Inventing “French Feminism:” A Critical History by Katherine A. Costello Department of Literature Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Robyn Wiegman, Supervisor ___________________________ Rey Chow ___________________________ Anne F. Garréta ___________________________ Ranjana Khanna Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Literature in the Graduate School of Duke University 2016 i v ABSTRACT Inventing “French Feminism:” A Critical History by Katherine A. Costello, Department of Literature Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Robyn Wiegman, Supervisor ___________________________ Rey Chow ___________________________ Anne F. Garréta ___________________________ Ranjana Khanna An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Literature in the Graduate School of Duke University 2016 Copyright by Katherine A. Costello 2016 Abstract French Feminism has little to do with feminism in France. While in the U.S. this now canonical body of work designates almost exclusively the work of three theorists— Hélène Cixous, Luce Irigaray, and Julia Kristeva—in France, these same thinkers are actually associated with the rejection of feminism. If some scholars have on this basis passionately denounced French Feminism as an American invention, there exists to date no comprehensive analysis of that invention or of its effects. Why did theorists who were at best marginal to feminist thought and political practice in France galvanize feminist scholars working in the United States? Why does French Feminism provoke such an intense affective response in France to this date? Drawing on the fields of feminist and queer studies, literary studies, and history, “Inventing ‘French Feminism:’ A Critical History” offers a transnational account of the emergence and impact of one of U.S. academic feminism’s most influential bodies of work. The first half of the dissertation argues that, although French Feminism has now been dismissed for being biologically essentialist and falsely universal, feminists working in the U.S. academy of the 1980s, particularly feminist literary critics and postcolonial feminist critics, deployed the work of Cixous, Irigaray, and Kristeva to displace what they perceived as U.S. feminist literary criticism’s essentialist reliance on the biological sex of the author and to challenge U.S. academic feminism’s inattention to racial differences between women. French Feminism thus found traction among feminist scholars to the extent that it was perceived as vii addressing some of U.S. feminism’s most pressing political issues. The second half of the dissertation traces French feminist scholars’ vehement rejection of French Feminism to an affectively charged split in the French women’s liberation movement of the 1970s and shows that this split has resulted in an entrenched opposition between sexual difference and materialist feminism, an opposition that continues to structure French feminist debates to this day. “Inventing ‘French Feminism:’ A Critical History” ends by arguing that in so far as the U.S. invention of French Feminism has contributed to the emergence of U.S. queer theory, it has also impeded its uptake in France. Taken as a whole, this dissertation thus implicitly argues that the transnational circulation of ideas is simultaneously generative and disabling. viii Contents Abstract.........................................................................................................................................vii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ x Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... xi Introduction: Theoretical Crossings ........................................................................................... 1 French Feminism in a Transnational Frame ....................................................................... 4 Feminist Theory vs. Queer Theory: The Politics of Genealogy ..................................... 12 Chapter Outline .................................................................................................................... 18 1. French Feminism and The Problem of Essentialism.......................................................... 23 1.1 Constructing French Feminism .................................................................................... 28 1.2 French Feminism vs. Gynocriticism ............................................................................ 35 1.3 (Re)figuring the body..................................................................................................... 45 1.4 What Is A Woman? ........................................................................................................ 52 2. French Feminism and the Problem of Universalism ......................................................... 59 2.1 The Race for French Feminism ..................................................................................... 64 2.2 The “inscription and de-scription of a non-unitary female subject of color:” Ecriture Féminine’s Different Theory of Difference ........................................................ 70 2.3 “Learn[ing] to learn from them:” Heterogeneity Beyond the Same/Other Boundary ............................................................................................................................... 78 3. French Feminism and the French Women’s Liberation Movement ................................ 89 3.1 “Un système d’oppositions dichotomiques”.............................................................. 92 3.2 “Là-bas, on appelle ça French feminism” ................................................................... 98 3.3 Women’s Liberation Movement™............................................................................. 106 3.4 Writing the History of the Women’s Liberation Movement.................................. 117 4. “Vous avez dit queer?:” Queer Theory after French Feminism ...................................... 130 4.1 “Trouble dans la réception”........................................................................................ 135 ix 4.2 Lesbian Desire vs. the Regime of Heterosexuality .................................................. 146 4.3 The Trouble with Gender Trouble ............................................................................. 155 Epilogue...................................................................................................................................... 166 Biography ................................................................................................................................... 198 List of Figures Figure 1: Trademark registration, now expired. Source: INPI. .......................................... 126 Figure 2: Women from Psychépo try to take the lead of the march while holding the letters "M," "L," "F," at the October 6th 1979 demonstration to preserve the Loi Veil. Photograph: Catherine Deudon.............................................................................................. 127 Figure 3: Demonstration at the Arc de Triomphe on August 26th 1970. Carrying the wreath: : Christine Delphy. Carrying the banner to the right: Monique Wittig. Photographer unknown........................................................................................................... 128 Figure 4: Police stops the demonstration at the Arc de Triomphe on August 26th 1970. To the left of the police officer: Monique Wittig. Photograph: Catherine Deudon............... 129 x Acknowledgements I wrote this dissertation with generous financial support from the Literature Program at Duke University, the Graduate School at Duke University, and, in the last few months, Edward Costello and Mary Ann Piwowarczyk. My parents also gave me the gift of bilingualism, biculturalism, and binationalism without which this project simply could not have been. In September and October 2013 I conducted interviews in Paris that decisively shaped the direction of my work. I would like to thank all those who so generously shared their time, experiences, and intellect with me: Sylvina Boissonnas, Oristelle Bonis, Marie-Jo Bonnet, Hélène Cixous, Christine Delphy, Catherine Deudon, Geneviève Fraisse, Michèle Idels, Luce Irigaray, Brigitte Lhomond, Claire Michard, Françoise Picq, Nadja Ringart, and Suzette Robichon. Suzette also guided me through a wealth of resources in Paris, helping me identify archives of particular relevance and putting me in touch with many of the women I interviewed. At Duke, Leah Allen became a generative interlocutor; she gave me valuable comments and advice on several parts of the dissertation and I benefited from her previous experience in the program. I’m also grateful to Annabel Kim for her thoughtful engagement with and generous feedback on this project, especially its last two chapters, and for the common language. Sarah-Neel Smith probably read more drafts of this dissertation than anyone. Her ruthless editing and precious friendship sustained me, and helped bring clarity and eloquence to my work. In the last year, Marca Cassity redefined the meaning of support, enabling me to dedicate myself