09 06 01 07 13 19

Acker, reading Butler’s essay, would no doubt have valued the…

Acker, reading Butler’s essay, would no doubt have valued the subversive potential of the “reverse mime” (“Bodies” 163) therefore the lesbian phallus which it postulates.

However it is Butler’s respect for philosophical and linguistic possibility (“If it were feasible… ”) which makes her deconstructive methodology ugly from Acker’s viewpoint. For as Acker over and over over and over over repeatedly keeps in regards to her late fiction, it really is perhaps maybe not the possible however the impossible uses of language that interest her. Whenever, after acknowledging the necessity of Butler’s speculations concerning the discursive constitution of materiality, Acker asks the question, “Who is any more interested within the ” that is feasible she signals her parting of means with all the philosopher. The road to your lesbian phallus is not the trail into the literary works of this human body, for the human anatomy is defined through the outset being an impossible goal. Alternatively, the path in which Acker tries to get outside of phallic urban myths follows the methodology of the fiction firmly grounded within the impossible–in a citational strategy, or critical mime, which echoes the sound of a Freud that never existed.

19 By thus claiming impossibility as an allowing condition of feminine fetishism, Acker’s “constructive” fiction can perform most of the same troublesome impacts as Butler’s deconstructive concept. Прочитать остальную часть записи »

Последние публикации
Материалы для утепления