Sexism In The City

Helene Cixous and Judith Butler are both feminists, but share many similarities and differences. They both are post-structuralists, share an appreciation for Derrida, and discuss gender and sexuality in length.

Helene Cixous

Cixous is a French feminist who is influenced by both Derrida and Lacan. She is a Lacanian based on Essentialism. Cixous strongly believes that gender and sexuality are a function of language. Cixous is noted for writing in a particular format referred to as ecriture feminine. Ecriture feminine is when one writes through the female body. This way of writing provides a different way to think about sexuality. Mary Klages stated, 


"Cixous also discusses writing on both a metaphoric and literal level. She aligns writing with masturbation, something that for women is supposed to be secret, shameful, or silly, something not quite adult, something that will be renounced in order to achieve adulthood...For women to write themselves, Cixous says, they must (re)claim a female-centered sexuality. If men write with their penises...then Cixous says before women can write they have to discover where their pleasure is located." 


It promotes her theory that writing is a performance and is very emotional. Through her writing hierarchal oppositions are formed that form binaries. Her writing outlines many perspectives. In the deconstruction of binaries, the binary of man and woman is violent and chaotic in Cixous' perspective. The binaries are unequal. They come back to raw sexuality. She notes that sexual differences are seen as good if they are expressed or closeted. To Cixous, bisexuality is the embodied recognition of both male and female that bridge this binary. Cixous writes in a difficult and disconnected way that contains strong points, but is challenging for a reader. 

Judith Butler

Butler on the other hand is very different from Cixous and her beliefs. Butler believes that gender itself is a performance. Butler discusses in detail the concept and action on dressing in drag. Heterosexuality works to stabilize gender as a whole. Within the gender norms there is instability in the roles of the heterosexuals. Butler emphasizes that although one is dressing in drag and trying to defy normalities, you are still identifying as one gender or the other when in drag. Yes, you are disrupting the binary, but you are not changing them. Klages said, "All gender is a form of "drag," according to Butler; there is no "real" core gender to refer to...gender is not just a social construct, but rather a kind of performance, a show we put on, a set of signs we wear, as costume or disguise".


Butler fundamentally believes that there is a natural connection between sex and gender. Sex is defined as something biological, it is between a male/female. Klages stated, 


"In feminist theory, "woman" is universal category, which thus excludes ideas of differences among women (differences of race, class, or sexuality, for example). Both types of theory--psychoanalytic and feminist--rely on a notion of "woman" as referring to an essence, a fact, a biological given, hence a universal." 


Gender is culturally constructed behaviors that are associated with sex. These are between male/female, boy/girl, and masculine/feminine. Heterosexuality depends on the binary between masculine and feminine. Butler states in "Subjectivity and Gender", 


"It is important to emphasize that although heterosexuality operates in part through the stabilization of gender norms, gender designates a dense site of significations that contain and exceed the heterosexual matrix. Although forms of sexuality do not unilaterally determine gender, a non-causal and non reductive connection between sexuality and gender is nevertheless crucial to maintain" (page 248). 


Gender then desires sexuality. Sexuality is defined as how we express sexual desire in the direction of a gendered person. Sexuality can be defined as gay, straight, or bisexual. Butler addresses the reader in a very blunt and easy to understand format. 


When looking through feminist images (on the wonderful Google images), we found this cartoon. After reading and discussing feminist theory, in particular Cixous and Butler. It reaffirmed a lot of the connotations women have about feminists and what it is to actually be a feminist. 

We also found the blog, Postmodern Culture that discusses the Cixous and Butler. If you are interested, take a peak!

The real for the real

Rufo makes many vaild points about Baudrillard’s sometimes contradictory writings.

Baudrillard realizes that the “sign-value” must be incorporated into analysis because of the limitations of structural Marxism. This simple idea of what an object signifies being more important than the cost or the quality of its construction is a widely acceptable idea. This idea seems to be used in current everyday markets. Rufo gave a great example of Tommy Hilfiger where people buy the brand because of the brand, but it is made for cheap in a sweatshop. Most well-known brands today are the same way, people only seem to value the name of which they are getting and not necessarily the actual product. “focusing on sign-value meants that you have to focus on patterns of consumption rather than modes of production” claimed Baudrillard, which still seems to be true in some aspects today.

Rufo points out that Baudrillard has contradicted himself. He has explained that commodity is a sign itself but goes on to say how the sign is understood as a form of commodity. He used to attempt to add sign-value to the commodity but went on to say how sign-value is how commodity can be analyzed at all. Baudrillard is stating how the two are interrelated and need each other to exist and analyze, although seemingly contradictory.

Saussure’s idea of sign is similar to that of Marxist commodity, as Rufo discusses. The signifier and signified are replaced with use-value and exchange value. Laborers create an item and then it is sold for an amount of money, at which point the use-value is lost sight of and it is thought of the exchange-value, or money. These values are interdependent. Baudrillard convincingly argues for this in his writing.

It seems simple enough that we buy things and stop thinking about their use value or the reason they were built, made or put together for in the first place but start only thinking of their exchange-value because we are interested in their price.

Rufo goes on to mention an interesting point that the relationship between the signifier and signified relates to the logic of commodity. The relationship exchange allows the logic of signification to dominate the production of meaning. 

Baudrillard recognizes that these theories prove themselves over time. “One just follows the analytical formula, deploying the right terms or concepts when needed, and voila, you’ve got yourself some good criticism.” (Rufo) This is true with anything, where one could assume they are going to do bad on a test thus setting themselves up for failure. So, thinking in terms of a specific theory or system of exchange-values allows implementation of such ideas.

It seems that Baudrillard is somewhat afraid of capitalism. He thinks it is a problem to focus on production. He discusses capitalism as worrying only about the constant production of things because it is about consumption of those things. He goes on to argue how Marx’s theories help support capitalism and not oppose it because Marx’s ideas are the naturalization of use-value is capitalism and not the sign-values which was previously thought.

Since all of these theories, Baudrillard went on to identify the three main orders of simulation. I enjoy the way that Rufo explains simulation through his example of exchanging this to represent other things. Using icons is the first order of simulation which is using something, not the actual thing, to represent the actual thing. The second order is when you use something in exchange for something but it does not have to actually represent the actual thing anymore. The third order is not a simulation stage but a simulacral stage. Baudrillard describes it by saying "The territory no longer precedes the map, nor does it survive it. It is nevertheless the map that precedes the territory—precession of simulacra—that engenders the territory."

“It is no longer a question of imitation, nor duplication, nor even parody. It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real” (http://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/postmodernism/modules/baudlldsimultnmainframe.html)

Rufo describes what Baudrillard refers to as the hyper as “the simulational stuff is so pervasive that you filter your real experiences through the simulation of that reality”. You are relating to the real because of the simulation so there is no way out of it, as the real that you see will just be an effect of that simulation.

The fourth stage Baudrillard later brings up seems a little too intense. The “integral reality” where simulation is everywhere makes for a seemingly fake life. If everything is simulation, there is no reality. 

I think Rufo did a good job at explaining thoroughly Baudrillard’s ideas and used relatable examples to understand his theories. The guest blog allowed me to further understand the idea of the hyperreal and the relation between commodity and Sassure along with Baudrillard’s relation to Marxism.