Chapter I
GENDER AS SERIALITY: THINKING ABOUT WOMEN AS A SOCIAL COLLECTIVE
If feminism is set forth as a demystifying force, then it will have to question thoroughly the belief in its own identity.
—Trinh Minh-ha.
In the summer of 1989 I worked in Shirley Wright's campaign for a seat on the Worcester School Committee. Shirley is black, in a city where about 5-7 percent of the population is black, and 7—10 percent is Hispanic. As in many other cities, however, more than 35 percent of the children in the public schools are black, Hispanic, or Asian, and the proportion of children of color is growing rapidly. For more than ten years all six of the school committee seats have been held by white people, and only one woman has served, for about two years. In her announcement speech Shirley Wright pledged to represent all the people of Worcester. But she noted the particular need to represent minorities, and she also emphasized the importance of representing a woman's voice on the committee.
A few weeks later a friend and I distributed Shirley Wright flyers outside a grocery store. The flyers displayed a photo of Shirley and some basics about her qualifications and issues. In the course of the morning at least two women, both white, exclaimed to me, "I'm so glad to see a woman running for school committee!" This black woman claimed to speak for women in Worcester, and some white women noticed and felt affinity with her as a woman.
This seemed to me an unremarkable, easily understandable affinity. Recent discussions among feminists about the difficulties and dangers of talking about women as a single group, however, make such incidents puzzling at least. In this essay I explore some of this discussion, which has cast doubt on the project of conceptualizing women as a group. I will agree with those critiques that show how the search for the common characteristics of women or women's oppression leads to normalizations and exclusions. I will also agree with those who argue that there are pragmatic political reasons for insisting on the possibility of thinking about women as some kind of group.
GENDER AS SERIALITY
13
These two positions pose a dilemma for feminist theory. On the one hand without some sense in which "woman" is the name of a social collective there is nothing specific to feminist politics. On the other hand, any effort to identify the attributes of that collective appears to undermine feminist politics by leaving out some whom feminists ought to include To solve this dilemma I argue for re conceptual i zing social collectivity or the meaning of social groups as what Sartre describes as a phenomenon of serial collectivity in his Critique of Dialectical Reason. Sucli a way of thinking about women, I will argue, allows us to see them as a collective without identifying common attributes that all women have or implying that all women have a common identity.
Doubts about the possibility of saying that women can be thought of as one social collective arose from challenges to a generalized conception of gender and women's oppression by women of color, in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and by lesbians. Black, Latina, Asian and indigenous women demonstrated that white feminist theory and rhetoric tended to be ethnocentric in its analysis of gender experience and oppression. Lesbians, furthermore, persistently argued that much of this analysis relied on the experience of heterosexual women. The influence of philosophical deconstruction completed the suspension of the category of "women" begun by this process of political differentiation. Exciting theorizing has shown (not for the first time) the logical problems in efforts to define clear essential categories of being. Let me review some of the most articulate recent statements of the claim that feminists should abandon or be very suspicious of a general category of woman or female gender.
Elizabeth Spelman shows definitively the mistake in any attempt to isolate gender from identities of race, class, age, sexuality, ethnicity, etc., to uncover the attributes, experience, or oppressions that women have in common.1 To be sure, we have no trouble identifying ourselves as women, white, middle class, Jewish, American, and so on. But knowing the "right" labels to call ourselves and others does not imply the existence of anv checklist of attributes that all those with the same label have in common. The absurdity of trying to isolate gender identity from race or class identity becomes apparent if you ask of any individual woman whether she can distinguish the Vornan part" of herself from the "white part" or the "Jewish part." Feminist theorists nevertheless have often assumed that the distinctive and specific attributes of gender can be identified by holding race and class constant, or by examining the lives of
14
CHAPTER I
women who suffer only sexist oppression and not also oppressions of race, or class, or age, or sexuality.
The categories according to which people are identified as the same or different, Spelman suggests, are social constructs that reflect no natures or essences. They carry and express relations of privilege and subordination, the power of some to determine for others how they will be named, what differences are important for what purposes. Because it has assumed that women form a single group with common experiences attributes, or oppression, much feminist theorizing has exhibited such privileged points of view by unwittingly taking the experience of white middle-class, heterosexual women as representative for all women Even when feminists attempt to take account of differences among women moreover, they often manifest these biases because they faii to notice the race or class specificity of white, middle-class women and how these also mod.fy our gender. Much feminist taik about paying attention to differences among women, Spelman points out, tends to label only women of color or old women or disabled women as "different "
Chandra Mohanty believes that feminism has assumed women "as an already constituted, coherent group with identical interests and desires regardless of class, ethnic or racial location, or contradictions * Feminism has assumed "a notion of gender or sexual difference or even patriarchy which can be applied universally or even cross-culturally" (p 55) She believes that this category of Vornan" as designating a single, coherent, already constituted group influences feminists to regard all women as equally powerless and oppressed victims. Rather than developing questions about how and whether women in a particular time and place suffer discrimination and limitation on their action and desires which can then be empirically investigated, the assumption of universal gender categones bypasses such empirical investigation by finding oppression a prion. This tendency ,s especially damaging in the way European and Amencan femimsts think and write about women in the Southern and Eastern  Hemispheres.  Assumptions  about a homogeneous  category Vomen    help create a homogeneous category of Third World Women who stand as the Other to Western feminists, who define Third World Women as powerless victims of patriarchy.
Judith Buder draws more explicitly on postmodern theories to argue against the viability of the category of Vornan" and gender.* In a Fou-cauitian mode, Buder argues that the idea of gender identity and the attempt to describe it have a normalizing power. The verv act of defining a gender identity excludes or devalues some bodies, practices, and Z courses, at the same time that it obscures the constructed, and thus contestable, character of that gender identity.
GENDER AS SERIALITY                                         15
Feminism has assumed that it can be neither theoretical nor political without a subject. Female gender identity and experience delineates that subject. Feminist politics, it is assumed, speaks for or in the name of someone, the group women, who are defined by this female gender identity.
The category of gender was promoted by feminism precisely to criticize and reject traditional efforts to define women's nature through biological sex. In its own way, however, gender discourse tends to reify the fluid and shifting social processes in which people relate, communicate, play, work, and struggle with one another over the means of production and interpretation. The insistence on a subject for feminism obscures the social and discursive production of identities.
In one of her most important arguments of the book, Butler shows that the feminist effort to distinguish sex and gender itself contributes to such obscuring by ignoring the centrality of enforced heterosexuality in the social construction of gender. However variable its content is understood to be, the form of gender differentiation is always a binary opposition between the masculine and the feminine. Inasmuch as sexual difference is classified only as man and woman, then, gender always mirrors sex. The binary complementarity of this sex/gender system is required and makes sense, however, only with the assumption of the heterosexual complementarity. Gender identification thus turns out not to be a culturally variable overlay on a p re give n biological sex; rather, the categories of gender construct sexual difference itself.
Gender can delineate a unity of experience, of sex, gender and desire, only when sex can be understood in some sense to necessitate gender. The internal coherence or unity (if either gender, man or woman, thereby requires both a stable and oppositional heterosexuality. Thus we see the political reasons for substantializing gender, (p. 23)
This mutual reinforcement and reification of (hetero)sex and gender suppresses any ambiguities and incoherences among heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual practices. This unity of sex and gender organizes the variability of desiring practices along a single scale of normal and deviant behavior. Butler concludes that feminism's attempt to construct or speak for a subject, to forge the unity of coalition from the diversities of history and practice, will always lead to such ossifications. The primary task for feminist theory and politics is critical: to formulate genealogies that show how a given category of practice is socially constructed. Feminist discourse and practice should become and remain open, its totality permanendy deferred, accepting and affirming the flows and shifts in the contingent relations of social practices and institutions.
10
CHAPTER I
These analyses are powerful and accurate. They identify ways that essentializing assumptions and the point of view of privileged women dominate much feminist discourse, even when it tries to avoid such hegemonic moves. They draw important lessons for any future feminist theorizing that wishes to avoid excluding some women from its theories or freezing contingent social relations into a false necessity. But I find the exclusively critical orientation of such arguments rather paralyzing. Do these arguments imply that it makes no sense and is morally wrong ever to talk about women as a group, or in fact to talk about social groups at all? It is not clear that these writers claim this. If not, then what can it mean to use the term "woman"? More importantly, in the light of these critiques, what sort of positive claims can feminists make about the way social life is and ought to be? I find such questions unasked and unad-dressed by these critiques of feminist essentialism.
II
What is the genealogy of the essentializing discourse that established a normative feminist subject, woman, which excluded, devalued, or found deviant the lives and practices of many women? Like most discursive constructs, this is ovcrdetermined. But I suggest that one important source of the oppressive and paradoxical consequences of conceptualizing women as a group is the adoption of a theoretical stance. In large part feminist discourse about gender was motivated by the desire to establish a counterdieory to Marxism, to de%'elop a feminist theory that would conceive sex or gender as a category with as much theoretical weight as class. This desire employs a totalizing impulse. What is a woman? What is woman's social position such that it is not reducible to class? Are all societies structured by male domination, and of the same form, or variable forms? What are the origins and causes of this male domination?
These are all general and rather abstract theoretical questions. By "theory" I mean a kind of discourse that aims to be comprehensive, to give a systematic account and explanation of social relations as a whole. A theory tells the way things are in some universal sense. From it one can derive particular instances, or at least one can apply the theoretical propositions to particular facts, which the theory's generalities are supposed to "cover," A social theory is self-enclosed, in the sense that it offers no particular purpose other than to understand, to reveal the way things arc.
Despite much work in the last twenty years to make theories along these lines, feminists do not need and should not want theory in this sense. Instead, we should take a more pragmaticorientation to our intel-
GENDERAS SERIALITY
17
lectual discourse. By being "pragmatic" I mean categorizing, explaining, developing accounts and arguments that are tied to specific practical and political problems, where the purpose of this theoretical activity is clearly related to those problems.4 Pragmatic theorizing in this sense is not necessarily any less complex or sophisticated than totalizing theory, but rather it is driven by some problem that has ultimate practical important and is not concerned to give an account of a whole. In this essay I take the pragmatic problem to be a political dilemma generated by feminist critiques of the concept "woman," and I aim to solve it by articulating some concepts without claiming to provide an entire social theory.
From this pragmatic point of view, I wish to ask, why does it matter whether we even consider conceptualizing women as a group? One reason to conceptualize women as a collective, I think, is to maintain a point of view outside of liberal individualism. The discourse of liberal individualism denies the reality of groups. According to liberal individualism, categorizing people in groups by race, gender, religion, and sexuality, and acting as though these ascriptions say something significant about the person and his or her experience, capacities, and possibilities, is invidious and oppressive. The only liberatory approach is to think of people and treat them as individuals, variable and unique. This individualist ideology, however, in fact obscures oppression. Without conceptualizing women as a group in some sense, it is not possible to conceptualize oppression as a systematic, structured, institutional process. If we obey the injunction to think of people only as individuals, then the disadvantages and exclusions we call oppressions reduce to individuals in one of two ways. Either we blame the victims and say that the disadvantaged person's individual life-styles and capacities render them less competitive; or we attribute their disadvantage to the attitudes of other individuals, who for whatever reason don't "like" the disadvantaged ones. In either case structural and political ways to address and rectify the disadvantage are written out of the discourse, leaving individuals to wrestle with their bootstraps. The importance of beingable to talk about disadvantage and oppression in terms of groups exists just as much for those oppressed through race, class, sexuality, ethnicity, and so on, as through gender.5
The naming of women as a specific and distinct social collective, moreover, is a difficult achievement, and one that gives feminism its specificity as a political movement. The possibility of conceptualizing ethnic, religious, cultural, or national groups, for example, rarely comes into question because their social existence itself usually involves some common traditions—language, rituals, songs and stories, or dwelling place. Women, however, are dispersed among all these groups. The operation of most marriage and kinship forms brings women under the identity of
18                                                        CHAPTER I
men in each and all of these groups, in the privacy of household and bed. The exclusions, oppressions, and disadvantages that women often suffer can hardly be thought at all without a structural conception of women as a collective social position. The first step in feminist resistance to such oppressions is the affirmation of women as a group, so that women can cease to be divided and believe that their sufferings are natural or merely personal. Denial of the reality of a social collective women reinforces the privilege of those who benefit from keeping women divided.0
Feminist politics evaporates, that is, without some conception of women as a social collective. Radical politics may remain, as a commitment to social justice for all people, among them those called women. But the claim that feminism expresses a distinct politics allied with anti-imperialism, anti-racism, gay liberation, and so on, but asking a unique set of enlightening questions about a distinct axis of social oppression, cannot be sustained without some means of conceptualizing women and gender as social structures.
The logical and political difficulties inherent in the attempt to conceptualize women as a single group with a set of common attributes and shared identity appear to be insurmountable. Yet if we cannot conceptualize women as a group, feminist politics appears to lose any meaning. Is there a way out of this dilemma? In my reading of recent feminist discussions of this problem I have found two strategies for solving it: the attempt to theorize gender identity as multiple rather than binary, and the argument that women constitute a group only in the politicized context of feminist struggle. I shall argue now that both of these strategories fail. Spelman herself explores the strategy of multiple genders. She does not dispense with the category of gender, but instead suggests that a woman's gender identity and gender attributes are different according to what race, class, religion, etc., she belongs to. Gender is a relational concept, not the naming of an essence. One finds the specific characteristics and attributes of the gender identity of women by comparing their situation with that of men. But if one wishes to locate the gender-based oppression of women, it is wrong to compare all women with all men. For some women are definitely privileged when compared to some men. To find the gender-specific attributes of a woman's experience, Spelman suggests, one must restrict the comparison to men and women of the same race or class or nationality. Women of different races or classes, moreover, often have opposing gender attributes. On this reasoning women as such cannot be said to be a group. Properly designated   groups   are   "white   women,"   "black   women,"   'Jewish women," "working-class women," "Brazilian women," each with specific gender characteristics.7
GENDER AS SĽRIALITY                                              19
In a recent paper Ann Ferguson proposes a similar solution to the contradictions and quandaries that arise when feminists assume that all women share a common identity and set of gendered attributes.
Instead of a concept of sisterhood based on a shared gender identity, it may be more helpful to posit different racial gender positions, and possibly different class gender positions. Processes of racialization in U.S. history have created at least ten gender identities informed with racial difference if we consider the various subordinate races: black, Latino, Native American, and Asian, as well as the dominant white race.8
There is much to recommend this concept of multiple genders as a way of describing the differentiations and contradictions in the social experience of gender. The idea of multiple genders highlights the fact that not all men are equally privileged by gender. It also makes clear that some women are privileged in relation to some men, a privilege that derives partly from their gender. It allows the theorist to look for race- or class-specific gender interactions and expectations, without essential-izing them. Multiple-gender conceptualization may also address the problems of binarism and heterosexism (hat Butler finds with gender theory. According to a concept of multiple genders, the gender identity of lesbians, for example, can be conceptualized as different from that of straight women.
Despite its promising virtues, the strategy of multiplying gender also has some dangers. First, it is just not true, as Spelman suggests, that gender relations are structured primarily within a class, race, nationality, and so on. A working-class woman's gendered experience and oppression is not properly identified only by comparing her situation to that of working-<lass men. Much of her gendered experience is conditioned by her relation to middle-class or ruling-class men. If she experiences sexual harrassment at work, for example, her harrasscr is at least as likely to be a middle-class professional man as a working-class assembler or deliv-eryman. Examples of such cross-class or cross-race relations between men and women can be multiplied. In such relations it would be false to say that the class or race difference is not as important as the gender difference, but it would be equally false to say that the cross-class or cross-race relations between men and women are not gendered relations. But if we conceive African American feminine gender, for example, as having one set of attributes in relation to African American men and another in relation to white men, one of two things results: either we need to multiply genders further, or we need to draw back and ask what makes both of these genders womanly.
20
CHAPTER I
Second, the idea of multiple genders presumes a stability and unity to the categories of race, class, religion, ethnicity, etc. that divide women. To conceptualize "American Indian woman" as a single identity different from "white woman," we must implicitly assume "American Indian" or "white" as stable categories. As Susan Bordo points out, feminist arguments against conceptualizing women as a single group often privilege categories of race or class, failing to challenge the appropriateness of these group categories.9 But the same arguments against considering these categories as unities can be used as the arguments against thinking about women as a unity. American Indians are divided by class, region, religion, and ethnicity, as well as by gender. Working-class people are divided by race, ethnicity, region, religion, and sexuality, as well as by gender. The idea of multiple genders can solve the problems and paradoxes involved in conceptualizing women as a group only by presuming categorical unities to class and race.
This last point leads to the final objection to the idea of multiple-genders. This strategy can generate an infinite regress that dissolves groups into individuals. Any category can be considered an arbitrary unity. Why claim that black women, for example, have a distinct and unified gender identity? Black women are American, Haitian, Jamaican, African, Northern, Southern, poor, working class, lesbian, or old. Each of these divisions may be important to a particular woman's gender identity. But then we are back to the question of what it means to call her a woman. The strategy of multiple genders, then, while useful in directing attention to the social specificities of gender differentiation and gender interaction, does not resolve the dilemma I have posed. Instead, it seems to swing back and forth between the two poles of that dilemma.
Some feminist theorists propose "identity politics" as a different answer to the criticism of essentializing gender while retaining a conception of women as a group. An identity "woman" that unites subjects into a group is not a natural or social given, but rather the fluid construct of a political movement, feminism. Thus Diana Fuss agrees that the concept "woman" cannot name a set of attributes that a group of individuals has in common, a substantial subject, nor is there a female gender identity that defines the social experience of womanhood. Instead, feminist politics itself creates an identity "woman" out of a coalition of diverse female persons dispersed across the world.
Coalition politics precedes class and determines its limits and boundaries; we cannot identify a group of women until various social, historical, political conditions construct the conditions and possibilities for membership. Many anti-essemialists fear that positing a political coalition of women risks
GENDER AS SERIALITY
21
presuming that there must first be a natural class of women; but this belief only makes the fact that it is coalition politics which constructs the category of women (and men) in the first place.10
Interpreting the theoretical writings of several black feminist writers, Nancie Caraway proposes a similar understanding of women as a group. Unity and solidarity among women is a product of political discussion and struggle among people of diverse backgrounds, experiences, and interests who are differently situated in matrices of power and privilege. The process of discussion and disagreement among feminists forges a common commitment to a politics against oppression that produces the identity "woman" as a coalition.
Identity politics advances a space for political action, praxis, justified by the critical positioning of the marginalized subjects against hierarchies of
power—the Enlightenment promise of transcendence----These emerging
theories are codes about the fluid construction of identity. They are not racially specific; they speak to both white and black feminists about the shared and differentiated faces of female oppression.11
The identity politics position has some important virtues. It rightly recognizes that the perception of a common identity among persons must be the product of social or political process that brings them together around a purpose. It retains a conception of women as a group that it believes feminist politics needs, at the same time clearly rejecting an essentialist or substantive conception of gender identity. There are, however, at least two problems with identity politics as a way to get out of the dilemma I have articulated.
Judith Butler points out the first. Even though identity politics' coalition politics and de constructive discourse avoids substantializing gender, the dangers of normalization are not thereby also avoided. The feminist politics that produces a coalition of mutually identifying women nevertheless privileges some norms or experiences over others. Thus Butler suggests that feminist politics should be suspicious of setding into a unified coalition. The question of solidarity should never be settled, and identities should shift and be deconstructed in a play of possibilities that exclude no one.
My second objection to the idea that women are a group only as the construction of feminist politics is that it seems to make feminist politics arbitrary. Some women just choose to come together in a political movement and form themselves as a group of mutually identifying agents. But on the basis of what do they come together? What are the social conditions that have motivated the poiitics? Perhaps even more important, do feminist politics not refer to women who do not identify as feminists?
22                                                        CHAPTER r
These questions all point to the need for some conception of women as a group prior to the formation of self-conscious feminist politics, as designating a certain set of relations or positions that motivate the particular politics of feminism.
Ill
Stories like Shirley Wright's race for school committee remind us that everday language seems to be able to talk about women as a collective in some sense, even though women's experiences vary considerably by class, race, sexuality, age, or society. But Spelman, Mohanty, Butler, and others are right to criticize the exclusionary and normalizing implications of most attempts to theorize this everyday experience. Feminist theory today lives in a dilemma. We want and need to describe women as a group, yet it appears that we cannot do so without being normalizing and essential ist.
I propose a way out of this dilemma through a use of the concept of seriality that Sartre develops in the Critique of Dialectical Reason. I propose that we understand gender as referring to a social series, a specific kind of social collectivity that Sartre distinguishes from groups. Understanding gender as seriality, I suggest, has several virtues. It provides a way of thinking about women as a social collective without requiring that all women have common attributes or a common situation. Gender as seriality, moreover, does not rely on identity or self-identity for understanding the social production and meaning of membership in collectives.
One might well question any project that appropriates Sartrian philosophy positively for feminist theory.12 Much of Sartre's writing is hopelessly sexist and male biased. This is certainly manifest in his theorization and functionalization of heterosexual relations. Perhaps more fundamentally, Sartre's early existentialist ontology presumes human relations as oppositional, egoistical, and basically violent. While the later philosophy on which I will draw is less individualistic than the early philosophy, the later philosophy retains the assumption of human relations as latently violent. In the later philosophy boxing is a paradigm of the relation of self and other as mediated by a third.
Although Sartre's writing is sexist and his ontological assumptions about human relations tend to derive from masculine experience, I nevertheless have found the idea of seriality in particular, and its distinction from other kinds of social collective, of use in thinking about women as a collective. Linda Singer has talked about the feminist philosopher as a "Bandita," an intellectual outlaw who raids the texts of male philosophers and steals from them what she finds pretty or useful, leaving the rest behind.13 I aim to approach Sartre's texts with the spirit of this Ban-
GF.NDERAS SERIALITY
23
dita. From them I take out and rearticulate for my purposes the concepts I think will help resolve the dilemma I have posed. In doing so I need not drag all of Sartre with me, and I may be "disloyal" to him.
In the Critique of Dialectical Reason, Sartre distinguishes several levels of social collectivity by their order of internai complexity and reflexivity. For the purposes of addressing the problem of thinking about women as a social collective, the important distinction is between a group and a series. A group is a collection of persons that recognize themselves and one another as in a unified relation with one another. Members of the group mutually acknowledge that together they undertake a common project. Members of the group, that is, are united by action that they undertake together. In acknowledging himself or herself as a member of the group, an individual acknowledges himself or herself as oriented toward the same goals as the others; each individual thereby assumes the common project as a project for his or her individual action. What makes the project shared, however, is the mutual acknowledgment among the members of the group that they are engaged in the project together; this acknowledgment usually becomes explicit at some point in a pledge, contract, constitution, set of by-laws, or statement of purpose. The project of the group is a collective project, moreover, insofar as the members of the group mutually acknowledge that it can only be or is best undertaken by a group—storming the Bastille, staging an international women's conference, achieving women's suffrage, building an amphitheater.14
So far in this essay I have used the term "group" loosely, as does ordinary language, to designate any collection of people. Since my theorizing about women depends on Sartre's distinction between group and series, however, from now on in this paper I shall reserve the term "group" for the self-consciously mutually acknowledging collective with a self-conscious purpose. Much of an individual's life and action takes place in and is structured by a multitude of groups in this sense. Not all structured social action occurs in groups, however. As Sartre explains it, groups arise from and often fall back into a less organized and un-self-conscious collective unity, which he calls a series.
Within Sartre's conception of human freedom, all social relations must be understood as the production of action. Unlike a group, which forms around actively shared objectives, a series is a social collective whose members are unified passively by the objects their actions are oriented around and/or by the objectified results of the material effects of the actions of the others. In everyday life we often experience ourselves and others impersonally, as participating in amorphous collectives defined by routine practices and habits. The unity of the series derives from the way that individuals pursue their own individual ends in respect

24                                                  CHAPTER I
to the same objects conditioned by a continuous material environment, in response to structures that have been created by the unintended collective result of past actions.
Sartre describes people waiting for a bus as such a series. They are a collective, insofar as they minimally relate to one another and follow the rules of bus waiting. As a collective they are brought together by their relation to a material object, the bus, and the social practices of public transportation. Their actions and goals may be different; they have nothing necessarily in common in their histories, experiences, or identity. They are united only by their desire to ride on that route. Though they are in this way a social collective, they do not identify with one another, do not affirm themselves as engaged in a shared enterprise or identify' themselves with common experiences. The latent potential of this series to organize itself as a group will become manifest, however, if the bus fails to come; they will complain to one another about the lousy bus service, share horror stories of lateness and breakdowns, perhaps assign one of their number to go call the company, or discuss sharing a taxi.
Serial collectivity, according to Sartre, is precisely the obverse of the mutual identification typical of the group. Each goes about his or her own business. But each is also aware of the serialized context of that activity in a social collective whose structure constitutes them within certain limits and constraints. In seriality, a person experiences not only others, but also himself or herself as an Other, that is, as an anonymous someone. "Everyone is the same as the other insofar as he is Other than himself" (p. 260). Individuals in the series are fungible; while not identical, from the point of view of the social practices and objects that generate the series, the individuals could be in one another's place. It is contingent that I am third in line for the bus today. Thus in the series individuals are isolated, but not alone. They understand themselves as constituted as a collective, as serialized, by the objects and practices through wrhich they aim to accomplish their individual purposes. Often their actions take into account their expectations of the behavior of others in the series whom they nevertheless do not encounter. For example, I ask for a later schedule at work so that I will miss the rush hour.
Sartre uses the example of radio listening to illustrate some of the characteristics of seriality. The collective of radio listeners is constituted by their individual orientation toward objects, in this case radios and their material possibilities of sound transmission. As listeners they are isolated, but nevertheless they are aware of being part of a series of radio listeners, of others listening simultaneously linked to them indirecdy through broadcasting. One's experience of radio listening is partly conditioned by the awareness of being linked to others from whom one is
GENDER AS SERIALITY
25
separated, and that one is other for them. Frequently the radio announcer explicitly refers to the serialized being of the listeners.
Sartre calls the series a practico-inert reality. The series is structured by actions linked to practico-inert objects. Social objects and their effects are the results of human action, they are practical. But as material they also constitute constraints on and resistances to action, which make them experienced as inert. The built environment is a practical-inert reality. All of the products of human decision and action, daily used by and dwelt in by people, the streets and buildings are inert. Their material qualities enable and constrain many aspects of action.
Sartre calls the system of practico-inert objects and the material results of actions in relation to them that generate and are reproduced by serial collectives the milieu of action. The milieu is the already-there set of material things and collectivized habits against the background of which any particular action occurs. Thus for the series designated "commuters," for example, the milieu is the totality of the structured relations of the physical space of streets and rail lines, together with the predictable traffic patterns that emerge from the confluence of individual actions, together with the rules, habits, and cultural idiosyncracies of driving,
riding, and walking.
Serialized action within the milieu results in counter-finalitoes: the confluence of individual intentional actions to produce a result that is counter to some purposes and that no one intended. Within a certain kind of milieu the series "commuters" will produce a gridlock; each individual driver pursues his or her own individual ends under material conditions that eventually make a large cluster of them unable to move.
The collective otherness of serialized existence is thus often experienced as constraint, felt necessities that often are experienced as given or natural. Members of the series experience themselves as powerless to alter this material milieu, and they understand that the others in the series are equally constrained. "A series reveals itself to everyone when they perceive in themselves and Others their common inability to eliminate their material differences" (p. 277). At the same time, the material milieu and objects are conditions of enablement for action. Objectives can be realized only through the mediation of already there things, practices, and structures. A market is paradigmatic of such structured relations of alienation and anonymity that are felt as constraints on everyone. I take my corn to market in hopes of getting a good price, knowing that some people are trading on its price in a futures market, and that other farmers bring their corn as well. We know that by bringing our large quantity of corn we contribute to a fall in its price, and we might each play the futures market ourselves. But we are all equally as
26
CHAPTER I
individuals unable to alter the collective results of these individual choices, choices which themselves have been made partly because of our expectations of what is happening to market prices.
Membership in serial collectives defines an individual's being, in a sense—one "is" a farmer, or a commuter, or a radio listener, and so on, together in series with others similarly positioned. But the definition is anonymous, and the unity of the series is amorphous, without determinate limits, attributes, or intentions. Sartre calls it a unity "in flight," a collective gathering that slips away at the edges, whose qualities and characteristics are impossible to pin down because they are an inert result of the confluence of actions. There is no concept of the series, no specific set of attributes that form the sufficient conditions for membership in it. Who belongs to the series of bus riders? Only those riding today? Those who regularly ride? Occasionally? Those who may ride buses and know the social practices of bus riding? While serial membership delimits and constrains an individual's possible actions, it does not define the person's identity in the sense of forming his or her individual purposes, projects, and sense of self in relation to others.
Thus far the examples of seriality have been rather simple and one-dimensional. Sartre's theoretical purpose in developing the concept, however, is to describe the meaning of social class. Most of the time what it means to be a member of the working class or the capitalist class is to live in series with others in that class through a complex, interlocking set of objects, structures, and practices in relation to work, exchange, and consumption.
Class being does not define a person's identity, because one is a class member in a mode of otherness, otherness to oneself in one's subjectivity. If one says "I am a worker" in naming serialized class being, this does not designate for one a felt and internalized identity, but a social facticity about the material conditions of one's life. (To be sure, one can and many do say "I am a worker" as a badge of pride and identity. But when this happens the class being is not experienced in seriality; rather, one has formed a group with other workers with whom one has established self-conscious bonds of solidarity.) As serialized, class lies as a historical and materialized background to individual lives. A person is born into a class in the sense that a history of class relations precedes her, and the characteristics of the work that she will do or not do are already inscribed in machines, the physical structure of factories and offices, the geographic relations of city and suburb. An individual encounters other members of the class as alienated others, separated through the materiality of the things that define and delimit one's class being—the factory with its machines, the physical movements and demands of the production process, the residential districts, buses, and highways that bring the
GENDER AS SERIALITY
27
orkers into contact. As class members the individuals are relatively interchangeable, and nothing defines them as workers but the practico-inert constraints on their actions that they find themselves powerless to change. "If you want to eat, then you have to get a job" expresses the anonymous constraints on anyone who lacks independent means of
support.
Let me now summarize the major elements in the concept of seriality. A series is a collective whose members are unified passively by the relation their actions have to material objects and practico-inert histories. The practico-inert milieu, within which and by means of whose structures individuals realize their aims, is experienced as constraints on the mode and limits of action. To be said to be part of the same series it is not necessary to identify a set of common attributes that every member has, because their membership is defined not by something they are, but rather by the fact that in their diverse existences and actions they are oriented around the same objects or practico-inert structures. Membership in the series does not define one's identity. Each member of the series is isolated, Other to the Others, and as a member of the series Other than themselves. Finally, there is no concept of the series within attributes that clearly demarcate what about individuals makes them belong. The series is a blurry, shifting unity, an amorphous collective.
Seriality designates a level of social life and action, the level of habit and the unreflective reproduction of ongoing historical social structures. Self-conscious groups arise from and on the basis of serialized existence, as a reaction to it and an active reversal of its anonymous and isolating conditions. After I express how gender is seriality, I shall explain the relationship between groups of women and the series women.
IV
Applying the concept of seriality to gender, I suggest, makes theoretical sense out of saying that "women" is a reasonable social category, expressing a certain kind of social unity. At the same time, conceptualizing gender as a serial collectivity avoids the problems I summarized earlier that feminist theorists have argued emerge from saying that women are a single group.
As I explained earlier, seriality designates a certain kvel of social existence and relations with others, the level of routine, habitual action, which is rule-bound and socially structured, but as a prereflective background to action. Seriality is lived as medium, or, as I developed earlier milieu, where action is directed at particular ends that presuppose the series without taking them up self-consciously.
28                                                  CHAPTER 1
Thus, as a series woman is the name of a structural relation to material objects as they have been produced and organized by a prior history, which carries the material necessities of past practices congealed in their matter. But the series women is not so simple and one-dimensional as bus riders or radio listeners. Gender, like class, is a vast, multi-faceted, layered, complex, and overlapping set of structures and objects. Women are the individuals who are positioned as feminine by these activities.
The loose unity of the series, I have said, derives from the fact that individuals' actions are oriented toward the same or similarly structured objects. What are the practico-inert realities that construct gender? Clearly female bodies have something to do with the constitution of the series "women," but it is not merely the physical facts of these female bodies themselves—attributes of breasts, vaginas, clitorises, and so on— that construct female gender. Social objects are not merely physical but also inscribed by and the products of past practices. The female body as a practko-inert object toward which action is oriented is a rule-bound body, a body with understood meanings and possibilities. Menstruation, for example, is a regular biological event occurring in most female bodies within a certain age range. It is not this biological process alone, however, that locates individuals in the series "women." Rather, the social rules of menstruation, along with the material objects associated witli menstrual practices, constitute the activity within which the women live as serialized. One can say the same about biological events like pregnancy, childbirth, and lactation.
The structure of the social body defining these bodily practices, however, is enforced heterosexuality. The meanings, rules, practices, and assumptions of institutionalized heterosexuality constitute the series women as in a relation of potential appropriation by men. Likewise the series men appears in the structures of enforced heterosexuality. The assumptions and practices of heterosexuality define the meaning of bodies—vaginas, clitorises, penises—not as mere physical objects but as practico-inert.
Even one so anti-essentialist as Gayatri Spivak locates heterosexuality as a set of material-ideological facts that constitute women cross-culturally. The material practices of enforced heterosexuality serialize women as objects of exchange and appropriation by men, with a consequent repression of autonomous active female desire.
In legally defining woman as object of exchange, passage, or possession in terms of reproduction, it is not only the womb that is literally "appropriated"; it is the clitoris and signifier of the sexed object that is effaced. All historical the theoretical investigation into the definition of women as legal
GENDER AS SERIALITY
29
Wr-in or out of marriage; or as politico-economic passageway for property and legitimacy would fall within the investigation of the varieties of the effacementof the clitoris.15
Bodies however, are only one of the practico-inert objects that position individuals in the gender series. A huge complex of other objects Id materialized historical products condition women s lives as gen-Hered Pronouns locate individual people, along with animals and other nhiects in a gender system. Verbal and visual representations more generally create and reproduce gender meanings that condition a person s action and her interpretation of the actions of others. A multitude of artifacts and social spaces in which people act are flooded with gender codes Clothes are the primary example, but there are also cosmetics, tools even in some cases furniture and spaces that materially inscribe the norms of gender. I may discover myself "as a woman" by being on the
"wrong" dorm floor.
What usually structures the gendered relation of these practico-inert objects is a sexual division of labor. Though their content vanes with each social system, a division of at least some tasks and activities by sex appears as a felt necessity. The division between caring for babies and bodies and not doing so is the most common sexual division of labor, over which many other labor divisions are layered in socially specific ways. Other sexual divisions of tasks and activities are more arbitrary but in practice are also felt as "natural." Think, for example, about the gen-derization of football and field hockey in most American colleges. The context of the sexual division of labor varies enormously across history, culture, and institutions. Where the division appears, however, it usually produces a multitude of practico-inert objects that constitute the gendered series. The offices, workstations, locker rooms, uniforms, and instruments of a particular activity presuppose a certain sex. The language, gestures, and rituals of exclusion or inclusion of persons in activities reproduce the divisions by attracting people to or repelling people from
those activities.
Bodies and objects constitute the gendered series women through structures like enforced heterosexuality and the sexual division of labor.
i I have interpreted Sartre's concept, being positioned by these struc--res in the series "women" does not itself designate attributes that attach to the person in the series, nor does it define her identity. Individuals move and act in relation to practico-inert objects that position them as "women." The practico-inert structures that generate the milieu of gendered serialized existence both enable and constrain action, but they do not determine or define it. The individuals pursue their own ends; they get a living for themselves in order to have some pleasures of eating
30
CHAPTER I
and relaxation. The sexual division of labor both enables them to gain that living and constrains their manner of doing so by ruling out or making difficult some possibilities of action. The bathroom enables me to relieve myself, and its gender-marked door constrains the space in which and next to whom I do it.
The practico-inert structures of the gender series are abstract in relation to individuals and to groups of individuals. They are possibilities and orientations for concrete actions that give them content. The gender structures are not defining attributes of individuals, but material social facts that each individual must deal with and relate to. The subjective experiential relation that each person has, and sometimes groups have, to the gender structure are infinitely variable. In a heterosexist society, for example, everyone must deal with and act in relation to structures of enforced heterosexuaiity. But there are many attitudes a particular individual can take toward that necessity: she can internalize norms of feminine masochism, she can try to avoid sexual interaction, she can affirmatively take up her sexual role as a tool for her own ends, and she can reject heterosexual requirements and love other women, to name just a few.16
In seriality, I said above, the individual experiences herself as anonymous, Other to herself, and Other to the others, contingently fungible with them. Sometimes when I become aware of myself "as a woman" I experience this serial anonymous facticity. The serialized experience of being gendered is precisely the obverse of mutual recognition and positive identification of oneself as in a group. "I am a woman" at this level is an anonymous fact that does not define me in my active individuality. It means that I check one box rather than another on my driver's license application, that I use maxi pads, wear pumps, and sometimes find myself in situations when I anticipate deprecation or humiliation from a man. As I utter the phrase, I experience a serial interchange ability between myself and others. In the newspaper I read about a woman who was raped, and I empathize with her because I recognize that in my serialized existence I am rapeable, the potential object of male appropriation. But this awareness depersonalizes me, constructs me as Other to her and Other to myself in a serial interchangeability, rather than defining my sense of identity. I do not here mean to deny that many women have a sense of identity as women, and I will discuss this issue in the next section. Here I only claim that the level of gender as series is a background to rather than constitutive of personal or group identity.
I have already referred to the fact that Sartre's main purpose in developing the concept of seriality is to describe unorganized class existence, the positioning of individuals in relations of production and consumption. Race or nationality can also be fruitfully conceptualized as serial-
GENDERAS SERIALITY
■t. i' At the level of seriality racial position is constructed by a relation of 1 ersons to a materialized racist history that has constructed racially separated spaces, a racial division of labor, racist language and discourse, and o on A person can and often does construct a positive racial identity Swig with others from out of this serialized positioning. But such racial identification is an active taking up of a serialized situation. Which, if any, of a person's serial memberships become salient or meaningful at anv time is a variable matter.
Like gender structures, class or race structures do not primarily name attributes of individuals or aspects of their identity, but practico-inert necessities that condition their lives and with which they must deal. Individuals may take up varying attitudes toward these structures, including forming a sense of class or racial identity and forming groups with others thev identify with.                                                                 .    .
Thus the concept of seriality provides a useful way of thinking about the relationship of race, class, gender, and other collective structures to the individual person. If these are each forms of seriality, then they do not necessarily define the identity of individuals and do not necessarily name attributes they share with others. They are material structures arising from people's historically congealed, institutionalized actions and expectations that position and limit individuals in determinate ways with which they must deal. An individual's position in each of the series means that they have differing experiences and perceptions from those differendy situated. But individuals can relate to these social position-ings in different ways; the same person may relate to them in different ways in different social contexts or at different times in their lives.
Á person can choose to make none of her serial memberships important for her sense of identity. Or she can find that her family, neighborhood, and church network makes the serial facts of race, for example, important for her identity and development of a group solidarity. Or she can develop a sense of herself and membership in group affiliations that makes different serial structures important to her in different respects, or salient in different kinds of circumstances.
The purpose of saying that women names a series is to resolve the dilemma that has developed in feminist theory: that we must be able to describe women as a social collective, yet apparently we cannot do so without false essentialism that normalizes and excludes. Thinking about gender as seriality avoids both the problem of essentialism and the problem of identity that have plagued efforts to define what it means to be a woman.
32
CHAPTER I
An essentialist approach to conceiving women as a social collective treats women as a substance, a kind of entity in which some specific attributes inhere. One classifies a person as a woman according to whether that person has the essential attributes all women share: something about their bodies, their behavior or dispositions as persons, their experience or oppression. The problem with this approach to conceptualizing women as a collective is that any effort to locate those essential attributes has one of two consequences. Either it empties the category woman of social meaning by reducing it to the attributes of biological female, or in the effort to locate essential social attributes it founders on the variability and diversity of women's actual lives. The effort to locate particular social attributes that all women share is likely to leave out some persons called women, or to distort their lives to fit the categories.
Conceptualizing gender as seriality avoids this problem because it does not claim to identify specific attributes that all women have. This is part of what it means to say that the series is not a concept, that its unity is fuzzy, in flight. There is a unity to the series "women," but it is a passive unity, not one that arises from the individuals called women, but rather that positions them through the material organization of social relations as enabled and constrained by the structural relations I have called enforced heterosexuality and the sexual division of labor. These are not attributes that attach to some or all women, but rather the structure of actions and expectations of others along with their material results toward which the actions of particular female persons are oriented. The content of these structures varies enormously from one social context to the next. Saying that a person is a woman may predict something about the general constraints and expectations she must deal with. But it predicts nothing in particular about who she is, what she does, how she takes up her social positioning.
Thinking of gender as seriality also avoids the identity problem. At least since Nancy Chodorow developed her theory of the psychodynam-ics of mother-infant relations, gender has been understood as a mode of personal identity.18 By identity, I mean one of two conceptions, which sometimes appear together. First, identity designates something about who persons are in a deep psychological sense. This is the primary meaning of identity in Chodorow's theory of gender identity. She argues that feminine gender identity gives women more permeable ego boundaries than men, thus making relations with other persons important for their self-conception. Many recent moral and epistemological theories have been influenced by this notion of gender identity and suggest that theories, modes of reasoning, ways of acting tend to be structured by those feminine and masculine identities.
GENDER AS SERIALITY
33
Second, identity can mean self-ascription as belonging to a group with others who similarly identify, who affirm together or are committed together to a set of values, practices, meanings, and so on. This is the sense of identity expressed by theorists of identity politics. Identity here means a self-consciously shared set of meanings interpreting conditions and commitments of being a woman.
Criticisms of gender as identity in either of these senses are similar to criticisms of gender essentialism. This approach to thinking about women as a social collective either leaves out some individuals who call themselves or are called women or distorts the experience of some of them. Many women deny that being a woman is an important part of their sense of self, or that they particularly identify1 with other women. They regard their womanness as an accidental or contingent aspect of their lives, and they conceive other social group relations—ethnic or national relations, for example—as more defining their identity. Many women resist efforts to theorize shared values and experiences specific to a feminine gender identity—in a caring orientation to relationships, for example—claiming that such theories privilege the identities of particular classes of women in particular social contexts. Among women who do take their womanhood as an important aspect of their identity, the meaning of that identity will vary a great deal.'9
One of the major virtues of thinking about gender as seriality is that it disconnects gender from identity. On the one hand, as Elizabeth Spel-man argues, at the level of individual personal identity there is no way to distinguish the "gender part" of the person from her "race part" or "class part." It may be appropriate, as Buder argues, to think of subjects, personal identities, as constituted rather than as some transcendental origin of consciousness or action. Nevertheless, it would be misleading to think of individual persons as "mixtures" of gender, race, class, and national "attributes," Each person's identity is unique, the history and meaning she makes and develops from her dealings with other people, communicative interactions through media, and her manner of taking up the particular serialized structures whose prior history position her. No individual woman's identity, then, will escape the markings of gender, but how gender marks her life is her own.
Conceptions of gender as an identity, however, more often seek to name women as a group—that is, a self-conscious social collective with common experiences, perspectives, or values—than to describe individual identity. Conceiving gender as seriality, distinguishing a series from a group, and showing the relation between the series and the group become especially important for addressing this mistake. In Sartre's conceptualization, which I am appropriating, a group is a collection of
34
CHAPTER I
persons who do mutually identify; they mutually recognize one another as belonging together to the group with a common project that defines their collective action. A series, on the other hand, is not a mutually acknowledging identity with any common project or shared experience. Women need have nothing in common in their individual lives to be serialized as women.
Sartre articulates a relationship between series and groups. Groups, as self-conscious collectives of persons with a common objective that they pursue together, often, if not always, arise on the basis of and in response to a serialized condition. The group-in-fusion is a spontaneous group formation out of seriality. When those who have waited for the bus too long begin complaining to each other and discussing possible courses of action, they are a group in fusion. Once groups form and take action they either institutionalize themselves by establishing meetings, leaders, decision-making structures, methods of acquiring and expending resources, and so on, or they disperse back into seriality. Social life consists of constant ebbs and flows of groupings out of series; some groups remain and grow- into institutions that produce new serialities, others disperse soon after they are born.
At its most unreflective and universal level, being a woman is a serial fact. But women often do form groups, that is, self-conscious collectives that mutually acknowledge one another as having common purposes or shared experiences. Let me give an example of a movement from women as a serial collective to a group of women. In her novel Rivington Street, Meredith Tax vividly portrays the lives of Russian J e wish immigrant women on the Lower East Side of Manhattan at the turn of the century. In one episode of the novel some women in the neighborhood discover that a local merchant has manipulated the chicken market in order to get more profits on his sale of chickens in the neighborhood. They talk with one another with anger and then go about their business. One of them, however, thinks a bit more in her anger and decides to act. She calls her three or four women friends together and tells them that they should boycott the butcher. The women organize a boycott by going from apartment to apartment talking to women. Gradually these neighborhood women, formerly serialized only as shoppers, come to understand themselves as a group, with some shared experiences and the power of collective action. When the boycott succeeds they hold a street celebration and honor their leader, but then they quickly disperse back into the passive unity of the series.
The gendered being of women's groups arises from the serial being of women, as taking up actively and reconstituting the gendered structures that have passively unified them. The chicken boycott arises from the
GENDER AS SERIALITY
35
serialized condition of these women denned by the sexual division of labor as purchasers and preparers of food. While the gendered series women refers to the structured social relations positioning all biologically sexed females, groups of women are always partial in relation to the series—they bring together only some women for some purposes involving their gender-serialized experience. Groups of women are usually more socially, historically, and culturally specified than simply women—they are from the same neighborhood or university, they have the same religion or occupation. Groups of women, that is, will likely, though not necessarily, emerge from the serialities of race and class as well as gender. The chicken boycotters live in the same neighborhood, speak the same Russian-Yiddish, are passively united in a marginal working-class series in the class structure of Manhattan. All of these serialized facts are relevant to their story and partially explain their grouping.
The chicken boycott example shows a case of women grouping selfconsciously as women and on the basis of their gendered condition, but the boycott is not feminist. There can be many groupings of women as women that are not feminist, and indeed some are explicitly antifemtn-ist. Feminism is a particularly reflexive impulse of women grouping— women grouping as women in order to change or eliminate the structures that serialize them as women.
Let me return to my story of Shirley Wright in order to clarify and elaborate the relation of series and group in tinders landing women as a collective. In the announcement of her candidacy for school committee, when Shirley Wright says that she intends to "represent" women, she is referring to a gender series defined primarily by the sexual division of labor. Women names a position in the division of labor that tends to be specifically related to schools, the primary parent to deal with schools, at the same time that it names a position outside authority structures. In that speech Wright is not claiming a group solidarity among the women of Worcester, either around her candidacy or in any other respect, but she is referring to, gesturing toward, a serial structure that conditions her own position and that she aims to politicize. To the degree that Shirley Wright aims to politicize gender structures in her campaign and on the school committee, she invites or invokes the positive grouping of women out of the gender series, but her candidacy speech neither names a group nor generates it. Her claim to represent "minorities" is also a reference to a serial structure of race and racism that she claims conditions her position and that she aims to politicize.
The women who responded to my handing them a flyer with satisfaction at seeing a woman running are also serialized, as women, as voters. Their identification with Shirley Wright as a woman, however, makes for
36
CHAPTER I
a proto-group. If some women are motivated to come together to form a 'Women for Shirley Wright" committee, they have constituted an active grouping. In relation to the series women, or even to the series "the women of Worcester," the group is necessarily partial—it will probably attract only certain kinds of women, with only some kinds of experiences, and it will focus only on some issues.
In summary, then, this is how I propose that using the concept of seriality and its distinction from the concept of a group can help solve the conundrums about talking about women as a group in which feminist theory has recently found itself. Woman is a serial collective defined neither by any common identity nor by a common set of attributes that all the individuals in the series share, but rather names a set of structural constraints and relations to practice-inert objects that condition action and its meaning. I am inclined to say that the series includes ail female human beings in the world, and also others of the past, but how and where we draw the historical lines is an open question. We can also claim that there are social and historical subseries. Since the series is not a concept but a more practical-material mode of the social construction of individuals, one need not think of it in terms of "genus" and "species," but as vectors of action and meaning.
Unlike most groups of women, feminist groups take something about women's condition as the explicit aim of their action, and thus feminist groups at least implicitly refer to the series women, which lies beyond the group. Feminist politics and theory refers to or gestures toward this serial reality. In that sense it is what feminism is about. Feminist reflection and explicit theorizing draw on the experience of serialized gender, which has multiple layers and aspects. Feminism itself is not a grouping of women; rather, there are many feminisms, many groupings of women whose purpose is to politicize gender and change the power relations between women and men in some respect. When women group, their womanliness will not be the only thing that brings them together; there are other concrete details of their lives that give them affinity—such as their class or race position, their nationality, their neighborhood, their religious affiliation, or the fact that they are teachers of philosophy. For this reason groupings of women will always be partial in relation to the series. Women's groups will be partial in relation to the series also because a group will have particular objectives or purposes that cannot encompass or even refer to the totality of the condition of women as a series. This is why feminist politics must be coalition politics. For the series, as process, as a unity in flight, as a set of structures and practico-inert objects in relation to action, cannot be a totality. Feminism thus will tend to be multiple, and itself cannot be totalized. Feminist organizing and theorizing thus always refers beyond itself to conditions and experi-
GENDERAS SERIALITY
37
ences that have not been reflected on, and to women whose lives are conditioned by enforced heterosexual i ty and a sexual division of labor who are not feminist and are not part of feminist groups. We should maintain our humility by recognizing that partiality and by remaining open to inquiring about the facts of the series beyond us.
161
CHAPTER VII
things in which one sees the stories of one's self embodied, and rituals of remembrance that reiterate those stories. I have argued that preservation in this sense is an important aspect of both individual and collective identity.
Home is a complex ideal, I have argued, with an ambiguous connection to identity and subjectivity. I agree with those critics of home who see it as a nostalgic longing for an impossible security and comfort, a longing bought at the expense of women and of those constructed as Others, strangers, not-home, in order to secure this fantasy of a unified identity. But I have also argued that the idea of home and the practices of home-making support personal and collective identity in a more rluid and material sense, and that recognizing this value entails also recognizing the creative value to the often unnoticed work that many women do. Despite the real dangers of romanticizing home, I think that there are also dangers in turning our backs on home.
NOTES
Chapter 1 Gender as Seriality
I am grateful to Linda Alcoff, David Alexander, Sandra Bartky, Son i a Kruks, Lynda Lange, Bill McBride, Uma Narayan, Linda Nicholson, Vicki Spel-man, and anonymous reviewers for Signs for comments on earlier versions of this essay.
1.   Elizabeth Spelman, Inessential Woman. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1988).
2.   Chandra Talpade Mohanty, "Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses," in Chandra Mohanty, Ann Russo, and Lourdes Torres, eds., Third World Women and thePoUtics ofFeminism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991).
3.  Judith Butler, Gender Trouble (New York: Routledge, 1990).
4.   See Susan Bordo, "Feminism, Postmodernism, and Gender-Scepticism," in Linda Nicholson, ed., Feminism/Postmodernism (New York: Routledge, 1989), 133-56.
5.   For a discussion of the concept of social group in the context of a politics that exposes oppression, see I. M. Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), chap. 2,
6.   See Lynda Lange, "Arguing for Democratic Feminism: Postmodern Doubts and Political Amnesia," paper presented to the American Philosophical Association, Midwest Division, Chicago, April 1991.
7.   Spelman, Inessential Woman, pp. 170-78.
8.  Ann Ferguson, "Racial Formation, Gender, and Class in U.S. Welfare State Capitalism," in Sexual Democracy (Boulder: Westview Press, 1991), 114-15.
9.   Cf. Bordo, "Feminism."
10.   Diana Fuss, Fjsentially Speaking (New York: Routledge, 1989), 36. She argues, as I read her, that "woman" designates a social position, defined by relations of power and potentially shifting with the context of power and practices. This relationally defined position is itself an epistemological or discursive product of social movement politics that asks specific and unique questions about social practices and relations. "Woman is a position from which feminist politics can emerge rather than a set of attributes that are 'objectively identifiable.' Seen in this way, being a 'woman' is to take up a position within a moving historical context and to be able to choose what we make of this position and how we alter this context. From the perspective of the fairly determined though fluid and mutuable positions, women can themselves articulate a set of interests and ground a feminist politics." In a personal correspondence Alcoff has denied being located in the position 1 am constructing as saying that the category of woman is a product of feminist politics, so I do not include her in the text.
166
NOTES TO CHAPTER I
11.  Nancie Caraway, "Identity Politics and Shifting Selves: Black Feminist Coalition Theory," paper presented at American Political Science Association, August 1989, 9.
12.  For one effort to use Sartre positively for feminist theory, see Julien Murphy, "The Look in Sartre and Rich," in Jeffner Allen and Iris Marion Young, eds., The Thinking Muse: Feminism and Modern French Philosophy (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989).
13.  Linda Singer, Erotic Welfare (New York: Routledge, 1992).
14.  Sartre, Critique of Dialectical Reason, trans. Alan Sheridan-Smith (London: New Left Books, 1976). Book II, sections 1, 2, and 3, are the most relevant for the concept of group, Sartre in fact distinguishes several levels of group: the group-in-fusion, the statutory group, the organization, and the institution. Each is less spontaneous, more organized and rule bound, and more materialized than the last. All come under the more general definition I am offering here, which is all that is necessary to develop my argument. My summaries of Sartre throughout this paper are quite short and leave out a great deal of detail, I believe they are nevertheless adequate to the text and sufficient for developing my argument.
15.  Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, "French Feminism in an International Frame," in In Other Worlds (New York: Methuen, 1987), 151.
16.   In terms of Sartre's early work, I am here interpreting seriality as a condition of facticity that helps constitute a situation, but in no way determines action. Action, the having of projects and goals, the realizing of ends, I am saying here, is what constitutes the identities and experiences of persons. Action is situated agajnst a background of serialized existence, which means that it is constrained but neither general nor determined.
17.  While Sartre does not thematize race as such, I think he provides grounds for understanding race positioning as seriality. He describes being Jewish as initially belonging to a series. As a social fact or social label, being Jewish in a society that marks or devalues Jews does not name some concept, a set of specific attributes a person must be identified as having in order to be classed as Jewish. In the social relation of being Jewish, there is no separate substance thatjews have in common that makes them Jews. The group label is never real, specific, limited, here; it always names an alien otherness coming from elsewhere, from the facticity of "them," the anonymous others who say things about the jews, who "know7" what the Jews are.
In fact, the being-Jewish of every Jew in a hostile society, which persecutes and insults them, and opens itself to them only to reject them again, cannot be the only relation between the individual Jew and the anti-semitic, racist society which surrounds him; it is this relation insofar as it is lived by every Jew in his direct or indirect relations with all the other Jews, and in so far as it constitutes him, through them all, an Other and threatens him in and through the Others. To the extent that, for the conscious, lived Jews, being-Jewish (which is his status for non Jews) is intcriorized as his responsibility in relation to all other Jews and his being-in-danger, out there, owing to some possible carelessness caused by Others who mean nothing to him, over
NOTES TO CHAPTER II
167
whom he has no power and every one of whom is himself like Others (in so far as he makes them exist as such in spite of himself), the Jew, far from being the type common to each separate instance, represents on the contrary the perpetual being-mitside-tkemsdves-in-theother of members of this practico-in-ert grouping, (p. 268)
Sartre also discusses colonialism as a serial social relation, mediated by an anonymous Public Opinion that constitutes racist discourse. He says that the most important thing about racist ideas and utterances is that they are not thoughts. Racism as operative in everyday life and as a medium of works and beliefs for reproducing practically congealed social relations of oppression and privilege is not a system of beliefs, thought through and deliberated. On the contrary, the racist language is unconsidered, uttered as the obvious, and spoken and heard always as the words of an Other. Everyday repeated stereotypes that Blacks are lazy or more prone to be aggressive, or that they prefer to stay with their own kind, etc.,
have never been anything more than this system itself producing itself as a determination of the language of the colonists in the milieu of alterity. And, for this point of view, they must be seen as material exigencies of language (the verbal milieu of all prac ti co-inert apparatuses) addressed to colonialists as members of a series and signifying them as colonialists both in their eyes and in those of others, in the unity of a gathering. . . .The sentence which is uttered, as a reference to the common interest, is not presented as the determination of language by the individual himself, but as his other opinion, that is to say, the claims to get it from and give it to others, insofar as their unity is based purely on alterniry. (p. 301)
18.  Nancy Chodorow, The Reproduction of Mothering (Berkeley; University of California Press, 1978).
19.  Ann Ferguson develops an important criticism of the ideal of a common woman's or lesbian's identity in her paper, "Is There a Lesbian Culture?" in Jeffner Alien, ed., Lesbian Philosophies and Cultures (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), 63-88.
Chapter II Asymmetrical Reciprocity
I would like to thank David Alexander, Lisa Heldke, Laurie Schräge, Pamela Coughie, Laurence Thomas, and Bill Scheuermann for comments on an earlier version of this essay. I have also benefited from conversations about these ideas with audiences to which the paper was presented at York University, Loyola University, Free University of Berlin, Institute for Philosophy of Vienna, and the Society for Women in Philosophy.
1.   Seyla Benhabib, Situating the Self (New York: Routledge, 1991).
2.  Anita Silvers, "Reconciling Equality to Difference: Caring (f)or Justice for Defective Agents," Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy (1995).
3.  See Joseph P. Shapiro, No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement (New York: Times Books, Random House, 1993). See also Karen