close
Response Paper on Hélène Cixous’s “Sorties”
In her work “Sorties,” Hélène Cixous mentions that we must destroy the connection of logocentrism and phallocentrism because “The general logic of difference would no longer fit into the opposition that still dominates” (97). In the beginning of this essay, Cixous lists many couples of oppositions such as sun versus moon, culture versus nature, and etc. For instances, in Linda Hogan’s People of the Whale, the female protagonist Ruth struggles for protecting the indigenous tradition, the whale, the nature in the whole story. In contrast to Ruth, many male characters struggle for getting a lot of money rather than protecting the nature. And in one of Chinese songs, mother figure is portrayed as a moon. Also in our tradition, female are sensitive and are requested to be obedient to male. In contrast to female, male always dominates the female. After Cixous lists these oppositions, she reveals that “Thought has always worked by dual, hierarchized oppositions” (90). It shows that theory of society, culture support the symbolic system; that is phallocentrism. In this essay, I would like to talk about three issues: female figure in philosophy, interpretations on the femininity, Cixous’s assertion of a new difference.
First, I would like to point out women are passive and obedient in philosophical discourse. In Cixous’s example, if we meet an unfamiliar object, we will ask the question ‘what is it?’ And then, there is a sound; that is the symbolic father respond to us. There is a sound would answer that “It is a book” because the object is named as a book. The whole symbolic system includes language, rule, and etc are created by male. In this case, it reveals that “There’s no place at all for women in the operation” (92). Cixous also uses Mallarmé’s tragic dream to reveal that female doesn’t exist in the philosophy. In Mallarmé’s tragic dream, a father mourns for the death of his son but no mother exists. I wonder whether the mother is dead or not. If the answer is not, why does not the mother exist in his dream? For Cixous, it reveals that “Woman upon whom he no longer depends, he retains only this space, always virginal, matter subjected to the desire that he wishes to imprint” (92). In my own interpretation, it explains why women are requested to be obedient to male in the tradition. It also reveals that female plays a minor role in satisfying the male’s desires to make the symbolic system would operate successfully in the traditional patriarchal society.
Secondly, Cixous mentions two psychoanalysts, Sigmund Freud’s and Ernest Jones’s interpretations on femininity and her questions about their perspectives. For Freud, “the ‘fatality’ of the feminine situation is a result of an anatomical ‘defectiveness’’’ (94). For Cixous, in Freud’s view on “the anatomical difference only based on the difference between having /not having the phallus” (95). In my view, Freud’s interpretation is ocularcentristic but Cixous’s perspective is persuasive. In Cixous’s view, “There is no such things as ‘destiny,’ ‘nature,’ or essence” (96). According to Freud, the girl’s masturbation is similar to the masculine practice. For Jones, “woman’s clitoris is not a minipenis” so her clitoral masturbation is different from male. In Freud’s view, “The first love object being, for both sexes, the mother, it is only for the boy that love of the opposite sex is natural” (94). For Jones, “The girl has a feminine desire for her father, the penis, or an object of same form in place of the breast starting from the age of six months” (94). In my own interpretation, why must the girl desire for her father or the penis? It is ironical. On the one hand, Jones asserts femininity is an autonomous essence, but on the other hand he claims that the girl has a desire for the male’s penis rather than her breast. For Cixous, “Freud and Jones quarrel over the subject of feminine sexuality, starting from opposite points of view to support the anatomical determination of sexual difference-opposition” and phallocentrism as a position of power (93).
What’s more, I would like to mention Cixous’s assertion of a new difference. As I have mentioned before, the traditional logic of sexual difference is outdated, Cixous claims that “The difference would be a crowning display of new differences” (97). There are three dimensions on Cixous’s assertion of a new difference, as follows. At first, Cixous asserts that “The difference makes itself most clearly apparent in as far as woman’s libidinal economy is neither identifiable by a man nor referable to the masculine economy” (95). In my view, it reveals the reason why Freud’s interpretations on femininity are wrong. Because Freud is a man, he can’t identify the femininity correctly. It also shows female need not obey male because female is referable to her feminine economy rather than the masculine economy. Second, Cixous brings up the question: ‘“How do female experience her sexual pleasure?’ What is feminine sexual pleasure, where does it take place, how is it inscribed at the level of her body, of her unconscious? And then how is it put into writing?” (95). There is no any person concerning about the feminine sexual pleasure. Female have more than one sexual organ but in the traditional discourse, people always pay attention to the female sexual organ which is beneficial to the reproduction. People always think female plays a passive role in the sexual intercourse to satisfy the patriarchal society’s request. And the sexual pleasure is only based on the male’s desire. I am wonder about how the feminine sexual pleasure could put into writing. In this essay, Cixous doesn’t give us examples about the accomplishment of her assertion; that is female sexual pleasure into writing. What’s more, Cixous affirms a new difference; that is “Men or women admit the component of the other sex makes them at once much richer, plural, strong” (97). In my view, the new difference is necessary. If we only advocate ourselves, we will make us strong. But at the same time we also repress the others. For example, in the past the empire would like to expand his territory so he launches a war to occupy the other territories. For Cixous, “There is no invention possible, whether it be philosophical or poetic, without the presence in the inventing subject of an abundance of the other, of the diverse” (97). In this case, it reveals why does the empire have many colonies in the past?
To sum up, Cixous’s essay “Sorties” makes we rethink these issues: the general logic of hierarchized oppositions, the position of female in the philosophical discourse, the characteristics of femininity and the new difference.
In her work “Sorties,” Hélène Cixous mentions that we must destroy the connection of logocentrism and phallocentrism because “The general logic of difference would no longer fit into the opposition that still dominates” (97). In the beginning of this essay, Cixous lists many couples of oppositions such as sun versus moon, culture versus nature, and etc. For instances, in Linda Hogan’s People of the Whale, the female protagonist Ruth struggles for protecting the indigenous tradition, the whale, the nature in the whole story. In contrast to Ruth, many male characters struggle for getting a lot of money rather than protecting the nature. And in one of Chinese songs, mother figure is portrayed as a moon. Also in our tradition, female are sensitive and are requested to be obedient to male. In contrast to female, male always dominates the female. After Cixous lists these oppositions, she reveals that “Thought has always worked by dual, hierarchized oppositions” (90). It shows that theory of society, culture support the symbolic system; that is phallocentrism. In this essay, I would like to talk about three issues: female figure in philosophy, interpretations on the femininity, Cixous’s assertion of a new difference.
First, I would like to point out women are passive and obedient in philosophical discourse. In Cixous’s example, if we meet an unfamiliar object, we will ask the question ‘what is it?’ And then, there is a sound; that is the symbolic father respond to us. There is a sound would answer that “It is a book” because the object is named as a book. The whole symbolic system includes language, rule, and etc are created by male. In this case, it reveals that “There’s no place at all for women in the operation” (92). Cixous also uses Mallarmé’s tragic dream to reveal that female doesn’t exist in the philosophy. In Mallarmé’s tragic dream, a father mourns for the death of his son but no mother exists. I wonder whether the mother is dead or not. If the answer is not, why does not the mother exist in his dream? For Cixous, it reveals that “Woman upon whom he no longer depends, he retains only this space, always virginal, matter subjected to the desire that he wishes to imprint” (92). In my own interpretation, it explains why women are requested to be obedient to male in the tradition. It also reveals that female plays a minor role in satisfying the male’s desires to make the symbolic system would operate successfully in the traditional patriarchal society.
Secondly, Cixous mentions two psychoanalysts, Sigmund Freud’s and Ernest Jones’s interpretations on femininity and her questions about their perspectives. For Freud, “the ‘fatality’ of the feminine situation is a result of an anatomical ‘defectiveness’’’ (94). For Cixous, in Freud’s view on “the anatomical difference only based on the difference between having /not having the phallus” (95). In my view, Freud’s interpretation is ocularcentristic but Cixous’s perspective is persuasive. In Cixous’s view, “There is no such things as ‘destiny,’ ‘nature,’ or essence” (96). According to Freud, the girl’s masturbation is similar to the masculine practice. For Jones, “woman’s clitoris is not a minipenis” so her clitoral masturbation is different from male. In Freud’s view, “The first love object being, for both sexes, the mother, it is only for the boy that love of the opposite sex is natural” (94). For Jones, “The girl has a feminine desire for her father, the penis, or an object of same form in place of the breast starting from the age of six months” (94). In my own interpretation, why must the girl desire for her father or the penis? It is ironical. On the one hand, Jones asserts femininity is an autonomous essence, but on the other hand he claims that the girl has a desire for the male’s penis rather than her breast. For Cixous, “Freud and Jones quarrel over the subject of feminine sexuality, starting from opposite points of view to support the anatomical determination of sexual difference-opposition” and phallocentrism as a position of power (93).
What’s more, I would like to mention Cixous’s assertion of a new difference. As I have mentioned before, the traditional logic of sexual difference is outdated, Cixous claims that “The difference would be a crowning display of new differences” (97). There are three dimensions on Cixous’s assertion of a new difference, as follows. At first, Cixous asserts that “The difference makes itself most clearly apparent in as far as woman’s libidinal economy is neither identifiable by a man nor referable to the masculine economy” (95). In my view, it reveals the reason why Freud’s interpretations on femininity are wrong. Because Freud is a man, he can’t identify the femininity correctly. It also shows female need not obey male because female is referable to her feminine economy rather than the masculine economy. Second, Cixous brings up the question: ‘“How do female experience her sexual pleasure?’ What is feminine sexual pleasure, where does it take place, how is it inscribed at the level of her body, of her unconscious? And then how is it put into writing?” (95). There is no any person concerning about the feminine sexual pleasure. Female have more than one sexual organ but in the traditional discourse, people always pay attention to the female sexual organ which is beneficial to the reproduction. People always think female plays a passive role in the sexual intercourse to satisfy the patriarchal society’s request. And the sexual pleasure is only based on the male’s desire. I am wonder about how the feminine sexual pleasure could put into writing. In this essay, Cixous doesn’t give us examples about the accomplishment of her assertion; that is female sexual pleasure into writing. What’s more, Cixous affirms a new difference; that is “Men or women admit the component of the other sex makes them at once much richer, plural, strong” (97). In my view, the new difference is necessary. If we only advocate ourselves, we will make us strong. But at the same time we also repress the others. For example, in the past the empire would like to expand his territory so he launches a war to occupy the other territories. For Cixous, “There is no invention possible, whether it be philosophical or poetic, without the presence in the inventing subject of an abundance of the other, of the diverse” (97). In this case, it reveals why does the empire have many colonies in the past?
To sum up, Cixous’s essay “Sorties” makes we rethink these issues: the general logic of hierarchized oppositions, the position of female in the philosophical discourse, the characteristics of femininity and the new difference.
全站熱搜
留言列表
{{ article.title }}