As of late I have been reading “Spurs: Nietzsche’s Styles” by Jacques Derrida which presents a fabulously interesting analysis of femininity in philosophy – and in particular, Nietzsche’s philosophy. Here are a few passages that are particularly provocative:
“Truth can only be a surface. But the blushing movement of that truth which is not suspended in quotation marks casts a modest veil over a surface. And only through such a veil which thus falls over it could truth become truth, profound, indecent, desireable. But should that veil be suspended, or even fall a bit differently, there would no longer be any truth…” (p59)
and also:
“And in truth, they too are men, those women feminists deirded by Nietzsche. Feminism is nothing but the operation of a woman who aspires to be like a man. And in order to resemble the masculine dogmatic philosopher this women lays claim – just as much claim as he – to truth, sicence and objectivity in all their castrated delusions of virility. Feminism too seeks to castrate. It wants a castrated woman. Gone the style… Feminism’s lack of style is denounced by Nietzsche…” (p 65)
These passages are quite interesting. But it should be made clear hear that the vital importance of feminity isn’t being derided in favour of a masculine hierarchy or patriarchical system; quite the reverse, rather Feminism fails because it replaces the essence of feminity – crucial to the eruption of truth – with a masculine essentialism that is malignatly reductive. So this raises the question: If feminism is of this sort, as both Nietzsche and Derrida outline here, is feminism philosophically desireable?
Has the time come for a philosophical re-evaluation of the feminine?
Tags: Deconstruction, Derrida, Feminism, Nietzsche, Objectivity, philosophy, Truth