binarisms

[Bill Burns]

Diane writes:

>Since those qualities associated with the
>feminine (dependence, vulnerability, emotion, connection, intuition) are
>peddled as anathema to the normative masculine subject (he who would be a
>REAL man, in other words), we face an impasse unless/until we redefine
>gender construction itself.  

I won't argue with your last statement there, since I've grown up in the
midst of such restructuring (or I'm amid those changes and trying to apply
them). Depending upon the words you choose here, you could define these as
anathemic or simply antithetic (possibly suggesting something more mystical
or esoteric). The word choices here are just as important as the the values
we place on them. Here are some possible options to describe some of these
qualities in a different, less pejorative tone:

        communal
        passionate
        cooperative

Vulnerability seems to indicate a lack of some kind of quality rather than a
quality in itself. I could posit the concept of faith instead of intuition,
but I think intuition is really the more positive characteristic and that
"faith" suggests a passive acceptance of something outside of a person's
experience. Intuition, in my mind, better corresponds with the spirit of
this list of possibilities. 

My point is that the words you're choosing all point to the dichotomy that
Irigaray sets up--masculine as 1 and feminine as 0, presence and absence.
I'm not convinced that all of the qualities are so aligned. If you choose to
see 0 as a state of nondistinction (chaos, nature), and 1 as distinction
(order, civilization), you're using another set of assumptions to discuss
qualitative differences. 

Each perspective is biased by a different set of assumptions. If we look at
masculinity and femininity from this binary perspective, we have only two
choices for describing the presence of these qualities. Regardless of its
overt sexism, this model would be far too limited to posit anything useful
or demonstrable. If we use the other model, we're biased by a different set
of assumptions, and it reinforces a different set of values. If the
opposition posited one quality against another, the choices would seem more
complementary to each other rather than merely indicative of presence or
absence.

>I often ask my students to imagine telling a
>professor in the "hard" sciences (now there's a term to ponder...) that
>they arrived at their answer by "gut feeling" rather than calculation.
>When scientists want to claim intuitive insight, they call it a
>"hunch," thereby giving an approbative masculine spin to it. 

I'm not sure I've ever heard of anyone "arriving" at a conclusion from a gut
feeling or "hunch" (nor do I understand how "hunch" is necessarily more
masculine). I have heard of people embarking on a certain line of thought
because of a gut feeling (which, I believe Einstein did with his special
theory of relativity, and Keppler's original hunch led him to discover that
he was wrong about circular orbits). The scientist's intuition leads to a
question that hasn't been considered, and the method allows exploration of
it in a way that separates overt biases (not necessarily ALL biases). If a
scientist call something a hunch and cannot back it up with calculations, I
think the rest of the scientific community regards it, not as intuition, but
as a crock.

In any sense, the fact that Pynchon may be suggesting that we allow
intuition into the discussion means that he's suggesting a break from the
past modes of thought (which were already under attack at this time and
before). Why, then, should we focus on the mire of two thousand+ years of
tradition hence? How does this establish a new perspective? In any case, if
we now *recognize* that we are in the mire and we want to get out of it (as
Pynchon is suggesting by positing a way out of the binary opposition), how
do we get out by delving deeper into the mire? Delving deeper into the old
is great for establishing the environment in which we're wallowing, but
eventually you have to focus your attention on the aim--else you never
extract yourself from that which sucks you in.

Now, if you're suggesting that Pynchon upholds the value of these binaries 
while suggesting that we break loose from them (he may very well be doing
this--consciously or not), then we can do something with this text.

I hope this doesn't come across as unsympathetic to the feminist dialectic,
because I consider that perspective valuable. I just think its application
needs to do more than simply point out the presence of sexist strains. How
do we move beyond? How do we redefine the gender construct itself rather
than just pointing to the shambles of the previous model?

I apologize also if this seems a bit incoherent. I've been sneaking snippets
of time here and there to respond, and I wanted to send this off before it
becomes a stale thread.  (Am I too late?)

Bill Burns
WDBurns at micron.net
============================================================
  "One bad-hair day in the 13th century and 
   suddenly you've got horns." The Devil/*Drew Carey*
============================================================