Feminism, Phenomenology and EmbodimentAs one might expect, feminist
scholars have found much to disagree with in Merleau-Ponty's and other
phenomenologists' accounts of embodied existence, finding them patriarchal
in their universalisation of forms of male embodiedness. Good examples
would be Judith Butler's consideration of Merleau-Ponty's 'The Body In
Its Sexual Being'
A reader of Samuel Beckett, or any other documenter of inhibited transcendence (which is to say anyone at all who has ever managed to say anything intelligible about any kind of bodily experience) will be able to recognise and acknowledge this feminine experience. It is not that these experiences are not marked as feminine, or not experienced by women in particularly self-recognising ways; it is that they are never simply, and once-and-for-all lived that way. Saying so has made a difference, outdated it. And this is not because Iris Marion Young is in the business of writing critique, which is meant to be a way of making a difference by its way of describing or saying so, though she is. It is because everything makes a difference, to everything (not the same kind of difference, and not, obviously, the same amount of difference, but different sorts and amounts of difference, depending). The woman shivering on the touchline (like the young Stephen Dedalus at the beginning of A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, as it happens) is no longer the same woman as soon as she grasps herself as such - in writing, reminiscence, conversation or philosophical reflection, or even when another - a curious man, say, is induced to grasp her situation. Her situatedness is then situated; her ambiguous transcendence is transcended (ambiguously and incompletely, of course, that is the point, or one of the points), her inhibited intentionality becomes intentionalised, her discontinuous unity with her surroundings is disclosed as a kind of whole (a temporary whole to be sure, because that is the only kind there is). Merleau-Ponty's self-characterisation was already open to Young's supplementation of it, as it would have had to be in order for there to be anything right about it at all. Of course, other attitudes towards Merleau-Pontyan phenomenology are perfectly possible. It would be possible for Merleau-Ponty to seem so completely wrong - for his language and the form of bodily comportment it involved to be so utterly alien or unsatisfactory - that there were nothing retrievable from it, and nothing interesting about it at all. This probably describes the situation in many quarters at the present moment. But in that case his work is not rendered defunct, so much as completely untouchable, by critique or anything else.
|
| Steve Connor | English and Humanities | Birkbeck College |