Enabling Paradoxes: Gender Difference and Systems Theory Author(s): Drucilla Cornell Source: New Literary History, Vol.

27, No. 2, Problems of Otherness: Historical and Contemporary (Spring, 1996), pp. 185-197 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20057346 . Accessed: 03/12/2013 16:34
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to New Literary History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.225.200.89 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:34:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Gender

Enabling Difference Drucilla

Paradoxes: and Systems Cornell

Theory

is a philosophical alliance between Niklas Luhmann's systems theory and what I have renamed turns of the limit.1 This alliance deconstruction?the philosophy roots on in not only French phenomenology shared philosophical but on the of grounding principles with grounding paradoxes. replacement Luhmann explicitly argues that systems theory can have no higher level of itself beyond the analysis of the operations of the systems grounding is that one only knows a system as a system themselves.2 The paradox that there it from other systems, but there is it and by distinguishing from within no system of all systems in which we could ground the analysis of systems of the limit, as I have interpreted it, is in theory. Derrida's philosophy in two senses: first, the philosophy of the limit alliance with this position of the philosophical to ground limit of any attempt is an articulation a on an to of in all the in a or, system systems contrary, appeal reality of in The limit transcendental Luhmann's is, subjectivity. philosophy of grounding sense, a limit to the traditional philosophical project of a sphere of sociological analysis in either a normative description nature with a corresponding of history or some teleological conception of the ultimate other conception all systems system which encompasses serves as the basis of the analysis of how one system is and therefore either integrated with or distinguished from another. Both the philosophy of the limit and systems theory also analyze social and intellectual within a concept of meaning-effects that phenomena as individual does not coincide with the concept of meaning intention ality. But even if we accept these as legitimate and shared philosophical of the limit and systems theory, between the philosophy presuppositions we shall need to ask the question: What are the conditions, even if we
understand these as systems, that make a system "appear" as a system

have

argued

elsewhere

rather than just as the nature of reality? Luhmann's consistent answer to is to turn us back to the observer: "In the case of autopoietic that question that an observer has (that is, self-reproducing) systems, this would mean to focus on the self-determined and self-determining a distinctions
system uses to frame its own observations."3 For Luhmann, what is

New Literary History,

1996, 27: 185-197

This content downloaded from 193.225.200.89 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:34:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

186
observed always turns us back to the observer.

NEW

LITERARY

HISTORY

He

is more

than

aware

is no reality that is just "there" outside of systems, we not observe the observing only reality but we also can observe system? as we think of the what individual?that is observ including commonly to quote Luhmann: "The question then becomes: ing reality. Again, is to be observed and by whom and for what reasons?" (DS 773). Who or the is to argue in this paper that deconstruction, My purpose an to of fore the the of when and how a limit, brings aspect philosophy us to becomes observable the system by always returning relationship that since there
between ship semantic and codes, meaning, representation. semantic between and code, systems analysis, It is this representation relation that

adds
separate

an

important
out, observe,

dimension
and define

to how
a

and why
as a

it becomes
and

possible
thus "dissolve

to

system

system

the paradox of the world as a frameless, undistinguishable totality that cannot be observed" (DS 775). To demonstrate that the relationship between my understanding an and the of the limit involves systems theory philosophy analysis of the I between and collusion will focus on an meaning representability, analysis
as a

of the conditions
Of course, we

under which
already have

gender
conflict

can come
between

to be observed
two observers

system.

does not. The addition since I observe gender as a system and Luhmann sense of to make then that I am insisting upon is that in order some we must account of It is have observability representability. an account us limit that the of the is such shows philosophy precisely of meaning and its inherent from both the consolidation inseparable It is a consolidated limit through this very consolidation. of world a construction, even we not if This is "see." consolidation that meaning to individual one attributable of course, un Luhmann, intentionality. is constructed of systems that are in turn that the world derstands observed and reconstructed by observers, and that therefore all systems or at least the observers of systems in language can be deconstructed. Once
use as

again
such

to quote
is

Luhmann:

"Itmay
But

go too far to say that language

an observer who uses

deconstructive.

observing

language certainly is" (DS 769). the question of how consolidated Thus, for Luhmann, reality appears to the observer is itself a question that will turn us back to who the is and how he or she observes decon observer reality. For Luhmann, as a second order observing is best understood struction precisely of meaning, is a system's it shows that the consolidation which because
"reality," disintegrates under the observation of an observer who ob

the system observing itself and the construction of its objects. To "The stereotypicality of the distinction leads to the quote Luhmann: that all these systems observe the same thing, whereas assumption

serves

This content downloaded from 193.225.200.89 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:34:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ENABLING

PARADOXES

187

these observers shows that this is not the case. Each of them observing own within its network. Each of them has a different path and operates a different future. While the distinction of suggests a tight coupling
observations and reality, and implies that there is only one observer

true or false statements, a observing thing' and making see second-order these observers would loose observer, observing only and a lack of complete (DS 764). Implicit in this coupling integration" that what we see or how we see it, as quote is Luhmann's recognition or as disintegrated, turns in part not only on the consolidated political interest of the observer but on the meaning the observer sees as either coherent or incoherent, is that integrated or disintegrated. My addition sees that it is the observer who the beyond just marking reality as
disintegrated understanding rather of how than consolidated, operate so we as also to need perpetuate a more and exact create systems

'the same

meanings
systems.

and ultimately

limit the representability

of certain

realities

as

is that we can best understand the possibility of a cross My argument fertilization between and deconstruction systems theory by demonstrat are intertwined and meaning so as to allow ing how representability as to to in other how show, words, systems appear systems; they or frame themselves so as to be distinct from a themselves distinguish frameless, undistinguishable totality that could not be observed. Gender as a system; it is instead assumed as a totality so that is almost disappears to as a difficult for it becomes be represented system and instead is
considered, dimension simply, to the as one the way things that Luhmann are. My himself argument notes provides own in his a new systems

the operation by analyzing more reading of deconstruction thoroughly of gender as a system; a system that operates to limit the possibility of the
representability as "woman" of woman an observer. and, Of as a result, gender the is status only that one can be course, example. given But to I

of hope to show that by looking more closely at Derrida's deconstruction to can we our the current meaning enrich given gender hierarchy, of the relationship between deconstruction and systems understanding
theory more generally.

as I have already indicated, has Luhmann, argued that deconstruction as second order is best understood has described observing. Luhmann second order observing as follows: "On this level one has to observe not them in the is, to distinguish simple objects but observing systems?that first place. One has to know which distinctions of guide the observations observer and to find out if the stable objects emerge when are recursively applied these observations to their own results. Objects are therefore nothing but the eigenbehaviors of observing systems that result from using and reusing their previous distinctions" (DS 767-68). the observed

This content downloaded from 193.225.200.89 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:34:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

188
As he also notes, world' "Deconstruction assumption. Identities, destroys then,

NEW

LITERARY

HISTORY

this have

'one to be

observer-one constructed.

nature-one

But by whom?" (DS 765). But nothing in Luhmann's observing, semantic codes, meaning, can come to be observed order however,

as of deconstruction the connections explicitly and how aspects of representability, as a system in the first place. Thus, draws

own labeling

a second between "reality" I'm not

at least within own the terms of Luhmann's necessarily disagreeing, as that deconstruction could be understood systems theory, involving second order observing. I am arguing that it can only be so understood if we also understand that this second order observing turns on the a world to us inherent in that is contingency given only through conditions of representability. systems with corresponding meaning-giving The contingency is what allows us to separate ourselves from the world that is given to us as objective so as to be able to see it differently because
we can see it as a system and as nothing more than a system. In the case

of gender, I will argue that it is precisely the deconstructibility of the as to a it of that allows (that is, be appear system reality gender as a as we and thus observed such. Thus, system) represented ironically owe to deconstruction of gender as a system precisely the appearance in to More is this its deconstructibility. what allows us, then, importantly,
have "appear" on the stage of history the feminine observer whose

to mark out the reality of gender as a system count enough observations of the meaning and representability of her own from other possibilities out would be crucial in the effectua Such a marking sexual difference. is the hallmark of work for modern tion of what Luhmann argues a on move to end social order based "the stratified differentia society, it with functional tion" and replace Such a replace differentiation."4 ment would ultimately leave us with individuated beings not simply one that defines their status in system by any ultimately encompassed
society.

turn now to my account of why the gender divide has not only as a system that paradoxically as a system but has operated operated as a system and further does so to erase the limits its representability feminine other as the observer who could mark the gender system as a and To do so, Iwill provide an account of how sexual difference system. as a semantic code that consolidates its is understood meaning gender so that we inevitably "see" a world in which there are two sexes and only the woman is defined two sexes: a world in which and thus seen as the is in other words, It this of consolidated castrated Other. world meaning, in such a limited way and to see that forces us to see sexual difference as itself a part of an order of reality different this difference than one are as on in these of the based systems always implicated production

Let me

This content downloaded from 193.225.200.89 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:34:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ENABLING

PARADOXES

189

To provide a systems account of the current stratified reality of meaning. I will rely on the work of Jacques Lacan. Lacan's sexual difference, to Freud's own biologism is to turn us not to the addition important to the we associate with sexual difference?the body parts?but objects and the semantic code of desire that reinforces that system of meaning see a so we that sexual in of difference way system meaning particular by this divide into two and only into two.5 of desire is consolidated For Lacan, the semantics by the Oedipus so as to of make the human being development inseparable complex of sexual difference in and through and the materialization language. in and through of human lan This inevitable materialization being means as the into that the this divide guage, gender, symbolic implicates all the way down.6 and thoroughly genderized order is itself engendered This iswhy, for Lacan at least, it becomes a totality from which we cannot as a system because it is the very foundation of the separate its operation that ismandated to materialization of human being in and through language. According Lacan, children of both sexes enter into the world of culture, and more the signifying system we know as language, only by enduring specifically, a severe wound to their own narcissism. This wound is a result of the that the mother is not there just for them. With this recognition comes want does if the inevitable Who mommy question: recognition she does not want just me? of separation from the mother is literally life The primordial moment on this the of because of the infant absolute threatening dependence
Other. initiates The the terror or threat to that overcome the mother the presents dependence in her or struggle separateness the need the

infant has of her. The move from need to demand is, in part, the infant's or her need. This to of the resistance of his vulnerability expression the mother resistance will be against it is her desire because that is as infant of Of the his of this kind course, registered robbing security. a absolute is The condition of this is the that security fantasy. fantasy not be "sexed." Thus, it is inevitably associated with the pre mother of the significance of Oedipus phase, the period before the registration on rests The fantasy of absolute sexual difference. the then, security, is whole in herself and thus a fantasy that the mother corresponding on unscathed desire. This whom the infant is by being fantasy figure in its need is the imaginary phallic mother. Once the totally dependent is fantasized mother/child the mother remains shattered, dyad phallic in the imaginary as all-powerful in her power both to and threatening bestow take away life. moment of separation is not only experienced primordial terror of and the fear it is also the loss, through gaining of an identity to from the mother. The the ambivalence of separate attempt negotiate and This

This content downloaded from 193.225.200.89 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:34:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

190

NEW

LITERARY

HISTORY

a loss that is also the in gaining of an identity is beautifully demonstrated the fort/da the Ernst.7 The game enacts game of Freud's grandson fantasy that the child is separate but still in control of the mother/Other. an unconscious in turn, demands But this negotiation, identification back with the one who is at least imagined to be able to bring the mother wounded infant because he is the site of her desire. The narcissistically the imaginary father is thus turns toward the imaginary father because desires. But what is it that singles out the imaginary whom mommy is it, in other words, father, what is it that makes him so special? What desires that symbolizes what mommy wants? that daddy has that mommy would never put it so The simple answer is the penis, but Lacanians simply. with the imaginary father The identification the mother, the of power to control projection
name and, in that sense, guarantee that she,

is inseparable from the to literally give her a

and correspondingly the

for. Already we see how in Lacan there is social and to partriarchically It is structured relationships. significance symbolic name to is and that assumed father's the power legally precisely a enforced legal system. In this sense, it is, of course, by a patriarchical since it gives the power to name to only form of stratified differentiation she one of the sexes and marks the woman as never fully adult because infant, is spoken
can never have the power to name her own lineage. The woman

as long as patrilineal the man lineage through this stratified system of differentia governs family hierarchy. Obviously, can reforms. Women feminist tion has been disrupted by significant achieves her status
vote, status contract, vis-?-vis and kinship own property, systems. For but a they have yet the to achieve to Lacanian, barrier equal such

a full breakdown of the stratified system of gender can be equality and of gender seen as inherent in the current meaning identity. Thus, Lacan own optimism that gender of why Luhmann's offers us an account to disappear is Of a fated unwarranted. artefact is historical hierarchy with the power not course, the power to name is inevitably connected to name what will come to be seen as only to name the infant but also as "his," in the specific that Other The keeps the mother big reality. as a guarantee of is imagined sense of stamping her with her name, loss of the but is that so, established, through only precariously identity But this the fantasized mother/child only fantasy projection dyad. as a symbolic that is already established sense within order makes terror is that he who is not spoken for slips through the The patriarchal. of the crumbling With cracks of social life into figurative nonexistence. of separate is phallic, with the recognition the fantasy that the mother the infant's to turn to the third to guarantee ness, comes the desire to secure his being can no longer count on the mother since he identity

This content downloaded from 193.225.200.89 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:34:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ENABLING

PARADOXES

191

it is the name of the father and the through unity with her. Thus, that is the basis for identification with symbolic register of his potency him and not the simple fact that he has a penis. The penis biological takes on the significance it does only through the identification as the that secures to control the power the big Other identity through As I've already argued, this power cannot be mother/Other. separated from the symbolic established register by patrilineal lineage which the father as the one who names and thus as the one who identifies secures the identity and therefore the separate being of the infant. It is the symbolic power that is read back into the penis, but as it is read back a symbolic into the penis it will establish that is based on register and to thus the and father, patrilineal lineage gives only the father, the
power to name.

On this account, it is the symbol of the phallus and its reinforcement the of law by patrilineal lineage that accounts for the meaning given to the penis and the corresponding to the initial significance given sighting of sexual difference. is an initial example This of the relationship between meaning unconsciously registered as a prior citation on the one on the other. Sexual difference, hand and representability or more the registration as lack, would of feminine sexual difference precisely then be the result of a prior citation in the unconscious. It would be the that prior citation that would explain why there is a lack in the mother
has woman's structural "sex" consequences as is seen for castration. the castration complex and why a

lack in having is both a threat and a nostalgia because it is the in which the can be loss of the mother only way primordial phallic a as the to stands in bar to return the the Thus, signified. phallus phallic The
mother, as a representation of what is not there, the lack in both sexes.

is also unconsciously identified with the name of phallus, however, in and through the father the law of patrilineal this lineage. On comes as of the how to be cited the of the interpretation phallus signifier lack in both sexes, there would be no necessary basis for the identifica tion of the phallus with the penis aside from the automatic reading of an citation no reason for there would be and, therefore, already registered to be appropriated the phallus necessarily to the side of the masculine. In other words, or even there would be no biological representational basis for the identification of the penis with the phallus other than the that has already been given to the role of the meaning imaginary father. It would be just a matter of reading?even so if that reading were automatic that it would appear as inevitable. Thus, the establishment of as what Lacan calls the "transcendental the phallus is best signifier" a understood of how the of the systems analysis through operations of over the father as the actual so to govern meaning family setting

The

This content downloaded from 193.225.200.89 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:34:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

192
determine

NEW

LITERARY

HISTORY

that will be given to the sighting of sexual the significance difference by young male and female children. Given the identification of the phallus with the imaginary father, it ismasculinized only because it is masculinized. the signifi it is part of a system in which However, cance of the masculinization of the phallus yields a differential position
ing that engenders each one of us as a man or a woman. Remember

Lacan

's famous

example
between

of how
the men's

the symbolic will

room and the

inevitably
women's

generate
room.

the

differentiation

of the penis, the little girl is also deprived of the fantasy that Deprived of being the she has the phallus. She is left only with the masquerade not to be at all. The cut from what Lacan calls the is which phallus name of the father and the "feminine imposed by the imaginary" woman beyond expression, renders masculine beyond mean symbolic
ing. Hence, for does Lacan, not have woman existence. does not Ultimately exist because woman, what as the cannot castrated be expressed

Other,

is only the symptom or inevitable return of the truth that man is in having as he too is barred from the inevitably also marked by the lack this of the law the mother complex. Man endures Oedipus by phallic to be "at all," in order to have his identity as a castration symbolic the ever secured by the name of the father against being speaking as a woman of the this But Other. designation imaginary threatening
symptom or as the object of man does not turn, for Lacan, on any

sex with her biological of woman's association destiny. Her necessary of this the result is more her or, abjection, precisely, objectification is enforced functions and which by through system already-in-place a system of stratified differentiation. as lineage patrilineal
If we understand the circular nature of Lacan 's argument that sexual

difference will be engendered complex as this, by the law of the Oedipus men and state differentiation between of the in turn, is enforced by as to can we Lacan read women begin lineage, imposed by patrilineal a systems analysis of gender. Of course, Lacan would deny that giving us of human for him, the very materialization this is the case because, a is that in and takes necessarily engen through language place being of the phallus as a transcendental dered by the establishment signifier. the world given to us as the so pervasively it operates Thus, through that we could never effect we call human separate being meaning the ourselves from it so as to observe it as an outsider. It simply becomes to see sexual reality in this world as we know it. Thus we are enforced can define gender hierarchy terminology, we way. But using Luhmann's the code through its semantic as a self-referential that codifies system In in to the turn, lineage. patrilineal complex Oedipus meaning given the meaning complex within this system differen given to the Oedipus even though tiates the human species into two sexes, male and female,

This content downloaded from 193.225.200.89 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:34:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ENABLING

PARADOXES

193

the masculine recognizes

Luhmann:

Luhmann himself is defined only against the feminine. of binary codes within the systems. To quote the importance
"The most important function-systems structure their com

a binary, or dual, valued code that from the munication through claims universal validity and excludes of its specific function viewpoint can better I am arguing that gender differentiation further possibility." of this to take place through the consolidation be understood binary and which is each one of us as a man or a woman code which defines from the semantics of desire that Lacan associates with the inseparable of human being in and through language. materialization To remind those unfamiliar with Lacan's analysis of sexual difference from the order of is excluded and, more precisely, why the feminine me of summarize let and, thus, again his representability, meaning as the of the of establishment of the the phallus meaning understanding is that of that establishment transcendental signifier. The meaning woman will be read as the castrated Other, the symptom of man. As
lack?as the castrated Other?she can have no positive, affirmative, and

that are intimately associated with the characteristics thus representable as a unique form sex. her representability In the her of of place meaning of human being is the fantasy of what she is in the masculine imaginary. of the phallic For Lacan, that fantasy itself will be fed by the repression creates a splitting: the This repression in the unconscious. mother as of is desire the ultimate mother and, such, inevitably object phallic from is seen is inseparable the feared, evil one. Thus, the way woman and men as this fantasy structure imposed by Lacan upon both women of sexual difference the truth of feminine being by the meaning of semantic code the enforced desire, again from the inseparable by The of sexual its and meaning symbolic meaning. complex Oedipus of woman difference, then, functions as the limit of the representability in at least two important ways. First, it imposes a limit on how woman will a from within since she will be represented indeed be represented can be imagined and, structure in limits that which she the way fantasy in as what the system of gender itself, since it is invested secondly, as man the the will from feared other, necessary appear protects phallic as the existence. To for that his very backdrop challenge backdrop of human foundation inevitable then, will existence, inevitably be seem it life Thus Indeed, may threatening. extraordinarily threatening. to the representability there would be, on this analysis, fierce resistance
of gender as a system.

the Let me just note briefly one example of how we could understand the of the limit to representability gender system. imposed by operation In Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Mechelle Vinson et al., the crucial circuit an abusive and hostile work environment court decision that established

This content downloaded from 193.225.200.89 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:34:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

194
as constitutive

NEW

LITERARY

HISTORY

of the wrong of sexual harassment, the Eighth Circuit Court forcefully argued that all evidence of a woman's sexual past and her style of dressing should be excluded from consideration by the court as evidence of her harassability.8 They did so on the basis that such a fantasy structure evidence to and that gave meaning implicated women a no in that had basis for in a enforcement way represented court of law. Justice Rehnquist, for the Court, writing Supreme argued on the contrary was relevant as it went to the that such evidence woman woman of the and of the the is "desirability" desirability our in are from law her Women (69). inseparable "harassability" represented through what Lacan calls the "psychical fantasy of woman" as either good or bad girls, depending on certain characteristics. Thus, the kind of evidence that was at stake were black stockings, dangling and how many dates the woman had in the past year. earrings, weight, Women who wore dangling earrings and black stockings were "seen" as as as to but "asking for it." Evidence themselves "desirable" presenting was seen as relevant to whether or not it was dates and lack of weight to present herself as desirable. But the characteris credible for a woman tics are given meaning only through an established grid which identifies are women fantasies in their array unconscious which limited through and diversity. The Meritor decision of the exemplifies what Imean by the operation a is enforced of stratified form of which system gender through differentiation that limits the representability of woman for purposes of
the law. Thus, unfortunately, the gender system imposed upon women,

reinforces which maintenance of

could be constructed. in Luhmann's is not intended, intervention Derrida's terms, to expose a as as a to that is it known but expose system system through the gender of the of the feminine the foreclosure of effect resymbolization meaning as the "castrated For Derrida, we see woman sexual difference. within Other"
meaning.

modern society, in different systems

stratified differentiation stratified differentiation limits the different ways

and its inseparable from the in gender in relationships in which woman as an element

only

because
shows

she
us,

is designated
in exactly

as such by a prior
Luhmann's sense of

system
order

of

Derrida

second

is based that the so-called "direct reality" of sexual difference observing, on a system by observing the functioning and operation of that system. itself but by the system observing He does so not simply by observing a man or a woman to for either observe the it is how possible explaining as a that the that He system system. explains possibility by demonstrating is of the phallus as a transcendental based establishment only signifier on a reading of the mother's desire and that what is read can always be
reread. In Lacan 's own terms, he undermines the relationship between

significance

and jouissance

by showing

that the semantic

code

of desire

This content downloaded from 193.225.200.89 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:34:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ENABLING

PARADOXES

195

the sliding of the signifier "woman" so that does not effectively exclude as only the she cannot slip out of the place in which she is designated
castrated Other who cannot be represented.

that the very slippage of language breaks up the argument of gender the rigid gender coherence identity allows us to undermine divide that has made dialogue between men and women impossible and of violence the acceptance toward women not only inevitable, but also Derrida's in language that always allows for the "serious."9 This slippage means by is of what Derrida reinterpretation iterability.10 He possibility uses the term to indicate that the very repeatability of language implies both sameness and difference. What allows language to be repeatable is in different contexts. But if there is no context of that it can be repeated In then what is repeated does not yield an identical meaning. context, in language, this sense, if we assume that all systems are constructed as a system there could never be any pure self-referentiality because to its itself itwould always be doing so by responding seeks to perpetuate a or symptoms itself in irritations would and, thus, repeat slightly context. This, in turn, means that as it repeats itself, the system different also transforms itself. the context of gender hierarchy, Within the repeti iterability means can never tion compulsion of imposed identity gender completely It is Lacan 's very insight into the foreclose transformative possibility. to linguistic structures that construct gender identity that allows Derrida turn Lacan 's analysis against himself by showing how his insight into the not

semantics of desire could give way to another reading.11 It is important to note here that I refer to this possibility as transformative to distinguish it from the position that would allow for shifts within the binary code itself. In other words, it is not just that we can shift the meanings of male the binary and female within code that produces the distinction between male and female. Such shifts would clearly be comprehensible within Luhmann's of how binary codes are perpetuated understanding cannot the Since be separated from its meanings, code this by systems. never can be from the effective of the process protected undermining code itself. It is precisely the undermining of the rigid code of binary that the philosophy of the limit seeks to effect. Within the oppositions code of the gender hierarchy, this process itself has an ethical aspiration. is Derrida's dream of a new choreography That aspiration of sexual in which our singularity, not our gender, would be loved by difference the Other.12 to this understanding Derrida's of "sex" is that he specific relevance the status of the phallus. To summarize: Derrida's deconstructs decon struction of the law of gender difference undermines the grounding of a transcendental us the phallus illusion which would through prevent from seeing the system of gender hierarchy as a system. In this sense, the

This content downloaded from 193.225.200.89 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:34:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

196

NEW

LITERARY

HISTORY

deconstruction of the status of the phallus in Derrida's intervention into Lacanian psychoanalytic theory renders visible a system that validates itself as nature because its meaning so unshakable has become that we do not see the connection that has been made unconsciously between the signifiers "masculine" and "feminine" and the signifieds they repre sent. Here we are confronted with a specific of how the example a of the limit of operates philosophy ethically against conception itself as transcendentally limitation that presents The para grounded. dox of the status of the phallus is ultimately what enables an explosive a feminism which does not turn us back to any kind of feminism, specific
systems-meaning of woman.

as exactly what For Lacan, the law of the phallus establishes woman cannot be adequately current in of and any represented system meaning therefore marks her as what is beyond any of the systems of meaning. serves both as a limitation to the challenges This paradox we seek in current conventional of woman within systems, contesting meanings and as their ultimate possibility, kept open in the very paradox that the as to the itself establishes barrier the of phallus only re-representation
the feminine sex because it operates as a barrier. Derrida demonstrates

are just that, operations, that these operations and that they precisely are therefore deconstructible. It is this deconstructibility that is insepa of the feminine rable not only from the representability other more of from the the feminine but, indeed, possibility representing generally
as capable of observing and whose observations count and therefore

such as feminism which who can create a movement itself will be a second order observing. Feminism demands not only that we see gender as a system and as a system that blocks move the fundamental that associates with modernity from stratified to functional differ but that we see woman beyond the limitations entiation, imposed upon our reality by the system of gender. to see In other words, we begin her?as other than the fantasies imposed upon us by woman?envision of woman. In this way, the possibility the psychical fantasies of the Luhmann
feminine observer as an observer whose observations count and thus can

mark

the system, system gender inseparable of the meaning deconstruction of woman as the one who is observed but In this manner, second order observing the observer. is is never of the of the from demonstration that contingency meaning inseparable or tries to defend for the inevitability Lacan against in his argument as the of the establishment of the phallus performativity that of differ the sexual transcendental guarantees signifier meaning to the meaning ence and acts as a barrier to any challenge of gender. of the status of the phallus the deconstructibility Thus, paradoxically, as a system and, at is precisely what makes gender hierarchy observable retroactive

of

as

is

from

This content downloaded from 193.225.200.89 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:34:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ENABLING

PARADOXES

197

as other of the feminine the same time, allows for the rerepresentability a it is From the viewpoint of feminist than the observed. observer, of the status of the phallus that allows us to see Derrida's deconstruction of the erasure of gender as a system at the same time the significance can at the moment of its that gender appear as a system precisely own lack of is an irony, then, in Luhmann's There deconstruction. is a system in that it is Luhmann himself who that gender recognition an observer it is from the of that a that always standpoint recognizes as deconstructible. in its operations Thus, we system can be understood owe to deconstruction the meaning of the appearance of paradoxically as a in is its it in this And system deconstructibility. gender precisely that feminism paradox possibility. finds its explanatory power and its political

Rutgers NOTES
1 See Drucilla

University

Reform," Rosenfeld, Relationship

"The Philosophy of the Limit: Systems Theory and Feminist Cornell, Legal and ed. Drucilla in Deconstruction the Possibility Michel Cornell, of Justice, to the of Time and David Gray Carlson (New York, 1992), and "The Relevance the Philosophy of the Limit and Systems Theory: The Call to Judicial between in The Philosophy Luhmann,

Responsibility," See Niklas 2

Cornell (New York, 1992). of the Limit, ed. Drucilla tr. John Bednarz 1989), Ecological Communication, (Cambridge, The Differentiation and Charles Larmore Holmes (New York, 1982), of Society, tr. Stephen tr. Jeremy and Doris L. Jones Love as Passion, Gaicresard Mass., 1986), (Cambridge, On Reality in the World "Closure and Openness: of Law," in Autopoietic Law: A New and Society, ed. G?nther Teuber, Northwestern Law Review, 83 tr. Ian Fraser (Fall 1988/Winter The Differentiation Order (Berlin, "Law as a 1987), and 136-50, 1989), of the Legal System," 24

to Law Approach Social System,"

Closure and Structural Coupling: "Operational 13 (1992), Cardozo Law Review, 1419. as Second 3 Niklas Luhmann, "Deconstruction cited in text as DS. (1993), 767; hereafter 4 Luhmann, Love as Passion, p. 5. 5 Jacques Lacan, Ecrits: A Selection, tr. Alan 6 the See Judith Butler, Bodies That Matter of the ethical, political, inseparability

Observing,"

New Literary History,

Sheridan (New York, 1977). discussion (New York, 1993) for an extended and material dimensions of embodiment.

of

7 Sigmund the Pleasure Principle, in The Standard Edition Freud, Beyond of the Complete (London, 1920), XVIII:14. Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, tr. and ed. James Strachey 8 Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Mechelle Vinson et ai, 477 U.S. 57 (1986); hereafter cited in text. and Christie Derrida V. McDonald, Jacques "Choreographies," (1982), 66-76. in his Margins 10 See Jacques Derrida, Event Context," "Signature Bass (Chicago, 1982), pp. 307-30. 11 See Jacques Derrida, The Post Card: From Socrates to Freud 1987). (Chicago, 12 See Derrida 9 Diacritics, 12, no. tr. Alan 2

of Philosophy,

and Beyond,

tr. Alan

Bass

and McDonald,

"Choreographies."

This content downloaded from 193.225.200.89 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:34:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions