Suchergebnisse

Posthumanist feminist theory has been instrumental in demonstrating the salience of gender and sexism in structuring human–animal relationships and in revealing the connections between the oppression of women and of nonhuman animals. Despite the richness of feminist posthumanist theorizations it has been suggested that their influence in contemporary animal ethics has been muted. This marginalization of feminist work—here, in its posthumanist version—is a systemic issue within theory and needs to be remedied. At the same time, the limits of posthumanist feminist theory must also be addressed. Although posthumanist feminist theory has generated a sophisticated body of work analyzing how gendered and sexist discourses and practices subordinate women and animals alike, its imprint in producing intersectional analyses of animal issues is considerably weaker. This leaves theorists vulnerable to charges of essentialism, ethnocentrism, and elitism despite best intentions to avoid such effects and despite commitments to uproot all forms of oppression. Gender‐focused accounts also preclude understanding of the importance of race and culture in structuring species‐based oppression. To counter these undesirable pragmatic and conceptual developments, posthumanist feminist theory needs to engender feminist accounts that centralize the structural axes of race and culture.

This paper discusses the relationship between feminist theory and the contemporaneous efforts to re-think basic sociological categories occurring in the aftermath of the 1960s' social movements, primarily in the US and Europe. I examine the questions that were being asked by both feminist thinkers and several major sociological theorists (Richard Sennett, Alain Touraine and Anthony Giddens). I attempt to evaluate the extent to which the latter were initially, and in later work, willing or interested in hearing and incorporating feminist voices in their re-thinking of the field. I identify a tendency to circumscribe feminist contributions to particular substantive areas - those related specifically to gender, or to sexuality, subjectivity and personal life - with, as Susan Bordo has pointed out, much less receptivity to feminist theorists' contributions to more general "cultural critique" and issues which are considered to be "macro-level". I also engage in a brief discussion of how these problems have been reproduced in Brazilian social sciences and the uneasy relationship between feminist scholarship and academic sociology in Brazil today.

In this provocative book, Nye argues that feminist attempts to spin coherent theories from the threads of the various philosophies of man fail as the patriarchal assumptions of each theory resist and undermine every effort. Nevertheless, she claims, although the threads cannot be woven into a coherent tapestry, as dedicated feminist Arachnes meticulously separate strand from strand, "the mechanisms of oppression are finally understood" and the patriarchal tapestries begin to unravel.

This article explores the relationships among social work, feminist theory and ethnography in the context of social work research. The discussion reflects my research in the southeastern Caribbean. There are similarities between clinical social work and ethnographic research: both actively observing the actions of individuals and talking with them to gain an understanding of their lives from their own perspective. Two constructs generated from postmodern and post-colonial feminist scholarship served as cornerstones for this research, contextual diversity and reciprocity. These elements are also embedded in the ethnographic tradition and in the core mandates for social work practice. This writing provides a deconstruction of these concepts, discusses their grounding in the three disciplines, and illustrates their application in the research study through specific examples. The intersection of the traditions of social work, ethnography, and feminism were found to create a valuable research method that is especially compatible with social work research.

Dissatisfaction with the present can cause people to gaze nostalgically back to an idealized past; that nostalgia pervades contemporary rhetoric. In lamenting the 'degeneracy' of present-day America, social and literary critics as well as contemporary novelists often choose as their scapegoat the women's movement and its increasing influence. Doane and Hodges show us how these social observers seek to 'reinstate' America and American values in ways that, overtly or covertly, do battle with the feminist movement for control of rhetoric, the power of language

For nearly twenty years, Anglo-American feminist theory has posed its own epistemological questions by looking at the lives and bodies of transsexuals and transvestites. This paper examines the impact of such scholarship on improving the everyday lives of the people central to such feminist argumentation. Drawing on indigenous scholarship and activisms, I conclude with a consideration of some central principles necessary to engage in feminist research and theory—to involve marginal people in the production of knowledge and to transform the knowledge-production process itself.

Abstract
This essay theorizes a problem for feminism posed by a particular form of trauma discourse. Feminists have played an important role in developing cultural and clinical conceptions of trauma, but one result of the destigmatization of trauma has been that trauma discourse is sometimes used as a form of cultural capital to reinforce existing hierarchies. In a novel application of Pierre Bourdieu's theory of distinction, we show how, when instrumentalized as cultural capital, trauma discourse can be used to reinforce patriarchy and other systems of oppression. We trace a critical feminist history of the struggle to understand and treat trauma. Using examples from contemporary US popular culture, we illustrate the appropriation of trauma discourse to entrench existing structures of gender, class, and racial oppression. First, the misuse of trauma discourse as cultural capital can encourage the instrumental use of trauma claims for cultural power, ultimately reinforcing patriarchy. Second, it might erode the legitimacy of trauma, a conceptual tool pioneered by feminists and still essential to their political claims. This discussion has important implications for not only mental health practitioners and trauma survivors but also feminist theorists, trauma studies scholars, and those interested in deconstructing structural injustice and relations of inequality.