.

They are not "unknown as feminists", in particular not Cixous (and she is not "Algerian" as was erroneously stated further down the thread).

"Just because it's a woman writing doesn't make her a feminist. Kristeva and Cixous are unknown as feminists in France, nobody recognises them there."

And where did you glean that particular gem from, dittany? The article you linked to?

They are both widely published and recognised thinkers in France.

Thank you for responding Sieglinde. I find it a bit strange that someone who teaches feminist theory wouldn't think that Sexual Politics is an important work, and Millett's place an important one in the development of feminist analysis. Same goes for Dworkin and Mackinnon.

I find myself that feminist theory and analysis is actually quite simple most of the time. What is more difficult is laying aside patriarchal influence and the internalization and normalization of patriarchal values and paradigms.

I think the radical feminists mentioned on this thread did so very incisively and that is why they are important and influential.

When you do feminist theory with your students, are you exploring feminism as a political movement, or as an academic subject to be examined?

By 'male perspective' I mean that we studied literature from a predominantly status quo point of view (that of society being organised with men in a position male privilege and women not having privilege). We were encouraged to think highly of authors who, when read from the position of feminist analysis, were sexist/patriarchal if not actually misogynistic.

There was nothing unusual about my course - just standard Uni in the 90s stuff really. I became very disillusioned with it personally because so much of it just didn't speak to me or speak about my existence. I said recently on a thread on MN that feminist lit crit and analysis gave me 'permission' to decide that there were authors I didn't want to read regardless of how great they supposedly were. I find I much prefer to read books written by women.

It will be interesting, I think, dittany, to see how my students respond to the juxtaposition of theorists and writers such as SdB, MacKinnon, and Dworkin, who address real women's issues directly, such as marriage, rape and violence; and those theorists and writers who philosophise "woman" or "women's ontological experience", and frequently address the aforementioned issues indirectly, such as Cixous or Irigaray. I disagree with you that the latter are not feminists, or worse, anti-feminists, but acknowledge that the effect of their writing is radically different, and that is worth thinking and talking about.

Indeed, it is precisely the fact that - as you point out - Dworkin and others provoke howls of outrage, while others - such as Cixous - who arguably (I know you do not agree, but please accept that I do!) make any number of accusations against men, yet couched in a particular style/language - are more "acceptable" (I think this is largely an impression of their more "academic/intellectual" [however specious those terms are] qualities, if you see what I mean), that needs examination. (Ugh - ungainly sentence... Hope you follow me).

And it should be pointed out that your picture of the academy is not quite as accurate as it may seem. Plenty of (predominantly male) academics utterly reject Cixous' and Irigaray's thought. They haven't "won" any particular war; a few battles, maybe. However, I do agree that in comparison to the fate of radical feminism in the academy, these thinkers are virtually canonised.

I wish that it was not such a zero-sum game; there should be room at the table for all kinds of feminist thinkers. Not in the spirit of forced (feminine) tolerance, but in that of a kind of open-minded arena which admits different species of debate, while not losing sight of the real world, real time, real life goals of political feminism. And it should not be the case that thinkers muscle others out. That is, surely, a patriarchal gesture. But the remedy to that is not then to replace one orthodoxy with another, if you see what I mean, which would arguably simply replicate that previous patriarchal gesture.

Incidentally, in Cixous' case at least, it is not quite fair to claim she has done nothing for women directly, since she founded the centre for Women's Studies at Vincennes, which was (hazy memory, I think) the first of its kind in Europe. That is surely, if only an academic action, a positive one for women.

And Irigaray initially suffered for her opinions, when she was ejected by Lacan from the Ecole Freudienne.

Separately, for Beachcomber: I think Millett might be the strongest of those Frequently Cited here. But she can't do lit crit and some of her readings are astonishingly simplistic. I find it exhausting to pump her in and then siphon her out.

What did you mean by 'a male perspective'? What is that?

dittany, your clairvoyance is astonishing. Now you know about my political past and you can also pinpoint my faculty, just through the power of your intuition. Because it would never do to ask nicely about those things, would it? Not when you can make assumptions. This, then, is what we can learn from Daly and Dworkin. Don't do any research because you already know the answer.

I always used to fervently deny being a feminist. Brought up to believe it was a negative word by my mysoginistic father!

Married straight out of school into a violent relationship and happy to be submissive and bullied. It was all I knew.

I left him after 3 years, remarried and did it all over again! Left number 2 (!!) then got myself an education. Studied biomedical science and was plunged into a male dominated career.

What I learned was....it's ok to ask for equality. It's ok to be a strong woman. Feminism is not about man-hating but more about being pro-women! I stopped thinking about the gender issues and more about people issues. I'm now happily settled with a man who has the same views, respects my past, the strengths gained from it and most of all my intelligence!

Although I went to uni at 25 (am 34 now but had lived quite a lifetime by 25!!) I know exactly how your eyes have just been opened! Good innit?!

Don't worry about all the words, what categories people fall into....just play to YOUR strengths and do what you need to do to be happy. Don't accept negativity from men OR women. Relax

Oh; I read the books, and books by women, and also got involved in women's activism . (Although, obviously, that was before I Rolled.)

Well, I don't think you disagreed with me, I think you created a straw man and disagreed with that, while attributing the views to me. This might explain why you keep insisting to me that you've demonstrated how post-modernism is anti-feminist, instead of replying to anything I've actually said.