Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T14:20:36.731Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Feminist Critique of Reason Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Herta Nagl-docekal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this essay I distinguish four different modes of feminist critique of reason. Discussing the work of authors such as Keller, Irigaray, and Butler, I point out that the issue of masculine connotations has been addressed with regard to different concepts—or at least different aspects—of reason. In view of a tendency to overdraw the objections, I suggest to reformulate the feminist critique of reason. I also argue that a rediscovery of those philosophical concepts of reason that do not restrict this term to instrumental rationality might be useful for this purpose.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , Winter 1999 , pp. 49 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, Elizabeth. 1995. Feminist epistemology: An interpretation and a defense. Hypatia 3(10): 57–84.Google Scholar
Armour, Ellen T. 1997. Questions of proximity: Woman's place in Derrida and Irigaray. Hypatia 12(1): 63–78.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 1991. Feminism and postmodernism: An uneasy alliance. Praxis International 11(2): 140.Google Scholar
Bordo, Susan. 1986. The Cartesian masculinization of thought. Signs: journal of Women in Culture and Society 11(3): 439–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, Carolyn. 1994. Irigaray through the looking glass. In Engaging with Irigaray, ed. Burke, CarolynSchor, Naomi, and Whitford, Margaret. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith. 1992. Contingent foundations: Feminism and the question of “postmodernism.” In Feminists theorize the political, ed. Judith, Butler, and Scott, Joan W.New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith. 1995. For a careful reading. In Feminist contentions: A philosophical exchange, ed. Benhabib, SeylaButler, JudithCornell, Drucilla, and Fraser, Nancy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chodorow, Nancy. 1978. The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1991. What can she know? Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Farrington, Benjamin. 1951. Temporis partus masculus: An untranslated writing of Francis Bacon. In Centaurus I. (orig. 1602 or 1603).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. 1992. The uses and abuses of French feminist discourse theories for feminist politics. In Revaluing French feminism: Critical essays on difference, agency, and culture, ed. Nancy, Fraser, and Bartky, Sandra Lee. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Goodfield, June. 1981. An imagined world: A story of scientific discovery. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Greenson, R. 1978. Disidentifying from mother: Its special importance for the boy. In Explorations in psychoanalysis. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women's lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1993. Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity”? In Feminist epistemologies, ed. Linda, Alcoff, and Potter, Elisabeth. New York: Rout‐ledge.Google Scholar
Haslanger, Sally. 1993. On being objective and being objectified. In A mind of one's own: Feminist essays on reason and objectivity, ed. Antony, Louise M., and Witt, Charlotte. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Hausen, Karin. 1976. Die Polarisierung der ‘Geschlechtscharaktere’ Eine Spiegelung der Dissoziation von Erwerbs‐und Familienleben. In Sozialgeschichte der Familie in der Neuzeit Europas, ed. Conze, Werner. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel. 1984. Der Affekt gegen das Allgemeine: Zu Lyotards Konzept der Post‐moderne. In Uerkur 38(8): 900–05.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1981. This sex which is not one. In New french feminisms, ed. Elaine, Marks, and De Courtivron, Isabelle. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1985. Speculum of the other woman. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1987. Is the subject of science sexed? Hypatia 2(3): 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaggar, Alison M. 1990. Feminist ethics: Projects, problems, prospects. In Denken der Geschlechterdifferenz: Neue Fragen und Perspektiven der feministischen Philosophic, ed. Nagl‐Docekal, Herta and Pauer‐Studer, Herlinde. Wien: Wiener Frauenverlag.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1959. Foundations of the metaphysics of morals. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1963. What is enlightenment? In Kant on history, ed. Beck, Lewis White. India napolis: Bobbs‐Merrill Educational Publishing.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1964. Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1965. Observations on the feeling of the beautiful and sublime. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1985. Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Klinger, Cornelia. 1992. Romantik und Feminismus: Zu Gesc/iichte und Aktualitat ihrer Beziehung. In Feministische Vemunftkritik: Ansat?;e und Traditionen, ed. Ilona, Ostner, and Lichtblau, Klaus. Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Genevieve. 1993. The man of reason, 2d ed. London: Methuen. Longino.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen E. 1989. Can there be a feminist science? In Feminism and science, ed. Tuana, Nancy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Mortensen, Ellen. 1994. Woman's (un)truth and le féminin: Reading Luce Irigaray with Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger. In Engaging with Irigaray, ed. Burke, CarolynSchor, Naomi, and Whitford, Margaret. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Nagl‐Docekal, . 1982. Die Objektivität der Geschichtswissenschaft. Vienna‐Munich: Oldenbourg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagl‐Docekal, . 1988. Das heimliche Subjekt Lyotards. In Die Frage nach dem Subjekt, ed. Frank, Manfred, Raulet, Gérard, and Van Reijen, Willem. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Nagl‐Docekal, . 1997. Feminist ethics: How it could benefit from Kant's moral philosophy. In Feminist interpretations of Immanuel Kant, ed. Schott, Robin May. University Park: Penn State Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha. 1996. The sleep of reason is a female nightmare. The Times Higher Education Supplement 2: 17–18.Google Scholar
Okin, Susan Moller. 1989. Justice, gender, and the family. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 1988. The sexual contract. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Plumwood, Val. 1993. Feminism and the mastery of nature. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rooney, Phyllis. 1991. Gendered reason: Sex metaphor and conceptions of reason. Hypatia 2(6): 77–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheman, Naomi. 1994. Feminist epistemology.Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association. Newark: University of Delaware Press 68 (1): 78–80.Google Scholar
Simmel, Georg. 1985. Das Relative und das Absolute im Geschlechterproblem. In Schriften zur Philosophic und Soziologie der Geschlechter. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Soper, Kate. 1987. Feminism as critique. New Left Review 176: 91–112.Google Scholar
Whitford, Margaret. 1988. Luce Irigaray's critique of rationality. In Feminist perspectives in philosophy, ed. Morwenna, Griffiths, and Whitford, Margaret. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar