Donna Haraway’s “Cyborg Manifesto”

Quite possibly one of the most interesting accounts of social-feminism I’ve ever read (which sounds like an oxymoron). It’s difficult, but worth the work. Most intriguing are her claims that feminists must stop seeking totality of ‘lived experience’ and embrace the fracturing nature of identities found within the women’s movement. I also appreciate her call for more inventive fiction narratives that don’t presuppose women’s return to innocence or an organic state and to experiment with narratives that propose the merging of boundaries between science and fiction/organism and machine. Plus, it’s got ‘Cyborg’ in the title–which, apparently, is all it takes to grab my attention.

Here’s a link to full text.

And a succinct outline for clarity by Theresa M. Senft.

Intellectual Incest: Derrida Wishes Grand-daughter Had Been His Mother

If you haven’t seen the documentary ‘Derrida’ you should. But drink coffee first, his French lullaby voice is a little too soothing. Anyway, the movie is great. Derrida, king of Deconstruction, explains many of his philosophical views (and shows a redundant detest for recording-devices) throughout the film. In fact, I’ll probably post more about this because the philosophical problems and question he puts forth/answers are extremely thought-provoking and almost frightening (in a human existence means WHAT?! kind of way).

By far, my favorite question he is asked: “What philosopher would you like to have been your mother?’ Interesting. Well, Derrida replies that there isn’t a ‘mother philosopher.’ I would’ve said Plato, but I suppose his emphasis on boy-man love and the love between men as being greater than that between a man and a woman sort of, well, leaves the woman out of the mother, if that makes sense. Ok, so no Plato. Derrida continues that a motherly philosopher would have to be his son or someone who is concerned with deconstruction–like a daughter or grand-daughter. Which is, besides being literally creepy, intriguing. He argues that philosophers are father-types (I agree. Kant? Hello.) and this is because of applying a natural inference to the term ‘philosopher’ which requires or implies that one of such stature be masculine (aka phallogocentrism).

This got me thinking about the near-dormant discourse of female philosophers. I can name maybe three (Nussbaum, Goldberg…ok maybe two. I refuse to include Ayn Rand or de Beauvoir for that matter.) What is this about? Perhaps it’s still some paternal influence remaining in the classical study of philosophy? Or just societal remnants of good, old fashioned misogyny. Either way, it would seem that if there are female philosophers of great importance, their relevance to the study and discussion of philosophy has been either stifled or simply unwanted. Derrida stated that, in his philosophy, he has tried to find a link between the nurture of woman (mother) and a logical thinker, or in his own words; “a thinking mother.” Which sounds wildly misogynistic at first (as if mothers don’t think). But upon further inspection, he’s right. Take Nussbaum–she’s looked at as perhaps ‘too feminine.’ Her philosophy has been highlighted by her development of care ethics. Which sounds exactly what you’d expect from a female philosopher with all stereotypes in place. Why hasn’t there been a female Aristotle, a female Nietzsche, a female Heidegger? Surely it isn’t because a woman can’t think in these ways. I’m presuming that it’s because there is still a profound skepticism when it comes to female intelligence. Even in contemporary philosophy, maybe especially in contemporary philosophy. Think of Nietzsche, Sartre, Kierkegaard–even the existentialists, who’s focus was so intrinsically on mere existence, failed to really give the female an adequate place in the intellectual community. Of course, there was Simone de Beauvoir who wrote Second Sex–who served as a kind of lap-dog to Sartre (the ‘other’ sex now equating to ‘second sex’); doubling as his editor, his motivator, and his consistent companion (despite what girl he was currently wooing and financially supporting). So her Second Sex philosophy–despite its ground-breaking view as woman being ‘the second sex’ a.k.a inferior to man, wasn’t respected in the same fashion as any of Sartre’s writings despite any guidance and help she gave to those texts. Maybe because she was acting as the ‘second sex’? Maybe because she was a woman? Probably.

It just strikes me that in the year 2009, there isn’t a female philosopher of extreme importance in history or at current; many are profound but not in the sense of classical philosophy, not in the integral ideas of the field. They are more likened to side-notes, or in relation/response to the more dominant male philosophers at the time. There is no female contender to, say, Heidegger. Or Kant. Or Foucault (who seems close to androgynous, but far from feminine).

So there must be some female philosophers of staggering importance who’s theories haven’t been analyzed, articulated, or implemented into the structure of philosophical education. de Beauvoir is intelligent, but she simply does not equate to the caliber of philosophers found in the male realm. Perhaps Nussbaum is. But who would know because she has been dubbed ‘care ethicist’ been dubbed ‘FEMININE’ and her place in philosophy can be likened to a stay-at-home mother taking care of the sick and elderly while the men make real decisions, form real thoughts. Harsh. I’m just saying that it doesn’t really matter what Nussbaum intended–perhaps (or maybe certainly) she was trying to achieve what Derrida was getting at; a bridge between femininity and sound, logical philosophy. If this were the case, the logic of her philosophy has been overlooked and the femininity found in her philosophy has been exaggerated.

So what would it take for a female to be an important and respected philosopher? Surely, she could ignore the emotional qualities of woman, as in the corporate world, prove to be ‘ball busting’ and ‘cold’ –a real member of the ‘boys club.’ But wouldn’t that be unrealistic, in opposition to ‘the truth,’ so far from philosophy? Ok, Ayn Rand (as much as I dislike her). Why do people respect her ideas? Because they are amazingly feminine and logical? Well, if you’ve read any of her more philosophical works, they are almost completely devoid of femininity. Her protagonists are males, her emphasis on capital and competition can be read as very ‘male’ ideas, ones commonly attributed to men. So why should it be that a woman either has to distance herself from her femininity (the true essence of self being also, a recognition and acknowledgment of gender and biology) or else be overly feminine and perhaps not be given the due respect that her male peers receive?

Surely men don’t have to pretend to be female or to possess femininity. Derrida, though he is looking for something to connect logic and nurture–cannot do this because he does not possess the female biology–though men can nurture, can possess female characteristics, etc., it is not something philosophy seems very interested in. And he is accurate when he says that he cannot do it; just as a woman cannot fully possess the male biological make-up.

There are other realms where women flourish intellectually. For instance, psychology, anthropology, social commentary–and the ‘f’ word–feminism–is a field almost entirely composed of females (as obvious as that is, it is something extremely note-worthy.) It’s just a wonder that females are so explicitly detatched from the world of philosophy–from the study of thought. And it’s outrageous when you think of it. That philosophy has been around since the birth of man, yet the ideas and theories put forth are more-than-not devoid of half the people in the world; the women.

Is there a requirement for a woman philosopher? A check-list? And would it look (roughly, and in the simplest of terms) like this:

1. Woman who is privy to experiencing emotion, but one who does not let it interfere with reason.

2. Woman who has strong maternal bond with the world but intellectual bond with the mind–a connection (ignore cheesiness) between the attributes of the heart and the attributes of the mind.

3. Woman who has deep-rooted relation with the natural world because of maternal qualities and can also detach this relation and look objectively at the natural world by suspending emotional bond?

Just looking at some things that seem to be implied by the idea of ‘female’ philosopher, it would appear that, actually, the female is equally, if not more equipped than a man to engage in the study of thought. She not only has the capacity to intellectualize, she has the capacity to empathize and nurture in a biological sense that men cannot know. So I may even challenge Derrida and say that a woman philosopher that can be described as ‘motherly’ need not be a product of deconstruction, she just merely needs to exist–with force and volume. And it would require that perhaps the males of the philosophic field deconstruct their views of women and of the ‘maleness’ of philosophy. I guess then, women may have to deconstruct their self-views because of any stereotypes they may have developed. Philosophies that have aimed at acquiring the ‘truth’ have not been adequate–and maybe its no wonder they’ve all been men. Might it be because they lack the very essence of ‘life’ that is contained within a woman? Or perhaps just because they have failed to adequately address half of humanity–the part which incubates and gives birth to the generations of philosophers to come.

Lydia Lunch Church

I know. I need to stop with the videos.  B UT this is cool, Lydia Lunch rules.