On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Tanya Wood wrote:
> What do people think of Russ's conceptualisation of female subjectivity?
> One
> writer (Marilyn somebody, in her very good preface to the FM) suggested
> that the 4 J's together would constitute one unified
> female subject- an ideal which current conditions make impossible. Other
> critics see Russ as completely debunking any idea of stable subjectivity,
> utopian or otherwise.
> On the other hand, Russ's oxymoronic project to become a "female man"
> seems to reach towards females becoming human, suggesting (of course)
> that they are not human so far but also suggesting that humanity is
> something stable to be reached for.
> I find this book very hard to pin down (and hence extremely interesting).
me too. I guess I read the Js as female possibilities. They are four
possible women, from Russ infinite universes, that have been socially
constructed by their world's unique history and ideology. I don't think
that they constitue one unified female subject, unless that subject is
"everywoman".
I just argued in a paper that together they form a fragmented hero.
(Does this hero concept contradict what i said above? I don't know,
hope not:)
I was talking about J's struggle against oppressive
ideologies that limit personal development. Their interaction, and the
education they each receive because of that interaction, defines their
heroism...
I contrasted Russ's J with Cadigan's M in _Fools_, if anyone wants to
discuss that one :)
But again, I still haven't "pinned FM down" and I'm not sure that one
can.
Andrea Klein
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:01 PDT