I was reflecting on Deleuze and Guattari last night, and I do believe that they have a huge flaw in their philosophy. There is a lot of good stuff, too, but like most positions that rely rather more on theory than on experience, they have drawn too wide a sweep concerning their theory of anti-oedipus. What they effectively end up doing is to say that “part object” thinking — ie. thinking that is traditionally ascribed to the early pre-Oedipal stage (although they rightfully argue it goes beyond this “stage”) — should take the place of thinking in terms of whole objects. In other words, it is a particular function that is associated with any person that is more important than the personhood of that person. The personhood of the person is not ontologically important — as that plays into the logic of Oedipus, which is what they want to dispense with.
So D&G’s liberation from fascism and moral dogmatism seems inextricably linked to liberation from the influence of persons. One need not see the other as a whole person, but only see them in terms of what they can give to you; the particular function that they offer.
I think this is not very liberatory, overall, from a feminist point of view. Too many males are already accustomed to viewing women as “part objects” in a way that relates to their experiences of their mothers. “A woman is one who nurtures me and makes me feel good.” “A woman is one who is malicious and mean, withholding nurturing.” These kind of perspectives involve the reduction of the whole woman to the function of nurturing. Such epistemological reduction of reality to the level of “part objects” does not, however, avoid the lure of moralising. We know that patriarchy does almost nothing else than moralise about women from the perspective of treating them as part-objects (functions or potential functions in the service of patriarchy).
So I would say that although D&;G want to align themselves with feminism in theory, they fail in practice.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are persons -- not 'part objects'.
So D&G’s liberation from fascism and moral dogmatism seems inextricably linked to liberation from the influence of persons. One need not see the other as a whole person, but only see them in terms of what they can give to you; the particular function that they offer.
I think this is not very liberatory, overall, from a feminist point of view. Too many males are already accustomed to viewing women as “part objects” in a way that relates to their experiences of their mothers. “A woman is one who nurtures me and makes me feel good.” “A woman is one who is malicious and mean, withholding nurturing.” These kind of perspectives involve the reduction of the whole woman to the function of nurturing. Such epistemological reduction of reality to the level of “part objects” does not, however, avoid the lure of moralising. We know that patriarchy does almost nothing else than moralise about women from the perspective of treating them as part-objects (functions or potential functions in the service of patriarchy).
So I would say that although D&;G want to align themselves with feminism in theory, they fail in practice.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are persons -- not 'part objects'.
No comments:
Post a Comment