Nothing Mat(t)ers: A Feminist Critique of Postmodernism

18 NOTHING MAT(T)ERSmisogyny becomes…a problem of self-loathing for the male” (Elaine Hansen inModleski: 1991, p. 11).What are some of the practical implications of this theory of form and matter?Semiotics 23 is the applied version, a cousin of abstract poststructuralism. In“Pandora’s Box in Aftertimes”, the internationally recognized American semiotician,Thomas A. Sebeok, reports on his work (during Ronald Reagan’s term) for theBechtel Group, Inc. This group was engaged to form a Human Interference TaskForce and prepare a study for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Sebeok wasengaged to devise a semiotic system of communication to prevent human disruptionof buried nuclear wastes that would be understandable for up to 10,000 years.Sebeok recommends that the area be cursed and a legend and ritual developed and reenactedannually so that “superstition” may grow and “the uninitiated will be steeredaway from the hazardous site for reasons other than the scientific knowledge of thepossibility of radiation and its implications;” (1986, p. 168). The secret of theradioactively cursed area would be held by an elite few: “The actual “truth’ would beentrusted exclusively to an—as it were—“atomic priesthood’, that is, a commissionof knowledgeable physicists, experts in radiation sickness, anthropologists, linguists,psychologists, semioticians, and whatever additional administrative expertise may becalled for now and in the future” (1986, p. 168). The scientist of semiotic systemsand communication recommends, as his fail-safe code, a curse and a priesthood.Semi-idiotics? This is the future envisioned by priests of expert masculinity, logosand rationality: word without end, deadly secrets, disguises, clandestine initiations.“Membership in this elite ‘priesthood’ would be self-selective over time” (Sebeok:1986, p. 168).What sort of political action emerges from these ideas about the world? MichelFoucault wrote a series of articles in the Milan newspaper Corriere delta Serachronicling his trips to Iran and his ardent praise 24 for the Ayatollah Khomeini’soriginal, mythical and supposedly anti-political discourse (1978, p. 1). TheAyatollah, said Foucault, is a man who says nothing but no, who is non-political,and there will never be a “Khomeini” government (1978, p. 1). An Iranian womanresponded: “It seems that for a Western Left sick of humanism, Islam is preferable…but elsewhere! Many Iranians, like myself, are at a loss, desperate at the thought ofan ‘Islamic government’” (Eribon: 1989, p. 305). Foucault responded that Mme. H.was unintelligent, hateful, and did not understand Islam (Eribon: 1989, p. 305).White western men understand Islam better than Iranian women?Vincent Descombes (1989) analyzes Foucault’s defense of his support forKhomeini which appeared in Le Monde as “Inutile de soulever?” 25 Descombessummarizes Foucault’s political strategy: “What importance can there be in this23. Robert Young (1981, p. 3) describes semiology as “a science of signs, whereas structuralism is amethod of analysis.” Semiotics is how semiology has come to be known in America, following theinfluence of C.S.Pierce.24. See also the interview with Michel Foucault, “Iran: The Spirit of a World Without Spirit” in thecollection edited by Lawrence Kritzman (Foucault: 1988, pp. 211–224).25. See especially pp. 41–43 of Descombes (1989).