We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2020
More and more frequently, the general question whether there is an identifiable feminist methodology for investigating historical and philosophical writings about ‘the problem of women’ is raised. As of yet, there is no general, let alone systematic answer to this question, and many would claim it to be unanswerable. Ultimately, indeed, nothing short of the creation of an entirely new form of rationality would seem to be required, if the issue is to replace the so-called phallocentric grammar of our culture.
My suggestion here is that a significant way to provide elements of answers to this general question is to analyze works already done in this field with the view of delineating some of the conditions under which an adequate treatment of the women issue can be made. One such condition will be discussed here. It will be claimed that unless one is clear about the issue of equality, one cannot address the central issue raised by most writings on women.
1 Hoffmann, Paul La Femme dans la pensée des Lumières (Paris: Ophrys 1977).Google Scholar For the general issues raised in the introduction, see my ‘Féminisme et rationalité,’ in Th. Gereats, ed., La rationalité aujourd'hui/Rationality Today (Ottawa: Presses de l'université d'Ottawa 1979) 475-84, and ‘The Trivialization of the Notion of Equality,’ forthcoming in Discovering Reality (Boston: D. Reidel).
2 Hoffmann, 565; translation mine
3 See Hoffmann, 18, 159, 289; for Descartes, see 53, 51. Notice that none of the quotations presented by Hoffmann substantiaties his claim that body-governed relationships define the Cartesian view of the relations between men and women.
4 A dialectical account, Hoffman, 56; cf. ‘dressage,’ 53; influence of body, 53; cf. re Alquié/Guéroult, 54-7; on specificity, cf. 46, 53, 59
5 See Hoffmann, 20, note 7; 290, 297-8, 305-6.
6 Hoffman, 107; translation mine
7 Hoffmann, 67, 77-8, 80
8 Hoffmann, 41, 47 (Descartes refuses this ‘readiness'; Gassendi also…)
9 N. Malebranche, œuvres, préparés par A. Robinet (Editions Vrin) I. 63, II. 488-9; see also F. Alquié, Le cartésianisme de Malebranche (Paris: Vrin 1974) 231.
10 See Schrecker, P. ‘Malebranche et le préformisme biologique,’ Revue internationale de philosophie, 1 (1938-39) 77–97,Google Scholar esp. p. 80
11 See his ‘La psychologie de Malebranche,’ Revue internationale de philosophie, 1 (1938-39) 59-76, esp. pp. 59, 65.
12 See Rousseau, J.J. œuvres complètes, t. IV (Paris: Editions La Pléiade 1969).Google Scholar See also my (forthcoming) ‘Les coefficients idéologiques de l'appel au sentiment,' dans Rousseau et Ia société du XVIII siècle, Revue de I'Université d'Ottawa.
13 Hoffmann, 565; see also on Gassendi, 79-80.
14 See for example the chapter on Gassendi - ‘no radical weakness,’ 77; ‘not utterly condemned,’ 80.
15 Hoffmann, 565. For further study in the sense in which Hoffmann's book illustrates that, during the eighteenth century, women were not defined as persons, see my Women as persons,’ in The Human Person, Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, 53 (1978).
