The Feminist Futures of Reading Diffractively How Barad s Methodology Replaces Conflict based Readings of Beauvoir and Irigaray
Quantum leaps happen in texts, too. This reading of the role of the quantum leap in Karen Barad's agential realism is necessary, because arguing that the diffractive reading strategy proposed by Barad's ethico onto epistemology mirrors the physical phenomenon of diffraction would indeed be representationalist. Reviewing how Barad in her own oeuvre has transformed diffraction into an innovative reading methodology that could not only potentially challenge the epistemological underpinnings of the canonization process that is at work in feminist theory, but could also radically change the canonization practice of feminist oeuvres itself, our article embarks on a detailed examination of the ways in which the oeuvres of Simone de Beauvoir and Luce Irigaray have been mistakenly categorized and canonized in a hierarchical and Oedipalized manner. This conflict based narrative has not only paralyzed the oeuvres of Irigaray and Beauvoir, but also has had a negative impact on the canonization of sexual difference philosophy as a whole in feminist theory. By (re)reading the oeuvres diffractively, this article brings the feminist philosophies of Beauvoir and Irigaray together by invalidating the idea that the feminist canonization process always has to run along the lines of discontinuity, Oedipalization and dialectization. Introduction: from conflict to affirmation [1] Most feminist theorists will have a hard time when confronted with philosopher Slavoj Zizek's recent engagements with physicist philosopher Karen Barad's work. His blatant sexist and homophobic attitude toward Barad is particularly striking, considering the fact that Zizek thinks of himself as a radically progressive philosopher. In a lecture titled "Ontological Incompleteness in Painting, Literature and Quantum Theory" held at the European Graduate School in 2012,[1] Zizek demonstrates that he does not have his theoretical physics straight, that he does not know his references, and that he can only read "that woman" (i.e. Barad) in an Oedipal and unashamedly confrontational manner. While saying that he likes Barad's rigorous and complex interpretation of Niels Bohr's physics and philosophy, he at the same time questions Barad's seriousness to the point of asking the audience to "kick [him] in the face" Unnecessary references are then made to Barad's friendship with Judith Butler, to the "postmodern jargon" (Zizek) that both feminist theorists share, and to their and Wendy Brown's lesbian sexuality, which is presented as an insult to all men. It goes without saying that Zizek is the real insulter here! [2] Feminist theorists cannot afford not to respond to Zizek, in our opinion. The long history of feminist engagements with philosophy and science demonstrates that sexism and homophobia need to be fought against continuously and explicitly, within and outside the canon (Harding) Barad's oeuvre is not the only one that has been read through an Oedipalized focus: the philosophies and feminisms of French socalled 'equality' feminist Simone de Beauvoir and Belgian born alleged 'difference' feminist Luce Irigaray have been interpreted in the exact same confrontational and oppositional manner. The Oedipalized misreadings and narratives of these oeuvres matter, just like Zizek's problematic reading of Barad matters, because these readings and narratives have played a crucial role in the misconstruction of feminist theory as a scenery of catfights; a domain of women engaged in bitter, dividing debates. [3] A feminist reinterpretation of Zizek's reading of Barad, in tandem with Zizek's interpretation of French thinker Quentin Meillassoux's philosophy, could prove to be the ideal launch pad to expose the underlying Oedipal structure of such misreadings. Since Zizek himself provides us with the building blocks of such an interpretation an interpretation that we will consequently develop in "a mode of assenting to rather than dissenting from those 'primary' texts" (Grosz 3) his case reveals the ways in which we could put an end to Oedipalization via diffraction. Diffractive reading is a Baradian neologism (with roots in Donna Haraway's philosophy) and our argument in this article will be that Oedipal readings of feminists/women and within feminism can be undone by the affirmative strategy of reading diffractively. On philosophical blind spots and deadlocks: Zizek's reading of Barad and Meillassoux [4] Zizek's Less than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism is more than just a thick description of Hegelian philosophy, its theoretical predecessors and its travels through the canon of Western philosophy although Zizek oddly enough forgot to include Beauvoir and Irigaray, two of G.W.F. Hegel's most important (but also most critical) feminist followers. Less than Nothing also engages with two very recent Continental philosophical inventions, namely speculative materialism, and agential realism. The first trend is by and large Meillassoux's, although many more scholars self identify as such or are being slotted into this category (see Bryant et al. The second movement is led by Barad. Zizek asks how they interpret Hegel and to what extent they remain under the spell of (a) Hegelianism. [5] Zizek spends a considerable amount of time reading Meillassoux in Less than Nothing and he convincingly argues how Meillassoux's work falls into its own trap, or is distorted by the same kind of blind spot that Meillassoux ironically enough previously attributed to idealist philosophers (Zizek 627 8) Zizek needs to be thanked for this evaluation, and for the analysis that follows, in which he claims that Meillassoux remains trapped in the question of the subject, while aiming at nothing less than eliminating anthropocentrism. Zizek argues that Meillassoux remains confined to "the masculine side of Lacan's formulae of sexuation" (636) and to Hegelianism precisely in his critique of Hegel (636) What Zizek successfully demonstrates is that Meillassoux cannot succeed in his project of moving away from "representation in the Leibnizian monad; Schelling's Nature, or the objective subject object; Hegelian Mind; Schopenhauer's Will; the Will (or Wills) to Power in Nietzsche; perception loaded with memory in Bergson; Deleuze's Life, etc" (Meillassoux 37) on the basis of the charge of correlationism (a Kantianism) As feminists, however, this conflict in brotherly machines (see Jardine 223) should not be our main concern. [6] What does matter to us is that Zizek's reading implies that Barad's and Meillassoux's positions differ: Meillassoux, in contrast to Barad, is unable to follow up on the philosophical impetus of Bohrian quantum physics. This is so, because this impetus pertains to the question of the subject. In Zizek's words: Meillassoux is well aware that quantum physics, with its uncertainty principle and emphasis on the role the observer plays in the collapse of the wave function, seems to undermine the notion of objective reality independent of any observer and thus give an unexpected boost to Kantian transcendentalism; however, as he points out, their similarity is deceptive while in Kant's transcendentalism the "observer" subject constitutes what he observes, in quantum physics, the observer's active role itself is re inscribed into physical reality. (Zizek 634) [7] Discussing Zizek's reading of Barad's onto epistemological in(ter)vention[2] would nonetheless lead us too far afield, since Zizek's reading is plagued by a lot of internal problems (Heisenberg's uncertainty differs from Bohr's indeterminacy, for instance, and he consistently misquotes Barad throughout Less than Nothing)[3] For one thing, Zizek (935) ascribes an "implicit naturalism" to Barad,[4] which, according to Zizek, makes her disregard sexual difference. Where Barad makes her point about the subject's entanglement with/in agential reality, Zizek attributes a hierarchical reasoning to Barad (quantum physics can understand classical physicists, whereas classical physics cannot understand quantum physicists) and claims that: it would be too easy to simply privilege the 'feminine' non All [quantum physics] and to reduce the masculine totalization through exception to a secondary illusion [classical physics] here, more than ever, we should insist on (sexual) difference itself as a primary fact, as the impossible Real with regard to which both positions, 'masculine' and 'feminine, appear as secondary, as two attempts to resolve its deadlock. (Zizek 934 5) [8] Contrary to what Zizek believes, feminist philosophers have taken on the issue of sexual difference and the practice of psychoanalysis. In most general terms, feminist philosophers have dealt with the Real (symptoms, psychoses) while claiming the empirical. You may ask what this feminist attempt looks like, and whether it has been successful. Let us shuffle the cards and keep in mind that feminist work can indeed demonstrate how "[t]he structure of sexual difference is already that of diffraction" (Zizek 935) In the following sections we will first discuss how Beauvoir and Irigaray have developed a notion of sexual difference by reflecting upon the mother daughter relationship and how this has resulted in their commentators reading a possible antinomy between their feminist philosophical positions. In the next step, we will explore what a diffractive reading can bring to both this claimed antinomy and the nature of sexual difference. Hence, diffraction which will also be introduced as a reading methodology in one of the sections below features on multiple levels in our article. Following Barad's methodological innovation, diffraction is "a physical phenomenon that lies at the center of some key discussions in physics and the philosophy of physics" and "an apt metaphor for describing the methodological approach of reading insights through one another in attending to and responding to the details and specificities of relations