Analyse d’une émission télévisée consacrée à “l’identité nationale”.

D’un point de vue tactique, Bourdieu avait suggéré à Deleuze, foucault et d’autres de ne pas s’adresser directement aux “nouveaux philosophes” (ou personnages du même tonneau (i.e. grotesques), je ne sais plus exactement), il recommandait de faire comme l’évêché : de passer par un secrétariat, le secrétariat de l’évêché. On aurait presque envie d’en dire autant en ce qui concerne la réaction à avoir suite à une émission de cet acabit…

Christine Delphy prend toutefois la peine d’analyser ce “débat” (lire cette analyse sur le site de Politis). On la remercie.

Hemos hablado ya en algunas entradas de términos como respeto total hacia los demás y aceptación de los otros, como seres únicos que son. Iguales a nosotros y con los mismos derechos. Parece algo obvio, ¿no?

Por eso me siento casi en la obligación de comentar las palabras de Christine Delphy,luchadora por los derechos de la mujer y de Stella Rimington, ex directora de los servicios secretos británicos (MI5) y novelista cuyas entrevistas han aparecido en dos días consecutivos en La Contra y dejan ambas un regusto amargo (por lo menos a mi).

Stella Rimington narra sus experiencias como directora del MI5 y en ellas destaca la desconsideración sufrida por ser mujer. Muchos no creían en que estuviera capacitada para ese puesto una mujer. Podemos consolarnos pensando en que eran otros tiempos. Pero Christine Delphy, no habla de esos otros tiempos, habla del momento actual. Y destaca cómo, aunque sea por medios sutiles, muchas mujeres sigues estando discriminadas (y hablamos de nuestra sociedad occidental, moderna y avanazada, no de esas otras sociedades en que eso sucede impunemente).

Eso me hace pensar en que el cambio o ampliación de nuestros  mapas mentales es algo más lento de lo que parece. El cambio de creencias y valores es un proceso largo y  costoso y que parte de que realmente queramos hacer ese cambio. Muchas personas dicen “de boca para afuera” que creen en la igualdad, pero no lo sienten en su corazón, es algo que no está realmente alineado con sus ceencias más íntimas. Aunque es posible que no tengan conciencia de eso!

Hay cosas que nos gustaría creer, que nos gustaría tener realmente intengradas. Pero eso no basta para cambiar una creencia, que tal vez arrastramos, “de toda la vida”.

Cuando llegué el momento en que  más personas hayan podido de verdad revisar esas creencias, tal vez estemos en un mundo realmente más igualitario.

Os dejo con un pequeño corto de animación bastante ilustrativo:

¿Crees en la igualdad? ¿Estarías dispuesto a analizarlo hasta sus últimas consecuencias? ¿O tal vez es más cómodo quedarte en lo políticamente correcto?

Mertxe Pasamontes

povodom stogodišnjice rođenja filozofkinje, spisateljice i u svakom smislu revolucionarne figure u istoriji mišljenja – SIMONE DE BEAUVOIR – održan je odličan znanstveni skup 26. IX u zagrebu! počastvovana što sam učestvovala u tome i imala priliku čuti toliko sjajnih izlaganja, kratko ću ocrtati šta se to dešavalo u petak u europskom domu. prvo, glavna atrakcija je bilo veliko svetsko ime CHRISTINE DELPHY, prilepljeno uz radiklane materijalističke struje feminizma, koja je lično poznavala simone, došla iz pariza i održala predavanje zaboravljeno naslijeđe simone de beauvoir: kritika majčinstva. ono što mi je tu bilo najzanimljivije, mada se nažalost nije pokrenula toliko velika diskusija o tome (koliko sam očekivala-priželjkivala, osim što je asja bakić dala odlične komentare u popodnevnoj disusiji), bila je upravo tema majčinstva. simoninu kritiku majčinstva christine je videla kao aktuelnu i danas, opisujući je u mrežama pojmova :::: moć odraslih, apsolutna vlast nad detetom, osporavanje autentičnosti želje za majčinstvom (dakle majčinstvo prikazano kao društveni konstrukt, a ne biološki fatum)… i ono što je najbitnije, christine je postavila pitanje da li danas žene zbilja slobodno odlučuju da li žele imati djecu ili ne? ona smatra da je u našem društvu takva odluka i dalje veliki rizik, jer žene koje odluče da ne žele djecu moraju biti sigurne da će biti uspešne u drugim područjima da ne bi doživljavale socijalnu sankciju. mislim da je po tom pitanju u pravu, u našoj sredini to je strašno osuđivano, žena koja ne želi imati djecu je sebična, bez ljubavi, kučka, karijeristkinja, ambiciozna, hladna žena, feministkinja, naučnica … ili već neko drugo pogrdno ime.

sledeće, meni lično najbolje, predavanje održala je EVA BAHOVEC sa sveučilišta u ljubljani, pod naslovom možda će ovo stoljeće jednom biti poznato kao bovoarovsko. izlaganje je imalo i performerske momente, kada je eva izvadila iz svoje ženske torbe oruđa/organone kojima ženski lukavo traži žene u istoriji :::: metar (koji predstavlja linearno vreme zapadne istorije, sa upisanim godinama i važnim imenima i događajima, kao npr. kada je došao krompir u evropu…) i lupu, povećalo (s kojom pokušava da nađe skrivene žene). postavljajući pitanje zašto nema velikih ženskih figura u povesti, predavačica je istakla tri momenta :::: metaforu ’vlastite sobe’ (koja još uvek važi za žene u nauci, politici… svugde) + primer šekspirove sestre (koja tragično okončava svoj život spisateljice); zatim momenat skrivenosti žena u istoriji (kao učinak vlasti u granicama znanja, čak i u granicama čistog uma), citirana je i lidija sklevicki sa konstatacijom da u istoriji ima više konja nego žena; i vanjskost dimenzije ženskog, koja je konstitutivna za filozofiju (sa svim njenim promenama paradigmi i pokušajima vraćanja antifilozofije), čiji status je i dalje upitan. analizirajući badiouov ’francuski filozofski momenat’, eva postavlja pitanje koji su razlozi odsutnosti simone de beauvoir i iz filozofije, i iz antifilozofije. i na kraju – razmatranje velike ’slepe mrlje’, i privilegovane filozofske figure, u filozofiji simone de beauvor, a to je ime sigmunda freuda.

izlaganje SVETLANE SLAPŠAK, sa institutum studiorum humanitatis iz ljubljane, naslovljeno je :::: simone de beauvoir i ženska povijest: zaboravljena poglavlja drugog spola, i odnosilo se na analizu uloge simone de beauvoir u stvaranju discipline ’čitanje antičkih žena’. svetlana je postavila pitanje zašto danas feministice češće citiraju foucaulta nego simone, kada je ona izuzetno značajna u esejističkoj istoriografiji i izučavanju uloge žene u drevnim kulturama. TATJANA JUKIĆ, sa sveučilišta u zagrebu, održala je sjajno predavanje pod naslovom :::: mazohizam lomače za sadea: beauvoir i filozofija u budoaru, analizirajući simonin text ’treba li spaliti sadea?’ i nudeći simptomalno čitanje, vezujući kritičko i kliničko kako je karakteristično za radove deleuzea, pri čemu ovo čitanje pokazuje kako onda i sama simone de beauvoir radi kao simptom stanja deleuzove filozofije i postaje agente provocatrice sa kojim se ulazi u samu revoluciju! NADEŽDA ČAČINOVIĆ, sa sveučilišta u zagrebu, govorila je o ljubavi, o području sukobljavanja esencijalističkih i konstruktivističkih teorija govora o ljubavi, te je pokušala uneti malo reda u te loše postavljene alternative, naročito u kontekstu ljubavnog života simone de beauvoir. MAJA SOLAR je naslovila predavanje marksove sablasti u delu simone de beauvoir, ali je odmah na početku priznala kako je tim upućivanjem na derridu sledila preovladavajuće mode (htela riba biti moderna!), te je ponudila čitanje simone de beauvoir i marxa, kao ključne revolucionarne misaone figure, iz althuserra (i ranciera, ssto nije stigla zbog kratke minutaže). NADA ĐUKIĆ, iz ankarana, izlagala je o vezi javne i privatne slike simone de beauvoir, pod naslovom što razotkriva simone de beauvoir u svojoj autobiografskoj tetralogiji?

nakon pauze za ručak (koji by the way nije bio ni vegetarijanski ni veganski, ali me asja bakić odvela na sendviče sa tofuom i povrćem, kojih se može naći gotovo svugdje u ZG), sledila je panel diskusija pod naslovom simone i ja, gde su učestvovali :::: asja bakić, rada borić, maja brkljačić, slavica jakobović fribec, milena karapetrović, biljana kašić, igor marković, venita popović, kristina posilović, sandra prlenda, ivan radenković i svi*e prisutni*e. e taj deo me malo unervozio-unezverio. odjednom je nastao sukob, ili da kažem odjednom je skup retrogradirao u neko primitivno stanje, gde se, ne znam kako, opet raspravljalo o alternativi teorija ili aktivizam, pa su se teoretičarke i aktivistice dobro podžapale, a još gore je bilo to što christine delphy nije mogla podneti da jedan muškarac (ivan radenković) govori o drugom muškarcu, koji je mizogin i ’uopšte nije koristan za feminizam’ (to je freud), toliko da je čak izašla u sred njegovog izlaganja, i onda se sve nekako napelo i zateglo, i taman kad sam bila spremna poručiti kokice ne bi li što pažljivije pratila utakmicu, asja bakićeva, u tirkiz zelenim čarapama, ladno dovede u pitanje tzv. sestrinstvo i te gluposti o ženskoj solidarnosti (i potkrepi to i argumentacijama simone de beauvoir), založi se za čitanja i čitanja, neke druge žene se isto take založe za nerazdvojivost teorije i prakse, i tako ispadne da smo mi teoretičarke pobedile (mnogo nas : 2) i na kraju eva bahovec nekako diplomatski ’olabavi’ situaciju, i sve se zaključi ponovnim citiranjem simonine rečenice :::: istina nas napada od svuda. tako se završio i taj istiniti napad, zbilja sjajnog skupa, odlično organiziranog (i sa odličnim simultanim prevodom). posle su nas brane i asja vodili po njihovim bogatim knjižarama, a završili smo i na književnoj večeri predraga lucića, gde je govorila naša omiljena darija žilić, a upoznali smo i pesnikinju dortu jagić… kakav divan bovoarovski dan.

When asked for our final response paper to ruminate on my favorite authors or theories from the course, I had difficulty choosing a favorite. While I had enjoyed and found interest in a lot of the readings, I could not pinpoint one theory or author that I enjoyed the most. I was disappointed in myself; I thought that my inability to choose a favorite meant I was not fully engaged in the course material, or something of the like.

But, after putting more thought into what readings I found particularly interesting, I settled on “Rethinking Sex and Gender” by Christine Delphy. The essay by Christine Delphy, in particular, was material that I found great interest in. As someone that does not have a normative view of gender, that being the dualistic perception of male and female, Delphy offered insight and more context to a perspective that I hold. Oftentimes, it is difficult to verbalize an alternative view of gender to others since the ideas of gender in this country are absolutely institutionalized and reiterated in the same way that sex and sexuality is. But, I found that Delphy provided context to the observation that gender is something that is socially constructed, and may even precede biological sex. Personally, I find that gender, much like sexuality, can operate on a spectrum for the individual, and is not always aligned with the societal understanding of the norm for their assigned gender.

Finally, I realized that Feminism, at least for me, holds greatest importance in practice and applicability. The material that I found the most interesting gave me insight into my own life, and the tools to better understand others.

If we rethink what we as a society in the American geo-political context view as “natural” and instead think of nature, biology, and physiology, not as fixed, but as unpredictable and incommesurable, would this help shape a more inclusive claim for equality? Would this mean that our perceptions of gender are actually based on how we have interpreted sex differentiation? Can we then say that since many feminists have separated gender and sex, and actually based the struggle for equality on the presumption that sex precedes gender and that sex is “natural”, this has reinforced the claim for hierarchy and has actually strengthened the exclusive gender binary?

If we looked at the biology of the human body in “shades of difference” (Fausto-Sterling 3) instead of on an either male/or female continuum, perhaps we can then build a case for equality that doesn’t presuppose inequality.

Dismissing the historical importance and emphasis on sex, biology, physiology, and psychology deemed as “natural” and “immutable” characteristics which make males and females of both human and non-human species differ, perhaps claims for equality can be better founded.

If we acknowledge that sex doesn’t necessarily precede gender, but it is how historically and culturally we have viewed the body, we can see that we have created a binary, where we have defined male and female as oppostional extremes, and have actually determined what social roles should be divided into masculine and feminine based on these presumptions.

Therefore, it is how we have percieved sexual difference (i.e., there is more physiological body variation just than penis and vagina) that we then learn how to characterize gender, and this is all based on the idea that procreation is the ultimate achievement of humankind, and this then reinforces heterosexuality as the norm, a must. This is why sexuality is defined by gender and how gender has been defined by sex. But not everyone has relationships to procreate.

In conclusion, it might be useful for feminists who have dismissed sex as a variable which both precedes and informs how we view gender, to rethink the importance of sex in how we view gender and how we justify the importance of gender roles, and how we perpetuate hierarchies through this rhetoric of difference.

Therefore, an expanded feminist argument might be founded on how gender shapes our ideas about sex differences and if we rethink what is “natural”, gender roles might be more easily de-constructed. Thus, claims for equality might be based on how “natural” has been defined and used to justify inequality and hierarchical oppression, instead of waiting for society to change the social roles which have been shaped by our emphasis on gender as socially constructed.

            I see Christine Delphy’s piece, titled ‘Rethinking Sex and Gender,’ as a revolutionary cry to separate sex and gender. The author traces some of the historic breakthroughs and thoughts in the examination of sex and gender, and goes on to the make an argument for sex and gender to become separate, not intertwined, categories. She goes on to suggest we imagine a very different society from the one in which we currently live.

            The author starts (on page 57) by summarizing Margaret Mead’s thesis as “most societies divide the universe of human characteristics into two, and attribute on half to men and the other to women. For Mead, this division is quite arbitrary…” On the next page, Mira Komarovky, Viola Klein, Alva Myrdal, and Andrée Michel cited for their works from “a Parsonian sociological perspective.” This part of the piece introduced the Parsonian terms ‘status’ and ‘role.’ Status was defined as one’s “prestige within society” and roles were the part one had to play within the framework of one’s prestige. These theorists went on to describe people’s place in the socio-economic hierarchy in those terms, with divisions being based on prestige, with prestige as being linked to gender, and roles being assigned from there.

            By page 59 Delphy has moved on to describing Ann Oakley’s perspective, as described in her book Sex, Gender and Society. Oakley’s book critiqued many previous assumptions about “innate and acquired” (gender-related) human characteristics.  Oakley rails against “biological determinism” by using human variability to provide proof that characteristics are not set in stone. Delphy uses this relatively modern look at gender as a transition point into her central argument: “gender is in fact independent of sex.”[1]

            Delphy critiques the common notion that sex comes first and that it determines gender. This is the very starting points of many an argument for biological determinism, yet it seldom faces attack. Her line of argument is well stated on page 61:

“We are not shown why sex is more prominent than other physical traits, which are equally distinguishable, but which do not give birth to classifications which are (i) dichotomous and (ii) imply social roles which are not just distinct but hierarchal.”

            She has a point! Why is anatomy taken as a predictor of behavior? Why do penis babies get the blue clothes sans lace? Why do vagina babies get covered in bows and dresses? Why do boy children get guns and truck while their sisters get a doll capable of peeing on them? Why isn’t it that the babies above a certain height fall into one realm of expectations? Perhaps babies born with green eyes should be the ones covered in lace, and the other colors get the fire-engine pajamas? What sense is there in attributing behavior to anatomy?

            On page 62, Delphy goes on to show that anatomical sex is not easily reduced to two categories. She also points out the fallacy that a person equipped with a penis is able to procreate. She sees the juxtaposition of gender and sex as being meaningless. One factor doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the other.

            After this exploration of sex and gender, the author points out the absurdity that sex and gender are used to create hierarchies, used to police human behavior. Delphy could go on from this point to suggest we promptly remove hierarchies, based on gender or not. However, Delphy is more cautious than that. She suggests the following (political) goal: she wants people to simply imagine a non-gendered, non-hierarchical society. Just imagine that possibility. She closes on this point, as do I.

[1]  ‘Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives,’ by Carole R. McCann and Seung-Kyung Kim (Eds.). New York and London: Routledge 2003 Page 60.