You are on page 1of 13

Eileen Schlee

The Subject is Dead,
Long Live the Female Subject!

Abstract: If the model of the humanist subject (that self-sufficient agent of unique
thought, speech and action) has been exploded by postmodern revision, what remains
for feminists, still seeking a subjectivity of their own? To what degree has the humanist
model of the subject eclipsed the feminine, and is it possible to reformulate a female
subjectivity outside the masculine economy? Recent feminist philosophy suggests
(partial) answers to the questions raised in the debate over women's self-definition.

Postmodemism has knocked the subject from its pedestal, which makes discus-
sion of identity awkward. There are simply too many fragments to hold at one time to
produce a mass sufficient to be called a definitive subject. One is tempted to quit very
early in the project. But piecing together female subjectivity is yet a necessary task,
given its history as a non-thing; we must seek to understand how it is constituted in
order to arrive at some sort of truth about reality for women. This paper will trace the
displacement of the unified subject of liberal humanism and present some of the theories
posited by feminist thought to regenerate an irreducible female subjectivity. These
theories represent neither a single answer to what is a profoundly knotty ideological
'problem', nor do they offer a totality of positions on the matter of the subject. The
selected theories have been placed in contrast to and in league with each other in so far
as they address within a manageable scope several intellectual--and practical--
feminist concerns in respect to the subject. Contemporary feminist philosophy proposes

Eileen Schlee is currently completing doctoral studies at the Universityof Hawaii, where she will serve as
lecturer in the Departraent of English (Fall 1993). Her undergraduate degree is from Williams College,
Massachusetts. Duringher five years"residencyin Australiashe earned both a Graduate Diplomain Education
and a Master of Arts in English from the University of Melbourne. She also taught English for two years at
Star of the Sea College (Melbourne). Her field of research and writing is Australian literature, literary theory
and writing by women. Address for correspondence:English Department, 1733 Donaghho Rd., University
of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822.

What is "woman"? Whence the Unified Subject? To start at the beginning. The subject is not a locus of anthorial intentions or natural attributes or even a privileged. At any rate. Even those who grasp at the comfort offered by a notion that there might still be life under the cultural constructs loaded on top of "true " subjectivity. 1988. traditionally subsumed in the liberal humanist definition of the subject. mustfinally see that the subjectivity they have assumed is a chimera. She quotes Louis Althusser. and ultimately fatal. It may then be that female subjectivity is ever a process.the category of the subject is constitutive of all ideology. Catherine Belsey (1980) reminds us that it was ever an ideological construct. blow to its existence. and in control of a consciousness from which stem beliefs and actions. the subject was never an a priori state of being. . Can it be anything other than a mere construct. which critical thought reduces to nothing? The question now concerns what subjectivity is for women.70 Feminist Issues/Fall 1993 that the female subject rise from the ashes of the blasted liberal humanist model of the subject.. What happened to the ideology that defined as obvious the subject as an irreplaceable and integral identity? In her discussion of the subject.the self-contained. who is very clear that the fundamental purpose of ideology is the construction of the subject: ".. authentic subject conceived by humanism to be discoverable below a veneer of cultural and ideological overlay is in reality a construct of that very humanistic discourse. separate eonseiousness.. Rosi Braidotti (1986) credits both postmodern thought and feminism for the displacement of the unified subject. 415) The subject is not what it has been made out to be. .. (Aleoff. we need to ask what happened to the assurance we had that the human subject is utterly autonomous. but at the same time . p.. and so there is no repression in the humanist sense.. the category of the subject is only constitutive of all ideology in so far as all ideology has the function (which defines it) of'constituting' concrete individuals as subjects ~ (p. it is a concept we must seek to understand before returning to the question...There is no essential core "natural" to us. unique. and that it take shape in flight. infinitely deferring the very state it wishes to achieve. Seeing the subject as a political/philosophical product rather than a fact of life was the first. From the start the disintegration of the subject related directly to the failure of phallocentrism to define the world and the self in any way meaningful to a new generation of thinkers.. 58).

a negative reference for the real matter at hand: masculinity. 430) . and competence. 1988. It is my firm belief that the women's movement is one of the primary sources for the dislocation of the rational subject. requiring judgement of the two sexes by the same criteria. p. Phallocentrism functions to reduce or eategorise femininity so that it is conceived as simulacrum.. skills. p. and the other. (p. images of the male "other" rather than a female subject.'under- mines the subject from any position of certainty and in fact claims to reveal that the subject is a fiction'. then as complements of. 50)."(Alcoff. 65) The work of Freud has had far-reaching influence on this essential line of phallocentric thinking. 1986. which operates by collapsing the two sexes into one and then grades them against each other. it emerges that one sex earl be evaluated as 'the better. of otherness is receiving renewed attention precisely because of the problematisation of the structures of subjectivity in modern thought. a leveling process. whereby all differences are reduced to variations of sameness. The question of alterity.Eileen Schlee 71 . sowing the seeds of its consequent rejection: "It .the crisis of the rational subject has shaken the phallo-logocentric system to its very foundations. It proceeds by two processes: one.. each other) effectively makes femininity. mirror-image or imperfect double of masculinity. yet it is meant to explain psychological growth of both boys and girls.. operating on the principle of sameness (until changes place the sexes in theoretical opposition to. Our received images of femininity have been masculine--inverted. His model of infantile and childhood development is a masculine one. 1986. The phallic economy. How male experience came to qualify all experience is the story of phallocentrism. (Gross. the state of being female.. The revelation that the universal was in fact based on a distinctly male experience of selfhood galvanized feminist theory. 65) The unified subject was revealed as a construct of (phallocentric) ideology when the subconscious emerged as an alien internal force of the hitherto integrated self. 3) Feminism has directed a critique not at humanism per se but "at patriarchal norms embedded in received conceptions of the human" (Johnson. in terms of values. As a result. p. projected images of the male ideals and fantasies. a hierarchising process. Freud's theory of the unconscious problematized the subject. Psychoanalysis draws on the powerful existence of a part of self that had not been considered in the popular version of subjectivity.' (Gross. p.

It is through language that people constitute themselves as subjects" (Belsey. for the very beginning of any sense of self. p. "It is language which enables the speaker to posit himself or herself as 'I'.72 Feminist Issues~Fall 1993 Language and the Self Lacanian theory outlines how." (Jefferson & Robey. Our consciousnesses wear hand-me- down clothes. subjectivity is inscribed in language. Of course there is no such absolute connection. into what is termed the Symbolic. the Symbolic. p. the individual conscious will simply be a certain reflection of a world constrained by this construct. As Foucault puts it." Besides the nonviability of not entering language (becoming "sick"). Since language constitutes consciousness. In Lacanian theory entry into language is necessary to the child unless he or she is to become "sick". "Our experience of our very subjectivity is a construct beyond (way beyond) individual control. in taking on language. If "the function of language is not to communicate but to give the subject a place from which he can speak. in entering into language.. but one will forever seek this connection--for as long as there is self-consciousness about the use of language. at the same time entry into language inevitably creates a division between the subject of the enunciation and the subject of the enonc~. but the self is split in the process. 416). Our subjectivities are thus secondhand. we are bodies 'totally imprinted by history'"(Alcoff. but to take on the language of the dominant male culture. Conscious thought as a sort of internal language follows lines . even the new fashions of language are circumscribed and we can only borrow them anyway. It is a function of language. 59). a child forsakes the special communication with its mother to achieve a place in the world. But for everyone there is no "pure" way to subjectivity. p. she has no choice. So. Theoretically. As Derfida reminds us. the 'T" who speaks and the 'T' who is represented in the diseourse. Subjectivity thus comes about through linguistics. rather than the agent behind the workings of language. (Belsey.. any notion of self is a construct and language-as-construct constrains subjec- tivity significantly. t One really has no choice but to enter into language. 85) There is a double danger inherent in the female child's submission to "the discursive practices of society. as the subject of a sentence. as one reaches for the Logos (forever leaving the Semiotic) and attempts to fix words to objects in an absolute fashion.The child's submission to the discursive practices of society is challenged by the existence of another self which is not synonymous with the subject of the discourse. phallo-logocentrism affords no expression of female subjectivity. 1982) language is the starting point for consciousness. and language is a social construct..

The humanist idea of conscious thought (and activity) constitut- ing subjectivity overlooks entirely the countless pushes and pulls that are the structures of human experience in society. It is this highly complex network of conflicting structures. p. 680) From the loosening of forms.' These structures encompass not only unconscious sexual desires. and social form. must enter the symbolic contract. 61). it "learns to recognize itself in a series of subject positions ('he' or 'she'. linguistic. that produces the subject and its experiences. fears and phobias. the repressed feminine. but also holding back from a wholesale appropriation of its potentially destructive impact on meaning--of any sort. The subject. a loosening of logical. is then constantly constructing itself. political and ideological factors of which we are equally unaware. and disturb organised discourse. The only goal she can seek is pluralism. which may be inconsistent or even in contradiction with one another" (Belsey.. but also a host of conflicting material.. (Nye 1987. the release of the widest possibility of difference.. p. But she must do so only for the purposes of drawing attention to its rejected underside. thus. Discourse cut free . what should be their course? Their alliance with deconstruction should perhaps be a provisional one: holding on to its use as a subversive force in language (and. the anti-humanist would argue. shatter. (Moi 1985. 'boy' or "girl'. "reality"). A state of naturally shifting subject positions entails the self in a response mode of adaptation and change. Feminist scholarship may work towards female subjectivity by both resisting the pull of a radically alternative discourse and by making a point of female alterity. social.must be seen as the 'overdetermined' manifestation of a multiplicity of structures that intersect to produce that unstable constellation the liberal humanists call the 'self. p.Eileen Schlee 73 created outside the self. Conscious thought. The thinker/writer/activist . stems the appeal for feminists of a poststructuralist critique of subjectivity.. and therefore to the disruptive power of the unconceptualizable drives that will press. 10) After the child learns to use ' I ' and consequently develops a sense of self. and so on) which are the position from which discourse is intelligible to itself and others. in gaining competence with language. rather than the other way around. Subjec- tivity is thus a matrix of subject-positions. A New Subjectivity If feminist scholars in search of female subjectivity start at the point that is the by-now obvious displacement of the subject.

127) Whereas before women found themselves between the subject position of "inclusion in the liberal humanist discourse of freedom. . which. will undermine sociolinguistic notions of male/female and may thus constitute new states of being. 692) is to undo her very modus operandi. according to Derrida. 1991. p.. women have still to emerge from a sense of their identity as a nexus of relations of power into a sense of personal autonomy. Denying presence is thus problematic and essentially counterproductive for feminist theory. women are once again in an awkward position as would-be subjects.. Having exposed their exclusion from the humanist ideology. but also because women were never really included in the doctrine of autonomy. Denial of presence is not the answer when one considers where women are positioned in the theoretical standoff occasioned by the crisis of the subject. already exposed as masculine.. 669). p. coherent effective identity". from the phallocentric norm.2 Such a thoroughgoing deconstructivist approach threatens to derail feminist poststruc- turalism from pursuit of the distinctly female subject and the quest for feminine presence. the light of poststructuralism shows the first position to have been false--false not only because utter self-determination is a myth. to transmute and metamorphose indefmitely"(Nye. p. reveling in discourse ~once released from the constraints of the logos. continuous identity. p. "The "free play' of plurality of differences unhampered by any predetermined gender identity as formulated either by patriarchy or cultural feminism" makes way for discovery of female subjectivity. is the characteristic mark of patriarchy"(Nye.. 66).there is a possibly insoluble tension between the post-modem insistence on dispersal of the subject and the historical necessity for women to acquire for themselves "rational. (Boumelha.. relative inadequacy and irrational intuition"(Belsey. 418). The challenge is somehow to get over the stalemate of essen- tialism (positing an absolute entity of 'woman') and being a part of the generic human subject. p. self-determination and rationality" and the subject position "offered by society of submission. a history and agency in the world. The postmodem critique of subjectivity is also attractive to feminist scholarship because it proclaims the ideological basis of the subject (Aleoff. founded on a new autonomy. then she joins the linguistic underground (in which discourse acknowledges its inability to tie finally signifier to signified). decentred subjectivities. If the feminist scholar then is on her way to becoming a de facto Derridean. The sexual indifferentiation system of our .74 Feminist Issues/Fall 1993 from the Logos. As men move out of unified selfhood into deconstrueted. To "devote herself to the sabotage of presence. Women are stuck between losing their subjectivity in the general "death" of the subject and gaining a new identity.

drawn from her analysis of the subject theory of Jacques Lacan and Denise Riley. Her thesis is that the subject as product of history must not be considered apart from history. through a conception of human subjectivity as an emergent property of a historicized experience. The crisis is only the death of the universal subject--the one that disguised its singularity behind the mask of logocentrism. p. female. 8) . Irigaray: Essential Difference There remains.'(Alcoff. becomes a process. thus. always the future conditional. or essential accounts by making all our conclusions contingent and revisable. her new.Eileen Schlee 75 culture precludes articulation of the (new) essentially female. Braidotti asks "What are the conditions that would make the first coming of the female subject possible?"(p. that one is obliged to keep in mind the weight of the past as well as convention when formulating female subjectivity of the present. (Braidotti." Enter Luce Irigaray. p. we can say "feminine subjectivity is construed here and now in such and such a way" without this ever entailing a universalizable maxim about the "feminine." Far from being dead along with the liberal humanist subject. Nothing in conventional discourse lends itself to a woman-defined feminine. For Irigaray the crisis which spells the death of the logocentric subject opens the condition of possibility for the expression of female subjectivity. a need to carve out theoretical space exclusive to the female subject without reliance on "historicized experience. Thus. 9) Some P r o p o s a l s Linda Alcoff offers a synthesis by way of solution. This will waylay the tendency to produce general. subject emanates spirit-like from the corpse of the male/universal subject. A formulation of subjectivity should include as much conscious acknowledgement of social construction within a deliberate framework of time as possible. based not only on the distinct separateness of the sexes. it is still a blank. 431) The theorizing of the subject. who propounds a unique female subjectivity. however. but on a radical reframing of the term "subjectivity. reflecting the dynamic nature of subjectivity itself. universal.

of suspending its pretension to the production of a truth and of a meaning that are excessively univocal.. p. 10)) is prerequisite condition for a reformulation of their status and expression of desire (Irigaray. "Gender is always a doing. 1985. p. p. Butler cites de Beauvoir's statement that one is not born. (Irigaray. especially if we allow the quality of"in-process" to forestall arrival at subjectivity. a constructing that cannot rightfully be said to originate or to end" (p. It is a continuous effect of our use of language.. What Irigaray is moving toward. Judith Butler's (1990) analysis of gender helps illuminate Irigaray's position on the female subject. difference will become the order of the day. and is thus mutable. This revision is to go by way of securing "a place for the feminine within sexual difference" (1985. 3 For feminists the assertion of sexual difference is at the heart of the postmodern debate. is a state where the very structures of our thinking about self have been shattered. Further. Sexual difference theory is political insofar as it clears the way for discourse on female subjectivity. 38). . hierarchies will be meaningless. 159). as currently understood in phallocentrism. Irigaray goes on to say that women amongst themselves ("each woman recognising other women in a system of symbolic reference" (Braidott. sexed self. It is. and subjectivity. 78-79). pp. Buffer qualifies gender as the ultimate performative substance. its corresponding diffuse mode of communication. it becomes an even greater challenge to phallologocentric ideology. though not a doing by a subject who might be said to pre-exist the deed" (Butler. a becoming. how anything so multiple in its meaning and expression as the female body and language can be translated into a thing understood as a subject. but rather becomes a woman.the issue is not one of elaborating a new theory of which woman would be the subject or the object. Irigaray's theory of sexual difference suggests that women can never be understood on the model of a "subject' within the conventional representational systems of . 25). From there she explains that "it follows that woman itself is a term in process. p. She makes explicit the connection between the unique multiplicity of the female. The seeming contradiction in Irigaray's theory of the female subject. to be displaced beyond recall. 78) Once the machinery is jammed. at least. but of jamming the theoretical machinery itself. lies in the total revision of subjectivity itself.76 Feminist Issues~Fall 1993 Irigaray's "answer" to the "problem" of female subjectivity is radically simple: there is to be no subjectivity.

." but urges also a recovery of the split subject through a new mode of discourse (Nye. (Gross. From a feminine position. Kristeva and De Lauretis In line with Irigaray and other feminist theorists. representative of the contrasting states of "an inner. "If women have a role to play. would be to devise a new sign system (without which there really is no discourse). suffering life" and one that is the life of the is only in assuming a negative function: reject everything finite. p. should be maintained as an ideal point for the continuing challenge to phallologocentrism--without evolving an alternative (separate) language. is the powerful suggestion that the feminine marginal position... 30) Kristeva divides the subject into "a feeling 'me' and an 'I' that orders and sees. private. 1985. definite. 670).. the unrepresentable as such.impossible in discourse" as it exists at present. In addressing the subject Kristeva focuses her theory on the (genderless) speaking subject. It is [Kristeva's] claim that any conception of language and literature or artistic production. in the existing state of society" (Jones. Julia Kristeva sees woman on the interstices. a female subjectivity could begin to take its multiple and unique shape.. one that not only disrupts and transforms phallocentrism. loaded with meaning. What distinquishes her approach. 88). "nothing can be articulated without a questioning of the symbolic itself" (Irigaray. p. as denoted specifically in language. structured. p. (Butler. indeed any concept of society must (either implicitly or explicitly) be based on a concept of the speaking subject. the very margins of the masculine representational systems. perhaps. 162). The current choice is between speaking as a pseudo male or as an asexualized other (pp. She seeks an "articulation of the reality of my sex. The idea. an assertion that is practically self-evident. 1982. 148-9). "in which we must live artificially cut off from our natural impulses and desires"(p. expressive. among other things. 18) Irigaray would have woman translate the 'morphology" of her body to a language that is true to it. 684) She adapts Freudian and Lacanian theory on the unconscious. She says..Eileen Schlee 77 Western culture precisely because they constitute the fetish of representation and hence. p. infantile development .as the axis for the transmission or transgression of language and culture. in order to move from nonrepresentation to a place where her physical being and expression challenge the foundations of representation. but that allows for unconditional feminine expression. A new language would thus leave the old notions of the subject behind. she claims. p. These two aspects of self can be in conflict.

would-be subject from its mother (and the language of oneness. the Semiotic) to the condition of "all social functioning [being] marked by the split between referent and symbolic and by the shift from signified to signifier coextensive with it" (Kristeva in Moi. discourses. p. p. an ongoing constant renewal based on an interaction with the world. Subjectivity thus can be seen in the Kristevan lexicon as a product-in-process of the struggle within a person between two constitutive forces..78 Feminist Issues/Fall 1993 and the move into language to develop her own theory on the split subject." (Alcoff. as subject or otherwise. 1986.. Kristeva links the break of the infant." It is through "self-analyzing practices" that female subjectivity is generated (Aleoff. 93). but by one's personal. p." is constructed through a continuous process. starting as it does with the dispersal of the unified subject. It relies on a certain political awareness ("Subjectivity may thus become imbued with race. Teresa De Lauretis's approach to subjectivity holds that one's analytical invol- vement in and conscious response to everyday events constitute essential identity and that it takes place in a constant series of interactions. class.4 What might be of particular interest to feminist scholars is Kristeva's discussion of pregnancy as "a borderline state in which there is an indistinction between subject and object" (Wright. p. 25). and institutions that lend signifieance. Conclusion Even if pursuit of the female subject is feasible. and what she refers to as the chora and the thetic. As a semiotician. and will always be in a state of flux. we should keep in mind the endless permutations of any model of the human being. 1986. p. even as she reminds us that "the subject is always both semiotic and symbolic" (Kristeva in Moi. which she def'mes as experience: "And thus [subjectivity] is produced not by external ideas. or material causes. 198). Kristeva sees subjectivity "achieved" at the expense of a repression of the maternal. values. . and gender without being subjected to an overdetermination that erases agency" (Alcoff. De Lauretis's cultural feminism sees gender as a construct that is "formalizable in a nonarbitrary way through a matrix of habits. 431). 1992. What one "perceives and comprehends as subjective. as both events and their interpretation the events of the world. 425)). practices and discourses. p. 423) Interaction of a person with a given cultural symbolic system is also the process through which subjectivity becomes gendered. subjective engagement in the practices.

This n e w subjectivity can not exist outside ideology. but the hope is that i d e o l o g y ' s function in the constitution of the n e w subject is radically altered. 54).. is "what hollows being into desire" Eagleton (1983). All desire springs from a lack. at least to ourselves. the fact that words have meaning only by virtue of the absence and exclusion of others. 22. Entering the Symbolic one is launched on what is potentially "an endless movement from one signifier to another [in] what Lacan means by desire. "Derrida claims women as his allies in the exposure and subversion of logocentric discourse. redefining their illogic and emotionality as exuberant feminine pleasure in disrupting patriarchal categories. (Elshtain. and thereby to explain. Notes 1." Nye (1987). There are some serious theoretical inconsistencies in French feminist "discussions and celebrations of the feminine. . Women have something to say--failing to say it would amount to an historical abortion of the female subject. When Gail Greene and Coppelia Kahn (1986) discuss female subjectivity they cite what Judith Lowder Newton and Mary Jacobus argue is the critical aspect of the female subject: "the longing to close the splits that characterize femininity--splits between reason and desire. Women can see the light where men just stare into empty space watching the downfall of the phallic monuments and documents they had erected by and for themselves. 8) That we must have a subject for discourse to be intelligible is a given. Lacan remarks. a n d a n e w subjectivity. 618) Is it then presumptuous for us to account for the complexity of the female subject? It m a y be that female subjectivity is a concept that can be a bridge b e t w e e n the old universal subject.Eileen Schlee 79 It is Freud--the Freud of "wit and its relation to the unconscious. and the language of desire--who recognized that the human being is infinite and that it is presumptuous to assume that one can exhaustively account for the complexity of any single human subject. (Bmidotti. that sex-specific subjectivity be recognized is also imperative. 4. 3. p. built out of the ruin of phallocentric ideology. which has been understood not to have existed. 1982. which it strives continually to fill.what it means to be human. This discourse will inevitably be contentious. To enter language. is to become a prey to desire: language." See Jones. p. then. 2. T h e pictures we have of ourselves a n d of the world m a y thus b e c o m e true. autonomy and dependent security. 1985. wild dreams..' of slips of the tongue." They posit female subjectivity as "the site where the opposing forces of femininity and feminism clash by night" (p. even a single dream. Subjectivity for w o m e n is the promise of a n e w city. Human language works by such lack: the absence of the real objects which signs designate. psychic and social identity. to allow for the feminine.

and Postmodem Feminist Cultural Theory. Jean Bethke. Judith. 1987. The Second Sex. Pauline. Oayle and Kahn. Rosi. Toril.80 Feminist Issues/Fall 1993 REFERENCES Alcoff. Elshtain. Jones. "Literary Feminism.T. Butler. Ebert. C-ross. Critical Practice. 1982. 1986. Penny. (Spring).'igaray. Toril. Elizabeth. "The Ethics of Sexual Difference: The Case of Foucault and L. Elizabeth. Teresa L. Moi." Refractory Girl Writes. (Fall)." Cultural Critique." Australian Feminist Studies. Ann Rosalind. 18. Johnson. 1980. London: B. Literary Theory: An Introduction. editors. 6 (Autumn). editor. 3 (Summer). Technologies of Gender. London and Hew York: Routledge. 1987. (Spring). Teresa. 3. Sexual Textual Politics. ~Feminist Discourse and Its Discontents: Language. Coppelia. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Feminist Criticism and Social Change. This Sex Which Is Not One. Eagleton." signs. De Lauretis. Elizabeth. Greene. "Writing the Body: Toward an Understanding of l'Ecriture Feminine. Simone. 1985. Oxford: Basil BlackweU. Feminism and Psychoanalysis: A Critical Dictionary." Signs: Journal of Women. editor. Ann and Robey. 1988. Debra. Andrea. 1983. "Irigaray and Sexual Difference. Irigaray. Culture and Society 13. ~ in Newton. October 1982. 1988. 1982. 1986. Power. editors. 1986." Australian Feminist Studies. . "Women and Writing: The Work of Julia Kristeva in Perspective. 1986. "Cultural Feminism Versus Post-Stmcturalism: The Identity Crisis in Feminist Theory. New York: Columbia University Press. Jefferson. 1992. 1989. Gross. 13 (Autumn). 10. Nye." Australian Feminist Studies. Ann Rosalind." Australian Feminist Studies. De Beauvoir. Oxford: Basil Black- well. Braidotti. 1991. "Woman Clothed with the Sun: Julia Kristeva and the Escape From/to Language. Terry. Boumelha. Luce. Wright. 1985. David. Hew York: Methnen. Jones. Modern Literary Theory. Moi. "The Dilemmas of Luce Lrigaray." Signs (Summer). Catherine. Ithaca: Comell University Press. New York: Vintage Books. Linch. New York and London: Routledge. London and New York: Routledge." Feminist Review. Making a Difference: Feminist Literary Criticism. Subjectivity. The Kristeva Reader. London and New York: Routledge. and Meaning. (November). Belsey. 1984. 1985. "lulia Kristeva on Femininity: The Limits of Semiotic Politics. 1991. (1986). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Judith and Rosenfelt. 2 (Autumn). "The Romance of Patriarchy: Ideology. Batsford. 1990.

and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.V. However.Copyright of Feminist Issues is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B. or email articles for individual use. download. users may print. .