On April 3 I wrote in my paper diary:

The truth is, once you know exactly who you are and what you believe - and I, after all this time, think I do, though I will always live by a code of evolution - the only satisfaction you can get, the only stimulus for growth - is outside your self, in that frightfully real world. I may not quite belong in it, but I need it; I may alternately love and hate people but, assuredly, I need them. So here's to evolving a new way of looking at the world - in search of a new set of experiences.

Today I began to put that into practice.

After Eros & Pathos today, a classroom friend suggested retreating to a café (not coffeeshop - whole other thing in the Netherlands) to continue the conversation four of us were having. Militantly antisocial as I indeed am, my first instinct is always to revolt against such a notion, make up an excuse, and continue on in my solitary comfort zone. Every once in a while, I accept very much in spite of myself - and even more rarely, actually follow through. And sometimes, sometimes, I have to admit it is wonderful.

The truth is I have never had a group of friends whose common foundation for conversation is their feminism. And I am convinced now that that is essential for me. Two hours of uninhibited conversation about vaginas, language, politics and sexuality from a feminist standpoint. This is fundamentally different from conversation on the same topics even with liberal people who may happen to also be feminist or agree with several feminist positions. To take it as your starting point, your theoretical framework, commonly held is something else entirely. There is disagreement and debate at the same time: we speak from different ethnic, religious and sexual positions. But real feminist dialogue: that has been missing from my life. And it is necessary, not only socially, but to continue to grow as a person and as a feminist.

Perhaps I haven't grown as far as I possibly can through introspective analysis and self-instruction, but the fact is after becoming entirely comfortable with my solitude and sure of who I am, progress alone will begin to slow. I need outside input and pressure now. Now that I have acquired some sort of stable identity, I need the world to deconstruct it. Yes, I can dissect issues on my own, but it is more exciting, energizing to do so with other people who start at the same source as I yet take it in an entirely other direction. Yes, I can teach myself feminist theory, but it is so much more powerful to get it from a lecture by or discussion with a truly dynamic instructor. Militantly antisocial though I may be, there is much more out there than in my room, no matter how I construct it.

Érinne has invited me to a party Saturday night and I (is it sad that this is a big deal?) will actually go. She and the two others I spent the afternoon in feminist communion with will be there, so I will have that social safety net I require. And perhaps 15 other people to learn from once I begin to branch out. Yes - intoxication and conversation - no better way to spend a Saturday night; I will open myself to the experience. I know there are at this moment only two people on the planet with whom I can (read: dare to) get to the point where Drunk Lauren emerges from the boundaries of Lauren - she is indeed another person altogether but ought only to reveal herself in trusted company. I don't really mind that I do and say things when I'm drunk that I wouldn't sober, but it's perhaps not the best time for that surrounded by strangers and acquaintances in various states of mental incapacitation. Yes, I will retain precious control of my self, but I will be completely open to the experience.

And my classes - my classes are extraordinary; I walk about in a state of perpetual consideration and enlightenment as I never have before. Every belief of mine is open to reevaluation; everything is a process and an exploration. Will I ever arrive at a conceptual framework of my own - would I want to? There is this constant evolution of what is more or less true, more or less me, in a world where there is no absolute truth or stable identity. I am not disturbed by this: it is necessary, it is empowering.

For instance, today's lecture, on Irigaray. A year ago I would have disagreed with her entirely; today I agree in principle but with one enormous objection; next year, who knows. I was for a long time vehemently equality feminist: there are no meaningful distinctions between the sexes; let's erase sex categories altogether. The danger with that obviously is that as the system is already inherently male, any attempt to become equal within it means not really destroying sex categories but destroying the female sex category, assimilating it into the male system. I still don't think categories of sex and gender are particularly useful or descrptive; there is no continuum of masculinity and femininity and no necessary commonalities within each sex to the exclusion of the other sex. Besides, setting the sexes in opposition to one another, and moreover speaking of only two sexes and genders generally, really does not represent reality. So I still don't think male and female are useful categories but they are too entrenched in the existing social system: to try to simply do away with them would indeed create not a neutral society where any expression is valid, but one in which there is only one norm, ie masculinity.

So I understand Irigaray's project of sexual difference: the feminine has to be reclaimed and redefined for women on our own terms rather than in its relationship to the masculine. That is, there need to be two unique norms, in a non-hierarchical arrangement. Reclaim language, history and an entire cultural symbolism for women rather than fight for rights within, equality within, this system which necessarily excludes feminine identity, in which we get only the rights we are given.

I do agree with the basic assumptions - yes, equality feminism will not really give us full liberation and subjectivity, because they are not gained on our terms. But as to the method, I'm not so sure. The obvious, but imperative, critique is that it is an essentialist theory. There is no such thing as universal feminine identity; and even if there were, by setting up a second system of norms we would only succeed in excluding from power all the people who fit neither norm and believing very strongly that there are not by any means only two genders, it would effectively oppress a whole lot of people.

I think her response would be that it is only a temporary method, not a permanent ideal; but once it too becomes an entrenched norm it itself will have to be overthrown by the genderqueer norm, and it by the next excluded group, &c. The way to level the power structure cannot be to create in its place a new one.

In reality and practice, women are indeed set up as different from men; whether that is necessarily so perhaps does not matter. I believe all gender categories, no matter how many we allow for, are by their nature oppressive. The end goal for me is still the arrive at a place where gender is meaningless, biology is only useful to biology, and individual identity is the only meaningful descriptor. But how do we get to that point? I believe equality is not enough; real revolution in the social order is required. I believe there is power in reclaiming language and history for women, but we must somehow embrace our differences as women as readily as our differences from men; so how do we unite when we've necessarily got nothing in common, and how do we diminish the power of the existing system without simply creating a new one along the same lines? That is my project, perhaps; I've a lot more to read, learn and most importantly discuss before I come to any conclusions - if in fact conclusions are the thing to come to.

We have bitten off a large piece of life - but why not? Did I not make out a philosophy some time ago which comes to this - that one must always be on the move?
Virginia Woolf