thread which runs through all your work. For me it’s a very interesting thread because her case obviously highlights very clearly the historical relationship between science, pathology and the masquerade of scientific objectivity, particularly in the development of racism. It also highlights the way in which women’s sexuality, and black women’s sexuality in particular, was pathologized and spectacularized. You’ve also talked about the importance of the work of Julia Kristeva for you and it seemed to me the way in which you were engaging with the figure of Saartjie Baartman was as the sign of the ‘abject’, in the sense of abjection that Kristeva discusses. For example, for Europeans, Baartman was evidently an object of both disgust and desire through their scopophilic obsession with her genitals. Representations of her are constantly inscribed within this notion of the ‘abject’ and within a pathologizing discourse. These are also very negative images of a black woman because she has no voice, has never in fact been given a voice, despite the wealth of scholarship which has centred around her case. The focus has been very much on different aspects of that history and on the way in which European representations of her and the circulation of her images reproduced certain obsessions with black women’s sex. Could you say something about the way her representation functions for you? In what ways is she iconic and how can you use Kristeva’s concept of the ‘abject’ productively? How might you be using the historic figure of Baartman to say something about the relationship between the representation of black and white women’s sexuality in South Africa? PS: I think what interests me is how, as you said, she’s both an object of fascination and disgust. She’s an emblem for me, she’s a story. She is also a real person which is a sign for the way racism functions in some ways, even now, even though she’s a historical figure, how fetishism works. Its often said that the site of difference in relation to women is the genitals and that with race the site of that difference is say colour, skin colour. So for me Baartman’s story and representations of her raises huge issues in this country around the conjunction of gender and race, sexuality and race and there are many reasons why I suppose I have been affected by her story. As a sign she seems to do that for many people. Yet her story, because it’s quite singular and what happened to her is not a theory, not a distant thing, even though she’s a long-gone historical figure—has actually been incredibly productive in raising critical issues around the relationship between gender and race in South Africa. So I suppose that’s how she’s functioned in the public domain, and although it’s very sensitive material to use, there is something very important about engaging with this material.

DOI link for thread which runs through all your work. For me it’s a very interesting thread because her case obviously highlights very clearly the historical relationship between science, pathology and the masquerade of scientific objectivity, particularly in the development of racism. It also highlights the way in which women’s sexuality, and black women’s sexuality in particular, was pathologized and spectacularized. You’ve also talked about the importance of the work of Julia Kristeva for you and it seemed to me the way in which you were engaging with the figure of Saartjie Baartman was as the sign of the ‘abject’, in the sense of abjection that Kristeva discusses. For example, for Europeans, Baartman was evidently an object of both disgust and desire through their scopophilic obsession with her genitals. Representations of her are constantly inscribed within this notion of the ‘abject’ and within a pathologizing discourse. These are also very negative images of a black woman because she has no voice, has never in fact been given a voice, despite the wealth of scholarship which has centred around her case. The focus has been very much on different aspects of that history and on the way in which European representations of her and the circulation of her images reproduced certain obsessions with black women’s sex. Could you say something about the way her representation functions for you? In what ways is she iconic and how can you use Kristeva’s concept of the ‘abject’ productively? How might you be using the historic figure of Baartman to say something about the relationship between the representation of black and white women’s sexuality in South Africa? PS: I think what interests me is how, as you said, she’s both an object of fascination and disgust. She’s an emblem for me, she’s a story. She is also a real person which is a sign for the way racism functions in some ways, even now, even though she’s a historical figure, how fetishism works. Its often said that the site of difference in relation to women is the genitals and that with race the site of that difference is say colour, skin colour. So for me Baartman’s story and representations of her raises huge issues in this country around the conjunction of gender and race, sexuality and race and there are many reasons why I suppose I have been affected by her story. As a sign she seems to do that for many people. Yet her story, because it’s quite singular and what happened to her is not a theory, not a distant thing, even though she’s a long-gone historical figure—has actually been incredibly productive in raising critical issues around the relationship between gender and race in South Africa. So I suppose that’s how she’s functioned in the public domain, and although it’s very sensitive material to use, there is something very important about engaging with this material.

thread which runs through all your work. For me it’s a very interesting thread because her case obviously highlights very clearly the historical relationship between science, pathology and the masquerade of scientific objectivity, particularly in the development of racism. It also highlights the way in which women’s sexuality, and black women’s sexuality in particular, was pathologized and spectacularized. You’ve also talked about the importance of the work of Julia Kristeva for you and it seemed to me the way in which you were engaging with the figure of Saartjie Baartman was as the sign of the ‘abject’, in the sense of abjection that Kristeva discusses. For example, for Europeans, Baartman was evidently an object of both disgust and desire through their scopophilic obsession with her genitals. Representations of her are constantly inscribed within this notion of the ‘abject’ and within a pathologizing discourse. These are also very negative images of a black woman because she has no voice, has never in fact been given a voice, despite the wealth of scholarship which has centred around her case. The focus has been very much on different aspects of that history and on the way in which European representations of her and the circulation of her images reproduced certain obsessions with black women’s sex. Could you say something about the way her representation functions for you? In what ways is she iconic and how can you use Kristeva’s concept of the ‘abject’ productively? How might you be using the historic figure of Baartman to say something about the relationship between the representation of black and white women’s sexuality in South Africa? PS: I think what interests me is how, as you said, she’s both an object of fascination and disgust. She’s an emblem for me, she’s a story. She is also a real person which is a sign for the way racism functions in some ways, even now, even though she’s a historical figure, how fetishism works. Its often said that the site of difference in relation to women is the genitals and that with race the site of that difference is say colour, skin colour. So for me Baartman’s story and representations of her raises huge issues in this country around the conjunction of gender and race, sexuality and race and there are many reasons why I suppose I have been affected by her story. As a sign she seems to do that for many people. Yet her story, because it’s quite singular and what happened to her is not a theory, not a distant thing, even though she’s a long-gone historical figure—has actually been incredibly productive in raising critical issues around the relationship between gender and race in South Africa. So I suppose that’s how she’s functioned in the public domain, and although it’s very sensitive material to use, there is something very important about engaging with this material.