On a whim or persuasive intellectual turmoil, I do not know, but I'm venturing a little bit into unknown territory as far as my knowledge on the matter goes... so nothing new then. :)
Juney also mentioned the difference in the fluidity of signifiers in male and female discourse, i.e, the relationship between the word and the meaning being rather 'fixed' in male discourse and its more fluid nature in female ones. Her exact words were "Remember the age old adage about women saying one thing and meaning another?" My limited knowledge of semiotics kept me from probing the issue further.. Check out her site www.juneythomas.in
My flimsy footing in the disciplines of gender studies and feminist theory (or just a female perspective) prevents me from going any further but I invite your comments and arguments on this paralyzing suspicion that I now have, in order to put to rest any future misgivings I may have when talking to someone from the opposite sex. :D
A dear friend of mine, Juney Ann Thomas, who completed her Masters in Eng. Lit and is a talented poet and literary analyst in her own right, pointed me towards an essay she wrote during her course work regarding Ecriture feminine theory in modern literature.While my ignorance of literary theories in general and my uncompromising lack of patience to delve completely into something I'm fundamentally unfamiliar with, prevented me from drawing the comprehensive and authoritative meaning behind her words, I, therefore, finished reading the essay having developed, through my clumsy attempts at grasping the literary implications, some profound questions about some rather ordinary things.
The theory (please look it up) deals with the issue of women being depicted and understood in literature from strictly a male thought process and how women should write women for the structure to change. It has an interesting point about how male thinking is always a single path process or phallocentric where you understand and analyze something by direct and linear methodology which can be connected even to the ancient and original scientific Greek mentality of dissection and analysis of the subject matter to reach the underlying truth. The theory declares that this is not the only way to understand or admire the world and that women are capable of thinking non-linearly and it can sometimes be more effective in aesthetic and analytic description of the tangible and the intangible.
Now my friend is a self proclaimed worshiper of words and I came to the conclusion that my strong left brain sensibilities make me a seeker of ideas behind the words, hence my stubborn fascination with direct, analytic prose and why ethereal, beautiful poetry (including hers :) ) is often wasted on me.
So naturally, I came out of the reading with the idea that surely this linear thinking which I, by virtue of my gender, social context and education, abide by must also mean that I do not perceive the world like a person (not necessarily a female) who is capable of non-linear thought or analysis does.
But sticking to the framework of the theory, I applied it to the pop culture rant about how men will never understand women. Is this the reason? Do women see the world in a different light, not just because of social or gender based biases, but as a result of a more fundamental approach of thought? Immediately, a joke from the stand up routine of Chappelle (I think) came to mind where he pointed out that men tell stories as a series of facts whereas women tell stories by employing a method of highlighting their emotions causal and resultant of the facts and events of the story.
Juney also mentioned the difference in the fluidity of signifiers in male and female discourse, i.e, the relationship between the word and the meaning being rather 'fixed' in male discourse and its more fluid nature in female ones. Her exact words were "Remember the age old adage about women saying one thing and meaning another?" My limited knowledge of semiotics kept me from probing the issue further.. Check out her site www.juneythomas.in
I then recapped various conversations with girls where I tried to understand something relating to usually aesthetics or a general sense of wonder from their point of view and failed, leaving the topic of discussion clinging to the rather intellectually complacent explanation that it must be an individual subjectivity issue. However, I come across these issues in smaller amounts when dealing with my own gender. Could the unseen battle between linear and non-linear cognitive philosophies be the problem?
My flimsy footing in the disciplines of gender studies and feminist theory (or just a female perspective) prevents me from going any further but I invite your comments and arguments on this paralyzing suspicion that I now have, in order to put to rest any future misgivings I may have when talking to someone from the opposite sex. :D
No comments:
Post a Comment