ix. Butler vs. Cixous

ix. Butler vs. Cixous

A couple pages into Cixous’ ‘Sorties,’ and I wanted to sortie myself from reading the article. I continued on, arguing/disagreeing and often questioning her myriad assumptions all along the margin with my (I guess one could read phallic) pencil. As I began to set myself up for posting this blog (drank some wine, did some meditation, played a video game, etc) I tried to reflect what it was exactly that I did not care for about her article. I then realized that it was her broad claims that bothered me, not necessarily just because of what they were saying, but precisely because of where they came from. In other words, Cixous argues a position against the universal system of patriarchal hegemony, as if her notions existed outside of it, never conceding the possibility that everything she says is still a part of that spectral universal patriarchal hegemonic system. It is not unlike the problem Derrida had to face when he had to use language to talk about language. The very system that Cixous is attempting to deconstruct is the very system that is engendering the notions of the supposed deconstructer.

Though I appreciated what Cixous was trying to say in her article, there were many points of contention with her implicit assertions. Initially I was disappointed with the thought that we were going to have to read reactionary feminist theorists full of assumptions. Fortunately, my next read, brought much joy and better articulations to the problems I was having with Cixous. Unexpectedly, Butler’s first sentence deals with the very core problem I had with Cixous’ argument: “feminist theory has assumed that there is some existing identity, understood through the category of women…for whom political representation is pursued” but the problem with this implied belief by many feminist theorists is that the “very subject of women is no longer understood in stable or abiding terms” (C 191,192). So how can Cixous make definitive claims for the feminine when there is no stable referent? She can’t. Add to this the fact that Cixous is counterposing the feminine against another unstable referent, the masculine, in order to derive definitions of what feminine truly is, and you begin to see the inherent flaws in her argument that Butler asserts others, unfortunately, are guilty of as well.