We Tell You Exactly About Sexual Difference and Ontology

We Tell You Exactly About Sexual Difference and Ontology

To also recommend speaking about difference that is sexual an ontological question might induce—not without justification—strong reluctance from both the edges of philosophy (the standard guardian of ontological concerns) and gender studies. Both of these “sides,” when we can phone them so, share a minumum of one cause for this reluctance, associated in some manner to your proven fact that the conversation would try absolutely nothing brand new. Conventional ontologies and old-fashioned cosmologies had been highly reliant on intimate distinction, using it as their extremely founding, or structuring, principle. Ying-yang, water-fire, earth-sun, matter-form, active-passive—this type of (often explicitly sexualized) opposition was utilized once the arranging principle of those ontologies and/or cosmologies, along with regarding the sciences—astronomy, as an example—based on it. And also this is just just how Lacan could say, “primitive technology is sort of intimate method.”1 Both science and philosophy broke with this tradition at some point in history, one generally associated with the Galilean revolution in science and its aftermath. Of course there clearly was an easy and many basic method of saying just exactly what characterizes contemporary technology and modern philosophy, it might be phrased exactly with regards to the “desexualisation” of truth, of abandoning intimate difference, much more or less explicit type, because the arranging principle of truth, supplying the latter’s coherence and intelligibility.

Reasons why feminism and sex studies find these ontologizations of intimate huge difference very problematic are clear.

Fortified in the ontological degree, intimate huge difference is highly anchored in essentialism—it turns into a combinatory game associated with essences of masculinity and femininity. So that, to place it within the modern gender-studies parlance, the social production of norms and their subsequent explanations discovers a ready-made ontological division, willing to essentialize “masculinity” and “femininity” immediately.

Lire la suite»