One
К оглавлению1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1617 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Historical
materialism haunts feminism. Most postmodern feminists whom I shall call
"ludic feminists" — have suppressed "objective reality" in
discourse and regimes of signification. Nonetheless, they are feeling (however
indirectly) the historical pressures of the return of the suppressed
"objective reality." The increasing polarisation of wealth,
feminization of labour and impoverishment of women in the world are all
historical processes whose objectivity cannot be blunted in discourse. The
issue of materialism — of a reality independent from the consciousness of the
subject and outside language and other media — is thus gaining a new urgency
for feminists after poststructuralism. Many are beginning to ask whether there
is "an outside to discourse," as Judith Butler does in her Bodies
that Matter, and attempt to articulate this material reality. The issue is
especially pressing for Anglo-American neo-socialist feminists, who by-and-large
have substituted Foucault for Marx, discourse for ideology, and have joined
other poststructuralist feminists in embracing a cultural or discursive
materialism while rejecting any "positive" knowledge (knowledge free
from the consciousness of the subject and independent from language) as
positivism. (I am using the term "neo" here because this
"socialism" is one with little interest in "labour,"
"exploitation," and other global issues). Perhaps the best-known
neo-socialist feminist to make this shift recently is Michele Barrett, who
announces in the preface to her The Politics of Truth: From Marx to Foucault
that she is moving from Marx's "economics of untruth" —
"being," as she says, "Marxism's account of ideology, used to
show the relation between what goes on in people's heads and their place in the
conditions of production "' — to Foucault's "politics of truth, being
his own approach to the relationships between knowledge, discourse, truth and
power." In so doing, she announces that, "I am nailing my colours to
the mast of a more general post-Marxism" (vii). But as Renate Bridenthal
asks: "Where is this ship sailing to? This is not a time for intellectuals
to be sailing away on a sea of indeterminacy" (220).
The
re-theorisation of materialism in postmodern feminism follows two related
paths. The first is a re-understanding of materialist feminism coming out of
the Marxist tradition. But this is itself a contradictory and divided site —
involving a conflict between those feminists reclaiming historical materialism
and those who, following postmarxism, marginalise historical materialism as
"positivism." These postmarxist feminists largely subscribe to the
continued dominance of poststructuralist knowledges and are caught in the
contradictions between the political necessity of materialism and its
displacement by the ludic priority given to discourse. They end up substituting
discursive determinism for what they reject as an economic determinism in
classical Marxism, as Barrett does in The Politics of Truth. The second mode of
materialism is non-Marxist and is developed entirely out of feminist encounters
with poststructuralist theories (especially those of Derrida, Foucault, Lacan
and, with some recent modifications, Bourdieu) and rearticulates materialism as
what is, in fact, a mode of idealism — what I call "matterism": the
"matter" of the body, the 'matter" of sexuality, the
"matter" of race, the "matter" of media, and, above all the
"matter" of language.
In its
engagement with "materialism" ludic postmodern feminism has reached a
political crisis. But it attempts to represent and deal with this crisis as an
exclusively epistemological question — as if epistemology itself is not
partisan. We, therefore, need to examine some of the reasons why
"materialism" — after the serious epistemological and political
challenges from poststructuralism, postmarxism, post-Heisenbergian physics and
New Historicism — continues to remain a fundamental issue in feminism and how
ludic feminism (as the avant-garde of discursivist social theory) has theorised
materialism in the post-al moment.
It is
important to point out that the "ludic" is not a rigidly defined
category but a widely shared social 'logic" that is articulated in a
number of diverse and even conflicting ways by various ludic theorists and
feminists. The crux of all ludic postmodern and feminist theories, however, is
the rewriting of the social as largely discursive (thus marked by the traits of
linguistic difference), local, contingent, asystematic and indeterminate. In
many cases, this move is accompanied by a rearticulation of power as diffuse, a
— causal and aleatory — most notably as articulated by Michel Foucault and
elaborated by a number of feminists, especially Judith Butler. Social systems
(totalities) become, for ludic postmodernists, merely discredited
metanarratives rather than social "realities" to be contested. According
to ludic logic (which is itself a metanarrative that forgets its own
meta-narrativity), not only history but also the social are seen in semiotic
terms: as "writing," as traces of textuality (Jacques Derrida), as
"given by the universe of the phrase" (Jean-Francois Lyotard), and as
a regime or genealogy of discursive practices and power-knowledge relations
(Michel Foucault), as the "risk" of reappropriating through the
materiality of literature what is lost in conceptuality (Jean-Luc Nancy, The
Experience of Freedom). In all these cases the fundamental nature of the social
is without centre or determination: for Derrida this is expressed as the
absence of any grounding ("transcendental") signified, such as
"revolution," resulting from the play of differance; for Lyotard it
is articulated in terms of the "differend," while for Foucault, it is
accounted for by the a-causal, aleatory nature of power. Nancy, in his The
Inoperative Community, of course, posits the social as a community without a
collectivity (of production).
The
political consequences of this idealist move — in which, as Derrida says,
everything became discourse" (Writing and Difference 280) — are clearly
articulated by the post-Marxist political theorist, Ernesto Laclau, who
develops a ludic social theory "identifying the social with an infinite
play of differences" ("Transformations" 39). Following Derrida,
he argues that "to conceive of social relations as articulations of
differences is to conceive them as signifying relations." Thus, not only
is the social "de-centred," according to Laclau, but social
relations, like all 'signifying systems," are "ultimately arbitrary"
and as a result "'society' . . . is an impossible object"
("Transformations," 40-41). By reducing the social to
"signifying relations," that is, to a discursive or semiotic process,
Laclau renders social relations "ultimately arbitrary" (like any sign).
This means that social relations cannot be subjected to such determining
relations as exploitation since they are "arbitrary,' and if social
relations are not exploitative (determined), they no longer require
emancipation. In other words, Laclau and other ludic theorists, from Derrida to
Drucilla Cornell, Foucault to Judith Butler, are not only rewriting the basic
"struggle concepts" necessary for social change (e.g.,
"society," "surplus labour," "history," 'class."
"exploitation," "use-value," and "emancipation")
as a series of tropic Metanarratives, but they are also turning the realities
that these concepts explain into "arbitrary," indeterminate,
"signifying relations." Ludic theorists, in short, are troping the
social. in so doing, they de-materialise various social "realities,"
cutting them off from the material relations of production, and turn them into
a superstructural matrix of discursive processes and a semiotic, textual play
of differance.
However, as
long as ludic feminism continues to address the question of "women" —
and does not simply collapse into a merely textual or epistemological
meditation on the fate of the sign — that is, as long as it follows the
feminist imperative of praxis, ludic feminism (unlike other varieties of
postmodern discourse) is pulled into debates over the actual conditions of the
lives of women. But, no serious engagement with these conditions can possibly
bracket or evade the matter of materialism. Ludic feminism is thus constantly
drawn into arguments and counterarguments over questions raised by
"materialism" and its epistemological "other" idealism. Some
ludic feminists, however, have tried to obscure the problem of materialism and
prevent a full critique of the issues involved. ironically this "new"
debate replays an old and familiar strategy described by Lenin nearly a century
ago in his critique of idealism (Materialism and Empirio-Criticism: Critical
Comments on a Reactionary Philosophy, 196-255). Describing the writings of the
Machians, Lenin says that one thread that runs through their texts is their
rejection of binaries, their claim that they have "risen above"
materialism and idealism and "have transcended this 'obsolete'
antithesis." This gesture, Lenin writes, is no more than an ideological
alibi because in their actual practices, they "are continually sliding
into idealism and are conducting a steady and incessant struggle against
materialism" (354). Like Machians, ludic feminists declare that the debate
over "idealism and materialism" is an "outdated" binary
and, in the ecumenical spirit of postmodernist eclecticism (which underwrites
liberal pluralism), provide a reconciliation of the two. Judith Butler, for
instance, offers her theory of "performativity" to, in effect,
"think through" the binary of what is "characterised as the
linguistic idealism of poststructuralism" and a "materiality outside
of language" (Bodies that Matter 2731). Similarly, Drucilla Cornell offers
her notion of remetaphorisation" and the "performative power of
language" as a way of avoiding "pit[ting] 'materialist' feminism
against feminine writing" (Beyond Accommodation 3). However, as Lenin
writes, any such "hybrid project" is in fact an alibi for the
legitimisation of idealism (Materialism, 350).
The
politico-epistemological crisis that "materialism" has produced in
ludic feminism has to do with its class politics. Ludic feminism becomes — in
its effects, if not in its intentions — a theory that inscribes the class
interests of, what bourgeois sociology calls, the upper-middle classes and of
Eurocentrism. It does not acknowledge the "materiality" of the regime
of wage-labour and capital. Nor does it acknowledge the existence of a
historical series independent from the consciousness of the subject and
autonomous from textuality. Such a recognition would lead to the further
acknowledgment of the materiality of the social contradictions brought about by
the social relations of production founded upon the priority of private
property. Ludic feminism cannot accept a social theory that finds private
property — the congealed surplus tabor of others — to be the cause of social
inequalities that can be remedied only through revolution. Ludic feminism is,
in effect, a theory for property holders. Nor can ludic feminism simply revert
to an a-historical, essentialist position and posit the
"consciousness" of the subject as the source of social reality. Such
a move would go against the general post-structuralist constructivism and
consequently would lead to, among other things, a reinscription of logocentrism
and the phallocentrism that underlies it. Ludic feminism therefore needs to
'invent" a form of materialism that gestures to a world not directly
present to the consciousness of the subject (as classic post-structuralism has
done), but not entirely "constructed" in the medium of knowing
(language) either.' It has simply become "unethical to think of such
social oppressions as "sexism," "racism," and
"homophobia" as purely "matters" of language and discourse.
Ludic feminism is beginning to learn, in spite of itself, the lesson of Engels'
Anti-Duhring: the fact that we understand reality through language does not
mean that reality is made by language.
The dilemma
of ludic feminism in theorising "materialism" is a familiar one. In
his interrogation of Berkeley, Lenin points to this dilemma that runs through
all forms of idealism: the epistemological unwillingness to make distinctions
between 'ideas" and "things" (Materialism 130-300), which is, of
course, brought about by class politics. Ludic feminism, like all forms of
upper-middle class (idealist) philosophy, must hold on to "ideas"
since it is by the agency of ideas that this class (as privileged mental
workers) acquires it social privileges. Although posed as an epistemological
question, the dilemma is finally a class question: how not to deny the world
outside the consciousness of the subject but not to make that world the
material cause of social practices either. Ludic feminism, like Berkelian
idealism, cannot afford to explain things by the relations of production and
labour. This then is the dilemma of ludic feminism: the denial of
"materialism" leads Iodic feminism to a form of idealism that
discredits any claims it might have to the struggle for social change;
accepting materialism, on the other hand, implicates its own ludic practices in
the practices of patriarchal-capitalism — the practices that have produced
gender inequalities as differences that can be deployed to increase the rate of
profit. This dilemma has lead feminism to an intolerable political crisis: a
crisis that is, in fact, so acute it has raised questions about the viability
of feminism as a theory and practice itself.
Historical
materialism haunts feminism. Most postmodern feminists whom I shall call
"ludic feminists" — have suppressed "objective reality" in
discourse and regimes of signification. Nonetheless, they are feeling (however
indirectly) the historical pressures of the return of the suppressed
"objective reality." The increasing polarisation of wealth,
feminization of labour and impoverishment of women in the world are all
historical processes whose objectivity cannot be blunted in discourse. The
issue of materialism — of a reality independent from the consciousness of the
subject and outside language and other media — is thus gaining a new urgency
for feminists after poststructuralism. Many are beginning to ask whether there
is "an outside to discourse," as Judith Butler does in her Bodies
that Matter, and attempt to articulate this material reality. The issue is
especially pressing for Anglo-American neo-socialist feminists, who by-and-large
have substituted Foucault for Marx, discourse for ideology, and have joined
other poststructuralist feminists in embracing a cultural or discursive
materialism while rejecting any "positive" knowledge (knowledge free
from the consciousness of the subject and independent from language) as
positivism. (I am using the term "neo" here because this
"socialism" is one with little interest in "labour,"
"exploitation," and other global issues). Perhaps the best-known
neo-socialist feminist to make this shift recently is Michele Barrett, who
announces in the preface to her The Politics of Truth: From Marx to Foucault
that she is moving from Marx's "economics of untruth" —
"being," as she says, "Marxism's account of ideology, used to
show the relation between what goes on in people's heads and their place in the
conditions of production "' — to Foucault's "politics of truth, being
his own approach to the relationships between knowledge, discourse, truth and
power." In so doing, she announces that, "I am nailing my colours to
the mast of a more general post-Marxism" (vii). But as Renate Bridenthal
asks: "Where is this ship sailing to? This is not a time for intellectuals
to be sailing away on a sea of indeterminacy" (220).
The
re-theorisation of materialism in postmodern feminism follows two related
paths. The first is a re-understanding of materialist feminism coming out of
the Marxist tradition. But this is itself a contradictory and divided site —
involving a conflict between those feminists reclaiming historical materialism
and those who, following postmarxism, marginalise historical materialism as
"positivism." These postmarxist feminists largely subscribe to the
continued dominance of poststructuralist knowledges and are caught in the
contradictions between the political necessity of materialism and its
displacement by the ludic priority given to discourse. They end up substituting
discursive determinism for what they reject as an economic determinism in
classical Marxism, as Barrett does in The Politics of Truth. The second mode of
materialism is non-Marxist and is developed entirely out of feminist encounters
with poststructuralist theories (especially those of Derrida, Foucault, Lacan
and, with some recent modifications, Bourdieu) and rearticulates materialism as
what is, in fact, a mode of idealism — what I call "matterism": the
"matter" of the body, the 'matter" of sexuality, the
"matter" of race, the "matter" of media, and, above all the
"matter" of language.
In its
engagement with "materialism" ludic postmodern feminism has reached a
political crisis. But it attempts to represent and deal with this crisis as an
exclusively epistemological question — as if epistemology itself is not
partisan. We, therefore, need to examine some of the reasons why
"materialism" — after the serious epistemological and political
challenges from poststructuralism, postmarxism, post-Heisenbergian physics and
New Historicism — continues to remain a fundamental issue in feminism and how
ludic feminism (as the avant-garde of discursivist social theory) has theorised
materialism in the post-al moment.
It is
important to point out that the "ludic" is not a rigidly defined
category but a widely shared social 'logic" that is articulated in a
number of diverse and even conflicting ways by various ludic theorists and
feminists. The crux of all ludic postmodern and feminist theories, however, is
the rewriting of the social as largely discursive (thus marked by the traits of
linguistic difference), local, contingent, asystematic and indeterminate. In
many cases, this move is accompanied by a rearticulation of power as diffuse, a
— causal and aleatory — most notably as articulated by Michel Foucault and
elaborated by a number of feminists, especially Judith Butler. Social systems
(totalities) become, for ludic postmodernists, merely discredited
metanarratives rather than social "realities" to be contested. According
to ludic logic (which is itself a metanarrative that forgets its own
meta-narrativity), not only history but also the social are seen in semiotic
terms: as "writing," as traces of textuality (Jacques Derrida), as
"given by the universe of the phrase" (Jean-Francois Lyotard), and as
a regime or genealogy of discursive practices and power-knowledge relations
(Michel Foucault), as the "risk" of reappropriating through the
materiality of literature what is lost in conceptuality (Jean-Luc Nancy, The
Experience of Freedom). In all these cases the fundamental nature of the social
is without centre or determination: for Derrida this is expressed as the
absence of any grounding ("transcendental") signified, such as
"revolution," resulting from the play of differance; for Lyotard it
is articulated in terms of the "differend," while for Foucault, it is
accounted for by the a-causal, aleatory nature of power. Nancy, in his The
Inoperative Community, of course, posits the social as a community without a
collectivity (of production).
The
political consequences of this idealist move — in which, as Derrida says,
everything became discourse" (Writing and Difference 280) — are clearly
articulated by the post-Marxist political theorist, Ernesto Laclau, who
develops a ludic social theory "identifying the social with an infinite
play of differences" ("Transformations" 39). Following Derrida,
he argues that "to conceive of social relations as articulations of
differences is to conceive them as signifying relations." Thus, not only
is the social "de-centred," according to Laclau, but social
relations, like all 'signifying systems," are "ultimately arbitrary"
and as a result "'society' . . . is an impossible object"
("Transformations," 40-41). By reducing the social to
"signifying relations," that is, to a discursive or semiotic process,
Laclau renders social relations "ultimately arbitrary" (like any sign).
This means that social relations cannot be subjected to such determining
relations as exploitation since they are "arbitrary,' and if social
relations are not exploitative (determined), they no longer require
emancipation. In other words, Laclau and other ludic theorists, from Derrida to
Drucilla Cornell, Foucault to Judith Butler, are not only rewriting the basic
"struggle concepts" necessary for social change (e.g.,
"society," "surplus labour," "history," 'class."
"exploitation," "use-value," and "emancipation")
as a series of tropic Metanarratives, but they are also turning the realities
that these concepts explain into "arbitrary," indeterminate,
"signifying relations." Ludic theorists, in short, are troping the
social. in so doing, they de-materialise various social "realities,"
cutting them off from the material relations of production, and turn them into
a superstructural matrix of discursive processes and a semiotic, textual play
of differance.
However, as
long as ludic feminism continues to address the question of "women" —
and does not simply collapse into a merely textual or epistemological
meditation on the fate of the sign — that is, as long as it follows the
feminist imperative of praxis, ludic feminism (unlike other varieties of
postmodern discourse) is pulled into debates over the actual conditions of the
lives of women. But, no serious engagement with these conditions can possibly
bracket or evade the matter of materialism. Ludic feminism is thus constantly
drawn into arguments and counterarguments over questions raised by
"materialism" and its epistemological "other" idealism. Some
ludic feminists, however, have tried to obscure the problem of materialism and
prevent a full critique of the issues involved. ironically this "new"
debate replays an old and familiar strategy described by Lenin nearly a century
ago in his critique of idealism (Materialism and Empirio-Criticism: Critical
Comments on a Reactionary Philosophy, 196-255). Describing the writings of the
Machians, Lenin says that one thread that runs through their texts is their
rejection of binaries, their claim that they have "risen above"
materialism and idealism and "have transcended this 'obsolete'
antithesis." This gesture, Lenin writes, is no more than an ideological
alibi because in their actual practices, they "are continually sliding
into idealism and are conducting a steady and incessant struggle against
materialism" (354). Like Machians, ludic feminists declare that the debate
over "idealism and materialism" is an "outdated" binary
and, in the ecumenical spirit of postmodernist eclecticism (which underwrites
liberal pluralism), provide a reconciliation of the two. Judith Butler, for
instance, offers her theory of "performativity" to, in effect,
"think through" the binary of what is "characterised as the
linguistic idealism of poststructuralism" and a "materiality outside
of language" (Bodies that Matter 2731). Similarly, Drucilla Cornell offers
her notion of remetaphorisation" and the "performative power of
language" as a way of avoiding "pit[ting] 'materialist' feminism
against feminine writing" (Beyond Accommodation 3). However, as Lenin
writes, any such "hybrid project" is in fact an alibi for the
legitimisation of idealism (Materialism, 350).
The
politico-epistemological crisis that "materialism" has produced in
ludic feminism has to do with its class politics. Ludic feminism becomes — in
its effects, if not in its intentions — a theory that inscribes the class
interests of, what bourgeois sociology calls, the upper-middle classes and of
Eurocentrism. It does not acknowledge the "materiality" of the regime
of wage-labour and capital. Nor does it acknowledge the existence of a
historical series independent from the consciousness of the subject and
autonomous from textuality. Such a recognition would lead to the further
acknowledgment of the materiality of the social contradictions brought about by
the social relations of production founded upon the priority of private
property. Ludic feminism cannot accept a social theory that finds private
property — the congealed surplus tabor of others — to be the cause of social
inequalities that can be remedied only through revolution. Ludic feminism is,
in effect, a theory for property holders. Nor can ludic feminism simply revert
to an a-historical, essentialist position and posit the
"consciousness" of the subject as the source of social reality. Such
a move would go against the general post-structuralist constructivism and
consequently would lead to, among other things, a reinscription of logocentrism
and the phallocentrism that underlies it. Ludic feminism therefore needs to
'invent" a form of materialism that gestures to a world not directly
present to the consciousness of the subject (as classic post-structuralism has
done), but not entirely "constructed" in the medium of knowing
(language) either.' It has simply become "unethical to think of such
social oppressions as "sexism," "racism," and
"homophobia" as purely "matters" of language and discourse.
Ludic feminism is beginning to learn, in spite of itself, the lesson of Engels'
Anti-Duhring: the fact that we understand reality through language does not
mean that reality is made by language.
The dilemma
of ludic feminism in theorising "materialism" is a familiar one. In
his interrogation of Berkeley, Lenin points to this dilemma that runs through
all forms of idealism: the epistemological unwillingness to make distinctions
between 'ideas" and "things" (Materialism 130-300), which is, of
course, brought about by class politics. Ludic feminism, like all forms of
upper-middle class (idealist) philosophy, must hold on to "ideas"
since it is by the agency of ideas that this class (as privileged mental
workers) acquires it social privileges. Although posed as an epistemological
question, the dilemma is finally a class question: how not to deny the world
outside the consciousness of the subject but not to make that world the
material cause of social practices either. Ludic feminism, like Berkelian
idealism, cannot afford to explain things by the relations of production and
labour. This then is the dilemma of ludic feminism: the denial of
"materialism" leads Iodic feminism to a form of idealism that
discredits any claims it might have to the struggle for social change;
accepting materialism, on the other hand, implicates its own ludic practices in
the practices of patriarchal-capitalism — the practices that have produced
gender inequalities as differences that can be deployed to increase the rate of
profit. This dilemma has lead feminism to an intolerable political crisis: a
crisis that is, in fact, so acute it has raised questions about the viability
of feminism as a theory and practice itself.