Review.s .
sexed BODies,LiveD
MYRNA J. ALEJO REVIEWS ELIZABETH GROSZ' VOIATILE BODIES. TOWARD A CORPOREAL FEMINISM
Volatile Bodies i s a c o g e n t l y
written a n d thought-provoking
book on corporeal feminism. E a c h
chapter unfolds with critical
a n a l y s i s of t h e s e l e c t e d t h e o r e -
tical w o r k s of S i g m u n d F r e u d ,
Jacques Lacan, Michel Foucault,
Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Gilles
Deleuze a n d Felix G u a t t a r i ,
pointing out the phallocentric
p r o p e n s i t i e s of -some o f t h e s e
Western theories a n d a c k n o w -
l e d g i n g the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of s o m e of
their propositions on recon-
s t r u c t i n g the f e m i n i s t d i s c o u r s e o n
the b o d y . W i t h t h e i n e x t r i c a b l y
related c o n c e p t s of b o d y , p o w e r /
knowledge, desire, a n d signi-
fication a s c o m p o s i t o r y t h e m e s ,
Elizabeth Grosz reinvents the
n o t i o n of b o d y , i.e. t h e b o d y a s a n
"embodied subjectivity" a n d "psy-
chical corporeality".
G r o s z rejects the dualist
n o t i o n s of m i n d / b o d y a n d of m a l e /
female w h e r e e a c h i s t r e a t e d a s
mutually-exclusive, usually pri-
veleging the m i n d a n d the male
(the s y m b o l of r a t i o n a l i t y , t h o u g h t ,
idea) over, respectively, t h e b o d y
a n d the female i n b i n a r y r e l a t i o n s .
She also problematizes h o w this
d u a l i s t t r e a t m e n t finds r e s o n a n c e
i n some of the p r e d o m i n a n t v i e w s
within the feminist movement.
Because of c o n s t a n t evasion of
the question of female corpo-
42
VOLATILE
BODIES
TOWARD A CORPOREAL FEMINISM
reality, s o m e f e m i n i s t s t e n d to seek
collective i d e n t i t y of w o m e n i n
" n o n - or extra-corporeal terms".
F e m i n i s m , especially the egali-
tarian or socialist breed, positions
w o m e n ' s e m a n c i p a t i o n w i t h i n the
social r e a l m a n d renders the
female body, w i t h its dichoto-
m i z a t i o n of w o m a n a s a " m o t h e r "
a n d a s a " p o l i t i c a l / c i v i c being", a s
a n i m p e d i m e n t to e g a l i t a r i a n e n d s .
T h e m i s o g y n i s t s also t e n d to look
at t h e s e x u a l differences between
the m a l e a n d t h e female i n b i n a r y
Women in Action No. 3,1996
eooies
terms, specifically with their
reference to t h e p e c u l i a r s e x u a l i t y
(e.g. the c a p a c i t y for r e p r o d u c t i o n )
of t h e f e m a l e as "naturalin-
equality," t h u s w a r r a n t i n g the
social a n d m e n t a l differences
between t h e m a l e a n d female.
I a m p a r t i c u l a r l y d r a w n to the
author's constructive attitude
towards d i s c o n c e r t i n g p o s i t i o n s o n
w h a t w a s c o m m o n l y k n o w n or ac-
cepted. H o w e v e r s h e c r i t i c a l l y n o -
ted h o w D e l e u z e a n d G u a t a r r i ' s
a s s e r t i o n of t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of
" m a n i n the w o m a n a n d w o m a n i n
the m a n " , a s a n o u t c o m e of the
p r o c e s s of " b e c o m i n g " ( i.e. t h e
overlapping nature or "double
reciprocal dependency" between
binary opposites), c a n implicitly
u n d e r m i n e t h e f u n d a m e n t a l dif-
ferences b e t w e e n m a l e a n d female
bodies. G r o s z , n o n e t h e l e s s , recog-
nizes the t r a n s f o r m a t i v e p o t e n t i a l
of t h e i r a r g u m e n t i n r e l a t i o n to
breaking some theoretical fixation/
paralysis a n d recreating multiple
g r o u n d for a n a l y s i s .
E l i z a b e t h G r o s z v i e w s the body
as a s o c i a l c o n s t r u c t , a site of v a r i -
ous cultural representations. S h e
argues that the pleasure a n d p a i n
the b o d y feel, a n d t h e f l u i d s it
secretes a r e m e d i a t e d b y society's
e n s e m b l e of n o r m s a n d i n s t i -
t u t i o n s of o r g a n i z i n g b o d i l y expe-
 G R O S Z A R G U E S THAT T H E P L E A S U R E A N D PAIN T H E BODY
riences. U s i n g the stigmata pheno-
menon a n d multiple personality
syndrome a s examples, Grosz
argues h o w the body's physio-
logical capacities/functions o r
b i o l o g i c a l o r d e r s c a n be a l t e r e d o r
modified by specific religious
practices or mental disorders.
T h e a u t h o r gives i m p o r t a n c e to
the n o t i o n o f lived body. H o w a
body is being lived, experienced
a n d r e p r e s e n t e d i s a f u n c t i o n of the
specificity of i t s s o c i o - h i s t o r i c a l
a n d c u l t u r a l m i l i e u . W i t h t h i s pre-
supposition, the book opposes or
d e n i e s a n y c l a i m to a u n i v e r s a l
c o n c e p t i o n o f the b o d y . T h e a u t h o r
qualified categorically that the
specific lived r e a l i t i e s o f t h e b o d y
she m e n t i o n e d , e.g. AIDs dis-
c o u r s e , w e r e d e r i v e d m a i n l y from
the W e s t e r n c o n t e x t . B e c a u s e o f
the d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n
of s u b j e c t i v i t i e s a n d e x p e r i e n c e s ,
l i v e d b o d i e s differ f r o m o n e c u l t u r e
or s o c i e t y to a n o t h e r . G r o s z p r o p o -
ses, i n s t e a d , a n e w , n o n - d e f i n i t i v e
a n d non-totalizing way of under-
s t a n d i n g o u r b o d y , i.e. o n e t h a t re-
c o g n i z e s i t s a l t e r i t y a n d , therefore,
the h e t e r o g e n e i t y o f " b o d y t y p e s . "
Bodies themselves, in their materialities,
are never self-present, given things,
immediate self-evidences because
embodiment, corporeality, insists on
alterity they cany within themselves (the
heart of the psyche lies in the body; the
body's principle and functioning are
psychological and cultural) and the alterity
that gives them their own concreteness
and specificity (the alterities constituting
race, sex, sexualities, ethnic and cultural
specificities). Alterity is the very
possibility and process of embodiment:
it conditions but is also a product of the
pliability and plasticity of bodies which
makes them other than themselves, other
than their 'nature', their functions and
identities. [p2091
As a "cultural product", the
b o d y i s a l w a y s open to c o n s t a n t
transformation or process of
'becoming'. It s u r f s o r n a v i g a t e s
MEDIATED BY S O C I E T Y S E N S E M B L E O F N O R M S A N D INSTITUTIONS O F ORGANIZING
F E E L , A N D T H E FLUIDS IT S E C R E T E S ARE
t h r o u g h the self/other, t h e pri-
vate/public a n d the n a t u r a l / c u l -
tural.
The principle of alterity p u t s
into question the dominant
c o n s t r u c t i o n of s e x u a l i t y a n d h o w
society normalizes c e r t a i n s e x u a l
p r a c t i c e s a n d b e h a v i o u r . If m y
r e a d i n g o f G r o s z i s fairly a c c u r a t e ,
the s e a r c h for s e x u a l i d e n t i t y
s h o u l d n o t j u s t be c o n f i n e d to
demarcating the boundaries of
e a c h sex (say, differences i n s e x u a l
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ) i n a p p a r e n t l y fixed
m a n n e r . S e x u a l i d e n t i t y s h o u l d be
based o n a twin recognition of
"irreducible" specifities of sexed
bodies a n d t h e t r a n c e n d e n c e o f
the b o u n d a r y ( i e s ) b e t w e e n s e x e d
b o d i e s — t h e "possibility of the other."
T h i s c o u l d m e a n , for example,
r e o r i e n t i n g e r o t i c i s m f r o m a single
(ohallic) s o u r c e to o t h e r ( n o n - p h a l -
lic) s o u r c e s o r t h e b l u r r i n g of t h e
distinctions between hetero/
homosexuality.
G r o s z ' s c a l l for s p e c i f i c i t y a n d
nontotalizing view of the body
p r e s u p p o s e s a n e e d to r e i m a g i n e
the entire f e m i n i s t d i s c o u r s e . A t
the r i s k of t r a v a i l i n g " d a n g e r o u s "
path and misreading Grosz, I think
reimagining involves a careful
a p p r o p r i a t i o n of W e s t e r n c o n c e p t s ,
a re-examination of a language
w h i c h t e n d s to ' u n i v e r s a l i z e ' t h e
definition of problems s u c h a s wo-
men's oppression, and the
possibility of m u l t i p l e feminist
discourses.
A n y feminist discourse s h o u l d ,
i n d e e d , be i n f o r m e d b y t h e p a r t i -
c u l a r i t i e s of the m e a n i n g s y s t e m
u s e d b y society, w h i l e k e e p i n g i n
m i n d h o w larger a n d m o r e p e r v a -
sive p o w e r r e l a t i o n s c a n m a g n i f y
c o m m o n sites of oppression.In
t h i s light, several q u e s t i o n s c a n be
a s k e d : H o w d o we i n t e r p r e t ' o p -
p r e s s i o n ' a n d define f e m i n i s m , for
instance, i n Islamic culture o r i n
any indigenous community? H o w
d o w e r e a d t h e p l e a s u r e s o n e gets
Women in Action No. 3,1996
f r o m s a d o - m a s o c h i s m a n d other
so-called 'sexual perversities'?
W h e r e d o w e locate t h e n e w types
of e r o t i c i s m ? H o w d o w e d e c o d e
certain ' t r u t h s ' about sexuality
t h a t h a s b e e n p r o d u c e d by m e d i c a l
science, history a n d disciplines?
G r o s z i s b o t h provocative a n d
p r o f i c i e n t i n a r g u i n g t h e lived o r
sexed body a s a " c u l t u r a l inscrip-
t i o n . " It is t h e b o d y b e i n g i n s c r i b e d
u p o n . I s t i l l , however, r e c k o n t h i s
a s p r i v e l e g i n g t h e m i n d over t h e
b o d y o r t h e p u b l i c over t h e private.
W h a t if we reverse the situation:
the p o s s i b i l i t y o f sexed b o d y (e.g.
sexuality a n d sexual practices
w h i c h are u s u a l l y designated a s
"private") i n s c r i b i n g u p o n the
p u b l i c , t h e sphere of competing
interpretations? T h e gradual ac-
c e p t a n c e o f w h a t were p r e v i o u s l y
designated a s 'deviant' discourses
(e.g. gay) offers a p r o m i s i n g note.
C a n e x h i b i t i o n i s m a n d other forms
of ' s e x u a l p e r v e r s i o n s , ' w h i c h have
always been treated b y medical
science a s purely psychological
dysfunctions, d o the same? Per-
h a p s we c a n b e g i n f r o m t h e c h a l -
lenges p o s e d b y G r o s z :
But in their [Deleuze and Guattarri]
defense, it is also crucial to recognize
the micro-segmentarities we seize from
or connect with in others which gives
us traits of "masculinity" and "femininity"
whether we "are" men or women. In
my opinion, this is politically dangerous
ground to walk on, but if we do not walk
in dangerous places and different types
of ten'ain, nothing new will be found, no
explorations are possible, and things
remain the same. The risks seem to me
worth taking: risking rethinking global
oppositions and maaoscopic hierarchies
in order to have more optimistic
prospects for effecting transformations
and realignments of global relations, and
moreover, seeing their capacity to
infiltrate microscopic recesses which
may appear immune to of outside of their
influence. [p173]
BODILY EXPERIENCES.
43