Format Type: PDF, Mobi
Read Online: 442
Yet neither mastery nor abjection were fixed but circulated through, and were mediated by, relational networks that manifested heterogeneous relations to social norms and were conditioned by the specific socio-spatialities. Furthermore, both women told stories, rich in sensual detail, about experiences of intercorporeality that momentarily suspended these tensions. Here, abjection operated neither as repression nor lack, but established a condition for transgressive presence which could elicit communal joyfulness. These moments suspended distinctions between dependency and autonomy, self and other. Their stories about struggles with their difference in relation to social norms implicated forms of recognition associated with disruptions, inversions, and dispersals of power that elicited the play of eros. These were intercorporeal occasions of self-realisation through others, where recognition operated as a reply to the question: "Who am I?" rather than confirming identity, and making Caverero's distinction between the unique existant and social identity relevant to understanding transgressive subjectivities. This would place interpellation and recognition within a more general dialogics of subject formation, that would include the significance of dialogical peer relationship aside from authoritative others. While gender norms structure the dilemmas faced by women in trying to embody 'femininity' and 'masculinity', they are lived as a struggle with conflicting demands and desires, and are negotiated within the shifting constraints of multiple social fields and through various processes of recognition. While living female masculinity transgresses gender norms, it also makes a claim for difference made apart from them, which could be at the heart of subject formation.