Subject Re: Outline on Kristeva
Posted by Grace Wen
Posted on Fri Jun 9 01:15:31 2000
From IP  
In Reply to Re: Outline on Kristeva

Responding to Lily¡¦s idea, I would like to say more about the masculine and feminine in the language. Actually, in Kristeva¡¦s Revolution of the Poetic Language, the examples Kristeva gives us are all the male writers. So it is dangerous to say language is the tool for men¡¦s speech and semiotic is the way that women speak. In the chora, there is no difference between so-called ¡§male and female¡¨ and between ¡§ man and woman.¡¨ In it, the part to speak out is the masculine part and the rest belongs to feminine. Therefore, in language, masculine and feminine are parts of it. They are not two kinds of language.
This is why Kristeva¡¦s examples are all about the male writers. Because, although they are male, in their poetic language there is still the feminine part presented or repressed in their works. It is a wrong idea to regard the language of the male writers as the masculine one and the language of the female writers as the feminine one. Also this is the reason that Kristeva refuses to define the ¡§woman writer¡¨ or the ¡§female writer.¡¨ I can appreciate her opinion very well. In language, there are two aspects: masculine and feminine.¡¨ Impossibly, there is a clear definition of the female writer, because possibly her works are full of the masculine language.
To tell the truth, I still don¡¦t quite understand how to know which words are masculine or feminine in a literal work. But I know I cannot judge a work only depending on the gender of the writer. The poetic language plays a more crucial role in our appreciation of literature.

HOME PAGE             Contact Me
Forums Powered By
WWWThreads Version 2.7.3