In the name of the Maternal Body and Herculine Barbin

Part 3: Subversive Bodily Acts

I. The Body Politics of Julia Kristeva

In this section Butler goes about deconstructing Julia Kristeva's theory of the semiotic dimension of language in which she bases much of her argument off of Lacan's theory of "the Symbolic." Since I knew nothing about the semiotic (Butler assumes her audience is as well read as her) I looked it up to get a better grasp of it. This website may not be 100% dependable but it was able to break down the "semiotic" for me.

The "semiotic" is a language directly connected to the maternal body. "For Kristeva, the semiotic expresses that original libidinal multiplicity within the very terms of culture, more precisely, within poetic language..."(108) This poetic language within the maternal body attempts to "disrupt, subvert, and displace the paternal law." (108) Butler is critical of Kristeva's theory of the semiotic because she is basing her very argument off of the paternal law and therefore perpetuates its very existence and dominance. Butler tries to "show how the failure of her (Kristeva's) political strategy follows in part from her largely uncritical appropriation of drive theory." (109) Kristeva believes that we all have drives and some are repressed through our existing language in the paternal law. There is a "multiplicity" of drives that are repressed are then expressed disobediently through a poetic language grounded in the maternal body. It is grounded in the maternal body because we have all shared the experience of actually living in the maternal body. This maternal body represents a "continuity rather than a discrete subject or object of desire" (110) which the Symbolic desire proclaims.

I am trying to clarify whether or not Butler is stating this or if she is stating this is where Kristeva's theory falters (I'm guessing it's the latter.) This semiotic language comes from a connection to the mother, it is natural and rhythmic therefore it is primitive to the paternal law...? Is this not perpetuating the dichotomy that "women" are more connected to the earth and less rational because of it? And that men are more rational and civilized therefore must create a patriarchal language to set themselves above this maternal body and primitive language?
This must be where Butler believes Kristeva goes wrong in her theory.

I was also confused by the connection of a psychosis language to the maternal body. Is that really a true connection along with the connection with infants and mothers? Are psychotic people the only ones that truly understand themselves enough to reject and subvert from the paternal law and speak in tongues or their "mother tongue"?

Does that make any sense or am I just spouting out "glossalalias"?

Butler then explains that the homosexuality and childbirth are the only forms of semiotic that "can be sustained within the the terms of the Symbolic." (115) Homosexuality is a break from the paternal law because it portrays a multiplicity of drives (or that is what I have gathered from all of this.) Butler also states that a complete rejection of the Symbolic is impossible (116.) While the semiotic is a "nice try" in subversion from the paternal law, it is not possible because she uses the paternal law to produce her theory through the language. Butler poses the question: "how do we know that the instinctual object of Kristeva's discourse is not a construction of the discourse itself?" (120)

And of course that is a brilliant point to bring up but couldn't Butler ask herself that very same question when it is all boiled down to nothing? I mean she is still speaking English somewhat. If she really wants to avoid using reject this paternal law and discourse she should create her own language. (And of course it always goes back to the language for Butler and Butler basically knows everything that is wrong with everyone else's theories.) The End. But not really the end...ever.


II. Foucault, Herculine, and the Politics of Sexual Discontinuity


Butler starts out this chapter by discussing Michel Foucault's The History of Sexuality and the story of Herculine Barbin, the 19th-century French hermaphrodite. Butler explains that there is a disconnect between Foucault's theory of sexuality in The History of Sexuality and his writings and studies of Herculine's tragic life. Butler believes that "he fails to recognize the concrete relations of power that both construct and condemn Herculine's sexuality." (128) I thought it was very interesting when she described Foucault's theory of sexuality and that the analysis of sexuality pretty much became simplified into the analysis of sex. And this very simplification became problematic for all sexualities.

I also thought his ideas on being "sexed" were very interesting along with critiques of feminism...if I understood them correctly. Feminists are subjecting themselves to a set of social regulations by using the "binary restrictions on gender as a point of departure" for their arguments. (130)

Anyway, the chapter goes on to analyze Herculine or Alexina's life and struggles with gender or rather the law's and science's struggle with her gender or "non-identity." Herculine was a threat to the very system that sexuality, sex, and gender were built on therefore they constantly tried to define her. They tried to justify her sexuality and attractions to women by finding as many signs of masculinity as possible. This story is proof enough that sex has everything to do with power because with the smallest of threats all hell breaks loose!

Foucault describes Herculine to be in a "happy limbo of non-identity" state and that maybe this is possibly what homosexuals also experience because of their bodily likeness. I felt as if Butler was putting words into Foucault's mouth when she questioned his "happy limbo of non-identity" even though what she was saying did make sense. By saying homosexuality promotes a non-identity state which then presumes that heterosexuality promotes a identity state. Then it was almost as if Butler was psychoanalyzing Foucault in her comparison to Herculine. At that point I thought she was going crazy but maybe she really is on to something...or maybe this is just her way of saying she can relate to both Foucault and Herculine as well??? Hmmmm...


*Concluding Unscientific Postscript*

In this section Butler talks about a biological study at MIT in 1987 conducted by Dr. David Page. Dr Page claimed from this study that they found "the binary switch upon which hinges all sexually di-morphic characteristics." (145) He then made the claim that "perhaps it was not the presence of the gene sequence in males versus its absence in females (X and Y chromosomes) that was determining, but that is was active in males and passive in females." (146) Which Butler humorously responds "Aristotle Lives! What was not included in this study but Anne Fausto-Sterling reveals is that the subjects in the study were "far from unambiguous in their anatomical and reproductive constitutions." (146) In the end these people were being gendered only upon their external genitals, whether or not they were functional making their research into the "master gene" hardly necessary. In the end, it is all brought back to language, a language being used not only by our society but also through science to perpetuate these restrictive and damaging gender binaries.

Don't You Want Somebody To Love/Have Sex With?

Louisa Allen's Article, "Girls Want Sex, Boys Want Love: Resisting Dominant Discourses of (Hetero)sexuality" was an interesting and accessible exploration and study about young heterosexual youth in today's culture. Based off of a study done in New Zealand, she interviewed/researched 17-19 year olds of a variety of races, economic backgrounds, and social upbringings. Her research was an attempt to "explore Foucault's notion of the possibility of resistance in relation to the discursive construction of young people's sexual subjectivities (216.)" In layman this translates to: she wanted to explore how young people today approach societies discourses in terms of their own sexuality. Through her research she found that some youth still take on "stereotypical" female and male constructs in relationships but that some are also deviating from these constructs.

Allen stresses the strong presence of power in our discourses in sexuality but also emphasizes that, although these discourse may be strong they are not monolithic (216). As Foucault also said "where there is power, there is resistance" therefore there will always be those that choose not to live by our stereotypes of sexuality and gender. When I began reading this article, I automatically related to its content. In my own sexuality I often feel very conflicted on where I stand. At times I feel like I am the active one, making my own decisions about my sexuality but then there's the other side that I often resist. I try not to get emotionally attached, I try not to care about the other person because I don't want to complicate things but I fail almost always.

This article was refreshing for me, not because of the personal testimonies or interviews but with Allen's own critiques throughout. Her theorizing made me feel less crazy when it comes to my sexuality and "love" life.

Allen explains that discourses in our society are never fully recognized or realized therefore they can be resisted which I thought was very interesting. This makes complete sense because it's not like people are walking around thinking "Gee, I really feel like I need to dominate my girlfriend to assert my masculinity today!"
Well, maybe someone out there is thinking that but it's not common. Allen also emphasizes the importance of social location. The society we live in will regulate our actions, for example; whether or not one goes to a private or public school, lives in rural or urban areas, etc.

In the section, Traditional (hetero)sexualities, Allen sets up the basis of her argument by introducing the dominant sexual discourses. She also states that New Zealand is particularly conservative when it comes to sexuality or so they display publicly and socially. She describes the dichotomy which our discourses tend to form of the sexually ready, emotionally disconnected male and the romance yearning and emotional female. She explains that "these discourses have been historically shaped by fields such as religion, medicine, law, media and academic disciplines (218.) But just because they are strong discourses doesn't mean they are the only ones, they are at times resisted.

In the section "Young women and dominant discourses of female (hetero)sexuality" she explains that there are still many women that are still living in the traditional discourse. These women portrayed themselves as sexually vulnerable, not as interested in sex, and more interested in the loving relationship and commitment to another person. In this section I was intrigued by the first woman she talked about, Caitlin, who said she just wanted "to get it (sex) over and done with...(219) And thought that this was fine because they have been together for 3 years. This puzzled me for a couple reasons but I don't know the context of Caitlin's sexuality. I don't think sex should ever fizzle out of a relationship just because they have been together for so long that it gets boring but it happens very often, especially with married couples. Experimentation is good and I'm guessing Caitlin is missing an in depth education of sex and her own sexuality... Either that or she is no longer actually attracted to her boyfriend and is simply attached to him because she wants to be loved and given attention from a male figure (boyfriend.)

These women that show the characteristic romance, love, emotional seeking qualities also talked about their submission into sex after much talk with their boyfriends or lovers. Most of the women expressed fear of pregnancy, abandonment, pain from sex, etc and this is very sad to me. There is so much more pressure put upon women about having sex! Men are encouraged to have as much sex as possible because they have nothing to lose while women have EVERYTHING TO LOSE!!! (Or so they are told to believe.)

Most women are afraid that sex is really going to hurt because they are usually told that it is going to hurt. It is dangerous to bombard women with this idea of sheer pain during sex because women can actually psych themselves out and convince themselves that it will hurt even more than it actually will. We can convince ourselves so much that we are neither mentally OR physically ready for sex!!! I believe that if a woman is knowledgeable of her own sexual needs before she has sex, it can be a more pleasurable experience for her. It still may not be the best sex the first time but it can always get better! It is very sad to me that sex can be a negative experience for many women and this should end.

Then Allen gets into the other women, the women that are in touch with their sexuality; the sluts and the...slags? She explained how women are still considered sluts if they are sexually active with more then one partner but men are the studs in the very same situation. First of all, I think we should get rid of these names completely because, of course, the women get the negative and demeaning names and men get the double standard. We should just call it sexuality and drop this immature name calling because it's unproductive.

In this section I was intrigued by the woman, Anna, who said she was called a slut when she cheated on someone. Part of me, was judging her and calling her a slut, but not because she has "legitimate women's sexual desire (2220" but because she blatantly cheated. She has every right to be sexual but does not have the right to potentially hurt others because of her cheating. (Don't we always get mad at men that are "cheating pigs"? This goes both ways.

I found myself relating directly to the women on page 223 who described their own sexual pleasures and desires. I am more of an actor in my sexuality and I am not ashamed of it, I like it. I also found it interesting that many women expressed their complete control in sexual activity. Most women felt most of the control on the topic of contraception which is a very important aspect of sexuality to be in control of. At the same time, there was an emphasis of women's "empowerment at an intellectual level" rather than in relationship practice (224.) Therefore there is still a disconnect with women and there sexuality.

Allen then gets into the men's side of things and talks to men that seem to be reinforcing the stereotypes that men are crude, sexually aggressive, sex crazed and always horny. In this section I was concerned about the style which she collected her data because she was interviewing groups of guys at the same time. I didn't think that was a very good way to do it because of the influence they would have on each other. Then, of course, I realized that it was part of her research technique and this helped her understand both genders more. I thought it was interesting when she explained the hegemonic masculinity, and the fact that many men recognize it and actually want to be seen as hyper-masculine.

She then described the men that were attempting to resist the dominant discourses of (hetero)sexuality, the men that want love and companionship. In this section I found myself "oohing" and "awwing" every once in a while...and was kinda grossed out by my self. (This is where I am confused and conflicted by my own resistance of dominant discourses of (hetero) sexuality.) Allen found that men were more willing to talk about care and love if they knew it was a 'safe' research environment (227.) While women were more open when they knew they could trust the other women in the group. When people feel more comfortable they are more willing to open up about their sexual feelings, desires, and pleasures. This should be very helpful information for everyone, for sex educators, couples, individuals, etc. Creating a safe and comfortable environment in which to talk often softens the blow when talking about sex.

When Allen showed replies from people about qualities they looked for in relationships I was reminded of Hollway. Many people said they were looking for love and a close friendship, understanding, honesty, care, etc. Hollway explained that many people have fears of committing in relationships because it can make them feel very vulnerable. You show your partner that you love and care for them but also that you need them too. That is a scary thing to do sometimes, especially for men.

Overall, Louisa Allen discovered that our current dominant discourse of (hetero)sexuality is outdated (231.) We need to come up with new discourses that are all inclusive. We need new discourses that allow women to indulge in their sexuality without feeling shame. We need new discourses that allow men to feel free to commit themselves to one person, to love and care for another without feeling embarrassment. This article, as Allen stated, should offer "sexuality education insights into the ways in which some young people talk about their sexual selves (232.) We can have a new discourse on sexuality and we will erase negative associations of sex because sex is healthy and normal.

Eroticism: An Intimate Analysis with Simon Hardy

In his essay "Feminist Iconoclasm and the Problem of Eroticism," Simon Hardy explores and analyzes the complex world of heterosexual through historical and philosophical context. He contemplates the ever present feminist debate over pornography (anti-porn, anti-censorship) and uses the term iconoclasm to define one set of feminist arguments. An iconoclast is "a person who attacks cherished beliefs, traditional institutions, etc., as being based on error or superstition (www.dictionary.com, yes I had to look up MANY words.) Hardy finds this term suitable to define the common tendency for feminists to challenge otherwise strongly held beliefs with a sense of authority in such a subject (78.)

In the introduction, Hardy presents the accused Feminist Iconoclasts starting with the radical feminists of the 70s and ending with the anti-porn radicals of the 80s and 90s. Radical feminists of the 70s brought light to the historical and societal issues of rape and sexual violence. This was a great step forward towards Women's Liberation and, according to Hardy, also helped jump start the great pornography debate.

There is the one side which believes "pornography sexual violence" and that there must be legal restrictions against it (78.) Then there are those that believe pornography constitutes the same or similar oppressive effects of sexual violence and that it should not be protected constitutionally under freedom of speech. And then there are the anti-porn iconoclasts that believe in the deconstruction of pornography based mainly on hostility and discomfort of its very existence (78.)

Hardy then begins to delve into his own research and findings in pornography and heterosexual eroticism. From his own study, he concluded that it's not the images or texts in pornography that are problematic, it is the subconscious message being portrayed to the audience that is problematic. Porn, more often than not, presents male domination over a female and this, he states, is "the problematization of heterosexual eroticism.

In the next section of his article, "The problematization of heterosexual eroticism," Hardy extends on his idea of heterosexual eroticism...obviously. He brings up many feminist commentators, R.W. Connell, Lynn Segal, etc, and their criticisms of the feminist movement. Connell believed that feminists had a great opportunity to continue pursuing issues of equality for all women but rather made it their main agenda to attack pornography instead. (80) This is a sentiment I remember Lynn Segal presenting as well and I also agree but I also see very little good in the commentary on something already done and irreversible. I wonder what other feminists of the time were thinking; the feminists that did not receive massive amounts of media attention because of the pornography debate. Did some feminists just give up? Do we always need popular and even negative media attention to get our voice heard?

Hardy states that one of the biggest problems with heterosexual eroticism is the preexisting and historical gender norms in our society. He brings up Michel Foucault's History of Sexuality, which digs deep into the history of human sexuality, the repression of sexuality, and the power dynamics of sexuality. He discusses Foucault's ideas of the importance of status, gender and sexual status, during Greco-Roman times which puts woman in the submissive, passive position and men in the dominant, active position. This idea has been ingrained into our society and only now are we finally starting to break these ties.

Hardy then brings up the idea of the "invention of heterosexuality" which I find incredibly interesting. Ever since I began understanding gender identity and questioning as a very important factor in some people's lives I have imagined gender and sexuality on a spectrum. Why do we need a sexual orientation, especially when it is usually based off of dichotomies (heterosexual v. homosexual)? Why is our society so obsessed with categorization and labeling of human beings? In my opinion, categories and labels can be dangerous and troublesome for many. There is no normal. ...And I'm digressing.

The next section is "The case for erotic expression" and Hardy explores the pornography debate even more and attempts to find reason and a basis to eroticism. He also believes that the anti-censorship feminists have a better chance at succeeding because there is a deep-seated reason for the existence of pornography. (At least this is what I thought he was saying.) When he discussed the psychic versus social circumstances I was a little confused.
Was he trying to say that pornography has less to do with our society today and more to do with our long history of sexuality, especially based off of psychoanalysis?
I was also wondering, if this is what he is trying to say, whether or not we can actually separate the two, psychic and social. How can we truly differentiate what we have acquired through socialization or psychically?

The last section, "The social uses of eroticism," I thought I would have an easier time understanding but I was wrong. The entire article is explicitly confusing. Hardy describes the individualization of society and how it has, in turn, affected our sexuality and relationships. Our society is changing and rejecting the private and public spheres hence creating a more egalitarian approach to relationships. He explains the "normal chaos of love" which I also found very interesting. Intimacy and sexuality is an ever changing entity in our society. Our sexuality is no longer a completely hush-hush topic.

Although I am still very confused and not quite sure what was all said in Simon Hardy's article, I think that his main goal is that eroticism should be redefined to make it fit our changing society. I hope that our discussion in class tomorrow will make things clearer for me...or maybe even more confusing.

This is, like, so REVOLUTIONARY!

WOW. Where do I begin? I guess I will start with:

- This is a "Self Help" book. (See back cover, top left corner)
- This is the "authoritative voice on modern female sexuality"
(Kirkus Review...whatever that is...)
- It is meant to be empowering to women...right?

Okay. So before I actually began reading "The Hot Woman's Handbook: The Cake Guide To Female Sexual Pleasure" and I was just paging through, I was already scoffing at the material. It appeared to me to be a glamorized and hyped-up Cosmopolitan Magazine in book form. So far this "CAKE" isn't looking too sweet to me.
Then once I began to read, the very first few pages were already making me angry. In the introduction, the CAKE authors express their lament because of the "huge disconnect between how women are portrayed and how women really live, fantasize, think, and act." And I immediately wonder "how are women portrayed according to CAKE and how is CAKE different?" And then, of course, they answer my question by describing one of their infamous CAKE events. They projected "naughty excerpts from 100 of the best erotic films" and projected them on 40 foot tall screens. Oh, I get it now, CAKE women are PORN STARS!!! Oh, how original. Am I starting to sound like Levy yet?
Right off the bat, I do not like the way Gallagher and Kramer are claiming to be so revolutionary and unique to the "sexual" world and even the "real" world. They claim that under the CAKE Philosophy "female sexuality is about to come out of the closet." I beg to differ. I for one, never even heard of CAKE until this class but some how I have learned a great deal about female sexuality and my own sexuality. Maybe it's partly because I'm growing up in this "Raunch" culture but I am pretty sure I have learned about human sexuality through some reliable sources. So maybe I'm just an exception to most women but I really doubt it. I read Anne Koedt's "The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm" two years ago and I definitely thought my "floodgates" were opened up to the world of sexuality. I learned a lot from Koedt and she wrote that essay back in 1970. So far, I'm only reading CAKE as an exploitation of women's sexuality and I'm pretty sure that was not what Anne Koedt was going for.
I understand that this book is intended to be a "women's sexuality" guide of some sort but I do not understand why they believe sexuality should be integrated into all aspects of our lives. Yes, sexuality is important and I'm happy that women are finally learning that they actually have a "sexuality" but sex does not have to be incorporated into checking a book out from the library or shoveling the sidewalk. I encourage women to explore their bodies and definitely try masturbating but the way CAKE presents their material is...trashy.
I also do not appreciate the way they generalize their supposed research and make it sound like every single woman has experienced the very same thing. I agree that a lot of the time children are discouraged to think, talk, and experiment with their sexuality. And things would be a lot easier if we were taught the way our bodies worked without feeling shame if we happen to feel pleasure. But CAKE does portray a very narrow and, to say the least, "raunchy" form of female sexuality. (does that make sense?)
The "interviews" they present throughout the book seem very unnatural and fabricated to me. I'm pretty sure many of the quotes from the women they interviewed were made up by the authors in order to introduce their next exciting and shocking subjects. Many of their information is very generalized and really doesn't include every woman. But I guess I'm not sure whether they are targeting every woman or not. It's more like they are targeting upper class, white women that love to shop and get Brazilians (but going au naturel is okay, too...)
I'm pretty sure the CAKE authors wrote this book in order to shock the world but I'm in no way shocked, I'm just disgusted, annoyed and cynical. I have showed this book to several of my friends, including my boyfriend and I jokingly opened up the book to "TIPS FOR MEN" just for him. He agrees with many of my sentiments and said "sex should never be had just for fun." Then he pulled out a lovely quote from Jack Kerouac and it goes like this:

"Boys and Girls in America have such a sad time together.
Sophistication demands they go straight to sex without proper
talk and not talk about courtship but real talk about souls."

There is no way I could say it better than that. Sexuality is an important part of humanity but it should not be degraded or exploited. I'm not sure what else to say other than I am unimpressed by CAKE.

The End.

Suicide Girls

While I was reading Janne, Matt, and Laura Durden's posts about "Raunch" Culture I was reminded of the infamous "Suicide Girls."


It is an interesting concept. It's very much like a burlesque show but rather than having the "cookie cutter" American ideal of a perfect woman, they are women of all shapes and sizes. These women are tattooed and pierced from their nipples to there clitori (plural?)

My girlfriends from home are obsessed with the suicide girls. They have the DVDs, books, and of course, their own favorite suicide girl.

One thing I do know about Suicide Girls is that it started out as a very liberating experience for many women but as of late it has been very controversial in terms of ex-suicide girls. It is now a very corrupt "corporation," believe it or not. But regardless, I think it's interesting and you all should check it out.

Alright, see you all in class tomorrow!

Nerd Alert.

Well, I guess I started a blog. Blog blog blog. And I thought facebook was bad enough for me. But this is quite different. This blog is wholly for intellectual purposes so that makes me feel much better.

I'm definitely looking forward to this class because of the background each of us has to contribute to discussion. We all share a common language because we have taken similar classes that count as women's studies credits but we also have differing ideas and opinions. I hope that the class discussions are much like those we had last semester in Gender & Sexuality in the 20th Century (aka "It's About Sex!") There were days in the class when small group discussion times were extended simply because there was so much to talk about. And it wasn't like we all agreed on every issue. I believe if that were the case, discussions wouldn't last as long and would not be as engaging. The list of literature for the class also looks very exciting. I'm looking forward to reading more about motherhood, female sexuality, and more from Judith Butler (She is very interesting but incredibly difficult to understand.)

As for myself:

I'm a Senior Studio Art and Women's Studies Major. I hope that my background in art will add an interesting perspective to most of the discussions we have in class. Other Women's Studies related courses I have taken include : Intro to Women's Studies, Biology of Women, Feminist Political Theory, Human Sexuality, Feminist Theology, Philosophy and Feminism, Women in America, and now this class! yah.

I hope I didn't miss anything.

See yous guys in class!

Peace out.