Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T12:52:11.303Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Topographies of Flesh: Women, Nonhuman Animals, and the Embodiment of Connection and Difference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Jennifer McWeeny
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Because of risks of essentialism and homogenization, feminist theorists frequently avoid making precise ontological claims, especially in regard to specifying bodily connections and differences among women. However well‐intentioned, this trend may actually run counter to the spirit of intersectionality by shifting feminists' attention away from embodiment, fostering oppressor‐centric theories, and obscuring privilege within feminism. What feminism needs is not to turn from ontological specificity altogether, but to engage a new kind of ontological project that can account for the material complexity of social space in the twenty‐first century. Taking inspiration from the phenomenological concept of flesh as well as ecofeminism and María Lugones's theory of the colonial/modern gender system, this essay argues that our own flesh is related to that of others through lines of intercorporeal relations that collectively form topographies of flesh. When we attend to those material relationships present in a particular locality at a point in time, we are able to recognize topographical aggregates of beings that can serve as a basis for this new feminist ontology. An example from Toni Morrison's Beloved involving a human woman and a nonhuman one is used as a paradigm for thinking ontological connection and difference at the same time.

Type
Diversity Prize Honorable Mention
Information
Hypatia , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , Spring 2014 , pp. 269 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 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

Adams, Carol J. 1994. Neither man nor beast: Feminism and the defense of animals. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Armbruster, Karla. 2005. “What there was before language”: Animals and the challenges of being human in the novels of Toni Morrison. Comparative Critical Studies 2 (3): 365–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauvoir, Simone de. 1953. The second sex. Trans. H. M. Parshley. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1990. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Crenshaw, Kimberlé Williams. 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalmiya, Vrinda. 2002. Cows and others: Toward constructing ecofeminist selves. Environmental Ethics 24 (2): 149–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Angela Y. 1978. Rape, racism, and the capitalist setting. Black Scholar 9 (7): 24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Angela Y. 1981. Women, race, and class. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Davis, Karen. 1995. Thinking like a chicken: Farm animals and the feminine connection. In Animals and women: Feminist theoretical explorations, ed. Adams, Carol J. and Donovan, Josephine. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Kathy. 2008. Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist Theory 9 (1): 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, M. C. 1997. Merleau‐Ponty's ontology, 2nd ed. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Dunayer, Joan. 1995. Sexist words, speciesist roots. In Animals and women: Feminist theoretical explorations, ed. Adams, Carol J. and Donovan, Josephine. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Garry, Ann. 2011. Intersectionality, metaphors, and the multiplicity of gender. Hypatia 26 (4): 826–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinämaa, Sara. 2003. Toward a phenomenology of sexual difference: Husserl, Merleau‐Ponty, Beauvoir. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Lugones, María. 2003. Pilgrimages/peregrinajes: Theorizing coalition against multiple oppressions. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Lugones, María. 2007. Heterosexualism and the colonial/modern gender system. Hypatia 22 (1): 186–209.Google Scholar
Lugones, María. 2010. Toward a decolonial feminism. Hypatia 25 (4): 742–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merleau‐Ponty, Maurice. 1962. Phenomenology of perception. Trans. Colin Smith. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Merleau‐Ponty, Maurice 1964. The primacy of perception and its philosophical consequences. Trans. James M. Edie. In The primacy of perception and other essays on phenomenological psychology, the philosophy of art, history, and politics, ed. Edie, James M.Evanston, Ill: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Merleau‐Ponty, Maurice 1968. The visible and the invisible. Trans. Alphonso Lingis. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Morrison, Toni. 2004. Beloved. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Valkeakari, Tuire. 2002. Toni Morrison writes b(l)ack: Beloved and slavery's dehumanizing discourse of animality. Atlantic Literary Review 3 (2): 165–87.Google Scholar
Zack, Naomi. 2005. Inclusive feminism: A third wave theory of women's commonality. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar