New materialism and feminism

Introduction

The research of female’s biological body is left behind by feminists because it seems to be natural and unchangeable. And at the same time， traditional gender diversity theories are based on the biological differences of two sexes. New materialism brought some new ideas and thoughts to feminist research towards body and biology. For the first time in academic history， our biological body turns out to be interrelated with the outside society. And materialist feminists also have their own understanding of freedom and women’s future. This article will talk about new materialism and materialist feminism from their philosophical and biological foundation. And in order to find its relation with other feminist theories， the article will also put the ‘body research’into a history and trace the development of it.

New materialism and feminist research

With the development of physics research， such as the discovery of quarks and dark matter， people has developed a new understanding towards the composition of matter and the movement of the environment around us. Descartes’definition of matter laid the foundation of traditional physics material research. He regarded matter as ‘corporeal substance constituted of length， breadth， and thickness； as extended， uniform， and inert’（Coole and Frost， 2010： 7）. According to this definition of matter， Newtonian built his laws of motion， which were regarded as the principles of matters’movement. Material determinism and strict ‘linear logic of cause and effect’influenced people’s understanding of surrounding world. This enables people to build their confidence to judge and control the change and development of themselves and the outside world. According to this material determinism， female’s inferior social position was regarded as the inevitable result of their body. Firstly， their ‘weak’body decided their disadvantage as a labor in public society. Secondly， their reproduction function determined their belonging to the domestic sphere. The characteristics and functions of their body were always regarded as the determinants of their life and destiny. And at the same time， it was natural and inevitable. However， this traditional material determinism is not convincing for philosophers any more. New materialism holds different views towards the composition of matter and the movement of the environment around us. Matters are not regarded as separated and individual objects which are passive and kept stable. Instead， they are located in a complicated system. Consequently， because the simple linear logic of cause and effect was not recognized to be absolutely true， then determinism was disconfirmed. And on the other hand， subjects’activity and agency increased and the development of them is unpredicted. And secondly， new materialism also denied the clear boundary between organism and inorganism， spiritual and material， human and the surrounding world. The current situation of a particular object is not decided by a single factor or event， instead， it is the result of the interaction between different actors in this complicated system. New materialism also brought some new changes towards feminist concern with body and biology. It is not a natural and unchangeable factorwhich decided the female’s social situation， instead， it is closely connected with the outside social relations.

In the history of researching the decisive factor of human’s body and sexuality， scientists’research field transferred from organs to molecules. The condition of male’s testicle and female’s ovaries was thought to be the decisive factor which influences the sex （gender） of people. Female’s sexual organ was regarded as similar but imperfect compared as male’s testicle， which even makes transformations possible between two sexes （Birke， 2000： 36）. In the twentieth century， scientists are more concern about the genetic difference between two sexes （Birke， 2000： 37）. X chromosomes and Y chromosomes were believed to be the decisive chromosomes of sex. Normal people have two chromosomes which separately come from their parents. However， only the individual who retains Y chromosomes from his father can develop towards male’s biological characteristics. And at the same time， the individuals who own more than two chromosomes are regarded as sick and unnormal. From 1920s， sexual hormones are also found to be involved in influencing sexual differences （Birke， 2000： 38）. Sexual hormones are mainly produced by ovaries and testicles and work on maintaining the development of sexual organs. Some scientific research also shows our adrenal cortexes also produce sexual hormones. And because gonadotropic hormones are produced by hypothalamus， then the operation of brain is significant as for our biological sexual differences. Hormone is believed to be an important reason to explain the behavior different of male and female， gay and straight. However， even though hormones are named separately as for male and female， it does not mean the boundary between these two kinds of hormones is insurmountable. First of all， both ‘female and male’hormones can be found in the body of two sexes. Secondly， estrogen （female hormones） and testosterone （male hormones） are ‘chemically very similar’， and ‘testosterone is sometimes concerted into estrogen in the body’ （Robert， 2002： 14）. In this sense， the clear boundary between male and female broke down. Biologically， our body is a system， within which different parts and factors are closely connected with each other. The condition of our sexual organs， the permutation and combination of chromosomes， the operation of our brains and the secretion of hormones cooperate with each other and influence our sexuality. That is to say， it is not decided by a single biological factor which is already determined before we were born， and it is full of uncertainty and changeable.

The uncertainty of our sexuality not only attributes to the biological system within our body， but also influenced by external environment as well as social relations. Moreover， as for materialist feminism， the outside world around us can also be reflected by our biological bodies. For instance， the change of temperature and seasons will act on our blood pressure and impacts the blood-supply of different organs within our bodies. Except for the temperature， weather and geological location， social relations can also be shown by our biological body. Through researching Sigmund Freud’s cases on Fraulein Elisabeth’s hysteria， psychologist Elizabeth Wilson claimed the body might be the ‘direct beneficiary’of our social relations rather than the ‘vehicle’between psyche and society （Wilson， 1999： 10）. The pains of Elisabeth’s muscle contribute to the conflicts of the lover towards her brother-in-law and her duty of looking after the sick family members. According to fact of this case， Wilson redefined ‘communication’and pointed out that it should not only mean the relation between signs and signification but also should ‘be the force of materiality that is conventionally deemed to be outside the sign’（Derrida， in Wilson， 1999： 13）. In Anne Fausto-Sterling’s article about the influential factors of the development of bones， she found seven factors， which includes ‘physical activity， diet， drugs， bone formation in fetal development， hormones， bone cell metabolism， and biomechanical effects on bone formation’（Fausto-Sterling， 2005： 15）. These factors can be divided into cultural （social） and biological categories， however， each one of them are interconnected with each other. The results of their interaction can be reflected by the conditions of our bones in our life time. These two empirical cases show the uncertainty and complexity of our biological body and its relations with social and cultural factors.

Based on the philosophical foundation and empirical researches， we can find some new points brought by the new materialism which benefit the feminist research towards body and biology. Our body is influenced by the interaction of cultural factors and biological factors. Secondly， the functions of the organs inside our bodies and the impact of the environmental and social reasons are interconnected. That is to say， determinism should be replaced by agency and uncertainty， and the clear division between subject and object should be replaced by a complicated system which includes different actors.

The history of biological body

The opinions of materialist feminists were developed upon the outcomes of feminist research in the past， which include the theories of Karl Marx and Simone de Beauvoir， Michel Foucault and Luce Irigaray. Their theories of female and female’s biological body can be put into a research history of body. In order to be clear of the relations between the materialist feminism and other theories， it is necessary to introduce and make an analysis about this ‘history of body’.

As for Marx， the reason of female’s inferior social position lies in the social structure of capitalist society. First of all， female are capable of giving birth to children. This reproductive work was only regarded as unvalued domestic duty for them. And on the contrary， men were able to participate in the paid industrial production and won their social position because of their work. So he attributed the social position of female to the rise of class society， because ‘as money confers value in a cash economy the paid work done by men was valued more highly than the unpaid work done by women’（Nickie， 2002： 5）， and men made use of this system to improve their position and oppressed female as a integral social group. In this sense， two sexes are regarded as social rather than biological， symbolic identities rather than physical differences. And the biological body disappeared in Marx’s theory of feminism. And this is the same with Beauvoir’s viewpoints towards biology and body. Influenced by Sartre's existentialist philosophy， Beauvoir claimed ‘one is not born， but becomes a woman’. She also regarded the outside society as the main reason of constructing a woman. Women living in different cultural and social backgrounds have different ways of dealing with their bodies. In this sense， through changing the social structure and struggling for more power， women are more possible to be equal with men and live a more free life. However， she also recognized the limitation of female’s biological body. People can not get ride of the influence and control of their hormones and inner desire， ‘women are to likely to be stuck in immanence， bound by bodily dictates through reproduction’ （Birke， 2000： 29）. As we can see， both Marx and Beauvoir wanted to refute the argument about the decisive significance of women’s biological body towards their inferior social position. And both of them tried to reveal the close connection between social structure and power distribution. Women’s power was deprived by male in the established social structure. Consequently， in order to maintain this structure and consolidate man’s superior social position， women were constructed according to man’s will. In this sense， women are nurture rather than natural. However， the influence of women’s reproductive function also existed in these two theories. As for Marx， it is a form of work and should be paid rather than regarded as the reason of depriving their powers. As for Beauvoir， it is an inevitable limitation. And because of this limitation， women should struggle for changing the outside world and their social positions. For both of them， female’s biological body was passive and unchangeable.

Foucault’s theory rebuilt the relation between power and body by introducing the intermediation of discourse and identity. As for Foucault， the operation of power is more concern the details of our daily life rather than the whole social system， such as the food we eat and the place we would like to stay. The discourses in a society are controlled by the persons who hold power. These people can influence the facts and ideas shown in the media. Because people are not possible to access to other ideas and information， then they have to ‘accept’ and build their identity according to their thoughts and make choices in limited options. In this sense， people are ‘performing to be themselves’ without clear self-consciousness. However， this is only one aspect of our society， because as for Foucault， ‘wherever power exists there also is resistance’. There always exist some groups of people who do not accept their ‘given’ identity and follow the norms. And the main method of resistance is also through acting and performing. And in this process， ‘self-consciousness’ is crucial because it determines if it is possible for people to realize the existence and limitation of norms and then resist with them for their own benefits and interests. And body can not be ignored because ‘Foucault’s work insists upon the body as preeminently a site of political control， increasingly subject to surveillance （Birke， 2000： 33）’. Female’s body reflects the influence of masculine discourse and power. And at the same time， rethinking the body is also the method of resisting the established masculine power. Female’s figure can be a typical example to explain Foucault’s theory of ‘body politics’. So many images shown in media are suggesting it is beautiful for women to be thin. And this principle is obeyed by women in different ages and it is more influential especially for the young girls who are more care about if they look pretty. That is one of the main reasons which cause anorexia. Girls are too strict with the figure of their body and always think of themselves to be overweight. Female’s bodies are disciplined by the social discourse. Consequently， fat is regarded as unnormal and even represents the defects of personal characters， such as lazy and stupid. We can break down these norms through changing our body according to our own will， such as tattoos， body figures and cosmetic surgeries. Here are two developments of Foucault’s theory about body. First of all， because the operation of power exists in every detail of our daily life， therefore， the main target of our resistance is no longer the whole social system. It depends on the struggle of individual action instead of the collective movements. In this sense， the boundary between body and society， private and public disappeared. Secondly， instead of fighting for more equal rights， female can build a different future which has not been defined nowadays. It is more important than equality， every woman have their own way of living without the constraints from the outside. Foucault’s theories have some similarities with Irigaray’s feminist theories， which also emphasized on differences rather than equality.

As we can see， materialist feminism’s theories about our body and biology are based on the result of the research being described above. Materialist feminism claims that female are becoming instead of being. Like Marx and Beauvoir， Materialist feminists recognize the social condition of female is not the inevitable result of the characters and functions of biological body. However， materialist feminists did not agree with them about their description of female’s body. The body itself is not natural and unchangeable. Instead， it is combined with the outside world and reflects the social relations. This viewpoint is more similar with Foucault’s and Irigaray’s theory about our body. For the first time in the feminism research history， the boundary of body and society disappeared， which means they are all included in the operation of power. Moreover， Foucault and Irigaray also hold the view that building a new future which is not the same with the world nowadays is more important than struggling to be equal with male. And materialist feminisms also emphasize the importance of ‘actions’and ‘differences’. However， the differences also exist， Foucault talks about changing the superficial body instead of biological body. Their research paid more attention to how female’s body looks like and how we treat our body instead of the organs， secretions or internal structure of our bodies. After the discussion about the inheritance and development of new materialism’s theories about body and biology， the next part of the essay will talk about their viewpoint about ‘freedom’ and ‘future’ as well as the innovation and shortcoming of it.

Action， transformation and freedom

The first two parts of the essay mainly introduced the content of new materialism and materialist feminism from three main aspects： their philosophy foundation， relevant biological research and the history of the theories about female’s body. The biological body is not unchangeable. The condition of biological body and the outside world are interrelated and interacted with each other. Traditional biological determinism is based on the natural characteristics of female’s biological body and its productive function. And new materialism sets female free from the restriction of their body. People can change the appearance of their body and its biological condition， such as the secretion of hormones， the operation of different systems and organs. The possibility of transformation is the premise of freedom.Philosopher Henri Bergson claims ‘indetermination is the “true principle”of life， the condition for the open-ended action of living beings， the ways in which living bodies are mobilized for action that cannot be specified in advance （Bergson， in Grosz， 2010： 149）.’Transformation and indetermination also reflects individual’s agency and autonomy. Then people are facing the problem about what is the principle of making a decision. And obviously， the main principle is to choose according to their interests and benefits. However， the real difficulty lies in people’s judgment of the interests and their attitudes towards changing. First of all， people must be able to express themselves fully without any interference coming from other people’s behaviors or thoughts. Secondly， people are always changing and bleeding with the surrounding world. In this sense， the subject should be a developing one who keeps coming up with new ideas and always ready to criticize and discard some other thoughts. We express ourselves through our action and at the same time， we are also transformed by these actions （Grosz， 2010： 146）. In this sense， self-consciousness is an important factor which influences the free acts of an individual. The second problem about our agency is the options provided for choices. As for some feminists like Beauvoir， the limitation of the options provided for female is the main problem waiting to be solved. And the main aim of feminist movements is to struggle for more options and rights to choose. And for materialist feminism， freedom is not simply to increase the amount of options. Instead， it is about changing and transforming. That is to say， their main aim is to create a new future through activity. And this activity and autonomy is more significant than simply changing the social environment. And the change not only refers to a different cultural environment but also women themselves， which is part of the whole world.

Influenced by new materialism， materialist feminism develops a new perspective to view the relation between our biological body and society as well as people and the outside world. It inherited the achievement of quintessential feminists and developed a lot on this basis. Materialist feminism breaks three boundaries which includes the boundary between the biological body and society， the boundary between the past and the future and the boundary between male and female. Firstly， it breaks the boundary between the biological body and society. New materialism emphasizes the interaction of organic and inorganic， objective and subjective， which inspired materialist feminism to research the external society’s impact on individual’s biological body. Secondly， materialist feminism breaks the boundary between the past and the future. As for new materialism， because we are living in a complicated systematic world， then determinism should be replaced by uncertainty. Materialist feminism also rejected determinism through explaining our biological body is not unchangeable. The future can not be predicted and intervened by the past. Female are capable of transforming themselves and creating a different world. Thirdly， materialist feminism breaks the boundary between male and female. People’s identity should not be decided by their sexual organs. Biologically， the hormones of two sexes are interconvertible. Moreover， based on the rejection of determinism， individuals own agency and autonomy. They are able to act according to their judgment towards their interests. However， the theories of materialist feminism also have their shortcomings. According to new materialism， ‘the degrees of indetermination are the degrees of freedom’（Grosz， 2010： 149）. Indetermination not only implies the possibility of the future， it also means the uncertainty of future. People do every thing with certain intention. And this uncertainty recognized the possibility of people’s failure in achieving certain goals. Therefore， it is hard to promise there must be a better future for female as well as the whole human beings. Based on the theories of new materialism， the future can not be predicted to be better or worse， it is only different because of people’s activity. Moreover， materialist feminism emphasizes the importance of individual’s action and ignores the influence of collective action； emphasizes people’s ability to change themselves and ignores the limitation from outside. As for new materialism， the difficulties of transforming mainly come from the limitation of the subjects and their 1 consciousness coming from the influence of other people’s thoughts and ideas. However， when people decide to put their ideas into practice， the opposition from the outside world can not be neglected. And because of these predictable oppositions， there might be some groups of people who decided to give up their original ideas. Because of the uncertainty of the future and the oppositions from the outside， the materialist feminism’s theories towards future seem to be overly optimistic.

Conclusion

Inspired by new materialism， feminist research turns to our biological body. Women can change their condition through changing the social structure， social discourses or even the appearance of our body. However， our biological body seems natural and unchangeable. Some feminists tried to solve the problem by leaving this behind and pay more attention to the changeable society. And our biological body seems to become a tricky problem which kept troubling feminists. For the first time in academic history， materialist feminists combined the biological theory with feminist research and found the relation between our inner body and outside society. Everything turns out to be interrelated and changeable. Accordingly， materialist feminists claim people are able to transform themselves through their own activities. In this sense， women’s activities are more concern individual’s lifestyle instead of the whole social structure.

New materialism opened up new areas for feminist （下轉155頁）（上接第146頁） research. However， this theory also has its shortcomings. Materialist feminism should cooperate instead of isolating with other feminist theories. The social position of female can be changed through the changing of private lifestyle as well as the struggling of more power by collective activity. Both of individual’s own interests and the limitation of the outside society should be taken into consideration when thinking about the solutions of a problem.

References

Birke， L. （2000） Feminism and the Biological Body， New Brunswick， New Jersey： Rutgers University Press.

Coole， D. and Frost， S. （2010） ‘Introducing the New Materialisms’， in Coole， D. and Frost， S. （eds） New Materialisms， London： Duke University Research Press， pp. 1～43.

Fausto-Sterling， A. （2005） ‘The Bare Bones of Sex： Part 1-Sex and Gender’， Journal of Women in Culture and Society， 30（2）： 1491～1527.

Grosz， E. （2010） ‘Feminism， Materialism， and Freedom’， in Coole， D. and Frost， S. （eds） New Materialisms， London： Duke University Research Press， pp. 139～157.

Nickie， C. （2002） Gender in Modern Britain， Oxford： Oxford University Press.

Robert， C. （2002） ‘A Matter of Embodied Fact： Sex Hormones and the History of Bodies’， Feminist Theory， 3（1）： 7～26.

Wilson， E. A. （1999） ‘Somatic Compliance： Feminism， Biology and Science’， Australian Feminist Studies， 14（28）： 7～18.