In which we:
-Consult with a literary expert
-Develop our charitable endeavors
-Get horribly lost within the tangle that is post-modernism
Show notes:
I am still pretty sure Chuck was off about Simone de Beauvoir’s ideas being particularly Foucaultian, as she was so solidly an Existentialist philosopher and more of a contemporary of Sartre than Foucault. Either way, I say you should read The Second Sex. It’s a foundational feminist text, an important piece of Existentialist philosophy, and even contains well thought out Hegelian ideas (and we do so love the Hegel).
If you want to disregard the tone of my recommendation and actually read some Helene Cixous, then I say you should just start in the deep end right with famous essay “The Laugh of the Medusa”. Good luck with that.
I mentioned Anti-Humanite, but my nerd-fu is weak, for I was in fact speaking of Ultra-Humanite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-Humanite). He has been an intelligent gorilla, but as is the case with 70 year old comic book characters, his story is far more weird and incomprehensible than that.
Listen here:
Tomorrow at our weekly IT2T luncheon, I’m going to school Dave when I introduce him to how”existential feminism” via Beauvoir is just a mirror of the post-structuralist historianism of Foucault despite her fondness for Satre and Satre’s biting criticism of Foucault. “Existence precedes essence” can be a sticky wicket, friends.
The worst part of it is that I’ll also have to drag Hegel into the discussion, kicking and screaming.
Oh, Georg Hegel. Is there any discussion you can’t worm your way into?
Edit: Also, I find The Second Sex to be a book of bold assertions and an abuse of the Hegelian master-slave conflict. While certain forms of feminism might benefit from understanding “existence precedes essence,” de Beauvoir uses the idea to construct an interpretive history of the relationship between men and women that does without any understanding of biology, evolution or anthropology. She speaks as if humanity should have seen through the falsehoods of gender identity when it first walked upright, and that is a view I constantly see from postmodern feminists (who, I think, learned it from de Beauvoir). Then she uses that as a platform from which to preach.
But I read The Second Sex years ago and in English, which I’m told is a very, very bad translation. Sorry, Simone!
Anyway, if you want to read good feminist literature, junk de Beauvoir and Cixous (maybe junk the French altogether). First, skim The Feminine Mystique (you really just want an idea of what it says). Then, read something that is considered “Third Wave.” The third wave literature should disturb you and confuse you. Finally, read something considered “post-feminist” (not post-modern feminist!). Mostly, this is achieved through articles, for me, because I haven’t read any good books that I could recommend.
Then, you might have a sensible idea of where feminism is now, what it should be, and what it should not be. (Hint: Reverse the sex roles of The Second Sex, and you should realize what feminism should not be.)
“Paella”.
Good lord, I can’t stand the sound of my voice.