Troubling the Body: A Feminist Critique of Corporeal Politics The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Neill, Emily Rider. 2019. Troubling the Body: A Feminist Critique of Corporeal Politics. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard Divinity School. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:40615597 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Troubling the Body: A Feminist Critique of Corporeal Politics A dissertation presented By Emily Rider Neill To The Faculty of Harvard Divinity School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Theology In the Subject of Religion, Gender & Culture Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts April, 2019 ! @2019 Emily Neill All rights reserved. ! ! ! Dissertation Advisor: Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza Emily Rider Neill Troubling the Body: A Feminist Critique of Corporeal Politics Abstract In the last 30 years, the category of the body has been an area of intense interest for critical inquiry, particularly for feminist theoretical approaches across the disciplines. Through the adoption of a variety of critical frameworks, feminist debates centering on the body have produced a spectrum of theoretical elaborations proposed as interventions and/or political programs to resist and dismantle oppressive structures and hegemonic thought. Taking seriously the feminist critical mandate that theories of domination are generated for the purpose of struggling against oppression, this thesis challenges the presumption that the body is a productive starting point for articulating feminist liberative goals. Attention to the theory of difference and the theory of power at work in every feminist project that centers the body is central to analyzing the capacity of its proposals to challenge structures of oppression. Through a close examination and critique of representative feminist theoretical and theological body projects and the critical frameworks they employ, I show how a concern for marginalized bodies and developing effective political strategies for redressing the mechanisms of that marginalization is ! """! ! better accomplished by specifically NOT using the body as the rubric or source for one’s theoretical and political endeavors. After taking account of the political capacities of different critical frameworks for this endeavor, I propose the structural rhetorical framework as best suited to and capable of exposing the operations of structural power and naming the dynamics of othering that produce, regulate, and enforce the content of categories of difference and their hierarchical valuations. I arguing against an understanding of critical theory as perpetually ‘advancing’ and advocate instead for the continued use of categories and modes of analysis that are best suited for addressing structural inequality. Finally, I propose that following the critical arc of body studies reveals a move away from the political in academia which is particularly evident in the trend towards ‘new materialism’, a critical framework which evidences no political commitment to the marginalized, and make a special appeal to feminist theologians to hold their and other feminist work accountable to stated political goals on behalf of marginalized persons. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! "#! ! ! ! Table of Contents Introduction 1-32 i. Critical Frameworks - An Overview 3 a. Sex/Gender Framework 3-5 b. Psychoanalytic Framework 5-10 c. Material Framework 10-12 d. Liberal Framework 12-14 e. Intersectionality 14-17 f. Structural Rhetorical 17-18 ii. The Field of Controversy 18-32 a. From Modernity to Postmodernity 22-24 b. Postmodern Theory & Feminist Theory 24-28 c. The Politics of Difference 28-30 d. The Body in Frame – Why Difference Matters 30-32 Chapter 1: Sex/Gender and the Limits of Sexuality 33-55 i. Thealogy and Goddess Spirituality 35-40 ""$!%&'"(")*!+,&-.-/"01.!23"*"45&)!-6!+,&1.-/7!! ! 89:8; iii. Eros Theologies 45-48 iv. Feminist Theological Critiques of Eros Theology 48-49 v. The Limits of Sexuality- Notes from the Sex Wars 49-53 vi. Conclusions 53-55 Chapter 2: The Limits of Sexual Difference: Psychoanalysis, Discursivity, and the Materialization of Bodies 56-117 i. Feminist Critical Theory and the Body 58-60 ii. Sexual Difference and the Male/Female Binary 60-64 iii. Materialization, Discursivity & Difference 65-67 iv. Rearticulations and Reproductions of Difference 67-69 v. A Classification of Feminist Approaches to the Body 69-75 vi. Sexual Difference as Paradigmatic Difference 75-78 vii. Morphology and Ontology - The Turn Inwards 78-81 viii. Sexual Difference = Male/Female Difference 81-85 ix. Corporeality as Politics 85-88 x. Materialization, Discourse, and Difference 88-92 xi. This Norm Called Sex: Materialization and Agency 92-97 xii. Materializing Race 97-104 xiii. Sexuality and the Trope of Desire 104-109 ! #!! xiv. The Limits of Sexuality – a Feminist Theological Critique 109-116 Chapter 3 Posthuman Bodies and the New Materialism 117-150 i. Materialism in the Posthuman Age 119-133 ii. Materialist Flesh 133-143 iii. Feminist Materialism vs. the New Materialism 143-146 iv. The Materiality of Violence 146-150 Chapter 4 The Difference Intersectionality Makes 151-184 i. Intersectional Analysis as Structural Analysis 151-158 ii. Intersectional Adaptations 158-163 iii. Black Feminism and the Black Body 163-167 iv. Abortion Rights vs. Reproductive Justice 167-175 v. The Intersectional Body in Theological Context 175-184 Conclusion 185-188 Bibliography 189-203 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! #"! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Acknowledgements ! ! Anyone who has been a part of my life over the last 20 years knows that this dissertation has represented something unattainable to me for inexplicable reasons. Outside of the ostensible ‘life’ reasons why I let it go in the first place, there was some other force holding me back, a force within me, not outside of me. To have faced this block, to have moved through it and overcome it, is more meaningful for me than simply having finally ‘written it up’. But I was not able to face it, push through to the other side, and look back on it alone. There were people along the way who served as guideposts, buoys, cheerleaders, and steady hands. First and foremost there was my advisor, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, who was willing always to say, “yes, let’s go for it, I will be your shepherd.” Why she believed in me for so long when I gave her no reason to must have something to do with her feminist theology – and I could never thank her enough for her patience, her support, and her openness despite my kicking and resistance which never had anything to do with her, but which she let me work out in my own time. My second Elizabeth, Elizabeth Wood, who shepherded me through the MIT side of things with her generosity of spirit, breadth and openness of intellect, and unflagging enthusiasm for my journey through this process, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. And for my ‘third’, Cornel West, who despite probably not remembering me given the amount of time that had passed since I was at HDS taking classes, accepted my plea to ‘help an old lady get her credentials’ from amongst what must be a daily sea of asks for his time and attention. Knowing the nature of your mind and intellect – its inherent interdisciplinarity, it’s flexibility, its breadth -I knew you would ‘get’ my project, and you really showed up for me. Thank you so much. They say timing is everything in life and the fact that I ended up as the Program Manager of the Women’s and Gender Studies program at MIT in my 40s was perhaps the most fortuitous transition in my adult life. For the feminist scholars I found myself surrounded by who gently coaxed my story out of me and then insisted, in a positive way, that I ‘get that credential!’ I have many levels of gratitude. For that first lightning bolt of energy, I thank JJ Jackson who, though she did not know me well at the time, assumed an immediate mentor-esque authority in response to my story and quietly told me ‘you’re going to finish that project, there is no doubt that you are going to finish it, because you have to’. Something about the way she said it made me believe her enough to inquire whether it was even possible. After I was assured it was possible by Kathryn Kunkel, the doctoral Program Administrator to whom I also owe an enormous debt of gratitude for her enthusiasm, patience, and non-judgment, a path opened up. Then it was Helen Lee’s turn to help me along. My faculty director in WGS both encouraged me and gave me the freedom, time and space to complete the reading and writing I needed to do. Even more so in this regard my Program Assistant, Sophia Hasenfus, took up all the slack I ! #""! ! left when my mind, body, and attention were elsewhere. For that, and for the gracious way she never made me feel like I was failing, lapsing in my duties, or not able to complete my task, I don’t think I could ever repay her. For the writing community I formed at MIT, perhaps better characterized as a virtual group of co-strugglers who helped me feel I was never totally alone, I owe my sanity. My own thesis students – Avi Bauer, Emily Thai, and Lorraine Wong who took advice I was not taking myself and quietly reflected back to me how to steadily plod along, how to finish. To our visiting pre-doctoral fellow, Misty De Barry, who taught me how to take care of myself AND write. To my amazing cohort of smart, warm, and encouraging colleagues – Amah Edoh (the kindest, humblest, and steadiest of friends), Abha Sur (the BEST hugger), Kimberly Juanita Brown (with her brilliant energy and wit), and Kishonnah Gray (with her infectious enthusiasm, acceptance, warmth and spirit).