Joan W. Scott writes about experience, citing a passage concerning homosexual men. Before I write further, I need to point out that, in the beginning section of the paper she thanks Judith Butler for her contributions to refining the work. I had a very acute attack of oh-my-god-I-love-Judith-Butler when reading that. I'm sure writing that is inappropriate for a professional in training, but since the operative word is 'training' I ask you to bear with my over-zealous love of Butler.
On page 776 of the article, Scott writes "Seeing is the origin of knowing. Writing is reproductions, transmission - the communication of knowledge gained through (visual, visceral) experience." On the next page Scott also explains that there is possibly no 'truer' account of reality than first hand experience. The article raises the questions: Who do we see, who has been left out of history? Scott suggests a refusal of essentialism, which is quintessentially feminst. We don't get along well with fundamentalism, biological determinism or essentialism. Could this be why we are so "allergic to religion?"
Doing Gender:
Linda McDowell, in her article Doing Gender: Feminism, Feminists and Research Methods in Human Geography discusses what young people attempting to get into the field of Human Geography in Britain might face if they intend to work with feminist issues.
McDowell explains that there is a moment that these students realize how half of the population has been left out of history, and how this can be a moment of empowerment for them. She writes, "But this moment of empowerment is also paradoxically for many students a moment of doubt when the enormity of the feminist critique of masculinist knowledge becomes clear," (401). In her section of Feminist Methods, the author come to the conclusion that although there may not be a regimented schema for doing feminist research, there is an agreement that collaborative methods are best.(405) She grapples with 'difficult questions' concerning these research methodologies and states "It is, however, becoming increasingly clear that the notion of non-exploitative research relations is a utopian ideal that is receding from our grasp." (408) Hopefully, we will discuss this next class, as it is certainly profound.
Most interesting of all is, before she reaches the aforementioned conclusion, she asks if it's ever alright to use feminine wiles while conducting research. This reminds me of another post I wrote about not calling me baby. So, if a man you are studying as a subject calls you honey or baby, or speaks to you in a condescending way, do you try to coax information out of him by allowing that power relation to form, or do you grapple with the power dynamics and risk forming a functional, albeit sexist relationship? He exploits you now, but, since you ultimately have the power to represent him in your findings, you exploit him later?
No comments:
Post a Comment