Interview: Choreographies: Jacques Derrida and Christie V. McDonald Author(s): Christie V.

McDonald and Jacques Derrida Source: Diacritics, Vol. 12, No. 2, Cherchez la Femme Feminist Critique/Feminine Text (Summer, 1982), pp. 66-76 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/464681 . Accessed: 13/05/2013 12:06
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 of content 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 support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Diacritics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 86.182.126.83 on Mon, 13 May 2013 12:06:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

INTERVIEW
CHOREOG RAPH
.......... .........

IES

V. MCDONALD and CHRISTIE JACQUESDERRIDA

MEE-5_-

44~ -i~il"':?ii':iiiii ":-:--iii-i Question I'

. .
.
. .

:-?i

.l

..
:I- :lii:~i -'i?i i i ~:~ i -i~li:ia

'ig

rBMW :

MCDONALD: EmmaGoldman,a maverick feministfromthe late nineteenth century,once said of the feministmovement:"IfI can'tdance I don't aboutthe wantto be partof yourrevolution." Derrida, Jacques you havewritten it 'the feminine.' of what that constitutes woman and is In question The University of ChicagoPress,1978),a and London: (Chicago Spurs/Eperons whichwill not textdevotedto Nietzsche,styleandwoman,you wrotethat"that in And be pinneddown by truth[truth?] is, truth,feminine." you warnedthat fora woman's feminin"should not... be hastilymistaken such a proposition or for any otherof those essentializing fetisheswhich ity, for femalesexuality, the impotent artist or the inexpethe dogmaticphilosopher, mightstilltantalize riencedseducerwho has not yet escaped his foolishhopes of capture." of Nietzsche Whatseems to be at playas you take up Heidegger's reading is whether or not sexual differenceis a "regional questionin a largerorder it firstto the domain of generalontology, subsewhich would subordinate that a to of fundamental to the questionof the truth ontologyandfinally quently of the argument and at of beingitself." Youtherebyquestionthe status [whose?] the same time the questionitself.In this instance,if the questionof sexualdifif indeed"itmay no ference is not a regionalone (in the sense of subsidiary), even a as how would describe'woman's be you suggest, you longer question," place'? WillI be ableto writeimprovising DERRIDA: as Igo along?It my responses it?Too premeditated an interview would would be moreworthwhile, wouldn't of suchan endeavor, be withoutinterest here. Ido notsee the particular finality with respectto these quesits properend. Itwould be interminable, or, rather, tions- which are muchtoo difficult-I would neverhaveeven daredto begin. Thereare othertexts, otheroccasionsfor such verycalculatedpremeditation. Let us play surprise.It will be our tributeto the dance [in Frenchthe word the use of a femininepronoun, dance, la danse, is a femininenoun requiring elle]:it shouldhappenonlyonce, neither growheavynoreverplungetoo deep; not leave above all, it shouldnot lag or trailbehinditstime.We willtherefore time to come backto what is behindus, norto look attentively. We will only take a glimpse.[InFrench, to takea glimpseis to look intothe spacesbetween that is, inter-view.] things,entrevoir,
'The following text is the result of a written exchange carried on during the fall of 1981. Jacques Derridawrote his responses in French, and I then translatedthem into Englishfor publication. It should be noted that I do not ask the following questions in the name of any specific feministgroup or ideology. I do nevertheless owe a debt to longstandingconversations on the subject of "Woman"and "Women"with, among others, A. Jardine, C. Livesque, N. Miller, N. Schor and especially i. McDonald. DIACRITICSVol. 12 Pp. 66-76 0300-7162/82/0122-0066 $01.00 ? 1982 by The Johns Hopkins University Press

This content downloaded from 86.182.126.83 on Mon, 13 May 2013 12:06:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Itwas a good idea to begin with a quotation, one by a feminist from the end of the nineteenth century maverick enough to ask of the feminist movement its questions and conditions. Already, already a sign of life, a sign of the dance. One can question the repetition. Was the matrix of what was to be the future of feminism already there at the end of the last century? You smile, no doubt, as I do, at the mention of this word. [The word matrix in English like matrice in French comes from the Latinmatrixmeaning womb. In both languages it has taken on, among others, the following two meanings: 1) a situation or surrounding substance within which something originates, develops, or is contained; 2) in printingit means a metal plate used for casting typefaces.] Let us make use of this figure from anatomy or printinga bit longer to ask whether a program,or locus of begetting, was not already in place in the nineteenth century for all those configurations to which the feminist struggle of the second half of the twentieth century was to commit itself and then to develop. I refer here to their being in place at all levels - those of sociopolitical demands, alliances with other forces, the alternatives of compromise or various radicalisms, the strategies of discourses, various forms of writing, theory or literature, etc. One is often tempted to think of this program- and to arrive by way of conclusion at the stasis of a simple combinatory scheme - in terms of all that is interminable and exhausting in it. Yes, it is exhausting (because it always draws on the same fund of possibilities)and tedious because of the ensuing repetition. This is only one of the paradoxes. The development of the present struggle (or struggles) is extraordinarynot only in its quantitative extension within Europe- because of its progress and the masses that have been slowly aroused - but also, and this is a much more important phenomenon I believe, outside of Europe. And such progress brings with it new types of historical research, other forms of reading, the discovery of new bodies of materialthat have gone unrecognized or misunderstood up until now; that is to say, they have been exceshas often sively [violemment] concealed or marginalized. The historyof different"feminisms" been, of course, a past "passed-over-in-silence."Now here is the paradox: having made possible the reawakening of this silent past, having reappropriateda history previously stifled, feminist movements will perhaps have to renounce an all too easy kind of progressivism in the evaluation of this history. Such progressivismis often taken as their axiomatic base: the inevitable or ratheressential presupposition (dans les luttes, as we say in French)of what one or what your might call the ideological consensus of feminists, perhaps also their "dogmatics" "maverickfeminist"suspects to be their sluggishness. It is the image of a continuously accelerated "liberation"at once punctuated by determinable stages and commanded by an ultimately thinkable telos, a truth of sexual difference and femininity, etc. And if there is no doubt that this theatre, upon which the progress of feminist struggles is staged, exists, it is a relatively short and very recent sequence within "extreme-Western" history. Certainly, it is not timely politically, nor in any case is it possible, to neglect or renounce such a view of "liberation." However, to credit this representation of progress and entrust everything to it would be to surrenderto a sinister mystification:everything would collapse, flow, founder in this same homogenized, sterilized riverof the historyof mankind [man'skind in the locution I'histoiredes hommes]. This history carries along with it the age-old dream of reappropriation, "liberation," autonomy, mastery, in short the cortege of metaphysics and the tekhne. The indications of this repetition are more and more numerous. The specular reversal of even in its most self-critical form-that is, where it is nervously masculine "subjectivity," jealous both of itself and of its "proper" objects- probably represents only one necessary phase. Yet it still belongs to the same program, a program whose exhaustion we were just talking about. It is true that this is valid for the whole of our culture, our scholastics, and the trouble may be found everywhere that this program is in command, or almost everywhere. I have not begun as yet to answer your question, but, if you will forgive me, I am going to try to approach it slowly. It was necessary to recall the fact that this "silent past"(as that which was passed-over-in-silence) could still reserve some surprises, like the dance of your "maverickfeminist." MCDONALD:Yes, and in that respect, recognition of the paradox suggests that while nineteenth century and late twentieth century feminism do resemble each other, it is less because of their historical matrix than because of those characteristicswhich define them.

diacritics/ summer 1982

67

This content downloaded from 86.182.126.83 on Mon, 13 May 2013 12:06:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

True, the program was in place.2 The resurgence in the United States during the nineteen sixties of anarchist-likeattitudes, particularlywithin the feminist movement, attests to that. But Goldman was not before or behind the times. An admirer of Nietzsche as "rebel and innovator,"she proclaimed that "revolutionis but thought carried into action." She was an activist unable to support those forms of organized feminism that focused on merely contesting the institutionalizingof inequalities for women. Her stance was more radical- one that of society as a whole. If she refused the vote, for example, it was called for the restructuring because she deemed that behind standardforms of political action there lay coercion. As an anarchist-feministshe had no truck with statism. DERRIDA: Perhapswoman does not have a history, not so much because of any notion of the "Eternal Feminine"but because all alone she can resist and step back from a certain history (precisely in order to dance) in which revolution, or at least the "concept"of revolution, is generally inscribed. That history is one of continuous progress, despite the revolutionary break- oriented in the case of the women's movement towards the reappropriation of woman's own essence, her own specific difference, oriented in short towards a notion of woman's "truth." Your "maverick feminist" showed herself ready to break with the most authorized, the most dogmatic form of consensus, one that claims (and this is the most serious aspect of it) to speak out in the name of revolution and history. Perhaps she was thinking of a completely other history: a history of paradoxical laws and non-dialectical discontinuities, a history of absolutely heterogeneous pockets, irreducible particularities,of unheard of and incalculable sexual differences; a history of women who have-centuries ago- "gone further" by stepping back with their lone dance, or who are today inventing sexual idioms at a distance from the main forum of feminist activity with a kind of reserve that does not necessarily prevent them from subscribing to the movement and even, occasionally, from becoming a militant for it. But I am speculating. It would be better to come back to your question. Having passed through several detours or stages you wonder how I would describe what is called "woman's place";the expression recalls, if I am not mistaken, "inthe home"or "inthe kitchen."Frankly, I do not know. I believe that I would not describe that place. In fact, I would be wary of such a description. Do you not fear that having once become committed to the path of this Or under topography, we would inevitably find ourselves back "athome"or "inthe kitchen"? house arrest, assignation a residence as they say in French penitentiary language, which would amount to the same thing? Why must there be a place for woman? And why only one, a single, completely essential place? This is a question that you could translate ironically by saying that in my view there is no one place for woman. That was indeed clearly set forth during the 1972 Cerisy Colloquium devoted to Nietzsche in the lecture to which you referred entitled Spurs/Eperons.It is without a doubt risky to say that there is no place for woman, but this idea is not antifeminist, far from it; true, it is not feminist either. But it appears to me to be faithfulin its way as the both to a certain assertion of women and to what is most affirmativeand "dancing," maverick feminist says, in the displacement of women. Can one not say, in Nietzsche's feminism, and that a certain historicalnecessity often puts language, that there is a "reactive" this form of feminism in power in today's organized struggles? It is this kind of "reactive" feminism that Nietzsche mocks, and not woman or women. Perhaps one should not so much combat it head on-other interests would be at stake in such a move-as prevent its occupying the entire terrain. And why for that matter should one rush into answering a topological question (what is the place of woman [quelle est la place de la femme])? Or an economical question (because it all comes back to I'oikos as home, maison, chez-soi [at home in this sense also means in French within the selfJ,the law of the proper place, etc. in of woman or a new step the preoccupation with a woman's place)?Why should a new "idea" taken by her necessarily be subjected to the urgency of this topo-economical concern (essential, it is true, and ineradicably philosophical)?This step only constitutes a step on the
20n August 26, 1970, a group of women calling themselves the Emma Goldman Brigade marched said it in 1910 / Now down FifthAvenue in New YorkCity with many other feminists, chanting: "Emma we're going to say it again."

68

This content downloaded from 86.182.126.83 on Mon, 13 May 2013 12:06:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

conditionthat it challengea certainidea of the locus [lieu]and the place [place](theentire of the Westandof itsmetaphysics) andthatitdanceotherwise. Thisis veryrare,if it is history not impossible, and presents itselfonly in the formof the mostunforeseeable and mostinnocent of chances. The most innocentof dances would thwartthe assignation a residence, the dancechangesplaceand aboveall changes escape those residencesundersurveillance; of certain places. In its wake they can no longer be recognized.The joyous disturbance has actuallybroughtwith it the women's movements,and of some women in particular, chance for a certainriskyturbulencein the assigning of placeswithinour small European of a moreample upheavalen routeto world-wide Is space (Iam not speaking application). one then goingto startall over againmakingmaps,topographics, etc.?distributing sexual identitycards? The mostseriouspartof the difficulty is the necessityto bringthe dance and itstempo into tune with the "revolution." The lack of place for [I'atopie] or the madnessof the dance-this bit of luckcan also compromise the political chancesof feminism and serveas an alibi for desertingorganized,patient,laborious "feminist" when struggles broughtinto contactwith all the formsof resistance thata dance movementcannotdispel,even though the dance is not synonymous with either powerlessness or fragility. I will not insiston this and necessary point, but you can surelysee the kindof impossible compromisethat I am - individual or not-sometimes microscopic, alludingto: an incessant,daily negotiation sometimespunctuated of insurance, whetherit be by a poker-like gamble;alwaysdeprived in private lifeor withininstitutions. Eachmanand each womanmustcommithisor herown the untranslatable factorof his or her lifeand death. singularity, Nietzschemakesa scene beforewomen, feministsin particular-aspectaclewhich is Thisis justwhat has interested overdetermined, divided,apparently me; this contradictory. scene hasinterested me becauseof allthe paradigms thatit exhibits and multiplies, and insofaras it oftenstruggles, sometimesdances,alwaystakeschancesin a historical spacewhose essentialtraits, those of the matrix, have perhapsnot changedsince then in Europe (I mean specificallyin Europe,and that perhaps makes all the differencealthoughwe cannot world-wide feminism froma certain of worldculture; fundamental separate europeanization this is an enormousproblemthat I mustleave aside here). InSpurs/Eperons I havetriedto formalize the movementsand typicalmomentsof the scene that Nietzschecreatesthroughout a very broadand diversebody of texts. I have done this up to a certainlimit,one that I also indicate,wherethe decisionto formalize failsfor reasonsthatareabsolutelystructural. Since these typicalfeaturesare and mustbe unstable,sometimescontradictory, and finally wouldsettleina counter-meaning, "undecidable," anybreakinthe movementof the reading in the meaning which becomescounter-meaning. Thiscounter-meaning can be moreor less naiveor complacent.One could cite countlessexamplesof it. In the most perfunctory of cases, the simplificationreverts to the isolation of Nietzsche'sviolently anti-feminist statements firstagainstreactive, feminism as a figurebothof the dogmatic (directed specular and a certainrelationship of manto truth), themout (andpossibly attribphilosopher pulling of the movementand systemthatItryto utingthemto me thoughthatis of littleimportance) reconstitute. Some have reactedat timeseven moreperfunctorily, unableto see beyondthe end of phallicformsprojecting intothe text;beginning with style,the spuror the umbrella, between styleand writing or they take no accountof what I have saidaboutthe difference the bisexual of those and otherforms.Generally this concannot be complication speaking, sideredreading, and I will go so faras to saythatit is to not readthe syntaxand punctuation of a given sentencewhen one arrests the text in a certainposition,thus settling on a thesis, or truth. of This mistake this mistaking of hermeneutics-it is this hermeneutics, meaning thatthe finalmessage[envoi] shouldchallenge.Butlet us leavethat. of"lforgotmy umbrella" The truthvalue (thatis, Womanas the majorallegory of truthin Westerndiscourse) and its correlative,Femininity(the essence or truth of Woman), are there to assuage such hermeneutic anxiety.These are the placesthat one shouldacknowledge,at leastthat is if one is interested in doing so; they are the foundations or anchorings of Westernrationality of Westernmetaphysics (of what I have called "phallogocentrism" [asthe complicity with a notion of male firstness]). Such recognitionshould not make of eitherthe truthvalue or an objectof knowledge(atstakeare the normsof knowledgeand knowledgeas femininity diacritics/ summer 1982 69

This content downloaded from 86.182.126.83 on Mon, 13 May 2013 12:06:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

a home. Itshouldrather the stilllessshouldit makeof thema placeto inhabit, norm); permit one veryold and very new, a displacement of bodiesand inventionof an otherinscription, placesthat is quite different. of fetishes" You recalledthe expression the essentiality (truth, "essentializing femininity, to improvise as fetishes).It is difficult woman or femininesexuality brieflyhere. ButI will and the pointout thatone can avoida trapby beingpreciseaboutthe conceptof fetishism of contextto which one refers,even if only to displaceit. (Onthis point, I take the liberty alludingto the discussionsof fetishismand femininesexualityin Spurs,Glasor Lacarte in Lefacteur Another and can only be de la v6rite.) trapis morepolitical postale,specifically avoidedby takingaccountof the realconditionsin whichwomen'sstruggles developon all fronts (economic, ideological,political).These conditionsoften requirethe preservation thatone must(andknows (withinlongeror shorter phases)of metaphysical presuppositions thatone must)questionin a laterphase- or an otherplace- becausethey belongto already of on a practicallevel. This multiplicity the dominantsystemthat one is deconstructing or not either to forms forces does mean and moments, empiricism always giving way places, and withoutthe multiHow can one breathewithoutsuch punctuation to contradiction. feminist" and steps?How can one dance, your"maverick mightsay? plicitiesof rhythm This raises an importantquestion that should not be overlooked, MCDONALD: we haven't the spaceto develop it to anyextenthere:the complicated relationship although the thatwe have been considering of a practical (specifically politicsto the kindsof analysis in yourdiscussion). Thatthis relationship cannotsimplybe "deconstructive" implicit analysis translatedinto an opposition between the empiricaland the non-empirical has been different touchedon in an entirely context.3 Justhow one is to dealwiththe interrelationship of these forces and necessitiesin the context of femininestruggles should be more fully exploredon some otheroccasion. Butlet'sgo on to Heidegger's ontology. andwithoutbeingableto review To answeryourquestionaboutHeidegger, DERRIDA: of a readingin Spurs/Eperons here the itinerary clearlydividedinto two moments,I must to an open question.Thequestionproceeds, or rather limitmyselfto a piece of information, so to speak,fromthe end; it proceedsfromthe pointwherethe thoughtof the gift[le don]4 the orderof ontology,the authorwithoutsimplyreversing disturbs and thatof "propriation" of regional is it," the subordination ontologiesto one fundamental ity of the question"what thispoint, but how can I do otherwisehere?From ontology.I am movingmuchtoo rapidly, idea which is not a point,one wonderswhetherthisextremely difficult, perhapsimpossible to sexual difference.One wonders of the gift can still maintainan essentialrelationship it may be-does for example-however irreducible whethersexual difference,femininity to either the question of destinationor the not remainderived from and subordinated becauseone cannotsay philosophy, theory,logic, structhoughtof the gift(I say "thought" else; when one can no longeruse any word of this sort,when one ture, scene or anything but one could show thatthistoo is excescan say almostnothingelse, one says"thought," "before" sexual differenceor takingoff sive). I do not know. Mustone think"difference" "from" it?Hasthisquestion,if not a meaning(we are at the originof meaninghere, andthe at all, origincannot"havemeaning'lat leastsomethingof a chance of openingup anything it may appear? howeverim-pertinent
Question II

formof women'sprotest, MCDONALD: Youputintoquestionthe characteristic namely of woman to man. I shallattempthere to describethe directionof your the subordination as I understand it, and then commenton it. argument, the termdeconstruction The new sense of writing(6criture)withwhich one associates that you have given to texts as divergent as those of has emergedfromthe close readings and others.It is one in whichtraditional (asin the Plato,Rousseau, binary pairing Mallarm6
3See Rodolphe Gasche, "Labordure interne," and the response by Jacques Derrida, in L'oreillede textes et d6bats avec Jacques Derrida,ed. C. Levesque and C. McDonald, VLB,Montreal, 1982. I'autre: 4The gift is a topic that occurs in a number of recent texts, among others: Glas, Eperons, La carte postale. TN.

70

This content downloaded from 86.182.126.83 on Mon, 13 May 2013 12:06:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

or manto woman)no longerfunctions of spirit to matter givento bythe privilege opposition in underthe titlePositions the first termoverthe second. Ina seriesof interviews published than rather as a structural 1972,you spokeof a two-phaseprogram (phasebeingunderstood for the act of deconstruction. a chronological term)necessary In the firstphasea reversal was to take place in which the opposed termswould be one subordinate inverted. Thuswoman, as a previously term,mightbecome the dominant could only repeatthe traditional in relation to man. Yet becausesuch a scheme of reversal it alone could not effect of dualityis alwaysreconstituted), scheme (inwhich the hierarchy the 'second' and more radical occur would only through any significant change. Change The in which a 'new'concept would be forgedsimultaneously. phase of deconstruction us the now has brought motifof diffirance, as neithera simple'concept'nora mere'word,' and others.Among of attendant terms:trace,supplement, familiar constellation pharmakon to the sense pertain and intheirmostwidelyrecognized the others,two are marked sexually woman'sbody:hymen (the logic of which is developed in Ladouble seance)and double
invagination (a leitmotif in LivingOn/Borderlines).

of the term Takeonly the term hymen in which there is a confusionor continuation or fold of tissuepartly coitus,and fromwhich it gets itsdouble meaning:1) "amembranous and 2) [fromthe Greekfor membrane] completelyoccludingthe vaginalexternalorifice"

Inthe firstsense the hymenis that the god of marriage]. [fromGreekmythology; marriage which protects virginity, and is in frontof the uterus.Thatis, it lies betweenthe insideand So thatalthough(male)desire the outsideof the woman, betweendesireand itsfulfillment. in the second sense of the hymen(consummation or breaking dreamsof violentlypiercing the term),if that happensthere is no hymen. It seems to me that while the extensiveplay on etymologies(in which unconscious excessesof usage)effectsa and historical the transformations aretracedthrough motivations who would seek to define for those a it also of these terms, problem poses displacement feminine.Thatcomes aboutnot so muchbecausethese termsareeither whatis specifically to woman's as partsbelonging underor over-valued that,inthe economyof body.Itis rather whetherthe that is alwayselusive,one can neverdecide properly a movementof writing this is term impliescomplicitywith or a breakfromexistentideology. Perhaps particular Twain's satire,TheDiaryof Adamand Eve,not only because,as Adamsaysof Evein Mark but- andthis because"itlookslikethe thing," name . . . everything" does the "newcreature - everything is the cruxof the matter-"hermindis disordered [or, if you like, Nietzschean] shows it." Inthisregard therecomes to minda footnoteto p. 207 of Ladoubleseance,concerning Theexamplecited is that and generalization. of writing, itstransformation the displacement of to the possibility in admitting own difficulty of Freud's of a surgeonwho, upon learning exclaimsto him:"But, masculine mydearcolleague,how can you statesuchabsurhysteria, meansuterus.How thereforecould a man be a hysteric?" dities?Hysteron

/ summer1982 diacritics

71

This content downloaded from 86.182.126.83 on Mon, 13 May 2013 12:06:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

of woman?Canwe move fromthe ribwhere How can we changethe representation was calledWomanbecauseshe wastakenfromman"-Genesis2:23)to womanis wife ("She is bornof woman"-Job14:13)withoutessentialloss? the womb where she is mother("man of phasetwo, a 'new'concept of woman? Do we have in yourview the beginning DERRIDA: No, Ido not believethatwe haveone, if indeedit is possibleto havesuch a of existing.Personally, Iam notsurethatI thingor ifsucha thingcouldexistor show promise feel the lackof it. Beforehaving one thatis new, arewe certainof havinghadan old one? Itis or "conception" that I would in turnquestionin its relationship to any the word "concept" or properlyidentifiable. This would bring us back to the essence which is rigorously preceding questions.The concept of the concept, alongwiththe entiresystemthatattends of womanand a proborder.It is thatorderthata problematics it, belongsto a prescriptive lematicsof difference,as sexualdifference,shoulddisrupt along the way. Moreover,I am two"marks a splitwith "phase not surethat"phase one,"a splitwhose formwould be a cut betweenthese two phasesdoubtlesshas another line. The relationship along an indivisible of one I spoke of two distinctphasesfor the sake of clarity,but the relationship structure. less by conceptualdeterminations (thatis, wherea new concept phaseto anotheris marked or generaldeformation of logic; such follows an archaicone) than by a transformation or deformations mark the "logical" elementor environment itselfby moving, transformations determined as opposition,whetheror not for example, beyondthe "positional" (difference Thismovementis of greatconsequenceforthe discussion here,even if myfordialectically). this: abstractand disembodied.One could, I think, demonstrate mulationis apparently in the dialectical to the sense (according when sexualdifference is determined byopposition Hegelian movement of speculativedialecticswhich remainsso powerfuleven beyond warbetweenthe sexes"; the end to set off"the butone precipitates text),one appears Hegel's in opposition of sexualdifference sex. Thedetermination withvictory goingto the masculine it is so in orderto erasesexualdifference. Thedialecfortruth; is destined,designed,in truth, or supersedes[Hegel's termAufhebung carrieswith it both the tical oppositionneutralizes of the term in English has yet sense of conservingand negating.No adequatetranslation been found]the difference.However,accordingto a surreptitious operationthat must be underthe coverof neutralization flushedout, one insuresphallocentric mastery everytime. Andsuch phallocentrism adornsitselfnow andthen, Theseare now well knownparadoxes. here and there, with an appendix:a certain kind of feminism. In the same manner, can go, so to speak,handin hand,and Itaketheseterms, and homosexuality phallocentrism in a verybroadand radical whetherit is a questionof feminineor masculine homosexuality, sense. or the "mother"-whomyou seem sure of being able to And what if the "wife" Iam referring now to yourquestion forthis homosexual dialectics? dissociate- were figures of woman and such "loss" on the "representation" as mightoccur in the passagefromman's ribto the womb of woman,the passagefromthe spouse, you say,to the mother.Why is it that these two "places," to choose, and why only these two possibilities, assuming necessary one can reallydissociatethem? use of the cliche"woman's whichin the old The ironyof my initial MCDONALD: place" leavesthe whole wide worldforother saw is followedby "inthe home"or "inthe kitchen" of womanin Genesis, andJob,as rib(spouse) or placesforthe same intent.Asforthe "place" withinthesetwo differences. womb (mother), these are morebasicfunctional Nevertheless, that traditional roles,to choose one impliesloss of the other.Youare correctin observing or other possible substitution there could be juxtaposition, such a choice is not necessary; distinction combinations. Butthese biblicaltexts are not frivolousin seeing the functional "woman's which also has distinguished place"in Westernculture. that DERRIDA: Sinceyou quote Genesis,I would liketo evoke the marvelous reading of itwithoutbeingclearas to whetherhe assumesitas hisown orwhat Levinas hasproposed that he devotesto it is.sTherewould, of course,be a the actualstatusof the "commentary"
s5acques Derridarefershere to the text Ence moment meme dans cet ouvrage me voici in Textes pour Emmanuel Levinas (I. M. Place, Paris, 1980). Derrida interprets two texts in particular by Levinas (Le judaisme et le f6minin, in Difficile libertY,and Et Dieu cr'a la femme, in Du sacre au saint). In order to clarify this part of the discussion, I am translatingthe following passage from Derrida'stext in which he

72

This content downloaded from 86.182.126.83 on Mon, 13 May 2013 12:06:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

certainsecondariness of woman, Ischa.The man, Isch, would come first;he would be numberone; he would be at the beginning.Secondariness, however,would not be thatof woman or femininity, but the divisionbetween masculineand feminine.It is not feminine to sexualdifference. Atthe origin, thatwould be second but only the relationship sexuality in general,and on this side of and thereforebeyond any sexualmark,therewas humanity this is what is important. Thusthe possibility of ethicscould be saved, if one takesethicsto to the otheras otherwhich accountsfor no otherdetermination mean that relationship or in particular. Whatkindof an ethicswouldtherebe if belonging sexualcharacteristic to one sex or anotherbecame its law or privilege? of moral laws were What if the universality to the sexes?Whatif theiruniversality modelledon or limitedaccording were not unconditional,withoutsexualconditionin particular? or necessityof this reading,does it not riskrestorWhateverthe force, seductiveness and ing-in the name of ethics as that which is irreproachable-aclassicalinterpretation, what I wouldcall its panoplyin a mannersurelyas subtleas it is sublime? therebyenriching Once again, the classical interpretation gives a masculine sexual markingto what is eitheras a neutral andsuperior to allsexualmarkor, at least,as prior presented originariness in the Levinas indeed senses risk factor involved the erasure of sexual difference.He ings. thereforemaintains sexualdifference: the humanin generalremains a sexualbeing.Buthe can only do so, it would seem, by placing(differentiated) beneathhumanity which sexuality sustainsitselfat the level of the Spirit. Thatis, he simultaneously places,and this is what is in commandand at the beginning on a par (thearkhb), important, masculinity [le masculin] with the Spirit. Thisgesturecarrieswith it the most self-interested of contradictions; it has - in analogousform - into and Eve," and persists repeated itself, let us say, since "Adam "modernity," despite all the differencesof style and treatment.Isn'tthat a featureof the as we were sayingbefore? or the "patrix" if you prefer,but it amountsto the same "matrix," and whateverthe knots of thing, does it not?Whateverthe complexityof the itinerary don'tyou thinkthatthe movementof Freudian this"logic"? Isit not rhetoric, thoughtrepeats also the riskthat Heideggerruns? One should perhapssay, rather, the riskthat is avoided because phallogocentrism is insurance the return of what certainly has been feared against as the most agonizingriskof all. Since I have named Heideggerin a context where the referenceis quite rareand may even appearstrange,I would like to dwell on this for a moment,if you don'tmind,concernedthat I will be both too lengthyand too brief.
quotes from and then comments upon Levinas'commentary: ". .. The meaning of the 'feminine'will be clarified in this manner by beginning with the human essence; the female Ishafla Isha]begins with ish: not that the feminine originates in the masculine, but rather the division into masculine and feminine the dichotomy- starts with what is human. [. .] Beyond the personal relationship established between two beings, each born of a discrete creative act, the specificity of the feminine is a secondary matter. It is not woman who is secondary; it is the relationship with woman as woman, and that does not belong to the primordial level of the human element. The first level consists of those tasks that man and woman each accomplishes as a human being. [. . .] In each of the passages that we are commenting upon right now, the problem lies in the reconciliation of men's and women's humanity with the hypothesis of masculine spirituality;the feminine is not the correlative of the masculine but its corollary; feminine specificity, as the difference between the sexes that it indicates, is not situated straightawayat the level of those opposites which constitute the Spirit. An audacious question, this one: how can equality of the sexes come from masculine "ownership" [la propriktedu masculin]?[ . . A difference was necessary that would not compromise equity: a difference of sex; and from then on, a certain pre-eminence of man, a woman whose arrivalcomes later and who is, as woman, the appendix of the human element. Now we understand the lesson. The idea of humanity is not thinkable from two entirely differentprinciples. There must be a sameness [le meme] common to others: woman was taken from man, but came after him: the (EtDieu cr6a la femme, in Du sacr6 au saint). very feminity of woman is in this inauguralafter-thought." And Derrida follows up, commenting: "Itis a strange logic, this 'audaciousquestion.'"One would have to comment each step of the way and verify that the secondariness of sexual difference signifies the secondariness of the feminine in every case (but why indeed?). One would have to verify that the initialnessof what is pre-differentialis always marked by the masculine; the masculine should come, like all sexual marks, only afterward. Such a commentary would be necessary, but I prefer to first underscore the following, in the name of protocol: he himself is commenting and says that he is commenting; one must bear in mind that this is not literallythe discourse of E.L.He says, as he is discoursing,that he is commenting on doctors, at this very moment ("thepassages upon which we are commenting at this moment,"and furtheralong: "Iam not takingsides; today I am commenting").However, the distance of the commentary is not neuter. What he comments upon is consonant with a whole network of his own assertions,or those by him, "him" [pp. 53-4] TN.

diacritics/ summer 1982

73

This content downloaded from 86.182.126.83 on Mon, 13 May 2013 12:06:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

or sexualdifference.And he Heideggerseems almostneverto speak about sexuality seems almostneverto speakaboutpsychoanalysis, give or takean occasionalnegativeallusion. Thisis neithernegligencenoromission.The pausescomingfromhis silenceon these questionspunctuateor create the spacingout of a powerfuldiscourse.And one of the of thisdiscoursemay be stated(thoughI am goingmuchtoo quicklyand schemastrengths tizingexcessively)likethis:it beginsby denyingitselfall acceptedformsof security,all the of classical ontology, anthropology, the naturalor human sedimented presuppositions sciences, untilit fallsbackthisside of such valuesas the oppositionbetweensubject/object, and manyothersas well. Theexistential of the conscious/unconscious, mind/body, analytic Daseinopens the road,so to speak, leadingto the questionof being;the Daseinis neither northe subject,neitherconsciousthe humanbeing (a thoughtrecalledearlierby Levinas) Theseare all determinations ness northe self [le moi] (whetherconsciousor unconscious). thatarederivedfromand occurafterthe Dasein.Now-and here is what I wantedto get to - in a coursegiven in 1928, Heidegger to some acceleration afterthis inadmissible justifies of on the of Band Sein Zeit the silence und question sexuality[Gesamtausgabe, 26, degree fromthe coursedevotedto the "Problem of the Seinund No. 10, p. 171 ff.]. Ina paragraph an Zeit,"Heideggerremindsus that the analyticof the Daseinis neitheran anthropology, With respectto any definition,positionor evaluationof these ethics nor a metaphysics. andessential insists fields,the Daseinis neuter.Heidegger uponand makesclearthisoriginal of the Dasein:"This means also that the Daseinis neitherof the two neutrality "neutrality" is notthe indifference of emptyinvalidity, the sexes. Butthisa-sexuality (Geschlechtlosigkeit) the Daseinis notthe of indifferent ontic Inits neutrality, an nothingness. annulingnegativity and the indifferent (Niemandund Jeder),but it is originary positivity person-and-everyone des Wesen.One would have to read the power of being or of the essence, M~chtigkeit to some of his thatfollowsveryclosely;I will tryto do thatanothertime in relation analysis it of the this as and latertexts.The analysis were, emphasizes positivecharacter, originary of onticabstraction. It which is notthe neither-nor a-sexual (Weder-noch) neutrality powerful does not signifyin this instance is originary and ontological.Moreprecisely,the a-sexuality desireor even the libido- but the the absence of sexuality-one could call it the instinct, to one of the two sexes. Not thatthe Daseindoes not ontiabsence of any markbelonging butthe Daseinas Dasein callyor in fact belongto a sex; not that it is deprivedof sexuality; between the two sexes. does not carrywith it the markof this opposition(or alternative) structures. Nordo Insofar are opposableand binary, as these marks they are not existential or in to Such this an allusion allude bi-sexuality. primitive respect subsequent they any or anthropological Andthe determinations. wouldfallonce againintoanatomical, biological to it, would come "prior" to these and "power" that are originary Dasein,in the structures I am puttingquotationmarksaroundthe word "prior" because it has no determinations. or logical meaning.Now, as of 1928, the analyticof the literal,chronological,historical and the repetition of the questionof being; difference Daseinwas the thoughtof ontological it opened up a problematicsthat subjected all the concepts of traditionalWestern Thisgivesan ideaof whatstakeswere to a radical and interpretation. elucidation philosophy and its binary involvedin a neutralization thatfell backthis side of both sexualdifference itself.Thiswould be the titleof the enormousproblem if not this side of sexuality marking, difference and sexual that in this context I must limitmyselfto merelynaming: ontological difference. of difference," Iwouldsaythatit hasmoved, Andsince yourquestionevokedthe "motif in the vicinityof thisveryobscurearea.Whatis also beingsoughtin this by displacement, it is a passage and sexualdifference; difference that zone is the passagebetweenontological to those polarities to which or opened up according may no longerbe thought,punctuated for some time (originary/derived, we have been referring ontological/ontic,ontology/ or ethics, etc.). The constellation of terms the thoughtof being/metaphysics anthropology, that you have cited could perhapsbe considered(fornothingis ever takenfor grantedor of space; such a of deformation guaranteedin these matters)a kind of transformation them within it. would tend to extend beyond these poles and reinscribe transformation in their most or "invagination," Some of these terms, "hymen" you were saying,"pertain for your widely recognizedsense to the woman'sbody.. " Are you sure?I am grateful "intheirmostwidelyrecogThatthese wordssignify formulation. havingused such a careful 74

This content downloaded from 86.182.126.83 on Mon, 13 May 2013 12:06:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

nized sense"had, of course, not escaped me, and the emphasisthat I have put on rea philosophical or theoretical which hasbeen too "neutralizing" in this discourse, sexualizing thatIjustmentioned the strategy respect,was dictatedbythoseveryreservations concerning of neutralization or not it is deliberate). Suchre-sexualizing mustbe done without (whether facilenessof any kindand, above all, withoutregression in relation to what mightjustify, as we saw, the procedures-or necessarysteps-of Levinas or Heidegger,for example.That and "invagination," at leastin the contextintowhich these wordshave being said,"hymen" been swept, no longersimplydesignate forthe femininebody.Theyno longerdo so, figures that is, assumingthat one knows for certainwhat a feminineor masculinebody is, and thatanatomyis in thisinstance the finalrecourse. Whatremains undecidable conassuming cerns not only but also the line of cleavagebetweenthe two sexes. As you recalled,such a movementreverts neitherto wordsnorto concepts.Andwhat remains withinit of language fromthe "performativity" cannotbe abstracted and is marked) thatconcernsus (whichmarks and here, beginning-for the examplesthat you have chosen-with the texts of Mallarm6 Blanchot,and with the laborof readingor writingwhich evoked them and which they in turnevoked. One could say quite accurately thatthe hymendoes not exist.Anything conthe value of existence is to the Andiftherewere hymen- I am not stituting foreign "hymen." valuewould be no moreappropriate to it for reasons sayingifthe hymenexisted- property that I havestressedin the textsto which you refer.Howcan one then attribute the existence of the hymenproperly to woman?Not that it is any morethe distinguishing featureof man or, forthat matter,of the humancreature.I would say the same forthe term"invagination" which has, moreover, in a chiasmus, one doublyfolded,redoubled alwaysbeen reinscribed and inversed,6 etc. From then on, is it not difficult to recognizeinthe movementof thisterm a "representation of woman"? I do not know if it is to a change in representaFurthermore, tion thatwe shouldentrust the future.As withall the questions thatwe are presently discusseems at once too sing,thisone, and above allwhen it is putas a questionof representation, old and as yet to be born:a kindof old parchment crossedevery which way, overloaded with hieroglyphs and still as virginas the origin,like the early morningin the Eastfrom whence it comes. And you know that the word for parchment does not come from any in Asia.Ido not knowhow you willtranslate thislastsentence. leadingfromPergamus "road" It is a problem.In modern English MCDONALD: usage the word for parchmentno on or by the road,as the Middle longercarrieswith it the sense of the French parchemin, Englishperchement or parchemindid. The American Heritage Dictionarytraces the from pergamina,parchment, from Greekpergamene, (leather) etymologythus:"Parthian thatthe town of Pergamus further was founded by Philaeterus, a eunuch, and that parchment has been called the charta pergamena. from Pergamenos, or Pergamun, from Pergamon, . . ." Lempriere'sClassical Dictionary says

DERRIDA: The Littr6 Dictionarywhich gives the etymologyfor Frenchmakes war forthe appearance of "pergamena" or"Pergamina." Itis therebya product of war: responsible one beganto writeon bodies and animalskinsbecause papyrus was becomingvery rare. was occasionallyprepared fromthe skin of still-born lambs. They say too that parchment And accordingto Pliny,it was out of jealousythat Eumenes,kingof Pergamus, turnedto was so proudof his library that he had parchment.His rival,Ptolemies,the kingof Egypt, to find new bodies of or for writing. only books writtenon paper.Itwas necessary MCDONALD: I would liketo come backto the writing of the dance,the choreography that you mentioneda while back. If we do not yet have a "new" of woman, "concept" because the radicalization of the problemgoes beyondthe "thought" or the concept, what areour chancesof "thinking not so muchbeforesexualdifference, 'difference' as you say, as it?Whatwould you say is our chance and "who" are we sexually? takingoff 'from'" DERRIDA: At the approachof this shadowyarea it has alwaysseemed to me thatthe voice itselfhad to be dividedin orderto say thatwhich is givento thoughtor speech. No
6This is an allusion to, among other things, all the passages on the so-called "argumentof the gaine" in particularpp. 232 ff. 250 ff. Furthermore,the word "invagina["sheath," "girdle"cognate with "vagina'7, tion"is always taken within the syntax of the expression "doubleinvagination chiasmatique des bords,"in LivingOn (Deconstruction and Criticism,The Seabury Press,New York, 1979) and The Lawof Genre (in Glyph 7). TN.

diacritics / summer1982

75

This content downloaded from 86.182.126.83 on Mon, 13 May 2013 12:06:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

monological discourse-and by that I mean here mono-sexual discourse-can dominate with a single voice, a single tone, the space of this half-light,even if the "proffered discourse" is then signed by a sexually marked patronymic. Thus, to limit myself to one account, and not to propose an example, I have felt the necessity for a chorus, for a choreographic text with polysexual signatures.7I felt this every time that a legitimacy of the neuter, the apparently least suspect sexual neutralityof "phallocentricor gynocentric"mastery, threatened to immobilize (in silence), colonize, stop or unilateralize in a subtle or sublime manner what remains no doubt irreducibly dissymmetrical. More directly: a certain dissymmetry is no doubt the law both of sexual difference and the relationshipto the other in general (I say this in opposition to a certain kind of violence within the language of "democratic" platitudes, in any case in opposition to a certain democratic ideology), yet the dissymmetry to which I refer is still let us not say symmetrical in turn (which might seem absurd), but doubly, unilaterallyinordinate, like a kind of reciprocal, respective and respectfulexcessiveness. This double dissymmetryperhaps goes beyond known or coded marks, beyond the grammarand spelling, shall we say (metaphorically),of sexuality. This indeed revives the following question: what if we were to reach, what if we were to approach here (forone does not arriveat this as one would at a determined location) the area of a relationshipto the other where the code of sexual marks would no longer be discriminating?The relationship would not be a-sexual, far from it, but would be sexual otherwise: beyond the binary difference that governs the decorum of all codes, beyond the opposition feminine/masculine, beyond bisexuality as well, beyond homosexuality and heterosexuality which come to the same thing. As I dream of saving the chance that this question offers I would like to believe in the multiplicity of sexually marked voices. I would like to believe in the masses, this indeterminable number of blended voices, this mobile of non-identified sexual marks whose whether he be choreography can carry, divide, multiply the body of each "individual," classified as "man"or as "woman"according to the criteria of usage. Of course, it is not impossible that desire for a sexuality without number can still protect us, like a dream, from an implacable destiny which immures everything for life in the figure 2. And should this merciless closure arrestdesire at the wall of opposition, we would struggle in vain: there will never be but two sexes, neither one more nor one less. Tragedy would leave this strange sense, a contingent one finally, that we must affirmand learn to love instead of dreaming of the innumerable. Yes, perhaps; why not? But where would the "dream" of the innumerable come from, if it is indeed a dream? Does the dream itself not prove that what is dreamt of must be there in order for it to provide the dream?Then too, I ask you, what kind of a dance would there be, or would there be one at all, if the sexes were not exchanged according to rhythmsthat vary considerably? In a quite rigoroussense, the exchange alone could not suffice either, however, because the desire to escape the combinatory itself, to invent incalculable choreographies, would remain.
7Thisis an allusion to Pas, in Gramma 3/4, 1976, La v6rite en peinture, 1978, En ce moment meme dans cet ouvrage me voici in Textes pour Emmanuel Levinas, 1980, Feu la cendre, to appear. TN.

76

This content downloaded from 86.182.126.83 on Mon, 13 May 2013 12:06:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions