Anda di halaman 1dari 23

A Feminist Politics of Non-Identity

Author(s): Leslie Wahl Rabine


Source: Feminist Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Spring, 1988), pp. 11-31
Published by: Feminist Studies, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3177996
Accessed: 19/11/2008 10:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=femstudies.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Feminist Studies, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Feminist Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
;
Ii

P
ir
i;

Ewa Kuryluk, Face, 1981, from the Installation, Fall in Princeton, 1984. Kuryluk's
works are drawings; they are installations; they are sculptures. The space and
volume of the drawing is both illusory and real, both permanent and ephemeral;
the draped cotton has a sculptural presence and inhabits our space.
A FEMINIST POLITICS OF NON-IDENTITY

LESLIEWAHLRABINE

Can feminists use deconstructionto deepen their own analysis?


My essay explores this question through a reading of Nancy
Chodorow'sTheReproduction of Mothering:Psychoanalysis and the
Sociologyof Gender1 and ZillahEisenstein's"Developinga Theoryof
CapitalistPatriarchyand SocialistFeminism."2 These U.S. feminist
essays are used because they achieve their extraordinaryinsights
in part, I believe, from certain deconstructiveelements already
implicitlyharboredwithin them, and because their familiarityto
U.S. feminists can serve to make understandablethe strangeness
of deconstruction.
Spacelimitsand the goal of explanatoryclarityrequirean objec-
tive tone to this essay, a tone that belies its author'sprofoundand
often enragedsense of insolubleambivalencetowarddeconstruc-
tion. How could one not be ambivalenttowarda theory that con-
tains elements indispensableto the crucial task of deepening a
feminist analysisand yet appropriates"thefeminine"in ways that
allow deconstructionto be integratedinto the universityfor pur-
poses inimical to feminism?While Jacques Derridahas himself
been both antipatheticand sympatheticto feminism,many of his
followers in U.S. universities have used deconstruction to
trivializeand dismiss feminism, claimingthat it reproducesthe
phallocentricmodes of thought and institutionalstructuresthat,
accordingto them, their own method deconstructs.3
The relation,both intimateand adversarial,between the second
wave of feminism and deconstructionstems from the birth of
these two movements out of the same generalhistoricalcrisis of
Western civilizationin the 1960s. Differentsocial groups-Third
Worldpeople, women, intellectuals,etc.-each respondedto par-
ticular symptoms most relevantto its own concerns within that
Feminist Studies 14, no. 1 (Spring 1988). ? 1988 by Feminist Studies, Inc.
11
12 Leslie Wahl Rabine

complexcrisis.The resulthas been cross-pollinations between the


concernedgroupsand also illusorysimilaritiesthat hide conflicts.
Here, I have chosen to focus not on the incompatibilitybut on
some of the cross-pollinationsin the hope that they can be fertile
for feminism-as well as for deconstruction.4

HISTORICALCONTEXT
For French intellectuals,some symptoms of this general crisis
were the Hungarianrevolt of 1956, Nikita Khrushchev'scritique
of Stalinthe same year, the Algerianwar of independence,the
U.S. war in Vietnam,the Czechoslovakianrevoltof 1968,and May
1968. Profoundlyshaken in their certaintyof being able to know
truth and understandhistory, French intellectuals of the Left
began to call into questionnot only liberalismand Marxism,as it
was then conceived, but also the very structuresunderlyingand
producingWesternthought.They sought to distancethemselves
from the structureof their thought by, as Jacques Derridasaid,
thinking "the structurality of structure,"5by questioning as
ideologicallydeterminednot just thoughtsthemselvesbut also the
operationsthat produce thoughts. The structuresof Conscious-
ness, Identity,Reason,and Logicwere all subjectedto an analytic
light that showed them to be Westernsociohistoricconstructions,
appearinguniversal and naturalthrough ideologicalimposition,
and all serving the political ends of Western and bourgeois
mastery.
This massive critique and deepening of our understandingof
ideologybegins with the structuralistmovement, inspiredby the
structuralanthropologyof Claude Lvi-Strauss and throughhim
by the linguisticsof Ferdinandde Saussure.6Cultureand society
were conceivedof as closed systemsof interrelationships modeled
on systemsof language. aIn 1971talk,"Structure, Sign,and Playin
the Discourse of the Human Sciences,"Derrida connects the
anthropologyin this critiqueto the
leading role of Levi-Strauss's
historicalcrisis in Westernculture:"Onecan assume that ethnol-
ogy could have been bornas a science only at the momentwhen a
decentering had come about, at the moment when European
culture..,. had been dislocated..,. and forced to stop considering
itself as the culture of reference."' But Derrida also marked the
Leslie Wahl Rabine 13

need to go beyondstructuralism,which was lendingitselfto a con-


servativeformalism.
Former structuralistshastened to call themselves poststruc-
turalistsand developeda host of theoriesthathave had ambiguous
effects, both revolutionizingthe humanitiesand also strengthen-
ing conservative departments of literature. These theories in-
cluded, along with Derrideandeconstruction,the Marxologyof
Louis Althusser, the semiotics of Roland Barthes and Julia
Kristeva,the historiographyof Michel Foucault,and the psycho-
analysis of JacquesLacan.8These writers criticizedstructuralism
for presentingstructureas a totalityand focused insteadon what
structures exclude in order to institute themselves as fictive
totalities,as organized,coherent,homogeneous,logical systems.
Some feminist critics adopted poststructuralisttheories to
analyzea culturethat, since Platoand the Old Testamentthrough
contemporaryliterature, has made woman (both the concept
woman and social women) the receptacleof Unreason,the Irra-
tional, the Chaotic,the Improper,and the Unclean that structure
has to exclude in order to institute itself.9 If woman is the
necessaryexclusionthat allows the structureto function,then the
structure'scenter, which functions, according to Derrida, "to
orient,balance,and organizethe structure" and to "limitthe playof
the structure,"is masculine, "God,man, and so forth. ."o
Although in "Structure,Sign and Play in the Discourse ... of the
Human Sciences,"Derridadid not yet explicitlypoint out the mas-
culinityof the center,nor discuss its significance,women theorists
in Francelike Hel6ne Cixous, Luce Irigaray,SarahKofman,and
JuliaKristeva,1x beganto make it a foundationof feministtheories.
The notion that in Western culture, structuresare inherently
masculine and repressive of what French poststructuralistscall
"the feminine"can deepen immeasurablythe examinationand
critiqueof what U.S. feministscallpatriarchalideology.By analyz-
ing the symbolic structuresof literary and philosophicaltexts,
critics like Luce Irigarayand Sarah Kofman in France, or Jane
Gallop12in the United States, have been able to show how the
very structuresof "consciousness," of the "self,"and of "identity,"
are historicallyproducedto furthermasculinemasteryand appear
universal and total only through ideological exclusion of that
which does not fit their coherence.
But the historical convergence between feminism and decon-
14 Leslie Wahl Rabine

struction rests on an incompatibilitybetween philosophersand


members of a social movement dedicatedto eradicatingoppres-
sion throughcollectivepoliticalaction.The philosophicalwork of
gettingto the bottomof unjustpower relationsinvolvesthe desire
to think outside the structuresof thought and consciousnesswe
have inherited.But because outside these structuresthere is no
thoughtand no signifyinglanguage,the very thinkingthat decon-
structsthem must also inevitablyreconstructthem, so that they
"mustcontinually,interminablybe undone."13 Althoughthis no-
tion of the bottomlessintellectualdismantlingof oppressivestruc-
tures can stulltify political action, it does suggest that the con-
tradictionbetween feminism and deconstructionis also a contra-
diction internalto feminism itself. The women's movement con-
fronts the double and circularnecessity of developing a deep,
long-termcritiqueof structuresthat producepatriarchalinjustice,
while at the same time battlingin an immediateway againstthe
productsof this injustice.14This contradictionis really a vicious
circle. On the one hand women's need to get to the bottom of
phallocentricstructurescan lead to the endless deconstructing/re-
constructingstrategy that prevents action. On the other hand,
patriarchalinjusticeproduces and reproducesitself throughthe
workings of phallocentricstructure,so that the actions we take
within sociopoliticaland psychologicalstructurestowardmaking
immediateand necessaryreformsultimatelystrengthenthe very
structureswe need to dismantle. Because deconstructioncould
deepen our understandingof this circle, I will returnto it after
discussingsome concepts.

THE DECONSTRUCTIVE CRITIQUE OF STRUCTURE


Deriving his critique of centered structure from Friedrich
Nietzsche's critique of the concept of Truth and from Martin
Heidegger'scritiqueof Beingin Westernphilosophy,JacquesDer-
rida shows that metaphysicalstructure,centeredon the notion of
a firmlygroundedBeingas Presence("God,man, etc."),consistent-
ly organizes thought into bipolar, hierarchicaloppositions. All
these oppositions-of which center and margin, speech and
writing, truth and fiction, inside and outside, spirit and matter,
man and woman provide privileged examples - are structured so
Leslie Wahl Rabine 15

thatthe firsttermappearsas primary,originary,full, complete,ex-


cercisingmasteryover the second. The so-calledsecond term ap-
pears as derived from the first, inferiorto it, inescapablydepen-
dent upon it for its being. A pale imitationand reflectionof the
superiorfirst term, it also threatensto adulteratethe first term's
purity. Organizingour language,thought, and social order, this
structurealso determines, accordingto deconstruction,all rela-
tions as political power relations. To illustrate this, we can
substitute for Derrida'sphilosophical examples, based on the
workings of language,the example of Adam and Eve in the Old
Testament,where Adam the male is created first and complete.
Eve, derived from his rib, is essentiallyrelativeto him, a supple-
ment, a corruptand corruptingversion of him, and so necessarily
under his rule.
Feministsunfamiliarwith deconstructionand the philosophical
or literarytexts it analyzescan perhapsbetterfathomit if the con-
cepts man and woman-as they operatenot only in philosophy,
literature,and the Old Testament,but also in ideology-are sub-
stituted for other oppositions,principallyconcerning language,
literature, and logic, that Derrida discusses. In De la Gram-
matologie,Derridashows thatphilosophicalmetaphysicsis founded
by the oppositionbetween speech and writing,where speech ap-
pears as originary,its meaningfully present in it, and expressing
the presenceand masteryof the speaker.Writingappearsa mere
transcriptionor image of speech, an inferiorimitation,corrupted
by the absence of full meaning and of the speaker. Because
Western philosophy, from Plato on, associates the full word of
truth with Reason as Logos,De la Grammatologie refers to this
desireto place speech beforewritingand to attaina "transcenden-
tal signified"or "fullword,"as "logocentrism."5s And, because one
substitutefor the Logosis the phallus as center of our symbolic
order,Derridaanalyzesthis structureas "phallogocentrism" in "Le
Facteur de la Verite."16
Deconstruction, in thinking the "structuralityof structure"
beyond this fictive organization,operatesa two-stepprocess.The
first step, overturningthe opposition,shows the so-calledsecond-
ary, derived term (e.g., writing)as actually constitutingthe ap-
parentlyprimaryterm (e.g., speech), and so, for example, shows
"writingitself as the origin of language."The second step displaces
the whole hierarchical system. This does not mean that writing in
16 Leslie Wahl Rabine

a literalsense precedesspeech but thatthe qualitiesof writing,like


silence, punctuation,spacing,or the "regulatedplay"of presence
and absencebetween the signifiersmakingup a language,inhabit
speech from the beginning.17Or, to give another example, the
myth of Adam and Eve rests on the largermyth of an originary,
self-sufficientFather, who in one stroke originatesthe human
race, in orderto repressthe motherwith her role in the processof
gestationand birth, as well as Mother Goddess religions.18One
could show that patriarchal,monotheisticreligion,with its notion
of instantaneous,masterful,masculinecreation,is insertedas a mo-
ment of a largerhistorythat takes the form of "maternal" process.
Although Derrida'sdeconstructionof the man/woman opposi-
tions, in such works as "TheDouble Session,"Glas, or Spurs:
Nietzsche'sStyles have tended to absorb the feminine into a
reuniversalizingof the male subject,19women theoristshave been
influenced by his philosophy to deconstructgender in a more
feminist way. In these three Derrideanessays, the feminine or
woman comes into play but serves to make the male hero (Paul
Marguerittein "TheDouble Session,"Jean Genet in Glas, and
FriedrichNietzsche in Spurs:Nietzsche'sStyles)bisexualor multi-
sexual, in a move that continues to exclude and marginalize
women. In contrast,SarahKofman,who sees the masculine/fem-
inine.oppositionas the "bestparadigm"for metaphysicalopposi-
tion in general,connects the feminine to women as actorsin the
deconstructivedrama.She emphasizesthe "essentialvirilityof the
metaphysicallogos"in contrastto the link between woman and
writing:'"Writing,a formof disruptionof presence,is, like woman,
always degraded,lowered to the last place."20Similarly,He61ne
Cixous'snotion of "6criturefeminine,"as a writing that subverts
the phallocentricstructureof meaningby turningit againstitself,
owes much to deconstruction.21
Insteadof readingthese authors,however, to explorethe rela-
tion of feminismto deconstruction,I will insteadreferto the work
of Nancy Chodorow.Her theory,which many of us have been us-
ing for years to analyze literature,psychology,and social issues,
already contains the seeds of a deconstructive critique and
analysis.My examinationof the implicitdeconstructivenotionsin
Chodorow'swork suggestsa doubleconclusion.It suggests,on the
one hand, that certain deconstructive concepts and strategies
might lead us to new and deeper insights in feminist analysis. It
Leslie Wahl Rabine 17

also, on the other hand, raises questions about our academic and
intellectual institutions, in which deconstruction and other male
poststructuralist theories receive general credit and recognition for
discoveries when parallel discoveries, developed in feminist
theory, but couched in a different code and, more pertinently,
written by women, go unnoticed and unknown. Neither of these
conclusions precludes the other.
Chodorow sees gender identity as "neithera product of biology
nor of intentional role training"22but of asymmetrical parental
bonding. Girls and boys achieve different structures of personal
and sexual identity, because in our social order, girls bond with
the same-sex parent, whereas boys bond with a different sex
parent. To achieve his personal and sexual identity, the boy must
radically break his primary identification with his mother and
achieve secondary identification with the father as a distant, in-
tellectualized representative of the masculine role. Girls, on the
other hand, break the primary bond with the mother late and in-
completely. Their adult identification with the mother is con-
tinuous with their infantile primary identification and is also based
on day-to-day intimate contact with the female parent.
As a result of these different processes, men achieve an ego
structure that defines itself "asmore separate and distinct, with a
greater sense of rigid ego boundaries."Women, on the other hand,
achieve a structure of the self with "moreflexible or permeable ego
boundaries" and define themselves "more in relation to others."23
This differential structure of the self permeates gender difference,
determining that women and men will have different ways of
relating to themselves, to others, and to the outside world.
To achieve the difficult "sense of secure masculine identity,"the
boy "represses those qualities he takes to be feminine inside
himself and rejects and devalues women and whatever he con-
siders to be feminine in the social world."z4His ego thus defines
itself not only by solid, impermeable boundaries but also by an in-
ner content of homogeneity, an affirmation of Oneness, a fear of
invading difference. In contrast, the woman's relational ego leads
her to define her identity in relation to others or, in other words, in
relation to what she is not. Because her ego is also more permeable
to her own pre-Oedipal attachment to her mother and her Oedipal
oscillation between mother and father, it also tends her toward a
more accepting relation to her own bisexuality. Thus, masculine
18 Leslie Wahl Rabine

identitystronglyprotectsand emphasizesits self-identityand self-


presence and fears losing an essentialoneness, whereas women's
"identity" is not reallyone, not reallyself-identical,but seeks fulfill-
ment throughthe loss of an essentialoneness.
Chodorow'sdescriptionof the male self as outlined here re-
sembles what poststructuralists(deconstructionistsbut more so
Lacanianpsychoanalysts)25 call the "phallocentricsubject,"struc-
turedto find the centeredstructureof metaphysicaloppositionits
naturalhabitat.ThroughChodorow'smodel we can follow Der-
rida's critique of hierarchical oppositions to his critique of
presence, unity, and identity.
Hierarchicaloppositionfollows from the phallocentricsubject's
need to protectits unitaryoneness, its pure self-identityand self-
presence. Threateningdifferencewithinitself is projectedoutside
onto a denigratedother, perceivedas inferior.Thus, Derridasays
of speech that"aforcein the formof writinginferiorto speech and
essentialto it has been containedoutside speech."26In the case of
gender opposition,we can say that men repressthe internaldif-
ference and bisexualitythat threatenstheir self-identityand pro-
ject it outsideonto women. The male subject'simaginarystatusas
a unifiedand totalOne demandsstrongego boundariesthat estab-
lish not only the oppositionbetween masculineand feminine but
also between insideand outside."Theoppositionof insideand out-
side,"says Kofman,"isconstitutiveof the logic of identity,of logic
itself,"27on which rests phallocentrism,as well as patriarchy.This
logic makes the phallocentricsubjectfind all differencethreaten-
ing, and he represses not only internal difference but also the
other as qualitativelydifferentfrom himself. In other words, he
can see woman as quantitativelydifferent,as an inferioror lesser
man, but not as having a qualitativelydifferentform of develop-
ment, psychic structure,and relation to the world. The philos-
ophy, literature,and ideology of phallocentricculture repress
woman as different-qualitatively differentfrom man, as well as
differentwithin herself-and transformsher into someone iden-
tical. Paradoxically,she is identicalyet inferior,because lacking
independent existence, she mirrorsthe autonomous male self.
FromPlatoto modernthinkerslike LawrenceKohlberg,28 woman
exists only as a reflectionof man.
Phallogocentrismrequiresthe repressionnot only of sexual dif-
ference but of culturaldifference as well. As a result, our legal
Leslie Wahl Rabine 19

ideologyconceivesequalityfor Afro-Americans and Latinosonly if


they mirror Anglo culture. Politicalideology cannot imaginethat
people of Third World nations could rejectthe "American way of
life" and choose to live according to their own definitions of
freedom and independence or even that Third World feminists
would choose to define feminism differentlyfrom and even in
conflictwith Anglo-Americanfeminism.Ideologythinksof equali-
ty only in terms of sameness. That women can be differentfrom
and still socially equal to men remains unsymbolizablewithin a
phallogocentricsymbolic order.

DECONSTRUCTINGMETAPHYSICALSTRUCTURE
Chodorow'sanalysisof gendercan offera path into one of the key
concepts of deconstruction-that of diff~rance. Because meta-
physical structureproduces thought, language,and all symbolic
activity, it cannot, accordingto Derrida,simply be transcended.
But one can continuouslyunderminebipolaroppositionsby ac-
tivatingthe play of what Derridahas named diffdrance invisiblyat
work in them.
Diff~ranceis not simply a synonym of "difference," althoughthis
word enters into its multiple meanings. A noun composed from
the French verb "diff~rer," which means both to differ and to
defer, diffprancemeans literallya "differing" in space and a "defer-
ring"in time. A word that hovers between a noun form and a verb
form,between a spatialand a temporalreference,it signifiesa pro-
ductive energyand force that producesand continuesto work in-
visibly within the apparentlystable and self-identicalentities at
each pole of an opposition.By this process, each apparentlyself-
identical entity differs from itself within itself and continuously
puts off, or defers, the plenitude of its self-presence.A further
elaborationof this concept can be clarified with reference to
Chodorow'stheory of gender development.
The masculineego structureemergesas a seeminglyunifieden-
tity, accordingto Chodorow,througha rejectionof internaland
external femininity. It emerges as the boy moves to secondary
identificationwith the fatherfrom primaryidentificationwith the
mother.But within the relationof primaryidentification,the little
boy has no consciousnessof self and other, so that neitheridenti-
ty, identificationwith an other, nor the feminine exists for him.
20 Leslie Wahl Rabine

Therefore,when he enters the stage of secondaryidentification


and represses the feminine, this feminine is different from the
feminine of the primaryidentification.The first is an immediate
bodily presencewith which he is fused;the second is an intellec-
tual construct. But-and this is where the concept of diff~rance
begins to come into play-it is only this second instance of the
femininethatbringsthe firstinstanceinto beingandgives it mean-
ing, becauseat the time of his fusion with the firstinstanceof the
feminine,it had neitherexistencenor meaningfor him. It gainsits
existencefor him retrospectively,by a temporalitywhich Derrida
calls, in other contexts, an "originaryrepetition."29 Thus, the
femininehe rejectsand repressesto formhis identityis neitherthe
feminine as immediate bodily presence nor the feminine as in-
tellectualconstructbut the difference,in space and in time, be-
tween them.
His masculinityis not a pure essence but originatesthroughthe
exclusionof this femininediffprance. Furthermore,the repression
of the femininethatfoundshis masculinityis not an isolatedevent
but an ongoing and continuousprocess. In other words, his ap-
parentlystable, self-identicalego rests not on a solid foundation
but on this unstableprocess.And, as JuliaKristevahas shown, this
processdoes periodicallystop, givingway not to stabilitybut to an
eruption of feminine diffprance,in the form of his own un-
conscious drives, into the ego, momentarilydissolvingits boun-
daries.30An apparentlystableentity, enclosedin solid boundaries,
the ego reallylives only as an alternationbetween (ora difference
between)the processof repressionand the eruptionof its other,its
not-self into itself. In other words, it exists as a seemingly self-
presententity only througha processthat in multipleways defers
its self-presence.Self-presencewould be the death of the self.
Not an essence with its own content,masculinitydependsfun-
damentallyon feminine difference. But what about femininity?
Again,implicitin Chodorow'stheory,one can find the notionthat
in our presentgender system, femininityis not an essence in op-
positionto masculinity.Feminineidentitystructuresitselfthrough
a later and incomplete repressionof primaryidentificationwith
the mother-in other words, througha more muted and diffuse
form of the masculineprocess that incorporatesa greateraccept-
ance of feminine diffjrance.Thus, masculinityand femininityare
not opposedessences but differencescreatedby spacingon a con-
Leslie Wahl Rabine 21

tinuum. Moreover, Chodorow shows that women repress less


their Oedipal"bisexualoscillation."1
All these ways of seeing diffpranceworking within gender op-
positioncould lead, if not to a deconstruction,at least to a rethink-
ing of the opposition between two feminist theories of gender.
One theory seeks the developmentand recognitionof a feminine
essence;the otherseeks to overcomegenderin favorof some kind
of androgyny.32Both of these positions rest theoreticallyon the
metaphysicalstructureof gender opposition,and both would be
changed by taking into account the idea that, in our present
gendersystem, masculineand feminineare alreadyproducedby a
more originarybisexuality.The "two"of sexualdifferenceactually
precedes the "one"of each gender.This theoreticalchange would
requirean analysisof how our gendersystem is structuredto hide
this diff~ranceat work within it and to present gender as a set of
opposed homogeneousentities, so that even Chodorowexplicitly
conceives of gender as a bipolar opposition to be resolved by
equality-as-sameness,even though her theory implicitly contra-
dicts this view.33
Implicitly,Chodorow'stheory complicatesthe notion of a mas-
culine essence opposedto a pure feminineessence in at leastthree
ways. First, both masculinityand femininityas entities or iden-
titiesareproducedby a moreoriginaryplay of masculine/feminine
differencewithin both men and women. Second,for both genders
within our gendersystem, genderidentitycontinuesto exist after
its productiononly because each gender partakesof the other
gender. Third, the two differentinterplaysbetween masculinity
and femininitythat produceeach genderare not opposedto each
other but asymmetricallydifferent.
These three elements of gender differencecorrespondto three
elements of diffprance in general.First,diff~rance,as an originary
duality that precedesany unity, is a productiveenergythat brings
into being any seeminglyunifiedentity and belies the illusionof a
unitaryorigin in the developmentalhistory of any phenomenon.
Diffirance, says Derrida, is not "derived from an original
plenitude."34 Thereis no first,originaryterm. Second,the termsof
a binary opposition are not, as Andrew Parker says, "fully
homogeneous,identicalto themselves in their antithesis."35 They
have no fixed content but gain their content from their diacritical
relation, in which each term exists only through what makes it dif-
22 Leslie Wahl Rabine

fer fromthe other.Third,diff~rance works not only between terms


but as a spacingwithin each element that sets it into movement
and makes it differ from itself. This spacing as "'productive,'
'genetic,''practical'movement"36 paradoxicallypreexiststhe struc-
ture and producesit.
Chodorow'sanalysis implies that our phallocentricgender sys-
tem makes woman, both as conceptand as a real person,into the
locus of the diffprancethat man excludes. For sociologicaland
historical reasons, the feminine self finds fulfillment in that
differance,in terms of her bisexuality,in termsof definingher self
by relationto an other,in termsof acceptinginto her ego structure
its process of production.And for ideologicalreasons,our gender
system presentsman, the first term of the opposition,as the uni-
versalhuman subject,outsideof gender,while woman appearsas
inherentlygendered,essentiallypart of the couple man/woman,
and markingthe differencefrom man.
This necessity of bearing difference which contributes to
woman'soppressionin the social world of patriarchybecomes an
advantagein the conceptualworld of deconstruction.Although
this theoreticalprivilegingof the feminine ends up appropriating
certainaspects of femininityisolatedfrom the subordinatesocial
situationof women, feministscan turn the tables. Deconstruction
is interested in "usingthe feminine force, so to speak"in the
"deconstruction of phallogocentrism"37 but generallyneglectstalk-
ing about that which goes along with being femininein our socie-
ty: vulnerabilityto male violence,powerlessness,and low pay and
status. But we too can incorporateinto feminist theory those
aspects of deconstructionwe find useful and leave the rest. This
selectivityis necessarybecause,even if we can deconstructgender
oppositionstheoretically,we must still live within structuresof
social and politicalopposition.
And so the question still remains, Can deconstructionhelp
feminists not only in deepening our critique of patriarchal
ideology but also in forgingstrategiesfor action?To explore this
question, I will turn from a focus on the concept of hierarchical
oppositionto the concept of the center that organizesstructure,
and from Nancy Chodorow'sbook to ZillahEisenstein'sessay. But
in orderto read a deconstructivepoliticalstrategythroughEisen-
stein's work, I need first to introduce it by a Marxist text to which,
although written after her essay, Eisenstein's essay could have
been a response.
Leslie Wahl Rabine 23

THE CENTEREDSTRUCTUREOF PERRY ANDERSON'S


MARXISM
Perry Anderson's In the Tracks of Historical Materialism demon-
strates certain areas of affinity between feminism and decon-
structionby its resistanceto both. His negative critiqueof post-
structuralismdoubly marginalizesfeminism. First, in a gesture
shared by other male theorists,38Anderson rigorouslyexcludes
feminism (andfeministauthors)from his examinationof the rela-
tion between Marxismand contemporarycriticaltheory. He then
mentions feminism in the conclusion and in a supplementary
within a list of topicsthatlie "largelyoutsidethe ambit
"Postscript,"
of socialist discussion proper,"and asks: "Couldthis struggle
against sexual dominationever provide the main impetus for a
wider human liberation?. .. The answer is plainly no." He con-
cludes that"onlythe modern'collectivelaborer,'the workers... of
any industrialsociety ... can furnishthe centralcontingentsof an
organizedarmy... ."The center,which organizesthe unity, totali-
ty, and solid closures not only of the working class but also of
Anderson'stheory-and his subjectivity-is what he seeks to pro-
tect from feminism:"Womendo not possess eitherthe same posi-
tional unity or totalized adversary .... Their forces are generally
more molecularand dispersed,the point of concentrationof their
effortas liableto be a particularpartneras a generalgender.There
is never any overallcentralizationof the structuresof women'sop-
pression:and this diffusionof it criticallyweakens the possibility
of unitaryinsurgenceagainstit."39
Anderson'sversionof Marxismis very differentfromthatfound
in poststructuralistwritingslike MichaelRyan'sMarxismand De-
construction:A CriticalArticulation40and from Zillah Eisenstein's
feministMarxism.A deconstructivecritiquewould have predicted
that Anderson'smarginalizingof feministstruggleas secondaryto
class struggleflows from the notion of working-classstructureas
having "centralcontingents"and a "totalizedadversary."The
elements of center, unity, and totality are precisely those that
organizeany structureinto hierarchicaloppositions-in this case,
class versus sex and "mainimpetus"versus supplementaryim-
petus. The center acts to organizethe structureinto "decidable
poles"and "independent,irreversibleterms."4'
To protectthe systematicityof Marxismfromthe feministthreat
to dissolve it, Anderson calls upon a self-present, fixed center to
24 Leslie Wahl Rabine

the social structureand makes feminisminto a supplement,mar-


ginalto both the social system he envisionsand the closed system
he sets up in his book. This oppositionbetween centerand supple-
ment can be deconstructedthroughthe concept of "supplemen-
tarity,"one of Derrida'smany variants of diff6rance.Taking his
definition from the authoritative DictionnaireLittrU,Derrida
defines the supplement as both an excess added to an already
existing plenitude and as something added to make up for
("supplier") a lack. In De la Grammatologie and elsewhere, he
analyzes the use of this contradictorymeaning in literatureand
philosophy. The centered structureseems an essential totality,
while the supplementseems exterior,an inessentialadditionbut
also a needed completionor replacementfor what is lackingin the
whole. Yet, accordingto Derrida,this irresolvablecontradiction
arises because in order to become a totalized,centered unity, a
structuremust projectinto an exterior"supplement" that which
would disturbits purity.Becauseits fictivetotalityis foundedon a
lack, and because its "supplement" is really interiorto it, supple-
ment is both a necessity and a threat to structure.Thus, just as
Anderson'smale Marxismprotects the identity of the working
class by ejectingoutside it a struggleagainstsexual domination,
which is also internal to it, the masculine ego analyzed by
Chodorowprotectsits identity by ejectingthe feminine to its ex-
teriorand oppressingit.
Derrida'snotionthat structurereallyworks as a networkof sup-
plements without center owes much to Ferdinandde Saussure's
theoryof languageas a system of signs, where each sign exists on-
ly in relationto all other signs: "Its[the sign's]content is really
determinedonly by the concurrenceof that which exists outside
of it."42 Each sign must refer to another in a network of diacritical
relations,in orderto expressmeaning.A sign'smeaningis never
wholly presentin itself.As anotherexample,the genderedsubject,
masculine or feminine, can only exist by incorporatingthe in-
terplay of the other gender. It is the interactionbetween sup-
plements that producesstructureand the effect of a center. Like
the feminine self analyzedby Chodorow,who needs a relation
with an other in orderto be a self, supplementarityis what Ryan
calls "thedifferentialrelationto an otherwhich is necessaryfor the
constitutionof a properthing or present moment."43
Socialistfeminists have respondedto their marginalizationby
Leslie Wahl Rabine 25

male Marxismby tryingto show the integraland essentialrole of


sexual oppressionand sexual strugglewithin this centeredstruc-
ture. But we could instead adopt a strategy, adapted from
deconstruction'snotion of the supplement, demonstratingthat
what Andersondecries as the lack of "centralization of the struc-
tures of women's oppression,"the "diffusion" of feminist oppres-
sion, and the impossibilityof "unitaryinsurgence"-in short, the
supplementarityof feminism- is actuallyits strengthin relationto
male Marxism.
This is what Eisenstein'sessay implicitlydoes. She does not say
that women'soppressionis centralto the social structure,but she
does show that it is precisely throughthis lack of unity, totality,
and centralizationthat feminismcould most deeply challengeand
threatenour social order. Eisenstein'sanalysis of social structure
from a woman'spoint of view dissolvesthe Marxistcategoriessep-
aratingcommodityproductionfrom domesticityand puttingcom-
modity productionat the center of capitalism.Because "women
are implicatedon both sides of these dichotomies,"the strugglefor
control over productionrefers both to industrialproductionand
the family,but the two could not be put into a hierarchicalopposi-
tion, "wheredichotomy wins out over complexity."44 In order to
gain freedom and control over privateand domestic life, women
would need to gain more controlover commodityproductionand
vice versa. The two strugglesare in a constantstate of exchange
and mutualramificationwith each other. Issues raisedin one area
of struggleconstantly refer to the other area. No single, central
struggleagainsta totalizedadversarycould by itself overturnthe
old orderand cause a dialecticaltransformationinto a new one.
Drawingout the implicationsof Eisenstein'sanalysisof feminine
struggle as layered, branched, without primary and secondary
contradictions,but also without a stable inside and outside, one
could also show that women must engagein a multitudeof strug-
gles that conflict with each other. On the one hand, women ally
with men in nationalliberation,union, or peace movements,but
within those movements they engagein feminist struggleswhere
their male allies are at the same time their enemies. On the other
hand, women of different races and nationalitiesally with each
otherin feministmovements,but at the same time engagein strug-
gles for racialjustice or nationalliberationwhere white feminists
or feministsfrom imperialistcountriescan be the enemy. Adver-
26 Leslie Wahl Rabine

saries are untotalizablenot only because they are diffused but


because an ally in struggleX can also representthe patriarchal,
racist,or imperialistpower in struggleY internalto or contiguous
with struggle X. In other words, as ally or adversary,any in-
dividualor groupis internallydifferent.This is becausethe social
order functions not as a unified structure centered around a
primarycontradictionbut as a tissue of interwovencontradictions,
each of which supplementsand contradictsthe others.Feminism,
as a self-identical,unified entity, does not exist, nor does any
feminist exist as a self-identicalindividual.

FEMINISTSTRATEGY
Drawingon deconstructionfor feministstrategy,however, would
require,I think, modifyingit quite a bit. In order to undermine
metaphysicsand bringinto play diffirance,Derridaand other de-
constructionistsengagein a strategyguidedby "indeterminacy" or
"undecidability." This strategy of textual reading and writing
evades the "metaphysical natureof takinga yes-or-noposition,"by
writingitself into an "abyss"where "substitutiongames are multi-
plied ad But
infinitum."45 the women's movementhas no choice but
to take yes-or-nopositionson specific issues and to communicate
them as unambiguouslyas possible.Yet we couldadaptto the tak-
ing of those positions a modified version of deconstructive
strategy.
Once again, this version can already be found implicit in ex-
isting feminist texts. In reading Minnie Bruce Pratt's"Identity:
Skin, Blood, Heart,"in Yoursin Struggle:ThreeFeministPerspectives
on Anti-Semitismand Racism,46Biddy Martin and Chandra Talpade
Mohantyfind a feminism"withoutclaimto wholeness or finality."
But, the writers point out, instead of "aninsistence on 'indeter-
minacy' which . . . denies the critic's own situatedness in the
social,"Prattadoptsa narrativethat "forcesher to reanchorherself
repeatedlyin each of the positionsfromwhich she speaks,even as
she works to expose the illusory coherence of those positions."47
Althoughit is necessaryfor feministsto take positions,every posi-
tion can be analyzed as lacking a full truth or a fully correct
politics.
Over the past several years we have debated positions on many
Leslie Wahl Rabine 27

issues, so that they now fall into familiarpatternsof opposition.


Should women celebrate a marginaldiscourse, a woman's lan-
guage, or should we take over the existinglanguageand make it
express our own experience?Should women become adept at
playingthe male politicalgame in the dominantpoliticalarena,or
shouldwe build our own specificallyfeminineculture?Shouldwe
form separate women's studies departments or feminize the
generalcurriculum?Shouldfeminist intellectualsclaim our place
within the humanisttradition,or should we adoptpoststructural-
ist critiquesof humanism?
The list of examples could go on indefinitely,but they tend to
fall into the general oppositionof integrationversus separatism,
which itself rests on the oppositioninside/outside,an opposition
which both Chodorow'sanalysis of gendered subjectivity and
Eisenstein'sanalysisof sexual struggleimplicitlybut radicallycall
into question. Over the past several years, feministshave found,
when we have attemptedto put these positionsinto practice,that
each one is somehow unsatisfactoryand incomplete.Yet no syn-
thesis between the positions can form a complete and total
answer, because they also exclude and threateneach other. Even
together,they lack a complete solution, a totally accuraterepre-
sentation of the political situation, not because we haven't for-
mulatedthe rightpositionbut becausethe natureof the sociopoli-
tical order as an interwoven tissue of conjoiningand conflicting
contradictions,as a tissue of supplementarityand differance,can-
not be representedby stable positions.
If, as Chodorowhas shown, the feminine self has no unified
identity, then neither do feminist positions. Followingthe model
set up by Pratt, a feminist strategycould think the relationbe-
tween these positions, not in terms of a stable oppositionbut in
terms of an oscillationbetween several positions, in which the
necessity of adoptinga positionin a given situationwould include
simultaneouslycallingit into question.
Accordingto a deconstructivecritique,every positionthat con-
tests or challenges our sociosymbolic order must do so incom-
pletely because it must be formulatedin the very languageand
logic of the orderit wishes to overturn.Derridahas said that "we
have no language-no syntax and no lexicon which is foreignto
this history [of metaphysics];we can pronounce not a single
destructivepropositionwhich has not alreadyhad to slip into the
28 Leslie Wahl Rabine

form, the logic, and the implicit postulationsof preciselywhat it


seeks to contest."Yet on the other hand, "wecannot give up this
metaphysicalcomplicitywithoutalso givingup the critiquewe are
directingagainstthis complicity."48
This paradoxapplies to feminists perhapseven more than to a
deconstructivephilosopher,because we must not only write but
also act within the metaphysicallogic of patriarchyin orderto dis-
mantle it. Effectiveactionfor social changerequires,for example,
claimingto oppose lies with truthin politicalsituations.It also re-
quirescomplicitywith the very patriarchalstructuresthatmust be
dismantledfor equalityto be even possible.Womenhave to be ac-
tive in electoralcampaigns,politicalparties,legislativebodies,and
universities.But without adaptinga deconstructivestrategyto the
task of calling into question these activitieseven as we perform
them, the very activitiesnecessaryfor equalrightsare guaranteed,
in spite of immediate,specificvictories,to plunge women deeper
in structuresof inequality.
But, by the same token, a wholehearted,unquestioningadher-
ence to deconstructioncan have the same harmful effect. If
feminists have an undecidablerelationto every position,if every
male philosophyhas a contradictoryrelationto feminism,then de-
constructionis no exception.Justas the poststructuralistconcepts
"woman"and "thefeminine"oscillate between empoweringreal
women and excludingthem even furtherby substitutinga male-
defined concept for them, strategies based on diffdranceand
supplementaritycan both help and hinderfeminism.If the meta-
physical oppositionsand the imposing of a single phallocentric
truth can be oppressive,the bringinginto play of bottomlessde-
constructivestrategiescan in certainsituationsbe equallyso. The
deconstructionof metaphysicaloppositionsalways takes place in
a context of social hierarchywhere speakerand listener, writer
and reader,are placedin power relationswith each other,no mat-
ter what the content of the text. Whetherthis play is progressive
depends on who does it to whom, what is its historicor institu-
tional context, and who makes the rules.
Leslie Wahl Rabine 29

NOTES

1. Nancy Chodorow, The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of


Gender (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978).
2. Zillah Eisenstein, "Developing a Theory of Capitalist Patriarchy and Socialist
Feminism," in Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism, ed. Zillah Eisen-
stein (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1979).
3. For a more detailed analysis, see Cary Nelson, "Men, Feminism: The Materiality of
Discourse," in Men in Feminism, ed. Alice Jardine and Paul Smith (New York: Methuen,
1987), 168. For analyses of feminism's ambivalent relation to deconstruction, see Alice
Jardine, Gynesis: Configurationsof Woman in Modernity (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1985); Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, "Displacement and the Discourse of Woman," in
Displacement: Derrida and After, ed. Mark Krupnick (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1983), 169-96; and "Love Me, Love My Ombre, Elle,"Diacritics 14 (Winter 1984):
19-36.
4. The hope that feminism can be fertile for male theory is viewed pessimistically by
feminists who have studied male writings on the subject. See Jane Gallop's comments
on Jean Baudrillard's work in "French Theory and the Seduction of Feminism," esp. p.
115: "Itis usually felt that [French theory] has much or all to teach us about [feminism],
whereas [feminism] has little or nothing to teach us about [French theory]" (brackets in
original); and Elaine Showalter's reply to Terry Eagleton in "Elaine Showalter Replies,"
15, both in Men in Feminism.
5. Jacques Derrida, "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences,"
in Writingand Difference, trans. Alan Bass (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978),
278-94. Derrida has consistently associated himself with the French Left, and de-
construction has in general been seen as a subversive strategy.
6. See Claude Levi-Strauss, The ElementaryStructures of Kinship, trans. Harle Bell, John
Richard von Sturmer, and Rodney Needham (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969), and Struc-
tural Anthropology, trans. Claire Jacobson and Brooke Grundfest Schoepf (New York:
Basic Books, 1963); and Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, trans.
Wade Baskin (New York: Philosophical Library, 1956).
7. Derrida, "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences," 282.
8. Louis Althusser, For Marx, trans. Ben Brewster (New York: Pantheon Press, 1969);
Louis Althusser and Etienne Balibar, Reading Capital, trans. Ben Brewster (London: Ver-
so, 1979); Roland Barthes, The Pleasure of the Text, trans. Richard Miller (New York: Hill
& Wang, 1975), and S/Z, trans. Richard Miller (New York: Hill & Wang, 1974); Julia
Kristeva, Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art, trans. Thomas
Gora, Alice Jardine, and Leon S. Roudiez (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980),
and Revolution in Poetic Language, trans. Margaret Waller (New York: Columbia Univer-
sity Press, 1984); Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans.
Alan Sheridan (New York: Pantheon Press, 1977), and Madness and Civilization: A
History of Insanity in the Age of Reason, trans. Richard Howard (New York: Pantheon
Press, 1965); and Jacques Lacan, Ecrits: A Selection, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York:
Norton, 1977).
9. Luce Irigaray, Speculum of the Other Woman, trans. Gillian C. Gill (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1985); Julia Kristeva, About Chinese Women, trans. Anita Barrows
(New York: Urizen Books, 1977). For the influence of poststructuralism on feminist
criticism in French studies in the United States, see Naomi Schor, Breaking the Chain:
Women, Theory, and French Realist Fiction (New York: Columbia University Press,
1985), ix-x.
10. Derrida, "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences," 278,
280.
30 Leslie Wahl Rabine

11. H616ne Cixous, "The Laugh of the Medusa," in New French Feminisms, ed. Elaine
Marks and Isabelle de Courtivron (New York: Schocken, 1981), 345-64, and The Young
First-Born (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986); Irigaray; Sarah Kofman, The Enigma
of Woman (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985); and Kristeva, About Chinese Women.
12. Jane Gallop, The Daughter's Seduction: Feminism and Psychoanalysis (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1982), and Reading Lacan (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985).
13. Jacques Derrida, Positions, trans. Alan Bass (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1981), 25.
14. For discussions of similar issues in feminism, see Naomi Schor, "Dreaming Dissym-
metry: Barthes, Foucault, and Sexual Difference" (110); and Alice Jardine and Paul
Smith, "A Conversation" (250-51), both in Men in Feminism.
15. Jacques Derrida, De la Grammatologie (Paris: Minuit, 1967), 71.
16. Jacques Derrida, "Le Facteur de la Verit6," in The Post Card, trans. Alan Bass
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 473.
17. Derrida, De la Grammatologie, 64, 65-66.
18. See Adrienne Rich, Of Woman Born: Motherhood As Experience and Institution (New
York: Norton, 1976), 70-97; and Merlin Stone, When God Was a Woman (New York:
Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich, 1978).
19. Jacques Derrida, "The Double Session," in Dissemination, trans. Barbara Johnson
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 173-286, Glas, trans. John P. Levi, Jr. and
Richard Rand (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press), and Spurs: Nietzsche's Styles/
Eperons: Les styles de Nietzsche, trans. Barbara Harlow (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1979).
20. Sarah Kofman, Lectures de Derrida (Paris: Galil6e, 1984), 69, 26 (my translation).
21. See Cixous, "Laugh of the Medusa."
22. Chodorow, 7.
23. Ibid., 169, 93.
24. Ibid., 165, 181.
25. Lacanian psychoanalysis is, I think, of greater interest and use to feminist theory
than Derridean deconstruction, and, not surprisingly, feminists have a much more in-
tense relation of ambivalence and outrage to this theory.
26. Derrida, "Freud and the Scene of Writing," in Writing and Difference, 197.
27. Kofman, Lectures de Derrida, 19.
28. The psychological theories of Lawrence Kohlberg assume in this context a
paradigmatic position because of Carol Gilligan's critique, based on Nancy Chodorow's
work, of his fundamental male bias. See Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice:
Psychological Theory and Women'sDevelopment (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1982), 1-23.
29. Derrida, "Freud and the Scene of Writing," in Writing and Difference, 197.
30. Julia Kristeva, The Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection, trans. Leon S. Roudiez
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 1-16, and Revolution in Poetic Language.
31. Chodorow, 168. Sarah Kofman elaborates a psychoanalytic theory of women's
bisexuality in Enigma of Woman.
32. For a discussion of these theories of gender, see Alice Echols, "The New Feminism
of Yin and Yang," in Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality, ed. Ann Snitow, Christine
Stansell, and Sharon Thompson (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1983), 439-59.
33. See Judy Houseman, "Mothering, the Unconscious, and Feminism," Radical
America 16 (November-December 1982): 47-62.
34. Derrida, "Freud and the Scene of Writing," 203.
35. Andrew Parker, "Futures for Marxism: An Appreciation of Althusser," Diacritics 15
(Winter 1985): 63-64.
36. Derrida, Positions, 94.
37. Derrida, "Women in the Beehive: A Seminar," in Men and Feminism, 194.
Leslie
Leslie Rabine
WahlWahl Rabi ne 31
31

38. Tania Modleski analyzes this practice whereby "man'man thus once again achieves
universality at the expense of women," in her critique of Jonathan Culler, On
Deconstruction:TheoryandCriticismafterStructuralism (Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,
'Feminismand the Power of Interpretation:Some Critical
1982). See Tania Modleski, "Feminism
Readings,"in FeministStudies/CriticalStudies,ed. Teresa de Lauretis(Bloomington:In-
Studies/Critical
diana University Press, 1981), 121-38.
39. PerryAnderson,In the TracksofHistoricalMaterialism(London:Verso, 1983), 104,
91, 92-93, 92.
40. MichaelRyan,MarxismandDeconstruction: A CriticalArticulation(Baltimore:Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1984).
"TheDouble Session,"210.
41. Derrida,"The
42. Ferdinandde Saussure,Coursde linguistiquegin6rale
geindrale(Paris:Payot, 1969), 160 (my
translation).
43. Ryan, 66.
19. Fora more recent socialistfeministcritiqueof the Marxisttheory
44. Eisenstein,6, 19.
'Feminism and Marx: Integrating with the
of production, see Linda Nicholson, "Feminism
Economic,"in Feminismas Critique,ed. Drucilla Cornell and Seyla Benhabib (Min-
neapolis: University of MinnesotaPress, 1987), 16-30.
45. Derrida,Positions,104, "Double
'Double Session"265, 268.
46. Elly Bulkin, Minnie Bruce Pratt, and BarbaraSmith, Yoursin Struggle:Three
FeministPerspectiveson Anti-Semitism and Racism(New York:Long Haul Press, 1984).
47. BiddyMartinand ChandraTalpadeMohanty,"Feminist'FeministPolitics:What'sHome Got
to Do with It?"in FeministStudies/CriticalStudies,194.
Studies/Critical
48. Derrida, "Structure,Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences,
Sciences,"
280-281.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai