I thought that all (contemporary?) feminism was just applied post-modernist (i.e. noticing that gender roles are historically contingent).
(Academic) feminist theory has gotten much more postmodern (perhaps more specifically poststructural) over the past three decades, but constructionism isn’t the major axis of differentiation. When difference feminists were important they tended to be a bit more post-y than the dominance theorist, who were very often as modernist as the day is long.
Thanks. My recent experience is that my philosophical reach often exceeds my philosophy terminology grasp. I know what I think—and people have told me that it’s a “deconstructivist” position.
But I definitely don’t know the ins and outs of particular schools of thought—I had a discussion recently with a third-wave feminist who argued that rejecting intersectionality was an essential element of being second wave feminist. I don’t doubt that many second-wavers implicitly (or explicitly) rejected intersectionality—and I think intersectionality is an important structure in the correct theoretical framework. But I’m not familiar enough with the schools of thought to know whether second-wave is inherently inconsistent with intersectionality.
In short, are there accessible references that lay out the central positions of the various schools of thought—at a more nuanced and detailed level than wikipedia? The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is at the right level, but doesn’t seem to be directed at the topics I’m referring to here.
As with most things, my experience is that specialist encyclopedias are your best bet for knowledge per effort. There’s nothing as high-quality and legally accessible as the SEP, but the standard other places should have you covered. Depending on the level of detail you’re looking for, Cambridge Companions, Oxford Handbooks, and Very Short Guides tend to be pretty accurate and accessible.
(As for intersectionality I have yet to see a definition which isn’t either trivial or theoretically problematic. Which isn’t to say that realizing and incorporating the trivial form is itself trivial, but I don’t think either version would really hold up as a necessary or sufficient condition for differentiating waves. Waves are noticed based on broad shifts in theory and are thus necessarily fuzzy. But this is just IMO.)
(Academic) feminist theory has gotten much more postmodern (perhaps more specifically poststructural) over the past three decades, but constructionism isn’t the major axis of differentiation. When difference feminists were important they tended to be a bit more post-y than the dominance theorist, who were very often as modernist as the day is long.
Thanks. My recent experience is that my philosophical reach often exceeds my philosophy terminology grasp. I know what I think—and people have told me that it’s a “deconstructivist” position.
But I definitely don’t know the ins and outs of particular schools of thought—I had a discussion recently with a third-wave feminist who argued that rejecting intersectionality was an essential element of being second wave feminist. I don’t doubt that many second-wavers implicitly (or explicitly) rejected intersectionality—and I think intersectionality is an important structure in the correct theoretical framework. But I’m not familiar enough with the schools of thought to know whether second-wave is inherently inconsistent with intersectionality.
In short, are there accessible references that lay out the central positions of the various schools of thought—at a more nuanced and detailed level than wikipedia? The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is at the right level, but doesn’t seem to be directed at the topics I’m referring to here.
As with most things, my experience is that specialist encyclopedias are your best bet for knowledge per effort. There’s nothing as high-quality and legally accessible as the SEP, but the standard other places should have you covered. Depending on the level of detail you’re looking for, Cambridge Companions, Oxford Handbooks, and Very Short Guides tend to be pretty accurate and accessible.
(As for intersectionality I have yet to see a definition which isn’t either trivial or theoretically problematic. Which isn’t to say that realizing and incorporating the trivial form is itself trivial, but I don’t think either version would really hold up as a necessary or sufficient condition for differentiating waves. Waves are noticed based on broad shifts in theory and are thus necessarily fuzzy. But this is just IMO.)