Post date: Oct 20, 2013 5:41:50 AM
Trin T. Minh-ha (1989) criticizes the notion of “gender” used by Ivan Illich (1981, 1982):
Proceeding from one opposition to another can, however, be very limiting. It all depends on the way one renders these limits visible and succeeds in letting oppositions annul themselves by constantly annulling each other. Concepts are bound, by their linguistic nature, to yield a plural interpretation. The more this linguistic reality is taken into consideration, the less reductive prove to be the issues raised and the position adopted by the writing or speaking subject. The reign of gender Illich sets up against the regime of economic sex and the three exemplary arguments by African women mentioned above may denote a sincere effort to probe into the question of oppression, but they may also denote a form of highly reactionary thinking rising from a deep-seated chauvinism-sexism. They may lead to a radical change in one’s outlook on Third World women’s struggles, as they may lead to the backwardness of “hard-core” conservatism, a conservatism that sprouts out of opportunism, of the irrational fear of losing. (Losing what? That is the question. A quick answer will run flatly as follows: losing either the master’s favor or the master’s position itself.) The notion of gender is pertinent to feminism as far as it denounces certain fundamental attitudes of imperialism and as long as it remains unsettled and unsettling. Illich’s continual build-up of opposition between gender and sex does not, however, lead to such an opening. It tends, on the contrary, to work toward separation and enclosure. The universe in which his theories circulate—whether they relate to schooling, medical, religious, or feminist institutions—is a fixed universe with a definite contour. One can call it the uncompromising hatred of industrial economics of the cult of a subsistence-oriented mode of living; whatever the name, the aim pursued remains the same. The concept of gender is thus elaborated to fit into this perspective, hence his instance on the irremediable loss of gender. Sexism postulated as a sine qua non of economic growth does not leave any room for gendered activities, and the two as duality are absolutely incompatible. Such a clear, irreversible division is, at times, very useful. It sheds another convincing light on the fact that sexism is no more inherent in the masculine gender (although it has been initially and predominantly practiced by men) than in the feminine gender, and when we say, for example, that the subjugation of women takes on a universal face only within a “male-biased” perspective. Recognizing one’s limit and situating one’s view in the realm of sexism and genderlessness certainly helps one to avoid “imputing sex to the past,” reducing or distorting the realities of “native” cultures; but this does not necessarily imply that what Illich sees as a gender-bound style of perception is lost, dead, or irrecuperable. One cannot speak about the loss of a concept without at the same time knowing it can be spoken of as a gain. That vernacular speech is fading away and that industrialized language enforces the genderless perspective are borne out by Illich’s own speech and writing, which, despite their careful avoidance or redefinition of key words (are bound by his own reasoning to), offer genderless look at gender, and address a genderless man. Such a contradiction invites, however, further probing into the concept of gender. One wonder, indeed, whether Illich’s attempts at defining gender and his persistence in dwelling on its supposed finiteness have not somehow blinded him to some of the most radical (not to be understood merely as excessive or extreme) trends in feminism today. No matter how relevant and incisive the statement may prove to be in his conceptual context, to declare that “under any economic regime [women] are only the second sex” is to oversimplify the issue. It is also willingly ignore the importance of women’s achievements in dismantling the differences within this “second-sex”as well as those between First, Second, and Third. The master is too bent on proving his point to allow for any deflection. One may say of the rigid line of his reasoning that it connotes a strong nostalgia for the past and for a purity of self-presence in life, a purity he does not hesitate to defend by crushing or crossing out all obstacles standing in his way. The place of (Illich-) the male investigator/speaker/writer remains unquestioned.
(Minh-ha 1989: 108-114)
Attempts at reviving this notion (gender) through a genderless, industrialized language will then appear vain, for they will only be interpreted as a sophisticated—therefore most insidious—plea for a return to tradition, a tradition carried on for the benefit of men and legally (not equitably) reinforced by laws invented, brought into operation, and distorted by men for men. Such an interpretation is not totally unfounded, and there are many tradition upholders in the Third World today who would readily make use of Illich’s theory of gender to back up their anti-feminist fight. Having always maintained that there should be nothing like equality and rights for women because traditionally there simply did not exist, they would turn his arguments to account and continue confidently to preach the absence of women’s oppression in traditional societies.
(Minh-ha 1989: 114)
In today’s context, to defend a gendered way of living is to fight for difference, a difference that postpones to infinity and subverts the trend toward unisex behavioral patterns. The story of gender-as-difference is, therefore, not “the story of what has been lost” (Illich), but the story of that which does not readily lend itself to (demonstrative) narrations or descriptions and continues to mutate with/beyond nomenclature.
(Minh-ha 1989: 116)
As far as I know, these question has not been addressed by Japanese commons scholars who have been inspired by Illich.
Relevant short note:
REFERENCE
- Minh-ha, Trinh T. 1989. Woman, Native, Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
（トリン・T・ミンハ 著／竹村和子 訳（[1995]2011）『女性・ネイティヴ・他者——ポストコロニアリズムとフェミニズム』岩波書店.）