Grosz begins by listing some of the means by which a text was judged to be feminist. These are the sexes of the author and the reader, the content of the text an the style in which the text is presented. To Grosz, these perimeters belie and illusory correlation between what she refers to as "women's texts," "feminine texts" and "feminist texts" (Grosz, 11). Grosz problem is that her use of these terms is "purposely being vague," whereas other theorists had previously not made such distinctions (ibid). Logically, there are blatant problems with this. For one, under the assumption that a feminist text MUST relate in someway to a critique of patriarchal hegemony or promote female equality, then it is easy for a text written by a women to engage these issues at all. Even if a female author doesn't promote patriarchy in her work, it can't be automatically designated as anti-patriarchal. In the same mode of thinking, a man my create a text from a female point of view or character which does not promote a critique of male hegemony.
Grosz explains that to assume that the experience of subjugation to a patriarchal society is the only privileged perspective that any female can have is reductive and furthermore fallacious. This creates the illusion of a connection under the term "woman" that Judith Butler elucidates upon. This idea is also limiting to texts, which Grosz denies stating that "every text exceeds its author" (Grosz, 19).
Grosz, through her analysis of Derrida's concept of the signature, then believes in a dialectical relation between, originally, the author and the text, and then between the reader and the text. This signature concept basically seems to imply that in the generation of authenticity that a signature provides, there is created a distinction between others. Thus, in the way I see it, the text is the mediation in a dialectic between the author and reader, whereby both can be the subject. That is to say, the author has a discourse with his authorial "I" as in the narrator or point of view. The reader engages the "I" and therefore creates a semiotic barrier of intentionality (both conscious and unconscious in my opinion) and meaning that encapsulates the text on both "sides."
On a different note, I had a personal experience recently that I thought fit very well with our themes of perversion and gender roles/identities but is also (I think) pretty hilarious. This past Saturday, I went out for Halloween dressed (there's a much longer story behind this choice) as the pop singer Ke$ha (Yes, she does put a dollar sign in her name. Don't ask me why).
This is Kesha:
So this was what my costume attempted. The funny part is that I did this basically to make fun of my roommates, all of whom are straight males like me. However, where I think these things are funny, they were all extremely uncomfortable. When each one of them showed up at the party I attempted (successfully every time) to make them think I was actually a girl. They weren't pleased. Again, I thought this was the funniest thing that had happened in months.
To highlight why I am bringing this up, I think it enforces a lot of the issues we've discussed as far as class themes. There is a deep fear (yes, fear) in most males of a man wearing women's clothes. I think the massively adverse reactions they all had (exclamation, expletives, more expletives, etc.) illustrated the strength of the cultural taboos against perversion.
I even had some gender issues going through my head afterward as well. I'm sure most of you noticed Monday that I had nail polish on. It was shocking to me as well, when I woke up Sunday morning. In my mind, every hand gesture, every way I held a cup or did anything looked (for lack of a better term) "girly." The only thought I had was, well I need to get this stuff off. I then decided that that was not me talking, but the fear someone would think that it was weird. Which I took as a challenge. So I kept it on for a few days. After deciding Sunday morning that I needed to do a lot of masculine things to account for cross dressing the previous night, I realized I didn't care at all. So I left the nail polish on, cleaned my house and cooked dinner for all my roommates. I didn't stop laughing all day at how arbitrary and artificial it all was. I can only hope that Butler or Foucault would be proud of my decisions. Or at least amused. That is, if Foucault even knows how to laugh.
Works Cited
Grosz, Elizabeth. Space, Time, and Perversion. 1995. Routledge. New York, NY.
Clyve,
ReplyDeleteFascinating post (and cultural experiment). Curious: on whose side do you see the "perversion" taboo working: on yours for dressing as a woman? on your room-mates for not seeing through your attempt to "pass"? It strikes me that there's something interesting going on here about ideas of bodies vs. ideas of discourse/category that seem to jar. What seems most interesting (to me) is the way in which the events you narrate point out both the utter arbitrariness/artificiality of gender AND its keen import to people. Perhaps there's something there--it becomes reified and important BECAUSE it is also arbitrary and artificial? Or vice-versa?
First off, I think that in the broadest, most ideologically-charged sense, everything that happened in these events if probably perverse. However, I look at it this way, reduced to categorical status, it is just me wearing different clothes. Why should that matter? So in the normative sense, yes, cross dressing is a perversion. But isn't having an averse reaction to something like that a statement of fear for one's own identity? I got comments like, wow that is so weird, or that creeps me out, and the like. I think both are perverse. The cross dressing is (to me) BECAUSE I did it solely to be funny. I don't wake up every day angry that I can't wear nail polish without people laughing at me. Their fear of seeing someone like that is (in, oh let's call it the Lacanian mirror-phase identity concept, I suppose) an indication of some sort of ABJECT perversion.
ReplyDeleteAs far as artificiality and arbitrariness, I think that all gender terms/roles are in fact arbitrary and culturally created. EG: Guys with long hair now are said to look like women, because women have long hair and men don't. But in, say, 1776? Long hair was normal for men. Arbitrary cultural preferences. Popular opinion on gender is then important because there is a need to be accepted (almost all modes of psychology hold some similar stance on this). The fact that it is arbitrary doesn't really matter then. Sort of just a matter of fact situation. A gender norm has been created. It is thus important. As far as I see it, anyways
I like your careful articulation of the various ways (and layers) of perversion or "perversion" here. Interesting stuff!
ReplyDeleteI think I asked about the import vs. arbitrary stuff because I was thinking something along the lines of this: why are folks made anxious by someone wearing clothes that don't seem to fit their ideas of gender norms? Is it because the individual wearing the wrong clothes is perverse? Or is it because it is--categorically, as you say--just someone wearing different clothes? I think the potential threat of the latter is not that it's someone wearing diff. clothes, thus it's scary. I think that it's something more like--someone's wearing diff clothes AND I THOUGHT THAT MEANT SOMETHING IT DIDN'T, OR DOES IT? i.e. someone CAN wear diff. clothes and appear different, thus I can wear diff clothes and appear diff, thus the foundation of my gender identity becomes shaky and thus scary, and then I must reject (and call perverse) the thing that makes me anxious--in this case, the person wearing diff clothes. This may or may not be the case--it just sets up an interesting dynamic (to me) and can help to explain the kind of adverse reactions you note above.
As I said, fascinating stuff here! Good job!
I think I agree with the idea that one person's "perversion" can make an observer question their own understandings of gender. Thinking about it, that is basically the root cause of my decision to do this at all.
ReplyDeleteClyve. I didn't tell you this at the time, but that last paragraph about how your hand gestures looked "girly"? That's what I thought, as well. I don't at all mean that as an insult, but isn't that weird? Except I'm not sold on the idea that nail polish alone can make someone look girly... maybe it just drew attention to the more "feminine" aspects of your gestures? (Again, writing that feels like an insult, but I promise it isn't.) If nothing else, it's a good example of how one feminine aspect of appearance can "undermine" what would otherwise be a masculine appearance (think Mother Camp).
ReplyDeleteDo you think the fear you've mentioned here is derived from (successfully) passing? I've noticed that, for some men, it's "cute" or funny if they're cross-dressing but not passing (that is, if it's not in everyday life as part of their normal appearance), whereas with women, I don't think it's nearly as shocking or upsetting to dress (at least partially) as a man... up until the point where you pass.
What I mean is, had you not successfully passed on Halloween, I doubt people would have reacted so fearfully.
It's also reasonable to say that a male with some aspect of feminine appearance (in this case, nail polish)is more likely to be looked at strangely than a woman with some aspect of masculine appearance. Case in point - most people don't think twice about short hair on a girl, etc. I think women have a lot more freedom in that area than do men - again, up until the point where they could potentially pass, which is generally met with fear or revulsion.
Interestingly, I had something of an opposite experience over the summer - the girls from MSU over in Ireland with me liked my short hair and (this is a weird one, but a common reaction) thought I was "brave" for cutting my hair that short. The thing is, after we'd established a group dynamic in which I performed a more "male" role, they started reacting negatively to my ability to wear dresses/appear traditionally feminine, especially when we went out as a group at night. I'm not sure what to make of this. Maybe it prompts fear when a person is able to shift from male to female performatives successfully?
Whoa. Sorry for the mini essay, but this is a topic I find really interesting, and I'm glad someone else had an experience like this. I always feel a bit silly writing about my hair, and anyway I think men have more interesting responses in this area. It's like, it's terrifying to a man that he might find another man attractive or feminine, whereas with girls, they feel almost betrayed when they find out that a woman who engages in masculine performances/performatives is still feminine. Does any of that make sense? It's something I'm still trying to puzzle out. Either way, interesting post; I wish I'd seen this sooner.
No, hang on... If we're talking in terms of questioning our own gender identity in the face of someone else's "perversion," maybe it's that men fear their potential femininity, whereas women see their potential masculinity and appreciate that, only to feel betrayed or let down when that masculinity is more feminine than they initially assumed it was?
ReplyDeleteAlternately, I'm full of it. Either way, that's definitely oversimplifying things. I fear I've been thinking out loud a bit here, sorry.
No, it's not an insult at all don't apologize (I rarely get insulted by anything). I appreciate the observation (points to the fact that I might not be crazy).
ReplyDeleteI think you're right in that men usually fear femininity (as it relates to for example expressing emotion, and "softness") and that women try to embrace masculinity (that ridiculous desire to prove toughness constantly) and are disappointed by their own femininity getting in the way. I think the trouble then is how do we show that masculinity is that great and there is nothing wrong with femininity (thanks a ton, patriarchal society).
In that sense, I think me tricking my roommates (passing?) caused fear whereas had I just worn a dress and not shaved my beard it would have just been a joke. I agree with that. Which just points back to the masculine desirability and the feminine shame (for lack of a better term, unfortunately).
Thanks for the comments.