Purity, Impurity, and Separation

Author(s): Maria Lugones

Source: Signs, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Winter, 1994), pp. 458-479
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3174808 .
Accessed: 13/06/2014 23:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Signs.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.72 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:51:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Purity, and Separation
Impurity,
Maria Lugones

Note to the reader: This writingis done fromwithina

hybridimagination,withina recentlyarticulatetradi-
tionof latinawriterswho emphasizemestizajeand mul-
tiplicityas tied to resistantand liberatorypossibilities.
All resemblancebetweenthistraditionand postmodern
literatureand philosophyis coincidental,though the
conditionsthatunderlieboth may well be significantly
tied. The implicationsof each are verydifferent from
one another.

VO Y A EMPEZAR en espafioly en la cocina. Two uses of

theverbseparar.El primersentido.Voy a separarla yemade
la clara, separarun huevo. I will separatethewhitefromthe
yolk.I will separatean egg.I cracktheegg and I now slidethe
whiteonto one half of the shell and I place the egg whitein a bowl. I
repeatthe operationtill I have separatedall of the egg white fromthe
yolk. Si la operaci6nno ha sido exitosa,entoncesqueda un poquito de
yemaen la clara. Iftheoperationhas not beensuccessful,a bitof theyolk
stainsthewhite.I wish I could beginagain withanotheregg,but thatis
a waste,as I was taught.So I musttryto liftall theyolkfromthewhite
witha spoon, a processthatis tediousand hardlyeverentirely successful.
The intentionis to separate,firstcleanlyand then,in case of failure,a bit
messily,thewhitefromtheyolk,to splittheegg intotwo partsas cleanly
as one can. This is an exercisein purity.
It is part of my interestin this articleto ask whetherseparationis
always or necessarilyan exercise in purity.I want to investigatethe
politicsof purityand how theybear on thepoliticsof separation.In the
processI will takeneitherthedominantnorthe"standard"tongueas my
anchor in playingwith "separation,"as those who separatemay do so
notin allegianceto butin defianceof thedominantintention. As I uncover
a connectionbetweenimpurityand resistance,my Latina imagination
moves fromresistanceto mestizaje.I thinkof mestizajeas an example
[Signs:Journalof Womenin Cultureand Society1994, vol. 19, no. 2]
? 1994 byThe University
of Chicago.All rightsreserved.
0097-9740/94/1902-0005$01.00

458 SIGNS Winter 1994

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.72 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:51:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PURITY, IMPURITY, AND SEPARATION Lugones

of and a metaphor forbothimpurity and resistance. I hold on to the

metaphor andadoptmestizaje as a centralnameforimpureresistance to
interlocked, intermeshed oppressions.1 Muchofthetime,myveryuseof
thewordseparateexhibitsa formofculturalmestizaje.2
If something or someoneis neither/nor, butkindof both,notquite
either,
ifsomething is in themiddleofeither/or,
ifit is ambiguous, giventheavailableclassification ofthings,
ifit is mestiza,
ifit threatens byitsveryambiguity theorderliness of thesystem, of
schematized reality,
ifgivenitsambiguity intheunivocalordering itisanomalous, deviant,
can itbe tamedthrough separation? Shoulditseparateso as to avoid
taming? Shoulditresistseparation? Shoulditresistthrough separation?
Separateas in theseparation ofthewhitefromtheyolk?
Segundosentido.Estoyhaciendomayonesa. I ammaking mayonnaise.
I placetheyolkina bowl,add a fewdropsofwater,stir,andthenadd oil
dropbydrop,veryslowly, as I continue stirring.IfI add too muchoil at
once,themixture se separa,it separates.I can remember doingtheop-
erationas an impatient child,stopping andsayingto mymother "Mama,
la mayonesase separo."In English,one mightsaythatthemayonnaise
curdled.Mayonnaiseis an oil-in-water emulsion.As all emulsions, it is
unstable.Whenan emulsioncurdles,theingredients becomeseparate
fromeach other.But thatis not altogether an accuratedescription:
rather, theycoalescetowardoil or towardwater,mostof the water
becomesseparatefrommostoftheoil-it is instead, a matter ofdifferent
degreesof coalescence.3 The samewithmayonnaise; whenit separates,
youare leftwithyolkyoil and oilyyolk.
Goingbackto mestizaje, in themiddleofeither/or, ambiguity, and
thinking ofactsthatbelongin liveslivedin mestizoways,
thinking ofall formsofmestizaje,
thinking ofbreaching and abandoning dichotomies,
thinking of beinganomalouswillfully or unwillfully in a worldof
precise,hard-edged schema,
thinking ofresistance,
1 I thankMarilynFryeforher criticismof the choice of in interlocking
interlocking
oppressions.I agree withher claim to me thatthe image of interlocking is of two en-
tirelydiscretethings,like two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, thatarticulatewitheach other.I
am not readyto giveup the termbecause it is used by otherwomen of color theorists
who writein a liberatoryvein about enmeshedoppressions.I thinkinterwovenor inter-
meshedor enmeshedmay providebetterimages.
2 This is the same formfoundin
myuse of operation,apparatus,and individual.
Providinglinguisticpuzzles is part of the art of curdling.
3 For thisuse of emulsion,see PharmaceuticaActa Helvetiae 1991.

Winter 1994 SIGNS 459

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.72 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:51:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Lugones PURITY, IMPURITY, AND SEPARATION

resistanceto a world of purity,of domination,of controlover our

possibilities,
is separationnot at the crux of mestizaje,ambiguity, resistance?Is it
not at the crux both of its necessityand itspossibility?Separationas in
theseparationof the whitefromthe yolk or separationas curdling?
When I thinkof mestizaje,I thinkboth of separationas curdling,an
exercisein impurity, and of separationas splitting,an exercisein purity.
I thinkof the attemptat controlexercisedby those who possess both
power and the categoricaleye and who attemptto spliteverything im-
pure,breaking it down into pure elements in
(as egg white and egg yolk)
forthepurposesof control.Controlovercreativity. And I thinkof some-
thingin the middleof either/or, somethingimpure,somethingor some-
one mestizo,as bothseparated,curdled,and resistingin itscurdledstate.
Mestizaje defiescontrolthroughsimultaneouslyassertingthe impure,
curdledmultiplestateand rejectingfragmentation intopureparts.In this
play of assertionand rejection,the mestizais unclassifiable, unmanage-
able. She has no pure partsto be "had," controlled.

Inside the world of the impure

There was a muchacha who lived near my house. La gente del

pueblo talkedabout her being una de las otras, "of the Others."
Theysaid thatforsix monthsshe was a woman who had a vagina
thatbled once a month,and thatfortheothersix monthsshe was
a man, had a penisand she peed standingup. Theycalled herhalf
and half,mita'ymita,neitherone nor theotherbut a strangedou-
a work of naturein-
bling,a deviationof nature that horrified,
verted.[Anzalduia1987, 19]

and Louie would come through-

melodramaticmusic,like in the
mono-tan tan taran!-Cruz
Diablo, El CharroNegro! Bogartsmile (his smileas deadlyas his
vaisas!) He dug roles,man,
and names-like "Blackie," "LittleLouie ..."
Ese, Louie...
Chale, man, call me "Diamonds!"
[Montoya 1972, 173]

Now my mother,she doesn't go for cleanliness,orderliness,static

have-come-from-nowhere objectsforuse. She shows you theproduction,
herproduction.She is always in the middleof it and you will neversee

460 SIGNS Winter 1994

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.72 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:51:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PURITY, IMPURITY, AND SEPARATION Lugones

theend. You'llhaveto followherthrough herpathin thechaoticpro-

duction,you'll have to know her comingsand goings,her fluidity
through theproduction. You'llhaveto,thatis,ifyouwanttouseanyof
it.Becauseshepointstowhatyouneedinherownway,herpersonis the
"here"thatensureshersubjectivity, sheis thepointofreference, and if
youdon'tknowhermovements, herlocation, youcan'tgetto theendof
thepuzzle.Unlessshe wantsyou to,and sometimes, she'lldo thatfor
you,becauseshe hasn'tstoredthatmuchresistance. She doesn'thave
namesforthings (oh,shehasthemsomewhere, butusesthemverylittle),
as ifshealwayssaw themin themaking, inprocess,in connection, not
quiteseparablefromtherest.Shesays"it,""underthat,""nextto me."
"Thesego in thethingforthings." Andifyoufollowhermovements up
to theverypresent, youknowjustwhatshemeans,justwhatherhand
is needing
toholdandjustwheresheleftitandherwordsareveryhelpful
in findingit. Now, clean,whatyou call clean,you willnotsee clean
either.
You'llseehalfway.Kindof.In themiddleofeither/or. Shedoesn't
see thingsas broken,finished,either.It's rathera verylongprocessof
deterioration.Not a now yousee it,now youdon't,goneforever. Just
becauseit fellon thefloorand brokein halfand yougluedit and you
havetofillithalfway,so stuff doesn'tdripfromtheside,itdoesn'tstop
beinga tureen (ora flower
potfor"centros demesa,"ormaybeit'llbegood
as oneofthosethingamajigs toputthings in).It'sstillgood.Andithasn't
changedits"nature"either. Shehas alwayshad multiple functionsforit,
manypossibilities.Itsmultiplicity
hasalwaysbeenobviousto her.

Gettingreal close,likea confidence,

you tellme, "Becausecertain
individuals
can get too accustomedto beinghelped."That snatchof
mestizaje-"certainindividuals"-theSouthamerican use of "indi-
viduos"chiseledintoyourEnglish.Makesmefeelgood,in theknow.I
knowwhatyoumeanmujer,Southamerican style.Justlikemy"opera-
tion."Claroque se dicerealclose,it'snotjustforeveryone'sears.You
makemefeelspecial.I know,I knowabout"certainindividuals." Like
the"apparatus"youborrowfromme or I borrowfromyou.

"Cultureis whathappensto otherpeople."I've heardsomething like

that.I'm one of theotherpeople,so I knowthereis something funny
there.RenatoRosaldohelpsmearticulate whatis peculiar,paradoxical.
As he is critiquing
classicnormsinanthropology marking offthosewho
are visiblefromthosewhoare invisibleina culture,Rosaldoarticulates
thepoliticsunderlying them:"Fullcitizenslackculture,
and thosemost
culturally endowedlack fullcitizenship"
(1989, 198). Partof whatis
funny hereis thatpeoplewithculturearepeoplewitha culture unknown
byfullcitizens,notworthknowing. Onlytheculture ofpeoplewhoare

Winter 1994 SIGNS 461

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.72 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:51:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Lugones PURITY, IMPURITY, AND SEPARATION

culturallytransparent is worthknowing,but it does not countas a cul-

ture. The people whose cultureit is are postcultural.Their cultureis
invisibleto themand thus nonexistentas such. But postculturalfull
citizensmandatethatpeople witha culturegive up theirsin favorof the
nonexistentinvisibleculture.So, it's a peculiarstatus: I have "culture"
because what I have existsin theeyesof thosewho declarewhat I have
to be "culture."But theydeclare it "culture"only to the extentwhich
theyknow theydon't know it exceptas an absence thattheydon't want
to learnas a presenceand theyhave thepowernot to know.Furthermore
theyhave the power to orderme to cease to know. So, as I resistand
know,I am both visibleand invisible.Visibleas otherand invisibleas
myself,but thesearen'tseparablebits.And I walk around as both other
and myselves,resistingclassification.

Rosaldo criticizesthe "broad rule of thumbunderclassic anthropo-

logical norms. . . thatifit's movingit isn'tcultural"(1989, 209). "The
blurredzones withina cultureand the zones betweenculturesare en-
dowed by the normswitha curiouskind of hybridinvisibility"(1989,
209). Paradoxically"culture"needsto be bothstatic,fixedand separate,
differentfromthe "postcultural"(1989, 199) to be seen. So, if it's dif-
ferentbut not static,it isn't "culture."But if it's different,if it's what
"otherpeople do," it's cultural.If thepeople who do itare otherbutwhat
theydo is not static,it is and it isn't culture.It's in themiddle,anoma-
lous, deviant,ambiguous,impure.It lacks the mark of separationas
purity.If it's hybrid,it's in the middleof either/or twice.

The play betweenfeminineand masculineelementsthatwe containin

heterosexist eyes;
the parody of masculinelfeminine,the play with illusionthat trans-
gressesgenderboundaries,the "now you see 'it' now you don't" magic
tricksaimed at destroyingthe univocal characterof the "it" that we
disdainwithplayfulintention;
the rejectionof masculine/feminine in our self-understanding that
some of us make our mark;
all containa rejectionof purity.

In everyone of these examples thereis curdling,mestizaje,lack of

homogeneity. Thereis tension.The intentionsare curdled,thelanguage,
the behavior,thepeople are mestizo.

I. Control, unity,and separation

Guide to the reader: I will presupposethatas I investigatethe con-
ceptualworldof purity,you will keep theworldof mestizaje,of curdled
462 SIGNS Winter 1994

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.72 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:51:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PURITY, IMPURITY, AND SEPARATION Lugones

beings,constantly superimposed ontoit,evenwhenthatismadedifficult

bythewriting's focuson thelogicofpurity. Sometimes thelogicofpurity
dominates thetext,sometimes thelogicof curdling does. But at other
pointsbothworldsbecomevividas coexisting andthelogicofwhatI say
dependson thecoexistence. Thereaderneedsto see ambiguity, see that
thesplit-separated are also and simultaneously curdled-separated. Oth-
erwiseone is onlyseeingthesuccessofoppression, seeingwiththelover
ofpurity's eyes.The readeralso needsto,as it were,granttheassump-
tionsof theloverof purityto understand his world.The fundamental
assumption is thatthereis unityunderlying multiplicity. Theassumption
isgranted forthesakeofentering thepointofviewandforthepurposes
ofcontestation. Thequestioning is donefromwithinla realidadmestiza
andtheintent ofthequestioning is toclarify, aid thecontestation
intensify,
between thetworealities. As I entertheworldofpurity, I am interestedin
a clusterofconcepts as clustered:control, purity,unity,categorizing.Con-
trolor categorizing inisolation fromthisnetwork arenotmyconcern.
Myaimis todistinguish between multiplicity(mestizaje) andfragmen-
tationand to explainconnections thatI see betweenthetermsof this
distinctionand thelogicsofcurdling (impurity) and ofsplitting (purity).
Fragmentation followsthelogicofpurity. Multiplicity followsthelogic
of curdling. The distinction betweenfragmentation and multiplicity is
centralto thisessay.I willexhibitit withinindividuals and withinthe
socialworld.4
According to thelogicof curdling, thesocialworldis complexand
heterogenous and each personis multiple, nonfragmented, embodied.
Fragmented: infragments, pieces,partsthatdo notfitwelltogether, parts
takenforwholes,composite, composedof thepartsof otherbeings,
composedofimagined parts,composedofpartsproducedbya splitting
imagination, composedofpartsproducedbysubordinates enactingtheir
dominators' fantasies. According to thelogicofpurity, thesocialworld
is bothunifiedand fragmented, homogenous, hierarchically ordered.
Each personis eitherfragmented, composite, or abstractand unified-
notexclusive alternatives. Unification and homogeneity arerelatedprin-
ciplesofordering thesocialworld.Unification requires a fragmented and
hierarchical ordering. Fragmentation is anotherquiseof unity, bothin
thecollectivity and theindividual. I willconnectmestizaje inindividuals
to mestizajein groupsand thusin thesocialworld,and I willconnect
fragmentation within individuals tothetraining ofthemultiple towarda
homogenous socialworld.
I do not claimontologicaloriginality formultiplicity here.Rather
boththemultiple-mestizo and theunified-fragmented coexist,eachhave

4 It is
importantto problematizethe singularity
of "social world" and the distinction
betweensocial world and individual.

Winter 1994 SIGNS 463

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.72 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:51:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Lugones PURITY, IMPURITY, AND SEPARATION

theirhistories,are in contestationand in significant

logicaltension.I
revealthelogicsunderlying thecontestation.Sometimesmyuse of lan-
guagestrongly suggestsa claim oforiginality the
for multiple. I speakof
themultiple as trainedintounityand ofitsbeingconceived as internally
separable.I couldsay thatto split-separatethemultipleis to exercisea
But
splitimagination. if what is is to a
imagined gain powerful degreeof
reality,
unitymustbemorethana reading orinterpretation.
It mustorder
people'slivesand psyches.The becomingof the orderis a historical
processof domination in whichpowerand ideologyare at all times
changing into each other.
Monophilia and purityare cut fromthesame cloth.The urgeto con-
trol the multiplicity of people and thingsattains satisfactionthrough
exercisesin splitseparation.The urgeto controlmultiplicity is expressed
in modernpoliticaltheoryand ethicsin an understanding of reason as
reducingmultiplicity to unitythroughabstraction,categorization,from
a particularvantagepoint.5I considerthis reductionexpressiveof the
urgeto controlbecause of the logical fitbetweenit and the creationof
the fragmented individual.I understandfragmentation to be a formof
domination.
I see thisreductionof multiplicity
to unityas beingcompletedthrough
a complex seriesof fictions.Once the assumptionof unityunderlying
multiplicity is made, furtherfictionsrationalizeit as a discovery.The
assumptionmakes thesefictionspossible,and they,in turn,transform it
froma simpleassumptioninto a fiction.
The assumptionof unityis an act of splitseparation;as in conceiving
ofwhatis multipleas unified,whatis multipleis understoodas internally
separable,divisibleintowhat makesit one and theremainder.Or, to put
it anotherway: to conceiveof fragmentation ratherthanmultiplicity is to
exercisea split-separation imagination.This assumptiongeneratesand
presupposesothers.It generatesthe fictionalconstructionof a vantage
pointfromwhichunifiedwholes,totalities,can be captured.It generates
theconstruction of a subjectwho can occupysuch a vantagepoint.Both
thevantagepointand thesubjectare outsidehistoricity and concreteness.
They are both affectedby and effectthe reductionof multiplicity. The
vantagepointis privileged,simple, one-dimensional. The is
subject frag-
mented,abstract,withoutparticularity. The seriesof fictionshides the
trainingof themultipleinto unityas well as thesurvivalof themultiple.
It is onlyfroma historicalenmeshingin theconcretethatthetrainingof

5 I have based thisdescriptionof the connectionbetweenthe urgeto controland

modernpoliticaltheoryand ethicson Iris Marion Young's "Impartialityand the Civic
Public" (in Young 1990b). Much of what I say in Sec. I is a restatement
and elaboration
on secs. 1 and 2 of Young's article.I have also benefitedfromMangabeira Unger1975
and Pateman1988 in comingto thisunderstanding.

464 SIGNS Winter 1994

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.72 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:51:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PURITY, IMPURITY, AND SEPARATION Lugones

themultiple intofragmented unitiescan be seen;thatis, it can be seen

froma different logic,one that rejectsthe assumption of unity.The
ahistoricityofthelogicofpurity of
hidestheconstruction unity.
In understanding the fictitiouscharacterof the vantagepointit is
important thatwe recognize thatitsconception is itselfderivative
from
theconception ofreality Ifweassumethattheworldofpeople
as unified.
andthings is unified,thenwecanconceiveofa vantagepointfromwhich
itsunitycanbe grasped.Theconception ofthevantagepointfollowsthe
urgeto control;itis notantecedent to it,becauseunityis assumed.The
vantagepointis thenitselfbeyonddescription, exceptas an absence:
"outsideof" is itscentralcharacteristic.The vantagepointis notofthis
world,it is otherworldly, as idealas itsoccupant,theidealobserver. It
existsonlyas thatfromwhichunitycan be perceived.
The subjectwhocan occupysucha vantagepoint,theidealobserver,
musthimself be pure,unified, and simpleso as to occupythevantage
point and perceiveunityamid multiplicity.6
He must not himselfbe
pulledinall or severalperceptualdirections;he mustnotperceive richly.
Reason,including itsnormative aspect,is theunified subject.It is what
characterizesthe subjectas a unity.A subjectwho in its multiplicity
understands,
perceives, graspsitsworldsas multiple sensuously,passion-
atelyas well as rationallywithoutthe splitting separationbetween
sense/emotion/reason lackstheunidimensionality and thesimplicity re-
quiredto occupythepriviledged vantagepoint.Sucha subjectoccupies
thevantagepointof reasonin a pragmatic contradiction,standing in a
placewhereall ofthesubject'sabilitiescannotbe exercisedandwherethe
exerciseofitsabilitiesinvalidates
thestandpoint. So a passionate, needy,
sensuous,andrationalsubjectmustbe conceived as internally
separable,
as discretely
dividedintowhatmakesitone-rationality-andintothe
confused, worthless remainder-passion, sensuality.Rationality is un-
derstoodas thisabilityof a unified to
subject abstract, categorize, train
themultiple to thesystematicity of norms,of rulesthathighlight, cap-
ture,and trainitsunityfromthepriviledged vantagepoint.
The conception of thissubjectis derivativefromtheassumption of
unity and The
separability. very "construction" of thesubjectpresup-
posesthatassumption. So, thoughwe aresupposedto understand unity
in multiplicity
as thatwhichis perceived bytherationalsubjectoccupy-
ingthevantagepointofreason,we can see thatthelogicof thematter
goestheotherwayaround.Controlcannotbe rationally justified inthis
manner, as theurgeto controlantecedes thisconception ofreason.Part
ofmyclaimhereis thattheurgeforcontrol andthepassionforpurity are
conceptually related.
6
Theidealobserver,
unified
subjectis male.Thisfictitious
subjectis notmarkedin
terms ofgenderforreasonsexplained
below.

Winter 1994 SIGNS 465

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.72 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:51:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Lugones PURITY, IMPURITY, AND SEPARATION

Ifthemodernsubjectis to go beyondconceptualizingthereductionto
actuallyexercisingcontrolover people and things,then these fictions
must be given some degree of reality.The modern subject must be
dressed,costumed,maskedso as to appear able to exercisethisreduction
of heterogeneity to homogeneity, of multiplicity to unity.The modern
subject must be masked as standingseparate from his own multiplicity
and what commitshim to multiplicity. So, his own purificationinto
someonewho can step squarelyonto thevantagepointof unityrequires
thathis remainderbecomeof no consequenceto his own senseof himself
as someone who justifiablyexercisescontrol over multiplicity. So his
needs mustbe takencare of by othershiddenin spaces relegatedoutside
of public view,wherehe parades himselfas pure. And it is importantto
his own sense of thingsand of himselfthathe pay littleattentionto the
satisfaction of therequirements of his sensuality, embodiment.
affectivity,
Satisfying themodernsubject'sneeds requiresbeingsenmeshedin the
multipleas the productionof discreteunits occurs amid multiplicity.
Such productionis importantly constrainedby itsinvisibility and worth-
lessnessin the eyesof thosewho attemptto controlmultiplicity. To the
extent that the modern subject succeeds in this attemptto control
mutiplicity, theproductionis impelledby his needs. Those who produce
it becomeproducersof thestructuring "perceived"bytheloverof purity
fromtherationalvantagepointas well as itsproducts.So in thelogic of
the lover of puritytheyexhibita peculiar lack of agency,autonomy,
self-regulating ability.7
As theloverofpurity, theimpartialreasoneris outsidehistory, outside
culture.He occupiestheprivilegedvantagepointwithotherslikehim,all
characterizedby the "possession" of reason. All occupantsof thisvan-
tagepointare homogeneousin theirabilityto comprehendand commu-
nicate. So "culture,"which marksradical differences in conceptionsof
people and things,cannot be somethingthey have. They are instead
"postcultural"or "culturallytransparent."8
Since his embodimentis irrelevantto his unity,he cannot have sym-
bolic and institutionalized inscriptionsin his body that mark him as
someonewho is "outside" his own productionas therationalsubject.To
theextentthatmasteringinstitutional inscriptionsis partof theprogram
of unification, therecannotbe such markingsof his body.His difference
cannotbe thoughtof as "inscriptions"butonlyas coincidental,nonsym-
bolic marks.As his race and genderdo not identify himin his own eyes,
he is also race and gendertransparent.
7 See Smith1974 and Hartsock 1988 for
argumentsbackingthisaccount.
8 See Rosaldo 1989, 200 and 203, forhis use of postculturaland culturallytranspar-
was suggestive
ent. I am usingpostculturalas he does. His use of culturallytransparent
to me in reachingmyown account.

466 SIGNS Winter 1994

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.72 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:51:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PURITY, IMPURITY, AND SEPARATION Lugones

Paradoxically,the loverof purityis also constitutedas incoherent,as

contradictory in his attitudetoward his own and others'gender,race,
culture.He mustat once emphasizethemand ignorethem.He mustbe
radicallyself-deceiving in this respect.His productionas pure, as the
impartialreasoner,requiresthatothersproducehim.He is a fictionof his
own imagination,buthis imaginationis mediatedby thelabor of others.
He controlsthosewho producehim,who to his eyesrequirehis control
because theyare enmeshedin multiplicity and thusunable to occupythe
vantage point of control.They are marked as other than himself,as
lackingthe relevantunity.But the lack is not discovered,it couldn'tbe,
since the unityis itselfassumed. The lack is symbolicallyproduced by
markingthe producers as gendered,racialized, and "cultured." The
markingsignifiesthat theyare enmeshedin multiplicity and thus are
differentfromtheloverof purity.Buthe mustdenytheimportanceof the
markingsthatseparatethem.
If women, the poor, the colored, the queer, the ones with cultures
(whose culturesare deniedand renderedinvisibleas theyare seen as our
mark) are deemed unfitfor the public, it is because we are taintedby
need,emotion,thebody.This taintingis relativeto themodernsubject's
urge forcontrolthroughunityand the productionand maintenanceof
himselfas unified.To theextentthathe is fictional,
thetainting is fictional:
seeingus as tainteddepends on a need forpuritythatrequiresthatwe
become"parts,""addenda" of thebodies of modernsubjects-Christian
whitebourgeoismen-and make theirpuritypossible.We become sides
of fictitiousdichotomies.To the extentthat we are ambiguous-non-
dichotomous-we threatenthefictionand can be renderedunfitonlyby
decryingambiguityas nonexistent-thatis, by halvingus, splittingus.
Thus we existonlyas incomplete,unfitbeings,and theyexistas complete
onlyto theextentthatwhat we are, and what is absolutelynecessaryfor
them,is declaredworthless.
The loverof purityis shotthroughand throughwiththisparadoxical
incoherence.When confrontedwith the sheer overabundanceof the
multiple,he ignoresit by placing it outside value when it is his own
substanceand provideshis sustenance.So, he is committedboth to an
overevaluationand to a devaluationof himself,a torturing of himself,a
discipliningor trainingof himselfthatputs him at the mercyof his own
control.The incoherenceis dispelledthroughseparation,his own from
himself.As he covets,possesses,destroys,pleases himself,he disownshis
own urgesand deeds. So he is always rescuedfromhis own incoherence
by self-deception, weakness of the will, aggressiveignorance.Afterhe
ignoresthe fundamentaland unfoundedpresuppositionof unity,all fur-
therignoringbecomeseasier.He shunsimpurity, ambiguity, multiplicity
as theythreatenhis own fiction.The enormityof the threatkeeps him

Winter 1994 SIGNS 467

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.72 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:51:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Lugones PURITY, IMPURITY, AND SEPARATION

fromunderstanding it. So, theloverofpurityremainsignorantofhisown

impurity, and thus the threatof all impurity remainssignificantly uncon-
tained.The loverof puritycannotsee, understand,and attemptto con-
troltheresistancecontainedin theimpure.He can onlyattemptcontrol
indirectly, throughthe complex incoherenceof affirming and denying
impurity, the
training impure into its "parts" and at the same timesepa-
rating from it,erectingsturdy barriers both around himself and between
the fictional of
"parts" impurebeings.
In Purityand Danger,Mary Douglas (1989) sees the impulsetoward
unityas characteristic of social structures, and she understandspollution
behavior-behavior to control pollution,impurity-as a guardingof
structurefromthe threatof impurity. Accordingto Douglas, impurity,
dirt,is what is "out of place" relativeto some order.What is impureis
anomalous and ambiguousbecause it is out of place. It threatensorder
becauseitis notdefinable,so separationfromitis a mannerof containing
it. She also sees powerin impurity. But it is notherpurposeto distinguish
betweenoppressiveand nonoppressivestructuring. My purpose here is
preciselyto understandtheparticularoppressivecharacterof themodern
constructionof social life and the power of impurityin resistingand
threatening thisoppressivestructuring.
Partofwhatis interesting in Douglas is thatshe understandsthatwhat
is impureis impurerelativeto some order and that the order is itself
conventional.What is impureis anomalous. Douglas describesseveral
ways of dealingwithanomalies,but she does not emphasizethatrender-
ing somethingimpureis a way of dealingwithit. The orderingrenders
somethingout of place. Its complexityis alteredby the ordering.The
alterationis not only conceptualsince its "life" developsin relationto
this order.So, for example, the multiplicitousbeings requiredfor the
productionof the unifiedsubjectare anomalous as multiple.Unityren-
ders themanomalous. So theyare alteredto fitwithinthe logic of uni-
fication.They are split over and over in accordance with the relevant
dichotomiesof the logic of unity.As anomalous, theyremaincomplex,
defyingthe logic of unity.That which is multiplicitous metamorphoses
over and over in its historyof resistingalterationand as the resultof
alteration.Both thelogic of controland unityand thelogic of resistance
and complexityare at workin whatis impure.That is whyI haveand will
continueto use impureambiguouslybothforsomethingcomplexthatis
in processand thuscannotreallybe split-separated and forthatwhichis
fragmented.
Whenseenas split,theimpure/multiplicitous are seenfromthelogicof
unity, and thus theirmultiplicity can neither be seen nor understood.But
splitting can itselfbe understood from the logic of resistanceand coun-
teredthroughcurdlingseparation,a power of the impure.When seen

468 SIGNS Winter 1994

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.72 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:51:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PURITY, IMPURITY, AND SEPARATION Lugones

fromthelogicofcurdling, oftheimpure
thealteration to unityis seenas
and as an exercisein domination:
fictitious the impureare rendered
ascetic,static,
uncreative, ofthecontents
realizers ofthemodern subject's
imagination.Curdling, in contrast,realizestheiragainst-the-graincre-
ativity,articulatestheir within-structure-inarticulate
powers.9 As we
come to understandcurdlingas resistingdomination,we also need to
recognizeits potentialto germinatea nonoppressivepattern,a mestiza
consciousness,una concienciamestiza.10

Interrupcion
Oh, I wouldentertain thethought ofseparation as reallyclean,the
twocomponents untouchedbyeachother, unmixed as theywouldbe if
I couldgo awaywithmyownpeopleto ourlandto engageinactsthat
werecleanlyours!ButthenI ask myself whomyownpeopleare. When
I thinkofmyownpeople,theonlypeopleI can thinkofas myownare
transitionals,
liminals,border-dwellers,
"world"-travelers, beingsin the
middleofeither/or. Theyareall peoplewhoseactsand thoughts curdle-
separate.So as soonas I entertainthethought, I realizethatseparation
intoclean,tidythings and beingsis notpossibleformebecauseitwould
be thedeathofmyself as multiplicitous
and a deathofcommunity with
myown.I understand mysplitor fragmented possibilitiesin horror.I
understand thenthatwhenever I desireseparation, I risksurvivalby
confusingsplitseparation withseparationfromdomination, thatis,sepa-
rationamongcurdledbeingswhocurdleawaytheirfragmentation, their
subordination. I canappreciatethenthatthelogicofsplit-separation and
thelogicof curdle-separation repeleachother,thatthecurdleddo not
germinate in splitseparation.

II. Split selves

Dual personality
What Frank Chin calls a "dual personality"is the productionof a
beingwho is simultaneously differentand the same as postculturalsub-
a
jects, splitand contradictorybeing who is a productof theethnocentric
racistimagination(1991). It is one way of dealingwiththe anomalyof
beingculturedand culturallymultiplicitous.The case I know bestis rural
9 See
Douglas 1966: "In otherwords,wherethe social systemis well-articulated,I
look forarticulatepowersvestedin the pointsof authority;wherethe social systemis
I look forinarticulatepowersvestedin thosewho are a sourceof disor-
ill-articulated,
der" (99).
10See Anzaldua 1987, esp. 41-51, on the Coatlicue State,and 77-91 on la Con-
ciencia de la Mestiza.

Winter 1994 SIGNS 469

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.72 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:51:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Lugones PURITY, IMPURITY, AND SEPARATION

Chicanos. Chicano is thename forthe curdledor mestizoperson.I will

name the dual personalitymexicanlamerican,with no hyphenin the
name,to signifythatif the splitwere successfultherewould be no pos-
sibilityof dwellingor livingon the hyphen.11
The rural mexican/american is a productof the anglo imagination,
sometimesenactedbypersonswho are thetargetsof ethnocentric racism
in an unwillfulparody of themselves.The anglo imagineseach rural
mexican/american as havinga dual personality:the authenticmexican
culturalselfand theamericanself.In thisnotion,thereis no hybridself.
The selves are conceptuallydifferent,apparentlycontradictorybut
complementary; one cannotbe foundwithoutthe other.The anglo phi-
losophy is thatmexican/americans should both keep theirculture(so as
to be different and not fullcitizens)and assimilate(so as to be exploit-
able), a positionwhose contradictoriness is obvious. But as a splitdual
personality, the authenticmexicancan assimilatewithoutceasingto be
"cultured,"the two selvescomplementary, the ornamentalnatureof the
mexicanselfresolvingthe contradiction.
The mexican/americancan assimilate because the mexican in
mexicanlamerican is understoodto be a memberof a superfluous culture,
theculturean ornamentratherthanshapingor affecting americanreality.
A simplebut stoic figurewho will defendthe land no matterwhat,the
mexican/american will neverquite enterthe twentiethcenturyand will
not make it in the twenty-first, giventhat in this schemefor the next
centurytheland will no longerbe used forfarmingbutfortherecreation
of theanglo upperclass. The authenticmexicanis a romanticfigure,an
anglo myth,alive in the pages of JohnNichols's Milagro BeanfieldWar
(1976): fiercely conservativeand superexploitable.
As americans,ruralmexican/americans citizensbe-
are not first-class
cause thetwo sides of thesplitcannotbe foundwithouteach other.The
complementarity of the sides becomes clearer:the assimilatedmexican
cannot lose cultureas ornamentaland as a mark of difference.So a
mexican/american is not a postculturalamerican.The promiseof post-
culturalismis part of what makes assimilationappealing, since the
mexican/american knows that only postculturalsare full citizens.But
assimilationdoes not make themexican/american postcultural.So mak-
ingthe anglo ideals of progress and one's
efficiency own servesone only
to become exploitablebut not to achievefullparticipationin anglo life.
Anglosdeclaremexican/americans unfitforcontroland portraythemas
menand womenof simplemindsgivento violence,drink,and hardwork,
accustomedto hardshipand poverty,in particular.
1 SoniaSaldivar-Hull in thepaneldis-
"livingon thehyphen"
usedtheexpression
andtheAcademy,"
cussion"CulturalIdentity Forumof
tenthannualInterdisciplinary
theWesternHumanities on Cultures
Conference andNationalisms,
UniversityofCali-
Los Angeles.
fornia,
470 SIGNS Winter 1994

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.72 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:51:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PURITY, IMPURITY, AND SEPARATION Lugones

The dual personality is partofthemythical portrait ofthecolonized

(Memmi1967). The split renders the selfinto someone unableto be
creative
culturally ina liveculture. Thus"authentic" mexicancraftshops
exhibitsantos,trasteros, colchas,reredos. Mexicanartists cannotdepart
fromthe formulaic; theyare supposedto be producing relicsforthe
angloconsumer ofthepicturesque. The mythical portrait thereforehas
acquireda degreeofreality thatbothjustifies andobscuresanglodomi-
nance.Theportrait doesnotlackinappeal.Itmakesonefeelproudto be
raza becausetheportraitis heroic.It also makesone stilted,stiff, a
culturalpersonage notquitesureofoneself, a pose,purestyle,notquite
at easeinone'sowncultural skin,as ifonedidnotquiteknowone'sown
culture,preciselybecauseitisnotone'sownbuta stereotype andbecause
thisauthentic cultureis notquitea liveculture:it is conceivedby the
angloas bothstaticanddying.As Rosaldosays,partofthemythis that
"if it moves,it is not cultural"(1989, 212). This authentic mexican
culturebearsa relation totraditional culture.Itis traditionfiltered
through
angloeyesforthepurposes ofornamentation. Whatis anglo,authentically
american, is also appealing:it represents progress, thefuture, efficiency,
materialwellbeing.As american, onemoves;as mexican, oneis static.As
american,oneis beyond culture; as mexican,oneis culture personified.The
splitselfis a character
culturally forthetheatrics ofracism.
The dual personality conceptis a death-loving attempt to turnraza
into beautifulzombies:an attemptto eradicatethe possibility of a
mestizo/a consciousness, of our infusing everyone of our possibilities
withthisconsciousness and of our movingfromtraditional to hybrid
waysof creation, including theproduction ofmaterial life.
As split,mexican/americans cannotparticipate in publiclifebecause
oftheirdifference, exceptornamentally inthedramatization ofequality.
If we retreatand acceptthe "betweenraza" nonpublicstatusof our
concerns,toberesolved intheprivacy ofourcommunities, weparticipate
in thelogicofthesplit.Our communities arerendered privatespacein
thepublic/private distinction. Crossing to theanglodomainonlyintheir
terms isnotan optioneither, as itfollowsthelogicofthesplitwithout the
termseverbecomingour own, thatis the natureof this-if not of
all-assimilation.So, theresistance and rejection of theculturally split
selfrequiresthatwe declareourcommunities publicspaceandbreakthe
conceptual tiebetween publicspaceandmonoculturally conceived anglo-
onlyconcerns: itrequires thatthelanguageandconceptual framework of
thepublicbecomehybrid.

Fragmentation
InJusticeand thePoliticsofDifference
(1990a) and "Polityand Dif-
ference"(in 1990b), IrisYounghighlightsthe conceptof a groupas
central
to herunderstanding oftheheterogenouspublic,a conception
of
Winter 1994 SIGNS 471

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.72 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:51:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Lugones PURITY, IMPURITY, AND SEPARATION

thecivicpublicthatdoes not ignoreheterogeneity throughreducingit to

a fictitiousunity. Instead of a unifiedpublic realm "in whichcitizensleave
behindtheirparticulargroup affiliations, histories, and needs to discuss
a generalinterestor commongood," she arguesfor"a group differenti-
ated citizenshipand a heterogenouspublic" (1990b, 121).
She understands a social groupas "a collectiveof personsdifferentiated
fromat leastone othergroupby culturalforms,practices,or way of life"
(1990a, 43). Groupsbecomedifferentiated throughtheencounterand in-
teractionbetween social collectivitiesthat experiencesome differences in
theirway of lifeand forms of association as well as through social processes
suchas thesexualdivisionof labor.Groupmembershave"an affinity with
otherpersonsby which theyidentify with one another and by which other
people identify them" (1990b, 122). Group identity partlyconstitutes "a
person'sparticularsenseof history, understanding of social relationsand
personalpossibilities, heror his mode of reasoning,values and expressive
styles"(1990b, 122). Theirsimilarway oflifeor experience promptsgroup
members"to associatewitheach othermorethanwiththosenotidentified
withthegroup,or in a different way" (1990a, 43). A social groupis not
something one joinsbut,rather, "one findsoneselfas a memberof a group
whose existenceand relationsone experiencesas always alreadyhaving
been" (1990b, 122). But groupsare fluid,"theycome intobeingand may
fadeaway" (1990b, 123). Thoughthereis a lack of clarityin how Young
particulargroups,as I understand
identifies her,BlackAmericans, lesbians,
differentlyabledwomen,Latinas,and Navajo areexamplesofsocialgroups.
Young thinksthat the "inclusion and participationof everyonein
public discussionand decision makingrequiresmechanismsof group
representation" (1990a, 115). The "ideal of the public realmof citizen-
shipas expressinga generalwill,a pointof viewand interestthatcitizens
have in common and that transcendstheirdifferences..., leads to
pressuresfora homogeneouscitizenry"(1990a, 116-17). In arguingfor
group representation as the key to safeguardingthe inclusionand par-
ticipationof everyonewithoutfallingintoan egoistic,self-regarding view
of thepoliticalprocess,Young tellsus that"it is possible forpersonsto
maintaintheirgroupidentity and to be influenced bytheirperceptionsof
social eventsderivedfromtheirgroupspecificexperienceand at thesame
timeto be public spirited,in the sense of beingopen to listeningto the
claims of othersand not being concernedfor theirown gain alone"
(1990a, 120). She sees group representation as necessarybecause she
thinksdifferences are irreducible:"People from one perspective can never
completely understand and adopt the point of view of those with other
group-basedperspectives and histories" (1990a, 121). Though differ-
ences are irreducible,grouprepresentation affordsa solutionto theho-
mogeneization of thepublic because "commitment to theneed and desire

472 SIGNS Winter 1994

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.72 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:51:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PURITY, IMPURITY, AND SEPARATION Lugones

to decidetogether the society'spoliciesfosterscommunication across

thosedifferences" (1990a, 121).
In herconception oftheheterogenous public,"eachoftheconstituent
groupsaffirms thepresence oftheothersand affirms thespecificity ofits
experience andperspective on socialissues,"arriving at "a politicalpro-
gramnotbyvoicingsome'principles of unity'thathidedifferences but
ratherby allowingeach constituency to analyzeeconomicand social
issuesfromtheperspective ofitsexperience" (1990a, 123).
Youngsees thateach personhas multiple groupidentifications and
thatgroupsare nothomogenous butratherthateach grouphas group
differences cuttingacrossit (1990a, 123; 1990b, 48). Social groups
"mirrorin theirown differentiations manyof theothergroupsin the
widersociety"(1990a, 48). Thereare important implications of group
differences withinsocial groups.Significantly, "individualpersons,as
constituted partlybytheirgroupaffinities and relations,cannotbe uni-
fied,themselves areheterogenous and notnecessarilycoherent" (1990a,
48). Youngsees a revolution in subjectivity
as necessary. "Ratherthan
seeking a wholeness oftheself,wewhoarethesubjects ofthispluraland
complexsocietyshouldaffirm theotherness withinourselves, acknowl-
edgingthatas subjectswe are heterogenous and multiple in our affilia-
tionsand desires"(1990a, 124). Youngthinksthewomen'smovement
offerssome beginning modelsforthe development of a heterogenous
publicand forrevolutionizing thesubjectthrough thepracticesit has
instituted to dealwithissuesarisingfromgroupdifferences withinsocial
groups.Fromthediscussionof racialand ethnicblindness and theim-
portance ofattending togroupdifferences amongwomen"emerged prin-
cipledefforts to provideautonomously organizedforums[forwomen]
whoseereasonforclaiming thattheyhaveas a groupa distinctive voice
thatmightbe silencedin a generalfeminist discourse"(1990a, 162).
Thosediscussions havebeenjoinedbystructured discussion amongdif-
ferently identifying groupsofwomen"(1990a, 162-63).
Young'scomplexaccountsuggests theproblembutnotthesolution
to whatI understand as thefragmentation ofthesubject,a consequence
ofgroupoppression wheregroupoppression followsthelogicofunity, of
purity.I thinkwe needa solutionto theproblemofwalkingfromoneof
one's groupsto another, beingmistreated, misunderstood, engaging in
self-abuse and self-betrayal forthesakeof thegroupthatonlydistorts
ourneedsbecausetheyeraseourcomplexity. Younglacksa conceptual
basisfora solutionbecauseshelacksa conception ofa multiple subject
who is not fragmented. I thinkshe does not see theneed forsucha
conception becauseshefailsto addresstheproblem oftheinterlocking of
oppressions. Fragmentation is conceptuallyat oddswithseeingoppres-
sionsas interlocked.

Winter 1994 SIGNS 473

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.72 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:51:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Lugones PURITY, IMPURITY, AND SEPARATION

I am not disagreeingwithYoung's rejectionof the individualismthat

followsfromthinkingof social groups as "invidiousfictions,essential-
izingarbitrary attributes"(1990a, 46), nor withherrejectionof an ideal
of interestsas common,of the universal,homogeneoussubject,and of
assimilation.I do not disagreewithher account of social groupseither
norwithheraccountoftheproblematicnatureof one's subjectivity when
formedin affiliation witha multiplicity of groups.But heraccountleaves
us witha selfthatis not just multiplicitous but fragmented, itsmultiplic-
itylyingin its fragmentation. In order to explain this claim I need to
introducethe conceptsof thicknessand transparency.
Thicknessand transparency are group relative.Individualsare trans-
parentwithrespectto theirgroup if theyperceivetheirneeds,interests,
ways, as thoseof thegroup and ifthisperceptionbecomesdominantor
hegemonicalin thegroup.Individualsare thickiftheyare aware of their
othernessin thegroup,of theirneeds,interests, ways,beingrelegatedto
the marginsin the politicsof intragroupcontestation.So, as transpar-
ent,one becomesunawareof one's own difference fromothermembers
of the group.
Fragmentationoccurs because one's interests,needs, ways of seeing
and valuing things,persons,and relationsare understoodnot as tied
simplyto group membership,but as the needs, interests,and ways of
transparentmembersof the group. Thick membersare erased. Thick
membersof severaloppressedgroups become compositesof the trans-
parentmembersof thosegroups.As thick,theyare marginalizedthrough
erasure,theirvoices nonsensical.The interlockingof membershipsin
oppressedgroupsis not seen as changingone's needs,interests, and ways
qualitativelyin anygroupbut,rather,one's needs,interests, and waysare
understoodas theadditionofthoseof thetransparent members.Theyare
understoodwitha "pop-bead logic,"to put it as ElizabethSpelmandoes
in InessentialWoman(1988). The titleAll the WomenAre White,All the
BlacksAreMen, But Some of Us AreBrave (Hull, Scott,and Smith1982)
capturesand rejectsthislogic. Whitewomenare transparent as women;
black menare transparent as black. Black womenare erasedand fighting
against erasure. Black women are fightingfor theirunderstandingof
social relations,theirpersonalpossibilities,theirparticularsense of his-
tory,theirmode of reasoningand values and expressivestylesbeing
understoodas neitherreducibleto anythingelse nor as outsidethemean-
ing of being black and of being Women. Black and women are thus
conceivedas plural,multiplicitous, withoutfragmentation.
The politics of marginalizationin oppressed groups is part of the
politicsof oppression,and the disconnectionof oppressionsis part of
these politics. Avoidingrecognitionof the interlockingof oppressions
servesmanypeople well, but no one is servedso well by it as the pure,

474 SIGNS Winter 1994

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.72 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:51:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PURITY, IMPURITY, AND SEPARATION Lugones

citizen.So I see a crossfertilization

rational,full-fledged betweenthelogicof
of
purityused to excludemembers oppressedgroups from thecivicpublic
and the separationand disconnectionof oppressions.Liberatorywork
thatmakes vividthatoppressionsmustbe foughtas interlockedis con-
sistentlyblocked in oppressed groups throughthe marginalizationof
thickmembers.
So unless one understandsgroups as explicitlyrejectingthe logic of
fragmentation and embracinga nonfragmented multiplicity thatrequires
an understandingof oppressionsas interlocked,group representation
does mostgroupmemberslittlegood. It indeedfailsat safeguardingthe
"inclusionand participationof everyone"in the shapingof public life.
The logic of impurity, of mestizaje,provides us with a betterunder-
standingof multiplicity, one that fitsthe conceptionof oppressionsas
interlocked.I mean to offera statementof the politicsof heterogeneity
that is not necessarilyat odds with Young's, but its logic is different.
Hers, though formulatedin rejectionof the logic of purity,is oddly
consistentwith thoughnot necessarilytied to it. Mine is inconsistent
withit. Communicationacross differences in her model maywell failto
recognizethatone is listeningto voices representative only of transpar-
ents, voices that embody the marginalizationof thick membersand
containtheirfragmentation.
Social homogeneity, dominationthroughunification, and hierarchical
orderingof splitsocial groupsare connectedtightlyto fragmentation in
the person.If the personis fragmented, it is because the societyis itself
fragmented into groupsthatare pure,homogenous.Each group's struc-
tureof affiliation
to and throughtransparent membersproducesa society
of personswho are fragmented as theyare affiliated to separategroups.
As the parts of individualsare separate,the groups are separate,in an
insidiousdialectic.
Heterogeneityin the societyis consistentwith and may requirethe
presenceof groups.But groupsin a genuinelyheterogenoussocietyhave
complex,nonfragmented personsas members,thatis, theyare heterog-
enous themselves. The affiliative historiesincludetheformationof voices
in contestationthatrevealthe enmeshingof race, gender,culture,class,
and otherdifferences thataffectand constitutetheidentity of thegroup's
members.This is a verysignificant difference in directionfromthe one
suggestedby the postmodernliterature, whichgoes againsta politicsof
identityand toward the
minimizing politicalsignificance ofgroups.12The
positionpresented in this a
article, position that I also see in theliterature
on mestizaje,affirms a complexversionof identity politicsand a complex
conceptionof groups.
12
Two examplesthatcome vividlyto mindare the positionssuggestedin Butler
1990 and Haraway 1990.

Winter 1994 SIGNS 475

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.72 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:51:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Lugones PURITY, IMPURITY, AND SEPARATION

Interrupci6n:Lesbian separation
WhenI thinkof lesbianseparationI thinkof curdleseparation.In this
understanding of separationI am a lesbianseparatist.We containin our
own and in the heterosexistconstructionof ourselvesall sortsof ambi-
guitiesand tensionsthatare threatening to purity,to theconstructionof
womenas foruse, forexploitation.We are outsidethe loverof purity's
pale, outside his conceptualframework.Even the attemptto split our
selves into half manlhalfwoman recognizesour impurity. In our own
conception we defysplittingseparation by mocking the purityof the
manlwomandichotomyor rejectingit.

But "Watchaleesa!" doesn't resonatein its impurityimplicitlyin all

lesbianears, and not all lesbianhips move inspiredby a latinbeat.
Lesbiansare not theonlytransitionals, impure,ambiguousbeings.And
ifwe are to against
struggle "our" oppression, LatinaLesbiancannotbe the
namefora fragmented being. Our stylecannot be outsidethemeaningof
Latinaand cannotbe outsidethemeaningof Lesbian.So, our struggle, the
struggleof lesbians,
goes beyond lesbiansas a group.If we our
understand
separationas curdle-separation,thenwe can rethinkour relationto other
curdledbeings.Separationfromdominationis notsplit-separation.

III. Impurityand resistance

People who curdle-separate are themselvespeople fromwhom others

split-separate,dissociate,withdraw.Loversof purity,controllersthrough
split-separationnot only attemptto split-separateus but also split-
separate fromus in ways I have discussed,such as ghettoizationand
conceptualexclusion.They also attemptto split-separate us fromothers
who are themselvescurdled throughthe logic of marginalization,of
transparency. The logicof transparency shinesin theconstructed loverof
purityhimself,the modern subject,the impartialreasoner.He is the
measureof all things.He is transparentrelativeto his position in the
hetero-relational patriarchy,to his culture,his race,his class, his gender.
His sense is the only sense. So curdledthoughtsare nonsensical.To the
extentthathis senseis theinstrument of our communication, we become
susceptibleto the logic of transparency and see split-separationfrom
othercurdledbeings as sensical in our resistanceto oppression.We also
to
becomesusceptible beingagents of the loverof purityin carryingout
theoppressionof othercurdledbeings,in constructing his made-to-order
orderly world. Thus curdle-separation blocked, barred,made into a
is
hard to reach resistantand liberatorypossibility.It is also dangerous
because curdled beings may adopt the logic of transparencyin self-

476 SIGNS Winter 1994

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.72 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:51:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PURITY, IMPURITY, AND SEPARATION Lugones

contradiction and actas agentsoftheloverofpurity in coercingus into

fragmentation I
andoppression.thinkthisis a riskthatwe canminimize
onlybyspeaking thelanguageofcurdling amongcurdledbeingsinsepa-
rationand livingitslogicand by listening for,responding to, evoking,
sometimes demanding, suchlanguageand logic.I thinkthisis a riskwe
musttakebecausethelogicofsplit-separation doesnotcontainresistance
butco-optation. So we haveto constantly considerand reconsider the
question:Who areourownpeople?
I don'tthinkwe can consider"our own" onlythosewho rejectthe
samedichotomies we do. It is theimpulseto rejectdichotomies and to
liveand embodythatrejection thatgivesus somehopeof standing to-
gether as peoplewho recognize eachotherin ourcomplexity. The hope
is basedon thepossibilities thattheunsettling qualityofbeinga stranger
in our societyrevealsto us, thepossibilities thatpurification byordeal
revealsto us.I thinkthisis Anzaldua'spointinthinking ofa borderland:
"It is a constant stateoftransition. Theprohibited andforbidden areits
inhabitants . . . thosewho crossover,pass over,or go through thecon-
finesofthe'normal.'... Ambivalence andunrestresidethereand death
is no stranger" (1987,3-4). Forher,"To livein theBorderlands means
youare neither hispanaindianegraespanolani gabacha,eresmestiza,
mulata,half-breed ... [you're]halfand half-bothwomanand man,
neither-anewgender.... In theBorderlands youarethebattleground
whereenemiesarekinto eachother"(1987, 194).
But,ofcourse,thatisthingroundforthinking ofothersas "ourown":
thatwe mightbe revealedto each otheras possiblethrough thetram-
plingsanddenialsandtorturings ofourambiguity. A moresolidground
becauseit is a morepositivegroundis theone thataffirms thelackof
constraint ofourcreativity thatis at thecenter ofcurdling; thatholdson
to ourownlackofscript, to ourbeingbeingsinthemaking;thatmight
containeach otherin thecreativepath,who don'tdiscountbut look
forward to thatpossibility.
Ambiguous, neither thisnorthat,unrestrained bythelogicofthisand
the logicof that,and thusits coursenot mapped,tracedalreadyin
movements, words,relations, structures,
institutions; notrehearsed over
and overintosubmission, containment, subordination, asceticism-we
canaffirm thepositive sideofourbeingthreatening as ambiguous. Ifitis
ambiguousit is threatening becauseit is creative,changing, defiant of
normsmeantto subdueit.So we findourpeopleas we makethethreat
good,dayto day,attentive to ourcompany inourgroups,acrossgroups.
The modelofcurdling as a modelforseparation is a modelforworldly
separation-theseparation of border-dwellers, of peoplewho livein a
crossroads, peoplewhodenypurity andarelookingforeachotherforthe
of
possibility goingbeyondresistance.

Winter 1994 SIGNS 477

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.72 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:51:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Lugones PURITY, IMPURITY, AND SEPARATION

IV. The art of curdling

Curdle-separation is not somethingthathappensto us but something

we do. As I have argued,it is somethingwe do in resistanceto thelogic
of control,to thelogicof purity.Thoughtransparents failto see itssense,
and therebykeep itssensefromstructuring our social life,thatwe curdle
to our beingactivesubjects,notconsumedbythelogicofcontrol.
testifies
Curdlingmay be a haphazardtechniqueof survivalas an activesubject,
or it can become an art of resistance,metamorphosis, transformation.
I recommendthecultivationof thisart as a practiceof resistanceinto
transformation fromoppressionsas interlocked.It is a practiceof festive
resistance:
Bi- and multilingualexperimentation;
code-switching;
categorialblurringand confusion;
caricaturing theselveswe are in theworldsof our oppressors,infusing
themwithambiguity;
practicingtrickstery and foolery;
elaborateand explicitlymarkedgendertransgression;
withdrawing our servicesfromthepureor theiragentswheneverpos-
sible and withpanache;
drag;
announcingthe impurityof the pure by ridiculinghis inabilityat
self-maintanance;
playfulreinvention ofournamesforthingsand people,multiplenaming;
caricaturing of the fragmented selveswe are in our groups;
revealing the chaotic in production;
revealingtheprocessofproducingorderifwe cannothelpproducingit;
undermining the orderlinessof the social ordering;
marking our cultural mixturesas we move;
emphasizing cultural mestizaje;
crossingcultures;
etc.
We not onlycreateourselvesand each otherthroughcurdlingbut also
announceourselvesto each otherthroughthisart,our curdledexpres-
sion. Thus curdledbehavioris not onlycreativebut also constitutes itself
as a social commentary. All curdledbehavior,thought,and expression
containand expressthissecondlevelof meaning,one of social commen-
tary.When curdlingbecomes an art of resistance,the curdledpresenta-
tionis highlighted. Thereis thedistanceof metacomment, autoreflection,
looking at oneselfin someone else's mirrorand back in one's own, of
self-awareexperimentation. Our commentary is not straightforward: the
commentary underlines the curdlingand constitutes it as an act of social
creativedefiance.We oftenintendand cultivatewith stylethis social
commentary, thismeta meaningof our curdling.When confrontedwith
478 SIGNS Winter 1994

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.72 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:51:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PURITY, IMPURITY, AND SEPARATION Lugones

our curdlingor curdledexpressionor behavior,people oftenwithdraw.

Theirwithdrawalrevealsthedevaluationof ambiguity as threatening and
is thus also a metacomment.It announcesthat,thoughwe will not be
acknowledged,we havebeen seenas threatening theunivocityof lifelived
in a stateof purity,theirmanagementof us, theirpower over us.

Latin Americanand CaribbeanArea StudiesProgram

of New Yorkat Binghamton
State University

References
Anzaldua,Gloria.1987.Boarderlands/La Frontera: TheNewMestiza.SanFran-
cisco:Spinsters/Aunt Lute.
Butler,
Judith. 1990. GenderTrouble.New York:Routledge.
Chin,Frank.1991. "ComeAll Ye AsianAmerican Writers oftheReal and the
Fake."In TheBigAiiieeeee!ed.Jeffery PaulChan,FrankChin,LawsonFusao
Inada,and ShawnWong.New York:Meridian.
Douglas,Mary.1989. Purity and Danger.London:ArkPaperbacks.
Haraway, Donna. 1990. "A Manifesto forCyborgs." In Feminism/Post modern-
ism,ed. LindaJ.Nicholson.New York:Routledge.
Hartsock, NancyC. M. 1988 "TheFeminist Standpoint: DevelopingtheGround
fora Specifically Feminist HistoricalMaterialism." In Discovering Reality:
Feminist Perspectiveson Epistomology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Phi-
losophyofScience,ed. SandraHardingandMerrillHintikka. Boston:Reidel.
Hull,GloriaT.,Patricia BellScott,andBarbaraSmith, eds.1982.AlltheWomen
Are White,All theBlacksAreMen,ButSomeof Us AreBrave.New York:
Feminist Press.
Mangabeira Unger,Roberto. 1975.Knowledge andPolitics.NewYork:FreePress.
Memmi, Albert.1967.TheColonizer andtheColonized. Boston:Beacon.
Montoya, Jose."El Louie."In Literatura
Chicana,TextoyContexto, ed.Antonio
CastanedaShular,173-76. EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall.
Nichols,John.1976.MilagroBeanfield War.New York:Ballantine.
Pateman, Carole.1988. TheSexualContract. Stanford, Calif.:StanfordUniver-
sityPress.
Pharmaceutica ActaHelvetiae.1991. "PhysicalParameters and ReleaseBehav-
iorsof W/O/W MultipleEmulsionsContaining Cosurfactants and Different
SpecificGravityofOils."Pharmaceutica ActaHelvetiae, vol.66,no. 12 (1991).
(Vogt-Schild A.G.,DruckandVerlagZuchwilerstrasse 21, Postfach748 CH-
4501 Solothurn.)
Rosaldo,Renato.1989. Cultureand Truth.Boston:Beacon.
Smith,Dorothy. 1974."Women'sPerspective as a RadicalCritiqueofSociology."
Sociological Enquiry44(1): 7-14.
Spelman, Elizabeth.1988. Inessential
Woman.Boston:Beacon.
Young,IrisMarion.1990a.Justice andthePoliticsofDifference. Princeton,N.J.:
Princeton UniversityPress.
. 1990b.Throwing Likea Girland OtherEssaysinFeminist Philosophy
and SocialTheory. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press.
Winter 1994 SIGNS 479

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.72 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:51:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions