gender, epistomology & history Good Thread
Jessica
Brown) wrote:
> Cris here. :)
>(...)
> I'm not sure this is a very useful view of teleology, on a couple
> of counts. First, teleology is more commonly thought of as time-
> inverted causality. That is, rather than the present being a
> product of the past, and the future a product of the present,
> teleology sees both the future as causing both past and present.
> How far one chooses to chase this rabbit -- whether it's just a
> matter of our *construction* of past and present being influenced
> by *our* desires for the future, or that the future is an extrinsic
> fixed point toward which everything is progressing -- is a matter
> upon which reasonable people may reasonably differ.
You are quite right, but both of those alternatives support my point. If
it is a matter of teleology being the course of action as determined by a
fixed point in the future, there is the notion of goal orientation and
"paths to goals"...in that, a developmental historical process moves
toward a prophetically determined end--an end that has been established
by the *beliefs* of the subject making or overseeing the journey and the
culture that contains the subject. Now, were we to subsitute *desire* for
*belief* we would have, technically, only a slightly different angle on
the situation. Beliefs are constructed by the intake and *manipulation*
of information which is *filtered through* desire, hence we have the
impossibility of objective reasoning. We could almost go so far as to say
that 'belief' is the "bastard child" of 'knowledge' and 'desire'. From
this standpoint, whether it is a fate-oriented "belief" in a fixed point
in the future, or a "desire" to achieve some *goal* for the future, they
both seem to boil down to a sense of 'unified' future as opposed to a
sprawling, web of infinite parallels and intersection points which Derrida
embraces. (I think)
> Second, and more important, I don't know of anyone who sees this
> progression as a "straight line." There are twists and turns and
> backtracks in any complex progression, and the more complex the
> progression, the more the twist, turns and backtracks. Indeed,
> it's quite possible to construct postmodernism itself as a huge
> backtrack from scientism/modernism, with hopes of going in a
> different direction.
Perhaps I should be clearer on this...The key word is not "straight", it
is "progression". In explaning what I mean by phallocentric teleology, I
don't mean a line without twists and turns, but rather a temporal *line*
that moves in one direction at a time.
>
(...) Moreover, your use of the word
> "phallocentric" to imply "male-dominated" or "masculine" is
> perhaps more than a bit inapt; to the extent that certain types
> of behaviors seem attributable to "male-ness," that has more to
> do with the testicles (which produce testosterone) than with the
> phallus.
Now here, I think you are relying too strongly on the biological use of
"phallocentric" and not on the political and analytic one--which is more
along the lines of culturally relegated possession of a centralized
potential power and freedom to act and affect others. In the same way the
sex is biological and gender is cultural, penis is biological, phallus (as
in the Phallus) is cultural.
>
> This creates the possibility for one to reasonably misinterpret
> your work as being "virulent man-hating" or whatever the current
> buzzwords to decry feminism might be. It unnecessarily alienates
> part of your audience, which weakens your rhetorical position.
Once again..there is a key word here...That word is "rhetorical". My
assumption in starting this thread is that those who could engage in a
discussion about gender intellegently, also realize that this is not a
personal 'women hate men' issue. I am talking about the development of a
culture and a psychological make up which affects all of us. This "gender
alienation" that you speak of is the impetus for bringing up these issues
in the first place. You have to understand that if you say to me, "you
can't use that argument because it alienates me as a male, and therefore
weakens your position.." My response would have to be that, "of *course*
it alienates you!" Your biological and cultural identity, therefore your
perspective, are male and mine are female...period. That alienation is
what *strengthens* my argument....not weakens it. If I were to water down
these paradigms and erase the hierachies to a state where they *didn't*
alienate men, *then* I would be weakening my position considerably. So
you see, my understanding is that anyone who takes such a debate as
"virulent man-hating" simply is *not* intellectually and politically
equipped to discuss gender. To cry alienation as a fault in logic in a
situation like this, is to *commit* the very *act* of *embracing* the
patriarchial philosophy that they have made a futile effort to *claim*
*immunity* to!
>
> : This is also noted in the biological structure of
> : the male and female brain. Men's brains have been proven in a very recent
> : study, to show activity that is centralized in a particular area in a
> : corresponding hemisphere of the brain...Theoretically, the designation of
> : certain specific parts of the brain, for certain purposes. This is, I
> : believe, termed Uni-lateral thinking. Women's brains however, show
> : evidence in networking of various parts of the brain, between both
> : hemispheres, to approach the same tasks. This is called Bi-lateral
> : thinking. It is within this biological comparison that the concept of
> : male or female epistomology can be rooted.
>
> I read that study, and even the *researchers* wouldn't go so far
> as the press has in describing its impact. The researchers noted,
> for example, that the variances *between* biological males and
> females were small in comparison to the variances *within* the
> male and female test groups. Moreover, the cited to numerous
> previous studies which have shown that measurable brain activity
> can easily be influenced by behavior and thought patterns; that
> folks who spent a day solving math problems would have measurable
> different brain activity patterns than those who spent a day
> reading poetry. We are adaptive critters.
>
> In short, the researchers freely admitted that they had no way
> of knowing whether they'd found chicken or egg, whether the
> variances in male/female brain activity *caused* the differences
> in behavior and perspective, or the differences in behavior and
> perspective *caused* the differences in brain activity.
>
True. This is a nature vs. nurture tautology as are so many psychological
issues.
I would like to continue this thread with both male and female contributors.
Jessica