Skip to main content

Difference and erogenesis

I always thought sexual politics is a good place to reflect about differences. Been working on a text with Luanna Barbosa about the different sexual counteridentities (Andalzúa´s term) and the absence of a unique matrix of identities. We considered the case of the Aravanis (Hijras) in India and that of the Muxes in Juchitan de Zaragoza, Mexico. Even though they counter a compulsory binarism, these identities don´t match those of the standart sexual identity alphabet (LGBTTTIQA). In India they use LGBTKQJH (for lesbians, gays, bis, transexuals, kotis, queers, jogins and hijras). An approximate translation would associate kotis with effeminates, jogins with (religious) cross-dressers and hijras with something between castrati, transvestites and transsexuals. But the difficulties in translation is telling: they carve different joints. If any traduttore is a tradittore, there should be no privileged pole to use as a bedrock. Viveiros de Castro insists that it is a better policy to translate in order to make the familiar alien rather than the other way round. To bring alien terms home is, in a sense, to place them in a correlation with us where we are placed in a Ptolomaic center. To proceed in the other way round is rather to make the familiar more strange. In any case, difference springs from the absence of a bedrock parameter. There are two alphabets, and more. And the routes that generated those alphabets are themselves irreducible to a standart (bedrock) route.

I tend to believe that there is some sort of erogenesis in sexual difference. It is the principle of esquizotrans (see, for example, blog, films at esquizotrans at youtube): try and exorcise identities while keeping a place for sexual difference. There is more to the contrast between poles of heterosexuality than just compulsory identities, there is sexual difference that itself generates new desires and therefore new counteridentities. A mechanism of sexual difference is that of gynefilia and androfilia - the taste for the feminine, the taste for the masculine. They can become, for example, heterogynefilia or autogynefilia. Sedgwick´s opening chapter of her Epistemology of the Closet has an amazing analysis of alliances within gay and lesbian movements (gay movements that were rooted in misoginy, for example, so that men should have no contact whatsoever with women, that is
autoandrofilia and heteroandrofilia). Autogynefilia is a liking of the feminine in oneself. It is behind cross-dressing, some forms of travestisms, maybe some transexuality, the moves of some hijras (according to the autobiography of A. Revathi) and other forms of effeminism. Similarly for autoandrofilia. These movements of desire are forces to become something, they act wildly, in different directions and in that sense they harbour an erogenesis.
But sexual difference has no bedrock poles itself. Even though Irigaray meant the term to be attached to the masculine and the feminine poles, I guess sexual difference appears also among any two letters in the alphabets. In fact, this is why the alphabets are important: they locate places of friction.


Popular posts from this blog

Giving Birth

This is a month of giving birth: 1. On the first day of the month (my birthday) I sent out my book BUG (Being Up for Grabs) to publisher. A birth-giving moment. 2. On the forth, we started the Journal, called Journal of Questions. It is a Jabèsian and Jarryian endeavor that intends to reflect in many languages about the gaps between thought and translation. It will be available soon. 3. On the 10th, day before yesterday, offspring Devrim A. B. was born. Her name means revolution in Turkish and is a roughly common name. She's very attentive and concentrated - especially on her own fingers that she learned to molest in her youth during her womb months. She was gestated together with BUG. Hope the world enjoys.

My responses to (some) talks in the Book Symposium

Indexicalism is out: l   The book symposium took place two weeks ago with talks by Sofya Gevorkyan/Carlos Segovia, Paul Livingston, Gerson Brea, Steven Shaviro, Chris RayAlexander, Janina Moninska, Germán Prosperi, Gabriela Lafetá, Andrea Vidal, Elzahrã Osman, Graham Harman, Charles Johns, Jon Cogburn, Otavio Maciel, Aha Else, JP Caron, Michel Weber and John Bova. My very preliminary response to some of their talks about the book follows. (Texts will appear in a special issue of Cosmos & History soon). RESPONSES : ON SAYING PARADOXICAL THINGS Hilan Bensusan First of all, I want to thank everyone for their contributions. You all created a network of discussions that made the book worth publishing. Thanks. Response to Shaviro: To engage in a general account of how things are is to risk paradox. Totality, with its different figures including the impersonal one that enables a symmetrical view from nowhere

Hunky, Gunky and Junky - all Funky Metaphysics

Been reading Bohn's recent papers on the possibility of junky worlds (and therefore of hunky worlds as hunky worlds are those that are gunky and junky - quite funky, as I said in the other post). He cites Whitehead (process philosophy tends to go hunky) but also Leibniz in his company - he wouldn't take up gunk as he believed in monads but would accept junky worlds (where everything that exists is a part of something). Bohn quotes Leibniz in On Nature Itself «For, although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk, that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points. In just the same way, there is nothing greatest in bulk nor infinite in extension, even if there is always something bigger than anything else, though there is a being greatest in the intensity of its perfection, that is, a being infinite in power.» And New Essays: ... for there is ne