Welcome to this lecture series in Aspects
of Western Philosophy; this is the 40th lecture.
The pervious lecture was on postmodern approaches
and we seen some of the major
feature of postmodernism, and this lecture
we focus on 3 important movements, and they
are deconstruction, feminism and discourse
theory.
They are not philosophical schools;
that is the reason why I prefer to call them
approaches.
They are part of the broader
larger postmodern movement, because it was
this postmodern it depends that made this
approaches possible.
And they are very different in nature.
So, let us discuss by one by
one, Deconstruction.
So, before that these are the sources and
references on the base of which this lecture
is
prepared.
Deconstruction as I already mention is a postmodern
approach, and this is what one of
the major founders, or one of the major propounds
of postmodernism, Jacques Derrida
says about postmodernism.
It is not a method, but activity of reading,
an activity of
reading text, an activity of interpreting,
an activity of understanding to extend the
scope
of the notion of reading.
So, Derrida himself says that it is not a
method, but an activity of reading.
And it is
associated with certain techniques for reading
texts developed by Jacques Derrida Paul
de man and many others.
And we still see it is a major trident philosophy
in literature
and in art criticism.
And it refers to certain new strategies for
interpreting literary texts
particularly in dominie of literature, this
very influential movement.
Rather it is being
adopted as a method, though Derrida himself
says that it is not a method, rather it is
an
activity of reading text, but many literate
critics have adopted it as a method
interestingly.
And it is a poststructuralist approach: advocates
certain very radical
positions regarding language and meaning.
So, in one sense to understand deconstruction,
we have to understand what is
structuralism.
We already very briefly mentioned what structuralism
is in some of our
previous lectures.
So, because structuralism as got a very definite
philosophical position,
and poststructuralist approaches rather oppose
these fixed, these definite assumption of
structuralism and deconstruction is one of
them.
And in this course, deconstruction
advocates or rather it approach to certain
very radical position regarding language and
meaning.
We do not have to time to discuss all this
thinks in detail, the purposes of this
lecture is give a very brief outline of what
deconstruction is, what feminism is, some
of
the very fundamental assumption and approaches
of this methods or this orientation.
Now, when we talk about the poststructuralist
approach, it agrees with structuralism to
a
very great extent that human subjects are
culturally constructed, which is against some
of
the previous metaphysical assumptions that
prevailed in western philosophy, where
reality is largely conceived as something
which is existence, something which is
independent of human mind or human reality
or human culture and society or human
cognition and human language by an large.
So, in one sense structuralism opposes these
assumptions, and in that way post
structuralism also agrees with structuralists
assumptions about reality.
Structuralism
believes that reality and human subjects are
to a very great extent culturally constructed
and it, but at same time post structuralism
challenges as I already mention certain very
important assumption of structuralism, and
structuralism says that structure of meaning
are stable, universal, or ahistorical.
So, this again very important aspect of post
structuralism, because structuralism advocates
approached to view that, meaning is
stable, the meaning is constant, and it universal,
ahistorical.
But poststructuralist
approaches try to oppose this challenge, these
fundamental assumptions of structuralism.
And it opposes similar views advocated by
phenomenology and psychoanalysis.
We already seen phenomenology a bit in detail
in one of the previous lectures,
phenomenology of Husserl particularly Edmund
Husserl of German philosopher, what he
tries do is to arrive it some of the immediately
given data to consciousness.
And the most
important slogan of phenomenology is back
to things themselves, which is assumed that
there are certain things which are in themselves,
which exists as themselves, which are
directly given to the human conciseness.
When the human conciseness accesses them,
so
something is data which is directly given
to the conciseness is the subject matter of
phenomenology.
So, which as assume that there are certain
fundamental data, which can be called as
essences, which are directly given to conciseness.
And this data this fundamental data,
this immediate data which are given to conciseness
are pure.
They are they can be found
in the conciseness, this is the basic assumption
of phenomenology.
And poststructuralist
approaches oppose such a view, again in psychoanalysis,
when you come to psycho
analysis to the find in psycho analysis assumes
that, there is one fundamental meaning
that lies in the subconscious mind, which
can be understood through analysis.
So, there is specific method which is adopted
by the psycho analysts.
By means of which
a specific method of interpretation, they
adopt by means of which they reach this data
this fundamental data, which lie in the subconscious
mind, and which they considered
constitute the most important meanings to
be understood.
So, in phenomenology also
there is a method, because Husserl propagates
he advocate some method the
phenomenology method of bracketing.
By means of which reach the essences and
finally, you reach that consciousness, the
pure consciousness.
Similarly psycho analysis
also adopts a method the method of analysis,
by means of which the fundamental data
can be captured.
So, they all believe that there is a set of
pure data, which is available for the
phenomenologist consciousness, and for the
psycho analyst’s conscious mind.
And
poststructuralist approaches oppose idea of
a stable reality, and the very concept of
a
method to reach this reality, which is advocated
by phenomenology and psychoanalysis
and many other philosophical assumptions.
So, now when we talk about the philosophical
basis of de deconstruction, we eventually
reach the phenomenal influence of this great
German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.
Nietzsche’s criticism of the idea of absolute
knowledge, we have already discussed
Nietzsche’s philosophy and it is contribution
in one of the previous lecture.
So, I am not
elaborating of this, but we Nietzsche as categorically
opposed the idea of the very
possibility of absolute knowledge.
Because absolute knowledge pre oppose concept
of
truth, at concept of universal truth, and
nature as a very interesting view about truth,
he
says that truth does not exists the absolute
truth does not exists.
Language he says is
arbitrary and truth is a mobile army of metaphors,
metonyms, anthropomorphism in short
a sum of human relations, which have been
subjected to poetic and rhetorical,
intensification, translation and decoration.
So, there is nothing called universal truth
with a capital T, as that traditional
metaphysical tradition of western philosophy
has been advocating.
So, once such a
concept of truth is destabilised or over through
then what remains?
What remains to be
found out?
There is nothing that remains to be found
out by means of adopting a definite
method, whether it is reality, social reality
or anything for that matter.
Even in a text the
concept of truth is destabilized by Nietzsche’s
philosophy and that has been a
phenomenal influence on deconstruction.
Another very important and very significant
influence comes from this great German
another great German philosopher martin Heidegger,
he says that the idea of ontological
difference.
So, Heidegger philosophy, particularly his
philosophy as it is advocated in
being and time, which works on the basis of
rather around the
notion of being with capital B.
So, he says that, there is the basic distinction
between being and beings of entities.
So,
this is called the under logical difference,
the fundamental under logical difference
between being, and the being of entities.
This is concept which is so central to
Heidegger’s early philosophy.
And being and the structure of being lie beyond
every
entity and every feature of an entity that
there can possibly be.
So, we can never known
this being, this is and in connection with
this concept Heidegger as gone back to the
Greek tradition and developed in notion of
althea or un concealment, being is
unconcealed to the being of man, but each
movement of un concealment is different,
each movement of un concealment is unique.
So, there is nothing called an objective absolute
truth, where a complete concealment of
being happens to one individual entity.
All this philosophical insides of created
a very
interesting and very important intellectual
atmosphere in European philosophy.
So,
another very important influence is Heidegger
and many others, and what you mean by
deconstructing.
So, here Nancy Holland says in this context,
I quote - To deconstruct is to take a text
apart along the structural “fault lines”
created by the ambiguities inherent in one
or more
of it is key concepts or themes, in order
to reveal the equivocations or contradictions
that
make the text possible.
So, this is the very interesting aspect of
deconstruction.
So, our
traditional understanding of our traditional
way which we understand a text; A text is
given, let us take a poem or any text for
that matter.
Let us take the epic Ramayana, there is the
story which talks about Rama, in which
Valmiki says that Rama is the embodiment of
dharma, he is the embodiment
righteousness, and the whole story tells about
how Rama has to go to the forest and
finally, Seetha was abducted by Ravana, and
then there was a war followed by which
Rama kills by Ravana, takes brings back Seetha
and lot of incidences happens in this
epic in which Rama is being protect as a central
character, the book itself is called the
Kavya itself is called Ramayana it is the
story of Rama.
So, there is a central meaning which is communicated
through this text, and Ramayana is
also a religious text it is not only a poetic
work in India, it is also religious a text
for
many Hindus.
But, the common meaning which is communicated
which has been handed
down for generation by this text has been
questioned or can be questioned by different
possible other readings.
So, Ramayana can be read in different ways,
the same Ramayana can be read in different
ways, which there can be a famines reading
of Ramayana, you can read Ramayana by
emphasising the character of Seetha, whether
Rama as done justices to Seetha.
All kind
of question can be interesting questions can
be raised, once you considered Ramayana as
a text, not as the religious book academically.
So, this possibility of different readings,
what makes a text?
What makes that you know
a text is can be read?
Same text can be read in different ways?
So, this is a very
interesting phenomena, and this is phenomenon
is being analyzed by this philosopher,
and the deconstruction would say that the
very possibility of different readings is
already
inherent in the text, that is because the
text which is composed in a language, language
itself contains that possibility of different
readings, there are multiple layers of meaning.
Language as the ability to hold in it multiple
layers of meaning and often some of these
layers are hidden.
So, we have to actually bring this meaning
out.
So, the whole effort of
the deconstruction is to bring out such meanings
which are not apparel present.
Now here
it opposes structuralism, phenomenology and
psycho analysis we already explain this.
Now, at again structuralism gives priority
to universal structures that subsume both
the
individual and the society and believed that
we can thus transcend the conflict between
the individual and society.
So they In fact, emphasise on commonalities
the universal
features, deconstruction criticizes the idealistic
overtone of structuralism, which believes
in the common universal structures.
So, there are no such common universal structures,
but there are various different structures,
there are different structures.
So, the idea of
difference, which actually is being derived
from the concept of ontological difference
as
discussed in Heidegger’s work which we have
already mentioned.
So, again what Cantor
says, deconstruction is a radical variant
of structuralism a culturally and, to some
extent,
politically left-wing offshoot of structuralism
will see the implication of this later.
Now, let us see some of the fundamental ideas
of structuralism.
The texts, institutions,
traditions, societies, beliefs, and practices
do not have unambiguously definite meanings,
as they do not have very strict and rigid
boundaries.
This is what precisely I mentioned.
I
took the example of Ramayana, text, institution,
traditions, society’s, beliefs and
practices.
So, we can actually put into question, when
we try to understand these
phenomena, whether it is have certain social
practices that excises in our society.
We
have already seen that in our political development
of question, criticised and challenged
certain practises like Sati, untouchability
etcetera.
The again institution, and traditions, all
this can be considered as phenomena that can
be
understood, that can be questioned, that can
be challenged, and that can be read in
different ways.
So, because they do not have unambiguously
definite meanings; again
there is nothing outside or beyond the text.
So, that there is the plat form outside the
text
where you can locate the meaning.
For example, when you talk about the text,
when you
talk about Ramayana since I have already mentioned
that example, the author of
Ramayana Valmiki, there is the immediate tendency
to associate the meaning of the text
with the author’s intention, which is the
problem in hermeneutics.
So, here again the deconstruction is would
question that.
They would say that there is
nothing beyond the text; we do not have to
search for the author’s intentional life
that
lies outside the text in order to locate the
meaning of text.
So, the text the meaning of the
text has to be found within the text itself.
And text, every text since it is linguistic
entity
it will deconstructs itself, because it contains
multiple layers of meaning, often some of
this meaning contradict with each other.
So, naturally there is tendency to deconstruct
itself, there is no one canonical signification
to text, there are several simultaneous layers
of meaning which have already mentioned, there
are infinite meanings in the text.
So,
there is no one single universal objective
meaning.
Now, when we talk about text meaning and analysis,
again we come across the notion of
meaning which is so central for deconstruction,
the idea of conceptual opposition.
What
is it the essential oppositional and conflictual
nature of language.
So, since every text
every institution, every phenomenon to be
understood is found in language.
Language is
the fundamental structure to be understood,
but then again language there is an essential
opposition and confliction language.
Every language has that feature the nature
of
language is said that it conceals meaning,
because there are multiple layers meaning.
For
a person who is trying to approach the text
can read out only finites number of meaning,
base on the contexts from which that text
is read.
There are infinite meanings in the text,
and the necessity of an interminable analysis.
We will discuss this is very interesting concept,
because deconstruction does not believe
that the analysis of the text will ends somewhere
by locating the real meaning of the text,
like psycho analysis for example, the psycho
analytic process ends somewhere, where
the real meanings are located within the unconscious
mind of the person, but here there
is nothing called the real meaning, or universal
objective meaning.
So, analysis as to
continue, it has needs to be in terminable,
look for differences oppositions and conflicts,
not for something which is universally accommodating
in everything.
Now, between writing and speech, there are
certain conceptual opposition.
Derrida talks
about certain conceptual opposition, the fundamental
one is between writing and speech.
The deconstructor looks for the ways in which
one term in the opposition has been
“privileged” over other in a particular
text, argument, historical tradition or social
practice.
So, this is what I said.
In the reading of the text, what happens is
that, there is a
privileged to meaning which always surfaces,
which always try influence us when we
approach the text.
The example which I sited is Ramayana, you
can take any text for that
matter, there is a privileged set of meanings
or argument, historical tradition or social
practice.
So, deconstruction as to be aware of this
privilege meaning, one term may be privileged
because it is considered the general, normal,
central case and this assumption as to be
questioned by the deconstructor.
Because it is considered more true, more valuable,
more
important, or more universal than it is opposite.
So, what bases?
What is criteria on the
base of which you consider one term or one
way or set of meaning as more valuable and
more important or universal or central.
So, there are certain ways in which, they
are
certain reasons for which set of a particular
word or particular set of meaning is treated
as privilege.
Since things can have more than one opposite,
many different types of privilegings can
occur simultaneously.
So, this actually brings of, this possibility
actually shows up the
contradictions involved in the text, the conflicts
that the text may contain within itself.
So, the deconstruction should be aware of
and sensitive to such conflates, which the
text
itself shows up.
And it is in this context the concept of interminable
analysis is propose, because there are
infinite meanings, the apparent coherence
needs to be deconstructed, every text
deconstructs itself owing to it is intrinsic
oppositions, because there is no one single
meaning or one set of meanings, which constitute
the very central essence of the text, but
there are several opposite contradictory conflicting
meaning.
And this makes the text an
entity, which has intrinsic oppositions.
Rejects the idea of extra textuality, we access
the
text always from a context.
So, the context is very important.
The specific definite context extremely important
the
text again the Derrida says the text is a
deferential network, a fabric of traces, referring
endlessly to something other than itself to
other deferential traces.
Now in this context it
should be very interesting to see deconstruction
and as an ideological critic.
So, it is in
this sense the beginning of this lecture,
mention that it is a of soured
of post structuralism.
So, it can be treated as an ideological critic,
where the privileged is opposed, but the
privileged is rather being question and criticise.
Ideologies often privilege certain feature
of social life and deemphasize other features.
So, this happens in every society, in every
ideology, certain features of social life
are emphasized.
Particularly in most of our
societies were once upon a time religious
societies, or religion was dominant narrative.
So, in religious form of life, certain feature
of life is highlighted considered most
important than others.
Analyse what is deemphasized.
So, deconstruction says that we
have to analyse, what is deemphasized?
What is overlooked or what is suppressed in
a
particular way of thinking or in a particular
set of legal doctrines?
So something which is
marginalised.
So we are to other really looking into the
margins.
So, this possible reading
different form of readings of the text, different
kinds of reading of the text actually opens
up a lot of possibilities for the deconstructor.
How suppressed or marginalized principles
return in new guises.
And let us see in this context, since we do
not have time I will try to wind up my
discussion on deconstruction here with highlighting
certain important aspects.
The
impact of deconstruction of course, we all
know that deconstruction has become one of
the most dominant trends in literary criticism,
the ways in which text are read by in
different ways by different critics.
It demolishes the traditional conceptions
of textual
meaning, where textual meaning is concerned
as secrete universal platform in which
utilise a historical platform in which it
is situated.
So, deconstruction demolishes such ideas,
and it brings out the internal conflicts in
language and text that creates ruptures in
it is surface meaning.
So, deconstruction would
remind you that the apparent surface meaning
of the text, if you read it closely if you
adopt deconstructions approaches, it will
start exposing the ruptures created by the
internal conflict of language and text.
And it asserts that there is no single meaning
of the
text, along with the immediate message a text
gives out on it is surface, it also projects
conflicts, which bring out the immanent gaps
in the text.
So, this very interesting aspect
there are certain gaps, there are certain
immanent gaps in the text because of the
conflictual nature of language.
And deconstructor has to capture those gaps,
he has to
magnify those gaps or rather he has to be
sensitive to those gaps.
The internal conflicts
create immanent gaps the text hence we cannot
fix the meaning.
Analysis should focus
these gaps which can be found in the margins
of the text.
So, this is what I said earlier, we have to
actually look at the marginalized meanings.
So,
analysis should aim at this aspect, rather
than trying to see the fundamental, essential,
common and universal.
Analysis should aim at understanding the gaps,
the ruptures, the
conflicts.
Withdraw gaze from what appear to be the most
important central or crucial,
instead focus the secondary, eccentric, lateral,
marginal, parasitic, bounder line cases.
So,
these are emphasised by the deconstructionist
analysis.
So, instead of the most important
and central meaning which can be treated as
the essence, or which traditional
philosophical system treated as the essence,
we have to look for marginalized, which is
parasitic, which lies at border line.
Now with this we will wind up our discussion
on deconstruction.
And we can see that at
this is defiantly an off shoot of or rather
constitute one of the very important movements,
one of the very important approaches a within
the postmodern strain.
Now let us talk
about another one feminism.
Feminism again we can treat feminism, we can
when you
try to understand feminism interestingly,
it is also kind of understanding the world.
It
also an approach by means of which you understand
the world, by means of which you
read a text, by means which you understand
yourself.
So, in that sense it is not just social
or a political movement.
It suggests a way of being for all of us.
So, in that is sense
feminism is a very significant 20th century
and 21st century movement.
What is feminism?
So, at the very out site it is very difficult
to define this postmodern
approaches, to give precise definition to
them, but let us try to understand them by
situating them in certain context.
So, when we try to understand, what feminism
is, we
can see that it is a form of resistance against
patriarchal domination, I do not think any
feminist would oppose this characterisation
of feminism.
Because feminism all form of
feminism for that matter is categorically
against all forms patriarchal domination.
The
patriarchal social system, which has created
a series of domination in our society; the
struggle to end sexist oppressions there is
a definite approach, which aims at ending
all
forms of sexist oppression in society, various
walks of society, it is a political movement
an idea or ideology, an approach to life and
to raise questions of equality and justice
all
these are again you know try to see it has
a political movement.
They criticize the
patriarchal social order we are already mentioned.
Questioning the ways in which this social
order has fixed identities.
This very interesting
because every society has rather one way in
which the patriarchal social order operates
is
through the establishment of certain institutions.
Institutions like for example, one of the
strongest institution is the institution of
family.
And most of the societies have their
slightly different of course, but differ their
conception of family.
Marriage, family
relationship, etcetera what happens here is
that, along with the creation of an institution
called family, here also creating certain
identities, certain very strong identities
for
example, husband and wife.
So, and this is so fundamental for the institution
of family, they have certain rules, the
identity of the husband and the identity of
a wife we are quite fixed.
If we come to the
traditional Indian setting, even which is
even today very relevant, which is prevailing
even today in many places the husband and
wife have certain definite duties, and in
patriarchal order the husband the kind of
freedom the husband enjoys, the man enjoys
is
not dare for the women.
So, these are very interesting question which
the feminist
approaches would questioned, would try to
raise and try to find solutions through various
approaches.
Now, let us see the historical background.
The long is history of the subordination of
women to men we all know that in most of the
human society this is happened.
Women
were subordinated.
Religious traditions often gave theological
justification to this
subordination, we have seen the bible in which
is sacred book for the all Abraham
traditions, it is being stated that God has
created man, God himself is a male character,
and again God as created man.
So, man is the first creation of God, and
woman was
created from man.
So, in a sense woman is a shadow of man, you
can critically approach this whole
narrative in that is fashion.
A woman is not independent of man, but as
always depends
on man.
And then the way in which various religion
traditions have ascribe duties for
men and women, even in India we could see
that various tradition, but particularly in
dharmic traditions, in like Hinduism and Buddhism,
they all have their conception of
women, where a certain form of subordination
is instituted.
There are certain very
controversial practices like sati, which makes
women a shadow of man in Indian context.
Philosophers like Aristotle considered women
as inferior, and historically this is
associated with several movements of political
activism that try to obtain justice for
women.
So, the question the way in which women started
rebelling against this such dominations
have a long is free.
There are certain exceptional voices here
and there, but has a
movement it was it took off as a movement,
a power full movement only in the 21th
century.
Women suffrage movement in Europe and the
US: late 19th and early 20th
century, these movements have actually created
a lot of sensibility, which favour the
right which prompted to entire humanity to
view certain genuine problems women facing
all over the world; women’s movement’
of the 1960, demanding equal legal rights
and
political participation, in various parts
of the world.
And major concerns of feminism as I already
mention is to end sexism, sexist
exploitation, and oppression.
And sexism exploitation based on sexism and
oppression
based on it happened through institution.
And most of this institution as we already
mentioned are patriarchal.
Opposes patriarchy as a system of domination,
and they all
claim for they all argue for equality, but
not merely about women seeking to be equal
to
men and it is very important to note that
in a genuine feminist approaches are not anti
male, though we could see that at some stage
at some stage feminist approaches were
predominantly adopting an anti male approach,
but this is subsequently changed.
Efforts
to create gender justice, equal rights for
women based on the idea of equality of the
sexes.
So, the concept of general justices is very
dominate, a very central feature in the feminist
concerns.
Feminists are made not born, that the very
important interesting thing.
Because
feminist are not just I mean when we talk
about who is feminist?
A feminist need not be
necessarily women; both men and women can
be feminist; because they are not born as
feminist, but they are made.
Females were as socialized to believe sexist
thinking and
values as males: hence before women could
change patriarchy, they have to change
themselves, because both men and women contribute
to the creation and the sustenance
of this patriarchal order, it not that men
were responsible for this.
It is a social order
which is out there and both men and women
have jointly created it and they have jointly
changed it.
But that is why before women change patriarchy,
they have to change
themselves.
And when we talk about the philosophical foundations
of feminism, we have
women’s like liberalism, where equality,
personal autonomy, importance of democracy,
rights of individual’s etcetera are emphasized.
And we could see that all this have
become prominent in Europe after enlightenment.
For example consistory equality prior to enlightenment
in the pre modern societies, this
conceptive equality was not that predominant.
Society had been divided into different
classes of people like clergyman, peasants,
farmer all kinds of different people, different
class of people rather.
So, the conceptive equality was not predominantly
there, but after enlightenment we are
already seen this in some of the pervious
lectures that enlightenment had brought in
a
kind of sensibility, that there is something
in each individual which needs to be
respected, something like a concept of moral
sense, a kind of agent see.
So, each human
being is potentially an agent, hence there
is a kind of equality that is functions and
that
level.
So, there is equality and personal autonomy
and then at the social level, social and
political level there is there is an increasing
democratisation, emphasis on the rights of
the individual etcetera.
So, when you talk about the different types
of feminism.
So, we could see that there are
lot of I mean there are many types, say for
example, let us start with the socialist we
only
discuss some of the prominent use of or prominent
types of a feminism here, there are
socialist Marxist, postmodern, lesbian, eco-feminism,
existentialism, liberal, feminist,
radical feminist, diversity feminist, all
kinds of different types that extent and they
offend
overlap as well.
And among these different types, I will just
take up 3 or 4 for discussion, socialist
feminism where the problem is due to a combination
of male domination and class
exploitation.
They identified the fundamental problem lies
there, combination of male
domination and class exploitation, gender
and sexuality are social constructs that are
capable of transformation.
So, they believe that this two aspect gender
and sexuality, their social construct and
that
can be changed.
Home is a place of production as work at home
they contribute to
society at large: social worth is very important.
Because in traditionally the rules were
divided for man and women; women were mostly
confine to homes and men is to go and
work; socialist feminist would argue that
home is a place of production, as work at
home
they contribute to the society at large, then
eradication of all political economic and
social foundations of contemporary society
is the aim.
Then all institutions like education, work,
sexuality and parenting must undergo
thorough transformations.
So, socialist feminist would argue for a form
of
transformations, a form of social transformation,
where the entire apparatus of the
society, all institution of society fundamentally
undergo certain transformations.
Sexual
division of labour which locks men and women
into stereotypical occupational
categories, must cease like men should go
out and work in the factories and women
should remain at home and work in the kitchen,
such stereotypical views should be
deconstructed, should be over thrown.
So, that is why sexual division of labour
should be over thrown.
Relationships in society,
workplace and family are naturally interdependent,
but have been artificially separated or
placed in oppositional leading to alienation.
Emphasis on collaborating with other
oppressed groups.
So, this is again another very important feature
of socialist feminism
is, that they emphasis on collaborating with
other oppressed groups for creating a better
society.
Because they believe in social transformation,
a total social transformation,
which they also bring in improvements in the
ways in which men and women are treated.
Now when we in opposition to this or rather
if not in opposition, in contrast to this,
liberal feminist would argue that, liberal
values like equality and autonomy are more
important.
So, you have equality, you have autonomy,
each individually autonomous.
All humans
have capable of self determination and liberty
irrespective of their gender, irrespective
of
their sex and all are rational, recognition
of human rights, individuals human beings
have
to be men and both men and women have to be
respected equally, based on the concept
of human rights.
Now, when we come to Marxist feminism, which
is very close to socialist feminism,
they considered capitalism as a major factoring
in women’s oppression like all Marxist
they also believe that capitalism is the major
factor here, alienation in workplace is a
major issue because for Marxist, alienation
central problem, which we have already
examine when we discussed Marxism in one of
the previous lectures.
They try to
conceptualize gender oppression around class
contradictions and class analysis.
So, the marshiest analysis would be divide
society in to two class: the Murray and the
proletariat.
And all gender of all forms of operation including
gender operation can be
constructed, can be found are constructed
around this fundamental opposition that exists
in the society.
Bourgeoisie is equated with men and women
with the proletariat.
So, you
can see that contradiction, that class contradiction
they bring here in order to analysis.
And now lesbian feminism, it opposes the idea
that heterosexuality is normal, and all
other sexuality as deviant.
So, this is another very interesting aspect
because the
patriarchal social order will have a concept
of sexuality, and it has a very central very
rigid concept of sexuality and considers all
other forms of sexuality as abnormal and
deviant.
See even the transgender are treated as abnormal,
and they have no decent place
in the society, unfortunately even today many
society they do not have decent place, but
lesbian feminism would say that the sexualities
themselves are the creation of the
society, which has to be over thrown.
Sexuality and sexual orientations are social
constructs according to them and opposes the
patriarchal assumptions about sexuality,
which considers all other forms of sexuality
as deviant.
And just very briefly mentioned about diversity
feminism, where the problems women
face are different in different cultures and
times, they emphasis on differences and
diverse problems, there is no single feminist
voice or perspective, they would not say
that there is feminism itself is not a single
universal theory like what Marxist feminises
would argue.
There are multiple perspectives: non-Anglos,
non-Western Dalit feminism
etcetera.
So, all other frameworks ignore this diversity,
which the diversity feminist would
emphasise.
And when you come to existentialism, woman
is constructed as mans other
inauthentic existence.
So, mans other see in existentialist philosophy,
the concept of
orthotic existence so central, and the existentialist
feminist would argue that, the
existence of woman is concerned as a form
of inauthentic assistance, the other of man
which they oppose.
No recognition of her own subjectivity and
to responsibility for her
own actions and women is incidental and inessential
as object to man who is the subject
and absolute.
So, now again the other form of feminism is
radical feminism, women’s oppression is
the most widespread and deepest form of oppression;
women’s oppression can be
considered as the conceptual model for understanding
all other forms of oppression.
This
is interesting because they consider that
this can be treated as a conceptual model
to
understand all other forms of operation that
exist in the society, and whatever actions
we
take in order to change such operations.
Men control the norms of acceptable sexual
behaviour.
So, oppose them.
And now another one is eco feminism, which
is very interesting and very relevant today,
because there are in literal criticism particularly
the eco feministic reading is quite in
prevalent; this is more spiritual than political;
a patriarchal society will exploit it is
resources without regard to long term consequences
as a direct result of the attitudes
fostered in a patriarchal hierarchical society.
So, these are some of the different types
of feminism which we can find out and now
let
us conclude or discussion of feminism.
We can conclude our discussion feminism by
highlighting some of the complexities that
is in involved in this very approach.
There are
many of them; the first one is class differences
and race discriminations are causing a lot
of problems because black women realize that
they are never going to have equality
within the existing white supremacist capitalist
patriarchy
So however, the kind of feminist sentiments
we talk about, black women and white
women are not going to be equal and the black
women are realising that they are never
going to have equality with this extremely,
with it is with it is white supremacist
capitalist patriarchy.
And then there is the kind of polarization,
reformist emphasize
gender equality, while revolutionary feminists
wanted to transform that system.
Many
feminists groups would like to transform the
entire system, while certain other groups
would do satisfied only with you know attending
a kind of gender equality.
Feminist theory remains as a privileged discourse
available to those among us who are
highly literate, well educated and usually
materially privileged.
This is another very
interesting aspect, because the kind of the
theory the kind of theory kind of discourse
which the feminist are try to advocate, are
not going to touch the realities of many under
privileged, non educated, illiterate people
particularly women in third world countries.
So, some of the complexity is involved in
feminists, there are basic there are many
other
we can highlight, but at the same time none
of us can denied importance of feminism as
a movement, as an approach to understand reality,
as a critic, as a criticism against
existing social order.
Now, will continued this lecture by a very
brief discussion on discourse theory, which
is
also very significant postmodern approach
and discourse theory again, of suite of what
is
known as linguistic term, where ling language
becomes philosophical significant by
around 20th century, this is a very significant
phenomena that is happened in European
thought.
Language as become philosophical significant,
see it is a social constructionist
approach and language and language use do
not merely reflect or represent our social
and mental realities, but they actually help
construct or constitute these realities.
A
language is not just the medium or vehicle
through which you communicate, but it is
something which constitutes our reality.
Discourse designates forms of representation,
codes, conventions and habit is of language
that produces specific fields of culturally
historically located meanings.
So, basically discourse theory would argue
that, meaning is not fixed here they agree
with others other postmodern approaches.
So, in that way you know this is also very
strong postmodern approach, they basically
argue that it is a discourse designates forms
of representation, course and conventions
and habits and produce meaning it is the
discourse which produce meaning.
And some of the fundamental ideas language
is structured according to different patterns
that people’s utterances follow when they
take part in different domains of social life.
See for example, in a medical discourse or
in a religious discourse, in a political these
are
all various discourses available, the same
terms or the same phenomenon will have
different meanings in this different context.
So, in one sense meaning is contextual here.
Historical and cultural sipecificity are emphasized
by all discourse theorists, and
discourse is a form of social action that
plays a part in producing the social world
and our
ways of understanding the world are created
and maintained by social processes.
Now, when we talk about beginning we have
already mentioned that meaning is not
fixed, meaning is not universally available,
but it is discourses which fixed meaning.
Discourses are produced by social actors through
their practices and the meaning of
objects and actions is determined by historically
specific systems of rules.
So, the
condition of the meaning of any objects depends
on the socially constructed system of
rules.
So, that depends on the discourse in what
discourse people are participating in.
Things in the world gain meaning only in the
context of a discourse.
There is no discourse independent meaning.
Here the French philosopher Michel
Foucault’s contribution are very important,
Foucault’s as talked about the important
connection between meaning and discourse and
also between knowledge and power.
Discourse is made up of a limited number of
statements and is essentially a fragment of
history according to Foucault.
So, there are statements which are contextual,
and
discourse group of statements in so for as
they belong to the same discursive formation.
So, he talks about the very idea of discursive
formation.
Truth is the discursive
construction: different regimes of knowledge
determine what is true and false.
So, again
the concept of truth of universal absolute
reality does not exist.
Truth is determined by
the specific discourse in each context.
Power is linked with knowledge; power is spread
across different social practises.
So, here there is what one of the major contributions
of Foucault is to highlight the link
between power and knowledge and discourse.
So, this is what Foucault says in his
archaeology of knowledge.
Power constitutes discourse, knowledge, bodies
and
subjectivities.
It is responsible for creating our social
world and for the particular ways in
which the world is formed and can be talked
about.
Therefore, power is both a
productive and a constraining force.
And when you talk about discourse theory and
reality, discourse theory is would say that
there is no reality as something which is
given to us independent of our language.
Every
reality is created by discourse.
Every reality is discursively formed through
discourse.
Neither the world nor the subjects are given
two of the most important metaphysical
entities in western philosophy where the mind
and the body or rather the world and the
subject.
The world represents everything that it is
other than the subject which is vaguely mind
and the subject.
And metaphysically these two are fixed concepts
the world exist
independent of the mind and the mind exist
independent of the world, but these two
concepts are questioned these two assumptions
are questioned by the discourse theorist.
Neither the world not the subject are given,
even the subject created through discourse,
everything evolves through discursively formed
social practices.
This is the fundamental
assumptions of discourse theory; we will wind
up this discussion here.
The idea of this
lecture is just give a basic outline of these
different postmodern approaches called
deconstruction, feminism and discourse theory.
So, we are also winding up our discussion
on this course here, the aspects of the western
philosophy this is the last lecture, the 40th
lecture.
Thank you.
