Well, it's that time. Time to wrap up the blog. Let's start with a recap.

I began the project with the aim to look at the insufficiencies of rationality, understood to refer to the Enlightenment mode of thought/argumentation. For me, these insufficiencies are twofold: first, on an affective level, the rational does not seem capable of describing many essential aspects of our existence; second, rational discourse, framed in terms of logic and objectivity, inhabits a very particular and exclusive structure. In looking at feminist critiques of rationality, or examples of feminine non-rationality, I hope to highlight some of the workings of that structure and various ways around it. Here is an overview of my sites of inquiry:

Gertrude Stein: Here, I looked at linguistic constellations and rhythmic patterns, which highlight the associative (rather than the linear) qualities of thought.

Julia Kristeva: In Kristeva, poetic language produces an excess of meaning that is not only feminine (through references to the unnameable and the void), but also transcends the rational.

María Lugones and Gloria Anzaldúa: Both women emphasize play and spirituality as alternative modes of thinking, and both highlight the ways that rationality excludes both women and non-white people, instead advocating "curdled" or "mestiza" consciousness.

Psychoanalysis and Surrealism: In different ways, these two strains of thought both have the right ideas about non-rationality and the unconscious, but both have been used to misogynistic or otherwise problematic ends. Although they are not inherently problematic, I hesitate to use them as models because of their tendencies for misinterpretation.

Women's Ways of Knowing took a social-scientific approach to paint a picture of the ways that women understand the world. Although it didn't seem to me that the model of knowing was particularly woman-specific, it provided interesting "hard evidence" that there are many ways to knowing, not all of them what we think of as rational.

Eight Women Philosophers: What this book didn't do was to show that women think differently, on an individual, cognitive level (in my mind, a good thing); what it did, rather, was to place women's thought within persistently male-dominated systems of education and knowledge-production - a project which can and should be continued for more contemporary thought.

Other avenues for (non-rational) thought include: affect, queer thinking, children, the erotic, and the physically embodied. I am particularly interested, in the future, in thinking about the last category, and how different genres and styles of performance might access rational and non-rational centers of thought in different ways.

To wrap up, I think that what I've taken from this project is (maybe oddly) an attention to form. Rationality seems highly bound up, not in what we think, but in how we think and how we express those thoughts. Perhaps this is way rationality, as a system, is particularly vulnerable to becoming discriminatory against all those who express themselves differently from the norm, whether that manifests itself through Anzaldúa's spirituality, the girls in Women's Ways of Knowing who must learn to think "how They want you to think," or common tropes of the hyper-emotional woman.

And yet these different modes of expression are vital. To demonstrate the power of this kind of unexpected variation in tapping into different centers of the brain, I will leave you with a series of photos from a performance piece by Marina Abramovic (the same woman I cited in the last entry). In this piece from MoMA, entitled "Marina Abramović: The Artist Is Present," Abramovic sits silently at a table and lets her audience stare for as long as they wish. Follow the link for photos of the results: a diversity of humans, a diversity of responses, all reacting to one woman sitting in a totally non-rational way.

"Marina Abramović: The Artist Is Present": portraits on MoMA's Flickr account.


I think your project is great. I really appreciate your wrap-up of the process in this conclusion and your final link to the images of people looking/staring at the artist. As I was wriing this last sentence I started thinking about our week on staring. Where does it fit into your discussion? Is staring rational, non-rational, irrational? Can you find forms where it is each of these three?

In your first entry/explanation, you discussed how this blog was partly inspired by your other course in the theater department. Did your exploration in this blog connect to things you were reading/discussing/writing about for that class?

Finally, did you find the experience of writing this blog to be productive? Did you achieve your goal--did this blog engage in the troubling of rationality (or the highlighting of how rationality is troubling)? What advice would you give anyone else who wants to do a blog project like this--for a class or for their own work/research?

I am glad you enjoyed the process and I appreciate your comments about how it might undermine standards of academic writing. I agree and that is one of the reasons I like doing it so much. It is time consuming--I average only about 4-5 entries per month during the school year. I hope to write a lot in my blog this summer. If you ever want to guest blog on it, just let me know.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Sophie published on May 3, 2010 10:54 AM.

Performance and the Non-Rational was the previous entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.