Words+and+Things+Materialism+and+Method+in+Contemporary+Feminist+Analysis

· Post-structuralism (incl. Derrida, Foucault, and Lacan) has undercut much feminist thought—e.g., concepts of patriarchy; the sex-gender distinction, etc. that have a pretty material or structural foundation. o It has undercut Marxist materialism, ideas of causation [both, I think she’s saying, central to feminism—e.g., origins of women’s oppression], and the idea of language as merely expressing ideas. Language instead constructs meaning [not clear how this is problematic for feminism]. · Within feminism in recent years (the 1980s), the arts and culture have recently risen in importance, whereas the social sciences have become less important. This is another way in which the emphasis is shifting away from things and towards the non-material world of “a more cultural sensibility of the salience of words” (205). · It is unclear whether the shift “from things to words” (205) is a paradigm shift in feminism—i.e., whether an old theoretical framework needs to be thrown out in favor of a new. · Postmodernism: this term means very different things in the arts versus philosophy versus social science. Of relevance to feminism, there has occurred the following: o A critique of “theoretical universalism”—including of feminist assertions of universal female experience. o Critiques of two elements of Enlightenment thought: rationalism and the Cartesian idea of the human subject. Feminism has critiqued the masculine nature of the “rational, centered, purposive” (207) subject. However, the critique leads to its own problems—who is the “I” that is aware of the fractured, constructed nature of self? o A feminist critique of the masculine nature of the modern; however, the postmodern elimination of the masculine/feminine duality goes too far [if I understood this part correctly—p. 208].  o A new critique of materialism, discussed next. · There is a defense of materialism charging that the alternative is “an ideologically suspect attempt to deny material reality” (209) (which actually is a misunderstanding of these discourse-oriented schools of thought). o Materialism has played a strong role in social sciences, especially Marxist theory and anything about social structure. o History, too, is strongly affected by the critique of materialism. o Implications of post-structuralism (and its anti-materialist assumptions) for feminist historiography have been debated. o The rejection of materialism seems to underlie the turn to cultural phenomena within feminism. · Disciplinary considerations: Feminism crosses many disciplinary boundaries, and different disciplines have at different times been more prominent in feminism, and also there are different beliefs about interdisciplinarity. However, there is a “true” within each discipline—at least, a realm of what is included and what you have to know in each discipline. · There has also been a blurring of the line between disciplines—e.g. social sciences versus arts and humanities. “The more ambitious task of rethinking the appropriate //methods// of study, and developing ways of genuinely working across disciplines, has lagged behind” (213). Addressing the different truths of the different disciplines reveals the “incommensurability of knowledge that provokes interesting reflection” (215). · Women’s studies and other related fields of study have developed their own disciplinary confines of “assumptions and conventions” (215). We need better understanding and acknowledgement about how disciplines as institutions with varying power affect knowledge. · In the social sciences the structure-culture dichotomy is still being worked through; in the humanities the impact of post-structuralist views is stronger. · Feminism has used post-structuralist ideas fruitfully, as they “address the issues of sexuality, subjectivity and textuality that feminists have put at the top of the agenda…. [C]lassic materialist presuppositions are increasingly harder to apply usefully” (215). BUT that doesn’t justify a “wholesale conversion to post-structuralism” (215-16). There is too much to be lost from abandoning “sociology, political economy, economics, and politics” (216). · We “need a better conception of agency and identity than has been available in either (anti-humanist) post-structuralist thought or its (humanist) modernist predecessors” (216). This may require finding new ways to look at humanism. Ultimately the professed need for feminism to choose modern or post-modern perspectives seems based in an assumption that values come from science, when in fact feminism starts from a place of values. || = = = = = = = = = = = =
 * =Title= || ** “Words and Things: Materialism and Method in Contemporary Feminist Analysis” ** ||
 * =Author= || ** Michele Barrett ** ||
 * =Date= || NOT KNOWN based on material provided--approx. early 1990s ||
 * =Summary By= || Suzanne Ghais ||
 * =Summary= || Overview: This article examines the place of feminism in relation to materialist versus nonmaterial philosophies, particularly post-structuralism and postmodernism—philosophies which elevate the importance of discourse over material structure or material origins of social phenomena. She argues that “feminists have a particularly strong investment in this question” (201). She ends not by advocating one over the other, but rather by arguing we should retain the valuable insights of the post-modern and post-structural without abandoning the social sciences that are built on materialist assumptions.
 * =Discussion points= || Barrett seems to be articulating what she sees as widespread anxiety among feminists about where feminism stands in the face of the assault by postmodernism and post-structuralism on materialism. In the end she reassures herself and other feminists that the goal is to stay grounded in values and not to pick sides in such philosophical debates. Because this article remained at a more theoretical than concrete level, it was unclear what would be the implications for specific feminist issues or debates of choosing between a materialist and a postmodern or post-structuralist or discourse-centered approach. Would any different positions result on, say, prostitution, female industrial labor in poor countries, division of household labor within families, marriage, or any other issue? Are there other implications of the tension between materialist and discursive social theories in feminism that she has not spelled out? ||

= = = = = = = =

= =