Gender
Troubles recognizes a distinct problem that the feminist literary movement
will always face, the limitations of language. Butler specifically finds an
issue in the fact that “the presumed universality and unity of the subject of
feminism is effectively undermined by the constraints of the representational
discourse in which it functions “(6). She notes that the binary system of
gender we have is due to a “phallogocentric language” system in which women are
essentially impossible to depict due to the dominance of male orientated
language (Butler 13). This
perspective honestly made me feel a little guilty for being a man and raised
the question whether women are able to escape the influences of male language
in their writings.
I found Ann George’s article to be
very interesting and the comparison of Kenneth Burke and Helen Keller shed some
light into feminism and phallogocentric language. Some critics of Keller’s
writings have claimed that since she lacked the sensory abilities to see and
hear, some of the experiences she wrote about must have been recounts of what
she is told. This made a lot of sense to me, but Keller retorts, “Of course, I
am not always on the spot when things happen, nor are you… But that did not
prevent me, anymore than it prevented you, from knowing about it” (A New Light 95). Essentially George is identifying that
Helen Keller perceived her world through lenses of sorts, and we all have
lenses hers is just more noticeable than ours. This is where Burke agrees, “much that we take as
observations about reality may be but the spinning out of possibilities
implicit in our particular terms” (Terministic
Screens 46).
The “implicit terms” Burke speaks
of appear to be grounded in a phallogocentric system and brings upon the
question of how one escapes the system. During the 70’s a new wave in feminist
literary criticism emerged from France called ecripture feminine. The basis of this movement is that phallogocentric
languages are crushing feminist writings and there must be a break away from
this norm. Cixous coined the term and claimed that ecripture feminine was a sort of response to phallogocentric
writing, and this disruption was not exclusive to women. She noted that authors
like James Joyce strayed away from the male dominated system and thus were
creating new points of view. I would have to say that Kenneth Burke was participating
in the search for a new perspective not dominated by language also. I wonder
what Butler, George and Cixous would say if I called Burke a feminist critic?
Peter,
ReplyDeleteYou don't have to feel guilty for being a man but that is sweet... and it made me laugh.
I really like that you noted Keller's handicaps as a type of terministic screening, or at least something that forces her to see the world through a different screen. I agree. For Keller, access of knowledge was mainly through language more so than experience. For most people, it is the other way around, although language plays a huge role in understanding for anyone.
Because we learn and utilize language so much, I wonder, are we all looking at the world through a lens of phallogocentrism?
Language, at least in our culture, as Butler says and as you have pointed out, is based off of a system of gender binaries with a predisposed dominance to the male gender. If that is true and if we, as humans, understand much of our world through language, then we must all be attaining knowledge through a phallogocentric lens. We must make a conscious effort to step away from that and try to understand the world in a different way because as of now, based on the language we use, we are in this "default setting", if you will, of phallogocentric understanding.
My question is, where does that leave feminism? What is the role of feminist rhetoric? Is it a fight for equal access and opportunity for all or is it a struggle to understand the world in a completely different way - a way void of gender binaries? Maybe it is both. Maybe if we understand the world without gender binaries, equality will come as a consequence.