After reading the "The First Sophists and Feminism" chapter--specifically the "Sophistic Nomos" section--in Jarrett's study of the sophists, I started to wonder about her comparison of sophistic rhetoric to that of Cixous's écriture féminine. Jarrett claims that Cixous's "agenda becomes rewriting history" (75): Referring to écriture féminine, Jarret claims that "Cixous seeks a writing which will 'allow [a woman] to put the breaks and indispensable changes into effect in her history' (97)" (75). Jarrett compares this to the sophists rereading of nomos to refute logos: "In opposition to logos as a permanent and "natural" structure of law, rationality or language, nomos can be called into play as an alternative, designating the human, and thus necessarily discursive, construction of changeable codes" (74)--or in Cixous's case, changeable histories.
Now, I must include a disclaimer before I proceed further in saying that my intention of examining this logic is not an attempt to belittle, degrade, or diminish women in any way. I am merely trying to understand and challenge the validity of these claims in an attempt to uncover what may be "truth" (wink, wink). Having said that, I shall move forward.
It seems to me that by using the sophistic approach in order to "invent the other history" (75), women are only doing them a dis-service in that they are not uncovering the truth but creating one in opposition to the mistakes made by particular men in the past. I understand that the sophists employed their techniques in order to create alternative paths of thought to show that logos are relative, but is this the intent of Cixous? Or is it her intent to create these alternate histories and leave them in opposition of recorded histories, marked as truth? I only ask these questions because the subject of intent was brought into question with our examination of the Gorgias text. I think that intent is relevant all discussions. What I'm getting at is this: Is it right (morally sound) to rewrite histories bases upon a disagreement or is it better to write the present as moving into the future to further prevent such indiscretions? I'll leave it up to you to decide.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Steve, I believe your concern with "rightness" and "moral soundness" comes from a sincere desire to help feminists. You say that women are doing themselves a disservice by not uncovering the truth but by creating one in opposition to mistakes made by men. The problem is you are evaluating Cixous' agenda according to a kind of timeless, universal standard, and finding that if her proposal were adopted by everyone at all times. This is the very type of thinking that she is trying to get away from: always considering any idea or proposal as being offered on a global scale, for acceptance by everyone. I don't think the conflict is between men's truth and women's truth, or between the truth and an alternative truth. It's more a conflict between a mentality that evaluates every local, contingent instantiation or notion against a universal standard--i.e. logos--on the one hand and an approach to thinking that thrives on contingency, teh local, the changeable--i.e. nomos--on the other.
You see, I can't respond to your comment, Landis, without making it look like I am an anti-feminist because I disagree with Cixous' approach.
I have never been a proponent of dwelling on past events, although I do believe that we can learn from the past. It just seems to me that it's a questionable approach to "invent a history" in order to highlight the indiscretions that one feels make have taken place in another. I'm not saying that this approach is wrong, I'm just saying that it doesn't work for me. My intention in raising the question was to see how other felt about this issue, not to challenge Cixous or fall into the line of thinking that she attempted to challenge. Maybe I worded it poorly in trying to get this message across. I apoligize for misleading you.
Post a Comment