predictor for other socially valued aptitudes, such as having a good sense of direction or being good at math (Favreau 1997). When we make this assumption, we are already endowing sex with the power to group. The concept that Delphy introduced in her 1991 essay gestures “partitioning” toward something like what I’m getting at here, the discursive production of not just the pre-social but also of difference as systematic or group-differentiating. Delphy does not return to that phrase in the preface but she does elaborate the insight to which I think it gestures. By way of explaining just what ought to have struck her audiences as new, she explains that people (including Professors at the College de France) study only “most relations between groups.” Thus, they without saying that the question of their “postulate constitution has been settled”: it is (29). She presents this as running contrary to “natural” the point” of her corpus: “nodal it is in the same moment and by the same moment that groups are created and created as dominant or dominated. The question of or of differences “difference” can no longer be asked: or more precisely it is to be asked in an entirely different way. One in which differences can no longer have any causal role whatsoever in (29; emphasis added). hierarchy because they do not pre-exist it Delphy has consistently maintained that differences have no role” in hierarchy. “causal But whereas she was once willing to concede that gender rendered anatomical sex difference a for hierarchy, here she makes the more radical claim that the moment we take it up as difference sex is already gender. Gender not only by group imputing to social groups” and, thereby, naturalizing social hierarchies “naturalness (Guillaumin 138). It also imbues particular differences (such as race, gender, ethnicity)
predictor for other socially valued aptitudes, such as having a good sense of direction or being good at math (Favreau 1997). When we make this assumption, we are already endowing sex with the power to group. The concept “partitioning” that Delphy introduced in her 1991 essay gestures toward something like what I’m getting at here, the discursive production of not just the pre-social but also of difference as systematic or group-differentiating. Delphy does not return to that phrase in the preface but she does elaborate the insight to which I think it gestures. By way of explaining just what ought to have struck her audiences as new, she explains that “most people (including Professors at the College de France) study only relations between groups.” Thus, they “postulate without saying that the question of their constitution has been settled”: it is “natural” (29). She presents this as running contrary to the “nodal point” of her corpus: it is in the same moment and by the same moment that groups are created and created as dominant or dominated. The question of “difference” or of differences can no longer be asked: or more precisely it is to be asked in an entirely different way. One in which differences can no longer have any causal role whatsoever in hierarchy because they do not pre-exist it (29; emphasis added). Delphy has consistently maintained that differences have no “causal role” in hierarchy. But whereas she was once willing to concede that gender rendered anatomical sex difference a for hierarchy, here she makes the more radical claim that the moment we take it up as group difference sex is already gender. Gender not only by imputing “naturalness to social groups” and, thereby, naturalizing social hierarchies (Guillaumin 138). It also imbues particular differences (such as race, gender, ethnicity)
disch2013.docx