BubbaNub : Cixous & Butler

   I found these two readings to tie together nicely in their search for the foundation of our societies hegemonic readings towards sex, gender, and desire.  Cixous' methods remind me of our first theorist De Saussure as it begins with a series of oppositional readings.  "Thought has always worked as opposition" reinforces Saussure's theory that in our language exists only differences (157).  Seeing as we cannot divide our thought from sound, we are only aware of subjects in relation to what they are not.  So when we couple the words man and woman, we have already set in motion a relation defined by opposites.  Then we attempt to relate the differences by saying man is masculine and woman is weak.  From there the basic infrastructure of what has become ingrained in our society today takes root, at least according to Cixous.

     Butler is a bit more hesitant in examining the root of the problem.  "The political assumption that there must be a universal basis for feminism, one which must be found in an identity assumed to exist cross-culturally, often accompanies the notion that the oppression of women has some singular form discernible in the universal or hegemonic structure of patriarchy or masculine domination" (193).  Although, she does not necessarily agree that there exists one such universal structure, she does go back to Cixous by observing the potential connotations and problems of the word 'women'.  Clearly the word carries with it numerous meanings and varying hegemonic readings developed over time, but Cixous asks is it a word that can be reclaimed or one that feminists should (and currently) steer clear of?  More importantly, is language itself capable of defining binary couples as equally opposite?