By Iddo Landau
A number of the most renowned figures of Western philosophy have held perspectives approximately ladies which are disparaging or worse. Aristotle, for instance, held girls to be much less rational than males and other halves to be inferior to their husbands; Locke concept that males, as ''the abler and the stronger'' of the sexes, must have the final word in disagreements among husbands and better halves. Kant felt that ladies can't be electorate and Hegel believed that they need to no longer be keen on political views. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche have been infamous for his or her misogynistic rantings. along with those particular statements approximately women's secondary prestige and shortcomings, philosophical texts utilize a number of dualisms (reason/emotion, mind/body, public/private, objective/subjective, etc) which were claimed to categorize girls in disadvantageous methods. those are between many positive aspects of Western mainstream philosophy that feminist critics (some dubbing it ''malestream'') have emphasised as proof of its thoroughgoing androcentricity.
How a lot fact is there to this declare? And is philosophy so thoroughly contaminated by means of androcentricity that it has to be rejected altogether or noticeably reformed? those are the demanding situations that Iddo Landau confronts in this publication. His is the main finished research of those accusations. by way of setting apart out types of the argument charging philosophy with androcentricity, he seeks to figure out what validity they've got and even if they justify seeing philosophy as both pervasively or nonpervasively androcentric.
He concludes that not one of the arguments for viewing philosophy as pervasively androcentric eventually withstand rational scrutiny, whereas those that express it to be nonpervasively androcentric don't undermine it within the manner that many critics have meant: ''philosophy emerges, in nearly all of its elements, as human instead of male, and such a lot elements and points of it needn't be rejected or rewritten.''
Read or Download Is Philosophy Androcentric? PDF
Similar feminist theory books
Makes a speciality of feminist analyses of race and ethnicity - at present the most rapid matters dealing with feminist pondering. the quantity levels from a learn of the social geographes of whiteness within the united states to numerous views at the break-up in Yugoslavia.
This booklet strains the crystallisation of post-Marxism as a particular theoretical place in its personal correct and considers the function performed in its improvement by way of post-structuralism, postmodernism and second-wave feminism. It examines the heritage of dissenting developments in the Marxist culture and considers what the long run customers of post-Marxism usually are.
This quantity of essays through Naomi Scheman brings jointly her perspectives on epistemic and socio-political concerns, perspectives that draw on a serious examining of Wittgenstein in addition to on liberatory activities and theories, all within the provider of a primary reorientation of epistemology. For a few theorists, epistemology is an primarily foundationalist and for this reason discredited firm; for others-particularly analytic epistemologists--it continues to be conscientiously segregated from political matters.
This tremendous available textbook presents a wide-ranging research of the kin among philosophy and feminist notion. interpreting not just feminist reviews of philosophical rules, Gatens additionally appears to be like on the ways that feminist conception might be knowledgeable by means of philosophical research and debates. Gatens adopts an historic process, starting with an research of Mary Wollstonecraft's critique of Rousseau.
- Time Binds: Queer Temporalities, Queer Histories
- Handbook of Diversity in Feminist Psychology
- The SAGE handbook of feminist theory
- Feminist Film Theory: A Reader
- Mormon Feminism: Essential Writings
- Radical Feminism Today
Extra info for Is Philosophy Androcentric?
Thus, one of the arguments that Derrida uses to deconstruct the speaking-writing dichotomy is that writing can do a job that speech cannot: it can technically repeat speech where and when speech itself is not present. 20 Derrida seems to argue, perhaps under the influence of Wittgenstein’s private language argument, that speech can make sense to us only because it has a fixed meaning, which can be repeated in different contexts. Yet if this essential characteristic of writing—namely repeatability—is a necessary condition of speaking, then writing is not secondary to speaking as Derrida thinks it has traditionally been viewed.
If they are read in this way I have no disagreement with them. My critique, as it was presented earlier, applies only to the reading that takes these arguments to suggest that the philosophies in question are androcentric (as, I believe, these arguments are often read). 42 Is Philosophy Androcentric? 11 However, in Derrida’s influential and celebrated work these arguments are supported by a wider postmodernist theory that, as such, requires a presentation and discussion of its own. 12 There are many dichotomies, but the most important ones are essential and accidental, central and marginal, typical and atypical, being and nonbeing, presence and absence, pure and impure, stable and changing, certain and doubtful, general and limited, clear and vague, simple and complicated, atomistic and compound, immediate and mediate, original and secondary, conscious and unconscious, real and apparent, serious and playful, internal and external, signified and signifier, literal and metaphorical, spoken and written, voiced and silent, soul and body, meaning and form, intuition and expression, and culture and nature.
Kant’s Impure Ethics, 82–87, 101–6. 26. Beobachtungen u¨ber das Gefu¨hl des Scho¨nen und Erhabenen, Academy Edition, 2:232, translated and cited in Louden, Kant’s Impure Ethics, 105. 27. Menschenkunde, Academy Edition, 25:1170, translated and cited in Louden, Kant’s Impure Ethics, 86. Explicit Androcentric Statements 27 not, and can never become, rational beings and part of the moral community. However, as Louden points out, Kant also repeatedly declares that the whole human race progresses toward moral perfection (101–6).