sociology short answers

CSU Channel Islands John Spoor Broome Library

eReserves Cover Sheet COPYRIGH T NOTICE

The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted materials.

Staff and students of this university are reminded that copyright exists in this extract and the work from which it was taken.

You may access and download a copy or print out a copy of this extract. You may retain this copy after the end of the course, but strictly for your own personal use (private study, scholarship, or research).

No further copying, storage, or distribution (including by email) is permitted without the consent of the copyright holder.

All copies (including electronic copies) shall include this copyright notice and shall be destroyed and/or deleted if and when required by the university.

Course: SOC 311

Instructor authorizing: Jepson

Extracted from (source citation): Social Theory, a Reader: Volume II from Modern to Contemporary Theory / edited by Roberta Garner & Black Hawk Hancock. North York, Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 2014.

Source owned by: Instructor

PART v : D ISP ER SIO N AN D D IFFER EN C E

e x p l o r a t i o n o f w h a t p a s s e s b e y o n d th a t k n o w le d g e a n d is d e e p ly i m p lic a t e d i n h o w it is . . . .

T he S ta n d p o in t o f W o m e n as a Place to S ta r t

T h e s t a n d p o in t o f w o m e n s itu a te s th e i n q u i r e r in th e site o f h e r b o d ily e x is te n c e a n d in th e lo c a l a c t u a lit ie s o f h e r w o r k in g w o r ld . It is a s t a n d p o in t th a t p o s i t io n s in q u ir y b u t h as n o s p e c ific c o n te n t . T h o s e w h o u n d e r t a k e in q u ir y f r o m

t h is s t a n d p o in t b e g in alw ays f r o m w o m e n ’s e x p e r ie n c e as it is f o r w o m e n . We a r e th e a u th o r it a t iv e s p e a k e r s o f o u r e x ­ p e r ie n c e . T h e s t a n d p o in t o f w o m e n situ a te s th e s o c i o l o g i ­ c al s u b je c t p r i o r to th e e n tr y in to th e a b s t r a c t e d c o n c e p tu a l m o d e , v e ste d in te x ts, th a t is th e o r d e r o f th e r e la tio n s o f r u lin g . F r o m t h is s t a n d p o in t , we k n o w th e every d ay w o rld th r o u g h th e p a r t ic u la r it ie s o f o u r lo c a l p r a c t ic e s a n d a c tiv ­ itie s , in th e a c tu a l p la c e s o f o u r w o rk a n d th e a c tu a l tim e it ta k e s. I n m a k in g th e everyday w o r ld p r o b le m a t ic we a lso p r o b le m a t iz e th e everyday lo c a liz e d p r a c t ic e s o f th e o b j e c ­ t ifie d f o r m s o f k n o w le d g e o r g a n iz in g o u r every d ay w o r ld s .

A b if u r c a t e d c o n s c io u s n e s s is a n e ffe c t o f th e a c tu a l s o c ia l r e la t io n s i n w h ich we p a r t ic ip a t e as p a r t o f a d a ily w o rk lif e . E n t r y as s u b je c t i n t o th e s o c ia l r e la t io n s o f a n o b je c t if ie d c o n s c io u s n e s s is i t s e l f a n o r g a n iz a t io n o f a c tu a l every d ay p r a c t ic e s . T h e s o c io lo g y th a t o b je c t ifie s so c ie ty a n d s o c ia l r e la t io n s a n d t r a n s f o r m s th e a c t u a lit ie s o f p e o ­ p l e ’s e x p e r ie n c e in t o th e sy n th e tic o b je c t s o f its d is c o u r s e is a n o r g a n iz a t io n o f a c tu a l p r a c t ic e s a n d a c t iv itie s. We k n o w a n d u se p r a c t ic e s o f t h in k in g a n d i n q u i r i n g s o c i o ­ lo g ic a lly th a t se v e r o u r k n o w le d g e o f so c ie ty f r o m th e so c ie ty we k n o w as we live a n d p r a c t ic e it. T h e c o n c e p tu a l p r a c t ic e s o f a n a lie n a t e d k n o w le d g e o f so c ie ty a re a lso in a n d o f th e every d ay w o r ld . I n a n d t h r o u g h its c o n c e p tu a l p r a c t ic e s a n d its every day p r a c t ic e s o f r e a d in g a n d w r itin g , we e n t e r a m o d e o f c o n s c io u s n e s s o u t s id e th e every d ay site o f o u r b o d ily e x is te n c e a n d e x p e r ie n c in g . T h e s t a n d p o in t o f w o m e n , o r at le a st, this s t a n d p o i n t o f w o m e n at w o rk , in th e t r a d it io n a l ways w o m e n h ave w o rk e d a n d c o n t in u e to w o rk , e x p o s e s th e a lie n a t e d k n o w le d g e o f th e r e la t io n s o f r u li n g as th e every d ay p r a c t ic e s o f a c tu a l in d iv id u a ls . T h u s , t h o u g h a n a lie n a t e d k n o w le d g e a ls o a lie n a t e s o t h e r s w ho a r e n o t m e m b e r s o f th e d o m i n a n t w h ite m a le m in o r it y , the s t a n d p o i n t o f w o m e n d istin c tiv e ly o p e n s u p f o r e x p l o r a ­ t io n th e c o n c e p t u a l p r a c t ic e s a n d a c tiv itie s o f th e e x t r a l o ­ cal, o b je c t ifie d r e la t io n s o f r u li n g as w hat a c tu a l p e o p le d o .

N O TES 1. Robert Bierstedt, “Sociology and general education," in Sociology

a n d c o n te m p o r a ry e d u ca tio n , ed. Charles H. Page (New York: Random House, 1966).

2. Dorothy E. Smith, The e v e r y d a y w o rld a s p ro b le m a tic : A fe m in is t sociology (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1987).

3. Jean Briggs, N e v e r in anger (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970).

14.2 JU D ITH BU TLER (1956-)

Butler was born in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1956. She completed her PhD in philosophy at Yale in 1984 and is currently a professor at the University o f California, Berkeley in the Department of Rhetoric and the Department of Comparative Literature. She is also the co-director o f Berkeley’s Program in Critical Theory. Her work spans a number o f fields, and, like many o f the theorists in this volume, her perspectives are transdisciplinary and include insights from philosophy (specifically feminist philosophy, queer theory, Jewish philos­ ophy, and political theory) as well as from psychology (espe­ cially psychoanalytic theory) and the study of sexuality and of embodiment. Her interests in Jewish philosophy and ethics have led her to oppose state violence and to become active in the Jewish Voice for Peace.

Butler and the Structural Conditions of the Performance o f Gender: Bodies th a t M a tter (1993) Judith Butler’s best-known work is Gender Trouble: Fem­ inism a n d the Subversion o f Identity (1990) in which she discusses “the performance o f gender," a concept that has become widely acknowledged in sociology. However, in her next book, Bodies th a t M atter: On the Discursive Lim­ its o f “Sex” (the source o f our selection), Butler moves beyond the agency-centred arguments o f performance to discuss the structural conditions within which agents are situated, arid this approach is much less discussed within sociology. In this work, Butler tackles much more difficult subjects and provides a much deeper analysis not of the “performance” but of the “substance” o f those bodies that perform. Furthermore, Butler clearly and explicitly builds on the work of Michel Foucault to problematize a host of interrelated issues. For Butler, sex, gender, and sexuality are all products of discourse. However, Butler makes clear that discourse is not abstract and untethered; rather, it is through discourse that bodies are materialized, stabilized, bounded, and fixed. In this way, bodies come to “matter” in a two-fold sense: 1) they are material entities, and 2) it is

4 9 6

C H A PT ER 14: H IG H L IG H T IN G GEN D ER AND SE X U A LITY

through the regulative norms that govern bodies that they come to matter in the ways they are classified, valued, and relationally situated in society. By focusing on discourse, But­ ler highlights how there is no unmediated access to the body. To talk about and conceptualize the body requires discourse. Therefore, it is in and through discourse that bodies become sexed, gendered, and sexually oriented.

In emphasizing the materiality o f the body, Butler points to the limits o f social constructionism, as sexuality, identity, and desire manifest themselves in and through the physical, material, biological body. Simultaneously, Butler rejects the notion that the body is completely constructed or overde- termined by social structures and socializing forces that attempt to regulate it. By problematizing power, dom ina­ tion, normativity, and marginalization, Butler highlights how bodies matter in terms of both their subjectivity and interi- ority of identity, as well as in terms of their materiality and physicality.

Butler uses the essentialism -constructivism opposition to problematize the relationship between sex and gender— in the conventional view, sex is considered prior to gender and grounded in the unmediated, natural biological body. Although not denying biology, Butler argues that it is cru­ cial to understand the ways in which physiological, chrom o­ somal, and hormonal differences are evaluated, classified, and regulated in society. For Butler, these processes are how the biological, or “pre-social,” body is always already social as it is conceptualized, articulated, and therefore con­ structed through the discourses o f sexuality. The prelinguis- tic body is always already circum scribed and located within a discourse that renders it intelligible and able to be spoken about. As a result, Butler dram atizes how this contextual- izing and constructing discourse operates as a mechanism of control and domination. Regulating discourses can also silence or make inarticulate those bodies that do not matter in society.

By highlighting the mechanisms that socialize the body (e.g., sexing and racializing) Butler points to different ways that the subjectivization o f the body in society is fashioned. As discourses are themselves performative, Butler calls atten­ tion to the ways that discourses exercise power over those performances. In this case, it is a heterosexual hegemony that determines which bodies matter, that is, which bodies are in need of protecting, which bodies are in need of saving, and so on. Therefore, for Butler, we must constantly attend to the ways that performances reinscribe hegemony through their enactment. However, the performative character o f hege­ mony and regulation opens up the possibility that discourses, and their regulating effects, can be undermined, decon­

structed, and dismantled; also, in this process o f disruption, excluded bodies can be brought back into discourse and made to matter. The iterative nature o f gender practices—we are expected to keep doing the same things to confirm our gender—opens up the possibility of transgression and disrup­ tion; because gender is not confirmed once and for all, we have ample opportunities to disrupt it. Some observers would therefore also say that asserting gender is always risky and that we encounter many opportunities for others to challenge our claims. By threading together gender, sex, and sexual ori­ entation through power and discourse, Butler opens up new ways to think about the mechanism of social reproduction and examines identify formation within these mechanisms and structures.

Reading 14.2: Excerpts from Butler’s Bodies that Matter (1993)

[Source: Judith Butler, “Introduction,” in Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex" (New York; Routledge, 1993),

xi-xix, xxiii-xxiv, xxx.]

I n tro d u c tio n

Why should our bodies end at the skin, or include at best

other beings encapsulated by skin ? —D O N N A HARAWAY, A M ANIFESTO FOR CYBORGS

I f one really thinks about the body as such, there is no p o s ­

sible outline o f the body as such. There are thinkings o f the

systematicity o fth e body, there are value codings o f the body.

The body, as such, cannot be thought, and I certainly cannot

approach it. —GAYATRI CHAKRAVORTY SPIVAK, “ IN A W O R D ,”

INTERVIEW W ITH ELLEN R O O N E Y

There is no nature, only the effects o f nature: denaturaliza­ tion or naturalization.

—J A C Q U E S D ER R ID A , D O N N E R LE T E M P S

Is th e re a w ay to lin k th e q u e s t io n o f th e m a te r ia lit y o f th e

b o d y t o th e p e r fo r m a t iv it y o f g e n d e r ? A n d h o w d o e s th e c a te g o r y o f “ s e x ” fig u r e w ith in s u c h a r e l a t i o n s h i p ? C o n ­ s i d e r fir s t th a t s e x u a l d if fe r e n c e is o f t e n in v o k e d a s a n is su e o f m a t e r ia l d if f e r e n c e s . S e x u a l d if fe r e n c e , h o w ev er,

is n e v e r s im p ly a f u n c t i o n o f m a t e r ia l d if fe r e n c e s w h ich

4 9 7

are n o t in s o m e way b o t h m a r k e d a n d f o r m e d by d i s c u r ­ sive p r a c t ic e s . F u r th e r , to c la im th a t s e x u a l d iffe r e n c e s are in d is s o c ia b le f r o m d is c u r s iv e d e m a r c a t io n s is n o t th e sa m e as c la im in g th a t d is c o u r s e c a u se s se x u a l d if fe r e n c e . T h e c a te g o r y o f “ s e x ” is, f r o m th e s ta r t , n o r m a t iv e ; it is w hat F o u c a u lt h as c a lle d a “ r e g u la t o r y i d e a l . ” I n th is s e n se , th e n , “ s e x ” n o t o n ly f u n c t io n s as a n o r m , b u t is p a r t o f a r e g u la t o r y p r a c t ic e th a t p r o d u c e s th e b o d ie s it g o v e r n s , th a t is, w h o se r e g u la t o r y f o r c e is m a d e c le a r as a k in d o f p r o d u c t iv e p o w e r, th e p o w e r to p r o d u c e —d e m a r c a t e , c i r ­

c u la te , d if fe r e n t ia t e —th e b o d i e s it c o n t r o ls . T h u s , “ s e x ” is a r e g u la t o r y id e a l w h o se m a t e r ia liz a t io n is c o m p e lle d , a n d t h is m a t e r ia liz a t io n tak e s p la c e ( o r fa ils to take p la c e ) t h r o u g h c e r t a in h ig h ly r e g u la t e d p r a c t ic e s . I n o t h e r w o rd s, “ s e x ” is a n id e a l c o n s t r u c t w h ich is fo r c ib ly m a t e r ia liz e d t h r o u g h t im e . It is n o t a s im p le fa c t o r sta tic c o n d i t i o n o f a b o d y , b u t a p r o c e s s w h e reb y r e g u la t o r y n o r m s m a te r ia liz e “ s e x ” a n d ac h ie v e t h is m a t e r ia liz a t io n t h r o u g h a fo r c ib le r e it e r a t io n o f th o se n o r m s . T h a t t h is r e it e r a t io n is n e c e s ­ sary is a sig n th a t m a t e r ia liz a t io n is n e v e r q u it e c o m p le t e , th a t b o d ie s n e v e r q u it e c o m p ly w ith th e n o r m s b y w h ich t h e ir m a t e r ia liz a t io n is im p e lle d . I n d e e d , it is th e i n s t a ­ b ilit ie s , th e p o s s i b il i t ie s f o r r e m a t e r ia liz a t io n , o p e n e d u p b y t h is p r o c e s s th a t m a r k o n e d o m a in in w h ich th e fo r c e o f th e r e g u la t o r y law c a n b e t u r n e d a g a in s t i t s e l f t o sp a w n r e a r t ic u la t io n s th a t c a ll in t o q u e s t io n th e h e g e m o n ic fo r c e o f th a t v ery r e g u la t o r y law.

B u t h ow , t h e n , d o e s th e n o t io n o f g e n d e r p e r f o r m a - tivity r e la te to t h is c o n c e p t io n o f m a t e r i a li z a t io n ? I n th e f ir s t in s t a n c e , p e r fo r m a t iv it y m u s t b e u n d e r s t o o d n o t as a s in g u la r o r d e lib e r a t e “ a c t ,” b u t , r a th e r , a s th e r e i t e r ­ ativ e a n d c it a t io n a l p r a c t ic e b y w h ich d is c o u r s e p r o d u c e s th e e ffe c ts th a t it n a m e s . W h at w ill, I h o p e , b e c o m e c le a r in w h a t fo llo w s is th a t th e r e g u la t o r y n o r m s o f “ s e x ” w o rk in a p e r fo r m a t iv e f a s h io n to c o n s t it u t e th e m a te r ia lit y o f b o d i e s a n d , m o r e sp e c ific a lly , to m a te r ia liz e th e b o d y ’s se x , to m a te r ia liz e s e x u a l d if fe r e n c e in th e se rv ic e o f th e c o n ­ s o l i d a t i o n o f th e h e t e r o s e x u a l im p e r a tiv e .

I n t h is s e n s e , w h at c o n s t it u t e s th e fix ity o f th e b o d y , its c o n t o u r s , its m o v e m e n t s , w ill b e fu lly m a t e r ia l, b u t m a t e ­ r ia lit y w ill b e r e t h o u g h t as th e e ffe c t o f p o w e r, as p o w e r ’s m o s t p r o d u c t iv e e ffe c t. A n d th e r e w ill b e n o way to u n d e r ­ s t a n d “ g e n d e r ” as a c u lt u r a l c o n s t r u c t w h ich is im p o s e d u p o n th e s u r f a c e o f m a tt e r , u n d e r s t o o d e it h e r a s “ th e b o d y ” o r its g iv e n se x . R a t h e r , o n c e “ s e x ” i t s e l f is u n d e r ­ s t o o d in its n o r m a tiv ity , th e m a te r ia lit y o f th e b o d y w ill

n o t b e t h in k a b le a p a r t f r o m th e m a t e r ia liz a t io n o f that re g u la t o r y n o r m . “ S e x ” is, t h u s , n o t s im p ly w h at o n e h as, o r a sta tic d e s c r i p t i o n o f w hat o n e is: it w ill b e o n e o f the n o r m s b y w h ich th e “ o n e ” b e c o m e s v ia b le at a ll, th a t w hich q u a lifie s a b o d y f o r life w ith in th e d o m a i n o f c u ltu r a l in t e llig ib ilit y .1

A t sta k e in s u c h a r e f o r m u l a t io n o f th e m a te r ia lit y o f b o d i e s w ill b e th e fo llo w in g : (1) th e r e c a s t in g o f th e m a tte r o f b o d i e s a s th e e ffe c t o f a d y n a m ic o f p o w e r, s u c h that th e m a t t e r o f b o d i e s w ill b e in d i s s o c i a b l e f r o m th e r e g u la ­ to ry n o r m s th a t g o v e r n t h e ir m a t e r ia liz a t io n a n d th e s ig ­ n if i c a t i o n o f th o s e m a t e r ia l e ffe c ts ; ( 2 ) th e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f p e r fo r m a t iv it y n o t as th e a c t b y w h ic h a s u b je c t b r in g s in t o b e in g w h at s h e / h e n a m e s , b u t , r a th e r , as th a t r e i t e r ­ ativ e p o w e r o f d is c o u r s e to p r o d u c e th e p h e n o m e n a that it r e g u la t e s a n d c o n s t r a i n s ; ( 3 ) th e c o n s t r u a l o f “ s e x ” n o lo n g e r a s a b o d ily g iv e n o n w h ic h th e c o n s t r u c t o f g e n d e r is a r tific ia lly i m p o s e d , b u t as a c u lt u r a l n o r m w h ic h g o v ­ e r n s th e m a t e r ia liz a t io n o f b o d i e s ; ( 4 ) a r e t h in k in g o f the p r o c e s s by w h ich a b o d ily n o r m is a s s u m e d , a p p r o p r ia t e d , ta k e n o n a s n o t , str ic tly s p e a k in g , u n d e r g o n e by a subject> b u t r a t h e r th a t th e s u b je c t , th e s p e a k in g “ I , ” is f o r m e d by v ir t u e o f h a v in g g o n e t h r o u g h s u c h a p r o c e s s o f a s s u m in g a se x ; a n d ( 5 ) a lin k in g o f t h is p r o c e s s o f “ a s s u m i n g ” a se x w ith th e q u e s t io n o f identification, a n d w ith th e d is c u r ­ siv e m e a n s b y w h ic h th e h e t e r o s e x u a l im p e r a t iv e en a b le s c e r t a in s e x e d i d e n t if ic a t io n s a n d f o r e c lo s e s a n d / o r d is ­ avow s o t h e r i d e n t if ic a t io n s . T h i s e x c lu s io n a r y m a t r ix by w h ich s u b je c t s a r e f o r m e d t h u s r e q u ir e s th e s im u lt a n e o u s p r o d u c t io n o f a d o m a i n o f a b je c t b e in g s , t h o s e w h o are n o t yet “ s u b je c t s ,” b u t w h o f o r m th e c o n s tit u tiv e o u tsid e to th e d o m a i n o f th e s u b je c t . T h e a b je c t 2 d e s ig n a t e s h ere p r e c is e ly t h o s e “ u n liv a b le ” a n d “ u n i n h a b i t a b l e ” zo n es o f s o c ia l life w h ich a r e n e v e r t h e le s s d e n s e ly p o p u la t e d by th o s e w h o d o n o t e n jo y th e sta tu s o f th e s u b je c t , b u t w h o se liv in g u n d e r th e s ig n o f th e “ u n liv a b le ” is r e q u ir e d to c ir c u m s c r ib e th e d o m a i n o f th e s u b je c t . T h i s z o n e o f u n in h a b it a b ilit y w ill c o n s t it u t e th e d e f in i n g li m i t o f the s u b je c t ’s d o m a i n ; it w ill c o n s t it u t e th a t site o f d r e a d e d id e n t if ic a t io n a g a in s t w h ich —a n d b y v ir t u e o f w h ich —the d o m a i n o f th e s u b je c t w ill c ir c u m s c r ib e its o w n c la im to a u t o n o m y a n d to l ife . I n t h is s e n s e , t h e n , th e s u b je c t is c o n s t it u t e d t h r o u g h th e f o r c e o f e x c lu s io n a n d a b je c tio n , o n e w h ic h p r o d u c e s a c o n s tit u tiv e o u t s id e t o th e su b je c t, a n a b je c t e d o u t s id e , w h ich is, a f t e r a ll, “ i n s i d e ” th e su b je c t as its o w n f o u n d i n g r e p u d i a t io n .

4 9 8

T h e f o r m i n g o f a s u b je c t r e q u ir e s a n id e n t if ic a t io n w ith th e n o r m a t iv e p h a n t a s m o f “ s e x ,” a n d t h is i d e n t i f i ­ c a tio n tak es p la c e t h r o u g h a r e p u d i a t io n w h ich p r o d u c e s a d o m a in o f a b je c t io n , a r e p u d i a t io n w ith o u t w h ich the su b je c t c a n n o t e m e r g e . T h i s is a r e p u d i a t io n w h ich c re a te s the v a le n c e o f “ a b je c t io n ” a n d its s ta tu s f o r th e s u b je c t as a t h r e a te n in g s p e c tr e . F u r th e r , th e m a t e r ia liz a t io n o f a g iv e n sex w ill c e n tr a lly c o n c e r n th e r e g u la t io n o f id e n tific a to r y p r a c tic e s s u c h th a t th e id e n t if ic a t io n w ith th e a b je c t io n o f

sex w ill b e p e r sis t e n t ly d isa v o w e d . A n d yet, th is d isa v o w e d a b je c tio n w ill th r e a te n to e x p o s e th e s e l f - g r o u n d i n g p r e ­ s u m p t io n s o f th e se x e d s u b je c t , g r o u n d e d as th at s u b je c t is in a r e p u d i a t io n w h o se c o n s e q u e n c e s it c a n n o t fu lly c o n tr o l. T h e ta sk w ill b e to c o n s i d e r t h is t h r e a t a n d d i s ­ r u p t io n n o t as a p e r m a n e n t c o n t e s t a t io n o f s o c ia l n o r m s c o n d e m n e d to th e p a th o s o f p e r p e t u a l fa ilu r e , b u t r a th e r as a c r it ic a l r e s o u r c e in th e str u g g le to r e a r t ic u la te th e very te r m s o f sy m b o lic le g itim a c y a n d in te llig ib ilit y .

L astly , th e m o b iliz a t io n o f th e c a t e g o r ie s o f se x w ith in p o lit ic a l d is c o u r s e w ill b e h a u n t e d in s o m e ways by th e very in s t a b ilit ie s th a t th e c a t e g o r ie s e ffe ctiv e ly p r o d u c e a n d fo r e c lo s e . A lt h o u g h th e p o lit ic a l d is c o u r s e s th a t m o b iliz e id e n tity c a t e g o r ie s t e n d to cu ltiv a te id e n t if ic a t io n s in th e service o f a p o lit ic a l g o a l, it m ay b e th a t th e p e r s is t e n c e o f c/isid en tifica tio n is e q u a lly c r u c ia l to th e r e a r t ic u la t io n o f d e m o c r a t ic c o n t e s t a t io n . I n d e e d , it m a y b e p r e c is e ly th r o u g h p r a c t ic e s w h ich u n d e r s c o r e d is id e n t ific a t io n w ith th o se r e g u la t o r y n o r m s b y w h ic h s e x u a l d if fe r e n c e is m a te r ia liz e d th a t b o t h f e m in is t a n d q u e e r p o lit ic s a re m o b iliz e d . S u c h c o lle c tiv e d i s id e n t if ic a t io n s c a n fa c ilit a t e a r e c o n c e p t u a liz a t io n o f w h ic h b o d i e s m a tte r , a n d w h ich b o d ie s a r e yet to e m e r g e as c r it ic a l m a tt e r s o f c o n c e r n .

From C o n stru ctio n to M a te ria liza tio n

T h e r e la t io n b e tw e e n c u ltu r e a n d n a t u r e p r e s u p p o s e d by so m e m o d e ls o f g e n d e r “ c o n s t r u c t io n ” im p lie s a c u ltu r e o r an a g e n cy o f th e s o c ia l w h ich a cts u p o n a n a t u r e , w h ic h is i t ­ s e lf p r e s u p p o s e d as a p a ssiv e s u r f a c e , o u t s id e th e s o c ia l a n d yet its n e c e s s a r y c o u n t e r p a r t . O n e q u e s t io n th a t f e m in is t s have r a is e d , t h e n , is w h e th e r th e d is c o u r s e w h ich f ig u r e s the a c t io n o f c o n s t r u c t io n a s a k in d o f i m p r in t i n g o r i m ­ p o s it io n is n o t tac itly m a s c u lin is t , w h e r ea s th e fig u r e o f th e p assiv e s u r f a c e , a w a itin g th a t p e n e t r a t i n g act w h e reb y m e a n ­ in g is e n d o w e d , is n o t tacitly o r —p e r h a p s —q u it e o b v io u sly fe m in in e . Is s e x to g e n d e r as f e m in in e is to m a s c u l i n e ? 3

O t h e r f e m in i s t s c h o la r s h ave a r g u e d th a t th e very c o n c e p t o f n a t u r e n e e d s to b e r e t h o u g h t, f o r th e c o n ­ c e p t o f n a t u r e h a s a h isto r y , a n d th e f ig u r i n g o f n a t u r e as th e b la n k a n d life le s s p a g e , as th a t w h ich is, as it w ere, alw ays a lr e a d y d e a d , is d e c id e d ly m o d e r n , lin k e d p e r h a p s to th e e m e r g e n c e o f t e c h n o lo g ic a l m e a n s o f d o m i n a t i o n . I n d e e d , s o m e h av e a r g u e d th a t a r e t h in k in g o f “ n a t u r e ” as a set o f d y n a m ic in t e r r e l a t io n s s u its b o t h f e m in is t a n d e c o lo g ic a l a im s ( a n d h a s f o r s o m e p r o d u c e d a n o th e r w ise u n lik e ly a llia n c e w ith th e w o r k o f G ille s D e le u z e ) . T h i s r e t h in k in g a ls o c a lls in t o q u e s t io n th e m o d e l o f c o n s t r u c ­ t io n w h e reb y th e s o c ia l u n ila t e r a lly acts o n th e n a t u r a l a n d in v e sts it w ith its p a r a m e t e r s a n d its m e a n in g s . I n d e e d , as m u c h as th e r a d ic a l d i s t i n c t i o n b e tw e e n se x a n d g e n d e r h a s b e e n c r u c ia l to th e d e B e a u v o ir ia n v e r s io n o f f e m i ­ n is m , it h a s c o m e u n d e r c r it ic is m in m o r e r e c e n t y e a rs f o r d e g r a d i n g th e n a t u r a l as th a t w h ich is “ b e f o r e ” i n t e l l i ­ g ib ility , in n e e d o f th e m a r k , i f n o t th e m a r , o f th e s o c ia l to sig n ify , to b e k n o w n , to a c q u ir e v a lu e . T h i s m is s e s th e p o i n t th a t n a t u r e h a s a h is t o r y , a n d n o t m e r e ly a s o c ia l o n e , b u t , a ls o , th a t se x is p o s i t io n e d a m b ig u o u s ly in r e l a ­ t io n to th a t c o n c e p t a n d its h ist o r y . T h e c o n c e p t o f “ s e x ” is i t s e l f t r o u b l e d t e r r a in , f o r m e d t h r o u g h a s e r ie s o f c o n ­ t e s t a t io n s o v e r w h at o u g h t to b e d e c isiv e c r i t e r i o n f o r d i s ­ t in g u i s h i n g b e tw e e n th e tw o s e x e s ; th e c o n c e p t o f se x h a s a h is t o r y th a t is c o v e r e d o v e r by th e fig u r e o f th e s ite o r s u r ­ fa c e o f in s c r i p t i o n . F ig u r e d as s u c h a site o r s u r f a c e , h o w ­ ev er, th e n a t u r a l is c o n s t r u e d as th a t w h ich is a ls o w ith o u t v a lu e ; m o r e o v e r , it a s s u m e s its v a lu e a t th e s a m e t im e th a t it a s s u m e s its s o c ia l c h a r a c te r , th a t is, a t th e s a m e t im e th a t n a t u r e r e l i n q u i s h e s i t s e l f as th e n a t u r a l. A c c o r d i n g to t h is view , t h e n , th e s o c ia l c o n s t r u c t io n o f th e n a t u r a l p r e s u p ­ p o s e s th e c a n c e lla t io n o f th e n a t u r a l b y th e s o c ia l. I n s o f a r a s it r e lie s o n th is c o n s t r u a l, th e s e x / g e n d e r d i s t i n c t i o n f o u n d e r s a l o n g p a r a lle l l i n e s ; i f g e n d e r is th e s o c ia l s i g n i f ­ ic a n c e th a t se x a s s u m e s w ith in a g iv e n c u ltu r e —a n d f o r th e sak e o f a r g u m e n t we w ill le t “ s o c i a l ” a n d “ c u l t u r a l ” s t a n d in a n u n e a s y in te r c h a n g e a b ilit y —th e n w h a t, i f a n y t h in g , is le ft o f “ s e x ” o n c e it h a s a s s u m e d its s o c ia l c h a r a c t e r as g e n d e r ? A t is su e is th e m e a n i n g o f “ a s s u m p t i o n , ” w h e re to b e “ a s s u m e d ” is to b e ta k e n u p in t o a m o r e e le v a te d s p h e r e , as in “ th e A s s u m p t i o n o f th e V i r g i n . ” I f g e n d e r c o n s is t s o f th e s o c ia l m e a n in g s t h a t se x a s s u m e s , t h e n se x d o e s n o t a c c r u e s o c ia l m e a n in g s as a d d itiv e p r o p e r t i e s b u t , r a th e r , is replaced th e s o c ia l m e a n in g s it ta k e s o n ; se x is r e l i n q u i s h e d in th e c o u r s e o f th a t a s s u m p t i o n , a n d

4 9 9

1

g e n d e r e m e r g e s , n o t as a t e r m in a c o n t in u e d r e l a t i o n ­ s h ip o f o p p o s i t i o n to se x , b u t as th e t e r m w h ic h a b s o r b s a n d d is p la c e s “ s e x ,” th e m a r k o f its f u ll s u b s t a n t ia t io n in to g e n d e r o r w hat, f r o m a m a t e r ia lis t p o i n t o f view, m ig h t c o n s t it u t e a f u ll d e s u b s t a n t ia t io n .

W h e n th e s e x / g e n d e r d i s t i n c t i o n is j o i n e d w ith a n o t io n o f r a d ic a l lin g u is t ic c o n s t r u c t iv is m , th e p r o b l e m b e c o m e s ev e n w o r se , f o r th e “ s e x ” w h ich is r e f e r r e d to as p r i o r to g e n d e r w ill i t s e l f b e a p o s t u l a t i o n , a c o n s t r u c t io n , o ff e r e d w ith in la n g u a g e , as th a t w h ich is p r i o r to la n g u a g e , p r i o r to c o n s t r u c t io n . B u t t h is se x p o s i t e d as p r i o r to c o n s t r u c t io n w ill, b y v ir t u e o f b e in g p o s it e d , b e c o m e th e e ffe c t o f th a t v ery p o s it in g , th e c o n s t r u c t io n o f c o n s t r u c t io n . I f g e n d e r is th e s o c ia l c o n s t r u c t io n o f se x , a n d i f th e re is n o a c c e ss to t h is “ s e x ” e x c e p t by m e a n s o f its c o n s t r u c t io n , th e n it a p p e a r s n o t o n ly th a t se x is a b s o r b e d b y g e n d e r , b u t th a t “ s e x ” b e c o m e s s o m e t h in g lik e a f ic t io n , p e r h a p s a fan tasy , r e tro a c tiv e ly in s t a lle d at a p r e lin g u is t ic site to w h ich th e re is n o d ir e c t a c c e ss.

B u t is it r ig h t to c la im th a t “ s e x ” v a n is h e s a lto g e th e r , th a t it is a f ic t io n o v e r a n d a g a in s t w hat is t r u e , th a t it is a fa n ta sy o v e r a n d a g a in s t w h at is r e a lit y ? O r d o th e se v ery o p p o s i t i o n s n e e d to b e r e t h o u g h t s u c h th a t i f “ s e x ” is a f ic t io n , it is o n e w ith in w h o se n e c e s s it ie s w e liv e, w ith o u t w h ich life i t s e l f w o u ld b e u n t h i n k a b l e ? A n d i f “ s e x ” is a fan tasy , is it p e r h a p s a p h a n t a s m a t ic f ie ld th a t c o n s tit u te s th e very t e r r a in o f c u lt u r a l i n t e llig ib ilit y ? W o u ld su c h a r e t h in k in g o f s u c h c o n v e n t io n a l o p p o s i t i o n s e n ta il a r e t h in k in g o f “ c o n s t r u c t iv is m ” in its u s u a l s e n s e ?

T h e r a d ic a l c o n s t r u c t iv is t p o s i t i o n h a s t e n d e d to p r o ­ d u c e th e p r e m is e th a t b o t h r e f u t e s a n d c o n f ir m s its o w n e n t e r p r i s e . I f s u c h a th e o r y c a n n o t tak e a c c o u n t o f se x as th e site o r s u r fa c e o n w h ic h it a c ts, t h e n it e n d s u p p r e s u m ­ in g se x as th e u n c o n s t r u c t e d , a n d s o c o n c e d e s th e lim it s o f l in g u is t ic c o n s t r u c t iv is m , in a d v e r te n tly c ir c u m s c r ib in g th a t w h ich r e m a in s u n a c c o u n t a b le w it h in th e t e r m s o f c o n ­ s t r u c t io n . I f , o n th e o t h e r h a n d , se x is a c o n tr iv e d p r e m ­ is e , a f ic t io n , t h e n g e n d e r d o e s n o t p r e s u m e a se x w h ich it a cts u p o n , b u t r a th e r , g e n d e r p r o d u c e s th e m i s n o m e r o f a p r e d is c u r s iv e “ s e x ,” a n d th e m e a n in g o f c o n s t r u c t io n b e c o m e s th a t o f l in g u is t ic m o n i s m , w h e reb y e v e ry th in g is o n ly a n d alw ays la n g u a g e . T h e n , w h at e n s u e s is a n e x a s ­ p e r a t e d d e b a t e w h ic h m a n y o f u s h av e t ir e d o f h e a r in g : E it h e r (1) c o n s t r u c t iv is m is r e d u c e d to a p o s i t io n o f l i n ­ g u is t ic m o n i s m , w h e reb y lin g u is t ic c o n s t r u c t io n is U n d e r ­ s t o o d to b e g e n e r a tiv e a n d d e t e r m in is t ic . C r i t i c s m a k in g

th a t p r e s u m p t i o n c a n b e h e a r d to say, “ I f e v e ry th in g is d i s ­

c o u r s e , w hat a b o u t th e b o d y ? ” o r ( 2 ) w h e n c o n s t r u c t io n is fig u ra tiv e ly r e d u c e d to a v e r b a l a c t io n w h ich a p p e a r s to p r e s u p p o s e a s u b je c t , c r it ic s w o r k in g w ith in s u c h a p r e ­ s u m p t i o n c a n b e h e a r d to say, “ I f g e n d e r is c o n s tr u c te d , th e n w h o is d o i n g th e c o n s t r u c t i n g ? ” ; t h o u g h , o f c o u r se , ( 3 ) th e m o s t p e r t i n e n t f o r m u la t i o n o f t h is q u e s t io n is the fo llo w in g : “ I f th e s u b je c t is c o n s t r u c t e d , th e n w ho is c o n ­ s t r u c t in g th e s u b j e c t ? ” I n th e f ir s t c a se , c o n s t r u c t io n h as ta k e n th e p la c e o f a g o d lik e a g e n cy w h ich n o t o n ly cau se s b u t c o m p o s e s e v e ry th in g w h ich is its o b je c t ; it is th e d iv in e p e r f o r m a t iv e , b r i n g i n g in t o b e in g a n d e x h a u stiv e ly c o n ­ s t it u t in g th a t w h ich it n a m e s , o r , r a th e r , it is th a t k in d o f t r a n s itiv e r e f e r r in g w h ich n a m e s a n d i n a u g u r a t e s a t o n c e . F o r s o m e t h in g to b e c o n s t r u c t e d , a c c o r d in g to t h is view o f c o n s t r u c t io n , is f o r it to b e c r e a te d a n d d e t e r m in e d t h r o u g h th a t p r o c e s s .

I n th e s e c o n d a n d t h ir d c a se s, th e s e d u c t io n s o f g r a m ­ m a r a p p e a r to h o ld sway; th e c r it ic ask s, M u st t h e r e n o t be a h u m a n a g e n t, a s u b je c t , i f y o u w ill, w h o g u id e s th e c o u r se o f c o n s t r u c t i o n ? I f th e f ir s t v e r s io n o f c o n s t r u c t iv is m p r e ­ s u m e s th a t c o n s t r u c t io n o p e r a t e s d e t e r m in is t ic a lly , m a k ­ in g a m o c k e r y o f h u m a n ag en cy , th e s e c o n d u n d e r s t a n d s c o n s t r u c t iv is m as p r e s u p p o s i n g a v o lu n t a r is t s u b je c t who m a k e s its g e n d e r t h r o u g h a n i n s t r u m e n t a l a c t io n . A c o n ­ s t r u c t i o n is u n d e r s t o o d in t h is la t te r case to b e a k in d o f m a n ip u la b le a r t ific e , a c o n c e p t io n th a t n o t o n ly p r e s u p ­ p o s e s a s u b je c t , b u t r e h a b ilita t e s p r e c is e ly th e v o lu n t a r is t s u b je c t o f h u m a n is m th a t c o n s t r u c t iv is m h a s, o n o c c a s io n , s o u g h t to p u t in t o q u e s t io n .

I f g e n d e r is a c o n s t r u c t io n , m u s t t h e r e b e a n “ I ” o r a “ w e ” w h o e n a c ts o r p e r f o r m s th a t c o n s t r u c t i o n ? H o w can t h e r e b e a n activity, a c o n s t r u c t in g , w ith o u t p r e s u p p o s in g a n a g e n t w h o p r e c e d e s a n d p e r f o r m s th a t a c tiv ity ? H o w w o u ld w e a c c o u n t f o r th e m o t iv a t io n a n d d ir e c t io n o f c o n ­ s t r u c t io n w ith o u t s u c h a s u b je c t ? A s a r e j o i n d e r , I w o u ld s u g g e st th a t it tak e s a c e r t a in s u s p i c i o n to w a r d g r a m m a r to r e c o n c e iv e th e m a tt e r in a d if fe r e n t lig h t. F o r i f g e n d e r is c o n s t r u c t e d , it is n o t n e c e s s a r ily c o n s t r u c t e d b y a n “ I ” o r a “ w e ” w h o s ta n d s b e f o r e th a t c o n s t r u c t io n in an y s p a tia l o r t e m p o r a l s e n se o f “ b e f o r e . ” I n d e e d , it is u n c le a r th a t th ere c a n b e a n “ I ” o r a “ w e ” w h o h a s n o t b e e n s u b m it t e d , s u b ­ je c t e d to g e n d e r , w h e re g e n d e r in g is , a m o n g o t h e r t h in g s, th e d if f e r e n t ia t in g r e la t io n s b y w h ich s p e a k in g su b je c ts c o m e in t o b e in g . S u b je c t e d to g e n d e r , b u t s u b je c t iv a t e d by g e n d e r , th e “ I ” n e it h e r p r e c e d e s n o r fo llo w s th e p r o c e s s o f

5 0 0

th is g e n d e r in g , b u t e m e r g e s o n ly w ith in a n d as th e m a tr ix o f g e n d e r r e la t io n s th e m se lv e s.

T h i s th e n r e t u r n s u s to th e s e c o n d o b j e c t i o n , th e o n e w hich c la im s th a t c o n s t r u c t iv is m fo r e c lo s e s ag en cy , p r e ­ e m p ts th e a g e n cy o f th e s u b je c t , a n d f in d s i t s e l f p r e s u p ­ p o s in g th e s u b je c t th a t it ca lls in t o q u e s t io n . T o c la im th at the s u b je c t is i t s e l f p r o d u c e d in a n d as a g e n d e r e d m a tr ix o f r e la t io n s is n o t to d o away w ith th e s u b je c t , b u t o n ly to ask a f t e r th e c o n d i t i o n s o f its e m e r g e n c e a n d o p e r a t io n . T h e “ a c tiv ity ” o f t h is g e n d e r in g c a n n o t , str ic tly s p e a k in g , be a h u m a n act o r e x p r e s s io n , a w illfu l a p p r o p r i a t i o n , an d it is c e r t a in ly n o t a q u e s t io n o f t a k in g o n a m a sk ; it is the m a t r ix t h r o u g h w h ich a ll w illin g f ir s t b e c o m e s p o s ­ sib le , its e n a b lin g c u lt u r a l c o n d i t i o n . I n th is s e n s e , th e m a tr ix o f g e n d e r r e la t io n s is p r i o r to th e e m e r g e n c e o f the “ h u m a n . ” C o n s i d e r th e m e d ic a l i n t e r p e l la t i o n w h ich (the r e c e n t e m e r g e n c e o f th e s o n o g r a m n o t w it h s t a n d in g ) sh ifts a n i n f a n t f r o m a n “ i t ” to a “ s h e ” o r a “ h e , ” a n d in that n a m in g , th e g ir l is “ g i r l e d , ” b r o u g h t in t o th e d o m a i n o f la n g u a g e a n d k in s h ip t h r o u g h th e i n t e r p e l la t i o n o f g e n d e r . B u t th a t “ g i r l i n g ” o f th e g i r l d o e s n o t e n d t h e r e ; on th e c o n tr a r y , th a t f o u n d i n g i n t e r p e l la t i o n is r e it e r a t e d by v a r io u s a u t h o r it ie s a n d t h r o u g h o u t v a r io u s in te r v a ls o f tim e to r e e n f o r c e o r c o n te s t t h is n a t u r a liz e d e ffe c t. T h e n a m in g is at o n c e th e s e t t in g o f a b o u n d a r y , a n d a ls o th e re p e a te d in c u lc a t io n o f a n o r m .

S u c h a t t r ib u t io n s o r in t e r p e lla t io n s c o n t r ib u t e to th a t fie ld o f d is c o u r s e a n d p o w e r th a t o r c h e s t r a t e s , d e lim it s , a n d s u s t a in s th a t w h ich q u a lifie s as “ th e h u m a n . ” We see this m o s t c le a rly in th e e x a m p le s o f t h o se a b je c te d b e in g s who d o n o t a p p e a r p r o p e r ly g e n d e r e d ; it is t h e ir very h u m a n n e s s th a t c o m e s in t o q u e s t io n . I n d e e d , th e c o n ­ s tr u c tio n o f g e n d e r o p e r a t e s t h r o u g h e x c lu s io n a r y m e a n s , su ch th at th e h u m a n is n o t o n ly p r o d u c e d o v e r a n d a g a in s t the in h u m a n , b u t t h r o u g h a se t o f fo r e c lo s u r e s , r a d ic a l e r a su r e s, th a t a r e , str ic tly s p e a k in g , r e f u s e d th e p o s s ib ilit y o f c u ltu r a l a r t ic u la t io n . H e n c e , it is n o t e n o u g h to c la im that h u m a n s u b je c t s a r e c o n s t r u c t e d , f o r th e c o n s t r u c t io n o f the h u m a n is a d if fe r e n t ia l o p e r a t io n th a t p r o d u c e s the m o re a n d th e le ss “ h u m a n , ” th e in h u m a n , th e h u m a n ly u n t h in k a b le . T h e s e e x c lu d e d site s c o m e to b o u n d the “ h u m a n ” as its c o n s tit u tiv e o u t s id e , a n d to h a u n t t h o se b o u n d a r ie s as th e p e r s is t e n t p o s s ib ilit y o f th e ir d i s r u p t i o n an d r e a r t ic u l a t i o n . 4

P a ra d o x ic a lly , th e in q u ir y in t o th e k in d s o f e r a s u r e s a n d e x c lu sio n s by w h ich th e c o n s t r u c t io n o f th e s u b je c t o p e r ­

ates is n o l o n g e r c o n s t r u c t iv is m , b u t n e it h e r is it e s s e n - t ia lis m . F o r th e re is a n “ o u t s id e ” to w hat is c o n s t r u c t e d by d is c o u r s e , b u t th is is n o t a n a b s o lu t e “ o u t s id e , ” a n o n t o ­ lo g ic a l t h e r e n e s s th a t e x c e e d s' o r c o u n t e r s th e b o u n d a r i e s o f d i s c o u r s e ; 5 as a c o n s tit u tiv e “ o u t s id e , ” it is th a t w h ich c a n o n ly b e th o u g h t —w h e n it c a n —in r e la t io n to th a t d i s ­ c o u r s e , at a n d as its m o s t t e n u o u s b o r d e r s . T h e d e b a t e b e tw e e n c o n s t r u c t iv is m a n d e s s e n t ia lis m t h u s m is s e s th e p o i n t o f d e c o n s t r u c t i o n a lt o g e t h e r , f o r th e p o i n t h a s n e v e r b e e n th a t “ e v e r y th in g is d is c u r s iv e ly c o n s t r u c t e d ” ; th a t p o i n t , w h e n a n d w h e re it is m a d e , b e lo n g s to a k in d o f d is c u r s iv e m o n i s m o r l in g u is t ic is m th a t r e f u s e s th e c o n ­ stitu tiv e f o r c e o f e x c lu s io n , e r a s u r e , v io le n t f o r e c lo s u r e , a b je c t io n a n d its d is r u p t iv e r e t u r n w ith in th e v ery t e r m s o f d is c u r s iv e le g itim a c y .

A n d to say th a t th e r e is a m a t r ix o f g e n d e r r e la t io n s th a t in st it u t e s a n d s u s t a in s th e s u b je c t is n o t to c la im th a t th e re is a s in g u la r m a t r ix th a t a cts in a s i n g u l a r a n d d e t e r m i n is ­ tic way to p r o d u c e a s u b je c t as its e ffe c t. T h a t is to in st a ll th e “ m a t r i x ” in th e s u b je c t - p o s i t i o n w it h in a g r a m m a tic a l f o r m u la t i o n w h ich i t s e l f n e e d s to b e r e t h o u g h t. I n d e e d , th e p r o p o s i t i o n a l f o r m “ D is c o u r s e c o n s t r u c t s th e s u b je c t ” r e t a in s th e s u b je c t - p o s i t i o n o f th e g r a m m a t ic a l f o r m u l a ­ t io n e v e n as it r e v e r se s th e p la c e o f s u b je c t a n d d i s c o u r s e . C o n s t r u c t i o n m u s t m e a n m o r e th a n s u c h a s im p le r e v e r s a l o f te r m s .

T h e r e a r e d e f e n d e r s a n d c r it ic s o f c o n s t r u c t io n , w h o c o n s t r u e th a t p o s i t io n a lo n g s t r u c t u r a lis t l in e s . T h e y o f t e n c la im th a t th e re a r e s t r u c t u r e s th a t c o n s t r u c t th e s u b je c t , im p e r s o n a l f o r c e s , s u c h as C u lt u r e o r D is c o u r s e o r P o w er, w h ere th e se t e r m s o c c u p y th e g r a m m a t ic a l site o f th e s u b ­ je c t a f t e r th e “ h u m a n ” h a s b e e n d is lo d g e d f r o m its p la c e . In su c h a view , th e g r a m m a t ic a l a n d m e ta p h y sic a l p la c e o f th e s u b je c t is r e t a in e d ev e n a s th e c a n d id a t e th a t o c c u p ie s th a t p la c e a p p e a r s to r o ta te . A s a r e s u lt , c o n s t r u c t io n is still u n d e r s t o o d a s a u n ila t e r a l p r o c e s s in it ia t e d b y a p r i o r su b je c t , f o r t ify in g th at p r e s u m p t i o n o f th e m e ta p h y sic s o f th e s u b je c t th a t w h e re th e r e is activity, th e re lu r k s b e h i n d it a n i n it i a t in g a n d w illfu l s u b je c t . O n s u c h a view, d i s ­ c o u r s e o r la n g u a g e o r th e s o c ia l b e c o m e s p e r s o n i f i e d , a n d in th e p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n th e m e ta p h y sic s o f th e s u b je c t is r e c o n s o lid a t e d .

I n t h is s e c o n d view, c o n s t r u c t io n is n o t a n activity, b u t a n act, o n e w h ich h a p p e n s o n c e a n d w h o se e ffe c ts a re fir m ly fix e d . T h u s , c o n s tr u c tiv is m is r e d u c e d to d e t e r m in is m a n d im p lie s th e e v a c u a tio n o r d is p la c e m e n t o f h u m a n agen cy.

501

T h i s view i n f o r m s th e m i s r e a d in g b y w h ich F o u c a u lt is

c r it ic iz e d f o r “ p e r s o n i f y in g ” p o w e r : i f p o w e r is m i s c o n ­ s t r u e d as a g r a m m a t ic a l a n d m e ta p h y sic a l s u b je c t , a n d i f th a t m e ta p h y sic a l site w ith in h u m a n is t d is c o u r s e h a s b e e n

th e p r iv ile g e d site o f th e h u m a n , th e n p o w e r a p p e a r s to h av e d is p la c e d th e h u m a n a s th e o r ig i n o f activity. B u t i f F o u c a u lt ’s view o f p o w e r is u n d e r s t o o d a s th e d i s r u p t i o n a n d s u b v e r s io n o f th is g r a m m a r a n d m e ta p h y sic s o f th e

s u b je c t , i f p o w e r o r c h e s t r a t e s th e f o r m a t i o n a n d s u s t e ­

n a n c e o f s u b je c t s , t h e n it c a n n o t b e a c c o u n t e d f o r in t e r m s

o f th e “ s u b je c t ” w h ich is its e ffe c t. A n d h e r e it w o u ld b e n o m o r e r ig h t to c la im th a t th e t e r m “ c o n s t r u c t io n ” b e lo n g s at

th e g r a m m a tic a l site o f s u b je c t , f o r c o n s t r u c t io n is n e it h e r

a s u b je c t n o r its ac t, b u t a p r o c e s s o f r e it e r a t io n b y w h ich b o t h “ s u b je c t s ” a n d “ a cts” c o m e to a p p e a r at a ll. T h e r e

is n o p o w e r th a t a c ts, b u t o n ly a r e it e r a t e d a c t in g th a t is

p o w e r in its p e r s is t e n c e a n d in sta b ility . W hat I w o u ld p r o p o s e in p la c e o f th e se c o n c e p t io n s o f

c o n s t r u c t io n is a r e t u r n to th e n o t io n o f m a tte r , n o t as site o r s u r fa c e , b u t as a process o f materialization that stabilizes over time

to produce the effect o f boundary, fixity, and surface we call m atter. T h a t

m a tt e r is alw ays m a t e r ia liz e d h a s, I t h in k , to b e t h o u g h t

in r e la t io n to th e p r o d u c t iv e a n d , in d e e d , m a t e r ia liz ­ in g e ffe c ts o f r e g u la t o r y p o w e r in th e F o u c a u lt ia n s e n s e . 6

T h u s , th e q u e s t io n is n o lo n g e r , H o w is g e n d e r c o n s t it u t e d as a n d t h r o u g h a c e r t a in i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s e x ? (a q u e s t io n

th a t leav es th e “ m a t t e r ” o f se x u n t h e o r iz e d ) , b u t r a th e r ,

T h r o u g h w hat r e g u la t o r y n o r m s is se x i t s e l f m a t e r ia liz e d ?

A n d h o w is it th a t t r e a t in g th e m a te r ia lit y o f se x as a g iv e n p r e s u p p o s e s a n d c o n s o lid a t e s th e n o r m a t iv e c o n d it io n s o f

its o w n e m e r g e n c e ? C r u c ia lly , th e n , c o n s t r u c t io n is n e it h e r a s in g le act n o r a

c a u sa l p r o c e s s i n it ia t e d by a s u b je c t a n d c u lm in a t in g i n a set

o f fix e d e ffe c ts. C o n s t r u c t i o n n o t o n ly tak e s p la c e in t im e , b u t is i t s e l f a t e m p o r a l p r o c e s s w h ich o p e r a t e s t h r o u g h th e

r e it e r a t io n o f n o r m s ; se x is b o th p r o d u c e d a n d d e s t a b i ­

liz e d in th e c o u r se o f t h is r e i t e r a t i o n . 7 A s a s e d im e n t e d e ffe c t o f a r e it e r a t iv e o r r it u a l p r a c t ic e , se x a c q u ir e s its n a t ­

u r a liz e d e ffe c t, a n d , yet, it is a lso b y v ir t u e o f t h is r e i t e r a ­

t io n th a t g a p s a n d f is s u r e s are o p e n e d u p as th e c o n s tit u tiv e in s t a b ilit ie s in su c h c o n s t r u c t io n s , as th a t w h ich e sc a p e s o r e x c e e d s th e n o r m , as th a t w h ich c a n n o t b e w h o lly d e f in e d

o r fix e d by th e r e p e t itiv e l a b o r o f th a t n o r m . T h i s in st a b ility is th e d e c o n s t it u t in g p o s s ib ilit y in th e very p r o c e s s o f r e p ­

e t it io n , th e p o w e r th a t u n d o e s th e v ery e ffe c ts b y w h ich

“ s e x ” is s ta b iliz e d , th e p o s s ib ilit y to p u t th e c o n s o lid a t io n o f th e n o r m s o f “ s e x ” i n t o a p o t e n tia lly p r o d u c t iv e c r i s i s . 8

[. - J A s a r e s u lt o f t h is r e f o r m u l a t io n o f p e r fo r m a t iv ity , (a )

g e n d e r p e r fo r m a t iv it y c a n n o t b e t h e o r iz e d a p a r t f r o m th e f o r c ib le a n d r e it e r a t iv e p r a c t ic e o f r e g u la t o r y se x u a l r e g im e s ; (b ) th e a c c o u n t o f a g e n cy c o n d i t i o n e d b y th o se v ery r e g im e s o f d is c o u r s e / p o w e r c a n n o t b e c o n f la t e d w ith v o lu n t a r is m o r in d iv id u a lis m , m u c h le ss w ith c o n s u m e r ­ is m , a n d i n n o w ay p r e s u p p o s e s a c h o o s in g s u b je c t , (c ) the r e g im e o f h e t e r o s e x u a lity o p e r a t e s to c ir c u m s c r ib e a n d c o n t o u r th e “ m a t e r ia lit y ” o f se x , a n d th a t “ m a te r ia lit y ” is f o r m e d a n d s u s t a in e d t h r o u g h a n d as a m a te r ia liz a t io n o f r e g u la t o r y n o r m s th a t a re in p a r t th o s e o f h e t e r o s e x u a l h e g e m o n y ; ( d ) th e m a t e r ia liz a t io n o f n o r m s r e q u ir e s th o se id e n t if ic a t o r y p r o c e s s e s by w h ich n o r m s a r e a s s u m e d o r a p p r o p r i a t e d , a n d th e se id e n t if ic a t io n s p r e c e d e a n d e n a b le th e f o r m a t i o n o f a s u b je c t , b u t a r e n o t , str ic tly sp e a k in g , p e r f o r m e d by a s u b je c t ; a n d (e ) th e lim it s o f c o n s t r u c t iv ­ i s m a r e e x p o s e d at th o s e b o u n d a r i e s o f b o d ily l if e w here a b je c te d o r d e le g it im a t e d b o d ie s f a il to c o u n t as “ b o d i e s . ” I f th e m a te r ia lit y o f se x is d e m a r c a t e d in d is c o u r s e , th en th is d e m a r c a t io n w ill p r o d u c e a d o m a i n o f e x c lu d e d a n d d e le g it im a t e d “ s e x .” H e n c e , it w ill b e as im p o r t a n t t o th in k a b o u t h o w a n d t o w h at e n d b o d i e s a r e c o n s t r u c t e d as is it w ill b e to t h in k a b o u t h o w a n d to w h at e n d b o d i e s a r e n o t c o n s t r u c t e d a n d , f u r t h e r , to a sk a f t e r h o w b o d i e s w h ich fail t o m a te r ia liz e p r o v id e th e n e c e s s a r y “ o u t s id e , ” i f n o t the n e c e s s a r y s u p p o r t , f o r th e b o d i e s w h ic h , in m a te r ia liz in g th e n o r m , q u a lify .a s b o d i e s th a t m a tte r .

H o w , t h e n , c a n o n e t h in k t h r o u g h th e m a t t e r o f b o d ­ ie s as a k in d o f m a t e r ia liz a t io n g o v e r n e d b y re g u la to ry n o r m s in o r d e r t o a s c e r t a in th e w o r k in g s o f h e t e r o s e x u a l h e g e m o n y in th e f o r m a t i o n o f w h at q u a lifie s as a viable b o d y ? H o w d o e s th a t m a t e r ia liz a t io n o f th e n o r m in b o d ily f o r m a t i o n p r o d u c e a d o m a in o f a b je c t e d b o d i e s , a fie ld o f d e f o r m a t i o n , w h ich , in f a i l i n g to q u a lify a s th e fully h u m a n , fo r t if ie s th o se r e g u la t o r y n o r m s ? W h at c h a lle n g e d o e s th a t e x c lu d e d a n d a b je c te d r e a lm p r o d u c e to a sy m ­ b o lic h e g e m o n y th a t m ig h t fo r c e a r a d ic a l r e a r t ic u la tio n o f w h at q u a lifie s as b o d ie s th a t m a tte r , ways o f liv in g that c o u n t as “ l i f e , ” liv e s w o rth p r o t e c t in g , liv e s w o r th savin g, liv e s w o rth g r ie v in g ?

[. . . ] T o w hat e x t e n t is “ s e x ” a c o n s t r a in e d p r o d u c t io n , a

f o r c ib le e ffe c t, o n e w h ich se ts th e lim it s to w h at w ill q u a l­

5 02

ify as a b o d y by r e g u la t in g th e t e r m s b y w h ich b o d ie s are a n d a r e n o t s u s t a i n e d ? M y p u r p o s e h e r e is to u n d e r s t a n d h ow w h at h a s b e e n f o r e c lo s e d o r b a n is h e d f r o m th e p r o p e r d o m a in o f “ s e x ”—w h e re th a t d o m a in is s e c u r e d t h r o u g h a

h e t e r o s e x u a liz in g im p e r a tiv e —m ig h t at o n c e b e p r o d u c e d as a t r o u b l i n g r e t u r n , n o t o n ly a s a n im a g in a r y c o n t e s t a ­ t io n th a t e ffe c ts a f a ilu r e in th e w o r k in g s o f th e in e v ita b le law, b u t as a n e n a b lin g d i s r u p t i o n , th e o c c a s io n f o r a r a d ­ ical r e a r t ic u la t io n o f th e sy m b o lic h o r i z o n in w h ich b o d ie s co m e to m a tt e r at a ll.

NOTES 1. Clearly, sex is not the only such norm by which bodies become

materialized, and it is unclear whether “sex” can operate as a norm apart from other normative requirements on bodies. This will become clear in later sections o f this text.

2. Abjection (in latin, ab-jicere) literally means to cast off, away, or out and, hence, presupposes and produces a domain o f agency from which it is differentiated. Here the casting away resonates with the psychoanalytic notion o f Verwerfung, implying a fore­ closure which founds the subject and which, accordingly, estab­ lishes that foundation as tenuous. Whereas the psychoanalytic notion of verwerfung, translated as “foreclosure,” produces social­ ity through a repudiation o f a primary signifier which produces an unconscious or, in Lacan's theory, the register of the real, the notion of abjection designates a degraded or cast out status within the terms of sociality. Indeed, what is foreclosed or repudiated within psychoanalytic terms is precisely what may not reenter the field of the social without threatening psychosis, that is, the dissolution of the subject itself. I want to propose that certain abject zones within sociality also deliver this threat, constituting zones of uninhabitability which a subject fantasizes as threaten­ ing its own integrity with the prospect of a psychotic dissolution (“I would rather die than do or be that!”). See the entry under “Forclusion” in Jean Laplanche and J.-B. Pontalis, Vocabulaire de la psychanalyze (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1967) pp. 163-167.

3. See Sherry Ortner, “Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?” in Woman, Culture, and Society, Michele Rosaldo and Louise Lam- phere (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974) pp. 67-88.

4. For different but related approaches to this problematic o f exclu­ sion, abjection, and the creation o f “the human,” see Julia Kris- teva, Powers o f Horror An Essay on Abjection, tr. Leon Roudiez (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982); John Fletcher and Andrew Benjamin, eds., Abjection, Melancholia and Love— The Work o f Julia Kristeva (New York and London: Routledge, 1990); Jean-Frangois Lyotard, The Inhuman: Reflections on Time, tr. Geoffrey Bennington and Rachel Bowlby (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991).

5. For a very provocative reading which shows how the problem of linguistic referentiality is linked with the specific problem of referring to bodies, and what might be meant by “reference” in

such a case, see Cathy Caruth, “The Claims of Reference,” The Yale Journal o f Criticism, vol. 4, no. I (Fall 1990): pp. 193-206.

6. Although Foucault distinguishes between juridical and productive models o f power in The History o f Sexuality, Volume One, tr. Rob­ ert Hurley (New York: Vintage, 1978), I have argued that the two models presuppose each other. The production o f a subject—its subjection (assujetissement)—is one means o f its regulation. See my “Sexual Inversions,” in Donna Stanton, ed., Discourses o f Sexuality (Ann Arbor: University o f Michigan Press, 1992), pp. 344-361.

7. It is not simply a matter o f construing performativity as a repeti­ tion of acts, as if “acts” remain intact and self-identical as they are repeated in time, and where "time” is understood as external to the “acts” themselves. On the contrary, an act is itself a rep­ etition, a sedimentation, and congealment o f the past which is precisely foreclosed in its act-like status. In this sense an “act” is always a provisional failure of memory. In what follows, I make use o f the Lacanian notion that every act is to be construed as a repetition, the repetition o f what cannot be recollected, o f the irrecoverable, and is thus the haunting spectre o f the subjects deconstitution. The Derridean notion o f iterability, formulated in response to the theorization o f speech acts by John Searle and JL. Austin, also implies that every act is itself a recitation, the citing of a prior chain o f acts which are implied in a present act and which perpetually drain any “present” act o f its presentness. See note 9 below for the difference between a repetition in the service of the fantasy o f mastery (i.e., a repetition of acts which build the subject, and which are said to be the constructive or constituting acts of a subject) and a notion of repetition-compulsion, taken from Freud, which breaks apart that fantasy o f mastery and sets its limits.

8. The notion o f temporality ought not to be construed as a simple succession o f distinct “moments,” all o f which are equally distant from one another. Such a spatialized mapping o f time substitutes a certain mathematical model for the kind o f duration which resists such spatializing metaphors. Efforts to describe or name this temporal span tend to engage spatial mapping, as philoso­ phers from Bergson through Heidegger have argued. Hence, it is important to underscore the effect of sedimentation that the tem­ porality of construction implies. Here what are called “m oments” are not distinct and equivalent units o f time, for the “past” will be the accumulation and congealing o f such “moments” to the point o f their indistinguishability. But it will also consist o f that which is refused from construction, the domains o f the repressed, forgotten, and the irrecoverably foreclosed. That which is not included—exteriorized by boundary—as a phenomenal con­ stituent o f the sedimented effect called “construction” will be as crucial to its definition as that which is included; this exteriority is not distinguishable as a “moment.” Indeed, the notion o f the “moment” may well be nothing other than a retrospective fan­ tasy of mathematical mastery imposed upon the interrupted dur­ ations of the past.

To argue that construction is fundamentally a matter o f iter­ ation is to make the temporal modality o f “construction” into a priority. To the extent that such a theory requires a spatializa- tion of time through the postulation of discrete and bounded

5 0 3

moments, this temporal account of construction presupposes a spatialization of temporality itself, what one might, following Heidegger, understand as the reduction o f temporality to time.

The Foucaultian emphasis on convergent relations of power (which might in a tentative way be contrasted with the Derridean emphasis on iterability) implies a mapping of power relations that in the course o f a genealogical process form a constructed effect. The notion of convergence presupposes both motion and space; as a result, it appears to elude the paradox noted above in which the very account of temporality requires the spatialization of the “moment.’’ On the other hand, Foucault’s account o f convergence does not fully theorize what is at work in the “movement” by which power and discourse are said to converge. In a sense, the “mapping” of power does not fully theorize temporality.

Significantly, the Derridean analysis of iterability is to be dis­ tinguished from simple repetition in which the distances between temporal “moments” are treated as uniform in their spatial exten­ sion. The “betweenness” that differentiates "moments” of time is not one that can, within Derridean terms, be spatialized or bounded as an identifiable object. It is the nonthematizable dif­ ference which erodes and contests any and all claims to discrete identity, including the discrete identity of the “moment.” What differentiates moments is not a spatially extended duration, for if it were, it would also count as a “moment,” and so fail to account for what falls between moments. This “entre,” that which is at once “between” and “outside,” is something like non-thematizable space and non-thematizable time as they converge.

Foucault’s language of construction includes terms like “aug­ mentation,” “proliferation,” and “convergence,” all o f which pre­ sume a temporal domain not explicitly theorized. Part o f the problem here is that whereas Foucault appears to want his account o f genealogical effects to be historically specific, he would favor an account of genealogy over a philosophical account o f temporality. In “The Subject and Power” (Hubert Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow, eds., Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism an d Hermeneutics [Chicago: Northwestern University Press, 1983]), Foucault refers to “the diversity o f . . . logical sequence” that characterizes power relations. He would doubtless reject the apparent linearity implied by models of iterability which link them with the linearity o f older models o f historical sequence. And yet, we do not receive a specifi­ cation of "sequence”: Is it the very notion of “sequence” that varies historically, or are there configurations o f sequence that vary, with sequence itself remaining invariant? The specific social formation and figuration o f temporality is in some ways unattended by both positions. Here one might consult the work o f Pierre Bourdieu to understand the temporality o f social construction.

14.3 ANGELA Y. DAVIS (1944-)

Note that no biography has been included in this anthology because the reading selected is autobiographical.

Angela Y. Davis: Theory and Praxis The activism of the 1960s and 1970s was a global phenom­ enon, sweeping across campuses in the United States and Europe. It had multiple goals that included ending the war in Viet Nam, supporting national liberation movements in areas that were still colonies, changing the status o f women and ethnic or racial minorities (the notable accomplish­ ment of the civil rights movement in the United States), and democratizing the university. Some of these movements suc­ ceeded; de jure segregation in the United States finally ended, and women in most economically developed nations edged nearer to gender equality. Practically all colonized regions attained independent nationhood, though many of the new nations remained economically weak and politically author­ itarian. The sweeping goals of social equality and liberation remained elusive, however, even though many old bourgeois conventions were cleared away.

This period was the heyday of conflict theories, often formed by a hasty amalgam of Marxism, Weberian perspec­ tives, feminism, and theories o f race and ethnicity. Conflict theorists made enormous contributions to the analysis of the institutions o f capitalism, studying, for example, the capitalist state as a site o f contention and the increasingly monopolistic corporate media. But conflict theory also had many problems as a theoretical perspective. “Conflict theory” was a collection of uncomfortable bedfellows that easily lapsed into squabbles about who was most oppressed in a system o f sexism, racism, and capitalism. Proponents o f various types of conflict theory saw “their” preferred identity as the best candidate for defin­ ing the “historical subject” who could usher in a new era of human history, and each tended to treat the other categories of identity as bothersome rivals.

Underlying the problem that political rivalries carried over into the domain o f theory was the fact that the component elements of conflict theory were not all really compatible. Weber was a conflict theorist, but his concept o f “inconve­ nient facts” and his cautious and conservative role in Ger­ man politics made his thought different from that o f the other theorists grouped together as conflict theorists. Marxism and feminism parted ways after “an unhappy marriage” (in Heidi Hartm anns felicitous phrasing). When the civil rights move­ ment was succeeded by various forms o f black and Chicano power movements, activists of colour insisted that class and gender concepts did little to capture the realities o f societies structured in racial dominance.

After a period in which conflict theory challenged struc­ tural functionalism as the dominant paradigm o f sociology, it lost its coherence as a theoretical force and tended to split into its various components, loosely linked by a critical stance toward existing institutions.

5 0 4

Angela Davis’s writing and activism exemplify the con­ tinuing contributions o f a conflict perspective, especially when it is organized around a core of M arxist analysis and critical theory. The m ost fundamental o f these contribu­ tions was the insistence on the unity o f theory and practice (or praxis). This unity was already a basic premise o f Marxist theory, and Gramsci had even used the code words “philoso­ phy of praxis” to refer to Marxism in a way that would elude the prison censors. For Davis (and for all Marxists, although many o f them do not live the unity o f theory and praxis in their practice), theory is always linked to practice. Practice needs theory in order to become coherent and systematic, to rise above a poorly informed activism. But theory must be tested and improved through practice. Practice provides the most powerful type of feedback for theory.

A second contribution that we can discern in Davis’s writ­ ing is the growing interest in intersectionality. Individuals are identified through a host o f constructed categories and find themselves in the intersections o f these categories: as a white person or a person of colour (or a person from a more spe­ cific ethno-racial category); as a person who identifies with or is identified by others in term s of gender and sexual ori­ entation; as a citizen of some nation or perhaps none at all; as a rich person, a bourgeois, a proletarian, or a petty bour­ geois; as an individual with an occupation and a specific type of education; and so on. These categories may be defined as binaries or not. An individual is always at the intersection of several categories—a proletarian woman of colour, a white worker, a Latino small-business owner, and so on. For Davis, the most important of these constructed categories are race, class, and gender, and her essay examines these structures of inequality.

A third contribution is Davis’s work in opening up the topic of incarceration, doing so in the U.S. context and with a more racially oriented analysis than Foucault (who was cer­ tainly also interested in the topic). Davis was and continues to be a leading theorist of incarceration. She was an activist on behalf of prisoners—at great personal risk—in the 1970s, but her focus persists; and as m ass incarceration swelled in the United States, her analysis is of increasing theoretical importance for understanding the society. The new incarcer­ ation regime is not merely a misfortune for a small number of individuals but appears to have become a major institution of social control in the United States, and one that is exer­ cised primarily towards people o f colour. Is it the latest form of regimes of control over African Americans, following the sequence o f slavery and segregation?

We have also included work by Angela Davis because it illustrates so well the continuities in theory. We can trace a direct line o f influence and inspiration from the Frankfurt

School to Herbert Marcuse to Angela Davis, as she herself points out.

Reading 14.3: Excerpts from Lisa Lowe’s Interview of Angela Y. Davis (July 1 ,1 9 9 5 )

[Source: “Interviews: Reflections on Race, Class, and Gender in the USA,” The Angela Y. Davis Reader, ed. Joy James (Malden,

MA: Blackwell, 1998), 3 0 7 -2 5 , selection from 3 1 5 -2 5 .]

R e fle ctio n s o n R ace, Class, a n d G e n d e r in th e U S A

. L L : I n y o u r a u t o b io g r a p h y y o u w r o te , “ th e f o r c e s th a t h av e m a d e m y lif e w hat it is a r e th e v ery s a m e f o r c e s th a t h av e s h a p e d a n d m is s h a p e d th e liv e s o f m illio n s o f m y p e o p l e . I ’ m c o n v in c e d th a t m y r e ­ s p o n s e to th e se f o r c e s h a s b e e n u n e x c e p t io n a l a s w ell, th a t m y p o lit ic a l in v o lv e m e n t, u lt im a te ly as a m e m b e r o f th e C o m m u n i s t Party, h a s b e e n a n a t u ­ r a l lo g ic a l w ay to d e f e n d o u r e m b a t tle d h u m a n ity .” 1 I w o n d e r i f y o u c o u ld talk a b o u t y o u r f o r m a t i o n in M a r x is m a n d w h a t M a r x is m h a s m e a n t to y o u .

A D : F r o m w h e r e I s t o o d —w h ich w as a v e ry d i f f e r ­ e n t l o c a t io n f r o m th a t o f th e v a st n u m b e r s o f p e o p le w h o fo llo w e d m y t r ia l—I d i d n o t f e e l th a t m y l if e e x ­ p e r ie n c e s w ere e x c e p t io n a l e n o u g h to m e r it i n s c r i p ­ t io n in a n a u to b io g r a p h y . B e s i d e s , I w as v e ry y o u n g . S o I h a d t o t h in k a b o u t th a t p r o je c t a s a “ p o l i t ic a l ” a u to b io g r a p h y . A t th e t im e I d i d n ’t r e a liz e th a t I h a d c o n c e p t u a liz e d it in th e t r a d it i o n o f th e b la c k a u t o b i ­ o g r a p h ic a l g e n r e th a t c o u ld b e s a id t o g o b a c k to th e slav e n a r r a tiv e . T h a t d i d n ’t o c c u r to m e u n t il l o n g a f t e r I h a d w r itt e n it. I t ’s d if fic u lt t o id e n t if y a s in g le d e v e lo p m e n t th a t le d m e to M a r x is m . I g r e w u p in a fa m ily w h ic h h a d n u m e r o u s t ie s to i n d iv id u a ls in th e C o m m u n i s t Party . A lt h o u g h m y m o t h e r n e v e r j o i n e d th e C o m m u n i s t Party, sh e w o r k e d in o r g a n i ­ z a tio n s w ith b la c k c o m m u n is t s w h o w ere o r g a n iz in g in B i r m in g h a m , w h ic h , b e c a u s e o f th e s te e l m ills , h a d b e c o m e a n i n d u s t r i a l c e n t e r in th e ’ 3 0 s . S h e w as a n o f f ic e r in th e N A A C P a n d in th e S o u t h e r n N e g r o Y o u th C o n g r e s s , w h ich h a d b e e n e s ta b lis h e d by c o m m u n is t s . B e c a u se o f m y m o t h e r ’s c o n n e c t io n w ith c o m m u n is t s , we w ere o f t e n f o llo w e d b y th e F B I d u r i n g th e M c C a r t h y e r a . B y th e ag e o f s ix , I w as

5 0 5