Binary Oppositions, Abjection, Transgression Rebecca Hill Guest Lecture for Media Seminar 5/8/16 10am 94.4.26

Ideology Popular use of ‘ideology’ often associated with propaganda In this sense ideologies are understood as ‘false’ ideologies But humanities scholars point out ideologies are at their most effective when they appear as true Privileged norms in Oz of hard work, heterosexual marriage are ideologies many accept as true, as natural

Everything is Ideological Ideologies at their most effective mask their partial and historically specific character. They seek to present themselves as “True”. Ideology refers to ANY set of values or body of knowledge. This includes codes of conduct and actions. (See Schirato and Yell pp. 72-6) For Chris Barker, ideologies are “maps of meaning which, while they purport to be universal truths, are historically specific understandings of which obscure and maintain power” (50, 1st ed/ 71 2nd ed).

The Structure of a Binary Opposition (Dualism) Formalised by Aristotle through the Law of Non-Contradiction which is expressed as A/Not-A or Not (A/Not-A) A and not-A are mutually exclusive (Law of Excluded Middle) There is no position outside a binary structure. It is totalising (universal).

Man/Not-Man Only ‘Man’ (A) has a positive identity ‘Not-Man’ (Not-A) is defined negatively as the absence of ‘Man’ ‘Not-Man’ has no independent identity

Infinitation of the Negative Because Not-Man (Not-A) is defined negatively, it has no particularity and no definition except as the lack of Man (A). This means it includes everything that is ‘Not-Man’: women, children, animals, things, monsters, the ocean, aliens, etc…

A is ‘A’ because it is not ‘Not-A’ A Depends on Not-A Derrida argues that A depends on Not-A to have meaning and to maintain its position of privilege A is ‘A’ because it is not ‘Not-A’ Derrida is influenced by Ferdinand Saussure’s theory of negative difference, i.e. that a sign’s value emerges from its difference from all of the other signs in the system

The Politics of Binary Logic The fact that ‘Man’ has been privileged as ‘A’ in many texts is not required by logic. It is an effect of ideology. In other words, what binary oppositions privilege and what they subordinate is ideological.

A/Not-A Ancient Oppositions Soul/Body Man / Not-Man Light / Dark Good/Evil Some Contemporary Oppositions Clean / Unclean Civilised / Uncivilised Same / Other Heterosexuality / Not-Heterosexuality White/Not White Mind /Body Culture / Nature Natural/Unnatural

Subverting Binary Oppositions To identify a binary opposition is to problematize its operation It must be reversed – this is a necessary political gesture Reversing a binary still maintains the hierarchical A/Not-A structure How can we get out of binary structure?

Beyond Binary Logic? Some feminists have argued that the man/ woman relationship can be re-thought as A and B A similar strategy to combat the racism of binary logic is to symbolise ethnic difference as A, B, C, D, E, F …

PART TWO The Ambiguous Status of Bodies in the Western Tradition On the one hand, bodies appear to be celebrated – popular culture is full of images of beautiful bodies, healthy bodies and athletic bodies On the other hand, Western thought (philosophy and other disciplines in the humanities) are characterised by a profound fear of bodies or somatophobia (Grosz: 5)

Theorising Bodies There is no single “body”; there are only bodies which are sexually, culturally, and ethnically specific Studying bodies allows media theorists to foreground the specific differences between bodies while focusing only on the mind and ideas can allow these particularities to be neglected What kinds of bodies are privileged in media texts? What kinds of bodies are mocked? What kind of bodies get ignored?

Bodies and Discourses To say that bodies are socially and culturally specific, that some bodies are privileged and others are denigrated is to say that bodies make meaning – bodies are texts Bodies are inscribed with discourses of sexuality, ethnicity, class To theorise bodies in terms of discursive inscription is to move beyond the dislocation of the mind/body split. It enables us to see how knowledge and thought is materialised or embodied in particular kinds of bodies.

‘Clean’ and ‘Dirty’ What is dirt? For Mary Douglas, dirt is “matter out of place” – dirt is socially and culturally produced as dirt Eg: mud on a kitchen floor, a food stain on clothing (Douglas: 44-5)

Julia Kristeva and Abjection Kristeva develops Douglas’ argument in relation to subjectivity (personhood) The abject is, “what of the body falls away from it while remaining irreducible to the subject/object and inside/outside oppositions” (Grosz: 192). Eg: blood, snot, shit, vomit, sweat, pus, gases, sexual secretions, the corpse, orifices

The Abject as a Threat to the Subject (Person) “The abject signifies above all else ambiguity” (Creed quoting Kristeva: 8) Reveals the irreducible messiness of bodies In the West there is a tendency to seek to control and get rid of the abject – washing, using perfumes, breath freshener Hair and gender roles: What kind of body hair is valued? What kind is abject?

Abjection and Desire The ambiguity of the abject is also desired - especially in sexual contexts – “dirty” Eg: Halle Berry in L’Oreal ad, men as “animals” in bed (Viagra commercials) There is a longing for the collapse of proper subjective borders: inside/outside; self/other (See Creed, 11-12)

References: ON ABJECTION Creed, Barbara, The Monstrous Feminine. Chapter one. Chris Barker, Cultural Studies, “Foucault: Discourse, Practice and Power” (101-5 2nd edition) Douglas, Mary Purity and Danger [on dirt] Grosz, Elizabeth Volatile Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Feminism. See chapter one & pp. 192-5 ON BINARY OPPOSITIONS (OR DICHOTOMIES) Nancy Jay, “Gender and Dichotomy” Feminist Studies 6, 1, 38-56. Jacques Derrida, Positions. Alan Bass (trans). Chicago: Chicago UP, 1981. Handout ON IDEOLOGY: Tony Schirato and Susan Yell, Communication and Cultural Literacy, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 2000, Second Edition, pp. 72-7. Chris Barker, Cultural Studies, Sage, London, 2000, pp. 48-65, (esp. pp. 54-65)