Abstract
A feminist phenomenological analysis of voice, rooted in both the feminist understanding of the role of voice in identity, agency, and the creation of meaning, and the phenomenological thematization and theorization of phenomenal, lived experience, leads to a deeper understanding of the importance of the materiality of the voices with which we speak, and their role in both subjective and intersubjective experience. Starting from an analysis of the intertwined associations and imageries of the feminine, voice, and embodiment, I discuss the denaturalization and abstraction of voice in standard narratives of voice and voice metaphorization, and the corresponding forgetting of the living, bodily voice. In looking to recall a re-naturalized and immanent corporeality and retrieve the material voice through an account of embodied vocality, I consider examples of the power and immediacy of the corporeal voice in the female operatic voice, and in contrast, the compromised agency and attenuated (inter)subjectivity which attends the impaired or lost physical voice. These vocal counterpoints of presence and absence are often separated by corporeal disturbance or limitation, underscoring the importance of corporeality and the material voice as intermediary between the individual and the social world. This sets the contours of a phenomenology of embodied voice and vocality, holding implications for accounts of identity and intersubjectivity, gendered vocality and expressive agency, and an intercorporeality mediated by the living material voice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This iconic anthem of second-wave American feminism begins with these well-known lyrics:
I am woman, hear me roar
In numbers too big to ignore
I Am Woman
(Lyrics by Helen Reddy, music by Ray Burton.)
Keskinen (2000).
For more on earlier feminist critiques of phenomenology, see Fisher (2000b).
It is one of the enduring ironies in the long history of gender relations that despite being traditionally associated with the voice and vocality, and conventionally portrayed in popular culture and media, in literature, and even in philosophy as exceedingly, if not excessively verbal and talkative, women have had to fight so long and hard to be heard and to have their say. In short, being associated with the voice did not necessarily translate into having one.
By this I mean that while a strong, deep voice is certainly a marker for conventional representations of masculinity, voice is not the inevitable descriptor of men to the extent that it often is for women.
Derrida’s well-known critique of phonocentrism as the privileging of speech and voice, and its connection with logocentrism, itself connected with the masculinist principle, might disrupt these associations with femininity. This requires a longer discussion, but one possible response would be to distinguish once again speech or orality from voice. Is the connection of logos and speech about the Socratic voice as such, or the claimed privileging of speech over writing? The voice could still be imagined as feminine (such as the priestess at Delphi), while the speech-act is not. Alternatively, it could be another example of the frequently contradictory gendered representations in the symbolic realm.
Cavarero (2005, p. 6).
Dunn and Jones (1994, p. 1).
Dunn and Jones (1994, pp. 2–3). They point out in a footnote that Kristeva’s original terms are “geno-text” and “pheno-text.”
Dunn and Jones (1994, p. 2).
Dunn and Jones (1994, p. 2).
Gal (1991, p. 175).
See Clément (1988).
Robinson (1989).
Robinson (1989).
While it might be argued that this is simply a matter of trivializing the female victimization—they may be victims, but at least they’re singing their hearts out—I think it’s more reasonable to point to the well-known dramatic strategy of setting up a clear contradiction between the libretto or narrative, or the apparent circumstances on the one hand, and what is suggested by the musical expression on the other hand.
For a further discussion of women and opera, see Fisher (2001).
It is interesting to consider how much of our social life and organization, especially urban structures and arrangements, are constructed around the assumption of not only an ambulatory populace, but also one which performs the vast majority of its public tasks in the upright stance.
Merleau-Ponty (1962, p. 161).
References
Cavarero, Adriana. 2005. For more than one voice: Toward a philosophy of vocal expression (trans. Paul A. Kottman). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Clément, Catherine. 1988. Opera, or the undoing of women (trans. Betsy Wing). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Dunn, Leslie C., and Nancy A. Jones. eds. 1994. Embodied voices: Representing female vocality in western culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fisher, Linda. 1997. Phänomenologie und Feminismus. In Phänomenologie und Geschlechterdifferenz, ed. Silvia Stoller and Helmuth Vetter, 20–46. Wien: WUV-Universitätsverlag.
Fisher, Linda. 1999. Sexual difference, phenomenology, and alterity. Philosophy Today 43 (Supplement 1999): 68–75.
Fisher, Linda. 2000a. Introduction: Feminist phenomenology. In Fisher and Embree 2000: 1–15.
Fisher, Linda. 2000b. Phenomenology and feminism: Perspectives on their relation. In Fisher and Embree 2000: 17–38.
Fisher, Linda. 2001. Opera and the musical semiotics of gender. European Journal for Semiotic Studies/Revue Européenne d’Études Sémiotiques/Europäische Zeitschrift für Semiotische Studien 13(3–4): 645–659.
Fisher, Linda. 2002. La phénoménologie féministe de Beauvoir. In Cinquantenaire du deuxième sexe, ed. Christine Delphy and Sylvie Chaperon, 130–138. Paris: Éditions Syllepse.
Fisher, Linda, and Lester Embree. eds. 2000. Feminist phenomenology. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gal, Susan. 1991. Between speech and silence: The problematics of research on language and gender. In Gender at the crossroads of knowledge: Feminist anthropology in the postmodern era, ed. Micaela di Leonardo, 175–203. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Keskinen, Mikko. 2000. Her mistress’s voice: Gynophonocentrism in feminist discourses. Journal of International Women’s Studies 2:1. http://www.bridgew.edu/SoAS/jiws/nov00/a_gynoft.htm. Accessed 28 Sept 2009.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1962. Phenomenology of perception (trans. Colin Smith). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Robinson, Paul. 1989. It’s not over until the soprano dies. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/01/books/it-s-not-over-until-the-soprano-dies.html?scp=1&sq=&st=nyt&pagewanted=all&emc=eta1. Accessed 28 Sept 2009.
Acknowledgments
Research for this article was supported by the Central European University. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at “Femininity and Embodiment,” an international symposium held at the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, University of Helsinki in May 2007 and at “Feminist Phenomenology,” the inaugural conference of the Society for Interdisciplinary Feminist Phenomenology, held at the University of Oregon in May 2008. I would like to thank the respective organizers of those conferences, Sara Heinämaa, and Bonnie Mann and Beata Stawarska, for their kind invitations, and the conference participants for their stimulating and thoughtful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fisher, L. Feminist phenomenological voices. Cont Philos Rev 43, 83–95 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-010-9132-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-010-9132-y