ELAINE HOFFMAN BARUCH
123
feriority, and, in any case, of marginality, to reserving for them
the place of the childish, of the unsayable, or of the hysteric. That
the valorization of this modality of expression can have a critical,
if not a subversive function, is obvious; but I think that it is not
sufficient either. On the other hand, other women say that we
must appropriate the logical, mastering, scientific, theoretical ap–
paratus, and these women consider it extremely gratifying that
there are women physicists, theorists, and philosophers. In saying
this they preserve for women an extremely important place in the
domain of culture, but this attitude can be accompanied by a de–
nial of two things; on the one hand, of the question of power, and
on the other, of the particularity of women.
In other words, one can fit oneself to the dominant discourse
- theoretical discourse, scientific discourse - and on the basis of
that find an extremely gratifying slot in society, but to the detri–
ment of the expression of the particularity belonging to the in–
dividual as a woman. On the basis of this fact, it seems to me, that
one must try not to deny these two aspects of linguistic communi–
cation, the mastering aspect and the aspect which is more of the
body and of the impulses, but to try, in every situation and for
every woman, to find a proper articulation of these two elements.
What does "proper" mean? That which best fits the specific history
of each woman, which best expresses her. So you see that I would
be just as much against the slogan, "All women should master the
dominant discourse," as I am against the position which asserts
that all this is part of the game of power and that women must ex–
press themselves in literature. I think that the time has come when
we must no longer speak of all women. We have to talk in terms of
individual women and of each one's place inside these two poles.
One of the gravest dangers that now presents itself in feminism is
the impulse to practice feminism in a herd. At first this was per–
haps important, because people cried out, "We demand abortion,"
"We demand the social advantages we have been denied," but
now this "we" is becoming troublesome. There have to be "I's,"
and women have to become authors, actors, not to hypostatize or
overvalue those particular kinds of work, but so that this perspec–
tive will push each one of us to find her own individual language.
EHB:
I would like to ask you about your new book,
Pouvoirs de l'hor–
reur (Powers of Horror).
JK:
It is mainly a psychoanalytic book, but like all psychoanalytic
