We may say that in our
present time, women are now able to finally write for their own selves.
However, the mere availability and also the ability to write does not
necessarily means that what they have written, are writing, or will be writing
is not always be considered fully as a woman’s writing, or women’s writings in
general. As ironic as it is, the abundant probabilities for women in terms of
writing ended up being taken for granted as some may have no clue about what
women’s writing truly is, or what it will talk about, what it will do. It is true that to fully understand
the idea of women’s writing one must be willing to explore further within the
intertwined path of the never ending maze relating to the main concern,
gender-based discourses.
Some
people may have already acknowledge the surface of the gender-based issues.
Yet, it has become so general that even I am not able to pinpoint any
particular and specific problem without feeling anxious or doubtful on its
validity and relevance towards the main concern of the gender-based discourses.
The privilege and habit to easily distinguish something as a gender-based
problem ended up eroding one’s perspective towards something in a sense that it
shallows the comprehension that one may have relating to one particular issue,
creating a taking-for-granted situation—a clumsy one at that as well—that
causes misunderstanding on the discourses itself.
In
addition, the source of error in such situation does not come only from the
side of the readers, the writer itself is also filled with problem. Cixous
pointed out that “Most women are like this: they do someone
else’s—man’s—writing, and in their innocence sustain it and give it voice”
(1981: 52), another suggestion on how the innocence of women—in this particular
case—is one of the most influential source in situating a problematic women’s
writing. It is not even a women’s writing, it is merely men’s writing with a
woman as its secretary.
Nonetheless,
let put this matter aside for a moment, as we ought to have plenty of both
space and time in discussing it even further, later in this writing of course.
Cixous
did mention that “The future must no longer be determined by the past”—relating
to the gender-based discourses I suppose—yet she also pointed out “I do not
deny that the effects of the past are still with us” (1976: 875). Putting her
remarks into consideration, it is then indeed important for us to comprehend
the past that has become the source of slightest influence towards the
gender-based problem and discourses. “Appeals to the past are among the
commonest strategies in the interpretations of the present” Said said, as such
perspective will situate a continuation of understanding on “…whether the past
really is past, over and concluded, or whether it continues, albeit in
different forms, perhaps” (1994: 3). Then, if we ought to relate the preceding
remarks, although it is indeed important, especially in gender-related
discourses, to not solely be determined by the past that has bound them before,
the past is also significant in constructing the present that it will have in a
way that it views the past as a source of learning in a sense that it should
not repeat the mistakes that it has situated or got involved with in the past. The
past then could be manifested in the present but with a different form that
ought to be beneficial for the discourse itself. With this established point of
view, we should then observe the past
that I would like to elaborate next in an attempt to comprehend the angles,
surfaces, and even the core of matter relating to the gender-based discourse.
“Before the woman
writer can journey through the looking
glass towards literary autonomy…she must come to terms with the images on the
surface of the glass, with, that is, those mythic masks male artists have
fastened over her human face” (Gilbert and Gubar in Rivkin and Ryan, 2004:
812).
A
room full of mythical glasses and masks, it was the place in which women were
trapped before the attempt to finally break themselves out of the binding chamber
filled with images of “angel” and “monster”. It is indeed a metaphor, but its
influence were clearly the major source of issue that was experienced by the
women at that particular circumstances. It had become so severe that the
condition forces the women to “kill the aesthetic ideal through which they
themselves have been “killed” into art” (pg. 812).
Some
may say that it was only mere images that subdued them, images created by the
men writers. However, the ramifications of the so-called harmless images ended
up prohibiting the range of discussion that ought to be elaborated by female
writers, by the women’s writings. For the female writers “…the essential
process of self-definition is complicated by all those patriarchal definitions
that intervene between herself and herself” (pg. 813). This situation alone is
obviously problematic in a way that it both prevented the possibility for women
to fully elaborate and enhance their women’s writings through the limited and
patriarchal definitions, and is one of the basic reason, enhanced by the aforementioned
innocence and lack of comprehension upon the gender-based discourse, for the
difficulties and problems that women are facing in the present day. It is not
that there were and are no possibility for them to utilize non-patriarchal
definitions in writing their writings, but it was and is the dominant influence
of patriarchal definitions that caused and causes the women’s writings relevant
definitions to become difficult to find and manipulate in the process of
composing the writings itself.
Within
another surface of perspective, the actual act of writing and all of its
intricacies, relating to the gender-based discourse that is, are ought to be
considered as a mere manifestation from a more widely-range phenomenon and
idea, the economy.
“A masculine economy
and a feminine economy, in which the masculine is governed by a rule that keeps
time…An order that works by inculcation, by education…An education that
consists of trying to make a soldier of the feminine by force, the force
history keeps reserved for woman, the “capital” force that is effectively
decapitation” (Cixous, 1981: 42).
The
previously mentioned wall of glasses and images ought to be perceived as the
manifestation of the masculine economy. Even though it is not directly related
with any kind of general economy-related gesture or action—trades, transaction,
etc.—referring to the preceding remarks, the masculine economy itself works
through, one of which, education.
In
relevance to the matter concerning the actual act of writing, education could
be considered as one of thing that is responsible in a sense that where else
one could learn how to write, read, etc. besides in any kind of educational
apparatuses (school, etc.). Moreover, this situation also could be perceived as
another source of reasons for the previously mentioned patriarchal definitions
that was the major obstacles for the women to fully establish their women’s
writings. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I have never heard any kind of school
that specializes in teaching things besides the patriarchal-related
definitions. Hence, it has become obvious that one of the sources from which
the patriarchal definitions emerged themselves to influence and interfere with
the process of writing the women’s writings. In addition, even from the get go,
the objective of such ramification from the masculine economy is to force the
feminine in becoming a soldier. Even
though it was not literally a soldier who goes to war—as it was only a part of
Cixous’ ways in elaborating her own ideas—as we now can easily find a woman who
is willing to be a soldier with her own will and interest, what I perceive is a
soldier in a sense that a being who
is fully controlled by the order that
stands firmly above one’s head. Then it is not that surprising when Cixous
pointed out that “Women have no choice other than to be decapitated”, even
though it will not always be an actual decapitation but then again “they only keep them on condition that they
lose them” (pg. 42-3). Losing their heads, thus losing the control over
their own selves and body.
Aligning
ourselves back into the track of the actual process of writing, from the
elaboration of the previous paragraph we are now aware that the masculine
education with all of its problematic influence towards the creation of women’s
writings do provide the availability and ability for the women to finally start
writing. However, in the actual application of the writing itself, referring to
Cixous’ elaboration, not all women were or are willing to write “Because
writing is at once too high, too great for you, it’s reserved for the
great—that is, for “great men”” (1976: 877). It is indeed another example of
irony as the privilege of being
taught how to write ended up not being utilized for the sake of their own
selves. Yet, if they do try to write they would be facing another relevant
issue of not being able to find the non-patriarchal, non-masculine, definition
in order to define their own selves
without any interferences from the realm of the masculine.
Nonetheless,
there were or are women who write. Yet they did have “…written a little, but in
secret. And it wasn’t good, because it was in secret, and because you punished
yourself for writing, because you didn’t go all the way” (Cixous, 1976: 878). Again,
even though they did attempt to write something for their own sakes, it ended
up being perceived as something that is problematic. So problematic that they
were or are doing it in secret—like a diary maybe. Writing was then, or is
still until now, an action that is too problematic
for women. Problematic to an extent that they seemed to be building a wall
against it, and even to consider it as a sin, a punishment. However, all of
this situation which women were or are experiencing in terms of their problems
in actually writing for their own sakes seems to imply one or two influential
element that may cause such hectic circumstances. Astonishment and innocence;
the two matters that could be considered as a part of the reason which cause
the aforementioned series of problems.
We
may are aware about the innocence which has been slightly mentioned on the
beginning of this writing—and I am not going to bother in trying to explain it
yet again, it will have its turn later on, perhaps—Astonishment, however, has
not yet been elaborated. As difficult as it is to explain what kind of astonishment that ought to influence
women to be reluctant against the act of writing, what I am trying to say is
the astonishment to the idea of imperfection or the idea of being lacking. “…the
point is “she lacks The Lack,” The Lack, lack of the Phallus. And so,
supposedly, she misses the great lack, so that without man she would be
indefinite…” (Cixous, 1981: 46). If we put it that way, we could say that women
are terrified of being able to finally define their own selves. They were too
familiar with the idea of being defined by the others and defining others, but
not to define their own selves. Yet, such circumstances are not natural in a
way that it seemed to be a product from the masculine manipulation. They were
used to be considered as the angelic being or perfection but not to be the
traitorous infidel who attempts to break out from the angelic mirage that was clearly constructed by the masculine
community as “it’s man who teaches woman (because man is always the Master as
well), who teaches her to be aware of the lack (pg. 46).
The
torture continues as men, or the
masculine community, not only inducing fear into the mind and body of the
women, they also situated a self-loathing attitude into women’s perspective as
well. “Men have committed the greatest crime against women. Insidiously,
violently, they have led them to hate women, to be their own enemies, to
mobilize their immense strength against themselves…” (Cixous, 1976: 878). How
one can be willing to comprehend or even to define one’s self if one does hate
one’s self? Not only preventing the women to get in touch with something that is outside of her own selves, men
also managed—forcefully, perhaps—to prevent women to know about her own selves.
To make it even worse, the outcomes and consequences that the masculine influence situates, obviously, were and
are only affecting the women. The men, on the other hand, ended up acquiring
the privilege to continuously preserve their dominance and influence through
the never ending cycle of suggestion
which causes the women to be trapped even deeper into the abyss, created by the
men themselves.
“The society we know,
our own culture, is based upon the exchange of women. Without the exchange of
women, we are told, we would fall back into the anarchy (?) of the natural
world, the randomness (?) of the animal kingdom” (Irigaray in Rivkin and Ryan,
2004: 799).
In
relevance with the obstacle being
faced continuously by the women, even though swaying away, yet again, from the
matter of writing, that ought to be the main concern of this writing, to the
matter of economy which was mentioned earlier—slightly enough—women not only
have established, or being established, to be exact, as the exchange value of
the society. It is significant in a way that this particular situation, which
the women unwillingly have to get involved with, emphasize the burden carried
by the women themselves. It is a burden in a way that say if a woman does try
to experiment with the definition which has been already established before
against her by men, its outcomes will not only be visible to both the woman and
men, but also the whole society in
which both parties are obviously involved in. Thus, it makes
it even harder for women to be willing in attempting to define herself. It has
become obvious why women ought to be scared in even trying to write for her own
sake as such blasphemy would cause a problem not only for the women (increased
pressure, fear, anxiety, etc.) but also for the society that considers them as
an exchange value with which the society constructs itself.
Cixous
pointed out that “In woman, personal history blends together with the history
of all women, as well as national and world history…she is an integral part of
all liberations” (1976: 882), and it is indeed problematic in a way that the
boundaries between a woman and women ought to be blurred. It has become a
problem between personal interest and the interests of the masses even though
it is uncertain, as I did point out earlier, in terms of how one could
differentiate which one is the personal and which one is the mass-related
problem. Even though we are aware, from the elaboration of
the previous paragraph, that women ought to share
similar experience of astonishment, oppression and limitation all of which
situated by men, yet one particular and distinctive is not merely enough to
both present and represent the whole experience-related women. It is then “Woman for women.—There always remains in
woman that force which produce/is produced by the other—in particular, the
other woman (pg. 881). They are both similar yet different, but also
interrelated with one another. However, it “…is not simply a class
struggle”—class of women (?)—“…but you have to split it open, spread it out,
push it forward…the staggering alteration in power relations and in the
production of individualities” (pg. 882). It is not something that you could
comprehend by only mildly touching the surface that covers the whole interwoven
strands of problems. It is something that requires you to be thorough in order
to grasp the core, or at least the significant matter, without inducing or
causing another mistake—similar with the one that already has been done in the
past—that may increase the complexity or even causing one to be driven away for
what was the major concern of the aforementioned matter.
The Outburst
“When the “repressed”
of their culture and their society returns, it’s an explosive, utterly destructive, staggering return,
with a force never yet unleased and equal to the most forbidding of
suppressions…Muffled throughout their history, they have lived in dreams, in
bodies (though muffled), in silences, in aphonic revolts” (Cixous, 1976: 886).
After
confusing ourselves with the seemingly interwoven problems faced by the women
in an attempt to write for their own
selves, all of the obstacles, limitation and oppression—vigorously elaborated
within the preceding paragraphs—ought to be the source of strength that women may require in an attempt to finally define their own selves. It is more than
a strength, it is an outburst of repression. Yet, this is also something that
we shouldn’t exaggerate to an extent that it ought to become a solitary epitome
for any kind of attempt in women’s writings. The problem does not end that
easily. It is merely a new beginning, a starting point in which the women ought
to prepare themselves by recollecting their own repression and turning them
into a will to finally write.
Then,
it will be necessary for us to know the actual form of women’s writing that has
less tendency to eventually situate another problematic circumstances. It would
be disastrous if then, as it has been pointed out at the beginning of this
writing, the so-called women writing ended up rejuvenating the cycle of men’s
influence and dominance. The prolonged effort, patience and movement which have
been developed by the women would become worthless.
First
of all, “Woman would then have to start by resisting the movement of re-appropriation
that rules the whole economy” (1981: 50), Cixous said. Even though her
statement was not directly relevant to the actual attempt in writing, it could
be considered as an additional base to the outburst mentioned earlier as it is
indeed a matter that correlates to the economy. Women were too submissive in a
way that even though they ought to have grudges lying beneath the silence and
secrecy of their gesture, they did not recognize it as something that urgent,
or threatening. Thus it ended up nurturing both the influence that dominance
that men already had and established.
Looking
at such situation, it is then viably logical to start to resist against the
economy. It ought to be difficult as it is indeed an attempt to resist against
something that has been deeply enrooted within the soil of the society. However,
women’s resistance is merely one of the further steps in the whole process of
regaining the control—especially over her own body. “But first she would have
to speak” and “stop saying that she
has nothing to say!” (Cixous, 1981: 50) as it is important to let out the confidentialities
that women have kept for the past centuries. The inability to speak has always been the main obstacle
for the women in the attempt to finally define themselves by their own selves. It
is not necessarily a literal attempt of speaking out in public about all of the
repression that she experienced, but it is merely to exhaust and to let out any
kind of ideas or remarks without even worrying about anything else that could
prevent her from doing so, yet again. To
speak is to write.
“She must write her
self, because this is the invention of a new
insurgent writing which, when the moment of her liberation has come, will
allow her to carry out the indispensable ruptures and transformations in her
history…” (Cixous, 1976: 880).
Through
writing, women will be finally able to liberate
their way out of the repressive dominance of men. With the same vehicle, women
will also be able to create a distortion upon the historical circumstances, in
which filled with torture and influence from the masculine community,
and then finding her own way without any sorts of interferences that may
disturb her woman-ness yet again.
However,
the definition and description of their liberation
does not stop only on the historical handicap that they have finally overcome.
A handicap that binds their abilities to speak,
to write, and even the possession
over their own bodies. By finally able to write fully for her own self, “woman
will return to the body which has been more than confiscated from her, which has
been turned into the uncanny stranger on display” (1976: 880), Cixous said. It
is not a mere liberation but also a reunion. With the ability to write, woman will be able yet encouraged
to set the definition for her own sake, without any interferences from the
aforementioned masculine definition that may forsake her attempt to do so. With
the same capability, women will be able to define the body with which they will
be heard. If the society thinks that the speech of women are not to be heard,
then let their body do the speaking. It is a body with its own
liberation. It is a body with women’s own definition.
Writing
is also a mean for women to regain the perks which have been taken away from
her own selves as “It will give her back her goods, her pleasures, her organs…”
(Cixous, 1976: 880). However, this does not mean that it will gives her every
single thing that she needs. By writing for her own selves, she does not only
liberate herself from the repressive influence but also expose herself upon the
possibility to learn. “This
emancipation of the marvelous text of her self that she must urgently learn to
speak” (Cixous, 1976: 880), this liberation
does not simply put women into a heaven-like place in which she will be
redeemed for all the repression that she had experienced. It is merely a
beginning for a new struggle, yet struggle in a way that it is a starting point
for the women to not only regain the control over their own bodies but also to
enhance and improve their own skills and knowledge without any tendency to be
driven towards the masculine infested ones. It has been pointed out earlier
that the innocence of women is one of the most influential cause for the
existence of problematic women’s writing in which the women ended up
emphasizing and nurturing the masculine influence yet again. Such situation is
possible as a result of misunderstanding that women have towards the idea of
their liberation. They thought that
their struggle ends at the gate of the aforementioned liberation without any
kind of awareness towards the attempt to enrich their knowledge in order to fly
even more freely without any fear to drop again into the binding grounds of men.
Writing
is also an act for women in which she is finally able to utilize the chance of
finally speaking. It is a chance for
her to turn things around. It is “to
write and thus to forge for herself the antilogos weapon. To become at will the taker and initiator, for her
own right, in every symbolic system, in every political process” (Cixous, 1976:
880). With her grasps upon the act of writing
women are finally able to be the one that initiates rather than being the one
initiated on. And women are finally able to situate themselves within a place
that they have created rather than
filling up a space which has been
established by the construction and manipulation of men, that is the silence. The whole idea of finally achieving and accomplishing the act of writing is solely an attempt to finally
break out from the binding silence. It is an attempt of breaking out from the
thing which has been the major obstacle for the women.
Nonetheless,
just like the liberation that the
women has or are having, the preceding elaborations may act only as the
beginning. It is indeed difficult to determine what does this beginning stands for as in what does this
beginning will come up to as the idea of women’s writings ought to be “starting
on all sides at once” (1981: 53), just like what Cixous pointed out. However, a
beginning is a beginning. It is a
beginning for another effort and struggle in which we ought to deepen our
knowledge in approaching matters in relation to what has been explained in the
preceding paragraphs.
Work
Cited:
Cixous,
Hélène. 1976. “The Laugh of the Medusa” translated by Cohen, Keith and Cohen,
Paula in Signs (Vol. 1, No. 4.
Summer, 1976; pp. 875-893). United States: The University of Chicago Press
retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173239
1981.
“Castration or Decapitation?” translated
by Kuhn, Annette in Signs (Vol. 7,
No. 1. Autumn, 1981; pp. 41-55). United States: The University of Chicago Press
retrieved from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0097-9740%28198123%297%3A1%3C41%3ACOD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N
Gilbert, Sandra and Gubar, Susan. 2004.
“The Madwoman in the Attic” in Literary
Theory: An Anthology ed. Rivkin, Julie and Ryan, Michael (2nd
edition; pg. 812-825). United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.
Irigaray, Luce. 2004.”Woman on the
Market” in Literary Theory: An Anthology
ed. Rivkin, Julie and Ryan, Michael (2nd edition; pg. 799-811).
United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.
Said, Edward W.1994. Culture and Imperialism (1st edition). New York, United
States: A Division of Random House, Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment