SUBJECTIVITY AND GENDER:

SUBJECTIVITY AND GENDER:

LUCE IRIGARAY'S, JUDITH BUTLER'S AND RIOT GIRL'S GENDER CHALLENGE

An essay by Vanessa Long

Based on Luce Irigaray's paper 'This Sex Which is Not One' from her book 'This Sex Which is Not One', 1985 Cornell University Press, Ithaca and Judith Butler's 'Subversive Bodily Acts' from Gender Trouble, Routledge, 1996.

Luce Irigaray and Judith Butler both challenge the whole notion of gender, but from two very different stand points. Where Luce Irigaray tackles the question of gender with reference to the study of female sexuality; Judith Butler deconstructs the cultural fabrication of gender identity. Irigaray concludes her argument in 'This Sex Which is Not One' stating that women need to segregate themselves from male discourses and map out their gender identity on their own terms. Conversely Butler calls in 'Subversive Bodily Acts' for the dissection of and end to notions of discrete gender. Although their approaches are different, both writers conclusions endorse resistance to the power structures of the dominant culture when it comes to gender; a fact demonstrated via a brief analysis of the riot girl movement.

Irigaray' s paper 'This Sex Which is Not One' (1985) begins with a questioning of the point of having two discrete genders considering the fact that "female sexuality has always been conceptualised on the basis of masculine parameters" and that in Freudian theories on sexual identity "the development of a sexually 'normal' woman seems too clearly required by the practice of male sexuality". Irigaray refers to female subjectivity and sexuality as "a sexuality denied", considering that "the penis... (is) the only sexual organ of recognised value" . According to Irigaray, this situation causes female pleasure to be foreign "unless it remains within the dominant phallic economy".

In "This Sex Which is Not One; Irigaray details how that cultural theorists such as Freud have only been able to measure female sexuality as an adjunct rather than as a force in its own right. Lacan is another theorist that she ridicules, as his notion of the 'imaginary' is again a phallically based notion. The spectre of a female imaginary or symbolic is not conceived of in his theories. She says that the result of "the exclusion of a female imaginary certainly puts women in a position of experiencing herself only fragmentarily, in the little-structured margins of a dominant ideology."

Irigaray argues that the complexity of female sexuality and eroticism does not fit into male notions of just one fixed erogenous zone, of just one obvious kind of pleasure; that as female sexuality is diffuse and plural rather than singular it is "counted as none", as lack. Irigaray says that most women allow themselves to be assimilated into male fantasies and discourses because other avenues have not been explored. Irigaray describes womens involvement in heterosexual activity, and their allowing themselves to be used as an exchange value amongst men as "a masochistic prostitution of her body to a desire that is not her own" . A peculiar state of affairs, since "woman's desire would not be expected to speak the same language as man's". Irigaray contends that female language is of a similar nature to female sexuality, as "What she says is never identical with anything... rather, it is contiguous".

Irigaray concludes that a woman' s development through a Freudian system could not possibly liberate a woman's desire. Although women are not a class in the Marxian sense, they are underdeveloped in terms of political sensibilities owing to their "submission by and to a culture that oppresses them, uses them, makes of them a medium of exchange, with very little profit to them" . She states that women need not just passively accept a subject, marginalised position once they have acknowledged its existence, but rather actively resist the system itself through removing themselves from it and thus rediscovering their own non linear sexuality, language and discourses on their own terms. She says that direct action is required if women are to rise above simply being "an exchange value among men" and that women need to forge for themselves a female imaginary that compels recognition. Irigaray warns that more than a simple change of hands is in order, for if women simply become dominant and men subordinate, the current system would merely be perpetuated and the power imbalances within it recreated, eliminating the possibility of real change. Moreover, competition with men over'productive excess' could only result in women losing the uniqueness of their sexuality. She argues that what is needed is an entirely new system if women are to \ldblquote escape from their proletarization on the exchange market.

Conversely, Judith Butler's argument in 'Subversive Bodily Acts' (1996) focuses less on subject female positioning in cultural studies than on the myths that surround the cultural construction of gender and the internal Foucaultian discipline and values that the constrictive notion of gender entails.

Butler contends that gender behaviour is learned cultural behaviour, which is currently based upon the assumption of the reproductive heterosexual as the ideal. She questions the notion of natural, biological or true gender identity, and persuasively argues that there is no such thing as original gender identity; but rather normalised notions of gender which are purely cultural products, present from the earliest stages of subjectivity. She says that it is culture, not sex which marks out discrete gender based behaviour internally (behaviourally) and externally (on the body). She says that the way in which the dominant culture teaches and enforces these cultural beliefs occurs gradually through internalization. The perpetuation and internalization of discrete gender is inextricably linked to Foucaultian ideas on power and discipline.

Butler contends that culture requires gender to be inscribed upon the body; as subjects are compelled to have "their bodies ... signify the prohibitive law (of discrete gender) as their very essence, style and necessity" . Through this system of signs and internalization, gendered bodies are created. Gender is a facet of identity created through a stylised repetition of acts. Gender performance and prescription is internalised as a form of self discipline.

She states that the discrete model of gender based on sex is extremely limiting, and does not factor in other bases of gender identity; nor alternative forms of sexuality. Rather, it merely assumes a universal application, and relies upon its dominance to perpetuate itself, and allow it to claim that heterosexuality and the divisive gender relations that it breeds are somehow \lquote natural\rquote , perhaps even biological just because they are dominant.

Butler cites drag as a form of resistance to the beliefs of the dominant culture in regards to gender, as it demonstrates through parody the plasticity of gender, and highlights its borders and taboos, thus revealing its cultural rather than 'biological' origins. Butler calls for a more fluid interpretation of gender, and a more honest study and understanding of its performativity. She concludes by saying that the whole notion of gender is indeed an unnatural, constrictive one, and yet another source of societal discipline which must be deconstructed; and that queer people must be at the forefront of tearing down its facade.\p

Both Butler's and especially Irigaray\'s notions of resistance to the power structures inveigled in gender have been mirrored throughout feminist history. Riot Girl is a recent movement which has questioned traditional gendered subjectivity and rewritten the theories of Lacan on its own terms whilst espousing an Irigaray style resistance to patriarchy.

The Riot Girl Movement began in Olympia, Washington in the early 1990s and which is exemplified by female punk groups such as Bikini Kill, Bratmobile, L7, Seven Year Bitch and Babes in Toyland and fanzines such as Girl Germs, Jigsaw, Bitch, Riot Girl and Geek Girl. 'The Riot Girl Manifesto' declares, "We seek to create revolution in our own lives every day by envisioning and creating alternatives to the bullshit Christian capitalist way of doing things."(White, Emily; 1992). The Riot Girl movement encourages women to resist the dominant culture by removing themselves from male discourses and creating their own bands, language, and media. It bolsters women to assert themselves, support one another and express their emotions on their own terms. It is concerned with issues such as rape, homophobia, sexuality, eating disorders, body image, fat oppression, feminism, the right to abortion, and women's subordination.

At the crux of the riot girl movement is the promotion of the untamed nature of girlhood; an assertive form of subjectivity which riot girls believe dissipates upon adolescence and its cultural expectation for young women to take up a traditionally passive, feminine role. According to sociologist Carol Gilligan (in White, Emily, 1992) it is at this stage that women\rquote s confidence plummets as they realise the constrictive nature of such a role. The riot girl movement charges that if womanhood within the dominant culture requires passivity and subordination then they don\rquote t want a part of it. Better to stay girls. Better to remove yourself from the dominant culture and actively resist.

At Bikini Kill's 1997 Sydney shows, Kathleen Hanna arrived on stage in a tuxedo converted into a dress. Sartorial style is another way that the riot girl movement works to deconstruct and undermine the values of the dominant culture, in effect mocking the entire idea of gender. Riot girl turns the innocence of baby doll dresses into a strength, and the power and authority inveigled into the wearing of tuxedos, exclusively by men, inside out. To some extent they do this in the spirit of the resistant drag queens that Butler refers to in her article. The Riot Girl movement is one which has chosen to separate itself from and subvert the dominant culture until the power disparities regarding gender inveigled within the current system are rectified.

In consideration of this, it could be contended that the Riot Girl movement would prescribe to an Irigaray style rewriting of Lacan, with the assertive girl posited as the female imaginary. Contact with the restrictive cultural expectations of adult gender roles upon adolescence could be viewed as the end of the mirror stage and the death of the imaginary in riot girls rewriting of Lacan. In such a system, riot girl's music and fanzines would act as the symbolic order. The Riot Girl movement is one which is bringing Irigaray's notions of resistance to life, mocking the power inveigled in discrete gender through reappropriating the gendered meanings of any number of behaviours and cultural artefacts, thus rejecting the ability of the current gender system to have "their bodies signify the prohibitive law as their very essence and style and necessity" (Butler, 1996).

As has been shown Both Irigaray and Butler challenge inherited ideas about the different genders, as well as the notion of gender itself. However, they approach this issue from two very different stand points. Where Luce Irigaray's paper 'This Sex Which is Not One' focuses on the denial of female sexuality in cultural theory, and on positioning gender as sex based, Judith Butler's 'Subversive Bodily Acts' focuses on a refusal of this idea and on exposing the plasticity and control involved in gender performance. Both conclude that resistance is necessary, however they diverge on the type of resistance needed and its intended outcome. That is, where Irigaray concludes that women need to segregate themselves from man made systems of thought, enabling them to resist the denial of their agency and develop their own sexuality; Butler believes that the entire notion of discrete, 'natural' gender is a cultural fallacy which needs to be revealed and broken down. Where Irigaray calls for division and the development of female discourses; Butler demands the abolition of the notion of discrete genders because of their restrictive universal assumption of reproductive heterosexuality as the basis of the gender system. The Riot girl movement is one which demonstrates the underlying similarity between the arguments of Butler and Irigaray; as both they and the riot girl movement believe that the current confrontational gender system is ultimately linked to greater structures of power, and is both plastic and limiting. They agree that resistance to it is necessary until a more honest and equal social system can come into place.

REFERENCES

Butler, Judith (1996) 'Subversive Bodily Acts' in 'Gender Trouble', Routledge.

Irigaray, Luce (1985) 'This Sex Which is Not One' from 'This Sex Which is Not One', Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

White, Emily (1992), 'Revolution Girl Style Now' IN Ed. McDonnell, E, Powers, A. (1995), 'Women Write About Rock, Pop, and Rap', Plexus, London.

http://www.riotgrrl.com

http://www.grrlgamer.com

http://socrates.berkley.edu

http://www.tweekitten.com

http://anansi.panix.com

http://jett.com

http://chainsaw.com

make your comments on this article here: http://www.insidetheweb.com/mbs.cgi/mb419250

return to main cultural studies page here: http://victorian.fortunecity.com/plath/372/index2.html

return to home page: http://victorian.fortunecity.com/plath/372

visit art and the beautiful black wind sister page: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/4470

email me at: [email protected]