• About
    • The Magazine
    • The Foundation
    • The Collective
    • Columns
  • 2011 Calendar
  • The Dreams for Women Project
    • About
    • Postcards
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 1 – 4
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 5 – 8
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 9 – 12
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 13 -16
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 17 – 20
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 21 – 24
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 25 – 28
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 29 – 32
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 33 – 36
      • Dreams for Women Week 37 – 40
      • Dreams for Women Week 41 – 44
      • Dreams for Women Week 45 – 48
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 49 – 52
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 53 – 56
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 57– 60
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 61– 64
      • Dreams for Women Weeks 65– 68
  • Read Antigone Magazine 
  • Contact Us

Tag Archives: Laura Roslin

The Feminist Scholar: The Performance of Feminism Issue 1

30 Sunday Aug 2009

Posted by Kaitlin Blanchard in female politicians, Masculinity, The Feminist Scholar, Women and politics, women leaders, women's issues

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Battlestar Galactica, Female Presidents, Laura Roslin, Mary McDonnell, The Feminist Scholar

Surfacing the Female Leader: The Performance of Laura Roslin

I wasn’t going to blog on this until I had engaged the brilliant Mary McDonnell in her question and answer session at the Toronto sci-fi convention; however, she (sadly) had to leave to attend a memorial for one of the show’s producers–my condolences.

I’m in the process of organizing a paper on her character “Laura Roslin” and “her” relation to Western culture’s interpretations of female power. In my rush to develop my grant proposals on the position of the audience in post-restoration theatres and the intersections between theatre and activism, I have, sadly, put Laura to the side. However, meeting McDonnell and engaging in some interesting conversations with fellow fans has rekindled my urgency to discuss the character and her reflections of the tradition of the female leader’s body. Indeed, I’m reaching all the way back the mystics of the medieval era in order to examine how women in power become text; that is to say, how their bodies become the surface for ‘other’ discourses. One of the things which I find perhaps the most fascinating about “Laura” is the simultaneous omnipresence and absence of her body in the performance of leadership. Laura’s illness makes her body undeniably present insofar as it ‘escapes’ her attempts to diminish its presence through her countenance etc… , while at the same time, her illness renders the question of the gendered body perhaps a moot one. In a sense, her suffering both reveals and conceals the female body. I continue with perhaps too much philosophy below, but bear with me.

The suffering body, as Elaine Scarry has argued in her book The Body in Pain, cannot be represented in and of itself. That is, it requires ‘others’ to speak for it. Pain, for Scarry, is both universal and un-shareable. (Teresa Brennan has argued elsewhere that pain is perhaps the moment when the boundaries of the human dissolve most completely–an interesting point, which I will come to later.) But I digress, for Scarry, physical suffering is the paradox of simple presence: “…pain comes unsharably into our midst as at once that which cannot be denied and that which cannot be confirmed [by its sufferer]” (4). Pain, then, requires others in order to represent itself. Pain expresses itself through ventriloquism, an imitation which presupposes a split in presence (between the speaking mediator/performer and the suffering, inarticulate body).

The suffering body is a limit of mimesis (as a principle of absolute identity), but not necessarily the limit of catharsis (as a principle of partial identity). In displaying the suffering body in the performance of leadership, “Laura” engages with the subjunctive “as if” (Scarry 22) of pain as a relation of metonymy. That is, to ‘invent’ the suffering body is to represent it metonymically, through relations of partial substitution. “Laura” then comes to take on a series of discourses in order to perform pain. For viewers of the show, I suspect this prohibits reflection on the female body as a ‘absolute’ presence in leadership.

McDonnell makes a brilliant point in another interview discussing how her glasses symbolize yet another performance within Laura’s role. For McDonnell, the glasses act as a kind of mediating barrier between the femininity inherent in Laura’s leadership and her need to play the Machiavellian leader. She observes that glasses seem to act as an interpreter between the middle-aged woman’s countenance (in the political realm at least) and the world; almost as if we as a culture are not yet ready to view that which is the fact behind why so many female politicians have to adopt what might be considered very unforgiving demeanours: their very bodies. While she interprets this mediation as a result of the fact that women display their experience on their bodies, that they take-in the world differently from men, I would suggest that perhaps it simply that we as a culture are not ready to recognize female experience in this fashion. Indeed, if male politicians adopt what are understood to be maternal actions (crying, for example) they are criticized heavily. However, if women adopt cold and distancing politics they are praised and criticized in equal measure (ironically, in the case of criticism, for not being “feminine” enough). The feminine is, apparently, disavowed in the process of gaining political recognition. And this is where I will likely carry out the bulk of my discussion in the paper on the problematics of recognition. How do we ‘know’ people in a way that does not require an always-already formed knowledge of them; in other words, how do we know, how do we recognize without assuming a closed, or dominant bearing to others?

Teresa Brennan’s examination of the problematics of affective boundaries, of assuming that affects (emotions–though she wouldn’t like the use of this term) are owned, generated and contained by subjects might provide an answer. In the acknowlegement that we can be affected by others, that our boundaries do end and begin in others, that our intentions might not be solely our own, might lie the key to becoming more aware of our reactions to others. In other words, accepting that affects travel is to accept that we are not bounded; it is to stop living in fear of others. It is to surface the body so to speak. Until that day comes, however, McDonnell’s observations suggest another direction for understanding the feminine side to leadership.

McDonnell hits the nail on the head (yet again) with her observation here: “I read once in a Buddhist text, and it’s something I really responded to, that there’s a defensive way and an open way of perceiving life, or meeting life. In an open way, the image is straight back, open front – open heart. In a defensive way, the back is bent and the front is closed. I think the glasses were Laura Roslin’s attempt to keep the front open but protect it.”

I would translate this observation as what I (poaching from the equally brilliant Bettina Stuum) understand to be “bearing.” That is, our intentionality (as both a direction and a disposition) in our relations with others. An active bearing would assume an aggressive, or as McDonnell puts it a defensive, bearing, a kind of subjective lense on life. The person adopting an active “bearing” says “I am here” to life out of fear. While the person adopting a passive and more ethical (open to McDonnell) bearing responds to others; in other words, those adopting a passive bearing receive their agency and identity in an address from others (As Kelly Oliver has convincingly argued in her book Witnessing: Beyond Recognition) in a move which precludes the kind of performances which women leaders frequently have to put on in concessions to masculine ideas of leadership.

So where do we really have to look in order to recuperate the feminine side of leadership? Well, I would suggest it is not a question of looking; rather, it is a question of feeling. It is to give the feminine body what Eve Sedgewick suggestively calls “texture,” to read for the surface of the female body, rather than to inscribe upon it.

McDonnell has mentioned in an interview (I cannot remember the reference or I would note it) that she understands Battlestar as a show “searching for its femininity.” I wholeheartedly agree. I don’t know that Ron Moore’s answer of going back to the roots of survival–place–as a return to the maternal is perhaps the most adept answer to solving the deficit of female representation in politics, but it does suggest that women, as Luce Irigaray might agree, truly are the “elsewhere” when it comes to the political domain. Maybe, then, we just need to speak politics from that place, from our very womanly bodies…

~Kaitlin Blanchard

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • September 2011
  • July 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007

Categories

  • 2010
  • Abortion
  • american politics
  • Antigone Foundation
  • Antigone Magazine
  • Beauty
  • BlogHer
  • CEDAW
  • Charter
  • child care
  • Commission on the Status of Women
  • CONNECT
  • Darfur
  • Day of rememberance
  • Dec 6
  • Diary of an Activist
  • Dreams for women
  • Elizabeth May
  • Environment
  • Equal Voice
  • Federal Election
  • female politicians
  • feminist freethinker
  • feministing
  • Feminists Who Totally Rock
  • film
  • France
  • Gardasil
  • Gay Rights
  • Gloria Steinem
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Human rights
  • human trafficking
  • I'm a feminist because
  • immigrant women
  • In need of enlightenment
  • Legalized prostitution
  • LGBT
  • marriage
  • Masculinity
  • Media
  • Minerva
  • Mira Hall
  • Morgentaler
  • motherhood
  • NDP
  • Ottawa
  • Oxfam
  • patriarchy
  • pay equity
  • pensions
  • persons case
  • poverty
  • Pro-choice
  • Queer Issues
  • Race
  • Rape
  • Reproductive Rights
  • Retirement
  • robert pickton
  • sexism
  • Sexual Assault
  • Sexual paradox
  • sexuality
  • Single Women
  • Some Leaders are Born Women
  • Spivak
  • status of women
  • stereotypes
  • Stupid misogynists
  • The Feminist Scholar
  • UBC
  • UN
  • UNIFEM
  • US elections
  • vancouver events
  • Vancouver Sun
  • Violence against women
  • Women and politics
  • women in politics
  • Women in the Middle east
  • women leaders
  • Women's groups
  • women's issues
  • Young women
  • Your Voice

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • antigonemagazine.wordpress.com
    • Join 27 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • antigonemagazine.wordpress.com
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar