more on L&A as response to french feminism

[ACAHILL@ccmail.sunysb.edu]

Thanks to Vickie for giving me the opportunity to spell this theory out in a
bit more detail.  Okay, one of the major differences between French feminist
theorists and their U.S. counterparts is that the former tend to be more
essentialist in their approach; that is, they tend to consider the "feminine"
as something inherently different than the "masculine," whereas U.S. theorists
tend to draw that distinction as something mutable, and only tied to culture. 
Now, going with the French theory, one conclusion is that, because that which
is "feminine" has been consistently degraded and suppressed, that it literally
can't be expressed (at least not with any degree of authenticity).  Why? 
Because the very language we live in, which constructs the space we inhabit and
which therefore constructs us, is "masculine".  Within this language, "woman"
can only appear as a distorted mirror-image, never as itself.

	The solution?  Creating a new language, destroying the masculine
language, thereby destroying the house we live in, and thus allowing the
feminine to be spoken.  Both themes - living space and speakability - are
explicitly present in these theories.  So how does this apply to L&A? 
Obviously, the idea of something being so "deep" so as to be unspeakable could
refer to the feminine which exists somehow outside of the masculine-defined
world.  Then the speakers says "It could take me all of my life/But it would
only take a moment to/Tell you what I'm feeling" which seems to place the
speakability of the "feeling" somewhat outside of time - which French feminist
theory would probably define as another masculinist construct.  The "living in
the gap between past and future" could be that moment of revolution when the
masculinist living-space is lying in rubble, but the new feminist language is
not quite ready - which would precisely be the result of speaking the
unspeakable.  One of the things which creating a new language would demand
would be the challenge of familiar dichotomies - like the difference between
love and anger; the success of this creation would certainly "change the past
and the future"; and it would necessarily be a communal, rather than
individual, act ("What would we do without you?").

	Sorry about going on and on.  Maybe I should turn this into a
dissertation.

Annie Cahill
acahill@sunysb.edu