?

Log in


polymexina in theoryishotcrew

:D here's my list.

1. The Methodology of the Oppressed by Chela Sandoval
2. Soul Talk by Gloria Akasha Hull
3. Culture and Truth by Renato Rosaldo
4. Thirdspace by Edward Soja
5. Homo Ludens by Huizinga
6. Tales of Dark Skinned Women by Gargi Bhattacharyya
7. In Other Worlds by Spivak
8. Queer Phenomenology by Sara Ahmed
9. "A Cyborg Manifesto" by Donna Haraway
10. "Situated Knowledges" by Donna Haraway

:braces self:

BRING IT!

Comments

I think they're working in conversation with each other, though in When Species Meet Haraway really challenges D&G on their concept of "becoming animal" because she argues that they're still pushing an artificial divide in place re: what it means to be human and what it means to be animal. Like, they're not into other spatiality as she envisions it, and she's more into exploding self-Other relations than they are. I honestly haven't read enough D outside of film studies to know how she'd be derivative of him. Can you recommend a text?

One of the big ways Haraway changed the field was that she argued that feminism had to take scientific discourse seriously, and also needed to engage with the environmental movement. Right when she was writing, you saw a big divide between the works produced by WOC feminists (like the Combahee River Collective) and white feminists, and then some work trying to bridge those gaps. Unfortunately, the latter was often kinda meta- more about the movements vs. the issues the movements were facing. When she talks about the brown woman laboring in the factory in "ACM" she's trying to bridge the gap between discourse analysis, solidarity, and activism.
Try A Thousand Plateaus. Or whatever you want, really. You can read any of it inside or outside of film studies, even Cinema 1 and Cinema 2.

I don't understand what you mean when you say women trying to bridge the gap between whites and people of color were "kinda meta" in the 1980s. I also don't see how Haraway is representative of third wave feminism in such a way that you can claim she changed the entire field. She's sometimes grouped in with other third wave feminist writers, but I've never seen any evidence that she's responsible for the state of feminism today.

Edited at 2010-07-13 01:05 pm (UTC)
I wouldn't say she's a good representative of third wave feminism... I'd say she's writing in solidarity with 3rd world feminists writing in the US, and that she's an absolute tops example of eco-feminism and technofeminism. Unless you mean "Situated Knowledges?" That article lays the groundwork for intersectionality and standpoint theory, but even then I wouldn't feel comfortable using the wave timeline for it, because there's too much overlap in writerly moments. I prefer Nancy Whittier's concept of cohorts in Feminist Generations, where she's more interested in talking about cohorts of writers and thinkers vs. waves.

I'll check out A Thousand Plataeus! I think H. is referring to that some in When Species Meet, which I just finished. :)
So, now you're saying she didn't change the field. She just works within a particular niche of third wave feminism. I don't care if you want to phrase it as waves or cohorts or striations of intellectual time, I just want you to provide me clear and detailed answers that don't fall back on knee-jerk undergraduate statements like "[Author] is really interesting" and "[Author] changed the face of everything as we know it today."

I'll be up front with you: In general, people who read feminist theory and adopt it as their own make my skin crawl. I can grok the theory, but too often the novitiates use what they read as an excuse stop doing any thinking of their own. Show me you can think if you want in this community.
Well, actually what I said a post up was that she changed the field by arguing that feminism needed to take seriously environmental and technological concerns. I didn't use the phrase third wave feminism because I don't like to use that genealogical structure for feminist theory. I prefer feminist generations or cohort theory, because the idea of waves brackets these histories that really overlap. I did say 3rd world feminists, in reference to authors like Moraga, Sandoval, and Kingston.
Well, actually what I said a post up was that she changed the field by arguing that feminism needed to take seriously environmental and technological concerns. I didn't use the phrase third wave feminism because I don't like to use that genealogical structure for feminist theory. I prefer feminist generations or cohort theory, because the idea of waves brackets these histories that really overlap. I did say 3rd world feminists, in reference to authors like Moraga, Sandoval, and Kingston.

Dude. Stop. I said third wave feminism because you invoked "feminism today." I don't give a crap about what you "prefer." Use whatever language you like, but give me an answer that shows intellectual engagement. A series of comments saying "I prefer to use this word" is not going to win me over.

Let's try the original question: Why Haraway? In your answer, do not use any form of "I prefer" or "changed the field." Do not write a two sentence answer. Think about the question and then provide a response that is detailed, nuanced, and interesting.
Dude. Stop. Dude.
Dude, don't harsh my buzz.