Содержание) Section I. Information Technology (Информационные технологии) Section I. Information Technology (Информационные технологии)
Скачать 2.73 Mb.
|
3. Мизес Л. Либерализм в классической традиции: Пер. с англ. - М.: Начала-Пресс, 1994.4. Берлин И. Философия свободы. Европа. - М.: Новое литер. обозр., 2001. 5. Савицкий П.Н.Континент Евразия. - М.: 1997. Трубецкой Н.С. История. Культура. Язык. - М.: 1995. Вернадский, Г. В.Русская история. пер. с англ.– М.: Аграф, 2001. 6. Дугин А.Г. Евразийская миссия Нурсултана Назарбаева. - М.: Евразия, 2004. 7. Видова О. Нурсултан Назарбаев. Портрет человека и политика. - М.: 2014, изд. 2-е, доп. Khitruk E.B. Ph.D., assistant professor of ontology, epistemology and social philosophy. Tomsk State University The «denaturalization» as an effective strategy of philosophizing Never before ontology and closely related to it categories of “real”, “natural”, “material” underwent such a major change and rethinking as nowadays. Problematization of reality became one of the main intrigues of modernity. The “Death of God”, so desperately claimed in the philosophy of Nietzsche, meant the loss of trust to supernatural perfect world of beauty, truth and goodness, which was a base for classical western philosophy’s ideas. The “Death of God” made man understand and describe the world as it is represented by our experience, abstracting from possible, suggested or desired, transcendental foundations. But the awakened one, the knowing one, saith: “Body am I entirely, and nothing more; and soul is only the name of something in the body.” [1.P.33], - Zarathustra exclaims. By the passage, F.Nietzsche shows that the main mistake of classical philosophy is neglect of material, feelable world, of human body. However, this viewpoint detects the absolute certainty that the body itself, the material world, available for our perception, are inviolable, undeniable realities. With this ontological status embodiment gets a lot of focused attention in the philosophy of XX century, where physiology, biology, naturalness open all the ambiguity of their definitions. The philosophy of Michel Foucault became the turning point in understanding of embodiment. Following the genealogical methodology of F.Nietzsche, he poses a problem of body concept as ontological and biological constant. Essentially human body in culture never can be only a fact or biological substance. Human embodiment is an integral part of great meaning tandem of power-knowledge: “Body is loaded directly in the political sphere. Power relations hold it with death grip” [2.P.39]. “Pure”, biologically funded anatomy is illusion. What really has attitude to reality, Foucault calls political anatomy, “investigation of political body” as a complex of material elements and technics, acting as weapon, means of translation, communication channels and purchases for relationships of power and knowledge, which invade and subdue human bodies, transforming them into perception object” [2.P.43]. Tortured and executed body, drilled and disciplined body, human body in common is a cultural construct, shot through with power relations, discursive practices. It is always a political body, which is understood, interpreted, marked by certain way. However, the dynamics of power is such that marking of the body and its political capture, for the first time putting it in the cultural front row, making the body visible, are realised with practice of expulsion. So the way is that the body, created by discourse, appears to be non-discursive or natural, what generates an illusion of ontological rootedness of embodiment, opposing artificial cultural field. The philosophy of M.Foucault poses a problem of ontology of embodiment in two aspects:
The principles of modern post-feminist and gender philosophy are perceived as a fundamental methodological base. They are used to explain the phenomenon of Natural today, which includes not only "natural" body and "natural" sex, "natural" opposition of the sexes, "natural" sexuality and "natural" methods of its expression. In other words, understanding of the body within the framework of the discourse, which had been proposed and developed by Michel Foucault, put the category of natural into question and that helped to formulate and solve basic issues of feminism and gender studies anew. Leading American gender philosopher Judith Butler is regarded as the leading theorist, adopted and developed the issues of M.Foucault applying to a wider range of problems. Butler specifies her approach as a strategy of “denaturalization” of gender and sexual differences, which is connected mostly with denaturalization of body and deconstruction of subject in Foucault’s critical ontology. From this perspective, the main issues of the philosophy of Judith Butler can be explicated in the following basic aspects.
Theoretical feminism, which origin is probably connected with well-known book of Simone de Beauvoir “The Second Sex”, originally proceeds from the difference of biological substance of sex (chromosomal, hormonal compound, human anatomy structure) and socio-cultural aspect of sexual identity, which is commonly called gender since 1970s. As opposed to natural sex, gender is deemed as artificial and culturally-based superstructure. So, as G.Lerner said, gender is “a costume, a mask, a straightjacket, wearing which men and women play their unequal roles” [3. P. 209]. Obviously it is deemed that the “straightjacket” of gender subdues objectively and independently from culture, language, stereotypes of existing biological men and women. Establishment of sex as non-discursive ontological fundamental base is one of attributes of modernism of feminist theory, determining so called ontology of naturalness. Postfeminist interpretation of this establishment, represented in philosophy of Judith Butler, opens all the doubtfulness of traditional distinction on sex and gender. First of all, analysing de Beauvoir’s work, Butler takes notice of contradictions in explication of gendering the certain body. On the one hand, gender is deemed as certain social superstructure relatively to sex, kind of expression of biological signature. On the other hand, actual gendering is connected with rude repressive cultural influence, without any available alternative variants or free will. “The human does not become an expression of certain gender by free choice, because gender identity is ruled by certain set of strict taboos, conventions and laws. Inconsistent gender expression is punishable: a man in Maine walked down a street wearing a dress like woman: the next day his body was found in ravine”. [4.P.296]. Lots of examples of negative attitude to transgender people only approves repressive strategies of intrusion of gender identity. If gender conformed sex, than mechanism of cultural enforcement would even not exist. From the point of view of Judith Butler, this gendering contradiction allows to formulate very important conclusion that is: “Causal relationships between sex and gender do not exist, but also biological reality, which we call sex, itself is historical construction and really is political category “[4.P.302]. Gender naturalization is really only one of lots of methods for intrusion of certain gender identity. The human must behave oneself, dress, speak, and think quite like a man/woman, because of being a male/female person, so because this person is a man/woman. Appellation to ontology in this case is repressive mechanism, with which help the individual agrees to wear the straightjacket of gender. Nevertheless, in most cases this straightjacket is put on much earlier than the individual gets an ability to choose, for example, by putting a blue/pink ribbon on a newborn. Somehow lots of examples of keen (transgender people) or slacken (masculine women or feminine men) opposition to definite gender identity denies essentialist / interpretation of sex. “There is no body retreat which have not been interpreted in meanings of certain culture, therefore, sex could not be evaluate as pre-discursive anatomical fact. Actually by definition sex has always been cultural product” [5.P.308]. Therefore, it is impossible to approve the existence of male and female bodies outside of cultural context. Human body, sex-possessing body is “tainted” by discourse and it possess "real" and visible existence only due to this fact.
So, body in general, and, therefore, female/male body in particular represents the cultural construct. This establishment unexpectedly brings into a question this substantial “we”, on which classical feminism is based. If it is very complicated to speak about the existence of human body as such, in what meaning and on what ground female explication as subject of feminist discourse is possible? What is ontological status of woman in situation of female body denaturalization? Feminist theory developed following exact purpose of describing and representation of female experience, which is often forced or understood in the wrong way, specific compared with male one. Androcentrism, which appeared to be having no alternative style of mind and language of west-european culture, produced many female conceptions, included in common binary paradigm and formulated without participation of women themselves. Representation of woman in different sociocultural and political aspects became the main purpose of feminism. In other words, female subject, requiring adequate representation in language, culture and politics , funds the existence of feminism itself. But what does this female subject appears to be? How non-contradictory and “naturally” is its existence “before” and “beyond” the discourse, requiring the representation in it? J.Butler answers these questions, explicating several problematic aspects. Firstly, female concept is an object of discussion and disagreement even within feminism itself, because all the attempts to formulate contents of feminist “we” necessitate an expulsion of certain category of people who think they are women from descriptive borders of female subject. Therefore, for example, classical feminism, describing and representing the problems of european women, deals with criticism from coloured women. Feminism, describing female substance in maternity, ignores interests of women who are not able or do not want to become mothers. Secondly, female concept is also driven by context of specific historical era, depending on which the content of this term is constituted in different ways. Thirdly, the category of woman unavoidably exists in close connection with categories, which mean other types of identity – race, class, ethnic, sexual, regional. “As the result – J.Butler notices, - it is impossible to single out “sex” from interwoven political and cultural layers, where it is consistently reproduced and supported” [5.P.302]. From the point of view of Judith Butler, all this incompliance and extreme contradictory of explication of female subject approves that this subject itself is a discursive construct, not preceeding condition, but the result of feminist discourse. Here, essentially, Foucault’s methodology is used, by which a woman is denounced as discursive establishment and constituted as pre-discursive natural substance: “actually the law generates and then conceals the substance “subject before law” to refer to this discursive construction as to naturalized basic supposition, which legitimates its own regulative hegemony later. “Female” category – the subject of feminism studies – generates and regulates by the same power structure, with which help they fight for emancipation” [5.P.301]. Moreover, aspiration to operate feminist subject as stable and non-contradictory fact, as “natural” reason of political movement and cultural representation, acts as repressive mechanism, with which help individual or group of individuals acquire status, which is put in rude binary opposition. Specific, unique and united “female” opposes to “male”, thereby supporting traditional “forced hierarchy” and fundamental dualism of classical mind. In other words, calling myself a woman and relating my individuality to particular group identity, I accept also common context, in other words, a set of cultural-historical interpretations and connotations of female, confirmed by west-europian tradition. So it is not surprising that feminism, representing really strong political force, which changed accents setting in political and cultural life of modern humanity, also caused and causes negative attitude among this part of “electorate”, which it is supposed to represent. It is also significantly that the word ”feminist” often is used and understood in really dismissive meaning by people who owe not only their rights to have vote, property and education, but also quality of their life, opportunity to realize themselves completely in modern society, to feminism. This understanding of feminism is paradoxical, but it is caused by real reason, which is, as Judith Butler notices, a low level of feminist self-criticism, which cannot admit constructive power of their own discourse. “The opinion that feminism can achieve wider representation of subject which it constructs, ironically can cause a failure because feminism refuses to take into consideration the constitutive power of their own claims for representation” [5.P.303]. Deconstruction of the female subject, nevertheless, does not cause “the death of woman” and “the death of feminism”. In the opposite, understanding of use of these terms is an important step to emancipation, because it is first to open female substance for redefinition, liberating it from fixation on traditional subordination positions. “To deconstruct the subject of feminism is not, then, to censure its usage, but, on the contrary, to release the term into a future of multiple significations, to emancipate it from the maternal or racialist ontologies to which it has been restricted, and to give it play as a site where unanticipated meanings might come to bear. Paradoxically, it may be that only through releasing the category of women from a fixed referent that something like “agency” becomes possible.” [6.P.251]. So Judith Butler admits that declarations on behalf of women are completely excused within legislation, demonstrations, radical feminist actions and other political initiatives. But everything does not make sense if it is not based on deep understanding of contradictory and relativity of any definition of female subject. Moreover, without this understanding any appellation to female substance as to “matter of course” substance represents a mechanism, which supports traditional subordination of female/male in culture, so the result, which is directly opposed to feminism purposes and objectives, is reached. From J.Butler’s point of view, to deconstruct female substance means to break out this term to that et cetera, which underlied it originally, but earlier, was understood as something, which should be overcome in fixed referent. Actually, it is a way to detecting of multiple meaning of being a female, getting freedom of being female. Aspects of denaturalization strategy, represented in philosophy of Judith Butler, show effectiveness of using Foucault’s methodology relatively to fundamental problems of modern feminist and postfeminist discourse. Explication of discursive causation of “natural” male/female body, female and homosexual subjects opens new opportunities of overcoming binary oppositions of western culture, cramming in “straightjacket” of gender, sexual and other fixed identities. Nevertheless overcoming one problem unavoidably detects a perspective of others, also serious ones. What or who will stay under this straightjacket after putting off all the discursive constructs? If I am not a woman, a sexual object, an epistemological subject, a body, so who am I? Is it possible in this case to talk about someone, who is repressed by traditional binaries and ontology of naturalness, and waits for liberation through fundamental deconstruction? Or someone – is already a subject, that means fiction, constituted by subjection mechanisms? “To be dominated by a power external to oneself is a familiar and agonizing form power takes. To find, however, that what "one" is, one's very formation as a subject, is dependent upon that very power is quite another. Subjection consists precisely in this fundamental dependency on a discourse we never chose but that, paradoxically, initiates and sustains our agency” [M. P. 15-16]. The perspective of deconstruction may be either revealing the emptiness of nothing or, according to J. Butler, a liberating breakthrough that will finally become the door to the unknown, but positive society of mobile definitions. In any case, the natural, material, corporeal cannot be perceived irrespective of the language, power and discourse any longer. The ontological status of these categories can no longer be considered a certain one. References
|
Похожие:
 | Методические указания предназначены для студентов экономических и других специальностей, изучающих дисциплины «Информационные системы»,... |  | Арм, классификация и принципы построения; арм кадровой службы; вычислительные сети, нейросетевые технологии и средства мультимедиа;... |
| Содержание отчета о преддипломной практике для специальности 230201 «Информационные системы и технологии» | | Содержание отчета о преддипломной практике для специальности 230201 «Информационные системы и технологии» 12 |
| Настоящее пособие предназначено для студентов Государственного института управления и социальных технологий бгу и ориентировано на... | | Рабочей программы учебной дисциплины «информационные технологии в профессиональной деятельности» 4 |
| Методическое пособие по дисциплине «Информационные технологии в профессиональной деятельности» для студентов II курса специальности... | | Безбумажные автоматизированные и информационные технологии завоевывают окружающее пространство. На железнодорожном транспорте информационные... |
| И 74 информационные технологии в инновационном образовании: материалы международной научной конференции. 12 апреля 2018 г. / Министерство... | |