Divine Gifts and Embodied Subjectivities in<i>The Vagina Monologues</i>
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes The neologism, bodyselves, is invoked here to overcome the grammatical and linguistic inscription of difference, distance and distinction inherent in talking about subjectivity in terms of minds and bodies as different aspects of the self. A similar strategy is invoked by feminist performance artist and art theorist, Joanna Frueh in her essay ‘Vaginal Aesthetics’ (Frueh ) via the neologism ‘soul-and-mind-inseparable-from-body’ See also Frueh’s ‘Vaginal Aesthetics’ for a provocative consideration and critique of the narrative and aesthetic associations between vaginas and divinity in both western and eastern contexts. See, in particular, the archive of an extensive discussion of these and other issues that took place on the WMST-L list Serve between January and March 2001. The WMST-L list is an international list for teachers, librarians and administrators involved with Women’s Studies, although most contributions are from North America (http://www.listserv.umd.edu/archives/wmst-l.html). Since writing this essay, it has been brought to my attention that Eve Ensler re- wrote this monologue in response to significant anxieties about its apparently unproblematic representation of a sexual relationship between a teenager and an adult. In the first performed versions the young girl was actually 13 and not 16, which means that in most US states the incident would fall under the provisions concerning statutory rape. Indeed, on closer viewing of the documentary it is actually apparent that the age of the girl has been overdubbed. Perhaps this explains some of the otherwise slightly obscure meaning of the expression ‘politically incorrect’ salvation in the closing comments made by the narrator. There is much to be said about this issue but the limits of space prevent this from being the most appropriate context. I would, however, like to respond to oft made suggestions in such examples that were the sex of the adult male and not female, feminists would necessarily find it problematic. Notwithstanding the essentializing of feminism implicit in such claims, they also fail to recognize that men and women are not interchangeable subjects in a world governed by formal equality principles. Regardless of the actual issues that arise in the context of a sexual encounter between an adult woman and a teenage girl, and they are many and serious, they are none the less, not the ‘same’ as those arising in the context of adult males and teenage females. At the very least consideration of such an issue would benefit from a substantive equality analysis that can comprehend systems of power and their relationship to sexual difference and sexual assault in specific political, historical and social contexts. In terms of the reading I offer here, it is limited by the context in which I heard this monologue. In that context the girl was 16 and the woman 24. See discussion on http://www.listserv.umd.edu/ archives/wmst-l.html, Jeanne Ludlow, Monday 12 February 2001. Both the terms extasis and instance or, more accurately in-stant, are invoked by Irigaray in her essay ‘Sexual Difference’ from An Ethics of Sexual Difference (Irigaray : 14), which draws significantly on Descartes’ Passions of the Soul. Wonder is Descartes’ passion without opposite, and it is the window through which Irigaray speculates that the other who is different sexually is encountered with wonder in the instant. Western history, she feels, has failed to appreciate the divinity of this difference. While I am using Irigaray’s concepts in a slightly different context, the underlying distinction between extasis and instance is consistent with her claims.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».