We’ must learn to experience ourselves through the multiple voice.
The origins of Kirstin’s practice lies in a phenomenological retaliation to a lack of access to language – whether this be through the historical limitations which restricted woman’s progression to the point of self-expression, or the fear of crushing censorship that encapsulate a personal struggle with the anxiety of articulation.
Shyness and nerves go hand in hand with the historical constraints on woman’s voice. The gaps in her/ my/ our/ language give lie to the desire of transgressing beyond the point of silence. However, once on the other side of the ‘singular pane’ – that is masculine logic – we are met with a new impasse.
As Irigaray noted, the fluidity and multiplicity of a feminine voice can create a provisional space outside of this language, allowing her to speak (as) woman, or parler-femme. If there is discomfort in the use of ‘I’ to make their position, then through the connection to her multiplicity, she can gain traction in the overarching ‘we’.