Introduction:BiologizingCulture/CulturingBiology 39
as opposed to a 'natural' essentialism has become the ludic orthodoxy,
andtheconflictbetween'essentialism'and'constructionism'hasbecome
one of the most contested scenes in feminism" (Ebert,LudicFeminism
208).
Thesceneisbeingsetbychargesagainstsecond-wavefeminists'for
their "persistent distaste for biological detail" (E. Wilson 15), a distaste
which turns many of the pressing concerns of women's embodied
existenceinto"inadmissiblematter"forfeministscholarship(Kirby70).
Viewing much feminist theory as being fundamentally anti-biological,
EveKosofskySedgwickandAdamFrank,amongothers,protestagainst
the"installationofanautomaticanti-biologismastheunshiftingtenetof
'theory'..."(SedgwickandFrank15).SusanMerrillSquier's diagnosis
of an overarching "knee-jerk constructivism" (46) in recent feminist
writing is motivated by similar concerns. The present argument is
certainlynotthesitetoadjudicatetheseconflictingclaimsandpositions.
What can be noted, though, is that these monita represent a growing
dissatisfaction with a perceived "fiercely anti-biologist" bias of
deconstruction-inspired feminist theory whose culturalist readings are
seenasgivingupwholesaleanyaccesstowomen'sembodiedbiological
specificities(E.Wilson13).
Much of this dissatisfaction is energized and underwritten
theoreticallybytheresurgenceofoldmaterialismsandtheemergenceof
new ones, both more or less openly grounded in the biology of human
beings. Viewed from this perspective, the perceived lack of materialist
reflections in feminist thought seems to point to a significant and
signifying lacuna: "Feminism it seems has forgotten how matter
matters" (Ahmed, "Open Forum" 32). Diana Coole and Samantha Frost
have recently presented an ambitious argument for a new materialism
which might be able to intervene usefully also in the current debate
abouttheroleofbiologyinfeministtheorizing.Theysetoutbymaking
a charge which re-iterates, albeit in more general terms, the charges
broughtforwardbypro-biologyfeminists:"Wesharethefeelingamong
many researchers that the dominant constructivist orientation to social
analysisisinadequateforthinkingaboutmatter,materiality,andpolitics
in ways that do justice to the contemporary context of biopolitics and
global political economy" (Coole and Frost 6). One of the most
significant shortcomings of constructivist paradigms is, in the authors'
view, their failure to offer an adequate account of biointersectional