Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:09:13.829Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fear and Hope: Author's Response

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Gail Mason
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This response seeks to pick up on the key questions and concerns raised by Nancy C. M. Hartsock and Karen Houle in their critiques of The Spectacle of Violence. I mold my response around two emotions that are never far from the question of violence: fear and hope. Is it fear of ambiguity that stops us from delicately blending the experiential with the discursive, the nodal with the circular, the corporeal with the epistemic, or the oppressive with the constitutive? If so, we can only hope that the power of such ambivalence lies in its ability to unsettle these treasured lines of force.

Type
Symposium: The Spectacle of Violence: Homophobia, Gender, and Knowledge
Information
Hypatia , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , Spring 2006 , pp. 196 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 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. 1958. The human condition: A study of the central dilemmas facing modern man. New York: Double Day Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex.” New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bickford, Susan. 1995. In the presence of others: Arendt and Anzaldúa on the paradox of public appearance. In Feminist interpretations of Hannah Arendt, ed. Honig, Bonnie, 313–35. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Bauman, Zygmunt. 1991. Modernity and ambivalence. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Cheah, Pheng, and Grosz, Elizabeth. 1996. The body of the law: Notes toward a theory of corporeal justice. In Thinking through the body of the law, ed. Cheah, Pheng, Fraser, David, and Grbich, Judith, 3–25. New South Wales: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Grosz, Elizabeth. 1994. Volatile bodies: Toward a corporeal feminism. St. Leonards: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1993. Rethinking standpoint epistemology: “What is strong objectivity?” In Feminist epistemologies, ed. Alcoff, Linda and Potter, Elizabeth, 49–82. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hekman, Susan. 1999. The future of differences: Truth and method in feminist theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hester, MarianneKelly, Liz, and Radford, Jill. 1992. Introduction. In Women, violence, and male power, ed. Hester, Marianne, Kelly, Liz, and Radford, Jill, 1–16. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Honig, Bonnie. 1995. Toward an agonistic feminism: Hannah Arendt and the politics of identity. In Feminist interpretations of Hannah Arendt, ed. Honig, Bonnie, 1–16. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Scott, Joan. 1991. The evidence of experience. Critical Inquiry 17 (4): 773–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Dorothy. 1990. The conceptual practices of power: A feminist sociology of knowledge. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Zerilli, Linda. 1995. The Arendtian body. In Feminist interpretations of Hannah Arendt, ed. Honig, Bonnie, 167–93. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar