ISSN:17056411

Volume14,Number1(May2017)

RereadingAkermanThroughBaudrillard:OntheSubjectofFeminist
Representation

IngridM.Hoofd(DepartmentofMediaandCultureUtrechtUniversity,the
Netherlands)

Itisnolongerworthwhiletomakearadicalcritiqueof
theorderofrepresentationinthenameofproductionand
itsrevolutionaryformula.Thesetwoordersareinseparable.
(JeanBaudrillard,2001:21)

IfJeannehas,symbolically,destroyedthephallus,
itsorderstillremainsvisibleallaroundher.
(JanetBergstrom,1977:116)

Bythelooksofit,thelastdecadeindicatesanapparentgridlockorpuzzlementin

alotoffeministactivismandthought.Variousfeministsentimentsseemtobe

shuttlingbetweenwearinessandnostalgiafortheallegedlyverypoliticalsecond
waveontheonehand,andanenergizedandperhapsstubbornlyoptimistic

attituderegardingthecontinuedvirtueoffeministanalysisandpracticeonthe

other.1Intriguingly,thisambivalentstateofaffairsisaccompaniedbyan
increasingfeministfascinationwithorcompulsionfordoingpoliticsbywayof

mediatechnologiesregardlessofwhetherthisconcernsfeministactivismorthe
productionoffeministtheory.Butfarfromthemediabeingameretoolfor

feminism,Isuggestthattheadventofnewmediatechnologydramaticallyalters

themechanicsandhencepoliticsofrepresentationnotonlyinrelationtotruly

newermediaformsliketheinternet,butalsowithaneyeonsocalledolder

medialiketelevision,film,andphotography.IfurthermoreargueinlinewithJean

Baudrillardsideasaroundsimulationthatthisdramaticalterationofthe

mechanicsofpoliticalpracticesisduetotheubiquitousdigitalizationand

interconnectionofallmediaformsintoalargereconomicimperative,whichinturn

givesrisetoanentirelydifferentstatusoftheimageincontemporaryculture.We

canseethischangedstatusoftheimageimmediatelyinthewaysnewmedia

seemtocomplicatefeministrepresentationalpolitics.Traditionalfeministcritiques
ofmediarepresentation,aimingforsubvertingpatriarchalideology,mainly

targetedthereproductionofculturallyspecificsexistimageryandtherepetitionof

genderstereotypesperpetuatedthroughthemassmedialiketelevisionorpopular

magazines.2Intandemwithsuchinsightfulfeministcritiques,feministcounter

representationalpracticesadvocatedtheproductionanddisseminationofimagery

thatwasmoreegalitarian,orthatreversedstereotypicalgenderroles.3Withthe

adventofnewmediaspaceslikeonlinesocialnetworkshowever,theeventual

subvertingeffectsofrepeatedsexistrepresentationversusfeministmodesand

critiquesofrepresentationinsideandoutsidesuchspheresarenolonger

immediatelyclear,orevenexceedinglyunclear.Thisisbecausethesheer
ubiquityofmediaimagerycombinedwiththeaestheticsofnarrowcasting

interactivitythatespeciallynewmediaallowforresultsinasituationinwhichany
imagecanbetargetedatitsspecificaudiencewhileobscuringotherimagesfor

thisaudience.Intermsofmediacontentthen,audienceswillmerelyseewhat
theywanttosee,andfeministimagerytendstomerelypreachtotheconverted.

TechnohappypunditslikePeterDahlgrenandJeffreyJurishavehailedthisnew
situationasademocratizationofthemedia,inwhichmarginalizedaudiences

cannowpartakeintheproductionandconsumptionoftheirownimagery.Butas
somefeministscholarshiphasalsonoted,whilenewmediaonthesurfaceindeed

seemtoallowforademocratizationofsubversivevisvisdominant
representationastheymakepossibletheabundantdisseminationand

consumptionoffeministandgenderequalimagery,theissueofsuchimagerys
subversiveeffectsvisvispatriarchyappearsnonethelessmuchmorecomplex

anddifficulttoachieve.4Theadventofnewmediatechnologiesthereforerequires
arethinkingoffeministsubversivestrategiesaroundsexistmediarepresentation

anditsrelationtothecritiqueofdominantpatriarchalideologiesand
arrangements.Whatismore,sucharethinkingmayshowthatthiscomplexity

aroundmediarepresentationisindicativeofalargerproblemconcerningthework
ofpoliticsassuch,astheveryideaofthepossibilityofauthenticrepresentationis

alreadyinacertainwayfundamentaltothecurrentpoliticalorder.Ihencesuggest
thatduetoacurrentdeficiencyordisinclinationtowardsproperlygraspingthis

aggravatedcomplexityaroundrepresentationinsuchfeministtheory,both
aforementionedpopularfeministresponsesnostalgiaorblindoptimism
remaininsufficientinlightoftheongoingfeminizationofpovertyandothersuch

perilsoftechnocraticglobalization.Atissueisnamelythatalotoffeministmedia
theory(still)treatsmediarepresentationasrepresentativeofanobjectivereality

asifthepoliticsofvisibilityandunveilingthroughmediarepresentationis
directlyandpositivelyengagingwiththesocialfieldsandactorswhichitseemsto

signifyaposteriori.Manyfoundationalstudenthandbookswithinacademic
womensorgenderstudies,likeforinstanceRosemarieBuikemaandAnneke
SmeliksexcellentandwidelyusedWomensstudiesandculture:afeminist

introduction,indeedworkwiththisassumption.Thisfundamentalassumptionof
therelationbetweenrepresentationandrealityofcoursemakessenseintermsof

feministtheoryandactivismingeneralrelyingonanemancipatoryidealthat
suggestsapoliticsoffeminineorfemalerepresentationisproperlysubversiveof

thepatriarchalsocialorder.However,thisarticlesuggestthatobjectivesocial
powertodayhaslargelyvacatedtherealmofmediarepresentationintermsof

merecontent,orinanycasethatsuchcontenthasbecomeentirelysecondary.
Rather,thepoliticalsumtotalofmassandonlineimagerymaytodayhavemore

todowiththenewmediaformanditsrelatedsocialculturallogicthanitsactual
contentsuggestingthatweshouldstartreadingmediacontentasnotonlyan

echobutalsoasymptomofitsformandthelargeroppressiveandexclusionary
socialrelationsthisforminhabits.LikeforinstanceMirandaJosephsAgainstthe

RomanceofCommunitythen,Iholdthatthefeministemancipatoryprojectneeds
toundertakeacriticalengagementwithcapitalistproduction(2002:31)by

lookingafreshathowtheentiresymbolicorder(Ibid.,41)hasbecomecomplicit
withcurrentdisenfranchisementsalsoalonglinesofgenderandsexuality.I

suggestthatChantalAkermansJeanneDielman,23QuaiduCommerce,1080

Bruxellespresentsuswithanexcellentforeshadowingoftheaccelerated

complicityoffeministrepresentationswiththenewtechnoeconomicorder,which
Iprovisionallycallspeedelitist.

Whathencebecomescrucialtoanewfeministpoliticsofrepresentationistoread
anewthecontentofcertainoldandnewmediainconjunctionwiththenewpost

colonialandglobalizedmodeofacceleratedeconomicalproductionofwhichthe

newmediaformshouldbetakenasthemaininstrumentandexponent.Thecrisis

infeministtheoriesaroundmediarepresentationisthereforealsoindicativeofthe
largerimpasseorcrisisinfeministandliberalhumanistthoughtassuch.Thisis

becausesuchfeminismsinabilitytoeffectuatesubversionhastodowithitslarger

assumptionsaroundthenatureofsocialrealityandemancipationofwhichthe
ideaofrepresentationisconstitutive,inparticularinrelationtotheroleofthe

subjectofemancipationasifthesubjectcanauthenticallyrepresenthimor

herselfatall.BasingthisthesislargelyontheworkofBaudrillardtoinvestigate

theseassumptionsaroundthefeministsubjectandtheirpossiblealternatives,I
thenclaimthatmuchcontemporaryfeministtheoryhasfinallyfailedtoraisethe

stakesunderspeedelitismaconditionoftheongoingandaccelerated

transmutationofsignsascapitalthathasbecometheprimaryideologicaland
materialnexusunderneoliberalacceleration.ThisthesisagreespartlywithJodi

DeansargumentinCommunicativeCapitalismthatconsumertechnologieshave

usurpedpoliticalactivity,butdisagreesonthepointthatthisentailsade

politicizationinstead,Iholdthatdoingpoliticsandbeingpoliticalareinfact
essentialtotechnologicalacceleration.Asthehightechexponentof

Eurocentrismandthehumanistutopianamely,speedelitismisthatstateofaffairs

thatfostersanoppressivesortofunityofstrugglesthroughthefantasyofallowing

forradicaldifferenceandmultiplicityinthesphereofmediaandpolitical
representationinwhichthepoliticallyactivesubjectsupposedlycoincideswithher

sociotechnicallyassignedidentity.Theproblemwithanycontemporaryfeminist

politicsofidentityandvisibilityisthenthatthisapparentfreedomofexpression

andsignificationinshort,thesubjectivefreedomtocommunicatethat
especiallynewmediaallowfor,ismistakenforactualemancipation.Butinstead

ofemancipating,sexistaswellasfeministimagesbecomeallequallycomplicitin

theviolenceofspeedelitism.Thecirculationofimagesseekstorenderallforms

ofradicalalteritytransparenttothehumanistcapitalistlogicoftheaccelerated
circulation,whichsimplyrequirestheactiveparticipationbythefeministsubject.

Ineffecttherefore,feministsubjectivityisturnedintooneamongthemanyimage

objectswithintherealmofmediarepresentation.

Baudrillardexplicatesthisimplosionofoldidealsofemancipationand

representationintocapitalcirculationespeciallyinTheSystemofObjects,where
hearguesthatatissueisnolongersimply(patriarchal)representationor(sexist)

content,butanentirepoliticaleconomybuiltonapatriarchalmodelingofthe
semioticeconomicsphere.Thisspheretodaycruciallyreliesonthereproduction
oftheidealsofidentity,representation,visibility,andvoice.Theabundant

circulationofrealisticallygenderedimageshencecreatesanappealtophantom

collectiveslikewomenorfeminists,whileinactualfactthosecollectivesare

radicallyabsentfromthesocial(ifwecanspeakofasocialatall.)Itisforthis
reasonthatBaudrillardstressesinRadicalAlteritythatweshouldspeakhereofa

compulsiontoasocialitywhichisemphaticallynolongersociety(2008:43).'

Whatismore,thegeneralnostalgiaforidentityanditspoliticalattemptsto

unearthitortomakeitspeak,arethemainmechanismsforthefragmentation
andindividualizationofpersonsunderthiseconomy.Thissituationofwhat

Baudrillardfamouslycallssimulationageneralenmeshmentofthefakewith

therealthereforeentails,heclaimsinTheImplosionofMeaningintheMedia,

arecyclinginthenegativeofthetraditionalinstitution(1994:80).'The
insidiousnessofsuchasystemresidesinthewayitobliges,preciselyintheway

JosephalsooutlinesinAgainsttheRomanceinrelationtoqueeractivism,the

productionofpoliticalcontentbasedonanillusionofradicalcollectiveidentity
anddesire.Intermsoftheproductionoffeministresponsibility,thisobligationin

turnalsotranslatesitselfintoacalltosetupfeministcontentoverandagainst

sexistcontentsoastoindeedplaythe...liberatingclaimofsubjecthood

(2002:85).'Baudrillardherepositsthatoldwaysofsocialandpoliticalmobilization
arenowadayscaughtinaphallicfunctionalismwhichhassupplantedorcomeon

topofphallicsymbolism.Suchphallicfunctionalismcaneffectivelybeunderstood

asamechanizedabstractionofthissymbolism,entailinginadditionthe

mechanizationofbinaryoppositionsandfalsedifferencesforthesolepurposes
oftechnologicalacceleration.Undersuchnewconditions,saysBaudrillardinThe

SystemofObjects,themediasrepresentativecontentnowsimplyappearsasthis

formsallegory(1996:60).Thissymbolicrealmorrealmofsexistrepresentation

constitutesmoreoverapropersimulacrumofpowerduetothefactthatit
simulates(sublimates)anddissimulates(concealsandrendersindecipherable)

thetruemechanismofpower(Ibid.,60).Themediaformhencefunctionsasa

camouflagebywayofwhichlonglosttraditionalvaluesreappearassigns
(Ibid.,62)'inordertomakeupforthesymbolicvoidof[phallic]power(Ibid.,54).'
Suchanassessmentoftheimportofthemediaform,andofhowitobscuresthe

violentconditionsofproduction,isalsothemainargumentofAlexGallowaysAre

SomeThingsUnrepresentable?Gallowaynotesunderthecontemporarycontrol
regimethatanyvisualizationisfirstandforemostavisualizationofthe[medias]

conversionrulesthemselves(2012:88)".Ifnotpickedupon,visualizationleadsto

aformofblindnesstowardsthetechnicalapparatusaswellastothecurrent

modeofproduction(Ibid.,95).Itbecomesthereforeimportant,saysGallowayin
thesameveinasBaudrillard,toreadtheimageasanallegoryforamapofa

systemoftremendouscapitalistandphallicpower(Ibid.,99).ButwhileGalloway

rightlycritiquestheroleofsimulationinthisnewcontrolregime,healsoperforms

thehumanistdutytorepresentthegivens(Ibid.,87)moreaccurately.Speed

elitism,Icontend,israthertheepitomeofthegeneraldisplacementand

simulationoftheidealsofhumanistandliberalrepresentationduetothe
accelerationofthepoliticalbynewmediatechnologiestowhichmuchfeminism

alsosubscribes.Thewaysinwhichspeedelitismcurrentlyineffectuates

traditionalfeministpoliticsshouldthereforebetakenasfeminismsprimaryand

moreurgentobjectofanalysisaswellasbeunderstoodasthenewconditionof

possibilityforfeministpoliticsandtheoryitself.Inordertofullygraspthe

complexityandtheenormityofthetaskathandforfeministtheoryunderthese

newconditions,Iwillattempttofurtherillustrateandrethinktheconundrumsand
possiblenewavenuesaroundtheissueoffemaleandfeministrepresentationby

wayofrereadingsomepuzzlingfeministactivitiesandtextspuzzlinginterms

ofthesetextsoractivitiesstatusasproperlyfeministthroughsomeofthis

supposedlyantifeministworkofBaudrillard.MyanalysisusesBaudrillardforthis

purposebecausehisideasgelwellwiththisarticlesthesisonspeedelitism,and

alsobecausehisworkmayhelppointbeyondtherealmofcertainsolidified

feministassumptionsregardingemancipatorysocialchangeandtheroleofthe

feministsubjectinsuchchange.Inparticular,Baudrillardsworkmayilluminate
thatthesetextsambiguityintermsoftheirstatus(orindeed,image)asfeminist,

isduetohowthesetextsinhabitacomplicityinspeedelitismbyvirtueoftheir

feminismbeingusurpedormobilizedaspartofthatphallicfunctionalisminherent

inthenewmediaform.Thisconcernwiththemediaformorfunctionalitywithin

globalcapitalismisindeedcentraltoBaudrillardsentireoeuvre.InTheEcstasy

ofCommunication,Baudrillardforinstanceclaimsaclaimthatusefullyoffends
anyoptimistictheoryofcommunicativeactionthatnewmediasimplystage

(feminist)politicsandgivetheappearanceofanewpublicsphereinwhich

debatehappens,sothatwhoeverseekstoemancipateoneselfbymediated

visibilitysubmitstotheobscenityofwhatnolongerhasanysecret(1983:131)."

InSeductionBaudrillardsmoredirectengagementwithfeministconcernsthat,

asIoutlineintheintroductiontothisspecialsection,manyhaveinterpretedas

antifeministhelikensthisnewviolenceoftheimagetopornography'(1990:6).
Cruciallythough,hedescribesthisasaformofpornographythatreliesmoreona

subjectificationthananobjectificationorrather,thatrendersthesubjectintoan

objectbytechnologicallyandsymbolicallyconflatingitwithitsrepresentation.

Followingthislineofthought,BaudrillardnotesinRadicalAlteritythatthisturning

ofthesubjectintoanobjectsubjectbywayofmediarepresentationhasbecome

especiallytotalizingwiththeadventofnewmediatechnologies,inwhichthe

problem[now]lieswiththesupremacyofthecodewhichmakesuscommunicate

andistherebeforeeverything(2008:4243).'Thiscontemporarysupremacyofthe

coderendersallvisiblealterityrelativetoitssystemofrepresentation,tothe

extentthatwedonotevenknowwhetherattheothersideofthecodethereis
anyOthertobefoundatallanymore(Ibid.,43).Inshort

,forBaudrillardtheviolenceofthemediaresidesintheirabilitytoturnradical
alterityintorelativealterityintheserviceofmediatedcapitalism.Butwhatismore,

healsohintsthatthewiderissueoftheemancipatoryquesttoidentifyalterityas

radicalmaybeaproblemassuch.Theidea(andidentificationof)radicalalterity,

likethesupposedlydistinctdifferenceoffeminismfrompatriarchy,alsofunctions

asafantasythatupholdstheeconomyofspeed.Ihenceequallyholdthat

feminismandgenderhavebecomesomeofthemanytrulyfloatingsignifiers

(touseanoldtermfromStuartHall)thathavebecomeperverselyenmeshedwith

suchends.Itisinthissensethattheaforementionednostalgiaforthesecond
wave,aswellastheenergeticengagementwithnewtechnologies,actually

complementeachotherunderspeedelitism.Thisisbecausesuchnostalgiais

reallyaneffectofnewmediaarrangementsandthemirageofsomeuntainted

previousfeministpolitics,inturnleadingtothereenactmentofthepromiseof

feministemancipationbygraspingatanimageoftruedebateordissent.Intying
theideaofspeedelitismtogetherwithBaudrillardstheoryonsignificationas

circulation,Iclaimthatthecontemporarysituationmarksapartialshiftawayfrom
theWesttotheformationofanewglobalelitewhichisnolongerexclusively

masculineormale,butwhichinsteadbuildspreciselyonthephallicformalization

ofthesupposedrealpoliticaldifferencebetweensexismandfeminism.

Contemporarytechnomediatedconditionstiethesubjectoffeminist

representation,aswellastheactivecritiqueofsexistrepresentation,intimatelyto

anincreasinglydisenfranchisingaccelerationofcapitalinwhichsuchdifferences

areconsumedasiftheyaremeaningfulandsubversive.Insum,thismeansagain
thatthegeneralliberalquestforrepresentation(whetherinpoliticsorinthe

media)bywayofitsactivesubjecthasitselfpreciselybecomecomplicitinspeed

elitism.Baudrillardsdesignationofthepornographyofmediarepresentation

thereforedoestwousefulthingsforfeminists:itallieshisworkwiththehistoryof

feministconcernsandcritiquesofsexistrepresentation,butsimultaneously

thwartsthetraditionalfeministobjectionwithsexiststereotypingasobsessing

overthewrongobject,namelyoveranillusorysurface.Buildingapoliticsonthe

latterthatis,treatingthesurfaceastherealandonlyspaceofvoicemakes
feminismcomplicitinthatcontemporarypornographyitseekstoobjectto.One

candistinguishaparallelheretohowBaudrillardhimself,asthisarticlewill

illustratelateron,appearsonthesurfaceassexistyetonadeeperlevelas

feministorviceversadepthandsurfaceindeedbecomeindistinguishable.

***

Letmeatthisstageturntothefirstfeministpuzzlementtoreread.Agood

exampleofhowthemediaaremakingsubjectsobscenelyvisible,andhowthis

maybeimplicatedinformsofgenderedandracedviolencethatseeksto

subjugateeveryonetothelargelybutnotexclusivelymasculinistandEurocentric

logicofacceleratedcapitalism,providestherecentoverexposureinespecially

manyWesternmediaoutletsliketelevisionandnewsarticlesofMuslimwomen

whowearfacecoveringveils.Thispervasiveimageryofburqa,boshiya,orniqab
donningwomenbywayofcloseupphotographyandvideothedominantglobal

mediaspheregoeshandinhandwithaseveredemonizationofIslamasa

backwardreligionfromwhichwomenmustbesavedafineinstantofGayatri
SpivaksaptdefinitioninCantheSubalternSpeak?ofthedesireofwhitemen

(andwomen)tryingtosavebrownwomenfrombrownmenunderpost

colonialism(1988:31).Indeed,thefemaleMuslimsubjectisliterally(namelyby

forceoflaw,likerecentlyinBelgiumandFrance)aswellasinthemediaforcedto
unveilherselfandbecomeanallegedlyemancipatedsubject,recognizable

beforethelaw(facilitatingrecognitionwasexactlytheargumentputforwardby

Belgiandecisionmakers).OneanonymousonlineGuardianreaderfittingly

translatedtheBelgiangovernmentsintentionsbystressingthatvisibilityasopen

interactionbetweenpeopleispartofaliberalsociety.(italicsmine)JohnPhillips,

inhisinterviewwithSamuelWeber,likewisesuggeststhatthesecretfunctionof

transparencytodaymaylieinthewaysinwhichitseekstoenactthepromiseof
totalilluminationandunderstandabilitythatemergedoutoftheChristianand

liberaltraditions,wherethemediathusexhausttheexistenceofthatwhat[they]

neverthelessallowtoappear(2012:161).'Thisshowshowthefantasyof

transparentcommunicationgroundstheargumentforWestern(neo)liberalismas

amorallysuperiorformofcultural,social,andeconomicalorganization,whichin

turnworkstolegitimizetheliberalrationalityofforinstancesurveillance

technologieslikefacerecognitionmachinesatairports.Italsoshowcasesthe

obsessionwithunveilingandtransparencyunderspeedelitistconditionsassuch,
whichWeberandPhillipsalsoidentify.

Thiswhitesaviormentality,whetherfeministorpostcolonialist,aroundthe
headscarfissueisofcourseostensiblyhypocritical.Afterall,wheneverwere

Catholicnunsormourningwidowsprohibitedfromwearingheadscarvesandveils

intheWest?Thismaypossiblyleadonetothinkthatthefeministattemptat

counterrallyingthroughthemassandnewmediaforwearingtheveilmay

overcomethispornographicandpostcoloniallogicofobscenelyturningtheother

intoanemancipatedsubject.ButIarguethatthefeministproheadscarfpoliticsin

themediaresultedinexactlythesamethatofusurpingalterityintomediated

phallicacceleration,whichisjustasmuchpatriarchalandracist.Thisisbecause
thestatementthatwearingtheveilisinfactrepresentativeoftheveilwearers

trueoressentialdeepdesirealsoimplicatesitselfinrenderingtransparentthe

supposedrealityofsuchafeministaspirationandidentity.Sothereisno

analyticalhighgroundforfeminismtobehadthereeither.Thereallyurgent
feministquestionwouldratherbetograsphowitispossiblethatthesetwo

seeminglyantitheticaloroppositionalstandpointsaroundveilingare

representableinthemediaasequallytrue.InlinewithBaudrillardsthesis

outlinedabove,Iwouldarguethatinthiscasethedifferenceinopinionbetween

proandantiheadscarfprotestershasbecomeexactlyanodeforthe

accelerationofinformationflows,andthereforeoperatesasafalse,stagedor
relativedifferenceintheserviceofspeedelitism.Thestanceofthedefiantly

headscarfwearingwomenintheWesternmediawasthatitwastheirindividual

righttotheirculturaldifferencetheirdifferenceandculturewasthusmade

understandablethroughtheimplicituniversalizationofaprofoundlyhumanistand

liberalrhetoric,andassuchannexedandshowcasedthroughthemassand

especiallynewmedia.Thisrepetitionofhumanismfurthermorecorroboratedwith

thelogicofspeedelitismthroughtheextensiveuseofcommunication
technologiesbythesewomensnonMuslimalliestoconnectwiththoseimagined

tobeEuropesradicalothersfromwhichasupposedlytransparentsubversive

voiceorrepresentationemerged.Thisillustratesthatthespeedelitistdesireto

makeeverythingspeak,becomevisible,andcommunicate,paradoxicallyresults

intheactualsubalternnotbeingabletospeak,touseoncemoreSpivaks

phrasing:thenonMuslim(whiteEuropean)alliesoftheproheadscarfMuslim

womenpursuedanarguablyselfinterestedpoliticsrevolvingaroundanarcissistic

imageoftheirownauthenticradicalitynodoubtrelatedtotheirownspeed
elitistupwardmobilityasactivistintellectualsthatisasproblematicasthoseof

whiterightwingpoliticiansclaimtosavingthesewomen.Sowhiletheantiveiling

argumentechoesdirectlythepornographiclogicoftheoverexposureof(and

subsequentfeministobsessionover)theveilingissue,theproveilingargument

simplyfunctionsastheillusorycounterimagewhileleavingtheformalandphallic

logicofunveilingintact.Whatismore,thetermfeminismitselfherebecomesthe

floatingsignifierthatallowsitsexpedientmobilizationbythetwoseemingly
oppositionalgroupsasiftheyarefosteringtrueliberation.Butwhatthisexample

finallyshowsisthatfeminismcollapsesintoitselfandbecomescontradictorythe

momentitseekstofinalizeitstruthclaimsaroundtheemancipatorymobilization

ofrepresentationandvisibility.
Aproposthesubject,andhencealsoinregardstothesubjectoftheheadscarf,

thereexistsofcoursetheargumentinpoststructuralistfeministphilosophythat

thereisanaspectofbecomingtofeministsubjectivitylikeforinstanceinthe

workofRosiBraidottiorElizabethGroszthatcannotbecapturedbyanymode

ofrepresentationor,indeed,analyticalinterpretationliketheonesIhaveoffered

above.Butsuchfeministphilosophiesoftenstilltendtoremobilizethisaspectof

subjectivityoncemoreforfeministpoliticalends,andassuchstillfallinthetrap

oftransformingradicalalterityintorelativealterityintheserviceofspeedelitism

exactlyduetostayingloyaltotheiraporeticfeministresponsibility.5Moreover,my

interpretationmightindeedworkitselfjustasmuchinconcordancewiththe
obscenelogicofunveilingunderspeedelitismafterall,thisarticlejustasmuch

performsthehumanistliberallogicthatgroundsfeminismaswellbyaspiringto

shedlightonthefeministpuzzlement.Wherethenisanalternativeornewlocus

ofradicalalteritytobefound,ifnotintheactivepoliticalengagementbywayof(a

critiqueof)mediacontentorevenofitsform?What,inshort,escapesthelogicof

speedtoday?Paradoxically,theallegedlymostantifeministworkofBaudrillard
mayinfactprovidemorecluesinlightofthisconundrumwithoutclaimingtosolve

theimpasseandstraightforwardlyreinstatetheoldideaofrepresentativepolitics.
InBaudrillardsSeductiontheoneworkalsothatdealsmoreexplicitlywith

feministissuesthetermseductionappearstheimageofakindofradical
alteritythattheproductivisttechnologic,orwhatthisarticlehasnamedthe

speedelitistorder,triestodestroy,erase,orannex.Baudrillardarguesherethat
seductioncanneverbedemolishedbyourorderofacceleratedproduction,since
seductionisabsolutelyimmanenttoproduction.Takenasadescriptive

indictment,thegeneralargumenthereisthatthemoreanordertriesto
mechanicallystrengthenitspower,themorethatorderbecomesunstable.Thisis

duetothefactthatpowerisalwaysillegitimateandgroundedondeception,so
thatanymechanizationofitsdeceptiveimagerywillresultinexposingallits

imageryasdeception.Baudrillardnamesthisincreaseinpowersendemic
instabilityduetothetechnologicalideationalattemptatstrengtheningit,andthe
collapseofpowerthatthisincreaseforeshadows,thereversibilitythatisalways

intrinsictopower.Powerwhetheritispatriarchyorcapitalismcantherefore
neverfinalizeitsauthority,becauseof(its)seductiontheirmastersignifiersare

alwaysthreatenedbythefundamentalabyssthatunderliesthebasicplayof
signs.ItisforthisreasonthatBaudrillardholdsthateverydiscourseisthreatened

withthissuddenreversibility(1990:2).'Onecouldsaythattheimageofradical
alterityseducesthesubjectofemancipationtowardsastrayingfromherinitial

goal,asintheheadscarfexample.

Pickingupontheideaofseductionasasupposedidealconceptforfeminism,is
ofcoursecontentious.Thiscontroversyliesintwoissueswhichareprecisely

relatedtotheundecidabilitybetweensubjectandobject,andwhichsegueinto
theproblemoffemininityasadeeporauthenticpropertyofactualwomen,and
femininityassuperficialsexistrepresentation.Claimingthatseductionand

femininityareconfounded(1990:2),'Baudrillardproblematicallyseemstoequate
femininitywithabsenceandinstability,andromanticizesthefeminineasmore

powerfulthanthemasculine.ButIsuggestthattheaimofBaudrillardsfor
traditionalfeministspreposteroussuggestionispreciselytorendergender,sexual

identityandmasculinesuperiorityevenmoresuperficialbydoublingitinother
words,toshowthatgenderexistsonlyatthesurfacelevelofappearances,asif

womanisamereobjectandmanatruesubject.Baudrillardcontinueswithsuch
paradoxicalclaimsinhismuchlaterPasswordswhenheinitiallysaysthatfrom
hisstandpoint,whatwasatissuewasnolongersexualliberation,whichseemed

tomeintheendquiteanaiveprojectsinceitwasbasedonvalueandsexual
identity,(2003:22)butwherehesimultaneouslyclaimsthathistorically,women

hadaprivilegedpositioninthefieldofseduction(Ibid.,23),whichtruthwould
leadonetocelebratefemininityasifitwasmorepowerful.Hisclaimisthenitself

exposedassimulation:itisaslegitimateandasludicrousaspatriarchaldiscourse
itself,sinceitundecidedlyshuttlesbetweenextremeromanticstereotypeandtotal
effacementofthevicissitudesofpatriarchy.Iwouldclaimthatthisseemingly

deliberateconfusionthatBaudrillardmountsbetweensexismanditsdenial,and
hencebetweenrepresentationandrealityassuch,isitselfagain(causedby)

seductionBaudrillardtheauthorsubjecthimselfbecomestheverysiteofthe
instabilityofthepatriarchalperformance,andhenceturnsintothatordersobject.

Seductionishencepreciselyrealandfakeaquixoticimageindeed.Ifwe
transferthislogictothefeministperformance,thislikewisemeansthatthe
feministsubjectjustasmuchcannotenactanalternativepoliticsbywayof

agentivebattlesanymore,andthatthepossibilityofsubversionnolongerexists
ontheplaneofthesubjectsrepresentationaldesireorpolitics.Rather,itis
alreadytheseductiveradicalalterityinsidethefundamentallyaporeticideaof
subjectiveemancipationassuch,alwaysalreadyescapingthelogicofproduction,

liberation,explanation,andrepresentation,thatwillseducethepatriarchaland
feministsubjectintoanalternativelogicawayfromapoliticsofvisibilityand

representation.Thefeministbattlearoundrepresentationshouldorcanthenno
longerrunthroughadvocatingtheproductionanddisseminationofcounter

imageryorthroughgivingvoice,butthroughcomplicatingthisoldlogicby
levelingup.Thiswouldentailfirstly,exposinghowsuchfeministcontentisan
allegoryofthiscontemporaryphallicform(asGallowaydoeswithdata

visualizations),butsecondly,bylettingthecontentreadingofthesupposedly
objectiverealityofpatriarchycrumbleunderitsowncontradictionsliketheone

betweenfeminismanditscomplicityinpatriarchyassuch,andtheresultant
extremeinstabilityofthissupposedlydominantphallicorderunderspeedelitism.

ItisthisstrategyofapparentselfannihilationthatBaudrillarddesignatesasfatal
becauseitexposesitsprimaryassumptionofthesubjective(feminist)strategyas
alreadyfatallywounded.

Allowmethentoprovideamoreextensivesecondillustrationofthewayinwhich
apurportedlyfeministtextturnsuponandcavesintoitself,andhowthis
crumblingpointstowardsthespeedelitistconditionanditsprofoundinstability.An

excellentexampleofaworkthatcanberereadintheabovefashion,isthe
brilliantfeminist1975ChantalAkermanfilmJeanneDielman,23Quaidu

Commerce,1080Bruxelles.Liketheheadscarfissuemorerecently,Jeanne
Dielmanisagoodexamplebecauseitprovidedasimilarlyelusiveobjectfor

feministscholarswhowereanalyzingthepotentialsandconundrumsaroundthe
useorefficacyoffeministrepresentationalpractices,alsoalreadyduringthat
supposedlyverypoliticalsecondwaveofthe1970s.Filmcriticsandanalysts

haveoverthelastdecadesgenerallyeitherreadthisfilmasafeministworkin
termsofitscontent,orasanexperimentalfilmaboutfilmtechnologybutnever

havethesetworeadingsconvergedintoalargerargumentaboutsimulation.
Interestinglyalsoisthatcertainsupposedlydeepreadingsespecially

psychologicalorpsychoanalyticalreadingsofthefilmscharactersandthe
femaleaudienceinfeministanalysesofthefilm,haveinfactservedtonaturalize
thefalsedistinctionbetweenandprocessionfromrealityandorto
representation.Theyhavealsodissimulatedthewaysinwhichthefilmmakesa

strongstatementaboutthespeedelitistconditionsunderwhichitwasproduced
andthewaysinwhichfeminismisimplicatedinthis.JanetBergstromand
ConstancePenleyremarkforinstanceinTheAvantGardethatJeanneDielman

isfeministdespitethemixofnarrativeandnonnarrativeelementsbecauseitis
aboutawomanfromawomanspointofview(1985:298).'InIntheNameof

FeministFilmCriticism,RubyRichseekstodesperatelyclearalldoubtthat
JeanneDielmanisfeministatallbyclaimingthatthefilmisconsciouslyfeminist

becauseitexhibitsafemaleorderingofthe[diegetic]space(1990:273,italics
mine).'Butthesupposedselfevidenceofthefilmsfeministimpetusisonlya
productofsurfaceappearancesinwhichtheunusualrepresentationoffemininity

andfemalehousework,togetherwithahealthydoseoffeministdirectorship,is
mistakenforthepossibilityorveracityoffeministsocialchange.Whatismore,

Richsnostalgiaforproperlyfeminist1970sfilmdisplayspreciselythatnostalgia
forthesecondwavethatcoversoverthefundamentalaporiathatmarksfeminism

eversinceithasgroundeditselfontheideasandtechnologiesofemancipation.
Thisambiguityorundecidabilityofthefilmsfeminismappearsalreadyintwo
seeminglydiametricallyoppositeinterpretationsofJeanneDielmanbyJayne

LoaderandClaireJohnstonwhileJohnstonmaintainsthatthefilmisfeminist
becauseitmakesvisibledomestictaskswhichareusuallyelidedinmoviesand

alsobecauseJeannesmurderofherthirdclientsignifiestheabolitionofthe
phalluswhichopenstoadifferentsymbolicorder(1976:59),'Loaderinstead

lamentsthatthemurderattheendmakesthefilmpatriarchaldespitethe
allegedlyfeministdepictionofhousewifery.Loaderhencedemandsamore
realisticrepresentationofwomeninthehome,claimingthattheimplied

prostitutionandotherjuicyelementsdestroythefilmscredibility(1985:336)
andfailstogiverealwomenapolitics,(Ibid.,337)whileJohnstonsmoreoptimistic

analysisfailstonoticehowthefilminfactresonatesextremelywellwiththe
phallicrealityofthecurrentorder.

Again,atissuehereforfeministsshouldbethequestionofhowsuchantithetical

interpretationscanbothbetrueatthesametime.Whatthispossiblymeansis
thatapparentlytheverymomentatwhichJeanneDielmanisfeministconstitutes
paradoxicallytheverysamemomentatwhichitispatriarchal.Thefemale
contentofthefilmworksascamouflageforanexceedinglyvicioustechnocratic

socialorder,whilethatcontentissimultaneouslyanallegoryofthepervasiveform
inwhichimagesgetusurpedintoaphallicfunctionality.Thefilmsimageryis

indeedneatlysymmetricallikeaRenaissancepaintingthefoundingvisuallogic
ofallcontemporarymediaanditsdiegetictimeisneatlylinearlikethe
metaphysicalassumptionoflinearprogression.Butthefilmisalsoextremelyjerky

andobsessive,andattemptstoimposearegimeofefficiency(throughJeanne
withinthediegeticspace,aswellasthroughthefilmframeandeditingitself)

whichslowlydescendsintochaosanddeath.Efficiencyandregimentationthus
revealthemselvesaseventuallygoingandbeingoutofcontrol,whichalsoruns

analogoustohowthealmosttangiblematerialityofthediegeticspaceruns
paralleltotheviewersnearclaustrophobicyetprofoundlyunstablesocio
technicalenvironment,bothinsideandoutsidethemovietheatre.IvoneMargulies

indeeddescribesthefilmsworkingsratheraptlyinNothingHappensasexhibiting
alackofhierarchybetweendramaandsurfacedepictioninwhicheventually

narrativeandintentionalitygetdissolved(1996:3).'Thesupposedlyfeminist
strategyofrenderingvisibletheshowingofhouseworkespeciallybywayof

representingthefemaleinherallegedlyrealsocialconditionsishenceshownto
beaproblematicaspirationwhenitistakenasunequivocallypolitically
subversive.JeanneDielmannamelydoesnotfunctioneventuallyassometoolof

correctivefeministrealism,butinsteadpartakesinthepornographyofliberal
transparencyanditisthereforethatbothLoadersandJohnstonsreadingscan

becorrect,inthesensethatalsotheircorrectinterpretationsarethemselves
simulationsofthephallicmodel.Moreover,thefactthatJeanneinthefilmisboth

ahousewifeandaprostituteinwhich,quiteagainstsexistfilmicconvention,the
actsofprostitutionareelided(andnotthehousewifery),showsthatthefilmtries
tocamouflageitscomplicityinthepornographyofspeedelitism.Marguilesalso

perceptivelyremarksthatthefilmhasanoveralluncannyandlethalqualityin
whichobjectsseemtohavealifeoftheirown(Ibid.,90).'Inlightofthefactthat

SigmundFreuddefinedtheuncannyasthatwhatexcite[s]inthespectatorthe
feelingthatautomatic,mechanicalprocessesareatwork,concealedbeneaththe

ordinaryappearances(Marguiles,1996:91),'thiswouldindeedalsopointtowards
thefactthatthefilmisbothexemplaryofourspeedelitismandatthesametime
dissimulatesit.

Inmanywaysthen,thefilmcanbereadasanallegoryofoursocialcondition

whichisprecisely,accordingtoBaudrillardinTheEvilDemonofImages,itself
cinematic(1984:16)Akermansfilmisostensiblyaboutthefilmapparatusand

itsaspirationto(female)reality,andassuchthefilmbecomesdoublyrealforits
viewer.AsAkermanherselfhashintedatininterviewswithfeministcriticswho

eagerlywantedtoreadthefilmasastraightforwardlyfeministwork,thefilmis
thereforenot(simply)feministevennotintermsofherintention,whichfunctions
formanyfeministcriticsastheagentiveproofthatthefilmisindeedfeminist.Itis

rathermorepressinglyaboutthecontemporaryhumancondition.Notably,
AkermanmentionsinaninterviewwithMarshaKinderforinstancethatshewas

interestedintherelationshipbetweenthebodyandfilmtime(1975:2).This
concernwiththehumantechnologicalconditionisapparentinthewaysinwhich

thefilmformorstructurerunsparallelwithitscontent,andinturninthewaysin
whichthisallowsthespectatortoenjoyandidentifywiththecinematicspace

becauseitistheperfectallegoryforwhatVirilioinTheLostDimensionterms
speedspace(1991:102).'ThevisualboxingupofJeanneintheroomsofher
apartmentisanalogoustotheboxofthescreenframe,andthisisinturn

analogoustotheboxinginofthemoviegoerinthedarktheatreinwhichsheor
heispartlyimmobilizedandinwhichthevisualfunctionisdominant,justlikeour

conditioninahypermediasocietyatlargetoday.JeanLouisBaudryindeed
alreadynotesinthe1970sinIdeologicalEffectoftheBasicCinematic

Apparatus,quiteinlinewithVirilioslaterthesisonthemediaandhypervisual
inertia,thatsuchaboxingdrawsheavilyonRenaissanceperspectivismand
worksonmanylevelslikealetterofcondolences(1974:44).'Thefeminist

psychologicalandpsychoanalyticalanalysesofthefilmcontentasa
representationofwomensobjectiverealityhenceseemsocompellinglytrue

becausethistruthmerelyappearsasafunctionofthedoublingofthespeedelitist
conditionanditstechniquesandtechnologiesofreproduction.Onanunconscious

levelthesetechniquesaresofamiliaryetunsettlingtousthattheyget
camouflagedinourobsessionwiththesupposedwomancentricorfeminist
content.JeanneDielmanisthenadomesticmelodramainwhichorderisthe
maskforchaosasMarguilestypifiesthefilm(1996:10),notsimplyonthelevelof
itscontentbutespeciallyonthelevelitsform:itexemplifiesandallegorizesthe

melodramaofourdomesticationunderspeedelitism.Inotherwords,therealism
ofthefilmcontentdissimulatesouractualtechnologicalcondition,andthis

dissimulationcanbereadbecauseeventuallythefilmitselfseducesthefeminist
interpretationtosuchanextentthatthehypotheticallystraightforwardfeminist

goalisledastraybythefilmobject.Theveryfeministhypothesisofthe
attainabilityofafeministutopiabywayofthepoliticalmobilizationor

interpretationofthefilmasaselfevidentlysubvertingtherealityofpatriarchyis
thereforeitselfaproductofthelogicofspeedelitism.Thisisbecausesucha
mobilizationorinterpretationisitselfmodeledafterthephallicfunctionalismthat

thispoliticaleconomyrequires,andisassuchnottheauthenticexpressionof
somekindofinherentfeministsubjectivityordesire.

Allthisleadstotheuncomfortableconclusionthatanyfeministpoliticsof

liberationorvoiceinacapitalistsocietymarkedbytheimplosionofthesemiotic
intheaxiomaticiscurrentlyselfdefeating,sinceitrequiresasitsgrounding

momentexactlywhatitseekstooverthrow,namelytheobjectiveexistenceofthe
phallus.Theimplicationsofthisaremanifold.Itmeansforinstancethatthe

feministstrategiesandcounterstrategiesaroundrepresentation,whenfor
instancetaughtintheacademicclassroomtostudents,reallyteachesthose
studentsevenmorediversemethodsofcomplicityinspeedbyinstructingthem

howtheycanconsumethatis,mobilizeandeatuptheirimaginedsocial
relationsforspeedelitism.Inthefeministmediastudiesclassroomthen,teacher

andstudentconsumetheideaofresistancethroughdiscerningbetweenthefake
differencebetweensexismandfeminismprovidingallofthem,asfeminist

subjectsturnedintotheobjectsofaccelerationwithinthemodernuniversity
whichisofcourse,andhasalwaysbeen,therighthandofpowertheillusionof
autonomyandemancipation.Afterall,mostfeministmediamodulesconcern

themselveswithacritiqueofadvertising,andadvertisingsfirstsale,as
BaudrillardillustratesinTheSystemofObjects,consistsofgivingitssubjectsthe

illusionofpersonalchoiceandautonomytogetherwiththewholeunjustsocial
machineryofpatriarchalfunctionalismthatgroundsit(1996:101).Italsomeans

forinstancethatthecontemporarytugofwarinacademicfeministliterature
betweenproperlyradicalfeministsandsocalledthirdwaveconsumerist

feministsoccursbecauseproperfeminismwantstoprojectontothethirdwavers
somethingthatactuallyresideswithinitself,namelyitsowncomplicitywithspeed
elitism.

Thesearefinallyonlythefirststagecomplicationsthatthediagnosisoffeminist
selfdefeatismgenerates.Moreseriouslyandurgently,theaccelerationofthe

feministaporiabywayofitsmediatedenactmentonlyservestowidentheabyss
betweenfeministintentionanditseffect.Thereadingstrategythatcomeswiththe
acknowledgementofsuchanabysstheradicalabsenceoftheorganizing

phallusassuchwillhavetobeprofoundlydifferentfromtheconventional
feministanalysesofrepresentationinfact,thisoldstrategyhasreverseditselfto

suchanextentthatatfirstsightanoppositetacticseemstoemergethatappears
asfatallyantifeminist.Theonlypossiblesubversiveresponsewouldnamely

initiallyappeartonotrespondatall,buttosomehowsilentlyacknowledgeordefy
theviolenceoftheimagetoadvocateeventuallytheonlypossibleirresponsible
response.ButtheprincipleofseductioninBaudrillardstextdoesnotallowthis

articletostopthere,atthepointofastraightforwardcritiqueofagentivepolitics
andhumanistresponsibilitynotintheleastbecausethisarticleitselfperforms

suchresponsibilitybyclaimingtobeabletointerpretfeministtextsasspeed
elitist.Moreover,toopposeabsenceorsilenceasthestraightforwardantithesis

ofvisibilityandvoice,woulditselfjustasmuchbeusurpedintothespeedelitist
ordersrelianceonanapparentpoliticalalternativeasafalsedifference.Itisfor
thisreasonthatwecanreadBaudrillardinthespiritofhisfeministpoliticsagainst

hisowngrainandinturnarguethathisfatalisticpoliticsofseductionbywayof
analternativerepresentation,likeintheenactmentofthemasculinefeminine

andsubjectobjectopposition,isequallyquestionable.Infact,takingBaudrillards
argumenttoitslogicalextremewouldimplythattheimageofphallic

functionalismitselfcouldjustasmuchbeamereruse,andthatinturnrealityis
actuallynotacceleratingatall.Inotherwords,myinterpretationofthe
puzzlementsintheabovefeministtextsasexemplaryofspeedelitismconstitutes

likewiseasimulationinthatitsmodelofaccelerationquitepossiblyjustasmuch
precedestheimaginedspeedelitistsocialrealityofthetexts.Ifinallysuggest

thereforethatafeministappropriationofBaudrillardstextshasusendupinthe
momentwherewecannolongerbecertainwhetherhisorouranalysesand

conceptsconstituteagenuinedisputeoramasterfulruse.Inthisverymoment,
truthlikethetruthofpatriarchaldominationandoppressionthatfeminismhas
toaffirmaprioriappearsasasuperficialdeception,justlikethealleged

feminismofAkermansfilm.Likewise,wecannolongersatisfyinglydecide
whethertheproheadscarforantiheadscarfpositionworksasthemostorbest

feministstandpoint,becausethephallicmastersignifierwasitselfalwaysalready
ascamtostartwith.Andthisshouldleadonetoconcludethatitisnotfeminism

whichisabsurdorstupidwhichsomefeministsclaimedBaudrillardwasarguing
butneoliberalpatriarchythatisabsurd.Thephallicmastersignifier,together

withitscloseallytheautonomousagentofemancipation,isamerelysuperficial
andillusoryimageobjectofafinallynonbindingreality.Ifpowerhasvacatedthe
realmofmediarepresentationandhasbecomeinsteadentangledwithan

imaginedspeedelitism,thenamoreradicalfeminismtoday,verymuchin
contrasttothecelebratedpoliticsofthesecondwave,shouldperhaps

(ir)responsiblydenounceagentiveandrepresentationalpoliticsasapropertyof
somefeministsubject.Here,wefindtheparadoxofanunfeministfeminisma

feminismthatacknowledgeshowthestakeshavebeenraisedunder
contemporaryconditionsoftechnologicallycraftedaccelerationsoastovacate
thepremisesfortheappearanceofrealradicalalterity.Afterall,didnotmy

descriptionoftherealstateoffeminismatthestartlikewiseshow(thatthe
humanist,liberal,andscientificobsessionwithtreatingappearancesasreality

unveils)absolutelynothing?

IngridM.HoofdisanAssistantProfessorintheDepartmentofMediaand
CultureattheHumanitiesFacultyofUtrechtUniversity,theNetherlands.Her
researchinterestsareissuesofrepresentation,feministandcriticaltheories,
philosophyoftechnology,gamestudies,andinformationethics.Sheistheauthor
ofHigherEducationandTechnologicalAcceleration:theDisintegrationof
UniversityTeachingandResearch(Palgrave,2016),andAmbiguitiesofActivism:
AlterGlobalismandtheImperativesofSpeed(Routledge,2012).Herresearch
analysesthewaysinwhichalterglobalistactivists,aswellasleftwing
academics,mobilisewhatshecalls'speedelitist'discoursesanddivisionsinan
attempttoovercomegendered,raced,andclassedoppressionsworldwide.
Theseanalysesoutlinetheacceleratedtensionsandrelationshipsbetween
variousnewtechnologiesandactivistacademicmoralimperativesfromacritical
culturalanddeconstructionistperspective.

References
Akerman,Chantal.1975.JeanneDielman,23QuaiduCommerce,1080
Bruxelles.Film.France/Belgium,201mins.

Ayers,MichaelD.2003.ComparingCollectiveIdentityinOnlineandOffline
FeministActivists.Cyberactivism,editedbyMarthaMcCaugheyandMichaelD.
Ayers,145164.NewYork:Routledge.

Baudrillard,Jean.1983.TheEcstasyofCommunication.TheAntiAesthetic:
essaysonpostmodernculture,editedbyHalFoster,126134.Washington:Bay
Press.

Baudrilard,Jean.1984.TheEvilDemonofImages.Annandale:ThePower
InstitutePublications.

Baudrillard,Jean.1990.Seduction.Transl.BrianSinger.NewYork:NewWorld
Perspectives.

Baudrillard,Jean.1994.TheImplosionofMeaningintheMedia.Simulacraand
Simulation,7986.Michigan:UniversityofMichiganPress.

Baudrillard,Jean.1996.TheSystemofObjects,translatedbyJamesBenedict.
NewYork:Verso.

Baudrillard,Jean.2001.TheMirrorofProduction.JeanBaudrillard,Selected
writings,editedbyM.Poster,101121.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.

Baudrillard,Jean.2003.Passwords,translatedChrisTurner.London:Verso.

Baudrillard,JeanandMarcGuillaume.2008.RadicalAlterity,translatedbyAmes
Hodges.LosAngeles:Semiotext(e).

Baudry,JeanLouis.1974.IdeologicalEffectsoftheBasicCinematographic
Apparatus.TranslatedbyAlanWilliams.FilmQuarterly28(2):3947.

Bergstrom,Janet.1977.JeanneDielman,23QuaiduCommerce,1080
Bruxelles.CameraObscura2:114121.

Buikema,RosemarieandAnnekeSmelik(eds).1995.Womensstudiesand
culture:afeministintroduction.London:ZedBooks.

Braidotti,Rosi.1994.NomadicSubjects:EmbodimentandSexualDifferencein
ContemporaryFeministTheory.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.

Dahlgren,Peter.2009.MediaandPoliticalEngagement:Citizens,
Communication,andDemocracy.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Dean,Jodi.2005.CommunicativeCapitalism:CirculationandtheForeclosureof
Politics.CulturalPolitics1(1):5173.

Galloway,Alex.2012.AreSomeThingsUnrepresentable?Theory,Cultureand
Society28(78):85102.

Grosz,Elizabeth.2007.Volatilebodies:towardsacorporealfeminism.
Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.

Hall,Stuart.1997.Race:thefloatingsignifier.TranscriptatMediaEducation
Foundation.AccessedJuly10,2012.
http://www.mediaed.org/assets/products/407/transcript_407.pdf
Hall,Stuart.1997.Representation:CulturalRepresentationsandSignifying
Practices.London:Sage.

Hoofd,IngridM.2010.BetweenBaudrillard,BraidottiandButler:RethinkingLeft
WingFeministTheoryinLightofNeoliberalAcceleration.InternationalJournalof
BaudrillardStudies,7(2).

Johnston,Claire.1976.TowardsaFeministFilmPractice:SomeTheses.
EdinburghMagazine1:5059.

Joseph,Miranda.2002.AgainsttheRomanceofCommunity.Minneapolis:
UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Juris,Jeffrey.2008.NetworkingFutures:theMovementsagainstCorporate
Globalization.Durham,NorthCarolina:DukeUniversityPress.

Kinder,Marsha.1977.ReflectionsonJeanneDielman.FilmQuarterly,30(4):2
8.

LviStrauss,Claude.1950.IntroductionloeuvredeMarcelMauss.Mauss,
SociologieetAnthropologie,ixliiParis:PressesUniversitairesdeFrance.

Loader,Jayne.1985.JeanneDielman:DeathinInstallments.Moviesand
Methods,editedbyBillNichols,327339.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Margulies,Ivone.1996.NothingHappens:ChantalAkermansHyperrealist
Everyday.Durham:DukeUniversityPress.

Penley,ConstanceandJanetBergstrom.1985.TheAvantGarde:Historyand
Theories.MoviesandMethods,editedbyBillNichols,287302.Berkeley:
UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Phillips,JohnW.P.2012.SecrecyandTransparency.AnInterviewwithSamuel
Weber.Theory,CultureandSociety28(78):158172.

Rich,B.Ruby.1990.IntheNameofFeministFilmCriticism.IssuesinFeminist
FilmCriticism,editedbyPatriciaErens,2747.Bloomington:IndianaUniversity
Press.

Spivak,GayatriChakravorty.1988.CantheSubalternSpeak?Marxismandthe
InterpretationofCulture,editedbyCaryNelsonandLawrenceGrossberg,271
315.Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress.

Virilio,Paul.1986.SpeedandPolitics:anessayondromology.NewYork:
ColumbiaUniversityPress.

Virilio,Paul.1991.TheLostDimension.NewYork:Semiotext(e).

Endnotes

1.Thisquandaryseemstopermeatemuchfeministacademicandactivistdebate
today,butcomesinparticularfromthediscussionsIhadandthekeynotesI
attendedatthelastthreeEuropeanFeministresearchconferences(in2006,
2009,and2012).

2Onecanthinkhereespeciallyofthefeministanalyseswithanaffiliationto
criticalculturalstudies,liketheworkofReyChow,TaniaModleski,IenAng,
AngelaMcRobbie,SusanBordo,GayleKaufmanandmanyothers,butalsoofthe
feministcritiquesofthehegemonyofthemasculineinculturalproductionwhich
workwiththepremiseofincreasingfemalevisibilityorsubjectivity,likeSandra
GilbertforliteratureandLauraMulveyforfilmstudies.

3Thereareofcoursetwoothercomplicationsofrepresentation,namelydialectical
sublationanddeconstruction.Iamnotdiscussingtheseherebecausethisarticle
concernsitselfwithfeministstrategiesofrepresentationthatimplytheprimacyof
feministagency.

4Aninterestingearlydescriptionofthedisintegrationof(theillusionof)feminist
identityonlineemergesforinstanceinMichaelAyersComparingCollective
IdentityinOnlineandOfflineFeministActivistsinCyberactivism.

5BraidottisNomadicSubjectsandGroszVolatileBodiesaregoodexamplesof
suchtheoriesofbecominginfeminism.Foranindepthanalysisofthisre
mobilizationofbecominginsuchfeministphilosophy,seeIngridHoofds
BetweenBaudrillard,BraidottiandButlerintheInternationalJournalof
BaudrillardStudies.

InternationalJournalofBaudrillardStudies(2017)

[MainPage][Contents][EditorialBoard][Submissions]