Peter,
I was wondering if you might explain what it is about "feminism" that is so irksome
to you. The fact that the word ends with "ism" cannot be the only reason, as you
so easily attach yourself to realism and relativism (the interesting "ismbook" site
to which you linked does not, by the way, include an entry on feminism). What
makes these two "isms" more respectable? Is it their attachment to the world of
abstract ideas rather than the world of specific material and social relations?
What makes feminism necessarily a "gender 'blanket theory' of truth"? An
interesting phrase: do not relativism and (especially) realism claim particular and
perhaps problematic relations with the "truth"? And why shouldn't gender
"supervene" into our conversations about epistemology or metaphysics (or at least
enter into them)? Weren't the systems of thought under discussion here--and all
epistemological or metaphysical concepts--entered into within specifically gendered
social domains? How might we think about the ways gender relations/meanings
interpenetrate philosophical concepts? Wouldn't an understanding of systems of
thought be impoverished without an understanding of the mechanisms of the society
in question? Or less functionally, don't systems of thought pertain to our
understanding of social relations as much as an abstract realm of ideas? Is there
an abstract realm of ideas that can be separated from relations of power? Perhaps
also we should be somewhat specific about which thinkers or styles of thought fall
under the rubric "feminism" for the purposes of your discussion.
One banal point as well. Although you are quite right to point out differences
between Foucault and Deleuze's work, they did share a certain intellectual
camaraderie. Not that he contradicts you, but I might share a passage from an
interview with Deleuze after the publication of his volume on Foucault: "I do think
there are a lot of parallels between our work [Deleuze refers here to his
collaborations with Guattari] and his [Foucault's], although they're kept apart, as
it were, by their widely differing methods, and purposes even. This makes the
parallel all the more important to me, invaluable; there was something more than a
common purpose, there was a common cause." (Negotiations, 85). One of the elements
that made up this "common cause" between Foucault and Deleuze was a certain
political engagement, and a sense that philosophy, however rigorous it might aspire
to be, cannot and must not divorce itself from an understanding of the social and
power relations within which it is produced. Both Deleuze and Foucault were active
in the Prison Information Group, in theorizations of the gay liberation movement,
in the political elaborations following May '68, in social movements generally;
included in this was a general sympathy for the projects of certain versions of
"feminism"--what Deleuze tends to call "Women's Lib." To say the least, later
feminists have also found their work to be inspirational as philosophy *and* as
politics. (Hence the original question inquiring about the rich tradition of
feminists putting Foucault's thought to use.)
Thanks,
Rob
"pcrugh.geo@xxxxxxxxxxx" wrote:
> I hope that what I have written or will write is not discouraging anyone. I
> simply have trouble with certain words that pass under the affix "ism", and
> there is an excellent website devoted to understanding what can be passed as an
> "ism" (e.g., movements, doctrines, etc - which is really an excellent
> contribution to the web for philosophy and word users, see
> http://www.openthought.org/ismbook/ ). Well, feminism is one of those words
> that I don't clearly understand, and I would resist the temptation for a
> response to vent from it. But I don't like this word (and I smile, too), even
> though what it represents inspires me, invigorates me, and yet I would never
> use the word "feminism" for a gender "blanket theory" of truth. I hear it and
> it becomes part of my experience and it just doesn't make sense, so to speak.
> So, I should argue, as a realist, or relativist (these two theories of truth
> being difficult to separate; all "ist" words being presumed as theories of
> truth, or simply particular movements of reasonable pluralism) that gender
> supervenes in/on/to epistemology, and/or metaphysics, and this is kind of too
> complicated. Simplification is a logical virtue of philosophy. Yes, indeed,
> this interests me, but not only me, and possibly not all list members. Some
> lists are much smaller, with an audience who may have never even heard of
> Foucalt or Delueze (neither of whom have much in common at all, it seems, and
> this "seemingness" doesn't even reach the point of any conclusion). Well, I
> don't mean to exhaust the posts, here, with only my thoughts. These are not
> barbarous times, rather, possibly or potentially barbarous reminders, that
> reality is relativistically understood. I don't want to give up on realism (nor
> will I), especially moral realism. So, I am not here to interrupt, but curious
> for philosophical explanations.
>
> Here's my new principle in living: don't waste paper. The use of computers to
> write and the web for research is really convenient in that it conforms with
> that principle, even though nearly any computer is attached to a printer of
> some sort. I still enjoy books, however, and there is an apparent love of them
> that make new editions every year under the presumption that we must have books
> (and new editions of them every year, phone books, and so on). Professional
> specialization in philosophy is a difficult thing to achieve, and Foucalt
> helped me to understand that. I don't want to be a rhetorical trailblazer to
> make a living, I suppose that answers why I am writing. Stop me with a good
> argument if I am not helping out, here.
>
> -Peter
> ahhh, no, I won't change my name
>
> Pia Kate wrote:
>
> > There are a number of bookstores both in America, England and France
> > (that's all I know about) that have websites and send books to a number
> > countries.
> >
> > I know many people on the net and on this list are not American. I am one
> > of them. Rebecca did not ask for information only from one country and so I
> > gave her what I knew.
> >
> > Pia Jakobsson Staunstrup
I was wondering if you might explain what it is about "feminism" that is so irksome
to you. The fact that the word ends with "ism" cannot be the only reason, as you
so easily attach yourself to realism and relativism (the interesting "ismbook" site
to which you linked does not, by the way, include an entry on feminism). What
makes these two "isms" more respectable? Is it their attachment to the world of
abstract ideas rather than the world of specific material and social relations?
What makes feminism necessarily a "gender 'blanket theory' of truth"? An
interesting phrase: do not relativism and (especially) realism claim particular and
perhaps problematic relations with the "truth"? And why shouldn't gender
"supervene" into our conversations about epistemology or metaphysics (or at least
enter into them)? Weren't the systems of thought under discussion here--and all
epistemological or metaphysical concepts--entered into within specifically gendered
social domains? How might we think about the ways gender relations/meanings
interpenetrate philosophical concepts? Wouldn't an understanding of systems of
thought be impoverished without an understanding of the mechanisms of the society
in question? Or less functionally, don't systems of thought pertain to our
understanding of social relations as much as an abstract realm of ideas? Is there
an abstract realm of ideas that can be separated from relations of power? Perhaps
also we should be somewhat specific about which thinkers or styles of thought fall
under the rubric "feminism" for the purposes of your discussion.
One banal point as well. Although you are quite right to point out differences
between Foucault and Deleuze's work, they did share a certain intellectual
camaraderie. Not that he contradicts you, but I might share a passage from an
interview with Deleuze after the publication of his volume on Foucault: "I do think
there are a lot of parallels between our work [Deleuze refers here to his
collaborations with Guattari] and his [Foucault's], although they're kept apart, as
it were, by their widely differing methods, and purposes even. This makes the
parallel all the more important to me, invaluable; there was something more than a
common purpose, there was a common cause." (Negotiations, 85). One of the elements
that made up this "common cause" between Foucault and Deleuze was a certain
political engagement, and a sense that philosophy, however rigorous it might aspire
to be, cannot and must not divorce itself from an understanding of the social and
power relations within which it is produced. Both Deleuze and Foucault were active
in the Prison Information Group, in theorizations of the gay liberation movement,
in the political elaborations following May '68, in social movements generally;
included in this was a general sympathy for the projects of certain versions of
"feminism"--what Deleuze tends to call "Women's Lib." To say the least, later
feminists have also found their work to be inspirational as philosophy *and* as
politics. (Hence the original question inquiring about the rich tradition of
feminists putting Foucault's thought to use.)
Thanks,
Rob
"pcrugh.geo@xxxxxxxxxxx" wrote:
> I hope that what I have written or will write is not discouraging anyone. I
> simply have trouble with certain words that pass under the affix "ism", and
> there is an excellent website devoted to understanding what can be passed as an
> "ism" (e.g., movements, doctrines, etc - which is really an excellent
> contribution to the web for philosophy and word users, see
> http://www.openthought.org/ismbook/ ). Well, feminism is one of those words
> that I don't clearly understand, and I would resist the temptation for a
> response to vent from it. But I don't like this word (and I smile, too), even
> though what it represents inspires me, invigorates me, and yet I would never
> use the word "feminism" for a gender "blanket theory" of truth. I hear it and
> it becomes part of my experience and it just doesn't make sense, so to speak.
> So, I should argue, as a realist, or relativist (these two theories of truth
> being difficult to separate; all "ist" words being presumed as theories of
> truth, or simply particular movements of reasonable pluralism) that gender
> supervenes in/on/to epistemology, and/or metaphysics, and this is kind of too
> complicated. Simplification is a logical virtue of philosophy. Yes, indeed,
> this interests me, but not only me, and possibly not all list members. Some
> lists are much smaller, with an audience who may have never even heard of
> Foucalt or Delueze (neither of whom have much in common at all, it seems, and
> this "seemingness" doesn't even reach the point of any conclusion). Well, I
> don't mean to exhaust the posts, here, with only my thoughts. These are not
> barbarous times, rather, possibly or potentially barbarous reminders, that
> reality is relativistically understood. I don't want to give up on realism (nor
> will I), especially moral realism. So, I am not here to interrupt, but curious
> for philosophical explanations.
>
> Here's my new principle in living: don't waste paper. The use of computers to
> write and the web for research is really convenient in that it conforms with
> that principle, even though nearly any computer is attached to a printer of
> some sort. I still enjoy books, however, and there is an apparent love of them
> that make new editions every year under the presumption that we must have books
> (and new editions of them every year, phone books, and so on). Professional
> specialization in philosophy is a difficult thing to achieve, and Foucalt
> helped me to understand that. I don't want to be a rhetorical trailblazer to
> make a living, I suppose that answers why I am writing. Stop me with a good
> argument if I am not helping out, here.
>
> -Peter
> ahhh, no, I won't change my name
>
> Pia Kate wrote:
>
> > There are a number of bookstores both in America, England and France
> > (that's all I know about) that have websites and send books to a number
> > countries.
> >
> > I know many people on the net and on this list are not American. I am one
> > of them. Rebecca did not ask for information only from one country and so I
> > gave her what I knew.
> >
> > Pia Jakobsson Staunstrup