Bootinand, “Feminist Participatory Action Research” 4/19/12

Shiva, “Democratizing Biology” 4/24/12

Harding, “Borderlands Epistemologies" 4/10/12

Nancy Fraser and Linda Nicholson "Social Criticism without Philosophy" 4/12/12

Alcoff piece, 4/26/2012

Alcoff's "The Problem of Speaking for Others" is immensely necessary in understanding and interpreting theoretical perspectives in feminist and gender studies. This piece would have been a fantastic introductory piece to the Women's Studies program here at RIC because of the ways in which Alcoff explains the complexities of successful exploring all different areas within feminism appropriately. Throughout the piece, Alcoff dismantles the sensitivity surrounding one's ability to speak for others and addresses the importance of agency.  An important differentiation needs to be made between the concept of speaking for others and speaking with others.

For example, the first example given in the piece is concerning Anne Cameron and her book which was a compilation of first person accounts of Native Canadians.  I believe that Cameron was unfortunately speaking for the population which in many ways probably deterred her purpose.  Perhaps if she had included the Native Canadian community within her discussion, her purpose and intent may have been better received or would have been more responsible.  Instead, she wrote accounts that involved little to none of her experience, from a place of privilege which is offensive and inappropriate.

As a young feminist theorist, I find myself constantly struggling to find a place my activism outside of myself. I think much of these thoughts comes from a socially constructed fear and assumption that one cannot speak about an issue without have a direct personal connection. But the reality is, sexism, agism, homophobia and other sites of fear and hate are entirely world problems that effect each person in some way indirectly or directly in a variety of ways.

Jaggar "Love and Knowledge" 4/17/12

"Love and Knowledge", Jaggar

In Jaggar's "Love and Emotion" she disassembles the apparatus we understand as knowledge and provides insight into the social construction of reason. She explains "emotions, then, are wrongly seen as necessarily passive or involuntary responses to the world", and that emotions provide important human perspectives in order further develop ideas in various subject matters. The association of emotive behavior as a negative attribute is entirely reflective of discriminatory attitudes towards women and femininity. It has become commonplace to connote emotionality with the feminine. Furthermore, things seen as womanly are also viewed as weak and are cast off as nugatory. It is in this way that reason provided by women has waxing and waning credibility because of the consistent subjugated place of women in society. Perhaps an important question to ask would be when, over the history of the patriarchal model, did emotion become viewed as suspicious and often silly form of reasoning?

The misinterpretation of the value of emotion in the construction of knowledge is extremely detrimental to the study of reason as a whole. By ignoring the value in the importance of emotions in reason, the process of apprehending any body knowledge becomes almost inhuman.

Jaggar describes the emphasis of understanding as one that is integral in providing a full comprehension of knowledge. Emotions are natural responses, genuine, and necessary in reasoning. A world lacking in emotion must also be absent in love and therefore is missing a large part of the point in the ability of the human brain to reason and make the decisions for the world and for the future of civilization. It is also vital to note one of Jaggars most notable points: the fact that knowledge has been socially constructed and can therefore be reconstructed.

Roz Raskin

comment or message me!