Deconstruction and Feminism

Introduction

Poovey (1988) has emphasised upon the fact that the emphasis of feminist post-structuralist discourses on the social locations has culminated into crucial insights concerning the debates pertaining the elements of power, social agency and reflexivity within the overall architecture of academic research during the previous century. In this context, Elam (1990) has observed that special location has also influenced the formulation of ethnographical research perspectives as a derivative of the overall feminist theoretical discourses pertaining to the social agency of women. Furthermore, Post-structuralist analysis could also reveal the pervasive influence of dominant discourses which conventional meanings and modes of thinking could impose on the general human psyche. This is a form of critical endeavour which is practically a milieu of differential cultural narratives and notional structures such as Postmodernism, Pedagogical theories, Post-structuralism, Deconstructionism, Feminist new wave based principles and so on.

From the research perspective of Jun (2008), theorisation perspectives involving Post-structural concepts encompass development of visibility of constitutive discourses pertaining to subjective analysis of social reality. This could be further elaborated as the theoretical analytical mode which could prompt scholarly attention to shift from the individualistic approaches to subjective perspectives. This has been further illustrated by Holm and Cilliers (1998) as transformation of textual discussions into discursive practices as well as from that of signifier to signified practices concerning the dynamics and functionalities of postmodernist languages, interests and cultural perspectives. Thus, Parker (2011) has brought into focus the central focus of any Post-structural theorisation to be dual folds, namely the objective discourses, at the perceptual levels and the manners through which the subjective perspectives are produced by such objective discourses. From the standpoint of feminist criticism, with the influence of postmodern assumptions, the Poststructrualist inquiry could be comprehended to be less concerned regarding the exploration of the limits and possibility of enhancement of knowledge. Rather, as has been outlined by Cilliers and Spurrett (1999), Post-structuralism primarily involves the inquiry about nature and evolution of knowledge. The feminist discourses pertaining to Deconstruction and influences derived from Poststructuralist perspectives regarding the study of ethnography in determining the social agency of women, generally strive towards the obtainment of proper understanding of measures through which the relative interaction of social reality and individualism could be determined. It is primarily associated with self-perception formulation on part of the new wave feminism proponents concerning the questions of legitimacy of the obtained comprehensions about the social discourses. Such feminist perspectives could certainly bring forth the social discourses which could have been marginalised previously. In this context, the Introduction section formulates the prolepsis of the entire research, encompassing the anticipation of the subsequent research. Particular theoretical approaches involving ethnography and post-structuralist discourses would be explored concerning the research topic under consideration. The points of particular departure would be also identified in terms of the divergence of approaches in feministic interpretation of available literary texts pertaining to female consciousness and representation of female social agency through ethnographic profiles of the element of identity itself.

Feminism and the Post-structural subjectivity

According to Elam (2006), the most significant distinction in between the Post-structural and Post-modern standpoint in terms of subjectivity related to feminist discourses is the divergence of the respective notions of subjectivity. It could alternatively perceived as a dialogical conflict between the subjective notions pertaining to differential disciplines (Higgins, 1990). Involving the feminist discourses, from the perspective of Poststructuralism, Nash (1994) has argued that the notion of fundamental and essential self, could be abolished or negated completely. In a concise manner, individuals, including feminist proponents and adherents of the new wave feminism, could determine their existence within the terms and conditions of the discourses which are available to them (Baudrillard, p.155). Furthermore, this process completely excludes the measure of independent consciousness and thus, no perception of the justification of any functionality which could be deemed to be necessary for any individual to be adhered to, could exist within such subjective disciplines of Poststructuralism (Cornell, 1999). On the contrary, Rorty (1993) has drawn attention to the fact that feminist individualism is always conceived from the perspective of Poststructuralism as subjective to cultural narratives. Such narratives are alternatively identified as storylines as well. Such narratives are consistently produced and do not have any format of core natural aspects. Poststructuralists, according to Deutscher (2002), signify this focus of transformation to the subjective notions through discursive practices. The inherent ideologies of any such social discipline, including that of that of Feminism, could construct the subjectivity associated with permissible individualist approaches.

Ethnographic objectification through social profiling

As per the observations of Hekman (2000), social classification of female consciousness and social roles, had become incumbent upon the perception patriarchal morality and such notions culminated in the notions objectification of women. The historic example of the Laundress in Paris, demonstrate the process of social classification of women into demonstrable as well as recognisable social settings. According to Brister (2009), such objectification often involved the process which could be recognised as Carnivalisation of literary expressions which is mostly a combination of different expressions and social perspectives.

Furthermore, from the feminist perspectives, the social imagery projected through the dominant patriarchal consciousness has always contributed to the attachment of certain meanings regarding the perceived social depiction of women to only a constricted set of signifiers (Welch, 2017). This could be compared to the relegation of the entire existence of any convicted person to a limited numbers of signifiers through images of such an individual for the development of a criminal database about person (Alcoff, 1988).

Consequently, this distorted representation of women had attracted considerable criticism from the feminist scholars and theoreticians during the 1970s and 1980s. Such form of criticism has involved the endeavour by the feminists to question the existing distinctions in between the generally accepted notions relating to legitimate and illegitimate imagery associated with the overall discourse of objectification (Duyfhuizen, 1984).

Feminist perspectives of exercise of patriarchal notional perspectives of female objectification

Walker (2013) has suggested that feminist writers have emphasised upon the element of psychoanalysis of historic and contemporary objectification of women to establish the argument that such objectification is the implication of exercise of power. Bordo (1988) has assessed such feminist endeavours as representative of recognising the practices of Fetishism and Voyeurism as influential social perspectives which have been intertwined with objectification of women within the general social discourses. The particular concepts had been formulated by Sigmund Freud and further development of such concepts has been undertaken by psychoanalysts including Melanie Klein, Luce Igrigaray and Jacques Lacan (Malson, 1998). In this context, Fraser (2017) has researched about the Freudian approach and has determined that the experience of spectators in terms of visual pleasure based subjectivity while observing female carnal forms as objects for the purpose of satisfaction of base instincts, could be considered to have been shaped from early childhood of such individuals. Bailey (2017) has outlined that such experiences could be termed, from a psychological perspective, as Scopophilia. It is deterministically voyeuristic since in most of the cases, the objects (females) of such gaze remain unaware of the attention paid towards them (Squires, p.120). According to Fisher (2000), Freud had specified that origin of such Voyeurism to be ingrained in the curiosity embedded within the human mind during early childhood or the formative years. This often could culminate into obsessive disorders and practise (Griffiths, 1995). Thus, Scopophilia is fundamentally to be considered as the exercise of power where the objectification of the female physical form becomes the instrument of pleasure for the audience, both at the active and passive modes (Sands and Nuccio, 1992). In this context, Schenck (1986) has signified the art of photography as the focal point of feminist criticism of exertion of social power by men over women through the process of objectification. It could be deduced with certain clarity that photography, by the actual nature of this medium, could invite voyeuristic tendencies, with different photographs promoting different measures of voyeuristic propensities (Sylvester, 1994). Thus, from the perspectives of Dean (1996), voyeurism through images/photographs, on a psychological level, could as well represent the colonisation process of certain communities through projection of their hapless disability as a spectacle to be viewed with certain measure of either conscious or subconscious pleasure.

Furthermore, Rutledge (1996) has focused upon the concept of Fetishism as another element within the Freudian analysis of photographic voyeurism. The reason of such an endeavour could be determined as assessment of feministic analytical approaches pertaining to Post-structuralist notions of shaping of female consciousness through a historically evident and observed process (van Eeden, p.496). To this effect, Rorty (2010) has observed that Freudian definitions of Fetishism has been derived from the previously established Anthropological definitions where the ethnographic overtones could be recognised with certain measure of clarity since the elements of inadvertent intimacy, coupled with the special desires associated with the carnal instincts of the developing human mind could project various measures of cultural overtones as well which could be associated with the particular socio-ethnic environment within which the individuals under consideration could be residing. Again, as per the delineations of Stuurman (2005), the Freudian perspectives determine the emanation of Fetishism to be incumbent on the focal point of development of desire at a certain juncture of human consciousness. It borders on an anxiety which the male developing mind could experience regarding the subconscious or, even unconscious apprehension regarding castration (Van Buren, 1995). Thus, it could be observed that Freudian interpretation emphasises on the obsession with the moment prior to the recognition of individual self, within the male mind, so as to develop a future fixation regarding the fragmentary perceptions of desire which further gets developed in to varying format of male patriarchal tendencies within the contemporary social settings (Benhabib, 1994). From the feministic perspective, this Freudian approach is appropriate pertaining the provisioning of corrective guidance to the literal interpretation of such notions which had been previously predominant within the social research circles (Flax, 1987). Such notions could be taken forward under the observations of Christian Metz who had argued that any photograph could work in the manner of freezing a specific fragment of reality so as to preserve that condition of the object which is depicted within such a photograph while everything else surrounding that object could be prone to change with the passage of time (Katz, 2018).

Poststructuralism and Feminist Ethnography

According to Ahmed (1998), the book Fictions of Feminist Ethnography has examined the recurring debates concerning the Deconstructive Ethnography discipline from the feminist perspectives. The emphasis has been on the examination of the process through which objective and scientific ethnography has been reassessed as fictional disciplines (Nicholson, 2013). In this context, Felski (2000) has also pointed out that exploration of feminist ethnography to determine the manner through which the feminists have attempted to navigate the multiplicity of fault lines within the post-structural discourses, to be a significant academic endeavour. To this effect, the research of Hartsock (1989) has highlighted that the literary complications associated with the general and feminist ethnographic conceptual subtleties so as to underline the fact that feminist ethnographers had evaluated the experimental ethnographies within the overall structure of Anthropology prior to the mainstream philosophers becoming interested in similar subjective approaches. In this context, Marchand and Parpart (2003) has brought into focus the anthology, Writing Culture, which had been coedited by George Marcus and James Clifford while they had attempted to challenge the conventional ethnographers to re-envision their performed academic research projects through utilisation of the poststructuralist critiques which have been levelled by the feminist scholars. Such critiques had made the notion apparent that a particular ethnographic rhetoric exists which emphasise upon literary tropes concerning the overall ethnographic research performed from the perspective of feminism (Nair, 2018). Furthermore, Agger (1991) has explores the methods through which Ethnography has been envisaged as a fictional approach which has formulated an account of differentials which could claim to be the source of validity in terms of exploration of objective knowledge. From a historical perspective, as per the observations of Hirschmann (2018), both ethnographers and anthropologists, including Bronislaw Malinowski and Franz Boas, have consistently attempted to collect information from the various focal groups of research participants which they have studied during their research endeavours. However, this process has involved the researchers to desist from performing any interference with the cultural aspects of the research participants in terms of attempts to institute transformative perspectives within the general discourse of such cultural aspects (Kenway et al.1994). It is of significance to understand that such cultural information collected by the ethnographers was expected to be minimally influenced by the subjective stances which the ethnographers entertained (Boyne and Rattansi, 2017). To this effect, the research of both Marcus and Clifford, in a collective manner along with the contributors to such research processes, has attempted to reconcile the post-structural critiques pertaining to knowledge of the social agency accorded to Women in general throughout the historical development process of Feminism based discourses (Hall, 1991). Such endeavours have outlined that such social discourses have been always restricted either partially or completely (Hekman, 2017). The objectives of the ethnographers have been always to avoid the situation when their researches could be considered as mere fictional compositions. Thus, the ethnographers have always struggled, in terms of feminist criticism based enumerations of their subject matter while they have attempted to articulate the manner in which Ethnography has always been shaped by various literary tropes without becoming completely defined by such literary tropes (Cattien, 2017). Fraser (2017) has highlighted that Barbara Tedlock has provided an intellectual as well as historical genealogy based account in her article named “Works and Wives: On the Sexual Division of Textual Labor” (1995), concerning the manner in which ethnographic division of labour has been performed between Man and Woman. In this context, Berggren (2014) has argued that Men (husbands) generally write the ethnographies which could be accepted within the academic discourses as the content and forms of such work are primarily academically sanctioned ones. On the contrary, Women (wives) are considered to write only reflexive and experimental ethnographies which can seldom be acknowledged as professional narratives by the general academia. Thus, Lazard, McAvoy and Capdevila (2016) have iterated that the article composed by Tedlock is significant from a dual fold based perspective. The initial one is that the researches performed by women within the ethnographic disciplines have been mostly undervalued from a historical perspective (Gunew, 2019). The second one has been that, arbitrary dismissals have been accorded to female authored ethnographies and this has culminated to the historical undervaluing of such scholarly endeavours of feminist authors (Antonio, 2011). The excuses pertaining of such academic malpractices have been the facts that ethnographies authored by female academics have been mostly inclusive of the content which has been formulated on the basis of personal narratives and reflective accounts of the experiences of the authors through personal perspectives. Thus, Lovibond (2016) has determined that such exclusions have ultimately reinforced the notion that ethnographic representation of female specific content, through the perspectives and personal experience based narratives of women in general, have been considered to be of mostly secondary influence and this has prevented the development of any plausible feminist post-structuralist culture of academics. The opinions of Rayaprol (2016) have suggested that any feminist ethnographer has to recognise, anticipate and determine the methods through which the personal experiences of the research participants could influence the behavioural aspects of such participants. In this context, the observations of (Peters, 2005) have outlined that it is always necessary to first recognise if the research performed by the feminist ethnographers have been affected through multiplicity of differential factors. Concerning such considerations, Leavy and Harris (2018) have suggested that Barbara Myerhoff has been the first feminist ethnographer to have utilised the element of reflexive analysis in a creative manner through her ethnographical text of Number Our Days (1978). The study involved research on elderly Jewish participants contemporarily residing at Venice and California with their social lives intertwined with the functionalities of the Israel Levin Centre (Han, 2011).

Furthermore, the introduction of the ethnographic theoretical constructs from the perspectives of Myerhoff, as per Prügl (2020), has also established the significance concerning the element of self-reflection as well as the personalised formats of analysis of narratives of research participants. The process has been instrumental in terms of assigning meaning to the observed experiences of such personnel. Concerning the overall impact of the work of Myerhoff, it could be comprehended that such a work has been extensively multi-voiced and dialogic in nature. According to Francis (1999), the researches performed by Myerhoff have been instrumental in formulation of the counter-canon within Ethnography as a subject which could establish the significance of reflexivity and dialogic narratives. As per the observations of Patterson (1989), Myerhoff has successfully argued that the process of assigning of meaning to the experiences of women, within any particular social condition, could be only misinterpreted or misrepresented through inappropriate outcomes of gender based constructions of perceptions. This could be rectified through utilisation of a feminist analytical perspective to determine the extent of self-reflexivity through which women in general could assign proper meaning to their social conditions (SHIRKHANI and BARZEGAR, 2018). This perception has been exemplified by Myerhoff in the manner of observing that, the community of elderly Jewish ladies has been successful in experiencing independence and self-worth in their daily chores which they have been leading for the better portion of their lives (Kirk, 1994). On the contrary, retired men could not formulate in-depth relationships amongst themselves since their perception of living conditions have been moulded through their gender centric perceptual psychological procedures. This difference becomes crucial in terms of recognising the method through which women could assign social agency to themselves even under extensively gender biased social perspectives (Peters and Wain, 2002).

The research of Myerhoff has also brought forth the methodology of participant observer focused information collection with the added benefit of deterministic clarity which could be achieved through observing the actual psycho-social undercurrents which formulate the internal and external perceptions of any community or the society in general (Lemert, 1994). This could be further examined as a definitive literature of Ethnography through which feministic discourses of overcoming the formal gender inequality instituted by patriarchal societies.

Conclusion

The focus of the study has been on evaluation of discussions regarding Feminism and Deconstruction within the ambit of Post-structurlism and Ethnography. The study has also considered the manner in which the Feminists have critiqued the general discourses of Post-structuralist approaches concerning the study of knowledge pertaining to the institutionalised gender discrimination and exertion of social power by the patriarchal social order. This has involved acceptance of particular aspects of Post-structuralism and Ethnography by the Feminists while the comparatively radical approaches are explored as well. Thus, from an academic perspective, the preceding study research has delved into two particular factors of philosophical criticisms, which are interrelated as well, in the manner of feminist frames of references pertaining to the social agency of women, as it has been envisaged with the main stream philosophical discourses and, the fact that Deconstruction could put into question the probability of any unified feminist socio-philosophical movement which could represent the essentialist premises which provide the basis on which the entire format of political and social interests of women could be established in the post-modernist era.

Reference List

Agger, B., 1991. Critical theory, poststructuralism, postmodernism: Their sociological relevance. Annual review of sociology, 17(1), pp.105-131.

Ahmed, S., 1998. Differences that matter: Feminist theory and postmodernism. Cambridge University Press.

Alcoff, L., 1988. Cultural feminism versus post-structuralism: The identity crisis in feminist theory. Signs: Journal of women in culture and society, 13(3), pp.405-436.

Antonio, S., 2011. Assumtion of Post-structuralism in Contemporrary Epistemology. Postmodern Openings, 2(7), pp.39-52.

Bailey, A., 2017. Tracking Privilege‐Preserving Epistemic Pushback in Feminist and Critical Race Philosophy Classes. Hypatia, 32(4), pp.876-892.

Benhabib, S., 1994. Feminist contentions: A philosophical exchange.

Berggren, K., 2014. Sticky masculinity: Post-structuralism, phenomenology and subjectivity in critical studies on men. Men and Masculinities, 17(3), pp.231-252.

Bordo, S., 1988. Feminist skepticism and the" maleness" of philosophy.

Boyne, R. and Rattansi, A. eds., 2017. Postmodernism and society. Macmillan International Higher Education.

Brister, E., 2009. Feminist epistemology, contextualism, and philosophical skepticism. Metaphilosophy, 40(5), pp.671-688.

Cattien, J., 2017. Feminist epistemology and the question of difference reconfigured: What can Wittgenstein tell us about" women"?. Journal of International Women's Studies, 18(3), pp.5-18.

Cilliers, P. and Spurrett, D., 1999. Complexity and post-modernism: Understanding complex systems. South African Journal of Philosophy, 18(2), pp.258-274.

Cornell, D., 1999. Beyond accommodation: Ethical feminism, deconstruction, and the law. Rowman & Littlefield.

Dean, J., 1996. Solidarity of strangers: Feminism after identity politics. Univ of California Press.

Deutscher, P., 2002. Yielding gender: feminism, deconstruction and the history of philosophy. Routledge.

Duyfhuizen, B., 1984. Deconstruction and Feminist Literary Theory.

Elam, D., 1990. Ms. en abyme: Deconstruction and feminism.

Elam, D., 2006. Feminism and deconstruction. Routledge.

Felski, R., 2000. Doing time: Feminist theory and postmodern culture (Vol. 11). NYU Press.

Fisher, L., 2000. Feminist phenomenology. In Feminist phenomenology (pp. 1-15). Springer, Dordrecht.

Flax, J., 1987. Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory. Signs: Journal of women in culture and society, 12(4), pp.621-643.

Francis, B., 1999. Modernist reductionism or post-structuralist relativism: Can we move on? An evaluation of the arguments in relation to feminist educational research. Gender and education, 11(4), pp.381-393.

Fraser, N., 2017. Feminist contentions: A philosophical exchange. Routledge.

Fraser, N., 2017. Feminist contentions: A philosophical exchange. Routledge.

Griffiths, M., 1995. Making a Difference: feminism, post‐modernism and the methodology of educational research. British Educational Research Journal, 21(2), pp.219-235.

Gunew, S. ed., 2019. Feminism and the Politics of Difference. Routledge.

Hall, C., 1991. Politics, Post‐structuralism and Feminist History. Gender & History, 3(2), pp.204-210.

Han, S., 2011. Post-structuralist and postmodern theories. Routledge handbook of identity studies, p.83.

Hartsock, N., 1989. Postmodernism and political change: Issues for feminist theory. Cultural Critique, (14), pp.15-33.

Hekman, S., 2000. Beyond identity: Feminism, identity and identity politics. Feminist Theory, 1(3), pp.289-308.

Hekman, S., 2017. Feminist new materialism and process theology: beginning the dialogue. Feminist Theology, 25(2), pp.198-207.

Higgins, T.E., 1994. By Reason of Their Sex: Feminist Theory Postmodernism and Justice. Cornell L. Rev., 80, p.1536.

Hirschmann, N.J., 2018. Revisioning the political: Feminist reconstructions of traditional concepts in Western political theory. Routledge.

Holm, E. and Cilliers, P., 1998. Beyond the politics of positionality: deconstruction and feminism. South African journal of philosophy, 17(4), pp.377-394.

Jun, W.A.N.G., 2008. The Critique and Deconstruction of Feminism on Feminine Images in Western Culture [J]. Journal of Jilin Normal University (Humanities & Social Science Edition), 3.

Katz, A., 2018. Postmodernism and the politics of'culture'. Routledge.

Kenway, J., Willis, S., Blackmore, J. and Rennie, L., 1994. Making ‘hope practical’rather than ‘despair convincing’: feminist post‐structuralism, gender reform and educational change. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 15(2), pp.187-210.

Kirk, N., 1994. History, language, ideas and post‐modernism: a materialist view.

Lazard, L., McAvoy, J.M. and Capdevila, R., 2016. Postmodern feminist psychology. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies, pp.1-5.

Leavy, P. and Harris, A., 2018. Contemporary feminist research from theory to practice. Guilford Publications.

Lemert, C.C., 1994. Post-structuralism and sociology. See Seidman, pp.265-81.

Lovibond, S., 2016. 29□ Feminism and Postmodernism. Postmodernism: A Reader, p.390.

Malson, H., 1998. The thin woman: Feminism, post-structuralism, and the social psychology of anorexia nervosa. Psychology Press.

Marchand, M.H. and Parpart, J.L. eds., 2003. Feminism/postmodernism/development. Routledge.

Nair, S., 2018. Postcolonial feminism. In Handbook on the International Political Economy of Gender. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Nash, K., 1994. The feminist production of knowledge: is deconstruction a practice for women?. Feminist Review, 47(1), pp.65-77.

Nicholson, L. ed., 2013. Feminism/postmodernism. Routledge

Parker, R.D., 2011. How to interpret literature: Critical theory for literary and cultural studies. Oxford University Press.

Patterson, T.C., 1989. Post‐structuralism, postmodernism: Implications for historians. Social History, 14(1), pp.83-88.

Peters, M. and Wain, K., 2002. Postmodernism/post-structuralism. he Philosophy of Education, p.57.

Peters, M.A., 2005. Education, post-structuralism and the politics of difference. Policy Futures in Education, 3(4), pp.436-445.

Poovey, M., 1988. Feminism and deconstruction. Feminist studies, 14(1), pp.51-65.

Prügl, E., 2020. Feminist methodology between theory and praxis. Review of International Studies, 46(3), pp.304-314.

Rayaprol, A., 2016. Feminist research: Redefining methodology in the social sciences. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 50(3), pp.368-388.

Rorty, R., 1993. Feminism, ideology, and deconstruction: A pragmatist view. Hypatia, 8(2), pp.96-103.

Rorty, R., 2010. Feminism, Ideology and Deconstruction: A Pragmatist View. a typescript.

Rutledge, D., 1996. Reading Marginally: Feminism, Deconstruction, and the Bible (Vol. 21). Brill.

Sands, R.G. and Nuccio, K., 1992. Postmodern feminist theory and social work. Social work, 37(6), pp.489-494.

Schenck, C.M., 1986. Feminism and deconstruction: Re-constructing the elegy. Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature, 5(1), pp.13-27.

SHIRKHANI, A. and BARZEGAR, K., 2018. Postmodernism and Indeterminate Identity of Feminism.

Stuurman, S., 2005. The deconstruction of gender: seventeenth-century feminism and modern equality. In Women, gender and enlightenment (pp. 371-388). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Sylvester, C., 1994. Feminist theory and international relations in a postmodern era (Vol. 32). Cambridge University Press.

Van Buren, J., 1995. Postmodernism—feminism and the deconstruction of the feminine: Kristeva and irigaray. The American journal of psychoanalysis, 55(3), pp.231-243.

Walker, M.U., 2013. Feminist skepticism, authority, and transparency. ETHICA, p.735.

Welch, S.D., 2017. Communities of resistance and solidarity: A feminist theology of liberation. Wipf and Stock Publishers.

Squires, S. 'Discovery Research', pp.115-121 in Design Studies: a Reader. van Eeden, J. 'Land Rover and Colonial-Style Adventure' in The Design History Reader pp.494-500

Baudrillard, J. 'Design and the Environment or How Political Economy Escalates into Cyberblitz' pp.154-159 from Design Studies: a Reader