Verwaayen traces Nicole Brossard's movement away from sovereigntist activism toward a transnational feminism and explores the relationship between region and body articulated in much of her work.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
“We—you/I—are neither open nor closed. We never separate simply…Between our lips, yours and mine, several voices, several ways of speaking resound endlessly, back and forth. One is never separable ...from the other. You/I we are always several at once…One cannot be distinguished from the other; which does not mean that they are indistinct.” — Luce Irigaray, This Sex Which Is Not One (209) This work explores issues of authorial property and voice in relation to textual identities in/and gendered bodies, informed by proliferating autobiographical theories and poststructuralist understanding of ambulatory subjectivities. Always-already tenuous distinctions between self and other, fact and fiction, autobiography and biography are exploded along “fault” lines triggered by writers whose work in “fiction/theory”/“fictionalysis” blows up the field of representation/representability itself. Rupturing through non-contiguities/incongruities the conventional “autobiographical pact” and its relations between signifier, signified, scriptor, referent, body and voice (the conventional generic link between autobiography and postEnlightenment individualism) the four Canadian women writers I treat posit fragmentation and instability in the “writing self” by inhabiting an/other's eye/“I” (appropriating the first-person voices of historical women)—and thus they desecrate the fantasy of a unified, singular, transcendental self. In selected text by Daphne Marlatt, Anne Michaels, Margaret Atwood and Joan Crate, I am interested in how identities are produced through their linguistic articulations, where the Lacanian “masculine” subject (of language) as split is written over/overridden by (more than) doubled “representation” of/through literary mothers these authors ventriloquize. In this way, the (m)others are pre-Oedipal ones: it is a kind of plentitude or excess rather than lack that gives birth to the contemporary writers' texts. But although such writing/selves are constituted in a joyous “fictiveness”—the ficticity/facticity of the outlaw non-subject figured in the Kristevan semiotic—the act of appropriating paradoxically “historically-fabricated” selves (never divisible from the socio-cultural matrix of their engendering) is held suspect in an interrogation of the notion of “entitlement” in speaking (for) alterity.
PDF