c. delphy - the invention of french feminism

8/12/2019 C. Delphy - The Invention of French Feminism

1/33

The Invention of French Feminism: An Essential Move

Author(s): Christine DelphyReviewed work(s):Source: Yale French Studies, No. 87, Another Look, Another Woman: Retranslations of FrenchFeminism (1995), pp. 190-221Published by: Yale University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2930332.

Accessed: 26/11/2011 22:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Yale University Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Yale French

Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yalehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2930332?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2930332?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yale


2/33

CHRISTINE DELPHY

The Invention fFrench eminism:An Essential Move'

"French eminism"sa bafflingopic or verybody,nd t s no esssofor eminists rom rance hanfor eministsromheUnited tates rBritain. here remany spects o this opic ndfirst f ll, ofcourse:what s "French eminism"?"French eminism"s notfeminismnFrance; hatmustbe said atthe outset.Feministsn Francedon't need to call theirfeminismparticularame nymore hanAmerican eministsalltheirsAmer-ican Feminism."Mostfeministsrom rance ind t extraordinaryobepresented,whenabroad,witha version ftheir eminism ndtheir ountryfwhich hey adpreviouslyo dea.BritishndAmerican eministsreeither ascinated r irritated,utalways ntrigued, ywhat is pre-sented o themnWomen's tudies s "French eminism" r "FrenchTheory."Thevery ttempto attributespecificontent oa feministmove-ment hows hatwearedealingwith noutsider's iew. o,evenbeforewe start ooking t thiscontent,we know that t cannotbe a self-definition.his raises thequestionoftherelationship etween hewayfeministsrom rance ee themselvesnd thewayoutsiderseethem. hisrelationshipears resemblanceo that etween bserversandobserved,etween ubjects ndobjects, problem ften aised nfeministmethodology.traisesthequestion fwhohas thepower odefinewhomtostartwith,who callstheshots.This is an important

1. Iwouldike othankrangoisermengaud,aura ottingham,udithzekiel,andAilbhemythorheirupport,heiruggestions,nd heir elpnthewritingfthis aper.YFS 87,Another ook,AnotherWoman,d.Huffer, 1995byYaleUniversity.

190


3/33

CHRISTINE DELPHY 191question,because that s whatmost irritates eminists n France:that a "FrenchFeminism"has beencreatedunbeknownst o themin English-speakingountries.The contentgivento the category"French eminism" s importantn that espect: or hefact hat emi-nistsfrom rance annot ecognizehemselvesn thepicture hey represented ith s a source fdeeply-feltrritation.utthe ole fact fcreating category FrenchFeminism"with a specific ontent-whatever hecontent-deprives eminists rom ranceof therightto name themselvesFrenchFeminists.An ideologicalcontent-nevermind which at this stage-has beengivento a geographicalspecification.

This inturn aises relatedssue:whyhas itbeen deemedneces-sary yAnglo-Americaneministsospecify,n deological erms,heactions ndthewritings f eministsromrance? nd, eciprocally,ogive national abel toa particularet of deas or brand ffeminism?How relevant renational oundaries o feminism-orndeed oothersocial and deologicalmovements-andhowrelevant houldthey e?Thatquestionhasnever een sked, lthoughthink t scentral. ndfinally, ow was what is now knownas "FrenchFeminism" on-structed?Whodecidedwhat t was andwhat twas not?Whatwentintothe bagand whatdid not?What s taught s "French eminism" as infact ittle o do withwhat shappeningnFrance nthefeministcene, ither rom theo-reticalorfrom n activist ointofview.This has beenpointed utseveral imes over theyearsbyFrench nd American cholars ndactivists.2 ore ndmore rotestsrebeing eard bout hevoluntaryor nvoluntaryistortionsnd omissions ftheAnglo-Americaner-sionof"French eminism." he aimofthispaper s not,however,osettherecordtraight:hatwork salready nderway,ndalthoughtwill takeas manyyearsprobablyo set the record traights ithastaken oget twrong,t salreadyffoagood tartwithClaireMoses'sbrilliantnalysis.3In constructingFrench eminism," nglo-Americanuthors a-vored certain vertlyntifeministoliticaltrend alled "Psychet

2. See my La passion elonWittig," ouvellesQuestions eministes 1-12 Win-ter, 985):151-56.See also,ClaireMoses, French eminism'sortune,"heWomen'sReview fBooks5/1 October,987):44.3. SeeMoses, 'French eminism'n U.S. Academic iscourse," paper resentedattheBerkshire onferencen Women's istory,2June 992 hereaftereferredo asMoses 1992a).


4/33

192 YaleFrench tudiespo, tothedetrimentfwhat s considered,yAnglo-Americans wellas French eminist istorians,4o be the core of the feministmove-ment; ndtheir iashas contributedo weakeninghe Frenchmove-ment see Moses 1992a).Anglo-Americanroponentsf French eminism" ave also con-sistentlyonflatedwomenwriters" ith women'smovement"seeMoses 1992a), huseliminatingheactivist imension fthatmove-ment.Theypromoteds "majorFrench eminist heorists"5 "HolyTrinity"madeup of hreewomenwhohavebecomehousehold amesin the Anglo-Americanorld fWomen's tudies,which tselfs in-creasingly ivorced rom he social movement:Cixous, Kristeva,Irigaray.hiswas inspiteof hefact,whichwas never evealed othenon-Frenchublic, hat hefirst woarecompletelyutside eministdebate n France-and,notbeing onsidered eminist heorists, anhardly e consideredmajorfeminist heorists"; ndin spite ofthefact,which swell-knownndhas beendealtwithdiversely yAnglo-American xporters,hatat least the first wonotonlydo not callthemselves eminists,uthave been known to actuallydenouncefeminism.Althoughhefacts rewell-known,hey renot eenas a problem.Why? NeverwouldAmericans roclaim onfeministso be thefig-ureheads ftheir wn movement."6Whatdoyoucall doing osome-body lse whatyouwouldnothavedoneuntoyou?The term imperi-alism"springso the ips.And hat s ndeed he onclusion eached ybothMoses and Ezekiel.They ee imperialismtwork ntheAnglo-American onstructionf "French eminism,"nd,moreover,heyseethatmperialisms related o domesticgendas: Opponents avetaken s their argets,ot tsAmericangents, utthe French hem-selves" (Ezekiel); and "the French . . are blamed foraspects ofour-selvesthatwe donot ike butdo not takeresponsibilityorlikeourracism nd ourclassism)" Moses1992a). t is impossible odeny hecharge f mperialism:mperialismndeedmade theconstructionf"French eminism" ossible. t s equally mpossible odeny hat hewishto evaderesponsibilityor ne'stheoriess at workhere. thinkthat he agents,"s Ezekiel allsthem, f French eminism"wanted

4. See Francoiseicq,Liberationesfemmes.esAnnees-MouvementParis: euil,1993).5. TorilMoi,"Introduction"oFrencheminist houghtOxford:lackwell, 987),5. 6. Judithzekiel, ommentsnClaireMoses'spaper, erkshireistoryfWomenConference,2 June 992.


5/33

CHRISTINE DELPHY 193to presentcertaintheories s "French" norder hat the prestige ccru-ing to what is foreign n intellectual circles, and especially to what is"French," would accrue to that position; and in order to be able todistance themselves from, nd not take fullresponsibility or, he deastheywere defending, s they ould always take the stand that theyweremerely ntroducingAnglo-Americans o foreign deas. An added bene-fit they could expect was that their pretension that these ideas are"feminist" would not be questioned.But although mperialism, nd themotivations behind the mperi-alist stance, figure rominentlyn the constructionof"French Femi-nism," they are not the whole story.They are important, ven essen-tial, but as a means rather han the ultimate ends.The ultimate endsare domestic, but I contend thatthe domestic agenda is more ambi-tious than ust hidingbehind the "French."Or,toput tdifferently,hereal question is: why is it necessaryto hide behind the "French"? Ithinkonehas to answerthatquestion first,ndtoanswer t,one has todefine the ideological featuresthat are being proposedand promotedunder the guise of "French Feminism."What does it say about femi-nism,andabout thecentralquestions ofoppression nd liberationthatfeminismposes?My contention is that the manner in which "French Feminism"addresses these questions-often in an obscure and pedantic stylewhich would requirean essayin its ownright-is regressive nd detri-mental to feminism ngeneral, ndnotonlytofeminism n France,asnotedby Eleni Varikas:

Toreduce French" eminismo a few articularheoreticalositionsis notonly o obscure hefact hat hemajorityffeministtruggleswerefought ithout nowledgef nd sometimesgainst heseposi-tions; t is notonly o obscure hemost nfluentialheoretical osi-tions f eministhoughtnFrance; venmore han hat,t stopreventfurtherhought n the conditionsn whichthesemany positionsemerged,nwhatmakes them ocially ndacademically cceptable,and on their ubversiveynamic.7Butbefore come tothat, submitthat "FrenchFeminism" is not somuch a "construction"-a biased and imperfect ersionof thereality

of feminism n France-as an invention: a theoreticalstatement or7. Elni Varikas, Fdminisme, odemitd,ost-modernisme.ourundialogue esdeux 6tds e1'ocdan,"n Feminismesu present,pecial ssueof uturAnteieurParis:L'Harmattan,993), 3.


6/33

194 Yale French tudiesseriesof statements hathave onlya spurious elation o any other"reality"; hat hese tatementsrehighly ontentious; nd that hisis thereasonwhy hey ad to try ndbe passed off s French.First want oestablish hat he heses f French reminism,"ndthereforeFrench eminism" tself, annotbe foundn thebodyofworks hat tsagents efero,but ntheirwnwritings.n otherwords,I mean that French eminism" s not an Anglo-Americanonstruc-tion olely, revenmainly,nsofar s itselects, istorts,nd decontex-tualizesFrenchwritings. hat would mply hat o findwhat "it" is,we wouldhaveto engage nmorecomments, istortions,ndselec-tions; nbrief, e wouldhave oplay hegameby heir ules ndchaseour tails until doomsday. o, I mean that t is an Anglo-Americaninvention uite iterally: nglo-Americanritingshat re "about" tare it.I will brieflyry o characterizeFrench eminism" s a politicalstrand, rom hepointofviewof tscontent,ndexposewhy, n ananalytical evel, t is not compatiblewithfeministnalysis.My con-tention s that heproblemsmost pparentnthat pproach, uch asthereclaiming f he feminine" r definitionf exualityhat eavesno roomforesbianism,renotthe ource f ts nadequacy. proposeinstead hat heseclaims,which reproblematicor feministoli-tics, are a consequenceof adopting n outdatedepistemologicalframework.However,heseproblematic ositions ome backto theforewhenone tries o understand hyfeminists-or nyone-wouldwanttoadopt ucha framework.contend hat nxieties boutone'ssexualandpersonal dentity,hreatenedy hedevelopmentffeminismndtheblurringfgenderines that tpromises, xplain he iking xhib-itedbysome womenfor onceptual rameworkshatrenege n theapproachn terms fgender. hat leadsme to examinehow socialconstructionism-in articularn the UnitedStates-is today ftenequatedwith"social conditioning"r"discourse heory,"nddoesnot, herefore,resent real alternativeo essentialism.Imove n toconsidern alternativexplanationf hepopularityf"French eminism,"nwhich t s not eenas a response oa contem-porary hreat,ut s a continuation f "difference"choolwhichhasexistedwithin eminismince theturn fthecentury.Inwhatmay ook at firstike a conclusion and ndeedwas fortime), then uggesthat hereason roponentsf hat osition fferedit as "French,"ndthereason hereforeor he nvention f"French


7/33

CHRISTINE DELPHY 195Feminism,"was to try nddeflect hecriticismts creatorshoughttheywould get-and thattheygot-fromfeminists,or fferingnessentialist heory. ndlastly,n myconcluding emarks, submitthat he mperialismxhibitednthe nvention f French eminism"wasnecessary oth oproduce particularrand fessentialism,ndin order o pass off s feminist "theory"n which feminism ndfeminists eed notfigureny onger.

FRENCH FEMINISM AS AN ANGLO-AMERICANFABRICATIONTounderstandxactlywhatthis"French eminism"s inrelation ofeminismsthebestway ounderstand hy twasnecessaryopresentit as "foreign." nce that s understood,heparticularelectionofauthors ndwritings akes ense.And nturn,hedistortionsroughtto the accountof thefeminist cene n Francemakesense,onceweunderstand hat heparticularelection fauthors ndwritingswasdictated y deological hoice.If, n theother and,we startwith hedistortions-thats, fwestart ycomparinghe ccount iven y"French eminism"with heactual French cene-we are eftwiththerealization hat here s ahugegap between he two. But how are we to understand ow thathappened,fwe take theproponentsf"French eminism" t theirword, hat heir imwas ndeed ogive naccount f heFrench emi-nist cene?Wewouldhave o assume hat, ver period f ifteenears,scholar fter cholarhas "misunderstood"he French oliticalor n-tellectual cene. nasmuch s wecanassume gnorancermisinforma-tionon thepart fone or several ersons,we cannot ssumethat llhave beenblind, nd indeed fflicted iththesame selectiveblind-ness; we cannot ssumemoreover hatno one tried t anytimetocorrecthepicture, r toquestion hedominant ccount.Therewerequestions nd correctionsrom nglo-Americancholars;8nd therewereprotests rom eministsrom rance.9In thehypothesishat hemisrepresentationf heFrench eministscene was a bonafidemistake, hesequestions, rotests,nd correc-

8. SeeDorothy auffmancCall,"Politics fDifference,"igns /21 1983):283-93. 9. See Delphy 1985,Moses 1987, ndElianeViennot, ReviewArticle," tudesFeministes (1987):40-47.


8/33

196 Yale French tudiestions were treatedwith arrogancewhen mentioned t all.'0 So thehypothesis hat hemainprotagonistsf "French eminism"wantedto give n account nd that heywereonly mistaken" s untenable.Onlythehypothesishat theseprotagonistsad an ideological ndpolitical genda anexplain hediscrepancies etween French emi-nism" and feminismnFrance, hefact hat hesediscrepancieser-sistedover period fyears, nd,finally,hat hesediscrepancies renot random."French eminism," fabricationfAmerican,nd morewidely,English-speakingcholars,was created ya seriesofdistortionsndvoluntaryr nvoluntaryrrorsboutwhatwashappeningn Francefromhemid-seventiesn.These distortionsave pattern.Wedo nothave several ompeting iewsordefinitions hich howthat hedis-tortionsrenotrandom. n theother and,Lf e didhave competingviews,thenwe would nothave "French eminism." French emi-nism"is thusa highly onsensual bject n thesensethatthe onlydebates bout t focuson its relevanceoAnglo-Americanoncerns.There renodebates boutwhat t s. Everybodyeemstoknowwhat"French eminism"s. At the ametime,t snever eally efinedndremains lusive.t sthereforempossibleogive,nany bjectiveway,an ideological efinitiono what s an ideological urrent,nd s per-ceived s such, nfeminism.The only objectivewayto define t is to saythat t is a bodyofcomments y Anglo-Americanritersn a selectionof French ndnon-Frenchwriters:Lacan, Freud,Kristeva,Cixous, Derrida, ndIrigarayrethecoregroup. utthere re others.Thispresents s with womainquestions: s I mentioned arlier,thequestion f hegapbetween hisbody f ommentsndfeminismin Francewillnotbe addressed ere, nd will concentratenstead nthe theoreticalnd deological atterntpresents.What rethesub-stantive iews heseAnglo-Americanuthors repromotingr ttack-ing?What rethey ringingo thedebate n feminismntheir espec-tivecountries?Butbeforeackling his, want o ook at tsformal efinition,hatis, itsdefinitions a bodyofAnglo-Americanritings.fwe acceptthat "French eminism"s an ideological ndpoliticaltrend n thecountries heretexists s anobject fdebate,t follows hat thas to

10. See, for xample,Rosemary ong'sremarksbout Viennot n her FeministThought:A ComprehensiventroductionBoulder:Westview ress, 1989),223, orEzekiel.


9/33

CHRISTINE DELPHY 197be studied s such-and from henon,without uotationmarks. talso follows hat tsmessage s containedn thesum of articles ndbooks hat urportocomment rbuild n French rothermaterial.tcannotbe said to consist fwhat ts proponentslaim: thecompleteworks f heauthors hat hey omment n,the uthors isted bove.These are he eferentsf French eminism,but hey renot t. First,Anglo-Americanuthors onot gree n the istof heir eferents-sothat ven fwe accepted, s theywouldhaveus do, that hecompleteworks ftheir eferentss "French eminism,"s that ist s infinite,we stillwouldnothave finite ndclearly elineated ody fwritings.Secondly,he upposedly riginalext f French eminism"s a seriesofbitsandfragmentsakenfrom heterogeneousniverse. heydonotmakeupan ensemblendependentf he ommentsnwhich heyare incorporated.hat justifies eeingthisbodyofcomments s aseparate ntity romtsreferents,ust s theTalmud srightlyeenasdistinct rom heTorah.We do notpossessanother ext-an originalhomogeneous ext, s in thecase oftheTorah.But more mportantly,body fcommentssreallynothingmorenor ess than theoreticaltatementr tatementsn theend.Or,putdifferently,here s no substantive ifferenceetween theoreticalworkwhich s about omethingnda theoretical orkwhich s aboutsomebody.Whateverhedetours, ouendup saying omethingbouttheworld, o that here s no legitimate ifferencef tatusbetweenthetextthatpresentstself s a "mere"comment, nd thetext tpurportso comment n. Thesecomments-including fcourse hebits andfragments,hequotes-thereforemakeup theonlytextwehave of"French eminism," nd t s thisbody fworkwhich onsti-tutes French eminism."For all thesereasons, French eminism" s an Anglo-Americanstrand f ntellectual roduction ithin n Anglo-Americanontext.Fromnow on,when speakofFrench eminism nd French eministswithout uotationmarks, am referringxclusively o thisAnglo-American ody fwritingsnd ts Anglo-Americanuthors.

FRENCH FEMINISM AS AN IDEOLOGY OFDIFFERENCE: HOLISTIC VERSUS ADDITIVEEPISTEMOLOGIES

Tostudyndtoplacethis trand ithin ach"national" eminismndfeminismtlargewouldrequire studywell outside he cope of his


10/33

198 Yale French tudiesessay.However,f tried, rommynecessarilyartial nd mpression-isticperspective,ogive descriptionf t, would ay hat hefeaturesthat trikememost-apartfromtspretensionobe French-are thefollowing:

theconflationf "women"and"the feminine" ndconversely,f"men"and"themasculine";thefocuson the "feminine" nd the"masculine," he belief hatsuchthings xist-or shouldexist-and that hey rovide r shouldprovide modelforwhat ctualwomen nd mendo and "are";thebelief hat thefeminine" nd"themasculine" re a universaldivision f raits;hat hisdivision sfoundn all cultures ecause t sa trait ftheuniversal syche;thebelief hat hepsychesseparate rom nd nterioro society ndculture;

-the belief hatthe content f thepsyche s bothuniversal-notrelated o culture-andbasedon a common ondition haredby allhumans;the positingof a "sexual difference" etweenwomenand menwhich ncludesmorphologicalifferences,unctional ifferencesnreproduction,ndpsychologicalifferences;

thebelief hat sexual attractionetweenpeopleis thedesirefor"difference";thebelief hat heonly ignificantifferenceetween eople s "sex-

ual difference";thebelief hat exualdifferences and houldbethebasisofpsychic,emotional, ultural,ndsocialorganization,lthough he word so-cial" only gets through he pens of FrenchFeministswith somedifficulty."11. See CarolynBurke, Report rom aris:Women'sWriting ndthe Women'sMovement," igns /4 1978):843-55and "IrigarayhroughheLookingGlass,"Femi-nistStudies7/2 1981):287-306;ClaireDuchen,Feminismn France London:Rout-ledge & KeganPaul, 1986);Diana Fuss,Essentially peakingLondon:RoutledgeKegan aul,1989) nd"'Essentially peaking'/Lucerigaray'sanguage fEssence,"nNancy raser ndSandra eeBartky,evaluingrench eminismBloomington:ndianaUniversityress, 992), 4-112; Jane allop, heDaughter'seductionIthaca: ornellUniversity ress, 1982);ElizabethGross, "Philosophy, ubjectivitynd the Body:Kristevand rigaray,"n Feminist hallenges,d. CarolPatemanndElizabethGross,


11/33

CHRISTINE DELPHY 199One need not go on to stress he pointthatthis approach o theproblems aisedby feminisms very roblematic n analytical nd

political evels.On an analytical evel, t turns ts back on the maindevelopmentsn feministhinking; n a political evel, t has mplica-tionsthat re unpalatable ormany eminists.Whereas omehaggle ver oints fdetail, r nterpretation,thinkit has to be recognized hatany dealingwith "human nature"whateverormttakes, e it the"aggressiveness"fmales, he "con-straints f he ymbolic rder,"rthe maternal-semiotic"-is oundtowieldvery isappointingesults or nymovement entonchang-ingtheworld reven imply n understandingt.Now, hequestion sunderstandinghy omanyAnglo-Americancommentatorsavechosen hehumannaturepproach. nd naskingthat question,we cannotsimply alkaboutFrenchFeminism ny-more:we must ncludenotonly hepeoplewhowrite bout t,but hepeoplewho isten o t,notonly heAnglo-Americanarticipants,utthepeople-and in particular eminists-whoall overtheWesternworld ind hatkindof pproacho enticing.and others ave tackled(Boston:Northeasternniversityress, 986), 25-43.AliceJardine,Pre-Textsor heTransatlanticeminist," aleFrench tudies 2 (1981):220-36, "IntroductionoJuliaKirsteva'sWomen's ime,"'Signs /1(1981): -35, GynesisIthaca: ornellUniversityPress, 985), nd"Men nFeminism: dordiUomoorCompagnonseRoute?"nMeninFeminism,special ssueofCritical xchange 8 1985): 3-31;AnnRosalind ones,"Assimilationwith Difference: enaissanceWomen oets ndLiterarynfluence,"YaleFrench tudies 2(1981):135-153, nd"WritingheBody: oward n Understand-ingof '6critureeminine,"eminist tudies /2(1981):46-63; Peggy amuf, Replac-ingFeminist riticism,inConflictsnFeminism,d.Marianne irsch ndEvelyn oxKellerLondon:Routledge Kegan aul, 1990), 04-11;Kamuf ndNancyK.Miller,"Parisian etters: etween eminism ndDeconstruction,"n Hirsch nd FoxKeller,120-33; Dorothy eland, LacanianPsychoanalysisnd French eminism: oward nAdequate olitical sychology,"nFraser ndBartky,13-35; Miller, The Text'sHer-oine:AFeminist ritic ndHerFictions,"nHirsch ndFoxKeller, 1-120;Moi 1987andMoi,Sexual/Textual olitics London:Methuen, 985), ndThe Kristeva eader(Oxford:lackwell, 986);Ariel alleh, ContributionotheCritique fPolitical piste-mology,Thesis leven 1984): 3-44; NaomiSchor, ThisEssentialismWhich sNotOne," Differences/2 1989): 8-58; PaulSmith, iscerninghe ubjectMinneapolis:UniversityfMinnesota ress, 988);Gayatri hakravortypivak, French eminisminan Internationalrame," aleFrenchtudies 2 (1981):154-84, nd"French emi-nismRevisited: thics ndPolitics,"n Feminists heorize hePolitical, d. JudithButler nd Joan cott London:Routledge Kegan aul,1992), 4-85; Domna Stanton,"The Fiction fPreciosit6ndtheFear fWomen," aleFrench tudies 1 1981):107-34, and "Language nd Revolution: he Franco-Americanis-Connection,"n TheFuture fDifference,d. Hester isensteinndAliceJardineNewBrunswick: utgersUniversityress), 2-87.


12/33

200 YaleFrench tudiesthat ssue many imesover heyears.'2 he appeal remains, nd t sthatof "difference"nd,moreprecisely,f"sexual difference."hereasons or hetheoreticalndpolitical laws f his pproach re alsothereasons orts appeal.The "sexualdifference"pproachstheoreticallylawed n a basiclevelbythevery remisest ncorporates,nd which re a throwbackto epistemological ostures hat cannotbe takenseriously oday.have isted omeof hem bove, ut heresa deeper evelwhichmakesthat pproach ncompatiblewith the modern umanities nd socialsciences, ncludingheso-called ostmodern.

Briefly,ne can tracebackto thenineteenthenturyhedevelop-ment f paradigmor nderstandingheworld hat will call,for hetimebeing, tructural.his approach,obefoundnthenatural ci-ences aswell as in thehuman ciences, onsidershewholebeforetconsidersheparts.t sthewhole, he onfiguration,hat ivesmean-ingto each of theparts. ndeed, t is the wholethatgivesriseto theparts.n otherwords, hewholeprecedes heparts.This approach,nuse inthenatural ciences nd nmathematicsformore han century,anbe found nmanymodelsofthehumansciences.Forexample,t is the still uncontested asisofSaussurianlinguistics; venthoughatermodelshave beendeveloped,hebasicSaussurianmodelremains: oundsdo notpre-existhetotal anguage,it is the total anguagewhichdetermines owthesoundcontinuumwill be cutup ntodiscrete ounds.This model nformsontemporaryanthropologynot nly hatwhich alls tselftructural,ike theworkofLevi-Strauss),ontemporarysychology,ndsociology. his under-standingf heworlds already resentn thework fMarx:thetotalsociety re-existsachclass,and t s theway tfunctions s a wholewhichcreates hedivision rinciple;he division rincipletself re-ates each class. Classes cannotbe viewed ndependentlyf one an-other, s tribeshaving ed their wnlives and coming ntocontactalmost y ccident, o more han he a" soundnagiven anguage anbe seenas existingndependentlyfthenext ound.

12. See my "Rethinkingex and Gender,"Women'studies nternational orum16/1(1993): -9 (hereaftereferredoas Delphy 993a) nd"Proto-feminismndAnti-feminism,"nmy Close toHome,trans. iana LeonardLondon:Hutchinson ress,1984), 82-211;see also ColetteGuillaumin, exe, ace etpratiquedupouvoirParis:c6tdfemmes, 992); Nicole-Claude Mathieu,L'Anatomiepolitique (Paris: c6td-femmes, 991); ndMoniqueWittig, heStraight ind Boston: eaconPress, 992).


13/33

CHRISTINE DELPHY 201For ll these easons, think olisticl3 s thebest djective o char-acterize hestructuralpproach.Needlesstosay, llmodern nd con-temporary evelopments uild on that approach. he structuralr

holistic approach s the matrix f all twentieth-centurychools ofthought, hether hey all themselvesmaterialist,ocial construc-tionist, r structuralist.he so-called post" (as in "poststructural-ist") trends re not contradictions ut furtherevelopments f thismoregeneral pproach.The contemporaryevelopmentf esearchn genders part f hatparadigm:t considers hat ender,hedividing rinciple,s the onsti-tuting orcebehindthe creationofgenders. o put it simply, hismeanstaking s a starting oint hatyoucannot nvision men"and"women"' eparately,nymorethan "the feminine" nd "the mas-culine";that he wo re reated neby heother nd t the ametime.Now this stancehas revolutionarymplications;t impliesthattheone does not indeed)movewithout heother; hat hestatusofthecategory women"cannot hangewithout hestatusofthecategory"men"/ hanging t the same time;it implies,moreover,hat theirrespective tatus nd their ontent reone andthe ame thing: hat tis impossible o change he status f category ithout hangingtscontent nd vice-versasee Delphy 1993).In contrast, renchFeminism nd thetheories, uch as psycho-analysis, nwhich tdrawshaveremainedmmune othesedevelop-ments. heygoonconsideringheparts s independentf neanotherand pre-existingheir omingntorelation.tuses,fromhepointofview of the relationship f the partsto the whole, an additiveapproach.

Now such a viewimpliesthattheparts,which existbefore hewhole,have a meaning, nd indeeda nature-an essence-of theirown. t mplies urthermorehat heparts hatmakeup anyreality-thephysical, ocial, rpsychicworld-arealways he ame, nnumberand ncontent,ndarethere ostay; herefore,hatwhichweperceiveiswhat ealitysmadeupof: fweperceivewo exesfornstance,t sbecause here retwo exes;that ociety r ts nstances-language orone nstance-intervene nly orank hesepre-existingealities; hatthese constituent arts an be shifted roundwithout hanging he13. I do notuse the erm holistic" n the ense twasgiven yQuine, lthough hetwo rebynomeans ontradictory.


14/33

202 Yale French tudieswhole; nd, onversely,hat heonly hing hat an be donewith hemis to shift hemaround; hat nasmuch s one wants to shift hemaround, ne has to find heir real"meaning, heir real"essence.Theadditive pproach s thusnecessarily ssentialist.Onlyon thatbasisis itpossibleto imagine, s French eminismdoes, that he onlywayto "up" thestatusofwomen s to up thatof"thefeminine"; nd hat, onversely,neof hese tatuses-thatof he"feminine"-can be "revalued"without ltering hestatus of"themasculine." More importantly,hat alteration akes place withoutalteringhewholeandcreating newwhole, nd, herefore,ewdivi-sionsofwhich thefeminine"nd "themasculine"might otbea part(see Delphy 1984 and Delphy 1993).This is where eaturesfFrench eminismwhich earlier onsid-ered as secondary laya central ole, especially he insistenceonnot defining he "sexual difference"t talks about, ndleaving t asa mystical bjectwhosemysteriesmustremain bscure.n order odo that,French eministsmust gnore henowconsiderablework-empirical s well as theoretical-thathas gone ntocracking penthat nut, and on studyinghedifferenthings o whichsexualdif-ference efers. o speak today,withoutfurtherdo, of undefined"sexual difference"mountsto eliding ex (anatomical), exuation(gender identityand psychologicalsex-relateddifferences),exroles, exualactivity,nd sexualpreference.ll thesethings resup-posed,both n common-sensehinkingndin French eminism,oderive rom ne another r tobe one and the samething. his con-fusion is the basis of gender deology.Psychoanalysis rovidedthe "scientific"versionof this common sense ideology, uttingsexual differencenderone formor another-the penis, "castra-tion,"or the mother-childond-in theplace of theultimateprin-ciple.Feminism tarted-a long time ago-deconstructing ll theselinks;extricatingexfromexrole nd sex dentity;t has evenforgedwholenewconcepts,uchas gender,o accountfor his deconstruc-tion.From heearly istinctionetween ex and sexroles, thaspro-ceeded hroughhe econdhalf f he wentiethenturyo break own"sexual difference"ntomore nd more omponent arts, nlyarbi-trarilynd sociallyrelated o one another,o thepointwhere evensexual desireshave been dissociated rom he anatomicaldifferencebetween emales ndmales,andheterosexualityas lost its aura ofnaturalness ndnecessity.


15/33

CHRISTINE DELPHY 203GENDER THEORY AS A THREAT TO IDENTITY

This s all very hreatening,otonly o men, ut owomen s well, ndtherealm f exuality-sexualpracticendsexualpreference-is ar-ticularly ensitive,nvested s it s incontemporaryocietywiththecapacity o fill ubjectivity:o provide personal dentity.exualac-tivity oth defines eople as male or as female nddefines hemaspeople, n a societywhereyou are nobody fyouare notone or theother. t the ame time, exual ctivitys imbuedwith strong enseofguilt nd shame.Peopledonotrelishhaving o think hat t sup tothem-theydon'treadily et goof he dea that t has allbeen decidedfor hemnsomepart f heir ormone-influencedortex. heydo notlike being, s they ee it, "free-floating,"ithno sound "natural"basis for heir astes,which they xperience, ightly,s irresistibleimpulses.What has to be taken ntoaccount, oo,ormaybefirst,s thatgendered ocieties uchas Westernocieties reate heir wnsubjec-tivities nd n particular,s mentioned bove, he nabilityo have anindividual dentity hat s nota gendereddentity.urvery anguagespreclude hatpossibility: ow ong anyoutalk bout omeonewith-outsaying she"or "he"? It's venworse nFrench, utonlymargin-ally.)What he anguage mposeshas been confirmedypsychosocialstudies: henotion f humanbeing"doesnot xistnour ocieties, rrather,here retwo deas of humanbeing."There s a "male humanbeing" nd a "femalehumanbeing."'14This is ourpsychologicalmake-up, hatwe've nherited otonlyfrom urchildhood, utfromveryminutewe've spent nthisearth.This is being hattered ythefindingsffeminismboutthe socialconstructionfgender.uthow rewe to ntegratehisnewly cquiredknowledge, hich emains ighlyntellectual, ith ur"immediate"perceptions?The twoclash,and there'snothingwe can do about t. We mayknow-or, rather,ry o magine-thatgenders socially onstructed,that s, arbitraryn its form nd tsvery xistence. uthowarewe toreconcile hatwith he vidence f ur yeswhich hows very turdy,all-pervasive,mmovablegender n whichall reality eems to befounded?

14. See Marie-Claude urtig ndMarie-Franceichevin,Masculine-Feminine:New-Look ssentialism,a paper resentedo thefifth onferencef he nternationalSociety or heoretical sychology,ierville, rance, pril 993.


16/33

204 Yale French tudiesIS SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION THE SAME THINGAS "SOCIAL CONDITIONING"?

Oneof hemany hortcomingsf ontemporaryheory, aybe artic-ularly n theUnited tates, s thefalse erceptionhatwhat s sociallyconstructeds somehow shallow,or superimposed, r easily over-thrown.Thisperceptionhows naive ontempt or heworkingsf ocietyand s groundednan implicit elief hat omehow nderlyingocialandcultural tructures,here xists "humannature" hat ould sur-face fgiven hechance.But here snohumannature, ndwe havenoother erceptionrpossibilityfactionthanthosegivenby society.There s no "beyond" or ndeed before")ocialconstruction.Only hiskind fbeliefnan ndividual-oruniversal-nature, nethat omehow re-existssocialconditioning,"anexplain hebeliefthat fwe feel "male" or "female" t cannotbe "all social," ortheopposite ut symmetricalelief hatwe canoptout ofgender n anindividual asis.'5 fthere s somethinghat s themostparticularlyAmerican n French eminism,t mustbe thebelief hatpresumes,even when t does not say so, theexistence fa primal ndividual,and reduces social construction to "social conditioning"or"socialization."But ocial constructions not omethinghathappenswhenyou'renot ooking-it is whathappens ll thetime, n all societies, nd tstarted appening ongbeforewe wereborn. t is coterminous ithbeinghuman,becausethis s the world hatwe find ndthere s noother: here s nothing lse "underneath,"ontraryo whatsomanyAmericanwritings,specially ostmodern,eem toimply.However,maintaining beliefn a "beyond" r "before"ocialandcultural rganizationogether ith n ntellectual dherence o socialconstructionism,s not anAmerican rait: t is a general nabilityocome to termswiththeimplications f social constructionism,ninabilityhat s bothan intellectual hortcomingndan emotionalreluctance. ctually,t is remarkablehat, endereds we are nourpsychologicalmake-up, e (at east some ofus)caneven nvision henon-necessityfgender.The inabilityocorrectlynderstandubjectivitys socially on-structed,utnot amenable o voluntaristicehavior, utsfeminism

15. See Judith utler, enderTrouble: eminismnd theSubversion f dentity(London:Routledge Kegan aul,1990).


17/33

CHRISTINE DELPHY 205between rock nd a hardplace, nd this s particularlyisible ntheAmericanntellectual cene oday. n theonehand, hosewhoremainconvinced hat hecategorywomen" xists eel hat heonly ounda-tion for t must be essentialist-groundedn "Nature"-whereasthosewho supposedlyake social constructionistiew rgue hat heimplication s thereforehatthe categorywomen"does not reallyexist: Ifgenders simply social construct .. whatcan we demandinthename ofwomen fwomendonotexist?"'16I want to linger n this"simply ocial." This understandingf"social" amounts o equating ocial construction ithwhat s calledin everydayanguage social conventions": omethinghatyoucantake or leave-and ifyouleave it,at the worstyouwill be seen asimpolite.Alcoff nd Butler ave differentositions, hefirstwantingto staywiththecategorywomen," he secondnot.Butthey harephilosophical idealism" ntheir erceptionfhuman ife ndsubjec-tivity. ither t s "real"and mustbe based n"Nature" not simply"social),or t is "social" and thereforeunreal" ndcanbeundonebyindividual olition. ven houghhey ifferntheoutcome hey avor,neither fthem ssumes trulyocial constructionistiew.BothAl-coffndButler an envision henonexistencerdisappearancefthecategory women"without tanytimeconsideringhe mplicationsofthatfor he category men"-a category hichtherefore ustbepresumedo stay,ndto be abletostay llby tself.n a social construc-tionistview,which s necessarily olistic, ither hetwo categoriesexist, rneither. he fact hatAlcoffnd Butler an imagine ne ofthem ubsisting ithout heother eveals hat hey dhere o anaddi-tiveworld iew,where heparts xistndependentlyndcanchange rmove ndependentlyfone another.What s still acking s a notionthathumanarrangementsreboth ocial-arbitrary-and material:external o the actionof nygiven ndividual.It s difficultotto inkthisdefectnsocial constructionisthink-ing n the UnitedStatesto theway nwhichtheonlycontesting fessentialismomesfrom omenwhoare teepedn"French heory."FrenchFeminists nd FrenchFeminism re being"reprocessed" s"postmodern,"nd eventhough ome,such as LindaNicholson,'7pointout the incompatibilityetweenthe essentialism fclassic

16. LindaAlcoff,CulturalFeminism ersusPost-Structuralism,"igns13/31(1988):405-36.17. LindaNicholson, d.,Feminism/PostmodernismLondon:Routledge KeganPaul,1990).


18/33

206 Yale French tudiesFrenchFeminism and the structuralism f "poststructuralism," hetwo are inextricablyconnected in the dozens of titles and mind-blowing new appellations that seem to crop up everyday.Inasmuch as one can make sense of the frenzy f ncessant renam-ing thathas seized Anglo-American cademe,itappears that the headymixtureof Foucault and Derrida has givenrise to something called"theoryof discourse" or "deconstructionism." In this theory every-thing s a text, ndtheold contest between "reality" and discourse hasbeen done away with: better, t has been won by discourse, of which"the text" is the best incarnation.All other things-such as socialpractices, institutions,belief systems,and subjectivities-are onlybad approximationsofthe text.Thus what seems to have happenedis that as soon as it was redis-coveredand used against essentialism,'8 social constructionismwaswatered down: itwas conceptualized as constructionismwithout thepowerofsocietybehind t; or, hepowerofsocietywas reducedto thatofan always interpretable nd, moreover,multiple "discourse." Socialconstructionism s equated with male authors and with a nominalistversionof tselfwhichdeprives t ofanyreal content.Commentingonthese developmentsas exemplified by JoanScott's Gender and thePolitics of History,'9JoannaRuss writes:

To saythat anguagenfluenceseality. . is one thing. o saythatnothing lse exists .. is anotherhingntirely.... One of he dvan-tages f gingsthat he econd imeyou ee the ame damnnonsensecomingroundgainyou anspot t none-tenthf he ime ttookyoutorecognizet thefirstime.Thenineteen ifties'iterarymphasis ntheautonomy f textswas an escape ntoa realmdivorced rom henastyworldn whichprofessorserebeingkicked utfor eing sub-versive," nd witchhunts gainst omosexualswere regular eatureofpublic ife.Current ealitys alsomightynpleasant; owniceitwouldbe f twere nly anguagendwe could ontroltby ontrollinglanguage,r f ttemptso doanythinglsewerempossibleruseless.And ookhow mportanthatwouldmake us.2018. See Alcoff; utler; raser;Nicholson;Jane lax, Post-modernismnd Gender

RelationsnFeministheory,"igns 2/41987): 21-43;JoanW.Scott, Deconstruct-ingEqualityVersus ifference,"eminist tudies14/11988): 33-50.19. Joan cott,Gender nd thePolitics fHistoryNewYork:Columbia, 988).20. JoannaRuss,ettertotheEditorsfTheWomen's eviewofBooks/4(1989): .This letters about ClaudiaKoonz'sreview fJoanWallach cott'sGender nd thePolitics fHistory.


19/33

CHRISTINE DELPHY 207So the xplanatoryower f ocialconstructionism,longwith hefact hat twas developedn feminism y eminists,ndparticularlyyFrench, ritish,nd talianmaterialisteminists2's being gnored.22Maybe ome feministso notwant oaccept hepolitical mplica-tionsofunadulteratedocial constructionism:hat hingsan change,but hat t will be ong nd rduous,ndthatwe do nothave n nfinitepower verour own ndividual ives,nor, o startwith, ver ur ownbrains.Maybethey o not wantto accept hat venthough hingsincluding ur own thoughts-present hemselves o us qua individ-uals as external onstraints,hey re not mposedon us by God orNature ndthatwe,qua membersf ociety,harentheresponsibility

for hangingrnot changinghem.DIFFERENCE AS A PERMANENT FEATUREOF TWENTIETH-CENTURY FEMINISM

Inthis ttempt o explain heappealofconceptual rameworksasedonnaturalistic remises, have takenforgrantedhatFrench emi-nism s a contemporaryeaction o a contemporaryroblem: hat heprogress f ocial constructionistiews s,on a personalevel, hreat-ening o many eople,becausetheyet us envision future herewemightnothavegender orely n as a basisfor urpersonal dentity.However, his emphasison "difference"s not new. We find tthroughouthehistory ffeminism, hich thas split ince ts verybeginnings.hedebate etweenhese wo urrentsf eminisms stillalive and well,and its terms-"Difference" ersus Equality"-arestill mazinglyimilar fter centurynd half. here s a tendencyo

21. SeeDelphy 984 nd 1993a;Delphy ndDiana Leonard, amiliar xploitation:A New Analysis of Marriage in ContemporaryWestern ocieties (Cambridge: PolityPress,1992);Guillaumin 992; Guillaumin, The Practice fPower ndBeliefnNa-ture," eministssues 25 (1981):25-31; HurtigndPichevin,Masculine-Feminine";Hurtig ndPichevin,The Body s SupportndMediator f SexRelations,"n LisaAdkins ndLeonard, he Other rench eminism, orthcoming;urtigndPichevin,"SalienceoftheSexCategory ystemnPersonal erception:ontextual ariations,"Sex Roles 22/5-6 (1990): 369-95; Celia Kitzinger,The Social Constructionof Lesbian-ism (London: age,1987);Mathieu;MoniquePlaza, "'Phallomorphicower' nd thePsychologyfWoman,"'n AdkinsndLeonard; aolaTabet, Les mains, es outils,esarmes,"L'Homme 19/3-4: 5-61, "Fertilit6 aturelle, eproductionorcee,"n L'ar-raisonnementesfemmes,d.MathieuParis: ditions .H.E.S.S.), 1-146,"Du don utarif: es relations exuelles mpliquant ompensation,"es TempsModernes 90(1987):1-53,and"ImposedReproduction:aimed exuality,"n Adkins ndLeonard.22. See SteviJackson,TheAmazing econstructing oman," rouble ndStrife25 (Winter992):25-3 1, ndAdkins nd Leonard.


20/33

208 Yale French tudiespretend hat t s over rthat ne cango "beyond" t. Butdespite heirpromising itles,23rticles hatpurporto "transcend" he debate l-ways ndupon one sideortheother,nd seeseveral easonswhy hisis so and, nfact, annotbe otherwise.These two positions annotbe reconciled t an analytical evel.One relies eitheron the conceptualframeworkhave tentativelydescribed as holistic/socialconstructionist, r on an additive/essentialist ramework. ut positionsare ultimately xpressed ypeople, nd althoughwe often ssumethatpeople are coherent, heyare not.Theythereforeomeupwiththeoretical ositions hatmixelements estingn differentndcontradictoryremises. o thefactthat ssentialismnd ocialconstructionismre ombinednsome, revenmostpositions, oesnot make them ogically ompatible. ur-thermore,eople's ncoherenceanextendotheir ndorsingositionswhich ttheoutsetmighteem t oddswithwhat hey hink. hishasled activists uchas CarolAnneDouglastowonderwhetherheoryreallymattered or eminism.24In spiteofall this, heres a logictoconceptual rameworkshatmakeseclecticismmpossible opursue eyond certain oint hat sreached ll too soon.Althoughocial constructionismnd essential-ismareseldompresentedn a pure orm,or hereasonsustoutlined,they tillare rreconcilable.ndeed,t s becausethey re seldompre-sentedn a pureform hat hey anbeseen as notcompletelyntago-nistic.However,hat ureformxists nd tconsists f heir ntrinsicpossibilities nd limits-whether hey re used ornotat any giventime. omethingsre onceivablensocialconstructionismutnot nessentialismnd vice-versa. ndthefact hatwedo nothavetothinkthemnowdoes not meanthatwe will notneed to think hem omor-row;on theanalyticalevelas well,there re moments freckoning.Wehavenotyet hought hroughocialconstructionism,ecause t semerging recisely gainstcommon ense, ssentialisthinking,ndbecause t s resistedn thearea ofgender ythosemenwho use it nevery ther rea.Theimpressionhatusing neconceptual rameworkrtheotherdoes notmakemuchdifferencesprobablymisleading. orothy tet-

23. See Scott.Also,see LouiseToupin, Unehistoire u feminismest-elle os-sible? Rechercheseministes/1 1993):25-53.24. CarolAnneDouglas,Review f IstheFutureemale? byLynne egal,Off urBacks January989):16.


21/33

CHRISTINE DELPHY 209son has convincinglyhown25 hat t was differenceeministsn theWomen's ureauwho defeatedhepassageofthe E.R.A.MollyLadd-Taylormakes the same point:"Maternalismndfeminism oexistedand at timesoverlappedntilthe1920s,whenthe bitter ebateoverthe Equal RightsAmendment rove hem part."26n otherwords,there re differentolitical gendas ndtimes f eckoning hen hesedifferencesanno longer e smoothed ver.Even though hese differentolitical gendas re not necessarilylinked na one-to-one aywithdifferentnalyses,ust as onecannotassume suchcoherence n thepartof ndividuals,t is equallyclearthat there re correspondencesetween nalytical rameworksndpolitical agendas n general,whethern respect o feminism r inrespect o other olitical uestions.The tendency o gloss over divergencess due to an unrealisticbelief hatbasicallywe all wantthesame thing.t is, or shouldbe,apparent ynow thatwe do not llwant he amething, omore han"we"wanted he amething uringirst-waveeminism r tany imebetween he wowaves.Wehave oaccept hatnot llwomen onceiveof heir nterestsnthe ameway, nd that heir ifferentays anbeconflictual,s was strikinglyemonstratedn the debate over theE.R.A.I have for long time see Delphy1984 and 1993a), ike others,believedthatonlya faulty nalysis,which could be sorted ut bydebate, ed some Western omen o argue hat hewayout ofoppres-sion lay in specific ights orwomenand the buttressingfgenderidentity, hen o manywomennother ountries,specially n funda-mentalistMuslimcountries,retryingesperatelyogetrid f codesofpersonal tatus"and other pecific rights" hatare in realitycurtailingfcitizenship orwomen.27 ut believenow thatwe don'thave the same visionof"liberation." vidence fthis s presented ythehighly motional ejection, yfeministscall "radical"-that is,looking or ndwanting o eradicate he rootsof patriarchy-of hegroup-identityought by proponents f "difference";nd by the

25. Dorothy tetson,Women's ightsn theU.S.A. Belmont: rooks/Cole,991).26. MollyLadd-Taylor,Toward efiningMaternalismn U.S. History,"ournalfWomen's istory /2 1993):110-14.27. See A.E.L.F.H., Les luttesde femmes n Algerie," ndMarie-Aimee 6lie-Lucas, LesstrategiesesfemmesPegard esfondamentalismesans e mondemusul-man,"NouvellesQuestions Mministes6-18 1991):17-29and29-63.


22/33

210 Yale French tudiesequallyhighly motional isgust xpressed ythem tourvisionofworld hatwould makeroomfor ll individual ifferences,nd alsoconsider ll differencess individual.28To continue nterpretingivergences ithinfeminism s meremisunderstandings,ras differenttrategies,s tobury ne's head nthesand:some divergencesre not aboutdifferentaysofachievingthe ame goals, hey reabout differentoals.Themost trikingllus-tration fthispropositions found, think,n the very erms f thedebateabout "Difference" ersus Equality."Amongthe oppressedgroups fhumankind,nlywomen ppose difference"o "equality,"andthat ormulationlone s reflectedntitles uch s Beyond qual-ity and Difference.n the introduction o thisparadigmatic ook,"Contextualizing quality ndDifference,"heonly"contextualiza-tion" whichwould ndeedmake tpossible ogo"beyond" heques-tion of "Difference" ersus"Equality" s neveronce mentioned.29Such a contextualization ouldbe thepreliminarydmission hat"theopposite f equality' s 'inequality."'30

DESTABILIZING FEMINISMThe mainreason hat ts nventorsnvented heir rand f eminisms"French"was thatthey idnot wanttotakeresponsibilityorwhattheywere aying nd, nparticular,or heir ttemptorescuepsycho-analysisfrom he discreditt had incurred oth in feminism ndthroughouthe ocial sciences.Theypretendedhat nother eministmovementhoughttwasgreat-that nfact twas all theother,d-mittedlytrange,movement asinterestedn.

Thattook omedoing, processwhich s excellentlyescribed nd28. For he akeofbeing nderstood,usethe erm differences,"lthoughthink tis a loaded term n the context f the discussion f sex andgender, specially ince"differences"renever eferredxplicitlyo their mplicit eferent,e it thedominantcategory,r herealm fhuman ctionwhere hey cquire, rdo not cquire, elevance,and furthermoren that "differences"re,at the most,opposed o "sameness" seeScott). ut evelsof ameness-for xample, elongingo thehuman pecies-are theunsaidbutnecessaryontext ffindingifferencesithin hat evel,nthe ameway slevelsofdifferences-forxample hosebetween umans ndother nimals-are the

unspoken asisfor indingameness.29. "ContextualizingqualityndDifference,"nBeyond quality ndDifference,ed. Gisela Bock ndSusanJamesLondon:Routledge Kegan aul,1992), -13.30. Christine lant6,nher Questions e differences"nFMminismesupresent,wonderswhyJoan cott,who makes hisclear nher1988article, oesnot apply hisinsighto her nalysis f heSearsCase.


23/33

CHRISTINE DELPHY 211analyzed yClaireMoses 1992a).Mosespoints utthat tthe imeofthefamous1978Signs issue, "thePrefaces lways dentified ixous,Kristeva, nd Irigaray s French writers' r intellectuals,' ever s'feminists."' he goesontonotethat heFrenchmovement ascon-sistently resented yElaineMarks nd sabelledeCourtivrons "indiscontinuity ithhistorical eminism";hatDomna Stantoninthe1978Signsissue) dentifiesanguage s the iteoffeministtrugglenFrance.Moses givesmany xamples f heway heFrenchmovementwasmisrepresented.hefact hattwasa movementhat haredmanytraitswithothermovements-in terms fpreoccupations,nalyses,campaigns, emands, ctivism-was notonly gnored, utdenied. twas saidthat herewas a movement,ut a movement fwriters ho"problematizedhe wordsfeminist'nd feminism"'Marks nddeCourtivron,ited nMoses 1992a).One couldgo on,taking pfactual rrorsnAnglo-Americanrit-ings o thisday nd howing hedistortionshat heFrenchmovementsuffered,nd still uffers,tthehandsof hesewriters.want ofocushere n onepointnparticular,ndthat sthepersonalnd deologicalclosenesstopsychoanalysisf thewomen electedbyFrench emi-nists, nd their qual distance rom eminism.Ithasbeennoted yMosesthat rench eminism asequatedwith"womenwriters,"hat woofthe threewritersn question reanti-feminist nd thatonlyone-who has only recentlytarted allingherself feminist-hasbeenread ndcommentedpon byfeministsfrom rance.But if t has beenmentioned hatthey re Lacanian,nowhere oes it ever ppear hat woofthem repracticing sycho-analysts: rigaraynd Kristeva.n theway hatCixous's ndKristeva'santifeministeclarations re, variously,reated s nonrelevant,hefact hat hey renotpart f hefeminist ebatenFrances consideredas so irrelevants tobenotevenworthmentioning.t s implied hatactualfeminists rom rance ook up tothesewriters, hich sneces-sary n order o make them ook significanto thedomestic eader.Theirreal mportancenFrance s never valuated-for nstance, ythenumber f imes hey requoted r ppearnfeministiscussions.What s implied yportrayinghesewomen s importantnfemi-nism s thatwhether ne calls oneself feministrnot s notrelevant;what s furthermplied yassertinghat hey re mportantor emi-nists nFrances that eministsnFrance o notconsiderhat elevanteither. he message s that n order o speak n oroffeminism,nedoesnotneedto be a self-definedeminist. he impact his had on


24/33

212 YaleFrench tudiesdomestic eminismwas to blurthefrontiersetween eminists ndnonfeminists.However, his s not a consistent olicy.At other imes,Kristevaand Cixous are, on thecontrary,eclaimed s feminists,n spite ofthemselves.This is a spectacularmanifestation f imperialism.Kristeva's rCixous'soutspokenntifeminisman be dismissed n awaythatnoAnglo-American'spinion ould bedismissed: Despitetheir isclaimers,tis difficultot to classify risteva ndCixous asfeminists"Tong, 23).It is suggested hat hey o not know heir wn minds.There s alevelofcontempt ere hat s truly nbearable. ut fone manages oforgetndforgivehe ondescension,hat s themessage otheAnglo-American eader?Again, t seemstobe thatwritingsmeant s anti-feministre ust simportanto feminisms feminist ritings.gain,the ine sblurred,nd thefeministebate pensup to welcome nti-feminist pinions,whichare to be treated n a par withfeministopinions.Thatwasopeninghewayfor hings et o come:the ntroductionintofeminismfFreud ndLacan,firsts "French eminists,"hen sfeministsout court,andfinallys "Founding athers." he redeem-ingofpsychoanalysis asnowbeenachieved; nd notonly hanks oFrench eminism, ince JulietMitchell,Nancy Chodorow,nd CarolGilliganhavepavedthewayfor hisdevelopment,lbeitwith a softversion fpsychoanalyticssentialism. roponentsf French emi-nismwere ble to use thisopening o offerhe realhard tuff: nre-constructed ontinental sychoanalysis. nd theAnglo-Americanscene has been transformedo the extent hat a book on psycho-analysis s seenas intrinsicallyart ffeministheory,nspiteofthetotal bsence f nydiscussion ffeminismseeGallop).That s some-thing hat couldnothavehappenedbefore he invention f FrenchFeminism,nd which could still nothappen nFrance,whoever heauthor.MarcelleMarinidid write bookonLacan,but thatwasnotseen as partof her feministwriting;n fact t was actually een asslightly dd.)Butthe most nterestingeature fFrench eminisms theway tdeals with ssentialism.MostFrench eminists onotholdupessen-tialism sa "GoodThing." ut hey ften romotetby ayinghatt snot essentialism.A gooddeal oftheir ime s takenup "defending"Irigaraygainst ccusations fessentialismseeSchor1989and Fuss1989,especially 5-83). Butwhy xactly?s itbecausethey recon-


25/33

CHRISTINE DELPHY 213vincedthat rigarays notessentialist? hey cannotbe, as Irigaraymakesno bones about it, and never riesto defendherself gainstsomethinghe does notsee as anindictment. nglo-Americanssen-tialists re n a more elicate osition: heywant he hingwithout hesting.And since of course his s notpossible,whatthey re accom-plishingntheir omestic cene s a regression.verybodyalks boutessentialism, utnobodyknowswhat t is anymore,s essentialisttheoriesrepresentedsnonessentialist.venFreud ndLacan,whoseessentialism as established long ime go nallquarters,otonlynfeministircles, re nowbeing revalued" nd absolved.Moreover,n an apparently ontradictory,ut reallycoherentmovement, ssentialism s increasingly resented s somethingwhich, lthought cannotbe endorsed utright, ightnot be "thedamning riticismtis supposed obe" (Smith, 44).PaulSmith ndDiana Fusscreditrigaray ith uchsophisticationhat,t s implied,she canonly seem"essentialist; n theother and,f he were oundto be (andnot ustseem tobe)essentialist,hen,t is implied,mightshe not have a goodreason?Although heycannotdecideon thematter-Fuss evenwrites hat Irigarayoth s and snotanessential-ist" Fuss1989,70)-they agree hatf he s, t sa strategy,ven akeystrategy.. not noversight"Fuss1989, 2).Thus,under heguiseoftryingounderstandomplex uropean hinking, nglo-Americanu-thors reworkingheirwaytowards rehabilitationfessentialism.

CONCLUDING REMARKS: IMPERIALISM AS ATACTIC FOR ELIMINATING WITH ONE FELLSWOOP FEMINISM .. . AND WOMENThe invention fFrench eminism s contemporaryiththe nven-tionof French heory." hetwofollow he ame ines nd ndeed re,to someextent,hesamething.What s strikingo theFrench eader,inthewritingsf he eventies swell s inmore ecentwritings,s themanner nwhichall feminists rom rance re umped ogether,e-gardless ftheir heoretical,sthetic, rpolitical rientation.Wittig,fornstance,s cited arly n n the amebreaths Cixous, ndsome-timesshe is defined s belongingothesamestrand,ecriture emi-nine." There s more than gnorance t workhere.Evenwhen t isrecognizedhatWittig annotbe inthesame strand ince she s veryvocal aboutrepudiatingecritureeminine"ndall that tstands or,she s stillalways uoted nconjunction ith he"HolyThree,"very


26/33

214 Yale French tudiesseldomby herself r n conjunctionwithAnglo-Americaneministswho aretheoreticallyndpolitically lose to her.The same ofcourseholdstrue orCixous: herplights exactlyymmetrical,lthough orreasons hat hould e clearbynow, feel orWittig.MicheleLe Doeuff,who is notparticularlyashful bouthertheoretical tand, s alsolumped ogether iththeessentialists, despiteherdisclaimers," sTongwouldput t (Tong, 23).Do the stars f "French heory"-who are also the mastermindsbehindthewomen, ccording o French eministssee infra)-farebetter?No. Lacan,Derrida, oucault, ndBarthes re all one in theAnglo-Americanompulsion ounifyndhomogenizehe"French,"thus denying hem ny ndividuality. ow is it possibleto lump to-gether n the samearticle, evermind n thesamesentence,writerssuchas Foucault ndLacan,who come from otally pposite radi-tions, nd who furthermorerevery penabouttheir isagreements?Anglo-Americansave createdwholenewschoolsofthought-orat east cademic rends-by omparingrenchwriters hocannot ecompared, y"puttingndialogue"peoplewhohavenothingosaytoeachother,ndbygiving hisreadymixnames ike "poststructural-ism" and"postmodernism.How will that mprobablemixturewith-stand hetestoftime?Notverywell:Foucault's ocialconstruction-ismwillnot, venwith hehelpof heMarines,ver lendwithLacan'sessentialism.Andwhyare French uthors-maleorfemale, eminist r not-almostnever ompared o theirAnglo-Americanounterparts,ow-ever imilar, utonly oother renchwriters,owever ifferent?e-causethatwould howthat here redifferencesmong hem, n theonehand, ndsimilarities etween hem nd their ommentatorsrtranslatorsn theAnglo-American orld, n theother.nternal o-mogenization nd externaldifferentiation:his is how groups-national, thnic, exual-are constituted.n exactly he sameway,French uthors re seenas a groupwhich sdefinedy, ndonlyby,tsdifferenceo thegroupwhichhas thepower oname;thusthey reconstituteds anOther.Ifone has toadmit hat hework fwriters anbe nterpreted,ndthat heword f he uthor n his orher wnwork eednotbethe ast,ortheonlyone, t s anentirelyifferentettle ffish opretendhattheseworks anbe totally bstractedromheir bjective, istoricalcontexts. ndthis sprecisely hat sbeingdone, ofemale ndmalewriters ho werebornnFrance.Moreover,fAnglo-Americansave


27/33

CHRISTINE DELPHY 215the right o "take theirgood wheretheyfind t, as the French ay, ndto use quotations fromFrance-or any otherpart of the world-tocreate their own theories,the line must be drawnat calling that cre-ative endeavor "French Theory." Nobody owns theirownwriting;buteverybody eserves a fairhearing, nd that s whattheFrenchoftendonot get. They are entitled to be understoodand appreciated,or dis-missed,forwhat theydid orsaid,not hailed or damned forwhat someother Frenchpersondid or said: "It all happens as if the word Frencherased or diminished the serious tension between the works ofCixousand Irigaray or those of Lyotardand Derrida)" (Varikas,64). Inter-estingly,Anglo-Americancommentatorswho do try o put, say,Fou-cault or de Beauvoir in perspective, nd to understandwhy theysaidwhat theysaid when theydid,do not call that "FrenchTheory."31Claire Moses writeseloquentlyabout this:

We .. in the role of mperial aveexpropriatedomeoneaspectofFrench ulture, sed tfor urpurposes, ith ittle egardor heFrenchor theFrench ontext .. with ittle nterest orthepeoplethem-selves.... The aspectthat nterestss is the east characteristicutthemostdifferentromurfeminism;hemore haracteristicspectsboreus. We have exoticized rench eminism, econtextualizedt,used t for urpurposes,with ittle nterestn French ctivists. n sodoing,we have bused urpower-involving urselves, nwittingly,na power truggle mongFrenchwomenandconferringrestigendstatus n one side-the psych tpo group-whichproved estructiveto the nterestsfFrenchwomen.Moses1992a]When I readClaireMoses's paper, had a flashofrecognition-and,yes, gratitude-at seeingwhatI havebeenthinking oryears o clearly

andbeautifully xpressed.Then I had towriteanotherpaper, histimeforNouvelles Questions FMministes,n theHill-Thomas hearings ndits meaning forFrance and forfeminism. read Claire's paper again,and was struck histimebya sentenceon the same page: "The French(and more generally Europeans') are blamed foraspects ofourselvesthat we do not like butdo not take responsibility or like our racismand classism); Europe or France s tainted;we arepure."And I rememberedhavingwritten xactly hesame words usta fewdays before,but about theFrenchcaricatureoftheUnited States andAmericans. The Hill-Thomas controversy as presented nFranceas a31. See SoniaKruks,GenderndSubjectivity:imone eBeauvoir ndContempo-rary eminism," igns18/11992):89-111.


28/33

216 Yale French tudiesproof f American acism-to maketheirpoint, hemedia simplyoverlookedhefact hatHill, ikeThomas, s African-American.herewereheadlines n "TheNew McCarthyism," n "sexualfundamen-talism" and "the feministobby";weeklies warned:"Puritanism,feminism and attacks on private life.... Is the American modelthreateningrance?"citednEzekiel1992).The mediause knee-jerkanti-Americanism,utfill t with new content: t s everythinghatis progressiven theUnited tates hat hey ondemn.Kristeva's us-band,Philippe ollers,whohaswritten best-sellerbouthis wom-anizing Femmes),s in the forefrontfthe battle.Therewas, too, adomestic genda: year aterwhen,forced y Europe, rancehad tolegislate n sexualharassment,ll the fficials arned gainst Ameri-canization"; s a resultwegot hemost estrictiveaw on thebooks othisday, lawthatmakesa mockeryf exualharassment.32I have rgued bove hatFrench eminism as nventedn order olegitimatehe ntroductionn theAnglo-Americaneministceneofbrandofessentialism,nd in particular rehabilitation fpsycho-analysis,whichgoesfurtherhanthe nativekindexpressed y SaraRuddick, hodorow,rGilligan. he other eature f his ntellectualcurrent, hich s definitelyot exhibited y Ruddick, hodorow,rGilligan,s that tquestions hevery asesofwhatdefines feministtheoreticalpproach.n theusual definition, feminist heoreticalapproachs tiedtoa politicalmovement,movementimed t effect-ing actual change n actual societyand in actual women's-andmen's-lives; themainfeaturef his ie residesn thequestions hatareaskedof heobjects nder tudy. hatnecessaryiedoes notmeanthat omeabstract ctivistnstance ictates hetopics obe studied,butthatanyfeminist-scholar rnot-should be able to argue herelevance f thequestions heraisesto the feministmovement s awhole. n order o demonstratehathypothesis,will turn oa casestudy f neof hekeymoments f hewholeoperation: liceJardine'sGynesis.In thiswork, FrenchTheory" s constituteds a "whole" byaseries frhetorical anoeuvreshat se distortionndgeneralization,imperialismnd exoticism. irst,hefeministmovementn Francescast as D.O.A. in the "socialist" era,after seriesofmurderousstruggles,romwhich t is supposednot to haverecovered.o, exit

32. See Delphy, The Hill-ThomasControversyndFrenchNational dentity,"NouvellesQuestions Mministes4/4 1993):3-13.


29/33

CHRISTINE DELPHY 217French eminism n theusual sense of"feminist." eminists re stillthere,however.How is Jardine oingto disposeofthem?Wehavealready een told thatfeminism,thatword," poses some seriousproblems." t does, ndeed, f, ike Jardine,ne can think f onlyoneplace to ook for t: thedictionaries he thendismisses hefeminists"who qualify hemselvess feministsn their ife nd work" Jardine1985,20),because thatwouldbe too simple.But hereplain factualdistortion ivesway to imperialism:whatcounts s onlywhat saycounts. t snotonlybecause t wouldbe toosimplethat actual feministsrom rancewill not be discussed, utbecause: "When in the United States,one refers o . . . Frenchfemi-nisms, t s not hosewomen nehas nmind" Jardine985, 0).Thereis somethingircular r autologicalnthe rgument:Iwillnot nter-estmyselfn thosewomen ecausethey renotof nteresto me."Butcircularitynd tautology,s exemplary xpressionsfself-centered-ness, reessential omponentsf mperialist hinking.In the next entence, merican nterests whatconstitutes emi-nistsfrom rance s importantr not mportantn an objective, ealway: these womenare said to "havea major mpacton theories fwritingndreading"Jardine985,20).Theplacewhere hat majorimpact" s supposed o have happeneds notspecified:tmaybe theUnited tates,tmaybe thewholeworld-isn't tthe amething? ndJardineists: Cixous, Kofman,Kristeva, emoine-Luccioni,Mon-trelay.33hen she moveson to say that the majornewdirectionsn

33. At the time Jardine'siece was published,nd at the time t was written,Women's tudies nd Feminist tudieswereundergoingheonlyperiod fexpansionthey ave ver nownnFrance. research rogramadbeen aunched n theNationalCenter or cientific esearchn1983which asted ntil1989.At the imeJardineasin Francewritingbout he Parisian cene, itwasunderway.twasextremelyariednits deological nd heoreticalrientations,s tregroupedn tsboard heWho'sWho fWomen's tudies n France.Over a period fsixyears,t examinedmorethanthreehundred esearchrojects ndfunded ighty,n alldisciplinesndon all topics,nclud-ing, fcourse,iteraryriticism.Why s it thatmostofthenamesJardineistsneverappear n the bibliographiesf any of these projects, ven of the fewthat werepsychoanalytically-oriented,ftheymade such a "major mpact"?And why s it thatJardine oes not mentionthis program, hich was the talk of the-admittedlyprovincial-town fParis nd which he couldnothavehelpedhearing bout?Similar actics re usedbyMoi: "The publishing istoryfFrench eminismnEnglish-speakingountries onfirmsheoverwhelmingmpact f the three ames ofCixous, rigarayndKristeva"Moi 1987,5).A somewhat isingenuousndevenper-verse tatementntwo ccounts: irst,hepublishing istoryf hese hreewritersnEnglish s supposed o prove heir opularityn France And econdly,hatpublishinghistorys not oexternaloMoi as she, retendingo "discover"t,wouldhaveus think.


30/33

218 Yale French tudiesFrench theoryover the past two decades ... have . .. posited them-selves s profoundly.. anti- nd/orost-feminist"Jardine985, 0).Thisis a strategicmovewhichoverturnsll previous nderstandingsaboutwhatkindofthinkings useful or eminism.But thebest s yet ocome: this aid, heproceeds oexplain hatshe willdealwiththemen,because "the women heoristsnFrancewhose names have been mentioned here are . .. in the best Frenchtradition . . direct isciplesof those men."And although he does"notmean this as a criticism," he comments hat thesewomen'swork consists of "rewritingsof the men . .. repetitions and dissi-dencesfromhosemen" Jardine985,21).We aregiven o understandhat hesewomen,who areantifemi-nist, re,however,heproducers f hemost mportant ork or emi-nistthinking;hat heir hinkingomesfrommen, o theextent hatthey eednotbeconsideredhemselves.he readermaybesurprised.Butthis s where heexoticism omes n toconfuse ndguilt-trips:that s theFrench rand ffeminism,ndeventhoughtmay seemstrange, hat ffeminists rom rance ike it?As in all imperialistdiscourses,here's mixtureffake espect or heculture ndconde-scension.Enoughrespect o warrant heattention fthe Americanreader: French eminism"simportant,emust isten owhat thastosay.Butthatrespect s really ondescension:orwhatsort ffemi-nists anfeministsrom rance e f hey ake s theirmajor heoristswomenwhonotonly re antifeministsut whomerely arrotmen?On what ort f liches nthereader'smind sJardineounting?Whatsortofstereotypesrenecessary o believe hatof French eminists,indeedof nyfeminists?But he nsistst s "in thebestFrench radition."o subservienceto themen s seenasboth niqueto theFrench34ndnot odamnableas itmighteem:from hemomentthas beendeemed French,"ndsince heFrenchre n nterestingulture,t cannot econdemned seasily s all that.Jardinextendshecultural elativist ing oprotectByall accounts, erSexual/Textual oliticswas decisive n startinghat rend.Andwhatwas the hrust f hatbook?To pit "Anglo-Americaneministriticism," hichshe finds isappointing,gainstwhat hecalls-coiningthephrase-"French eministtheory,andwhose irsthaptersentitled From imone eBeauvoir oJacques acan,thus stablishing acan as a "feministheorist," paradox ot even hemostpsycho-analytically-orientedeministsnFrancewouldhavedreamedfdefending.34. Again,Moi uses the ametactics: French eministsn thewholehave beeneager o appropriateominantntellectualrends or eministurposes,s for nstancein thecase of he heories fJacques errida ndJacques acan" Moi 1987,1).


31/33

CHRISTINE DELPHY 219it. Could she have ent he amemessage sing n Americanxample?Couldshe havedecided hat o-and-sos an mportant riter or emi-nist issues even though hat persondoes not address he topic,orworse, s against eminism? ouldshesaythat oday hemost mpor-tantAmericanwriters or eminismreKatieRoife rCamille Paglia?And f hedid,wherewould tplaceher?Butwhy ould henotdo so?Afterll,opponents re mportant.heydo need obediscussed. ut sit the same thing o say thatPatrickMoynihan's hesesmustbe dis-cussedand to say thathe is themaintheoristf nd for eminism?There arethree oints hatneed to be made here. t is true hat,since there xists continuum ffeministsndantifeminists,tcre-atesparticular roblems, hichhavebeennoted yJudithtacey,35or"drawing he ine," especiallywhenwriters ith learly ntifeministviews, uch s Jean lshtain rPaglia, allthemselveseminist,s theyincreasinglyo in theUnitedStates oday.Asmentioned arlier,hepointhasbeenraised egardingrigaray yMaryseGuerlais ndEleniVarikas36nFrance, nd t s a difficultne.Althoughrigaray's orkis notused nWomen's tudies nFrance, er heses revery opularwith mportant arts fthewomen'smovementnItaly, ndsmallerbutstillsignificantudiences n France nd Holland.However,nas-much s there re, n feminisms elsewhere, efinitionalroblems orborderlineases,theseproblemsrealways ituated, reciselyor hisreason, tthemargins; hey o nottouchon the core.Writerswho situatethemselves is-a-vis eminist uestionsarepartof the feminist ebate-including hosewhooppose feminism;buteventhough he atter rediscussed, hey re nottreatedn thesamecategorys writers hodefinehemselvess feminist.eministshave lwaysdiscussed ntifeminists:ne couldeven aythat his on-stitutes major art ffeminist riting. xposingndanalyzing atri-archal deology asbeenonthefeministgendafromhevery egin-nings of feminism. ut antifeministsnd feminists ave distinctplaces nfeministnalysis. atriarchynd ts ntellectual roductionsare anobjectof tudy, hey renotandcannotbea meansor a tooloffeministnalysis.

35. Judithtacey,AreFeminists fraidoLeaveHome?TheChallenge fConser-vative ro-Familyeminism,"n What sFeminism?,d.Juliet itchell ndAnnOak-ley,Oxford: lackwell, 986), 19-49.36. MaryseGuerlais,Vers nenouvelledeologie udroit tatuaire: etemps e adifferencee Luce rigaray,"ouvellesQuestions eministes16-18 1991):63-93; andVarikas 993.


32/33

220 Yale French tudiesThe case is quite differentith writerswho are not necessarilyhostile o feminism utwhodo notaddress eministssues.The ques-

tion s not: "Friend r foe?" t is: "Whatdo they ring o thediscus-sion? This s thecase n France orKristeva, ho doesnot ddress hequestionsraisedby feminismecauseshedoes not knowwhat theyare.Heronly nformationbout feminisms the kindof caricaturescirculated y hemedia.This s the ase also forwomen ikeMontrelayor Lemoine-Luccioni, ho are traditional sychoanalystsnd cannotevenbedescribeds "antifeminist,"incethat mplies ngaging ithfeministdeas,which hey o not.Theirposition s bestdescribeds atraditional male-supremacist"r "prefeminist"iew; and it is sowidely eld n France ypsychoanalystshat eminists avenever elttheneed to discussthose three n particular.37o herethe point srather: ould Jardine,r anyother upposedly eminist riter,ecidethatan English r American uthor,whose work s not consideredrelevant nd is not discussedby English ndAmerican eminists e-cause she orhedoesnotdiscuss eministuestions, epresentshat smost nterestingnthefeministceneofthose ountries?This is, in fact, xactlywhat Jardine,ndwith her,most otherFrench eminists re saying: hat here s nodifferenceetween emi-nistthinkingnd patriarchalhinkingromhepoint fview oftheiruse forfeministnalysis.Further,hey mply hataddressing ues-tionswhich rerelevantor eminismsirrelevantor articipatingnthefeminist ebate. hatmakes eminismtselfn rrelevantosition.Thiscouldnotbeargued rom domestic osition, singdomesticexamples: trawwomenhad to be inventedwho, supposedly romwithinfeminism, erequestioningnd invalidating feministp-proach;but thadto be a feminismo strange,o foreign,hatthiswouldbe as credible s it wasimprobable.t had to be "French emi-nism."The secondpart fthemessage s: ifthe "French" an do it,why an'twe?Andthey id.Feminism ouldnot be invalidatedromwithin heFrench emi-nists' own culture,.e. Anglo-Americanulture;men could not bereinstateds themain nterlocutors,s thearbitersf ll knowledge,including eminist nowledge,rom domestic osition.ntroducing

37. This s whyCixousand rigaray,ho knowwhatfeminisms,mustbe distin-guishednefrom he ther,he irsteing ntifeminist,nd he econd eing eministyherown definition.urthermore,othmustbesharply istinguishedromhe econdgroup-Kristeva, ontrelay,ndLemoine-Luccioni-whoo notknowwhat eminismis andwho areneither eminist or ntifeminist,utpre-feminist.


33/33

CHRISTINE DELPHY 221"Frenchwomen" was the way to ntroduce he dea thatto be antifemi-nist and to be part of the feministdebate was acceptable; the next stepwas to do away with the women and to revealthemen behind them,accordingto thepurportednative women's wishes, so that men couldbe, once more,center stage, n feminismas well as everywhere lse.Promotingessentialism was themain motive behind the creationof FrenchFeminism; but there was a further, nd when one thinksabout it, not vastly different,eason for hat invention; and that wasputting Women's Studies scholars "in dialogue" again with maleauthors.

EPILOGUE IN THE FORM OF AN (IMAGINARY)TRANSATLANTIC DIALOGUEMy undergraduatetudents ssuremethat eminismsno onger ec-essary ecausewe've olved llthat,ndvarious emale olleagues ndgraduatetudents erivetfrom wowhite entlemen,gnoringwentyyears f extra-academiceminist ork ndwriting. wouldsaythatwe've beenbetrayed, erenot such a remark ne ofthe banalities fhistory.ndsoheartbreaking.Russ, ]

I want to add: and academic.Thepricepaidbyresistant omen s literallyncalculable that s, Iknow fnocurrencynwhich tscostcanbecounted).t s thusnot tall surprisinghat hetemptationo "dilute"thechallenges not al-waysresistible,r resisted.38

38. Ailbhe myth, HaystacksnMyMindorHow toStay AFE Sane,AngryndFeminist)n the1990s," paper resentedt theWISEConference,ctober 993, aris.

c. delphy - the invention of french feminism

Documents