Eddie, 11/13

There are a few assumptions made by Cixous that we should leave alone for the discussion here. The first is that men and women are clearly divided groups, with each group held together by a sexual unity. Then, these two groups have traits which are different and opposite to one another–they do not compliment each other in function. Also, one group (the men) has the means to maintain a dominance over the other due to the above differences. All of the points are enough to fuel debates of exhausting lengths, but they are not the concern of concern this moment, so let them be for now.

When the women of the class were given the sole right to speak, what was supposed to happen? According to Cixous, the female participants of the class should have been keen on discussing applications of the theory and what it fails to satisfy. They should have been less interested in dissecting the theories to further rationalize them.

Men, according to her, are deconstructive. They seek to disassemble the machinery of reality, study its components, and then map their relations with one another. Through that exercise, men hope to find the “be” of our world – its building blocks. On the other hand, Women are constructive. They are unbound by the obsession with what is already there; they would rather explore what is not – the” other.” So the concern with women is not with why things are, but rather, what they are not.

One could associate the idea of aggressive domination with the deconstructive males, but here lies the dangerous assumption in question here: men, in their deconstructive ways, seek no inventive end. If men and women are binary opposites - and if women are the innovators, explorers and revolutionists - then it must first be assumed true that men do not already seek such goals. If not, then men may have a common end to share with women, and there may be the option of coexistence, cooperation and mutual support - which would make Cixous' romantic passion seem rather silly. So, Cixous is saying that men work to untangle and describe the real world, and that is the drive in and of itself. Naturally, things are never that simple.

Think of our education. Our study is exactly the process of learning what other great minds have taken apart and seen before us. Yet (hopefully) none of us will say that our goal is to simple know all this stuff and then call it a job well done. Deconstructing reality is never just about finding the building blocks. The basic units - like the theory of atoms, time or inertia - do nothing on their own which are relevant to our interests. Our aim as scholars is, then, to be able to take those "building" blocks and "build" things. There will always be things that we still need, and more things we already have to improve on. Masculine destruction has its ultimate interest in construction.

Besides, what good is Cixousian feminine imagination and innovation if we are without the muscle to ever attain them? Unhinged from the fear and limits of reality and science, we can hope and dream anything we like, but can we ever expect to see them realized with any sort of certainty? I, for one, do not find it comforting to have innovation at the price of not knowing why new ideas work better. They work when they do, and fail because it just happens. There would not be a thread of security to be had in that world.

So, what should we do? We should avoid dedicating our minds to rationalizing differences and maintaining binary opposites. If there is a war waged by feminists against a phallocentric culture, then could it not also be called a vaginocentric coup d'état? If we are to harbor such passionate hate towards any one extreme, then we only end up pushing for the other alternative form of unbalance. The "we do and they don't" mindset is more dominating than even the manliest of men will ever be.