(No part of this reinterview may be published elsewhere without written permission from victor j. vitanza and
lynda haas.) --Full Copyright notice at end of each file, starting with haas1 file.
The PreText Conversations held a Re/In/View with Lynda Haas, beginning July, 1997. The subject of the reinvw is/was her article
"The Daughter's Seduction; or, Writing with the Rhetors,"
forthcoming in PRE/TEXT 15: 3-4.
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 12:07:04 -0500 I agree with Lynda on many points but I will make only three short comments and ask one of Lynda. 1) I agree that Stepen King is one of the most interesting contemporary writers. His focus on writing, the body, and the culture--their imbrication under patriarchy and consumer capitalism--makes for very interesting reading, particularly as he struggles against the conservative nature of horror fiction (a conservatism that King readily points out in his critical works). I could go on at length and have in other venues but would only point out that his work may open, as Lynda points out, a way to rethink the body and writing in popular culture. 2) To talk about men's and women's writing as identifiable cultural spaces (on some idealized Platonic plain) is precisely the problem (and ideological mask) as Lynda points out (and I would argue leads to the misreading of the French feminists like Cixous). They are not inhabitable places (I write like a man) but a series of nodal relations in a patriarchal culture. Of course, it is precisely the defining of space which lends such strength to the patriarchy to silence the other (but then I am doing bad Derrida in reminding us of his central claim about western metaphysics). We must always return to the specific cultural junctures that remind us that to be a man and to be a woman are very different things in a patriarchal culture (I may study and mimic "women's writing," but never know the day to day slights and harassments and violence). That is to say, we must always remember that these distinctions have important political import. I grow tired of men who are concerned that they are somehow excluded from writing like women. It is not only a poor reading of the literature but the slight contemporary exclusion men might feel hardly matches the long and brutal history of our patriarchal culture. Even if I log on to a chat, for example, as a "woman" and get the normal harassment, as a man in our particular culture at this particular juncture, I can process and deal with the harassment in a very different way than a woman who knows the real violence and objectification of our culture. 3) I agree with Lynda that we must be cautionary about claims of the internet to be a place of redefining identity. I am even a bit dubious of claims about the cyborg which often degenerates into the large breasted women with razor sharp nails and overdeveloped sex drives, enhanced by drugs, mechanized body-parts, and computer interfaces, that so much populate the male (teen) dreams of much of cyberpunk. That is to argue, many of the "new identities" made possible by cyberspace don't so much leave the patriarchy behind as magnify it with a vengeance. Which leads to my question: Question: Lynda, why do you think the myth of the internet as a product of the military complex (a communication system built to withstand a nuclear war) is such a stable part of our culture? It is a dubious myth at best. Although supported by military funds (like many contemporary consumer products), the internet's birth (pardon the metaphor) seems to have more to do with a bunch of computer "nerds" looking for ways to get big, expensive mainframes talking than about nuclear war. One of the early theorists who did work on packet-switching did work for Rand Corp. (which was working on communication systems that could withstand a nuclear war) but his works was not that important. It seems to me central to our focus of why nuclear war is needed as the spectre of birth, but I was wondering what you thought? Dean Rehberger
One could even ask "how is writing effected by gastrointestinal disorders?"
>----------
Lynda, Thanks for the response and being a good sport about the fun (glad your co-workers had fun anyway). I can see that there can be no "women's" writing given that language is inherently patriarchal, and that both men and women can write in ways that shake up that system. The problem (in trying to figure out the relationship between bodies and writings) is the sex/gender split. The fact that both men and women can write to shake up patriarchy sees writing at the level of gender- i.e. style and social construction. But where does this leave the body- sex. At one point in your paper you talk about trying to get out of this sex/gender binary. But I'm still not sure what will happen to writing once we either disregard gender or shift from that to focus on sex or the body. I'm still wondering what that relationship might mean/be. As far as my paper goes (aside from the fact I'm surprised somebody actually read it! - thanks) I certainly didn't mean to imply there some sort of utopia now that we have the web. Maybe I should go back and read it! :) What I was trying to get at is now we have a popular metaphor -the Web- which will enable more people to conceive of language/writing differently- i.e. in ways that would allow them to shake up the current patriarchal notions of writing. The only utopian vision I meant to imply was that hopefully this "style" would be able to move out of academica now that it has a widely recognizable metaphor. Thanks again Lynda, I hope the discussion about bodies/writing continues. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around it. B.
> I can see that there can be no "women's" writing given that language is This is the sort of comment that does not make a lot of sense to me. Yes, I have heard the theoretical explanations for describing language as "inherently patriarchal," but such descriptions seem overly essentialist to me. Are we to give up on language? Or accept that communication is "essential" bad because patriarchal. I don't like my choices. Instead I would prefer to identify specific aspects of language we like and don't like (the ways language is both democratic and hierachical), and avoid overgeneralized or essentializing terms, such as "THE feminine" or "the masculine." I am not a dogmatist on this. If someone can give me a different way to think/write/speak about this stuff I would gladly drink it up. Edward Schiappa
>From GLUE>>__________so how is the sexed discourse affected by the But of course each of those things, or the combination of those things, affects the one who is writing or reading in profound ways, and in such a multiplication of situated ways that we'd need a computer to help count them. But why is writing about the affects of these different agents upon writing important to anyone outside of the academic sandbox-from your point of view? Will it in some way affect real people who are of different religions, ages, ethnicities, classes, genders, etc? Lynda
>>>>>>But I'm still not sure what will happen to writing once we either disregard gender or shift from that to focus on sex or the body. I'm still wondering what that relationship might mean/be. That's the point, no? We don't know, it's unformed. Won't the relationship mean and be a myriad of things, like Irigaray's sea? As far as my paper goes (aside from the fact I'm surprised somebody actually read it! - thanks) I certainly didn't mean to imply there some sort of utopia now that we have the web. Maybe I should go back and read it! :) No, didn't mean to imply you were fostering a utopian vision, but since I work very much in the corporate world of the internet and the web (and our intranet), the web has come to mean something very different for me than it did when I was a teacher. What I was trying to get at is now we have a popular metaphor -the Web- which will enable more people more people but still, which people? Because a computer hacker kid who has no social life can go onto a MOO and pretend to be someone else, does that change his identity? The fact that he can be online real time and talk with a "girl" (who if he met in real life he probably couldn't say hello to)-how does that really change his identity? What about the millions of people who have no access to the web, how does this new technology change their lives? Umberto Eco is doing some interesting projects in this field. to conceive of language/writing differently- i.e. in ways that would allow them to shake up the current patriarchal notions of writing. The only utopian vision I meant to imply was that hopefully this "style" would be able to move out of academica now that it has a widely recognizable metaphor. How will it shake, because it will go outside the bounds of academia? How about the already forming ideas about media and multimedia on the web that have nothing at all to do with academia? Thanks again Lynda, I hope the discussion about bodies/writing continues. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around it. I was hoping someone would bite on that chicken versus chicken dinner thing because it seems to me there's something in that. Lynda---
----------
> I can see that there can be no "women's" writing given that language is
>This is the sort of comment that does not make a lot of sense to me. Yes, Bad, good, I don't remember making these distinctions. I'm sure that language reeks of the patriarchy, does that mean I say "dang, I'm giving up, might as well go eat worms, I don't have my own language." I could do that but how would it profit me or anyone else? I don't have my own language in my new job. I have the language of corporate America, the language of telecommunications, the language of the FCC, the language of the corporate culture of Intermedia. Some of the words are repulsive to me so I try not to use them. Still in all, I make a pretty good living fiddling with these languages which are, believe me, all very masculine. I can use patriarchy's own languages to my own benefit-that's interventive. Doesn't do much for my idealistic urges to change the world, but it does feed my family and provide me a pretty happy life. How can academics use patriarchy's very own words to their own benefit? To their students' benefits? And to the worlds? Seems to me these are more important issues than whether or not something is essentialist. Aren't you all tired of that debate by now? Lynda
Sorry to barrage you guys with so many emails from LGHaas but I couldn't find a way to answer them all with one email. Dean, your question is particularly interesting to me because the VP of my department was in school in 1968 at UC Santa Barbara, where the first node of the internet was established. I asked him today what the very first days of the internet were like. His reply was "the military industrial complex (said with a laugh) funded it for the vietnam war loving defense department" or something like that. He was among the students who protested and twice burned down the building where the research was being done. As you can tell, his story might be just a little bit politically tinged, but still-he was there. According to him, the first two nodes of the internet were UC and UC Santa Barbara-they were there because those universities housed the scientists who were developing new nuclear techologies for the Defense department, totally funded by the DD, as was the "internet." And, they used the internet pretty much to communicate and share research papers. So, according to him, the "birth" had to do with both things you said-getting big expensive mainframes talking so that they could talk about nuclear war. Years later when the DD decided it wasn't getting its bang for the buck, that's when universities became responsible for the internet, and UUNet was formed around then. We're still talking mainframe computers talking to each other, though. An interesting addition to the story, to me, is how the current internet came into being-outside the academic circle-this is where the nerds played an important part. If it weren't for Jobs (1 year of college) and Woziniak (no years of college) at Apple, and then our friend Bill Gates (1 year of college)-the internet wouldn't be what it is today (Did you know that if Michael Jordan were to take his entire salary from this year and put all of it in the bank, and then do that for 270 more years, he would be worth as much as Bill Gates is worth today?). And even beyond that, PCs might still be a hobby if IBM hadn't decided to tell businesses that they needed "A PC on every desktop." I think, don't you, the boundary lines between government and business are melting. At least in telecommunications it seems that way to us. We're more worried about the birth of a new technology that will give our competitors an edge than we are about nuclear war. Lynda
Yes, Lynda, some of us are dreadfully tired of talk about essentialism. Especially negative ontologies or essentialism. But as you know esse*ism, a so-called "strategic" form, is used in the name of doing politics. To ask those who would better their lives, their intellectual cum material lives, not to use esse*ism would put, does put, the "asker" or "complainer" in a rather difficult position of having to deal with charges of not caring about ________ (just fill in the black with any thing that would make you or another feel the ridicule that kills). Negative essentialism generally leads to reactionary thinking and actions. A slug-fest (pun perhaps intended). What is most tiresome is that in the ugly facelessness of this form of esse*ism, there are more 'interesting' alter-natives that we do not go with. Sorry this is too short .)>= vv
> Bad, good, I don't remember making these distinctions. You might not have, but come on, surely you agree that the previous comment (not yours) that "language is inherently patriarchical" functions as a lament. There is no neutral language, and it sure wasn't meant as a compliment. If my comment doesn't resonate with your comments, then you need not feel the need to react to that particular sentiment. :)
> I'm sure that I guess I am not sure that "language reeks of the patriarchy." Specific vocabularies and practices of specific discourse communities may reek of patriarchy, but I grow skeptical when we talk about language simpliciter. What do we mean by capital L Language without being essentialist. Yep, an old debate, but one that is far from over, and if one (not necessarily you) reproduce(s) essentialist thinking in one's language use, that seems like precisely the sort of language practice we ought to question (similar, though not on part with, the generic use of masculine pronouns). Surely we all agree that our linguistic practices MATTER.
> I don't have my own language in my new job.
> How can academics use patriarchy's very own words to their own No I am not tired of that debate, because I still run into the issues regularly and I think in the long run essentialism as a belief does more harm than anti-essentialism. In fact, if you want to challenge patriarchical social-linguistic practices, you'll have better shot (rhetorically-speaking) if you don't have to overcome essentialist thoughts about "that's just the way things are" or "that is what is natural." My own experience in and out of Women's Studies is that one challenges current practices and patriarchy (and we agree that this is what we ought to be doing) better with a dose of anti-essentialism. If one accepts axioms like "language is inherently fascist" or "inherently patriarchival," there is little hope to reform it. Ok, I'll keep quiet so that others have more of a chance to contribute. Thanks for your patience. Edward Schiappa
> One could even ask "how is writing effected by gastrointestinal -- david M rieder
If we look at Byron Hawk's original question "can a man write 'women's writing'" proscriptively (the way many people look at grammar, for example), then we would say that of course a man can write "women's writing" because if "women's writing" is clearly characterized then it is a defined discourse--with an understood and defined lexicon, subject matter, stylistic devices, etc. However, this assertion reminds me of the situation in Caryl Churchill's play _Cloud 9_ in which a male homosexual has been dumped by his lover for being too "fem." He moves in with his sister and her lesbian lover, an experience which expands his awareness and brings him to the ironic assertion that he believes he is a lesbian. Personally, I no more believe we "write the body" (following, for example, the neoFreudian notion that narrative structure represents male arousal and climax) than I believe that "biology is destiny," which is not to say that I think men can write like women. What I do believe (not because it's postmodern but because it's obvious) is that we write our own consciousnesses--which consist of the interstices of the discourses, perceptual/cultural structures, and experiences we encounter throughout our lives and which interact with our specific (not gendered) genetic limitations and abilities. Because women have existed for so long in patriarchy and because that patriarchy defines women as their bodies (and confines them to their bodies), women's writing may not be able to *resist* the body (with reference to Irigary and Cixous). (Or perhaps resisting the body and classification by body is the only possible rebellion?) It seems to me that the issue is not in "whether or not" but in what characteristics we (or someone) identify *and believe in* as body-specific and male or female. Is such a categorization of language even useful? It is no clearer to me how I can use the information that nouns (or narrative action) are male and objects are female than it is clear why some Spanish nouns have feminine endings and masculine articles. If we're looking for gender in grammatical relationships, I offer giving birth as the ultimate transitive classification. Am I a prisoner of language or is it the file with which I saw slowly through the bars of my cell? Following what Judith Butler says of colonial discourse and the cultural "other," as such an "other" I may choose to insert myself into that discourse--or not. As for writing in cyberspace, it is not gender-free if gender is in the consciousness. However, I know rude, self-involved, dominating women (writing their consciousnesses if not their bodies) who are probably taken for men in cyberwriting. To me their writing is like the pornography/censorship dilemma is to many feminists--I don't know whether to condemn their alpha-dog attitude or admire their freedom and ability to get away with it in a medium where the markers are less obvious. After all, in the "real" world rude, self-involved, dominating women would be shunned and critisized as unfeminine. On the other hand, it's selfish, insensitive, unproductive behavior. Perhaps I should just gently point it out to the offender.....or would that be denying him/her the freedom to be obnoxious and obstructive? What's a girl to do? --Bobbie Silk
. . . such as . . . ?
At 03:31 PM 7/24/97 -0500, you wrote:
Haas, Lynda G. (EXCH) wrote:
> So, according to him, the "birth" had to do with both things If I may add to that, assuming that the Internet is really an umbrella term for application protocols like Email, HTTP (web), FTP, GOPHER, NNTP, etc., the Internet isn't what it was back them. Remember, HTTP wasn't created until the late '80s by Tim Berners-Lee in conjunction with CERN... and wasn't made popular until the "Bill Gates of the Internet" created Mosaic, Marc Andreeson ;-) dave
I, too, am interested in this question of gendered writing. But, rather than go at it from a theoretical stance, I have an interesting story to relate. I submitted an article to a major publication in my field. The article was reflective of research I did in the early 90s on the state of feminist biblical hermeneutics and biblical interpretation. It focused upon what I saw as a major flaw in the field, namely, that hermeneutics was concerned with 'text', with 'interpretation', with issues of 'truth and method'. I find that interesting (and you may argue with me), since I thought at least a major part of feminist political programs dealt with the physical, with issues of power, the body, the economic, the political, etc. Among feminist biblical hermeneuts and feminist biblical interpreters, the issue seemed/seems to be something like: if only we can deconstruct biblical authority (or, if only we can reconstruct biblical history), then, through reading, we have a means by which to enact change. I simply saw/see no relationship between reading and action anywhere elaborated by these hermeneuts and interpreters. I suggested that rhetoric, with its relationship between commitment and action, with its emphasis upon pragmatics, was the missing link. I submitted this essay, as I said, to a major referreed journal (blind reading). The editor, in turn, submitted it to others who saw enough value in it (I'm not sure if I do anymore) to publish it. But the odd thing was, the responses from the readers assumed I was a woman. They stated, time and again, "the author...she..." Why? Because it was about feminism? What aspect of my writing was so gendered that this assumption was made? The topic? The rhetoric? The tropes? Personal deixis? My audience, argumentatively constructed of feminists? My commitment to feminism(s)? As it is, this experience was such an interesting one that I've decided to pursue a position opening up at a major university's Women in Religion program. I wonder how they will approach my writing? Just puzzling, TheVoidBoy(?)
Lynda: __________Is Irigaray's statement that "If mothers could be women. . ." compatible with the following statement concerning the patriarchy (also from your essay): "In many patriarchal traditions, a stake is therefore driven into the earth to delineate the sacred space. It defines a place for male gatherings founded upon a sacrifice. Women may be tolerated within it as non-active bystanders"? If mothers are not women within patriarchal orders, then I would have thought that "mothers" (not women) would have been tolerated in this sacred space of the fathers--while the absence of women would have been its given. David Metzger
|
(Copyright. 1997. PRE/TEXT. Victor J. Vitanza, the Publisher/Editor, and Lynda Haas, the author. All rights reserved. Anyone should feel free, however, to link to this page for educational purposes, but do not publish otherwise in part or whole without prior written consent from copyright holders. You may also establish a link to this or any REINVW discussion.)
To Part 4, Haas Reinvw, forthcoming
To Part 1, Haas Reinvw
To Part 2, Haas Reinvw
To REINVW Archives
To PRE/TEXT List