Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T23:58:11.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-Ideal Theorizing, Social Groups, and Knowledge of Oppression: A Response

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Lisa H. Schwartzman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In responding to Anderson, Tobin, and Mills, I focus on questions about non-ideal theory, normative individualism, and standpoint theory. In particular, I ask whether feminist theorizing can be “liberal” and yet not embody the problematic forms of abstraction and individualism described in Challenging Liberalism. Ultimately, I call for methods of theorizing that illuminate and challenge oppressive social hierarchies.

Type
Symposium on Lisa Schwartzman's Challenging Liberalism: Feminism as Political Critique
Information
Hypatia , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , Fall 2009 , pp. 177 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 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

Anderson, Elizabeth. 2009. Toward a non‐ideal, relational methodology for political philosophy: Comments on Schwartzman's Challenging Liberalism. Hypatia 24 (4): 130–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, Charles W. 1997. The racial contract. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Mills, Charles W. 2009. Schwartzman vs. Okin: Some comments on Challenging Liberalism. Hypatia 24 (4): 164–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narayan, Uma. 1997. Dislocating cultures: Identities, traditions, and third world feminism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schwartzman, Lisa H. 2006. Challenging liberalism: Feminism as political critique. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Tobin, Theresa W. 2009. Globalizing feminist methodology. Hypatia 24 (4): 145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar