| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
« April 2008 | Main | June 2008 »
There's a new blog coming out of Philosophy at the U of Alberta, What Sorts of People. It's associated with a large-scale research project with more of less the same name that pulls together about 60 researchers--a number of them philosophers of science, bioethicists, folks working on disability, the history of eugenics, enhancement technologies--mostly from Canada and the US, but also with a wider reach. Check it out!
Folks who work on oppression often distinguish oppression attributable to individuals from oppression attributable to institutions. Thus, there's a lot of discussion about institutional racism or sexism, say, as well as discussion of systemic or structural racism or sexism. Here's a quick question: anyone have any thoughts on the nature of the relation between the institutional, the systemic, and the structural? Are these terms just being used as synonyms, at least in the relevant literature? I have a vague feeling that it is possible to have non-systemic and non-structural institutions, but (since the relevant systems and structures are all social systems and structures, I presume), I'm not sure that there are any non-institutional (social) structures or (social) systems. Any thoughts?
(Cross-posting from Pea Soup. Hat tip: Robert Johnson's comments there prompted some revisions here.)
There's been a lot of discussion in the feminist blogosphere about when and if racism is a feminist issue. The starting point was feminist bloggers writing about the fact that the police who killed Sean Bell, an unarmed black man, were acquitted. Other feminist bloggers complained that not all racism is a feminist issue, and that there are no feminist issues in the case of Sean Bell. I think the ever-insightful A Woman's Ecdysis has excellent things to say on the subject:
The question is not what makes the issue feminist, but has a feminist perspective been applied to the issue? Many perceive the Iraq war not to be a feminist issue. I don't give two shits if it's a "feminist issue," I care if feminists have applied their analytical skills, intelligence, resources, and insight to the Iraq war. The once "not feminist" issue of the war, weapons of mass destruction, torture, and sovereignty transform after a feminist's examination - seeing the affect of war on womyn and families, womyn fighting in the war, the gendered language of warring countries, rape used as a tactic of war - when we apply a feminist lens, it then BECOMES a feminist issue. How in the hell does it matter at first glance if it's a feminist issue? If it affects one womyn, anywhere, it can be examined. Who in the world has the right to dictate what is or is not a feminist issue? It might not be to YOU personally, but get off my carpet, it may be a feminist issue after I'm through with it. It's not about taking a "general" issue and twisting it all around to "make it a feminist issue." Our progression should not be measured or dictated by what issues we deem acceptable, but by how insightful and truthful our responses are in accordance to ALL womyn's experience and gender concerns. It's not about the issue, it's about the assessment of kyriarchal forces working in the situation and then dismantling it from a feminist perspective.
The Winter 2008 Symposium on Gender, Race and Philosophy is now available. Find it here:
http://web.mit.edu/sgrp (select "Symposia" tab).
Its focus is Kelly Oliver's book, The Colonization of Psychic Space: A Psychoanalytic Social Theory of Oppression (Univ. of Minnesota Press, 2004). There are commentaries by Shannon Winnubst and Stacey Keltner, with a reply by Kelly Oliver. Enjoy! Comments are welcome in response to this post, or in a new post.
Recent Comments