Favourite feminist philosophy texts
Favourite feminist philosophy texts
Occasionally you hear people ask "what books should I read if I want to find out more about feminist philosophy?"
Just now I stumbled across a reference to a reading list which one feminist philosopher - Cressida Heyes of the University of Alberta - compiled in 2009. She has recently put it back online, in response to popular request, so I've hunted down the link. To get to the reading list you go to this page here:
http://cressidaheyes.com/research/publi ... phy-texts/
and then click the words "Feminist Favourites reading list" halfway down the page to go to a PDF, which is the reading list itself.
Just now I stumbled across a reference to a reading list which one feminist philosopher - Cressida Heyes of the University of Alberta - compiled in 2009. She has recently put it back online, in response to popular request, so I've hunted down the link. To get to the reading list you go to this page here:
http://cressidaheyes.com/research/publi ... phy-texts/
and then click the words "Feminist Favourites reading list" halfway down the page to go to a PDF, which is the reading list itself.
Re: Favourite feminist philosophy texts
On Putting the Active Back into Activism
Rosi Braidotti
This paper addresses a paradox: how to engage in affirmative politics, which entails the production of social horizons of hope, while at the same time doing critical theory, which means resisting the present. Drawing on the neo-vitalism of Deleuze, with reference to Nietzsche and Spinoza, the article argues in favour of an affirmative ethics: defined as a radical ethics of transformation. This new framework for re-thinking ethics moves away from the moral protocols of Kantian universalism, while also shifting its focus from unitary, rationality-driven consciousness to an understanding of subjectivity as processual in nature, propelled by affects and relations. Such a new framework disengages the emergence of the subject from the logic of negation and attaches subjectivity to affirmative otherness. Hence the self-other relation is reconceived in terms of reciprocity as creation and not as the recognition of Sameness. Taking critical distance from modern conceptions of self-centred individualism and the negative production of hierarchically inferior others which it assumes, an affirmative ethics for a non-unitary subject as proposed here aims at offering an enlarged sense of inter-connection between self and others, including the non-human or 'earth' others, following and enhancing the tradition of a bio-centred egalitarianism (Ansell-Pearson, 1999) that posits a nature-culture continuum (Haraway, 1997). Moreover by putting the emphasis on the positivity of affirmative ethics - conceived in a depsychologised sense similar to that of Nietzsche and Spinoza - the article suggests an ethics of sustainability: one that provides the subject with a frame for interaction and change, growth and movement; an ethics that affirms life as difference-at-work.
KEYWORDS: affirmative ethics; vitalism; biopolitics; immanence; becoming; futurity; Deleuze; Nietzsche; Spinoza
Rosi Braidotti
This paper addresses a paradox: how to engage in affirmative politics, which entails the production of social horizons of hope, while at the same time doing critical theory, which means resisting the present. Drawing on the neo-vitalism of Deleuze, with reference to Nietzsche and Spinoza, the article argues in favour of an affirmative ethics: defined as a radical ethics of transformation. This new framework for re-thinking ethics moves away from the moral protocols of Kantian universalism, while also shifting its focus from unitary, rationality-driven consciousness to an understanding of subjectivity as processual in nature, propelled by affects and relations. Such a new framework disengages the emergence of the subject from the logic of negation and attaches subjectivity to affirmative otherness. Hence the self-other relation is reconceived in terms of reciprocity as creation and not as the recognition of Sameness. Taking critical distance from modern conceptions of self-centred individualism and the negative production of hierarchically inferior others which it assumes, an affirmative ethics for a non-unitary subject as proposed here aims at offering an enlarged sense of inter-connection between self and others, including the non-human or 'earth' others, following and enhancing the tradition of a bio-centred egalitarianism (Ansell-Pearson, 1999) that posits a nature-culture continuum (Haraway, 1997). Moreover by putting the emphasis on the positivity of affirmative ethics - conceived in a depsychologised sense similar to that of Nietzsche and Spinoza - the article suggests an ethics of sustainability: one that provides the subject with a frame for interaction and change, growth and movement; an ethics that affirms life as difference-at-work.
KEYWORDS: affirmative ethics; vitalism; biopolitics; immanence; becoming; futurity; Deleuze; Nietzsche; Spinoza
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Favourite feminist philosophy texts
Care to say what this would entail?
Re: Favourite feminist philosophy texts
I'll bet that this blurb was written by Professor Judith Butler or one of her clones. http://www.denisdutton.com/bad_writing.htminfo wrote:On Putting the Active Back into Activism
Rosi Braidotti
This paper addresses a paradox: how to engage in affirmative politics, which entails the production of social horizons of hope, while at the same time doing critical theory, which means resisting the present. Drawing on the neo-vitalism of Deleuze, with reference to Nietzsche and Spinoza, the article argues in favour of an affirmative ethics: defined as a radical ethics of transformation. This new framework for re-thinking ethics moves away from the moral protocols of Kantian universalism, while also shifting its focus from unitary, rationality-driven consciousness to an understanding of subjectivity as processual in nature, propelled by affects and relations. Such a new framework disengages the emergence of the subject from the logic of negation and attaches subjectivity to affirmative otherness. Hence the self-other relation is reconceived in terms of reciprocity as creation and not as the recognition of Sameness. Taking critical distance from modern conceptions of self-centred individualism and the negative production of hierarchically inferior others which it assumes, an affirmative ethics for a non-unitary subject as proposed here aims at offering an enlarged sense of inter-connection between self and others, including the non-human or 'earth' others, following and enhancing the tradition of a bio-centred egalitarianism (Ansell-Pearson, 1999) that posits a nature-culture continuum (Haraway, 1997). Moreover by putting the emphasis on the positivity of affirmative ethics - conceived in a depsychologised sense similar to that of Nietzsche and Spinoza - the article suggests an ethics of sustainability: one that provides the subject with a frame for interaction and change, growth and movement; an ethics that affirms life as difference-at-work.
KEYWORDS: affirmative ethics; vitalism; biopolitics; immanence; becoming; futurity; Deleuze; Nietzsche; Spinoza
Re: Favourite feminist philosophy texts
I think the blurb is a pastiche of the text?
The author is in a small feud with Judy Butler. Braidotti calls Butlerian Pomo too fragile and vulnerable: a bit tinged with the melancholic.
I can see Braidotti's calling Butler too fragile as a sexual slur due to Judy being known for her lesbianism; so to call her a bit too "fragile", that's like allusion or inuendo: "...are you afraid a man will brake you Judy because you are so fragile so that's why you're lesbian?"
The author is in a small feud with Judy Butler. Braidotti calls Butlerian Pomo too fragile and vulnerable: a bit tinged with the melancholic.
I can see Braidotti's calling Butler too fragile as a sexual slur due to Judy being known for her lesbianism; so to call her a bit too "fragile", that's like allusion or inuendo: "...are you afraid a man will brake you Judy because you are so fragile so that's why you're lesbian?"
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Favourite feminist philosophy texts
Still not hearing what you think such a program would entail?
'Back to the body.'
'Back to the body.'Arising_uk wrote:Still not hearing what you think such a program would entail?
This means surfing organic sense immediacy; acting and not reacting; living from the open and non-neurotic part of the brain,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J4ALKxQ0pA
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: 'Back to the body.'
Tell me what this means in English?info wrote:This means surfing organic sense immediacy; acting and not reacting; living from the open and non-neurotic part of the brain ...
Re: Favourite feminist philosophy texts
Short stories and fiction books are okay because that's like watching a movie. It's all made-up and you know that going into it. History books are also okay because that's just a record of what happened.
However, books on controversial subjects seriously annoy me. I can't get through more than several pages of the book before I want to say "Wait, I disagree here." and "Well how do you know for a fact that THIS is true?" and "You're not being consistent over here..." and "What about THIS argument?" and "I disagree because...."
But no, I can't do that because it's a book. Reading a book is like listening to someone's long monologue rant about what they think and what they believe and what their opinions are. Who would want to read or listen to that? Seriously, I can't read more than a couple of pages before I want to start arguing with the author. But I can't, and that's what so annoying. I just have to sit there and take it and read it... or not read at all.
Does anyone else feel this way? This is why I never read books on controversial subjects. I'm more than happy to debate someone in person, but never read books. I'm not just gonna sit there and listen (mentally) while someone goes on and on and ON AND ON about their beliefs. WTF is that? Why would anyone want to do that?
I hate reading books about feminism, atheism, morality, homosexuality, philosophy, etc. Doesn't everyone?
However, books on controversial subjects seriously annoy me. I can't get through more than several pages of the book before I want to say "Wait, I disagree here." and "Well how do you know for a fact that THIS is true?" and "You're not being consistent over here..." and "What about THIS argument?" and "I disagree because...."
But no, I can't do that because it's a book. Reading a book is like listening to someone's long monologue rant about what they think and what they believe and what their opinions are. Who would want to read or listen to that? Seriously, I can't read more than a couple of pages before I want to start arguing with the author. But I can't, and that's what so annoying. I just have to sit there and take it and read it... or not read at all.
Does anyone else feel this way? This is why I never read books on controversial subjects. I'm more than happy to debate someone in person, but never read books. I'm not just gonna sit there and listen (mentally) while someone goes on and on and ON AND ON about their beliefs. WTF is that? Why would anyone want to do that?
I hate reading books about feminism, atheism, morality, homosexuality, philosophy, etc. Doesn't everyone?
Re: Favourite feminist philosophy texts
Written books were a step in our ability to communicate, teach discuss etc, moral/political questions. They have the drawbacks you list, sure.safia1230 wrote:Short stories and fiction books are okay because that's like watching a movie. It's all made-up and you know that going into it. History books are also okay because that's just a record of what happened.
However, books on controversial subjects seriously annoy me. I can't get through more than several pages of the book before I want to say "Wait, I disagree here." and "Well how do you know for a fact that THIS is true?" and "You're not being consistent over here..." and "What about THIS argument?" and "I disagree because...."
But no, I can't do that because it's a book. Reading a book is like listening to someone's long monologue rant about what they think and what they believe and what their opinions are. Who would want to read or listen to that? Seriously, I can't read more than a couple of pages before I want to start arguing with the author. But I can't, and that's what so annoying. I just have to sit there and take it and read it... or not read at all.
Does anyone else feel this way? This is why I never read books on controversial subjects. I'm more than happy to debate someone in person, but never read books. I'm not just gonna sit there and listen (mentally) while someone goes on and on and ON AND ON about their beliefs. WTF is that? Why would anyone want to do that?
I hate reading books about feminism, atheism, morality, homosexuality, philosophy, etc. Doesn't everyone?
Magazines like PN are something of an improvement. At least there's less of a chance the author will have changed her own mind by the time the piece of work is written and published.
And now the internet is another way to communicate, teach discuss, the same questions. Maybe the 100 000 word printed (therefore fixed-for-all-time) philosophical/political monologue is on its way out?
- The Voice of Time
- Posts: 2234
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
- Location: Norway
Re: Favourite feminist philosophy texts
I agree in part. It depends on the book.safia1230 wrote:Does anyone else feel this way? This is why I never read books on controversial subjects. I'm more than happy to debate someone in person, but never read books. I'm not just gonna sit there and listen (mentally) while someone goes on and on and ON AND ON about their beliefs. WTF is that? Why would anyone want to do that?
I hate reading books about feminism, atheism, morality, homosexuality, philosophy, etc. Doesn't everyone?
Good writers give objective analysis that doesn't really "mean" anything, or "imply" anything. It just is.
However, when i try to read Descartes for instance I disagree so much it is impossible to enjoy any of it. Same with most philosophy writers, so I prefer to read comments on them, mostly comments based on the Falsifiability principle, because then I know the writer tries to actually make clear all possible mistakes, and me disagreeing means less because I feel more enlightened by augmentative warfare than by dogmas, and more enlightened by critical analysis of small but important parts of text than long rants about why something sucks.
My favourite book is most Wikipedia articles There they remain short and concise and I am free to argue the details if I want.
-
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: Favourite feminist philosophy texts
Simone de Beavoir's Second Sex
Re: Favourite feminist philosophy texts
Mary Daly's "Pure Lust".
In fact anything by Mary Daly is interesting IMO. Especially "Beyond God the Father".
In fact anything by Mary Daly is interesting IMO. Especially "Beyond God the Father".
Re: Favourite feminist philosophy texts
Haraway
… as I suppose … meant …
… that’ere’s different kind’o’ „emotional’thinkin“ : …
… „whi“le technic’s „chance“ ?
… „am“ I body …
… or do I „suffer“ ?
… cause’t’s „my“ oppinion too :
… „playin“ with melancholia … or suggestion … or purpose …
… cause’t’s „common“ ?
… ( … cause – I – think … that most „uniformity“ just result’s from super’acid’ed’body … and this way …
… ( … „reflex“ : … „fear“ ! … ) …
… „am“ I … in this moment … „thinkin“ …
… or do I feel …
… „chance“ ?
… but I’m sure … tha’t’s quite difficult … „opposin“ …
… gains’t technic’s …
… cause … body … „work“s :
… „need“s – a – specific – place …
… cause ( „normally“ ) human’s … „beein“ ?
… „but“ …
… me myself I …
… prefere ( so’called ) „nature“ …