tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4452483540659721212.post7248892338554108489..comments2023-11-20T02:22:26.069-08:00Comments on An Open Letter by a Feminist: Why Post-modernism Is, and Is Not, Dangerous for Feminism, Part 4.Feminist Avatarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03364456372396228106noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4452483540659721212.post-75380093124459560912008-05-01T15:02:00.000-07:002008-05-01T15:02:00.000-07:00On your first point, I see what your saying. I don...On your first point, I see what your saying. I don't really think of deconstruction as something men 'gave us'. I think it was the product of a historical moment that involved lots of thinkers, not the least De Beauvoir. I think that deconstruction methodolgies can be seen in loads of twentieth century thought and continues to be an important part of how we understand the world. I think that in academia we tend to hark back to the post-structuralists (Foucault, Derrida etc) as they articulated the methodology that many people used (rather than creating it). Also, even if a man articulated the concept of deconstruction (I tend to think that all ideas are collaborative although individuals may articulate them), how we use it to deconstruct woman and to otherwise create feminist discourse is our achievement. <BR/><BR/>As to your second point, all identity is constructed in pomo thought, but that doesn't mean that the categories aren't real for the people that live them. Also, as deconstruction is an explanation for how people understand the world, old categories can only be replaced by new ones. As pomo feminists we need to challenge the power relationships inherent in identity constructions and ask why we construct things the way we do- but we don't get to not use them at all. This is the internal contradictions of pomo thought. <BR/><BR/>I am glad you enjoyed reading this- it's very hard to know whether you make any sense when talking about this stuff!Feminist Avatarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03364456372396228106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4452483540659721212.post-1566950213929822592008-04-30T01:08:00.000-07:002008-04-30T01:08:00.000-07:00I’ve enjoyed reading your posts on pomo and certai...I’ve enjoyed reading your posts on pomo and certainly admire you for being able to write about it such short, clear, readable posts! <BR/><BR/>I just wanted to respond to a couple of points- <BR/><BR/><I>Furthermore, because what it means to be a woman is constructed, you have the opportunity to change society. If women were innately stupid, incapable and weak, there would be nothing you could do about it. It is only because post-modernism gave you the tools to deconstruct the categories that shaped how you view the world that you were able to envision a new future.</I> <BR/><BR/>I wouldn’t say that pomo ‘gave’ feminists the tools to deconstruct women. I guess I’m averse to the idea that feminism is a product of male-centric academic discourse, when feminism is quite capable of creating its own discourse outside of these terms. I acknowledge that second-wave feminism could be seen as a part of pomo in that it was involved in deconstructing woman, but I suppose I’m averse to saying so blatantly that pomo gave feminists the tools to do that, because that seems like feminists were consciously engaging with pomo ideas when doing so. And in reading early second-wave theory, hardly any reference to the pomos is made- unless you are saying that the likes of de Beauvoir were pomos. <BR/><BR/><I>But blaming this on identity politics, and as a result postmodernism, is not the way to go. This was not postmodernism’s fault. It was a lack of imagination amongst feminists. A vision for a feminist future has to find away to incorporate difference, not pretend it’s not there. (A good discussion of ways to do this can be found here). Because who does ignoring it actually benefit? In fact, what sort of feminism do you want that does ignore identity politics? If we pretend that postmodernism doesn’t exist, what would that feminism look like?</I> <BR/><BR/>I agree with this- I don’t want a feminism that ignores identity politics, for the reasons you’ve outlined. However, I thought that identity politics were antithetical to pomo because given pomo’s emphasis on deconstruction of identity categories, how can identity categories exist in pomo discourse? <BR/><BR/>Don’t feel obliged to respond, this is just me thinking aloud, and trying to process these thoughts for myself. <BR/><BR/>And I liked the Alcoff essay you recommended, her theory of ‘positionality’ is a strong one I think, if wanting to reconcile ‘woman’ as a discursive category with ‘woman’ as a more concrete, lived category.Michellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09397732853325720668noreply@blogger.com