CR #6

In this week’s readings I have noticed a few comparisons that are meant to clarify some terminology that has been grouped together as if they are one in the same and challenges those ideas that stem from a binary culture.

              On page 35, I found a quote that I am particularly fond of, “if desire could liberate itself, it would have nothing to do with the preliminary marking by sexes”. I probably like it because I agree, and I think that Foucault would also agree. I also think it’s a beautiful notion that could easily be made into more than just a notion. To love and lust and allow yourself to explore sexuality without restrictions of social “normativity” is a wonderful idea. Instead of looking at the body and immediately thinking yes or no because of what you have learned to desire, imagine looking at the person with a blank slate and allowing yourself to love, lust, and desire for the soul and act on a mutual curiosity.

              So much of our perspective has been predetermined by what is “normal” in society and it is challenging to try and see things through an unfiltered lens. How do you look at the whole picture and remove everything you’ve already been exposed to in your life? You can’t, our biopower map project proved that it’s impossible to not be part of the whole system.

              However, in Qwo-Li’s interview they talk about intention and I think this is a fairly straight forward solution to at least a component of the problem. To think and perceive with the intention to be open and just being aware of your position could probably have a significant impact. As we have discussed before, thinking about privilege and non-privilege is a great place to start working towards change.

              In the book from this week there is a section on Freud (a psychology favorite) and on page 78 they talk about Freud’s ideas on loss and the ego. I found this section to be an interesting perspective on gender that I wouldn’t have thought to connect. He believed that when we lose love, we internalize their character so that they may live on within us and this can be translated into gender “norms” and sexuality. I don’t think Foucault would be too happy about Freud being included in this book because he is the father of relating sex with diagnosis but his perspective on this does seem relevant.

              I am conflicted on the use of the word “feminism” now because of this book. I hadn’t thought about the fact that feminism associates “feminine” with being female and has a built in binary assumption. There is a great explanation of the relation (or lack thereof) between sex and gender, which is referred to as performativity. I think it’s great because it makes it clear that behavior isn’t from some kind of “natural” gender expression. There is nothing innate about sex and gender and all the words we use to put each other into binary boxes. The world is what we make it!