Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:59:13.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feminism and Phenomenology: A Reply to Silvia Stoller

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Shannon Sullivan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Responding to Silvia Stoller's comments on “Domination and Dialogue in Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception” (Sullivan 1997), I argue that while phenomenology has much to offer feminism, feminists should be wary of Merleau-Ponty's notion of projective intentionality because of the ethical solipsism that it tends to involve. I also take the opportunity to clarify the concept of hypothetical construction introduced in the earlier paper, in particular the transformative relationship that it has to pre-reflective experience.

Type
Comment/Reply
Information
Hypatia , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , Winter 2000 , pp. 183 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 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

Dewey, John. 1988. Human nature and conduct. Vol. 14 of The middle works, 1899–1924, ed. Boydston, Jo Ann. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Merleau‐Ponty, Maurice. 1962. The phenomenology of perception. Trans. Smith, Colin. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Shannon.1997. Domination and dialogue in Merleau‐Ponty's phenomenology of perception. Hypatia 12 (1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar