Name: Kratika Joshi

Roll No.: 1710110185

Instructor: Prof. Chinmay Sharma

Date: 18th October, 2019

Discrimination has an exclusionary nature. For instance, a patriarchal society not only

oppresses the women but also excludes them from representing themselves and that is similar

for all other types of discrimination, racial, caste, etc. To eradicate discrimination against

women, races, etc, they need to have a proper representation of themselves, the inclusion of

their selves in society. The question then arises is, does the inclusion take place within the

same framework of a patriarchal, discriminative society or is it to be reconstructed where

everyone is included? This paper will aim to answer the aforementioned question in regards

with feminism and racial discrimination with the help of Helen Cixous’ paper “The Laugh of

Medusa” and Kimberle Crenshaw’s paper “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and

Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and

Antiracist Politics”.

First, this paper will discuss what is the representation of self and how is it different from the

representation of the one produced by the society. Here, the definition of representation of

self-changes when I talk about Cixous and when I talk about Crenshaw. In Cixous’ case

representation of self means the way for the individual to define themselves without someone

else’s prejudices being added to it. For instance, in her paper Cixous’s says, “I maintain

unequivocally that there is such thing as marked writing; that, until now, far more extensively

and repressively than is ever suspected or admitted, writing has been run by a libidinal and

cultural-hence political, typically masculine-economy; that this is a locus where the

repression of women has been perpetuated, over and over, more or less consciously, and in a
manner that's frightening it's often hidden or adorned with the mystifying charms of fiction;

that this locus has grossly exaggerated all the signs of sexual opposition (and not sexual

difference), where woman has never her turn to speak-” (Cixous, 1976; 879). Through this

Cixous points out that, the women have been not given a chance to speak for themselves. She

also says that over the years all the writings done by men, is highly “phallocentric” (i.e.

centered around the phallus and the lack of it in women) as she says, Nearly the entire history

of writing is confounded with the history of reason, of which it is at once the effect, the

support, and one of the privileged alibis. It has been one with the phallocentric tradition. It is

indeed that same self-admiring, self-stimulating, self-congratulatory phallocentrism.”

(Cixous, 1976; 879). This shows that the idea of phallocentrism that is coined by men, is used

by men to show their dominance. 

While in Crenshaw’s case the idea of self is regarding the discrimination, but not one at a

time, it’s inclusive to all other simultaneously taking place. In her essay Crenshaw says, “I

seem to be saying that in one case, Black women's claims were rejected and their experiences

obscured because the court refused to acknowledge that the employment experience of Black

women can be distinct from that of white women, while in other cases, the interests of Black

women were harmed because Black women's claims were viewed as so distinct from the

claims of either white women or Black men that the court denied to Black females

representation of the larger class.” (Crenshaw, 1989; 148). In this, Crenshaw explains how

feminism and “antidiscrimination doctrine” can’t be given a place for representation of the

discrimination faced by Black women in society. They don’t have the means to portray the

discrimination faced, which is a culmination of racial and sex discrimination. 

How do they seek to represent themselves? In Cixous’ case she asks women to reclaim their

selves, “bodies” by writing, as she says, “And why don't you write? Write! Writing is for

you, you are for you; your body is yours, take it. I know why you haven't written. (And why I
didn't write before the age of twenty-seven.) Because writing is at once too high, too great for

you, it's reserved for the great-that is, for "great men"; and it's "silly.”" (Cixous, 1976;876).

Here, not only Cixous encourages then women to write but also, points out the fear that

women have for not writing, by this she brings in light all the things these women have been

going through whenever they try to represent themselves. Cixous, by asking women to

represent themselves tries to reconstruct the previous framework which was dominated by

male, she says, “"She must write her self, because this is the invention of a

new  insurgent writing which, when the moment of her liberation has come, will allow her to

carry out the indispensable ruptures and transformations in her history," (Cixous, 1976; 880).

Cixous talks about a rebellion here. This rebellion will take place when women write, when

women represent their bodies in the society and by this, they will be able to change the

history of women which has been tainted with male intervention. 

Correspondingly, Crenshaw talks about the intersection of the discrimination that is faced by

Black women, as she says, “The point is that Black women can experience discrimination in

any number of ways and that the contradiction arises from our assumptions that their claims

of exclusion must be unidirectional.” (Crenshaw, 1989; 149). Through this, Crenshaw

mentions how the framework of discrimination is set in a way that is seen only through one

lens at a time. To resolve this “unidirectional” nature of the framework she says, “Thus, for

feminist theory and antiracist policy discourse to embrace the experiences and concerns of

Black women, the entire framework that has been used as a basis for translating "women's

experience" or "the Black experience" into concrete policy demands must be rethought and

recast.” (Crenshaw, 1989; 140). She says, that the framework that exists at the time, has been

constructed in a way that the intersectionality will be lost, hence to fairly represent them this

framework has to be remodeled, that includes all, simultaneously too. 

In conclusion, Representation of self is the most important when it comes to eradication of

discrimination, and so is bringing in light deeper and more complicated forms of

discrimination, so that they can be understood and worked on. Crenshaw and Cixous both

talk about some kind of discrimination, and the solution they come up with is the

reconstruction of the present-day framework. This means that the problem has to be solved

from its roots and can’t be dealt with by looking at it from the surface. 

Bibliography

The Laugh of Medusa, 1975, Cixous Helene, Signs, Vol. 1, No. 4 (Summer, 1976), pp. 875-

893, The University of Chicago Press

Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of

Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics, Crenshaw, Kimberle,

Vol. 1989: Iss. 1, Article 8, University of Chicago Legal Forum