09 12 2000
Irina Aristarkhova: re: (Translation from Russian)


Dear women,

it is not remarkable at all, what is going on, although it is very symptomatic.
As a courageous Russian woman I stand up against being carried away (again and again and again) by the confrontation of "you don't know Russia" versus "you also don't know Russia", or "we are not like you", or what is "classical feminism" versus our "actual Russian soul". If we do not agree that they are inscribing us into categories which are neither made nor accepted by us, we must admit that it is a lot more complicated not to inscribe others in such rigid categories as "classical feminism". Though, certainly this is most likely a reaction to the situation of even this dialogue, and we have to determine ourselves from the beginning on - do we have to dance the dance of the "Russian bears"? For the time being only between me and Irina Aktuganova for the "Russian side"?

No, no, no, and once again no - this is the refusal of a flight into oneself's own, often tried out, thoughts and ways. And my consent to take part in our dialogue is the wish to listen to you and to change oneself - into a new "identity".
Consenting I knew very well that there would be quite a bit to fight about with Irina Aktuganova, Valentina Konstantinova and myself - we are totally different, and that is remarkable (unfortunately I don't know the works by Larissa, and Valentina is not writing at all). Though, will this exchange be possible, if, as Irina Aktuganova is writing, we are becoming cyborgs especially because of our openness for change on the one hand, but with another gesture, in another place, we write about that the Russian woman herself is staying the same at the end of her way? No! God, safe me from becoming the same, from becoming the woman who started this way! Especially, because of unchangeability for me means no life ("nezhizn"), and because stoneness of identity doesn't have much to do with feminism as a movement that is refusing stagnation, the wish for homogenity, closure and eternal unchangeability. And - YES, YES - in Russia this would mean to rewrite the present and the future, and, in the first place,Ê to deal with the genealogical "Russian national identity"; I am totally convinced that only the woman (not only as the notion by Nekrasov) can rewrite "Russia", alone - by bodily operating and effecting, because of the role of gender difference in our cultures. Together with other women and men - ethical and political in another way.

Therefore it is interesting that our cyberfeminist dialogue from the beginning on has " nationalized" and culturalized - for me this is very interesting, as I do neither believe in ethnical neutrality of cyberspace, nor in its neutrality concerning female and male gender. Though, it also is very sad how very little we put into consciousness the uniqueness of our own cultural experience.
Therefore I have the question to our German colleagues: as I understand from authors of the type Klaus Theweleit, those qualities, which Irina Aktuganova ascribes to the Russian woman - "courage, manlyness, noblemindedness, self-sacrifying, wisdom, determination, avantgardism" -, also are fully being ascribed to the cultural mission of the German woman, especially during hard times for the country?

Also remarkable is that in the 19th century the Russian intelligentsiya transcribed a lot from German sources, and not only from the Greek in the Middle Ages - one can feel the influence of the German notion of "spirit" ("dukh") in Dostoyevskiy's works, who was educated by German culture, - even on his anti-German and Russophile pages. Not even talking about how close our cultures are with their xenophobia and antisemitism.

I turn back to your letters:

Irina Aktuganova:

"In our legislative power only 7% are women.
Guilty of this are not the men, but women themselves, who constitute a huge percentage of able electors but they don't elect women."

Yes, for (and through) ages women have been learning not to live for themselves but against other women. THIS MEANS AGAINST THEMSELVES. This is in culture, but, of course, in (real) life everything is a lot more complicated: So in America, for example, having such a strong movement for equal rights, the percentage of women in the legislative is even smaller, while in the Scanidnavian countries it is lot higher. As a sociologist and a rather social and cultural researcher I understand that an analysis must include many variables, especially historical ones. I admit that in Russia women often prefer to reproduce the pre-programmed masochism and sadism against other women, but the situation is changing, in fact very quickly. Also this is in no case merely some specific Russian trait - my friends, students and colleagues in different countries of Asia talk about the same thing: women have mysteriously low self-esteem and esteem for other women.Otherwise, how would it be possible to use their labour and bodies on a government and daily scale?

"And the question of responsibility is a religious one."

It was exclusively religious until not too long ago, but already under Descartes, and especially under Nietzsche and Dostoyevskiy it ceased being only religious. Kristeva is writing about this, and the last book by Zizekis is about it - only that he is trying to revive christianity for an exclusive revival of the male gender, i.e. again to "kill the mother". In a certain scale responsibility is above all the question about the mother, not only about motherhood as an experience, but also about the social, cultural and political situation of motherhood. In this sense it is absolutely unavoidable what Irina and Alla are trying to reflect upon both cyberspace and motherhood. Not long ago I wrote an article about the "Matrical economy of cyberspace", unfortunately only in English until now. The basic idea is that not incidentially the matrix is one of the most fashionable images of cyberspace or any other multylayered space, that the matrix is "realizing/interpreting/giving sense" ("osmyslyat") any space, although the mother in the matrix is already forgotten, eaten up and approproated like construction brickstone. In a certain scale this is extending the idea of that our cultures are based on the primal matricide, and not on patricide, even Freud examined this only because he also "covered up" ("pokryt") this possibility - as being prooved by his refusal to analyse his own relationship to his mother (in a ritualized way he was practicing self-analysis, except the mother).
But this of course is a little too big a topic here and now. For me cyberspace still is straightly connected with our philosophy of space in general, and only seldom one succeeds to see radically other approaches to space.

To Andrea:

"maybe this balance between technophily and technophoby is hardest in the everyday usage of computers."

Someone has said that the time being spent on emailing by some charitable organization practically replaced the charity work itself - e.g. more hours were spent on answering emails than on the actual work with those, for whom the computers were designated.
In our philosophizing on computers the themes of "daily concern" are often being overlooked, it seems that we are often anew writing megatheories, and we keep forgetting about geography and topography holding our computers "in place". This place stays undiscussed and depoliticalized (In this sense I do not see a big development in the criticism of technophily by those, who declare that computers are the amusement of a minority, of the rich, etc. - the situation is more complex than mere rejection.).

"but i even more thought about Your words concerning the comparison of feminism and cyberfeminism. what we wrote as a provocative exaggeration, is our sincere and serious question. and it emerged not from analyzing western but russian developments. in russia both feminism and cyberfeminism are fields which are just developing - and they are going very different ways, as it seems to me. even their focuses on the situation of women and the ideas, how and whether to change it, are very different."

Thanks for explaining your position - of course I haven't thought that you asked your question "unseriously". But I keep not answering to it the way it was asked - above all, because the contexts of "feminism/cyberfeminism" in Russia and of "feminism/cyberfeminism", for example, in Germany are not comparable. We don't have translations of Haraway, Butler, etc. etc.... In september in Italy young cyberfeminists from all over Europe were talking about what a shock and stimulus the "Manifest for Cyborg" became for them. This became a part of culture in many European countries, but not here - and that's my main difference to many women's organizations. It's not fair to establish some terminology (e.g. gender discrimination or cyberfeminism or gender difference) without acknowledging that not everybody has the access to the sources, without trying to share international experience, especially without translations. There practically are no translations - for 10 years! And anyway they are theorizing and practicing. From the beginning on, the cyberfeminclub has included translations and links to collections of different texts and on its site - and by the way, they are all quite different, and there was spent a lot of time to give information about sources.

"and regarding your feminism, Irina (Ak.) and Alla, many questions and astonishment come to my mind. maybe just because feminism comes first for me, and not cyber (is that old-fashioned?)"

Once I wrote for Sylvia Sasse (right now she is in Berlin, working in the women's university) about my attitude towards this topic. But what is important now as it seems to me - is who is participating in the dialogue, who is open to different points of view, and the cyberfeminclub is a totally new movement in this sense (as well as the gender center of Olga Lipovskaja). It might be that one dosn't agree with them, but that doesn't mean that they close the possibility of cooperation. This hospitality, this openness of borderlines is the fundamental step to the variety of women's "practices of becoming" and transformation in Russia. The fact that the circle is small, only proves how complicated it is to deal with these things under our circumstances - e.g. in the Moscow department of the Committee of Soldiers' Mothers a few volunteers are working, who also have another job for a living. And they almost received the Nobel Prize, but still they somehow remain a "very limited circle", and they neither have gender fonds nor feminist volunteers.

"but it bothers me that you write your texts and interviews as if these hierarchies wouldn't exist at all, as if there wouldn't be the necessity to think about them any more."

Andrea, please explain, is this relating to my texts, and if yes, which ones and where? If yes, then it is unavoidable to explain the difference between the oppositional, dualistic categorical apparatus and thinking and the understanding of hierarchic social structures. It seems to me that the situation in our society is a lot more complicated than "men from above - women from below", and that it is inavoidable to search for new political and analytical strategies to intervene in the social and cultural situation.

And in what sense do you use the notion of deconstruction? In your definition of feminism the notion of discrimination and stereotype reproduces a contradictctory opposition of the male and female place in society and culture, but, using Derrida's term, he thus is trying to escape from such a Hegelian oppositioning with its help. For me feminism means something else (see above), and deconstruction is operating to self-critically strengthen the effects of women's strategic interventions and of the positive creation of new life practices, between women and women, women and men. It is not about the destruction of some bad stereotypes to clear the space for the construction of "good" ones. It is not thesis-antithesis-synthesis according to Hegel.

From my point of view, us being bought for the opposition to patriarchy or being seduced by its wholeness, we are reproducing and tearing (being torn by) it. I keep on searching for new ways of politization, and, as you probably have seen in my texts, my understanding of power is reformulating and using the ideas and stories of Foucault.

"there also are other examples. the authors of the catalogue "internet for women!" (internet -zhenshinam!) http//iw.owl.ru show the need of such a catalogue with resources for and about women. they motivate this with their analysis of which informations are being offered to and about women by the russian internet. the results of this analysis are quite sad."

Sad results need to be brought into movement at that moment, when laws are being written and computers are being distributed - ask Irina Aktuganova, she is directly looking ("pasti") after (not only writing about) that more women will have an access to the internet. Are you troubled about what they will be doing in the internet or is it only about access?

"i would really like to know, how such a small circle of women like yours relates to this."

Dear Andrea, I think that you easier can answer this question, as you asked us for a dialogue, orienting yourself by certain ideas, and we agreed. Of course, I would love to expand our circle - I wrote about this wish earlier -, and - that's also a question to you - where are the other women in this dialogue? Have they disagreed to participate? How many have you asked to participate? ""in 1993 Larissa wrote that western feminism is too political...what do you think?"" What Western feminism, what does she mean by politics?

I answered to this question about "politics" many times and I still am answering, in the article "Cyber-Jouissance" (in Telepolis: http://www.dds.nl/~n5m/n5m3/pages/cyberfeminism/links.htm, and on the sites of the Cyberfeminclub), and in "Maternal politics", and in my interview with Braidotti, and in the anthology "The Woman does not exist", and in "Trans-lating 'Gender' into the Russian Con(text)", and in Mail-Radek, etc.

Yours,
Irina Aristarkhova


next message
previous message

back to discussion list
home