Re: feminism

Luba Slabyj wrote:
> 

> But I'm wondering whom or what you have in mind when you say "majoritarian
> consciousness."

I guess I think of the idea of majoritarian consciousness in terms of
the (coupling with the ?) abstract machinic process of the media (for
eg.)  The kinds of enunciations that speak for the 'all' and take on the
tone (?) of authoritarianism.  Opposing this would be the minoritarian
discourse that eminates from the marjins and has something 'different'
to say.   In terms of feminism moving from a minoritarian position and
being appropriated by majoritarian thought (usually through some form of
institionalization) I was thinking about how my experiences this year
with a 'feminist lecturer/tutor' felt like the most
oppressive/repressive learning experience I have thus far had at
university.  We were told what feminism was/is and how to do it --
completely modeled from the position of a priviledged white middle class
consciousness (majoritarian) and using one minority text, not as such,
but to define 'all' of (in this instance) working class women's lives in
one text! It's that logic of the same the same the same -- putting
'authority' into the text -- making it operate as an authoritarian
discourse and closing off all the 'unsaid'/ the differences etc...

> Any further thoughts on "feminism as desire"?


On the other hand,  feminism as desire  -- I guess it can't be 'given',
but rather it operates, I feel, as a concept of liberation and hence
feminism becomes something 'different' within each and every 'different'
assemblage/situation.  Something that changes/ a tool for the liberation
of repressed 'desire' - not modelled and not pre-empted, but perhaps its
only constant is its opposition to oppressive structures -- something
autopoetic -- I guess I would consider my own feminism (relation to/use
of??) as something that opposed the structures(ing) of The Feminism that
more and more seems to be operating (just like the patriarchal
structures it apparantly opposes) to tell me what and who I am (to put
me in my place).  -- Well I say fuck off! (I cannot/will not be
'placed')  I also think it is something that is lived/embodied/practiced
-- for me its about an ethic of non-violence/ anti-dualism/ anti
exclusionism etc.etc...  and well, many of the principals in D&G's
concept of 'desire' -- which is everywhere and can't be segregated out
into "this class" or "this week" when the 'subject' is sanctioned for
discussion (as long as you say what 'they' want to hear)!  When this
happens it is no longer desire, and for me no longer feminism, but just
another form of modelized/ing structure.

I've also been thinking about the concept of 'affects' in the sence of
situations/assembleges/enunciations that have the affect of producing a
feminism, or feminist moment (of liberation)(installing a feminist
desiring machine?).  Something that would not require that the (or all
of the) bodies/machines be anatomically female/women, because to me that
just reproduces the notion of origin definition/biological essentialism,
but where the 'politics' (?) is located in the 'affect' of the action
and not over-coded by a defining model of who can say/mean what.  As
example, I was thinking that when my son refuses to wear 'the uniform'
to school and dresses up (for himself) with bangles and rings, I think
of this as a feminist enunciation, in that he refuses the overcoding of
patriarchal gender constructions (at least to an extent) and makes
himself up in/through/with his own creative desire to play (at his own
self creation).  I should add that this has had a very interesting
'affect' on some of the other children -- there is a mix of intrique
from the other boys and the girls keep sending him love letters (??).
One of his male friends, who used to (and to some extent still) exude
very stereotypical 'boyish' behavior, has also started to experiment
with his dress-code (I could be being a little optimistic, but is this a
molecular revolution?) Anyway, so much for the assumptions of
patriarchy, which (I hear my father's discust!) would pre-empt nothing
but trouble and danger for a boy who actively participates in the 'play'
of dressing up that is patriarchally defined as feminine!  I should
probably add, however, that he is a very confident and self-determining
child and has had the priviledge of living outside patriarchal
familiarism -- no daddy despot, but lots of interesting men and women
pass in and through our lives. I'm not sure that such actions would be
available to many boys, but I'd be interested in any comments.    

Hoping this helps develop the discussion.  Thanks for the dialogue. I'm
still working things out (it's a continual process).

Chris