Hostname: page-component-69cd664f8f-84qt4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-12T09:19:27.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dismantling the Master's House: A Hestian/Hermean Deconstruction of Classic Texts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Patricia J. Thompson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Classical philosophy adopts the standpoint of males in the Greek polis. The consequent adumbration of the standpoint of women and noncitizen men in the oikos, the household, has implications for feminist philosophy. Two systems of action are differentiated: the domestic economy protected by the goddess Hestia, and the political economy protected by Hermes. Shifting one's standpoint to include both the oikos and the polis offers an alternative to gender as the defining issue in feminist theory.

Type
Revisiting the Role of Religion in Feminist Social Theory
Information
Hypatia , Volume 9 , Issue 4: Special Issue: Feminist Philosophy of Religion , Fall 1994 , pp. 38 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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.)

References

Arendt, Hannah. 1958a. The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 1958b. What was authority? In Nomos I, ed. Friedrich, Carl J.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Arthur, Marilyn B. 1976. Review essay: Classics. Signs 2(2): 383–403.10.1086/493365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Athanassakis, Apostolos N. 1976. The Homeric hymns. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Bachelard, Gaston. 1964. The psychoanalysis of fire. Trans. Ross, Alan C. M.Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Berger, Peter L. and Luckmann, Thomas. 1967. The social construction of reality. Garden City N.Y.: Anchor.Google Scholar
Blok, Josine and Mason, Peter eds., 1987. Sexual asymmetry: Studies in ancient society. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben.Google Scholar
Bluestone, Natalie Harris. 1987. Women and the ideal society: Plato's republic and modem myths of gender. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Bronfen, Elizabeth. 1992. From omphalos to phallus: Cultural representations of femininity and death. Women: A Cultural Review 3(2): 145–58.Google Scholar
Burkert, Walter. 1985. Greek Religion. Trans. John Raffan Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1991a. What can she know? Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1991b. Will the “good enough” feminists please stand up? Social Theory and Practice 17(1): 85–104.10.5840/soctheorpract199117117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coles, Robert. 1994. The call of service. Parabola: The Magazine of Myth and Tradition. Special issue: “The Call,” 68–75.Google Scholar
Cutting‐Gray, Joanne. 1993. Hannah Arendt, feminism, and the politics of alterity. Hypatia 8(1): 35–53.10.1111/j.1527-2001.1993.tb00627.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downing, Christine. 1993. Gods in our midst: Mythological images of the masculine‐a woman's view. New York: Crossroad.Google Scholar
Finley, M. I. 1985. The ancient economy. 2d ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. 1990. Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text 25/26: 56–80.10.2307/466240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Coulanges, Fustel, Denis, Numa. 1980. The ancient city: A study of the religion, laws, and institutions of Greece and Rome. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Gergen, Kenneth J. 1988. Feminist critique of science and the challenge of social epistemology. In Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge. See Mary Gergen 1988.Google Scholar
Gergen, Mary McCanney ed., 1988. Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 1977. Laying linguistic traps. Political Theory 5(4): 491–504.10.1177/009059177700500405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodrich, Norma Lorre. 1989. Priestesses. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
Goudsblom, Johan. 1992. Fire and civilization. London: Allen Lane‐Penguin.Google Scholar
Goux, Jean‐Joseph. 1983. Vesta, or the place of being. Representations 1(1): 91–107.10.1525/rep.1983.1.1.99p0384qCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosz, Elizabeth. 1990. Philosophy. In Feminist knowledge: Critique and construct, ed. Gunew, Sneja. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. [1962] 1989. The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Trans. Burger, Thomas with the assistance of Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hennessy, Rosemarie. 1993. Women's lives/feminist knowledge: Feminist standpoint as ideology critique. Hypatia 8(1): 14–34.10.1111/j.1527-2001.1993.tb00626.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesiod, . 1914. The Homeric hymns and Homerica. Trans. Evelyn‐White, Hugh G. Loeb Classical Library, no. 57. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hoppin, Meredith Clarke. 1983. Review of Women inantiquity, ed Helene Foley, Heroines and hysterics by Mary Lefkowitz, and The goddess: Mythological images of the feminine by Christine Downing. Signs 9(2): 299–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaggar, Alison M. and Bordo, Susan, eds. 1989. Gender/ body/knowledge: Feminist reconstructions of being and knowing. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Lopata, Helen Znaniecka. 1993. The interweave of public and private: Women's challenge to American society. Journal of Marriage and the Family 55(1): 176–90.10.2307/352967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, Christian. 1990. The Greek discovery of politics. Trans. McClintock, David. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Modrak, Deborah. 1978. Philosophy and women in antiquity. In Women in an intellectual context, ed. Eifler, Margaret. Rice University Studies 64(1): 1–11.Google Scholar
Morrow, Glenn R. 1960. Plato's Cretan city: A historical interpretation of the Laws. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Neumann, Erich. 1955. The great mother: An analysis of the archetype. Trans. Manheim, Ralph. Bollingen Series 470. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Pantel, Pauline Schmitt. 1984. The difference between the sexes: History, anthropology and the Greek city. In Writing women's history, ed. Perrot, Michelle. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Paris, Ginette. 1986. Pagan meditations: Artemis, Hestia, and Aphrodite. Dallas Texas: Spring Publications.Google Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 1988. The sexual contract. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 1989. The disorder of women: Democracy, feminism, and politics. Cambridge UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Plato, . 1961a. The collected dialogues. ed. Hamilton, Edith and Cairns, Huntington. Bollingen Series 710. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Plato, . 1961b. Cratylus. See Plato 1961a.Google Scholar
Ramazanoglu, Caroline. 1992. On feminist methodology: Male reason versus female empowerment. Sociology 26(2): 207–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richarz, Irmintraut. 1991. Oikos, Haus, und Haushak: Llrsprung und Geschichte der Haushalts Ökonomik. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Robbins, Bruce ed., 1993. The phantom public sphere. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Marjorie. 1993. The Greeks had a word for it. Partisan Review 60(2): 248–58.Google Scholar
Schiebinger, Londa, 1989. The mind has no sex? Women in the origin of modem science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Seidman, Steven, ed. 1989. Jürgen Habermas on society and politics: A reader. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Shottet, John, and Logan, Josephine. 1988. The pervasiveness of patriarchy: On finding a different voice. In Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge. See Mary Gergen 1988.Google Scholar
Slater, Philip. 1968. The ghry of Hera: Greek mythology and the Greek family. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Dorothy E. 1987. The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Dorothy E. 1990a. The conceptual practices of power: A feminist sociology of knowledge. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Dorothy E. 1990b. Texts, facts, and femininity: Exploring the relations of ruling. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Spelman, Elizabeth V. 1988. Inessential woman: Problems of exclusion in feminist thought. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Stoianovich, Traian. 1976. French historical method: The Annales paradigm. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Patricia J. ed., 1984a. Knowledge, technology and family change. Peoria III: McKnight.Google Scholar
Thompson, Patricia J. 1984b. Home economics: A knowledge system—not a gender system. In Knowledge, technology, and family change. See Patricia Thompson 1984a.Google Scholar
Thompson, Patricia J. 1986a. Home economics and the Hestian mode. Illinois Teacher 29(3): 87–91.Google Scholar
Thompson, Patricia J. 1986b. Hestian hermeneutics: A lens of analysis for home economics. In The conversation and company of educated women: A colloquy on home economics education, ed. Peterat, Linda. Special Publication. Illinois Teacher of Home Economics. Urbana‐Champaign: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Thompson, Patricia J. 1988a. Hestian feminism. ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 303 382.Google Scholar
Thompson, Patricia J. 1988b. Home economics and feminism: The Hestian synthesis Charlottetown Canada: University of Prince Edward Island Home Economics Publishing Collective.Google Scholar
Thompson, Patricia J. 1991. Toward a proactive theory of home economics: The Hestian/Hermean paradigm. Themis 1(1): 15–34.Google Scholar
Thompson, Patricia J. 1992a. Home economics: Feminism in a Hestian voice. In The knowledge explosion, ed. Kramarae, Cheris and Spender, Dale, 270–80. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Patricia J. 1992b. Bringing feminism home: Home economics and the Hestian connection. Charlottetown Canada: University of Prince Edward Island Home Economics Publishing Collective.Google Scholar
Thompson, Patricia J. 1992c. Hestia, Heraclitus, and Heidegger: On being in home economics. Paper presented at 17th International Federation of Home Economics Congress, 29 July, Hannover, Germany.Google Scholar
Thompson, Patricia J. 1992d. Implications of Hestian feminist theory for an integrative discipline of everyday Life. Paper presented at workshop, Home Economics and Feminism, 22 July, Friedrich Ebert Institute, Würzburg Germany.Google Scholar
Thompson, Patricia J. 1994a. Beyond gender: Equity issues in home economics education. In The education feminism reader, ed. Stone, Lynda. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thompson, Patricia J. 1994b. Knowledge production and distribution in the Hestian domain. Paper presented at a conference: Knowledges: Production, distribution and revision. University of Minnesota. Minneapolis. 16 April.Google Scholar
Vernant, Jean‐Pierre. 1991. Greek religion, ancient religions. Chap. 16 in Mortals and immortals: Collected essays, ed. Zeitlin, Froma I.Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Vernant, Jean‐Pierre. 1988. Myth and society in ancient Greece. Trans. Lloyd, Janet. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
Vernant, Jean‐Pierre. 1982. The origins of Greek thought. Ithaca New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Vernant, Jean‐Pierre and Vidal‐Naquet, Pierre. 1982. Myth and tragedy in ancient Greece. Trans, by Janet, Lloyd. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
Von Schweitzer, Rosemarie. 1977. From the economic writings of Aristotle to home economics in the German Federal Republic today. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics 1: 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winant, Terry. 1987. The feminist standpoint: A matter of language. Hypatia 2(1): 123–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zamoshkin, Yuri A. 1992. Private life, private interest, private property. Russian Studies in Philosophy 31(1): 49–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar