As some of you may have noted, over the past couple of days I've been posting information about recently published work on gender, race, sexuality (mostly feminist philosophy so far). I'm aiming to provide the citation, plus abstract or introductory paragraphs, where possible. We could also post information about new books. Hopefully, this is helpful and will provide opportunities for people to discuss the publications through comments (please be respectful, etc).
This is just a trial run of this new activity, however. We'd like to know: do readers of this blog find these posts useful? Are there already enough opportunities to find/comment on such publications elsewhere (e.g., Phil Papers)? Would someone(s) like to volunteer to help out with this?
Please let us know by adding your comment to this post. THANKS!
I think this is a great idea, Sally. It's impossible to keep up with everything just by checking Phil Papers, etc., as great as such clearinghouse sites are. It would be a service to those of us who are really interested in gender/race/sexuality to have work on these specific subjects brought to our inboxes (via RSS feed, I mean) on a regular basis.
I've been subscribed for about a month to a terrific blog called Ordinary Language Philosophy and Literary Studies , which mostly serves to draw people's attentions to relevant work. Though I'm of course not interested in every post, I'm amazed at how many things Bernie Rhie (an English professor at Williams who is seriously interested in philosophy) manages to track down stuff that would otherwise have flown under my radar. So: bring it on!
Posted by: Nancy Bauer | May 21, 2010 at 10:24 AM
This is a great idea!
Journal of Social Philosophy 41 (1) Spring 2010 has a symposium on oppression, with articles by Bernard Boxill, Jean Harvey, Thomas E. Hill, and Sarah Buss.
Posted by: Sherri Irvin | May 21, 2010 at 12:12 PM
I think this is a fabulous idea, Sally. Thanks!
Posted by: Michael Monahan | May 23, 2010 at 12:20 AM
If you do this I will definitely bookmark this blog.
Posted by: Stacey Goguen | May 24, 2010 at 10:04 AM
I too think this is a great idea, Sally - and I'd be happy to help out with it.
Posted by: Alexis Shotwell | May 24, 2010 at 02:03 PM
Eva Kittay suggested we add 'disability' to the list. That's fine with me. And there seems to be interest, so let's move forward. More soon.
Posted by: Sally Haslanger | May 25, 2010 at 02:32 PM
Dear Sally: I like the idea as well. However I note a familiar lacuna in the intersection of oppressions we are considering. You mentioned posting new work on race,gender and sexuality, then Eva suggested adding disability. Why does class always get left off the list? Is that because people assume it is not an identity category but a structural one that one can escape? But in fact race, gender, sexuality and disability are also structural categories as well as identities, and each of these have examples where people have changed their position in the category by changing their context, thus they seem perfectly analogous. I would therefore suggest that class ought to be added. And if we do, then I recommend Hester Eisenstein's new book as one that deals with the importance of race, class and gender in understanding how mainstream feminism has gone astray. {She doesnt really deal much with sexuality and has nothing to say about disability however).
Posted by: Ann Ferguson | May 25, 2010 at 09:49 PM
The Symposia started with a focus on Gender, Race and Philosophy. There were many reasons why we focused on those. In my last post about this, I added "sexuality" because I had just come from an interdisciplinary retreat that included a long discussion on the various new names for "Women's Studies". At MIT we changed our name to "Women's and Gender Studies" a few years ago; many people at the retreat felt that it was important for Women's Studies to include - in the name, not just in the work - 'Sexuality". It was with this discussion rolling around in the back of my mind that I included 'sexuality' in my original post, but not other categories that, of course, are worthy of attention. But I did this without consultation with the other editors. I now think it was a mistake.
I am already worried about this blog keeping up with the literature on gender and race; adding disability and sexuality, class and various other categories will be impossible for me. I also believe that it is permissible to have different focus groups that take some social categories as a primary concern, although others are always going to be important and relevant.
So here is my proposal. This blog, being connected to the SGRP, will work to list articles and books in philosophy and closely related subjects that take up gender and race. Articles and books on sexuality, class, disability, nationality, ethnicity, religion, etc. should be included if they also deal in some way with race or gender.
There isn't going to be a sharp line here. We'll have to play it by ear. If we get to the point where there's a lot of controversy about whether something should or shouldn't be listed, I'm going to opt out. Life is short, volunteers are few. This is a service we are providing, and if others can do it better, I'm happy to let them. It would be fabulous if others put together a blog or blogs that list work entirely on other related topics (disability, class, sexuality...) as it appears.
Sorry if this sounds insensitive. We all do what we can, and I'm doing more than I can at the moment and can't do more.
Posted by: Sally | May 25, 2010 at 11:09 PM