Readings for next time

• Gayle Rubin, "Thinking Sex," The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader: 3-44 (R)
• Chandra Talpade Mohanty, "Under Western Eyes," Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory: 196-220 (R)

Study questions and possible discussion topics

1. Let's start with comparisons and contrasts. How are Rubin and Mohanty different from the writers we met on Wednesday? Would they be comfortable with the notion of an "ecriture feminine"? Would they have problems with Freudian and Lacanian conceptions of female sexuality? Would they be inclined to think that the Western literary canon has been dominated by men and structured by notions of masculinity?

2. What about the connections between Rubin and Mohanty and Derrida and Foucault? Both Rubin and Mohanty cite Foucault approvingly. What aspects of their work would you describe as "Foucauldian"? Is there anything about their work that strikes you as "un-Foucauldian"--anything that you suspect would not pass muster with Michel?

3. Rubin says that we need a "coherent and intelligent body of radical thought about sex" (9), but she insists that we won't and really can't get it from feminism. Why is she so sure that feminism can't give us what we need?

4. In the second of her two diagrams, the one on page 14, Rubin helps us to visualize "the struggle over where to draw the line" when talking about sex and sexual behavior. Does Rubin ever seem to "draw the line," label a particular form of sexual behavior bad or wrong or unacceptable; and if so, where and how and why does she do it? Do you have problems with her decision to draw the line in a particular place or a particular way?

5. Mohanty focuses on a series of books about third-world women, books that were originally published by Zed Press in London. I tried to find some of the books in our library, so that you could take a look at them, but unfortunately I struck out. So, I'll have to ask you if you can imagine the books and get some mental image of what they were like. My sense is that many of these books dealt with political, social, and economic issues--they were works of social science rather than works of literary or cultural criticism--but I'll be eager to know what you think.

6. Mohanty criticizes the assumption that "men and women are already constituted as sexual-political subjects prior to their entry into the arena for social relations" (203). The key word here, I feel, is "prior." What is she getting at through her use of the word "prior"? What are her reasons for thinking that the problem is not the idea of men and women as "sexual-political subjects" but the notion that men's and women's subjectivity exists "prior to their entry into the arena for social relations"?

7. Mohanty also criticizes the tendency to imagine or represent women as "a homogeneous 'powerless' group . . . victims of particular cultural and economic systems" (200). Is she trying to suggest that third-world women aren't victims of male violence or the colonial process? Do you feel (as I must confess I sometimes do) that her sort of argument, though obviously very valuable, runs the risk of letting men off the hook? How do you suppose Mohanty would respond to someone who claimed that women had all kinds of power in most societies or cultures, someone who insisted that they weren't really victims at all?

8. Finally, what kinds of scholarship does Mohanty want to see? What kinds does she applaud, and why? If you were to undertake a "Mohantian" study of women in a non-Western culture, what would your research program look like?