Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-d5ftd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-19T13:57:34.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Definition and the Question of “Woman”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Victoria Barker
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Within recent feminist philosophy, controversy has developed over the desirability, and indeed, the possibility of defining the central terms of its analysis—“woman,” “femininity,” etc. The controversy results largely from the undertheorization of the notion of definition; feminists have uncritically adopted an Aristotelian treatment of definition as entailing metaphysical, rather than merely linguistic, commitments. A “discursive” approach to definition, by contrast, allows us to define our terms, while avoiding the dangers of essentialism and universalism.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , Spring 1997 , pp. 185 - 215
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abelson, Raziel. 1964. Definition. Ii The philosophical encyclopaedia, ed. Edwards, R. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Alcoff, Linda. 1988. Cultural feminism versus postmodernism: The identity crisis in feminist theory. Signs 13(3): 405–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aristotle, . 1924. Metaphysics. Trans. Ross, W. D.Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Aristotle, . 1975. Posterior analytics. Trans. Barnes, Jonathan. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Ayer, AJ. 1971. Language, truth and logic. Harmondsworth: Penguin .Google Scholar
Beardsley, Munroe C. 1950. Practical logic. Englewood Cliff: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
De Beauvior, Simone. 1972. The second sex. Trans. Parshley, H. M.Harmondsworth: Penguin .Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla, and Cornell, Drucilla, eds. 1987. Feminism as critique: On the politics of gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Black, Max. 1954. Problems of analysis: Philosophical essays. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Braidotti, Rosi. 1991. Patterns of dissonance. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith. 1987. Variations on sex and gender: Beauvoir, Wittig and Foucault. Ii Feminism as critique: On the politics of gender. See Benhabib and Cornell 1987.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith. 1994. Against proper objects. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 6(2 and 3): 1–26.Google Scholar
Cavarero, Adriana. 1992. Equality and sexual difference: Amnesia in political thought. Ii Beyond equality and difference, eds. Block, Gisela and James, Susan. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cixous, Hélène. 1981. Sorties. Ii New French feminisms. See Marks and Courtivron 1981.Google Scholar
Copi, I. M. 1968. Introduction to logic. 3d ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cornell, Drucilla, and Thurschwell, Adam. 1987. Feminism, negativity, intersubjectivity. Ii Feminism as critique: On the politics of gender. See Benhabib and Cornell 1987.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. 1988a. Introduction: Revaluing French feminism. Ii Revaluing French feminism: Critical essays on difference, agency, and culture, Fraser, and Bartky, , eds., 1988.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. 1988b. The uses and abuses of French discourse theory for feminist politics. Ii Revaluing French feminism: Critical essays on difference, agency, and culture, Fraser, and Bartky, , eds., 1988.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy and Bartky, Sandra Lee. 1988. Revaluing French feminism: Critical essays on difference, agency, and culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Fuss, Diana J. 1989. “Essentially speaking”: Luce Irigaray's language of essence. Hypatia 3(3): 94–112.Google Scholar
Grosz, Elizabeth. 1995. Sexual difference and the problem of essentialism. Ii Space, time and perversion. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1990. A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology and socialist feminism in the 1980s. Ii Feminism/Postmodernism, ed. Nicholson, Linda J.New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hospers, John. 1967. An Introduction to philosophical analysis. 2d ed. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1981. This sex which is not one. Ii New French feminisms. See Marks and Courtivron 1981.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1985a. Is the subject of science sexed? Cultural Critique 1: 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1985b. Speculum of the other woman. Trans. Gill, Gillian C.Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1985c. This sex which is not one. Trans. Porter, C. and Burke, C.Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kristeva, Julia. 1981. Woman can never be defined. Ii New French feminisms. See Marks and Courtivron 1981.Google Scholar
Le Doeuff, Michèle. 1989. The philosophical imaginary. Trans. Gordon, Colin. London: Athlone.Google Scholar
Le Doeuff, Michèle. 1991. Hipparchia's choice: An essay concerning women, philosophy, etc. Trans. Selous, T.Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. 1984. The man of reason: Male and female in Western philosophy. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Marks, Elaine and De Courtivron, Isabelle, eds. 1981. New French feminisms. London: Harvester.Google Scholar
Martin, Jane Roland. 1994. Methodological essentialism, false difference, and other dangerous traps. Signs 19(3): 630–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moi, Toril. 1985. Sexual/textual politics: Feminist literary theory. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Nicholson, Linda. 1992. Feminism and the politics of postmodernism. Boundary 2 19(2): 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. 1949. Truth by convention. Ii Readings in philosophical analysis, eds. Feigl, H. and Sellars, W.New York: Appleton‐Century‐Crofts.Google Scholar
Riley, Denise. 1988. Am I that name? Feminism and the category of “women” in history. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Riley, Denise. 1989. Commentary: Feminism and the consolidations of “women” in history. See Weed 1989.Google Scholar
Robinson, Richard. 1950. Definition. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Ronell, Avital. 1991. Angry Women. Ii Research. San Francisco: Research Publications.Google Scholar
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1981. French feminism in an international frame. Yale French Studies 62: 154–84.Google Scholar
Ronell, Avital. 1984/5. Criticism, feminism and the institution. Thesis Eleven 10/11: 175–89.Google Scholar
Stebbing, L. S. 1961. A modern introduction to logic. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. 1952. Introduction to logical theory. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Thouless, R. H. 1953. Straight and crooked thinking. 2d ed. London: Pan.Google Scholar
Weed, Elizabeth, ed. 1989. Coming to terms: Feminism, theory, politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical investigations. Trans. Anscombe, G. E. M.New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar