There were two points that struck me kinda hard, both on page 159 of the Haraway reading:
1. Feminism practice is the construction of this form of consciousness; that is, the self-knowledge of a self-who-is-not.
2a. To be constituted by another's desire is not the same thing as to be alienated in the violent separation of the labourer from his product.
2b. ... Feminists' consciousness of the non-existence of women, except as products of men's desires.
On point 1., I have spent a lot of time blogging about identity within the postmodern. Usually my posts argue an overarching identity that everyone has to fit into or the inability to create a true self identity because society prevents one from doing so. In this case, Haraway argues that currently women don't even have an identity. That's bizarre and off-worldly to me. How can someone not have an identity? How can you live without identity? Everyone has an identity, right? I can't even come up with an argument against that thought because it so counter to everything I know (But I am also a white, heterosexual, upper middle clas, male, so I probably dont know a lot).
Which gets to points 2a and 2b. Is the consensus view of feminists and women? Most of my best friends are women and I can't ever see them talking about their identities in this way. Is this a thought from early feminism? Does this view of self identity still permeate? If that first thought about a lack of identity blew my mind then you can understand how this is more mind blowing. How can one only exist through others? Is that worse than not existing, or are they the same?
Someone help me plz.
First, Haraway appears to be paraphrasing the argument of a theorist named MacKinnon here. Second, all that 'self-knowledge of a self-who-is-not' and 'non-existence of women' seem to mean is that if a 'subject' is defined primarily as another subject's object of desire (which is how MacKinnon describes women, i.e. as objects of men's sexual desire), then it's not a subject at all. It's a non-being, a non-subject, a site of other 'true' subjects' appetitive energies, etc. Haraway finds such an account 'not reassuring,' so I guess it isn't the consensus view of all feminists.
--Guattari Hero
I was plagued with these same questions. It ties in with the whole discussion of 'women of colour' and how this is defined by negation. It seems that a lot of things Haraway argues about is based on what things are not.
This does seem like a thought from early feminism to me, and hopefully this does not still permeate. In my opinion, this view is equal to being nonexistent. Since your entire existence is dependent on something else, you might as well not exist anyway!
I understood the notion of 'existing through others' as a extension of the thought that the only thing that exists is representation itself. There is no reality, only representation of reality. Since women exist as objects and not subjects in mainstream representations of high art and mass culture alike, women do not exist as agents. Indeed, it is problematic to think of oneself as 'non-existent' and that one might as well not exist. How can this assertion serve to correct this practice? I guess what I want to know is how does exposing this practice empower women? Is theoroizing that women have no identity, no existence, a way to seek agency? I think it is almost self-defeating.
Now, to address the question of whether I, or the other women I know, form our identity in this manner, that is puzzling. It is dis-empowering and uninspiring to think of oneself as a mass of identity created by other identity. So, perhaps this is why this seemingly antiquated criticism has not latched on to third wave feminism.