Re: [-empyre-] Matrixial and phallic space

[Kate Southworth <katesouthworth@gloriousninth.com>]

Dear Jordan, Christina, Raul, Eduardo, James and everyone

I'll just answer Jordan's points very very briefly if I may, and then back
to Eduardo and Raul.

4/28/05 2:48Jordan Williamsjordan@cartocorpus.com
> How does adding a supplement based on the female body do something
> qualitatively different than phallic psychoanalysis?

The matrixial  doesn't valorise the womb over the penis. It isn't an attempt
to promote female bodies, female organs over male organs.    It is the
'structure of severality/encounter - not any organ or anatomy - that
matrixial psychoanalytical theory celebrates as defining, at the subject -
inducing borderspace of corporeality and psychic apparatus, the feminine for
us all' 

(Griselda Pollock, 2004 'Thinking the Feminine', in  Theory, Culture &
Society page 9).


>My problem here is with
> the word "supplement". Why not a substitute? How is basing a
> supplement/substitute on a gendered metaphor (the womb) any more borderless
> than the phallic logic it seeks to supplement/replace?

It doesn't seek to replace phallic logic.  To incorporate or reject
anything, in this case phallic logic, is itself within phallic logic.  The
matrixial co-exists with a phallic logic within an expanded symbolic.  The
Matrixial moves beneath/beside the Phallic, it is not possible, for the
matrixial to substitute the phallic - substitution, of one thing for
another, lies within a phallic logic not a matrixial logic (Griselda
Pollock, 2004).

Katexxx