I mentioned lately coming across this article in La Presse which could hardly be more in line with my research.
In her writings for the International Women’s Day, Rima Elkouri speaks about her vision of feminism today and deplores the fact that pole dancing, and the “tendance pitoune” are being revendicated as a form of liberation for certain women.
In short (and I tried my best to translate this accurately), she asks “how we came to - 40 years after our elders burnt their bras - celebrate breasts implants and porno stars with rabbit ears as symbols of emancipation”, she indicates that “we shouldn’t fool ourselves by thinking that the injustices towards women (being treated as objects) are unrelated to the dominant porno aesthetic which compels some to revendicate their “object status” and she finally mentions that “under the cover of bravery, we often find conformism. Under “girl power” and second degree humor, we often find servitude, vulgarity and poor self-esteem.”
I do agree with the idea that positioning yourself as a sexualized object (as approved by the third wave feminist or girl power movement) does not lead to emancipation and does not help women condition… However, investigating the post-structuralist feminist concept of “écriture féminine” has made me explore the idea that women oppression is linked to the unacknowledged women subjective perspective (as a subject rather than an object). The current women representation in pornography (in terms of look and attitude) – as well as in the market – is that of a commodity, and is mostly defined by the realm of male fantasies and ideologies. That’s why these authors prompt women to write from their embodied perspective (body being considered as an oppressed feminine construct) and use the vehicles such as pornography (strip-tease ???) “that privilege and propagate male desire” (Dallery, 1989 ; Joy & Venkatesh, 1994) in order to subvert that logic. Rather than their “object status”, women should see this as an opportunity to revendicate their “subject status”.
This being said, it might seem like I am getting opposed to mankind, but NOT AT ALL!!! – I am trying to investigate how women came to be portrayed like that (according to post-structuralist feminist writers).
Now, I believe the intent and perspective adopted by the strip-teaser makes a world of difference: Do they keep on perpetuating the masculine ideologies, or are they really manifesting their own (uncorrupted) sexual subjectivity?
With regards to that comment from Mrs. Elkouri : “Under (…) second degree humor, we often find servitude, vulgarity and poor self-esteem.”, I am wondering the following: Is the tradition of slapstick humor, mockery and absurdity in burlesque not a good mean to go beyond the inhibitions of poor self-esteem resulting precisely from the objectified status? I don’t think the vulgarity is meant to be camouflaged by humor in burlesque… I think it is meant to be self-evident and that, taken together, humor and vulgarity can be tools of subversion.
With that regard, here are some interesting thoughts from Lindalee Tracey, film-maker of Anatomy of Burlesque(a film I have seen at the beginning of my research last year):
“My adventure began by refusing the arched presumption that burlesque is simply striptease and bare bazooms, hubba, hubba! - turning instead to its deeper subversions and un-pretensions. I aimed myself at the grammar of burlesque, the meaning behind its vulgarity - the mocking send up; the naughty, winking knowingness; double entendre, comic eroticism; even the origins of the French cancan. I discovered everything I love about life - the twitching divide between body and mind, high and low, sacred and profane.”
I should mention that her stressing of the notion of embodiement in burlesque enabled me to make a link with the post-structuralist feminist thoughts that I am currently exploring as an analysis of my fieldwork. I should take this opportunity to acknowledge this regretted lady - who recently passed away and missed by the entire burlesque community - for her very inspiring work.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I find it interesting that you decide to make the point you do about seeming 'opposed to mankind' ["NOT AT ALL!"]...it's amazing how so many people taking up feminist critiques tend to qualify - well, nothing against men, right?
From my perspective, this is not really a problem for poststructuralist feminism, in one very important sense: if we start by assuming a radically decentered subject, then it's hard to hold 'men' in general responsible for the dicursively-shaped structural patternings that preceded - and exceed - them (i.e. not just because they fit the physical criteria or gender-identify); HOWEVER, the implication, of course, is that individual men (especially, but in particular and not in general) and women (to a lesser extent, perhaps (?), given power imbalances woven into contemporary gendered subjecthood) ARE responsible - at least insofar as they can be conscious of doing so - for their reproductions of the kinds of nefarious representations of women you refer to - as 'objects', etc. - and for acting as though these representations accurately reflected real people. And perhaps we actually should have something against people who do this, despite their being conscious of some of these issues, no? Particularly those responsible for diffusing representations which reinforce these elements...
I think that the kind of work you're doing is interesting in that burlesque could well be seen to expose a certain consciousness of these patterns, but with a lively sense of play rather than dry analytic crritique...though, as you've pointed out, this is not always going to be subversive. What is?
(actually, I'd be really interested in hearing your definition of what is 'subversive' - I've done a lot of running around in circles trying to define 'resistance' etc...it's tough!)
One other point here, I think, is highlighted by the following:
"The current women representation in pornography (in terms of look and attitude) – as well as in the market – is that of a commodity, and is mostly defined by the realm of male fantasies and ideologies."
But it seems that this kind of discussion of 'male fantasies and ideologies' clings a little hard to the 'real' that, say, Judith Butler would suggest that radical gender politics need to do without? I think the previously made point about the 'audience' for burlesque could segue into a look at how the negative aspects you wish to focus on in "male desires and ideologies" (the status of which, in postructuralist thinking, would have to refer to a rather imperfect and contingent set of reproduced representations which don't actually map out perfectly onto real-existing physical/identifying 'males') are themselves the product of things like hierarchic power arrangements, media, advertising and macho culture...
Burlesque, I think, like most things, is a dialogic process - neither sender nor receiver is completely on the same wavelength (and we're stuck using symbols and signs that carry a lot of baggage), and this always complicates the possibility of 'subversion'; Geez, I actually want to keep writing on this...but I gotta run, and just hope my comments make at least a little bit of sense!!!
Thanks so much for your comment rsrcher!
Feel free to keep writing about it! Your input is really helpful since, as you know, I come from a very different background as yours...
I'll definetly try to define subversion, although if you were not successful at it, I don't see how I will! :)
One more thing about me being apologetic for my feminist take on this project: My understanding of post-structuralist feminist thoughts is that they are not trying to invert the poles, for any inversion would reify their importance (unlike the perspective of radical cultural feminists).
Thanks again for your input!
Hey, just random thoughts. I'm pretty impressed with how together your posts are - very coherent and thoughtful. I feel like I'm a little more off-the-wall and a bit less careful with my blog...
And on your last point: yes, that's my understanding as well; straight 'reversal' doesn't happen when the terrain is so unstable (and would be a) a dubious construction, and b) an undesireably reifying one, as you point out), which is why 'subversion' has to be a...dance?
I imagine the issue with the tendency to make extra-clear that these perspectives are not 'against' men is all about the 'dialogic' process again - that is, being aware that no matter what you mean, some people will have a different understanding (and, in real life, that often sparks men - and many women - to get defensive or hostile about these kinds of critiques). I sometimes think that a certain level of defensive response to critique is a sign that one is on the right track - when you force people to get into strategic-impression-management mode, it means that they have to manipulate their contradictions and ambiguities...which at least means that people are thinking. I wonder if the apologetic impulse one sometimes sees is kind of an effort in translating the implications of the theoretical language into plain/popular language...for people who see more on the surface (a critique of a trope or commonly performed behaviour is seen as a critique of a person as an individual or member of a group) than in the kinds of theoretical depths one gets into questioning the value of categories like 'the real' a la Butler...
cheers!
Post a Comment