, ' HI ilAfilH6 rHI [lNnH NANCY TUAl"A. GEl"ERAL EDITOR ThIs .,erie;;; c\)n5i!tt~ \)f edited collections of e-s.."IlV~. some l1figinal and SO!l1e-prcvimL"ly puhlisheJ, l~tferiI1lJ feminist re~lnrerprNations nf the \\Tirings of major figur .... s in the Western rhiklS~)rhkal traditll'in. Dev~}{eJ rn the wI.1rk nf -a siñ gle philosopher, each v(llume conr,iins C!'>Si1ys coñ-ring the full r;mgl' ni the philo. . ..,npher's thought and representing the diversity of aPPfl);lches nl..m' heing ml.'d I:-r feminist critic:'>, Alrendy Pllhlished; NatK.,' Tuana, cJ., Feminisl Interprewrions of Plaw (1994) M'Hgarel Simons, ed., F~minist ImL~'lm~:r£ui()m of Sinwllc de Bt'uJI1'Oir { 1995) Bonnie Honig, ed., Fi,~mini:;t 1nte11>n:ultions tlf Hannah Arendt ( 1995) Panici:J jagenwwicz Mills. eJ .• FeminfH Imerpreratiuns of G. W*. F. Hegel (19%) Maria J. Falco. L*J., Folmlni.'ft InterpreWUOT1S of Mary \Vllllsfmu:craj[ l1996) Stk.an JH\".*km,U1, \..J., F~mini:H Inccrpn'uuio)1s of Michel FOHCliuLc (1996) Nancy J, Holl-and, cJ .• Feminisl Int~rprt'rarions of )t1L'qu~." Denidl! (1997) Rtlbin May Schl.ltt, ed., Ft'minisr Imerpretations of Immanuel Kwu ( t 997) Ce!eil1l: Lt.XHl and Sylvia WaL')h. L*ti.S" Feminist Inrcrlm.~tati(-1ns of 'sfJ'ren Kicri<cgaltrJ {1997} Cynthia Frt>danJ, cd., F~millisr ImcrlmamtrIHS of Arisrotle '( 1998) Kelly Oliv~r anJ Milrilyn PearsaH, eds .• Feminisf ltUt.'Tl'Terartmu Di Fri, . .'drich Ni<t~sche (1998) 1\111111 Rcisd Glad~tcjn anJ Chris Matthew Sci,lbarra, c..! .... , Femllli.H Intcrf>rt'rari(ln.~ oj A:\,H Rand (1999} Su:;an BorJl). <:.,1.., Fcmini$t Inr.:rpreraciaHs of .Rene D{,5CnrZt*.~ (1999) Julk'n S. :"'iurphy, cd., Feminist lnreTprerariotH nf }t:an-Pmil s"UCT"t..' (l-l)t}9l Anne Jaar Jacnhs~)n, eJ., FeminLs.t Imert)r~{dri:Jlls af Dtt1.id Hltlne (21300) Sarah Lucia HO-'lgland and MarilynFrye, eJs., F.!minis{ llUerJnita!ion5. dfMaT?' Dol)' (2,]00) Tina Chanter, ed., Feminist Inr':l'pn.'tiln'Ofl$ of Enun,nutd udnas (21.. .\.)1) Nanc\, J .. H\)lhmd anJ Patricia HUl1.tingrol"l, cds., Feminisf Imerpremtium fli ;\1mcin Heidcgger (2001) Charl~ne Haddock Sei.gfrieJ, ed., FeminisrlnrerpreuuiollS of}nhn DL'u't') (20l'1l) Naom~ SLhelnan and Peg O'C,-")nnnr, eds., Feminist Intt.'rprc!ario)h uf Llui'H,1g \,\'iug-cnsft.'in (2002) LynJ;l Langt'", l' ... -L. Feminisr imt.')jrr...>tatil)HS of],:aidactll1l's RtlU;-;:k'Oli l~002} ffMINIST INTfRPRfTATIONS Of HANS 6fOR6 6AOAMfR Eomo BY LORHAINf [ODE THE PlNNSYlYAKIA SIAn UNIYflll1Y mss UHlYERSIlY pm, PINISYlVAHIA H+ En;!(:"r'-.Jcring: GaJamertafl C,mñr~atiuñ 2_, S ... c l:W JIM;us~i,'n of thi~ 11igh_t frdtn cop-_crer.-exi.~ncc in .Ul carlier ankle, Sch.m (11}9! l. In th.lf ;lnKl~ 1 L,JnllL-..:t CaJ;II\ll'r';; 11\lti(1ll II! n:-nprwpriation, "~I nukmg it 1iCL,;r.J h,lOW aWil'i ir'!Ill h~ur.c. ,\1,1, -,I t1il';ht fr .. m rh~ tt'm.puraiiry anJ materiality of existence rhar hoi;' chatacteri:eJ mu.:h "I rhe mãulint.' mhlinun in Wt'.stt.'fll rhik~\lrhy_ 'L Ch,lpfl'r h ... *;!JtnJ.:~ me: t.'ntitlni"Paui Nawrp," "MiL" Schck--r," "f.-tmm Hdd<!;;gl:'-r," :IIlJ;;o !<1nh. 4_ "'Ch.-1irl,.ic" CH<liel> fTllm the Gr:t'~k "chalwlii," reterring til [he ro,l:.r ,Ippl.lrtunc [lli.l!nent in the p~"li'~ he;lhñ Pfl<Ct.'l>." IOf ,I phy~kian's mtcrvemiun, MCWpful1icalty it rdeb :,1 the imr<Jrrat¥e ,~- !l.m!))..' m lite. ~, St,.,. my ~*,trlk'r ,i!::;cu,'Oi<>n III Sdwrt I. 1,NI, 2<:\S-9). In th,l{ I'ltoCI.:, 1 afWJe thut Gn;lumef'~ ph,i,.wphy ,." ,,:-'lln,lu;:, t;ll~~Ue:;. ,~f leginma..:v anJ iUegHlffiJ.C\" faccJ br l)ppre.s~J b.'Rlur~, Thlt pr.,hlt.'lll "j" ,'ppfC'N,,-,'n i~ BH[ "111)' eXId'llal, hut olb., lHumaI, ã B~u\,llir ,\OJ &JIJwm am,mg.dthen; h~l\:c S<..\ d'lllu~'nd'i df:F!lKJ. It ,me hilS leamed t<l hoe in/cri')f< -.. me will nut fed entitled ttl be "if" lfi rht' i!,lme uf IUH.'rpr.:ratl"n, and inJj:ndual t~lingli and rh"ughrs will h.:-C<lUlC' "uprr~J. h. IIp<.'t'.lIlOH Kescue l ... ~!tl ,Ktil'tSt .mtiilhurlu'n group -in rill' vnttl-J SHl{~ tbu hã c-mr-1,)yeJ \ ;(,k'lllY m tarnetmg d,h,;tuun dint..::>, then their dtK.:lur:.. ;lllJ their elk-un .. 7. :-:;;Hñ' ~b, to ~'~plme thc~e (,KfO(:' nl Anu-:-;emiu ami i<'-!('. Th"l"l~h his llli1l1y:..i" hol~ ,,{len heen .:rj,kcocJ j"r i.1l1uatmi! ,mTl-Sl'mitLilu with ~)th~"T l~lOn.s. "I' [lrt'juJk~, and thcrehy IgmJrui.J;!" it~ ~1l'cltldry, h":11 L:*.t~T face,,_Oi" hi<.wrkllllv im.'Y!t~Lbl.e rh~' t:uk of uIlJe.s[;:lnJiñ ilntl-~mltis!ll, h_ TII.dm l:;I'l,m:l-i\~I'-'r:,on, ";Ufam( ,,("Bn.'akmg [he Rule~; AuJrey FI.Kk; A Rl.'lr'l..~l'ecti\"l..' ! 1):;01'}<)(\" c~hihjtt:"j a, the Spt'eJ Mtls<"llm. Unh:enity ul L"\lj~\*j)ie, J<tnU.lrY 12-Fl'hftlarv ltL 19<11 References (jaJanwr, I-bn:-;-Cicorg. 1976. "On thl: S..-:,)pe amI FunctlnH ot"Hcrmeneulical Rdlecrilln." In Piliivs.oJ)hicLlf Henncik'ltciq, tran.."i. and t'J. D.lvi .. l E. Unge. Bt'rkdt!y anJ Ltb /\ngd~~: l)nrver:.iry of Californl<l Pr~l>s. ---. 11)85. Phiio:<,)pillcal APl1YC1tW::eshiJJ.~< Tmns. Rol"ll!rr R. Sullivan. Cambrillgc, MH~S.: MlT Prt.~,;. ---. 1997. riRt-,t1l'..:tiuñ 0[1 my Pluln:;ophical Journev."ln Tho.' Phi/(}snphy of H<1lUi- (leur).; (Jad<l1!l('T, cd, Lewb Edwin H .. hn, Chica.fi.o: t.lpen C'Ufr. Saft":'!;;,. JemrP<luL 199-), Ami-Semiu tiM Jt'w. Tran:" Gcorgt: J. fkch:r. Ñw YMk: Schcoeke:!1 Boob. Sch.m, H,,)hin ?\"la)", 199L "Whl)SC: Hllme is it Anvwa)"? A Feminist R~spoñ1.' tI) (3.1\lamcr's Hermeneutic,;;." In Ga.Ulm~r and Ht'Tlnenet/[ic$, L<J. Hugh Sih'C'ml;:m. Ñw Ylldc: Routll.'Jgl.'. WHIm, ~ht'lllm) S .. 19l:i-), "Uñl~r Siege in the German !vI)ry 1{}\ñr:' New YLltk Tnnt'~ .")tiI!Jã Book n""'i.:u', Jui}' ~8. 14 Three Problematics of Linguistic Vulnerability Gadamer, Benhabib, and Butler MeW Steele Wtc arl' Ihmklñ nllt the c(lñt:qtlt'rn:i."l<!lf lam.'U;lh'<.' as a medium. -Hanl<-Ge, )fg Gãbmc-r., LikTilUtrt.' ,uw Phii!l~"fJh"!, ill Ihll. '_!(h<' -ttl I CllulJ hlUl.!U'!4<.' tnjute us it we wen" nilt. in sonic ~<:nse, linguistIC hcinl.!'~, ~!I"\;':' \dt" n*'-1uHo: .... bn* jZll;.lf:l' in "r~lef [n hI.': b pur vulne:t<lhilit), h1 bngu<l~c- <l ""n:.e~l!{'nce ,--.f nur hl'1llg (,)n"tlTi.1H .. "! wilhm jt~ tcm15~- ~1any of therecent debates in feminist political philnsurhy ,ire ClmccrncLI with \vhat rmblematic(5) to use in order to undersnind dt:lTIocratic pt)lit-icai ideals. gend-eted tlifferences, and their histones .. } For the purpoSt's ~1f this chapter, [ will contrasr two important problematic;; in these dehare:;, the procedural/deliberati\-e poHrics in the rrnditit,m of Critical Tlu:.'LH")" represented here by Seyla Benhabib, and the posrstructuralist or rost~ mndernist poiitics. represented here hy Judith Butler. The gnal nf rhe l"ontrast \\--ill be to_ set up the contribution that Gadamer's wurk can make to contemporary feminist philo$ophy.2 Burler's p05tmodemism critici:('~ the way (hat lihcralhom and Jdiberative democracy accept: ~l political community's linguistic inheritance and ignore thedynamics by \',hich :-;uejccB are produced, In Butler's dew, the only way to rnake <l\'aibble the workings i){ oppre-ssinn and [0 give a space to -difference and liheny is to think through rhe originary mom.enrs by which a community Cl..m F ~,titutt'j its me*aning:; through exdudin.g nthers. Tht:se originary exdll- $i(m~ arc so deep that they are largely inacc~.sibl{' to historic.al ::lewrs, .. lnd :'.{! d1L' phUosorher needs to a\'tJid rhe subjectivist trap of rea.ling hdnh.'nl.*utkally ilnd narratively. Instead, she rracks the mLlv~mt:'nts nf hi .... htrY hy reading the ::-<elf-understandings of J.i sncit'ty as the repetitlvc l.:ffL*.;:rS generated hy these nrigiñry muments. Whitt::Benhabib agrcocs lhdf th..: .!-.df..undcrsmndings nf political and culruml uaJirionB ha,\'t:" heen :-1.1 ... ktl.lnu('d hy power and exclllsion that a h~rtnenL'urics of tLH.lirion ",ht Rild 1,1;." dismissed, she criticizes Butler nn twn cnunn;: fir.;t, t~)r fL'11ounCr ing rhe no.r111<1[[Ve dimension through which rditical insrirutinru receh'e their lL"girirnation. and secondt for ignllrili.g the processes hy which we ul1lk'rst:m,J i1nJ criticize (.':;1ch other 1.15 polhical suhjects. For Benh:Jhih, tc!::::irimacy is Jialnglcally cdl1Ceiñd rhnmgh pnlC...-duft.,s ,If argtlm.entã ttPn. Ph.ilntil'phy's task is to purslle the l1l)rmari\'e Jimenslll11 nf dt'mocr:I()". while thl' soclal .... dL'nct"*s wllrk tm the empirical Llinwtlslon. I-1m.\* .. k ',,::-, lJali.nnl~r'~ work cnntribun: to this .. khatc! Afrer all, it seems f\) pr.t;"il1 nr a C\lnS~f\"atLve unJerstandil'lJ~ llf lari.!.!uag<.: and rr~kliri~in as a nnllri,hing medium thm largely ignntl's rhe effects of ~)wer, rht.* ncclu- ,>ion of dilfer~ncl.\ and thl: dl'manJ~ nf political agency. Gad:r.ullcr's Hll:ral'hilnsnphicli argument rhat we nre hbrorical. linguistic hdngs, \;;hich wa", an important contrihution at dw tim~ Trurh and :vier/wd W,1.'1 l'uhlishcd (1960), i~ n(w.-largdy (\ given in feminist (lhilt~)phy. The 4UC:5~ filH1 is I'H)\;." fH)r wht.,th\;?r nJ mab: the' ljnglli*:;ric turn tlr Itt'!, hut Wh"lt l'r<.ihlematlc shnukl he lI;!cJ tn dur<.1cterl:L' our hisrorical heing~iñ lanl.!l~ag'-.'. Thi~ Chal'h.'r will argul.' t(}( thi.:.' indbren::;;:tbility l}f GaJ<1mer's hL'rmenelil ic rhenomennhl.!.!Y for feminist politkal phih1snphy. Borh Dcnhahih ;m ... 1 nutler. in 0prosiñ wars. remain caught in the Enlighten; ilIL'nt ... i!..':-,j.-c fn.,;-:hiL'y ..... liherty, JLlstict:', ~md clatity hy :-sctring up a phil,,)F '>dphk'li prohlt'rnmic (l\* .... r ,H1~1 agninst ,1 hiMoric<d rhel1Ulñntliogy, hy [1"\ Ing t.) lv'lp i.)lI.t of the hernwl1t:uric circle. Our hi .... toric;:,l inh~rit.mce h'l:' Indeed heen complex anJ uppre:-;sive in \\'<1Y' [hat ,ue con:;titU[l\,e of L":\j..:rence-in. ... kcd, in way.", that Gadamer dlle:-. nnt rhemati:e; yet the Wily ttl Jdil"'l...>rnre ,1hdUt thi" inhcrirance is n ... \( by -crearing a brmal pro- >.:.:dllr:d :-:ul .... kct nr hy tlarrl?n.ing l~thiCi.ll/rnlitical histtlrk.,. ~md th~ir ian F i.!U;l~t::."S inw tl1t.' ctt~crs prnduceJ. hy tfan:o;cL'ndL'nml engines; I-lu\\'c\'\:r, ;:,inc~ the JiSllltSsalllf Gailulll!r b Sll widL'~pr\.:"ld, ] will nnt b('f!.in with GaJaml'f hut nuher with BC'nhahih's attempt ttl aCn1mml.1~ lbte lll.'rnll~neutic.'\ in her feminist Critical Thet.ry. 1 then urfer a (espnnsc 11'.ñt! Prohlemat!.cs ,}f lingubtic Vu!m:mhility ,37 thar shows hu\\,: her the('ry fails to make available rh.e complex W<1~'S that gendered su~jL'cts inhahit and act rhn)ugh language in the way that OaJamcr's philosophy can. Nnnethcless, this reply tn Critical Theory lC3\"t:s untouched Butler's understanding of language, so I will then lay nut Burlt.'r's cnmplex cnmbinatiun of Foucauldian constructl\'ism and Dt'rridt,;,m Jbst"lninatll)li. I r,-~pond ttl Butler thn.Jugh a Gadamerian read~ ing I.f Susan Glaspdl'~ short stl..ry "A Jury Df Her Peers," il story that t)h~)\ .... :; ht)w his ht,~nneneu(ic$ di.sr-lay,:; the dynamic:> \If rower, difft'rencc, and COn[L'i>rarinn better than Butler's problematic. This is not tn t'ay that hcnl1eñutics has '.Ill the ans\\'~rs to the politics nf interpremtion, but that the site of interpretive political judgment emerges through and nor against dIalugical hermeneutics. 1vly point is not ttl*drive nut competjng (Hltnlugies, hm rll rur them into diaLogue. The question that guides my t"xr~)sitiun is h,)w en Jt'velup an interpretive phiftlSOphLthar can cnme tu tenns ,>vith the ontl}iqgical G\mplexlty uf Ollr linguistic vulnerabiHry that has maJe I'õsihle b.lfh w.nmen's nppres.'linn and achievement. Benhabib: Moderniry and rhe Denial of Language Rcnhahih descrihes* her prnjcct as "u p05tmerapnysical tnteracth*t! uni; veralism" that >;eei.:.s to reformuhu:e "the moral point of view as the coñ tingel1t achit~\'emclu of <1n interactive form of f<.uinnality mrher than a timde~s standpoint of n legislative project" (Benhabib 1992, 6). The "inreractin .. t~)nn of ratlt)11.1lity" c~)mt..*s from the work \1f jurgcn Hahermas. who transform::. Kant's m.oral universalism from the mnnoItlgic~l! ~ler~p('cti\'e ()f rhe categoric.al unperarive ro rhe dialogical p('r~ :\rccth~e of the ruk~ of.cpmmunicati\'t~* action. Hanermas appeals to tht' untvcrs;)l presuppositinñ of c\.1mmunication that une catino! help hut invdke (Hahcnnas 1',)90,89-95), and his ClHl.n.~rti(ln pf pn.".:;-urpnsitinn is not histinlc\l hut Kuntian: "The theory of cnmmunicath'c action (k{mnsccnJerHali~e$ the nnllnlenal realm only to han> the idcali:ing force \)f context-transcenJing: anticipatiuns settle in the un:.n-oit.1a.1:4e pragm.atic pre.'uppt):;;.itions of speech acts, and hence in the heart of everyday cnm~ tnunicarivc rractict"" \ Hahermas 1996<1. 19).; These ideals are then turne ... ! il1£l) dialngical procedures. As Benhahtb explains; "1lte;Je rules l1f fair dehate can he f(H'mulated as "the tll1i\"ersal~rragmi:ltic presuppnsitioñ' (If argum...:ntati\'t~ speech and the .... e can be stated as* a set of prnc.cdurnl rules" lJfi Eng~nJeririg Ga&tmcrkm Cmt\'ersatioru. (Benhahib 1992, 31). In other words, the rules of dialogue, not the subs-t.<ffice of what is said, rest whether or not the outcome of the ex.change is rational and le-g-itimate. Benhabib's claim for interactive universalism is th,lt it adJres~e.'i rw-o pt:'fsistent problems of democracy, legitimacy, and Jit"ference. First, her project confers legitimacy on the outcome that emerges when collective dedsinn,making prucesses are "conducted r~tionally and fairly among (ree and equal inJividuals" (I 996b 68). Sec(\nd, "PrnceJllrG.lism it;: a raritmal añwer to persisting value conHicrs at the suhstanrive level" (73). Habenn.'1:' and Benhabih offer this view asan alternative to liberalism and repllblicanism/Ctllllmunirarianism (Haberm-as 1996. 23). LiberaH..,;m focus~:; '-111 rights and tht:' procedures fnr aggre_gating individual interests, while ignoring the rulc nf public dialogue in cQllsriruting public instiJurioñ and citizens. In contrast, communitarianism rejects thi:; separation of proccuurl!s t"rotn the substance of indiddual and collective identities, iñi.-;ting thm tt is both undesirnble and impnssible to ãrract ourselves frnm \\'11.,) we are individually ur collectively io order to reason justly. lntt'ractivt~ universalism seeks t;) develop an iJe:.) of public reason dear to communirurians, without relying on the idea oi shared community, since "pohtics may not he assimilated to a hermeneutical pwces~ of selfexplication nf a :'lh<ln.-~d form ()f life or colh:crivt~ identity" (Hahermas 1996,23-24). Renhahib ::,.eeks tn qualify Hahennas'-s commitment to rmccJures hy ''...;itllilting ref.1::ion and themoral self more decisively in cpntexts of gen, Jer i.lnd cl)mmunity" (Benh;1hih 1992, 8), so HS to tak.; into acc.)unt G-a\..i..unerinn an.d tCl11inist criti"llit's l,f t(lrmalism: "From Heg-el's critique l.lf Kanr, G;lLbmer h()rnnved the insighrrhat all ftmnalisrn presupposes a conrexr that it ah:c.rmct:-; from and that there is no formal l![hh:s which dncs have SlHllC material presuppnsitions concerning the :;(;:,If ~UlJ social In.stiwrm-ns*' {2S). She deflects this G<-1darnerian point through her his, tnrid::atinn (;f mOtknlity and her understanding oflmiguage, arid 1 will plIr!i-lle e,lLh succt!~si\'ely. Part of her response to this Gacl.amerian line is to make Kantian proc~1ures emergeafter <l rrernli[ical hist,)rical reconciliarion that h; suffident h) estahh!-ih a public langu,lge and space of discussion, or "iifewodd." By making this rno\'e, Benhahih ... Ioes rillt hm'¢ moral rules stand over ilgain:;t the historical \:tlmmunittes, bl)t insteaJ they hect)lue part of the cOlllmlmal lnheritanct.~: "The stan_dpoint uf Ct11nmunicatiVt: ethics has [,cen made ros.,hle h\' the culture "f m,x\ernlty" (Benhabil'1992,40),4 Thi~ .... n-'n.,\iricOli inrPn1;lli-.Minn lit" mndemity neeJ. .. II) he ullP<'lCked. First, Three Pr .. lhlcnmrics ... * Linguistic Vulnerability 1_,t) this tneans that we must accept as given the Kantian division (l reason, in which there is. a "separation from each other of the good, the true, and the beautiful or of science, ethics, aesthetics and theologyn (41). For Benhabih. th.ese divisions are historical achiL'ñments of modernity and nut timeless features of reason. Sect)nd. they proviJe -a structural ui1.ity for the lifeworlLl thar Jusdfies the "a5sumption that the institutions of libera' demllcracies emboJ.y the idealized content of a form of practical rea- :'.on." The word ''"iJe.alizeJl1 here means that one- "8irntsl at the re-cnnstruction of the logic of demOCfv.ciesH (Benhabib 19-96,.69)_ She fnrrhrtghtly <lcknowle\.lges her Hegelianism. by calling mCk.i~n)ity*s cultural/political inheritance "objectin-: spirit." without a supersubject (68-69). Benhablb seeks to nelltra1i:e the GadatnC'rian t.1bjection about hi-swriGd (:",.)n.re-xt through internali:ath.m, so th..'lt K~Ul(ian universal I..lueSr (ions can be posed. There is .. 1 paradnx here. ()n the one hanJ, Benhabib'::; intersubjective pr\..ljecr seeks t(i overcome Hegel's privileging of the trans-subjective perSpc'ctLYt" of the phHos.ophical ooSt'rv~r I-wer the lnrcrsubjcctLve pers~l.> llve of (he parridp-ant.s, a privUeging that makes the meaning of hishlry alwaY:5 work behind the hacks of agenrs.' On the other hand l he-r fear of relath"ism ends up plunging subjecL';; neck Jeep into a lik'worlJ (hat hJ.S solv.ed enough important ethical/politicã iSS-ties to he unproblematic as a prCSITllcrureJ mel..Hum for argumentation. This understanding -of mõ..ier- nity makes three assumptions tha.t Gmlamcr anJ Butler will contest. First, Benhabih assumes that the differentiation nf reason into three spheres is an empirical fact of modern culture; second} she assumes that this Jivi,. .'iil a1. is desirahle; third\ she assumes th~t it makes sen .. ",t! rn "recnnstmct" our nf the histories and langunges nf Je-m(}cf3cy an iJcalized rrncess rhat is. neither dnennined by these historll.!S nor fully al,stracted &om tht':m. In her \'iew, ~\"C are sfm'lehow in a special nonhermeneutic space bt:rwcen nournena lind phl.!nol11t'"na where the "logic of democracies" can. he \"iis~ coñred and have ;I critical purchase on everyday rn1CticeJ' Here W~ :set:" the teal" ,nit of hermeneutics in order to _create a space uf rationality thm can adjuJicare hermeneutic cnnflict5. Benhabih tric:s t~l softt:n this opposition to GaJamerian hermencurics hy reo'lurs~ [0 narratLve: "The 'narrative structure of actions and personal idenrit\,' isthe .second premise which allows one -to mnve beyond the ml.:'taphy-sicai assumptiuns of Enlightenment unh*ersalism" (Benhahih 1992,5-6). Mnreo\'t:"[, narr-.atiñ helps her gi\'t" nuance and particularity to her -conception of "objective spirit" so [hat it dues nt~r fall rrey rn the hLllistic l-isSumptil)fi she cririci:cs in Hahennib's recnn.~tructjvt' project, \\:hich "~rcaklsl in the name of <1 fictIonal c,Jllective 'we' from Whl)5C stanJp<)int the story of history is rolJ" (Benhabib 1986, 331). Benhabib Jraws her conception of narrative from Hannah Arendt, who helps her st('-er bdWe"t;'l1 "contextual judgment and univcn>al morality" (Benhahlb 1992,124), and it l.s imp<.1rtant to connect their positions on narmrivc and language with their Kantian understandinf,'S of modernity, in which truth. art, and moraliry are ::.eparatt:\..l. The complications of Arendt's read~ ing nf the CrititJw: oj ]Hci.t,Ttnem are nu[ g-ennanc tu this l..HSCUSSk0f1.-;Hmven:r, what is crucial for this chapter is that Arendt's and -Benhabib\ unJefStl1nding ()f narrative is \'ery different fwm Gadamcr1s, or inJeeJ frum Alasdnir h.1adntyre's often citet.1 account. Benhabih herself Joes not !'Ie~ it this ,-,'ay. ~ F(..)r her, the central tension between the cnntextLJalists- (he "NeoAristl1relimls like Gadamer, T<ly~or. ,and N1-ac1nryre" (134}.-and the universaJhits does nut involve language. Benhabih makes Arendt's "enlarged mentality," the ability to "think in ,he place of everyhody else" (Arend, 1977,220,241) that is develnpeJ tl*om Kant, the centerpiece of rnural theory because it briJges rhe Jemands of rh~ universal and the particular: "The mnml princ'irle of enbtrged thought enjoins us to view each person as one to whum lowe the moral respt.."Ct to cun:\ider their H<:lndpoint. This is the uniñrsalist kcrnell)f Kantian morality. Yet 'to think from the standpoint ()f cvery~ t.1ne else' requires precisely the exercise of cnntextual mural judgment" (Bcnhabib 1992, 136). Huw we understand the language that makes $ub~ jeets and contexts avail-nhle is nnt an l:isue. Th~ source for her \'iew of bnguage IS Arendt. who W<1nt~ to kl'"t.>-p language ilnd truth apart. For Art'nJt, smrytelling is "thought" TatheT than "cngnition/' SInce the fOf; tlH.:f "h"1S neirher an end nor aim outside itself' (Arendt 1958, 170; 1978, i, 13t 5 ) . ..; H~nct", "culture and politics ... belong [<,)gethcr because it is nnt knt)wieJgt' or truth which is ar stake bur rather judgmcnt and ded~ sion" (An:ndt 1977,223). ArenJt, like Kant, wants to keep rdlecrivc judgmenr apart frum the concept, which is [he domain of determinative jm.lgment:s ahllut truth (and morality).h' In this way, Arendt bk'Cks lRlt the GaJanlerial1 positinl1 of having lang-uage mediate pur lnte-rprc-tations of ollr!>d\'~-s anJ the wl.1rld, in which stories inform experience. Arendt do:nies th(' {)ntologkal force nf culture n,) cunstitute identities in en-ahHng \If I..lppre-:'$h-cways. We are ~'"rirpeJ and transformeJ by stories in ways thar ArenJt and Benhabih cannot make i:.l\"ailable. The md1...le-l <..1t "enlarged thought" accepts a "uhjecr~tll~subje-Lt mudd that taib fi.l interrogate rhe historical medium th.H articulates these sub~ Thrt:'t:' Prohlt:'ln<ltics llt LingulstLc Vulnerability HI jeers. the tissue of bl"ing that connects and tears them. Benhab-ib, like Arendt. protects language from historical damage, as if language it-self were not bound up \vith the catastrophes of modern life. At the same time, she faLb [1..1 see it as a resource lJt ni.oral retlection. The languages of the Wt.'Sl sino.' the Enlightenment arl' de~ly implicated in the atrnc.,. ities and traumas that we cnntinue tll work through and thar must be giyen a larger place in a pl)litica1.l'hilusl"1phy than Benhabib';s pn.JCedural theory can otler. Yet she Jepl'h-'es language and sturie . ..; {litcrmurd \'tf any critical ;;;<lpadty, unlike Gadan"ler nr Bakhtin. who rnake lit~rature a mqde of ret1ecri~m nn th-t' languages nf society.ll Her way of understanding this meJium keeps his.turidty anJ linguistic vllinembility at hay,_as her reading of \\'omen's history reveals.l~ in "On He!-,'e-I. Women, and lnmy," she ()Utline5 three diiI{:-rent appro<leht::s to feminist history. The first appn1<lCh is a "mainstream liherol fe-minist tht.. ..ory [thar] (feats the rraJithll1':S \"icw~ of wom~n as a series of unfllrru~ nate, somt'timt'-~ emNlrrassing J hur e-&>entially cnrrigihle. misc~)nct'vri\ltl.-;" (I\enh~hih 1992, 242-4j). The second is ''',he cry uf the rt'hetti<"" daughter,'" \yhich HeC-t.'pH the Lacnnian view "thi-U alllangllage has l)Cen the codification of the pnwer uf the father!> anJ [hat seeks "female speech at th-c margiñ ('if the western l~lgocentric traJiril..)H," (She make;., 11.0 references, but rresumahly she is rderri.ng tn French fem_inists. such as Julia KrisR'\-,a and Lucehigaray; this description d~'<es not fit Butler.) A third way, the nne she endorses, is "a 'feminist discourse of emp<l-wermenr'" (24 n. Thi~ dew fi)llt)w~ r'Klkal critique jOn "revealing the gender suhtext tlf the ideals .)f reasnn and thi..: Enlightenment," but. unlike the "rehd~ linus Jaughters." Benhabih JlJe~ nnt wari.t !\..) d.iscard these id\..~nls. Thefe are (Wi} parts to fulfillillg these iJcal~. On (he nnt'" hanJ, she exposes the exdushm of women frnm rnlttical traditions such as social L:ontr;]ct tht.'~ ory, where we find "hoys [who] are men before they hnye heen children; a w,)rld \\'hert~ neither Ilwrhcr, nnr shter. nor wife exist" (157). On the uther, s.he rcads ",lgainst thi:' gnlin, proceeding from cerr-ain fnotnGtes and margin"llia in the text ... [nward rt>cun.~ring the hist~)ry of those thedialectic leaves behinJ" (245). She claims tn restore "irony ttl the dialt':c~ tic, hy deflating thepomp\"fu,:> march of necessity" .lnd giving tn \..'ictims their ";,)thernt:'S5" and "sdthond" (256), thliS counterbalancing h\"r Hegelian reading l1f modernity.l ~ She reCt,n:rs th~ :'itury of Caroline Schlegel Schelling as -an .lCcount llt a frmall' liheral agent whntn Hegel rejeered. CarLlline was a politically acth'c intdlccrual. who w'lrked in the re\'ulutionary grollr.-; in 1792-9}, when Main: was under French C-Ol1trol, and who was arrested when the Gennan armies retook the city. After her release. she anJ her husband Auguste Schlegel ffitwcd to lena, \\,here she was active in that city's t~lInnus intellectual circle. She detr1y influenced both Schlegel brothers. especially Friedrich's views d'''women, marriage, anJ free love" (Benlmbib 1992,252). Shortly after her arrival in lena, Caroline became estr:dngeJ from ht'r hushanlJ and attracted t~) Friedrich Schelling. After AllgU$tt: left Jena t C3Toline moved i1) with her new cumpiJnion. and the two Df fhl'm shared a house with Hegel f{l[ two years (1801-"'). (She evt:ntually Ji\'ofceJ Schlegd an\.) l11 .. 'trrieJ S'l:helling.) In sum, H\:gd "ellCl1Ullterell hriHiant accomplished and nonclHlformist women who certainly inti~ m~lteJ tn hiril what rrlle genJcr equality might mean in the future" Jnd "he JiJ nor lik~ it" (254). Hegel's thr~aten.ing encounter with CaroHne Schlegel Schelling forms the subtext of his reading l>f AmigoHC' in which "the female principle mu~t eventually b~ expelled from public life" (25;'). By pulling out the stories_of isolateJ inllividuals who assert libera-' iJt"ab. rarher than havinga hel'n1l'neutic engagement with language anJ trallition, Benhabib lea\'es unexamined the symbolic and s()ciaI inheritance that other feminisfs have t~1lmd to he Sl.) c\mtlicteJ.14 This kinJ of interpretIve judgrnent cannot be themati:cli hy !limply taking <ll1othcr's ptlint nf view. Language\ constitutive Jimcn::.ion Sh~lres and gi\'es us ,ICCt.'SS t.o the .complex ways we live our pains and aspire to g:(x)Jness. I'vlD-n.:nv,c-r, [hehistory nf the \'ncanulary of demtlCracy show . ..; hll\\' our ide<ll~ ~lnd ollr anguish are inrerconnecreJ_ This Llcun,l in her rhnDS{)~ ph)' is not accidental, hut is required by ht'r commitrnent to two anti ... hcnncncutical pnsltions: [irst l that fllrn)uH::t:J ideals can Mand outside hi~t~)1"f -anJ hl.'rmel'u:utk-s; and secllnd. that narmtive i~ ar...nlt in ... h\'idu~ a1: .. mther than ahout languages. I will Jevdup the Wei1knl~SSes in this kind of fnrmalbm through <-l Gadam_erian critique. Reopening Historicity <\nd Language: A GaJmnerian Response to Benhabib G,lL1amC[ \,*ould Jisagrce with bllth I,ltlrts of Benhahih's aCLUmnltKiarion. First, he rejects her um.lersranding uf m-odan reaStH1 as the hbttll'ic<-ll real~ j:::;'lrinn of three spheres. Second, he rejects the concepritm of hisrnricity implicit in this view_ These tWo issues come together in his cfH1ception of language and tradition. GadLlmer attacks the Kantian legacy that misapplies the meth(xls of natural science tu hermeneutic beings. The result i~ thar we deform anJ impoverish our world by l\\'erlooking the bond between subject and nbject. by claiming that we can step out of the hermeneutic circle. The sep:;:u<ltit)fl of truth from moraHty and aesthetics condnuc~ the legacy. \:\-cn as it tdc.:;. to make socia1 .:icience "henneneutic." Gadamer's argument about our being~iñlanguage SC'cks to undo the ... iumage done by the Kantian Ji\'isinn of reason ilUl) tht':\,)retical, practi..::al t anJ aesthetic that Benhahib 'vant~ tl.) enshrine_ Gadamc-r ainu; to show ht)\v {Jur h:ing-inlanguage anJ nl'ing-irH..iialogue is logically prlor ttl any such divi;-;iull, how the hermeneutic circle is not an account of whCl,t Wt:" should dn in making parti:..:ular discUn:l\'C claims but nf when we inevitably Jo hecause of Wh(i ,we ;lre. The attempt r\,l stand outside hermeneutics in (uJer [l; establi~h an epistemological anJ mnral site _of adjudicatit1ll rrodw.:es a specinus darir)' ;,lhnut the true and the gnod, Since we arc interpretive beings, thto question tJf 'tho\\' understanding is possible" (Gadamer 1994, xxix) is t"und'Hll:t>ntal. Gadamcr's answer to what make.::; understanding pos~ible b; traditt\)l1, Huwe\"~r, "trad_ition" is nun.'!. mere !iumtirute fl.)! Hegel'~ "Spirit" any morethan it fits Bcnhabih-'s idea dohj~cti\"e spirit-"the t.:oIlective and añlt1y* mOlls property \'1£ cultur~~, instirutions and trclJitions as a result tIt" the experiments and experiencc!'i, both ancient and tnlxlt'n1, With dem\)(:rntic rule nVt:r the course nt' hurnan history" (Benhabib 1996. 69),l'i 'W'hat He-nhanih's \,I.;'r~i()n duL's i::. takc the ontological dimension tlf u.aditinn away by making it a shareJ ba-..:kgrnltnd from \vhieh we make narrative ::.reciHcatinns, For GaJamer, "traditinn" anJ "pr-t~juJice" are shaping i{)rce~ lif culture an...l suhjecth'lty that rhe Enlightenment claimed to he aHeh) step away fnlln. \\,hen in fact {hey are inevitable cham..:::teristics "f our heing. The effects lJf rraJltinn anJ prejudice me always ahead lJf the COI1- ~cil1l1:>nt's<; that trie::; to sei::e them. This meallS that the picture tlf thi.:': ::;r~aktng s-uhject is nn{ th~ autnnumdUS claims-'makt::r tlf disclltlr.se thenry. Rather, "tht.~ prejuJice!' >.,f the inJiviJunl. far m'Jre than his juJgnh:nts, C01"'!$r-itute the histllricdl reality I_Jf hi'> r.dng" {Gadamer 1994. 276-77}. Our heing-in-the-\\"orh.l is nor conceived in terms of n ~tlbject who ril~mipuLlte$ alien objects that stand nur.:5ide all preunJersranl..iings; rather, the subject mnn ... ~ in a hermeneutical circle that "JescrH-'*cs unJer- ~44 EñenJcring GaJamerian C<.ln\'ersatjoñ .stai1ding as the interplay of the mov~ment of tf<1dition and the movement of the interpreter. The anticipation of meaning that glwerns our understanding of the text is not an act of subjectiv tty, but proceeJs from the -commonality that binds us to the traditinn" (193). hl make available his conce-ption of suhjectivity and to stress its impLlrWnCe, Gadamer offers a new phenomenology, one that is nl)[ inLii- \'idualist1c .15 we find in Arendt .and Benhi:lbih, but nne that displaysour vulnemhility as interpretive beitlgs \vbn are srruggiing rCHmderst:Jnd the langlli1ges tky inhabit, and not just as choo:iers of wnrds to luake claims. GaJamer's subjects ,are nut stanJing in a synchronic lifeworkl together, .as Benhahib'$ holism \v!..1Uld have it, fnr such a conception le;:l\"~s out the templ)fal and transformarive Jynamics of Gadamer's metaphor of "inhahoiting.u If "helonging to a traditillO is a condition of henncneutics" (G<l.Jamer 1994, 235), this "belonging is brlmght ahout hy tradition addressing us" (463). Gadmner's phik)$ophy pf craJirion is not designed rn "situ;1te the ~ubkctt" hut to show how the subject is continlliJusly recclnstitutetl through dialogue \vith others and traditinn. Trl-tuition dot':s not simply .stand in the background; it asks us questions, nnurishcs, and nppn.:''ises (358ft-). Tradition is I1ttt the IneJiufll through which the "lifeworld is reproduced:' <1 meJium WhtlSe rules can he reconstructed hy rhe sncial scientific nhscrver. Dialogue is not just an exchange nf claims hy individua]sl but the -"coming intl) !anglluge of what h.as been ;.;aiJ in the tradition: an event that is at once appropriation and interprer<}rtl'm" (463). The Jialogue of quesrion anJ answer he-tween past and present that :>ubte-nd:j any convcrsatlon in the present clvoh..ls the ::;implifying understanding of "lifewtJrld," In which histl)rical inheritance is ~ln unprohlem'Hic "background" that is "intuitt\'dy known, problematic [and] unanaly:ahlc" (Habcrmas 1987., 298). II. Thom~ts lv1cCarthy, a ,-{efe-nder of Benhahib's line llf n.'os,oning, says I"hal" Gadanll~r~s idea of tradhion commlt$ "the fallacy of treHting ~tlglC'cll -<.:unditlon,s as nnrmative principles_" From The ontl)k}gical instght rhi:.,t "we rake tl)f gmnted in any act of ret1ecrh-e critique" more than we call inTO quesrion. !-.1cCarti-1Y argues that "Gadamer [fie., to draw nnrmmin:cnndusl0n::. against enlightenment criticism and in favor of traJitional~ ism." Hnwcver. the idea tbat we are "more being than con;-;ciousne!:is" is "no less true i.l the revoiutil1nary critic than the -const.."rvative" (tvkCarthy 1994, 41). First, we need make it clear that GaJamer is. nol adnJC<lting traJ.iti..1!1alism, but arricul::lting traditiun as tht' untdligi4:.11 (.'ondi[lun of understanding. Thus, "the confnmtatinn of nur hisft1rical tradition is Three Problema,,,, of LinguiS[k Vulnernbibry 345 alway, a critical challenge of this tradition" (Gadamer 1987, 108).17 Second, we need to reject McCarthy's suggestion that because Gadamer's ontology applies (0 everyone, it can prodde no critical perspective un everyd.ay unJerstanJings and rhus drops out. This. disTIlissal of the i111porranee t)f historical inherirance is precisdy the mistake that Benhabih makes when she neutralizes "tradition'l as a shared background or lifeWt)rld. Gad,Hller's Llescriprinn of our being~in-Ianguage does nor Jeternitne whether one is ~1 rev01ution .. lry or not, but it does make ne\l/ understandings llf our heing-in-rhe-worlJ available, and forecloses others. One nf the views it ttJredoses is the phenomenology that McCarthy nnd Benhabib put fonvard, in which the suhject of morality appears in a l..}lIasi~ntlumenal reahrr whereideals and rules ~re divorced from language <lr"l.J h istnrv. The de~ire to eSL:<tpe from the lmtology ()f prejudices. to seek a shalIll'" clarity, is not only present in the epistemology of the social sciences. but also in the Kantian moral formalism that denies our historicity and puts nut llt pIny the lingUistic fahric from ,,\<,hich we are made. The- :-)cpnratiun of jUS:tice from the g(Rxl \lffers the iilusion that we can kñ)w deollwlngical rules in a transhistorical way that does not apply to knowing linguistically mediated practicesY~ The claim of tht: subjecr of justice to be able tn stand above and a .. ljuJicare cornpeting understandings ()f the good presupposes dear epistemological accessto competing claims and a llltlral !:lite above the fray. Gadamer!s tHuoh)gy blocks both of these rouresY) The meanings of the normath-e concepts of modem political life, .such as "cquaI-iry," are imhrictltt'"J with the sexist and racis.r vocahularic~ th:r.lt have infu.sed them, and aU are historically renewed through rcapprnpriation,20 Art understanding of our hl.stl.1rictty requires that we prL)be the amhigullus medium thllt we have internali:ed, which nmrinut..'s to infect ,-"lnJ l1l1urish l)tir stories. The dethroning_of rhe sdf~unJer~ standing of jusrice in no way entails th_m justicenl)t receive the high~st prioriry among moral gnnJs. What it does requireis that this priority nor be conceived as a ~tanJp-Oint l)utside ~)ther goods wirh its nwn merhl'idoL(}gical requir~mt:'nts. rather, the .claim to priority musr be part of ;,1 historical argument tn which justice makes cnmparml.\'e daims ag<."linst other gonJs. The iJei.l of tradition gives us a way of undt'rstanding women's suffering~ and achic\"i.~ments in [he transformation of public and private We that goe-s beyund the retrieval of isulated indiYiduals to the retrievaillf i1'SPCCb \)f alternative traditions. Thus, GaJamer's conception Clf tnh-lirinrr doe..; nor have to hemonolithic, even if he dOt;;"s not explore the [i1Uld- ["licit}' and dh.:isfons in the lingui$tic currents of culture. The ide .. ! of rraJidon has been developeJ by feminist literary hismrians, for eX<Jmple, who urge LIS h.l look at the distinctiveness and value of women's wriring, from Elaine Showalter's A Litel'ature u[ Their Qum to Be-verIy GuySheftall', Words of Fire (Showalter 1977; Guv-Sh~fraIl1995). These feminists do not tit Benhabib1s "rebellious dall~h[er>l category. which runs tngether t\\'\l di-fkrent ~mdcr.standings of uur being-in-Ianguage proposed by feminist theories. The first group is made up ~1f ct'mstructivists_. whl.) understilnJ language and historical jnheritance in._ tenus of a third-per- :..on ontology of pown that rcdescribes the self..-understandings of histnr~ kal acturs from the (X>int of view (If linguistic and institutional forces, (l t"'x'lmine this idea in the next part on Butler.) The set:I.Jnd gnJUp c\.)ñ sists of "cultural or gyno_cenrrics feminist::;:' such as Shtw.!<llter and GuyShefñH, but who would also include Irigmay Of Helene CiXt)u$. ,;vho do not think -wumen's practices are exhallsred hy the totaliz.ing accounts of Hegelians, wean inns, or FoucaulJhms)1 Retrieval is not just of isolated tnJidduals who embody Knntian conceptilmsof autonomy, hut of wnmen's practices thar challenge a sexist and Tl-u:i-st linguistic medium thilt ClHl-stitutes subjects. Our freedom and agency ~tre tc.) be defined through our linguh;ric constitution, not against it. "FreeJom implies the linguistic .:onstitutinn of the world, Both l1elnng together" (Gi-lJamer 1994,444); hence, "to he Situated \\'ithin a tradition does. not iJmit frcc~ dom of kndwledge hut m_akes it possible" (361). Benhabih repeats the mistake l'l Iiheralism hy st~pamring t lut tht' norms t)f t':-I..luality frnm the languages and myths rh'lt shape identities. As Atlri~nne Rich states, "Until we knuw the as:iunlptions in which Wl' are drenched we cannot know ourselves:: ftJf "nur language has trapped us wdl as liberated LIS" (Rich 1979,35), Ht)\\,<ever, Rich's remark-Joes raise a questiun ahout Gadaull"r's undersranJing of rhe suhject's relationship ttl tratlition as one of di..'1logical play, a pn.1hlem that Robin Schorr's ohscr- .,'-arion pointedly addresses: "l)ntl.)[ogy for Gadamer clearly Jues have ñ\r' mati\'e implicati(tn:>, sit)ce he speaks of those who refuse to ahand'.)ll thems:eh'es {tilly to the play. Thereh}re, differences in human identity (~Llch n .... gender) may [x"come normatively inscrihl ... i into interrr~tatitms of heing" tSchorr 1991. 204), GaJame-r Jot's inde-ed cnntlate the nnwlngh.:al and tht.* normarive in his concept nf pIay. In his desire tli o\,\:.'rcnme the Jistanciared understanJing of subject and object. Gadanwr generali:-es th~ phen-nmenoiogy of une kind of rt'xrual experience. Play Three pf<Jblematks of Ul1.gU!Sttc VuineraHlity ,41 certainly Joes nor account fnr the vio-lent relationship that women often hu,'e with traditions, as we will ~ee In the G1asreU story. However, the cunclusion tD be drawn from_ this is not thar we can separate the onto-logical and the normative, as Crirical Theory does. but that we neeJ tohave phenomenologies of the differenr ways that we inhabit language, ones rhat display oppression, contestation. admiration. !viy reading ,,Jf the story is a gesture toward how our being-iñlanguage can be given ch<1racr~-ri:ations alrernative tn the ones rhat Gadamer gives, wirhout break~ Lng with his fundmnental insight that we inhabit language. I do not mean for these Gadamerian responses to exonerate his work entirely, for clearly, he is insensitive to the multiplicity of traditions and to the different effects of p<m-er. What 1 am trying to deflect are tamiliar critiques from the perspective of Critical Theory, which Benhabjb represenrS3 Even rnore deeply entrenched in modern culture than ethical fmInalism is dIe legacy of Kant's reJuctil)n of literature to the subjecrin:, aesthetic realm-wherher as formalism .or as Benhabih's and Habennas's indi\'iJual~[ic expressivism. Such an understanding of literature helps ITIoJen1_ ñãon ignore the way the languages of literature and other domaiñ_ weave in and out of each other as they constitute and make -claims on us: "The work of art has its true being in the facr that it hecnmcs an experience that changes rhe person experiencing jtll (Gadamer 1994, 102). Indeed, "exrcrk--nce" is an important wo,Jrd for Gadamer because he wants to deliver ir from a subjective sense of Erkbnis and give.:' it the tranSfl)frnã rive sense l)f Et1ahrung (60-100),22 GnJamer traces the hUit{}I)' of the w\lfd anJ concept of Erldmis in Truth and Method. locatingirs emergence intll .general usage in the 18705 IImh the work uf Wilhelm Dilthey, who ~mployeJ the term tn capture hoth the liveJ experience of an auth~)r or .social actor-and the result (64). Dilthey reconCcLve_s of experience as something more rhan mere sensation SO as to offer the human sciem;:es .1 new ft)lInuatil)n: -"The primary dam, to which the interpretarion nf hishlrical ohjects goe~ back, are n,,)t data of experiment and me<ilSUrel"nltl1t but lIni' ties of meaning" (65). Although [his concept nf experience is primarily epis:tertlniogical, its legaCy iSt)[ares aesthetic experience hom other tnTms of experience "Ã th~ -work ~)f art as :such is d world for itself, SL1 aisn what is experienced ãstherjcaUy is, LlS an Ertebnis, removed from all connections with actuality" (70).~1 Erkbnis thu~encap:sul-ates two features ~)f m()J~rnity's misreading of ~)ur being in language: the subjecrivl:ation of experience -and the isolatinn of the aesthetic. "The work of an is nor some alien universe into which \ve are magically rrans:porteJ for a time. Ruther, W~ learn ttl unJt."rsrand 0urselves in anJ through it ... , The binding qu.tlity of the experience (Erjahnmg) of art must not be Ji!iintegrated hy ae~r tlH~tic consciousness" (97). \X/hile the subjecti\'ist cuncertinn does "not include the Thuu in "Hi immeJiare and primary way" (GaJamer 19Y4. 250} because it aims tl,) "get inside another perslrn and relive his experiences," Gadamerian "unders-ranJing begins. , . when something addresses u~1> (299). In adJi~ riun, ErJ~'lhnmf!. hring~ an understanding of historicity [0 the cnncept of experi~ncethat Dilthey's Erlebnis omits (346). Like the ::icicntifk: experiment, Dilrhq''s historical methnd was "cuncerned tn guarante(> rl1Jt [its1 husk expt'ri(>nces could be repeateJ hy anyone." By insisting ~m repeat • .lhHJt')\ Dilthey's concept of "exrerience aholbhes ir£ hist-ory and rhus itself' (34 7). Gatlamer draws on HegeP:; idea \.tf experience as re\'ersal of con:;clt1USncss. as negation: "Insight is more than the knowledge of this nr thar situation. It always invnlves an e~cape froni. something that hal.i Jt:'ceivcd us and held us capti\'e" (356). Hnwever, Gadamerian negation is tf<-Kkt'J through the linguistically mediated experience l)f the subject. i;mJ not by the tmns-subjective account of the Hegelian narrarnr: '"The JiaLe..-:tic of experience has Its proper fulfLllment nO.r in definite knowleJgt' hn in the openness to experience that is made pussihle hy .experience itself' (155), anu in an ,lWclreness '\)f nur finitude and limitt_-'(lness" (162). Gadamer seeks to brt'!ak dCHvn the tyranny of the philnsophical concepr lwer nur idea of truth. This Kantian leg-ucy, which Ht'ge-l refined mthcr th<ln repudiated, keeps litcruture in sccondary posirion . ..'4 For Ciad-'.lmer, lirerature ..,erves '-->as a corrective fur the ideal of objective den.'rH'l.inj1[lon <:ind fl.Jr the hubris of con-certs" (GaJamcr 1981}, 190). tvlotcnver, he does not isobte the spl?culati\<[, pursuits of philosophy from l?veryday spL'f'ch, for he finds spe.culatj~>n in ordinary conversations: "Even in the evt?ryday speech there is an dement of spt.'~ulati\'e retlecti..}n," since rhi:-. h.1ppcns any time ""words do nnf reflect lx*lng. but expn:S!i n relarion [0 the whole ofheing" (Gadamer 1994. 469).':~ Instl ... '"aJ llf S:l~lues- tering the ta:;k nf phllo:mphy into normath'e de~ates. :.l!:i Benhabib does, ur trh'ializing irs sl}..,'11ificanct:'". as Richard Ro-rry dt)es,~(> G.ldamer's putS philÕt)phy at the heart l)f ,lur d.1ily Gll1YersatlllllS, Every tUteri:.U1Ce IS an l'Y~nt of bnguage that hluches ontological, normath'c, and eri:stemnk1gical i~"ues 5iL~1lllraneously, Philo50phy\; task is not rn cnnt~nt itself \. .. *ith th~ iñight that we are linguistic constructs nr to :seek trurh and gOl1..jness be-YlRld mt:'se "linguistic appearance!>," hut w unfold the pn(cntial an\.l th..: hbwrlcit)' of the medium that ct)nstitutes us-, Thn."e rroblematic~ nf LIOgui:>tlC Vulnerabilitv 14-9 Butler: Freedom as Effects Without Subjects Judith Butler, like Gadamer, follows in the \vake rhe "omological rum" initiated hy HeiJegger. She claims that her ontology of power is more primor.Jial than Gadamer's tradition. in the same way that he claimed his problematic was 1l10re primordial than the sur,jecti\'jsnl of hb predeces,..,ors. While both understand language as a medium for the subject and the \vodJ, their unde-r~tanJings _of this n1-edillm arc raJically different. For Gadamer. our heing is formed through the dialogical play of rradition. pf crith.JllC and retrie\'al~ while for Buder language is l1{)t a mcJium in which we swim but a disseminating nnt~)logy of power that pnxiuces t:ifects that cannot be characteri:ed in the \'ocahuiary of trã1ition anJ l.Halogl.le. \VhHe GaJamer makes a linguistic anJ hermeneutic re\'ision crt phennmenolog)\ Butler breaks completely \.\'ith the self~undersmru.i- ings and narrativE'S of $uhjecrs. In hl:r recent works, Exciwble Speech: A Polilin of che Performati'Pt> (1997) and The Ps~chic Life oj Power (1997), Butler aims to show rhat her philosophy dõs not \.ieny agency~ freedom, and equaltty, as detractors such as Benhahih m"lintain, but in tact gives a more perspicuous account lIt" these ideas once' *we undersrand ourselve:s as linguistically \'ulnemhk heings.:':7 Her philosophy draws on elcn*u.:nrs from bllth Foucault and llerrida. Fn){l). Ft)ucc:tult, she takes. the o.-mcept of p()\ver, which is the "formative and constiturive'" medium in which subject and \\*.,1rlll art': made. Power's particular manner ()f cnnstitution tends ttl produce a ~hal- low, defcnsiñ sdf-understanJing that disguises the \\-'ay that power re-ally npef<lr~s; "The cnndirioO-s of intelligibility are themselves fonnulated in and by power, and this nonnllrivt'.' exercise of power is nnely acknnwlel.igeJ as an \)perminn nf power at an" (Butler 1997<1, 134). This dissimulatil)fi proJuces (he rwn levels typicaj (.,f the hermeneutics of suspicion: a surface level that Chclf<lcterizes the ~df-'undef5tanding -of the culture, ~md:a dCCPl:f level that her analysis St:'eks to make available. PlWver "worb rhrough it~ ilh:gi~iHty: it escapes: the terms of legibility thm it occasions!> (134). -Our surert"ici~ll11ndersmndings of the production l)f meaniñ lead us tt) mis-imme issues such as censnrshir in terms t)f inJividuals and thestate. Vlie should nnt make the humanist mistake of seeing this as a question nf what nne can say; rarher, we need to make the Jeeper onwlogical cur and interrogate the "domain of [he sayable within which I begin to speak at aU" (132). Unlike the hermeneutics of suspicinn, Butler's approach Joes nnr place an explanation hehind tht! self-llnder:;randing- .3-,}0 EngenJeriñ Gãhunerj .. n Conversati,-'ns i.e., a [ruth beneath the appearance. Rather. the point is. to make the illegible legible. But the key tn understanding her work is not the familiar reworking of Foucault, but the way in which she revives Derrida, particularly his reading of speech-act thelJry. The choice of speech.,act theory is apr because It embodies the liberal assumptions about subjectivlt\' and language thar she wants to challenge, assumpttons that undenvrit~ not only the wlJrk of Habennas but rtlsQ contemporary debates over pornography and hate ~peech, which serve as the examples fur her cririque. For Hutler, liheralism falsely associates agency and autonomy with the conrrol of 1lleauing,and her phrasing of this critique often sounds very Gudametian: "The linguistic domain over which the individual has no control becomes the conJition of possibility for whatever domain of control is exercised by the speaking subject. Autonomy in speech is conditioned by depend~ ency on language whose historicity exceeds in all directions the speak; ing subject" (Burler 1997a, 28).lnJeeJ, Gndamer could only agree with her criti4ue of the liberal interpretation -of h-are speech, which ignores sllch speech's inherited character: ~'The suhject who speaks hate speech is dearly responsible for such speech! but that subject is rarely [he orig~ in<1(;.)[ of that speech. Racist speech works through the invocation of con; vention It (>4). Hate speech and pornography are "rraditions," which cannor be lncated only at the level of speakers. Moreover, like Gadamert Butler challenges the separation of description and norm that infonns libeml practical rea5t1n in which "we first offer a description ... and then decide ... through recourse to normarive principles" (140). However, -she differs from Gadc'lmer in rhat she want!> to hreak with tht:' unifying ideas of hermeneutics. such as narrative. tradition, and understanding. All of these ideas obscure where the act!!)I1 nf language renlly takes place. [n orJer to disc_em the way meaning operates, we neeJ to rC~Dgni:e thm rhe entire speech system depends on a repressed other, "the cnnstituttve outside"; "This 'outside' is the defining limit or exteril)fity to a giñn s)'mbolic universe. one which, were it imported into that univcNe, wl1uld destroy its integrity and coherence. In other words. what b set t .utside or repudiated from the symbplic unIverse in questillu is precisely what binds that universe _together [hrLmgh its exclusion" (Butler 19-97a).2;'; Because c0herence is achieved through exclusion, Buder jus- [ifies reading against the grainof meanings and understanJings for "effect-s, ,. so thar we are not trapped in the symbolic system.'::9 Butler is Three Problematic:; of linguistic Vulnerability 351 careful never to put the site of her theory "outside" the system since 0ppooition is "implicated in me very processes it opposes" (Butler 1997b, 17). Indeed, she criticizes such spatializing notions of subjectivity, which block out the temporality of repetition: what Derrida calls «iterability," the agent of change. as we will see momentarily. Howe\,er, if Butler refuses to spatialize her relation to the languages and subjects she addresses, she nonetheless -claim.') superiority for her language over the languages that she targets. Her bnguage hlends together the explanatory ambiril..ms of the \\<'ork of Freud and Lacan with the Derridean ambition uf transcendental philosophy to consider the conditions of possibilir:y of being. Through Derrid., she explicitly distances hetself ftOm the detetmini,m that she finds in psychoanalysis and Foucault (Butler 1997b, 130) wirhDut relying on a Gadamerian herm_eneutic phenomenl)logy. For Foucault, liberty is achieveJ by working out (he conditions uf "the possibility of 110 longer being, doing? (ir thinking whar we are, do or think" (Foucault 1984,45). Fe)t Derrida, langu"ge itself manite't:; a disseminatory -dimellSillf'l that is obscureJ by attention to conceptualh:ation. a dimensIl..m that he discusses through his neolobmms suth as 'Iiterability." Hence, when Butler disCUS5e5 the historicity of speech acts and Ian .. guage, she draws from Dettida's idea of iterability rather than Gadamer's idea l)f tradition. Perfonnatiñ' act!'; "engage actions Or constitute themsdve~ as a kind of actio1i~ ... not because they reflect the rower of an individual's will ur intentlon l but because they draw upon and reengage conventions which have gained their power precisely through a sedimented iterability" (Butler 1995,134). "Sedimentcd iterabihty" is a way of reterring to cultural channeling without presupposing that there is understanding or "know-how" that accompanies ~uch redundancy)': Butler reminds us that for De-rrida, the break with existing contexts is a "structurally necessary feature L)f every utterance and every codifiahle written mark" (Butler 1997<1, 150). The break is a transcendental condition l1f the utterance, a break that goes all the \.\-'ay down, and not a recontex[Ualiz:ation of a core of meaning that would provide a continuity vf understaru.hng. What Butler is getting at is the differencl! between the transcendental and the ernpif'icallevel of deconstruction. Perhaps. the simple-st way to characterize this distinction is through DerriJ~l's wellknu\,'n debate with John Searle over how -to categorize tictiona) -speech acts. A[ the empirical level, Derrida is challenging Searle's nixonnmy, but ar the transct;ndental level he is challenging the capacity of any ) -, ,tJxonllmy to contain-thedisscminatof)' dimension of languag~, because "iterability blurs a priori the dividing line that passes ht:!tv.'een.* _ .oppdst.'d terms" (Derrida ]977, 210).11 We should ñ1t lament this truth about the_ interrupting other of our language. about dur inability [l} connol meaning, becau~e ~uch logl)(:t.:'ñ tric mourning ignores hl)W this Jissemlnatory lllovement of langu<1ge~ anJ nor the wills of acrOf$---opens space for ne\l,' pt)$sibilities and for a 111.H1sovcreign i,,1ea uf freeJlnu: "The disjunction b ... tween utterance and meaning is the condition of potiSibHity for revising the perfomlarive .... The ciwtionuliry of tht' performance produces the põ'Sibili!y for agency anJ exprnpriatiun at [he same time" (Butier 1997a, 87). Hence j "unrt:"th* ering the speech act fr*urn the sovereign $lIbjecr fnllnds "Ill alrern;Jtiv~ 11l1tiun uf agency and ultimately of responsibility, nne that ml..lfr . .' fully acknowledges the way in which the subjecr is cnnstituted by language" (15). The disjunction L\f meaning tS the cnnJition of the* pllssihility ui resignifk:arion, nf linguistic ch~mge that no indlviJual ~)r institutjon can cL'mrain. Thus, those who want to han hare spee-ch attribute to the speaker and his ,x her hmguag.e a .:illvt."leign power that uvcdunks the way that tho:oie rargeteJ by ~uch i-anguages h.we fought back, have c\)lne tl) re::i11{)l1J tll and reinscribe the language of oppressiun by Varil)US llwans. These responses are not to be attributed simply [0 the punctu<,ll agency of inJividuals. but also to the transcendental uncontainability of langU<lge that nmke:.s discrert: acts of revoIr pos.sible. I ': However. there is a tension. hen:: bdween Butler's account of the agency of the opprcs!';cJ and their llwn self.unJerstanJings. The liherry qf thl.: subject tt1r Butler comes from the disseminating cffecb of meaning as they wt..1rk through and against the received self-understandings: proc~sse.s that deny and/or *ignure this truth. Butler senses that she must negn(iate these two le .... els of meaning, one for the received vocabuhlric;; of the subject and one for thõe who think thruugh her rhird-persnn vncabularies of effects. H For Gauamer, the onrology uf tradition (('yuires that we revlSt' hut not abandon the nKabularies of self-understanding in nrJer hI bring rhem into his new understanding. There is .still a tension bet\\'een inside ilnd nursidt', a tensinn that Gadamer themarizes wirh the expr~ssion "historically effected consciousness," \vhich means "at once the cond-cioL.lsness effected in the cour5e ttf history anJ I.,lerermined by histnry, and the \'cry consciou~ness 'l>f being thus effected and deter~ minctP' (GaJamer 1994, xx.xiv). Howe\'er; \vhile GaJamcr makes hb con* n.'prl()ns nt finitude and language l)pell to challenge by thirJ.~peL';~)n HLcounts. he insists that the challenger Jraw the hermeneutic circle ncn\'een her theory of subjectiYity and her own utterance. Butler, on tht.' other hantl, rn.akes the categnry "disseminatory .dfecrs" stan>..l at such an ilnglc to ,tIl the ethkal .<lnd 3xil)lngical \'ocabubries \,)f philD~t)rh)' and everyJay life that the hermeneutic circle is forever b1'Õ ken and ~lracrical ju .. igmeIits are paraly=ed. This paralysis emerges hom the gar herv,:een h~r ideals and her prnblematic. The goals \i her ptf\jcct ure unc~)nm.l'\*ersiah "rht:: dcvelopnlcnt <,)t t~)nns of differentiation [that cl)ulJ} lead t() fundamen[ally more capacinus, genen1u51 and 'unthreat~ eneJ' ht?arillg~ of the .self in the mld::a of cummunity" (Buder 1995. l4D). However, W~ need hI ask hp\\, we shnuki understand <ll"\d culti\'ate such \'(rrues and tht..' inwrsuhjectivity on which they depl.'nJ, when we are al\,':~lYs ltlnking from [he trtlnscenJl"ntal site of effect:--. Withuut an a(:Ct)unt of hil\\' [hesl..' iJeals emerge from the history ,-i effects, thl;:"Y seem to :,-imp[y ,..1rn1' from the sky. as Jt..les the subjectivity II a crttk who is nl)t ~nsnare,J in [he same way i.l:S her pn.:decessurs.1-I Benhahih mount:) t\\'l) criticisms uf Butler's deconstwctlve pnsitil.ln, l)nt: empirical. whkh is gruunded in sucial :;,clL--nce, and the lltht"f no1'mati\"l~'., which is grnunJt:..1 in phi.lu£ophy. T!..) the firH Issue, she writ~s that '~some flirm nf human agency ... is cruci;ll tl) make empirioti se-use ot proce&;es l)f r),$ycht,-sexual Je\*e1opment and maturatitm" (Benhabib 1995, 110). In other wl)rds; "Can the theory <lCc~)Unl for the carilCirles of agency and re*signification it wunts to ,Htribl,lte to individuals?" (l j 1). With truth in the hands qf :->nciai science, philnHrphy is now only abuut working lm the proofs of universals: hA certain ordering nf.nonnutin.' pril,)riri~$ an .. 1 '-' chlriticaril1n l1t rhll~ principles in the flclme nf which llflt:" ~pe;'lk:-, is unav()idahlc" (27).1~ Benhabih r.ring:-> the::.e criticisms tl.>Merher when she S~1yS to Butl~r anJ Jnan Scott, "Women wht..} negotiate ilnd fL"'Sist power In not exist~ the only struggles in hisrory .are het\ñen Cl)tnpcting paral..ligms of discou~e.s, rowcr/knuwledge <:;umplexes" (114 ).l.h Fnr Benhahib, this is ultimatdy <l moral questi{)H rather [han a quc:stilln about epistl:tl1nlogy ur onwlt)gy: "'Should we appr:oach hbtory t.{~ retrieve from ir the Yictims' nH.:."mudes, lust snuggtes <:lnd unsucce5~ful resistances, or shuulJ we 'lpprl..;ãh hist\lry tt) retri.eve fr,-)ffi it rh~ mnnl)rOnl)US succes~ sinn nf infinite 'r"l\ver!knt..l\\'ledge' complexes thilt constitute sdn.:s?" ( 114). Hl'r~ we sct' ht)w sht.: Ct1J1tlates a hist;.)ricl1 que:-.tkm lwer the force ~,f bngwlge an,,1 insfitutlnl1S into a questinn of the morality uf rnemory. Hõ\' WI: rememher the lives uf women is n\)( determme .. i by a hbtUf' leal reading ll{ the Gll1sai dt"kacy ,)f thdr actions. Thi:>. ~n1fk \')~"'r'Dsiti\m 354 Engendering G~lJameIian Com'ersatlon5 between agents and constructs blocks our a more perspicuous phrasing of the que,tion of how to read history that both Benhabib and Butler avoid, but that Gauamer brings tLl the sufiaee." Should we read the languages that constituted the subjects in question as enabling or damaging K.rces- (t.)f both), an,d to whar extent are our current languages continunus or discontinuous with them? We must make an interpretive judgment about \vhether we want t-O write a narrative that henneneuticaHy fetr-leves, or a genealogy that helps us resist and escape. Both Benhabth and Buder and Scott stay away from a hemleneutic understanding of language. Benhabib fllr the sake of formal dil,llogue tJ{ legitimacy and Buder and SCOtt for the sake of epistemological commitment to [he iiCM.:iological and historical conditions of subjectivity. TIlis problem p()ints to a larger i!'isue in Butlees overall project. There is a litnit to how far we can read our predecessors and contemporaries <l:S "dupes" nf processes that they do n{)t understand hut that are avaHable to the c'ritic armed with a theory and a therapeutic interest. We have tn he able to account fur our own ability to escape and fl)f the val .. ues that drive this effort. This -phrasing of the perfurmative contrddiction is historical-i.e., Gadmnerian-nor Kantian, as Benhabih's anJ Habennas's is. Buder's problema_tic offers no way to discriminate among languages d1Ut empower and those that do damage, for this w()uIJ require tnl)re guiJance than is availnble -from reference to a rranscendental genemtor of liberty through effects-, This problem is nicely dramnti:ed in the following statement hy Buder: "If perfllnnativity is c(m~tru~J as that power of disclmrse to proJuce effects through rdteratiun; how are we to understand the limits of such production, the constraints under which such proJuctinn occurs?" (Butler 1993, 20). "Effects" has the aniihermeneutic diInension that characterizes tanguuge Jive.')teJ of its axinl\)gical character. This useful moment of distandation must be appropriated by the language of a "we," and Butler puts this hermenell~ tic vocabulary in her sentenc~-"we" and "understanJ"----hnwever, she never says how she make:-; the move frnm "performmtvhy" and "production" t\) this **we." rY1oreo\'er. thiSstance is vulnerahle to the critique Gadamer makes ot Sllci.d scientific explanation-that it does not listen to languages of the r~t. The ear for otherness is tone deaf tow'ard m,Jst languages, To be sure, a de-constructive approach can be open to otherness in a way that is left t1ut by cunceptual anJ humdnisric categl)ries such as \',,1iCt anJ diaklgue. But thert.'" is alStJ a loss in trying xn cscape all humanisl. ve::;tig-t':l thrl)ugb Three Pwhlcmatics LlfLinguisIic Vulni,!rabiljty 355 a vocabulary of "effecrs/' which divests these bnguages of their appeal and (he dialogical reiatit)nship we can establish with them. "Historical consciousness knows about the otherneM of the other, about the pust in its otherness. just as the under:s-tandmg of the thou knows the Thou as a person" !Gadamer 1994, 360). Butler's recourse to a third-person tran- £cendental perspective reproduces the reflective elevation of the philosophical observer outsIde a -dialogical perspective on experience) by virtue of his or her access to 11 theoretical modeL "A person who reflecrs himself out of the mutuality l){ :such relation changes this reiaticmship and JestTDYs its moral bond" (360). It is this kind of philosophical hubris that Gadarner's own transcendental arguments for tradition ,are designed to check: "We art.' cllncenloo to conceive of a reality that limits "und exc.eed:, the omnipotence of reflection" (3'42). Of course, the ho-listic language of hermeneutics-Udialngue," "tradition," "sdf. .. undersranding. u and "narrative" --can be broken down intt) alteIi1<.ltive units vf amllyshi that {.)pen and reJescribe the phenomenological vl>cahuiaries of individual anJ collective actors. This waS always the claim of social explanat1t)ns against "subjectivism." However, to set up an absolute break with these understandings, even if through theauspices of a tral1:icendental i.ugument rather than a thenretlcdl explanation, is a logical, ethicaL and political mistake. )t\ 15 ir indeeJ empowering to have no way of orienting ourselves or of accounting f_or our linguistic capaciries? Dn_es it make much sense to speak of Rosa Pmk!j\ agency only through the third-person language of "effects" tButler 1997a, 147), and to avoid discllssing the resources of tht' tr<-lJirl0ns l1urlineJ by Guy-Shefrall's book un the history of African American feminist writings! !vloreover. Buder's philosophy of language does not help llS understm~d the appeal of Rosa Parks's story, itsclaim on us. W By refusing tn move to a hermeneuric vocabulary in which subjects appn .. lprtate the "effects" of historidt)\ she cannot account -for wom~n's achi-evement anJ i.Ktil.)n. or flJr the v/ay in which texts move us h) political change,"4l' A :similar problem arises in Butit'!r\,. discu5sion of traunu.,. Trauma opens a dimension l)f histllricity that is not available in Gildamer. As Cathy Carurh explains. trauma is not an experiencear all. but a skip in experience, in which the subject must "check out!l in order to survive.';] Traumati:eJ persons, says Caruth. "beCtlme the syniptorn Lif history they cannot entirely possess" (Canlth 1995, 5). Huv:ever, Btld~r draws on this theory only tn exteno the distance between the violent construction of suhjectiviry and Our selfunde-rstandings. "Social trauma rakes the funn, not of a structure that fl~peats mechanically, bur mther nf an ongoing subjugation, the restaging of injury through signs that both (lCclude and reenact the scene" (Buder 1997<l~ 36). True enough, bur nnw the task is to understand hov.' the effects of traumas are to be ameliorated llf "wnTked thwugh" by witnessing, in which the intersuhjecrive connection anJ. [he particulars of represenration are crucial. Butler poses this questi(~n pre, ctselY: "The rc;,p0!lsloility of the speaker dnt:"5 rH .. "lt cnnsi;sr of remaking langU<1ge ex nihiIo, but rather of negotiating the legacies cl usage rhar constrain and enable thar speaker's speech" (27). HJ.lwever. she never addresses the question of h~)w We make political judgments ahout his* torical inherimnce, preferring to s~ak only of (he "prior." lTanscenden* wI condition of ~l11language!'i through such phrases as '\::itatlonaliry,",,2 Wt' are now ready t~)r <.U1 example of htl'" Gatlamer's hernwneutics can help ~~d\'ance this dehate. I have selected SU$,m Glas~1ell's short story "A Jllry (II Her Peers" because it offers it phe-nnmennlngy of intelJ1retatitU1 in a stmightforwanl '~gossipylt language thm calls inttl questinn the boundaries of art and evcryJ .. 1Y spC'ech, Moreover, it foregrounds th~ way Uadamer's understanding of languagecan hring lirenuure and philoSl); phy together in a pftlducrivt' and speculative way so that truth is nnt hanJe\.1 over to social sciencc, as Benhabih is too quick tn do. Mt)r~over> this S[t)fY will pemllt us W address two familiar ohjections to Gad~llner's \'\Ylrk~that his idea of tradition is unitary anJ exclusive, and that it ignores pnwd.*!i Th~ tale hegins when Mrs. HaIe is caned from her work in the kitchen to jnin her hu~hmd. Nlr. Pt'rers (the sheriff). an....i his wife. ?\.-irs. Haie, the ~enrer of t\Kaiiz;Jtinn for the thirJ,person narmrivl.:, It-,arñ that Mr, \X/right. the hushanJ of an nld friend. has been killed. The sherif{suspects Mrs. Hale's trit'nd Minnll' ha:; killed her husband. The group rnxeeds to the Wrights' home, where it :-;plits ur. The meLl go ()U[ to the barn to Inok for t"vidence thar can L"-Stablish a motive for lvhnnie, while rhe \vomCn wait in the kitcht.'n. While sitting there, they encounter the "kxt" tlf ~1innie':, lIfe-the dirty toweb. the mishundlt:,:J stitching on her quilt, rhe act of vi(.)lence of which she is su;;pt.'ctt'd, and so nn. That is, tl-H..' J\lmi~ nant tradition that the women hring to Minnic's house, <.1 rraJith1TI that they shan' with their husbands, forms ph::'lmderstandings that do fit)[ help them reconsritute th<.' self-underswnJing of the text. The men haVt' called .tvHnn.i~ "m,ld:' and the women <1[ this roint can. anicubk no other rt'aJing, e\'en th,)ugh they sense that more is at ~[ab.' here fnr them. Three PrQOlematk, "I ling,";,,;, Vulnemb;[;,y l57 Slowly the women sL'lrt to put together an exp'anarion of the strange, ness of Minnie's text~the s,'stematic psychological tOrture to which her hU:5band subjected her, a torture that culminated in the strangulation of' lvHnnie's double. her pt:'t bird. The process of coming to rhis exrlanatit.m forces them ttl transform their sdf,understandings (the texts of their own livcs and inJeed the entire culture of the thue). Minnie's text asks them disturbing questil)US, not just the other Wily around. To understand this text means that tlwy Olll. no longer remain who they an:. This is the risk and promise of iiri2-,'tiistic \'ulnerability, They discover that l\1innie's hushand was not just "a cruel n1an,1l but also a typical one and that Minnk's response Jiffers only in degree, not in kind, fn:J.m the ones they have ru1J hut represseJ. The story's off-stage narratnf shows their complex ht.:rmeneutic *inter~lC[ion with the text~som.etimes it grabs them anJ sometimes they push it away~thm is rarely made explicit in their consciou~ness or in ... lialogut". The women are n*ot exchanging claims in dis. 12urji\'c Jj.alogut", hut experiencing a rupture in the very medium that constitutes them. This. medium that Glaspdl dispL.1yS finJ~ no place in either Benhabib':> or Buder's understandings oflanguuge. The wmnen of the !:itor)' lill not "enlarge their mentality," and they do not ~ut.hl~nly find th~mselves downstream fr.om a history of effects, The context nf their reading-their moments of isnlm[on interrupred by their hushands' coñ descending remarks about the triviality of women's occupations-helps foster their t.mnsformative reading. The women recognize that the val. ues and textures of their (lWn lives are neither read nOT recognized by their husb~ln,Js. and th~u the forces that drove Minnie mad operate arnund and \vithin them a.~ well. How.ever, this is not just a liberal drama tlf equality. The wnmen come to understand the distinctiveness of their tradition, t1 trnditinti that gues unreaJ by the men and the tradition thar dominates their culturt>. The women do nor simply take lv1innie 1s point ()f vie\\'; thev Jisc{wer rhe narrow sucial space in which their living has been chanñled Hnd the anger that they haye been sndali::.ed ttl ib~or('. Th~ Jominant tmJitllm in which they ha\'e Jived, which has nouris.hed them intl) the l'l:articubr cultural shapes they now tnhabit, suddenly appears as nano\"\' and nrrrcssivc as well. Gentler and power make the <.mtnh)gy of thl'ir being in language 5i.Jrnething far ,different from Gadllmer's play, but it is an ontological relationship nonetheless. Ambinllent ahnu£ rhe knowledge thm [heir reading is bringing ahmt . [hey alt~rn<1(ivdy leap at it and then nide from It_ The boundaries. of their :-:.dyt':'s run'e h.een unravded as lviinnie's texr nor only speaks to them 3S{l Eng~nd.:ring Gadam~rilln Conver:>athm .. , but tor rhern: "It was m; if something within her not herself had spoken. and it found in lvirs. Peters something that she did not know as herself' (Glasl'dl 1918, 2(2). When Mrs. Peters discoversthe strangled bird, she dues not jU::>f solve aderectiVe's riddle but reworks the fabric of her memory and identity .... .o....s she recalls and reinscribes the story uf what a boy with a hatchet had done to her cat many years ago, she gets back the feeling of that past moment. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters arrive at an expla-nation nor by deraching themselves, but by engaging their personal feelings and the particularities of their individual lives. Minni~'s text forces. [hem to_ see themselv_es and their husbands in a way that requires a new language, a language that draws on the particular ways that the women have of understanding.44 Unlike Minnie, they are ,ahle to create a way of speaking rhar unites them with each other and separates them from the men. They chonse to hide the bird (conceal evidence) and berray their hU5bands-. The women do work in a distinctive hniistk and intersuhjecfive way, as Carol Gitligan notes:!'i However, what is crucial in the story b nnt the "different voice" they bring (0 the house. but the one th-at emerges during the course of the story. Simply to valorize their HeMe" !'werlooks the forces of domination in the linguistic dram.a of their tmnsformation. and attributes to them an idealized agency thar Butler and Scon rightly criticize.*' These women are not asserring £heir auronomy ()ver and above their linguistic embedding. Reading thrnugh that conception of agency, we would miss where the action is. At the same time, to read the stnry in tenn."i l.1f mnvements of discoursedoes nor account for their achievements. which are their ne\Yfoul1d capacity to recognize Minnie ul1d each other and their capacity to rein[erpret their lives. We see a linguistic phe~ nomenology thar can display hoth me fl.1fCeS of domination and the forces of change at work in the wQmen and their situation. Such a phenome~ nlilogy cannot lirnit itself to the boundaries of COllsdousnlCss. nor can it di;mltSs exper-ience asmerely superficial in order to locat~ hisroriel1 rlluvements only in dis-curslve shifts inaccessihle to participants. Rather. rheir achievement is captured be[ter by Gadamer's h.1ea ofhisroric;ll coñ .:-;ciDlIsne:-.s: "His-Lllricai coñdousneS5 no longer simply applies irs own criteria of undt:;rstnnding to the tradition in which it is. situatL-'d, nor does it naively as;;imilate rradition and simply carry it on. Rather, it adopts a reflective posture toward both itself and the nadition in which it 15 sitUi:\tcJ. It und-er$ta11Js itsdf in terms of its own history. Historical coñ sclnllSne% is il mode of self~knowledge" (Gad~mer 1994, 235). Three Prohl~matics of Linguistic Vulnemt-iHty 359 My reading of this story is designed to .show how hermeneutic phe .. nUinenl)}ogy has an indispensable place in contemporary feminist philosophy. Although Gadamer's ideas of tradition and dialogue need serious revision. the attempts by Critical Theory and postsrructuraHsm to set up problematics against a hermeneutic understanding of our being-inlanguage have impoverished the conceptions of interpretive political judgment availabletl) us. Benhabib's moral certainties cannot rise above the-ir linguis.rk histuricity. Bud\!"r's explorations of the limits of the sayable may expose th~ inconsistem:::ies and inequalities of our linguistic inheritancej h(l\ve-ver, her work leaves us no way of choosing how to live through nur languages ins[ead l.)f simply against them. Here we see where Gadamer can medbte the Jisput~ hetween Benhabib and Butler, between rh~ sep- -aration t"lf individual agency and language and the_ postsrructuralist reading of linguistic agency without persons. The need to account fix power and tatiGnalit)' cannot lead us to ignore this kiru.i of linguistic embodiment. Henneneutic.s carl serve as a mediator t;,) the ontulogical dogmã tism of-its cumpetirors1 tor understanding has a priority' uver geneaklgy in the same way that it does over explanation. Any theory of subjectivit)* and intersubjectivity must make holistic assumptions about what subjects arc embedded inl and Benhabib, Butler, and Gadamer all give different and overly grand answers.. The ontological medium of women's being~in- language dot's not ~'lve a mont"1lithic answer in which an antihermeneu~ tic untology of power or hermeneutic ontology of tradition determinl!s :-;uhjectivity .. An interpretive phiiosopby needs [0 be ontolqgicaHy flt!:xi~ ble enough w have a place for the complex history of wl.)men's inrernal ~md ex[ernal oppre!:>.-')ion, f~)-r women's achit."vements j for the multiplicity of their languages, and for their re-vlsions. An interpreter must m.akc a Gadamerian move that Benhabib's Kantianistn and Butler's transccndenwI linguistic generator prevent. She must $how how she closes the hermencuth: drcle, piacing herself in the linguistic lineage that she want:; [0 retrieve and 3hrainst the languages that she wanrs [0 critique. 1. TW.I Ln!l .. cntlñ g:int g'''.j rt>Pf6t'nt;:tfh'n ,II the idtt'm;l(]n:~. Buder anJ "Xc*n. ",J". \l'N2l. F"lll(lHH, TIt.!"I1~': ril .. Poiilleal :mJ l)eohitlv,l-, cJ. {199(1). D.:JTh''-1\!C:- <mJ DiJf>!h';"';;!; l":"uittL'5ting rll!' Bm-/JduH>..'; 11* :he l'ol;trc"lll. ~. Lller In the Ch:l?h.'r, I .. nU a<iJn-"~~ .Ith~*f curn.:dn.~ .If fl'mlHi~1 P'l(:uc.ll rhik,"\lrh\* tn.l ."ih* !h" dd.nj" "I &'nh;.h)-.\ ;Ui,j Butlct\ rrl.)Hem:.lth:~. i, H,lh<-'rm,\, guo,; ... ", hr J.~ hI oe n univcr»:<1 th"nty ~lt tntuni"n hI ":UnUnunlC;mH' pre .... tlrp..l~i, 11, .n....: "n;er~' !~:I UllWI.-'f ... ,Il (:<.)fl: <l! muml mtllinl)!1 10 ;11l time, .ñJ ,\1] .... Kkul*~ "oJ ~lH~ l~ \"I;X<lU"": ;]It,T:,' ;,t~ 'Ul1,w"IJ.;bll! rresupp;)sitl''ll:> _,t .:,)mmUfiK;ltiV<, ,Kth'ltftH .• hell".l;h 1-1\'-,'\ 206)_ 4. R"nhIH" ,>ar~, .. \ ;1Ill $t!l! l'n-'Ug!:. uf a H~ .. :dl:m n.) maintain ... theU ~u<:h n:drr'l(,ll f('C"g' mn:.::n ,i Ulk ,m<>Ib::rs riwu~ t;l muml p..'~m:IIiW is a n:~uit ~n;1 worl<.!~hl~wnL.!i l'ro(cS:< Ibn 1Ll\', ,l\"<*~ :>Hu;.:,;l ..... runk. ,mJ rv~blath:<:. ã wdl iu;_~kle".tL ..:arrkJ om ~y 'il"<:lal da<,,<,,~, j!~'nJL'f;,. i!f't'ul"', Hn.! n.lo"I\5" lR~*nh.lhb It;!Y6, 7"1). 'i. ~'-~ I;l'tll-.ah[h*~ .... xcell.*nr dl ... Clb-. ... i,'n (If rnb pfl.lJ-.krtl in ..:hap. 1 ,,! h..:r (:mllfl.h'. ;\',mn. Ull.: L [\>1'''.' !;;. ".-,\;, JI:-! Lr'F-'1.l1~h .. J !rum .::cH.llfl kin .. !:;.,( K,tlH.a01"il!, i. w<>uld hk..: h' ,l..::kn"wk.l~ th.: h>H,'rK.tl auJ "'lCh)I<~).!IGlt ~rl!"::lt~cH;Y ,,{ th..: rn'l,:"::1 ,;1 J .. wo<.:r.k*" whtl .. , ;'I1"lll"l ,,*Ihn''''cnln-l.' lib~*r.II.Hll. I WdUIJ \;k~* h' ll'L~l~{ lha. rr'ldl"::.J1 mn"naliry ~H:bo.,lh..J in ,lCtnllcr.ltK Il,~1tWfl"'lh hã..J (ultuf<'Iran"':;(''nJUl),: yahduy cbim" Ilx'nhaHh \1,1',)0. (9). I. "';c>: .'\r~*nJl':,* L,'dHrd on ;":wu\ P,dw(,;l Phil....",phy'. ocnruHh lto (fltK;!1 \11 ,,(ber J1!T1L'ñi"n.' ,)j _-l,.r~'lhh\ tb"U!Eht hut n,'l ",{ hn ph:I'l~'iphr ,)1 nilff;.ltt\*..: :md bngu;l;,!t:. h,: In hnl:'l, Ca,l.lln!;'f anJ ?>.l:ldm-YfI.* Illi\ln::lin 1ltm we .llwaY"-_<Ilrc;-.J], lI1hnht n'l!Tatiy<:'- "HnT!l" ;\r~ h" ... J k'(urc-fh",), dr", t\lIJ." (~bdnty~ 19:14. 211)-whl'{J.:C;I" An."nJl lnJ,kL"" \añu<lll.~' ~n::onJ;lr\' t<l "'P:U:" l'£ ~.lf'rc:mmct's: '''v;il.i~ ir not rn.:ds..:l'i th ... Jb::<1\*(.'r\* (It :l dbcrepan..:y hetwe"'o \\,'>fd~, tlw nk";.iaml In which we Ihi:1k .. mJ th", wurlJ "j .lfpo,*.lr-.lfl(I,.'"':, thc tlK'Llium II~ wlu.:h \\,; Hñ, tb,lt 1., .... 1 h'l'hd";;"lpny ,mJ m ... t:.1!,hY~K'" in th~' (bt pLtc('!" (Ar"l.'n .. !t inS. I, hI. H ... CIU:i-<.: "t'K:' "'-;l1H~ I, -' !,rl'SI.'r\ \: 1'h..: I'fI<lnt r ,>1 tIl\.' WI ,rl.1, >vd hlñIl,lh-';, sh~* rcn'1M!S phii. 1.'_ 'Phy'~ rypk;;} lmOli~klj\g "rCT- ;11 1"11. ~" that C\'cry,lav ,C'\t-.lm..k'PiwnJtng ltr!lll.l~~ the thm.kil~ "",If. .... -hl~*h ," "n;»\,,..-.\fe <>1 a ,,\\'n \\'l'dlo,lr,I\\*.I~ lrnm th", U"mm<l11 \V,'rlll ul ,lr1''''':;!l~m..:,-~'' \Arclu.1t 1'178,1, ~i)_lknl!;~h'I' ..:I<:~." \,admHe til I r,il!tt.:UI ;* ... ~"*HJ,I: Th,,' Rdll~'Wtll \1,dl.'l't) l. '16), .1' If lhi~ \,;",1.\w~*;~* '_'mp.lt'lhl...* With An.:rhh:\ ,mJ lwr "WI). I ,Jj"',_,b-" th~'"", !l,lTr:lli\'~' bsw.*,.;1t l"Dt!rh in "Ar~'nJt ' .. ",r,m Ellts-'n.\11 Ltuk j\".;:k: Til" R<lk d L1H)2ll.,lC<" In P"lirk<11 hiJgm<;nt.~ 'J. l-\cl'.1H.~L* .A.n.:n.1t ;K':-l'l't~ the ~*rbt,,*m,,1.'\!"k,:;lllr;I,IiI~.'n.4 I'hll'hdr'hi Ih.1I 1,><.:;H.:", I'Htlh "ut* .~d..: 1.m.!""'!'.l;!C. ".,he lIlll,,1." as AlhfL*,:h! \Vdlnwr ,~I~'"'' "\I',:.l\c 1iK" ll!Hl:;1n \n,riJ, 11Ml h, the l'<,mm\)Jl \\*"rlc! ,1111",":11 \1J'-*Il~*J ll!' hy "i'l."--..:I1. fh .. , \\"rlJ 'Jl f"'!IIK", .mJ '<',,;;,Try, ,IIJllln)"I')"; ,;n,l pd~m!--. h-,:,'lld (lr ;Ih,,\y Ihe ~l'ht,;f\: "f n'gl\Jth<ll~ 1,\'l/d1m::r Il.)o.1{'l. 42 \. 1,'\, ":-:H1u: ,\ pJ)!I1l"'ll1 ,,( I.l;l\' U;\ .Ih*(.'~ the u"h(I\'UHW~" th;11 ali Illh'h -I ,~k-:!" ,,\11 ,I[ 11, II IllH~t ,Ib" 11l\" .Iv,: II ..:bllll 1\1 xtn:! \.';,lIIJ t~\r -:\dh>n .... , hlJI Knh,>;t! \-i:J\'1l\C" !lHl\'c'-r~,dlt\' h"L,,1 "n L,jllo.:"*I't~. In "I),-:r w"hl~,:, jnJl,!tnL'l1t .,! [,,,,1.' m"~1 ll1y,lhT,'I ~'l,lim I'J ~1Ij.ln._II,,*e \ltl!\,L*f~.!lity" (K.Hl( [Y:-;7. '*B. 1 !. l-bkhtin "'I:;~ tlll~ !Bedy \\ h ... n It .. * ldl~ u~ 111.1f h(L'Lltllr~' ~r~'\'\'Jb 1).'1 .'n1\th~* r~';IIH" 111 ;\ ~i\'dl tl11J.:H;I~~* bm .11"..-" :1, !l \"".'rC'. Uo-l"',,:ll!i,IL :t~ i.1c,\: I.:ml(" .tl'W I;" ",1;;\ m':"r:in;: ".<t1~*~'n'c,1 ,j~ J 'I'h"k*, It" Irulh t"!-,~*th<'r \\lth II~ lillH!;IIl.'ll~" \ RI\':hlll1 19~1. Fit.). I::. \-i,Ih.:nn;'b ['<.*f\<>flllS Ii\<,; ~;\m{' trick "'tlh lu~ t~k';l "f lili,'\H'!1'kl: ".-\~.l rt:~"ura' (f,m! Whh_h mt .. r* .I.:!IV,* p,J,nl':il'atH~ ~Ufi'!>n jUlvran..:.;,; ..::ar:1hl.c ,,{ ,c,l.:hirm ..::,m"c:ñlt~, lh,,' hfnn!fIJ .-.l1~,iHUlc~ all ~'''I\!\''-<lk'ril t"r \\-h_lt tlw l~hd('N\l'h'i ,lj' rlw ,uh)~Lt na,t ;1hl:fllxJ III .,;"n'~'h'\I"lW,-" \II !!~'ñ'r;ll ;J~ ~yn' rhL'lh ;K":'>l11ptbhUl<'n:~. '. [C1Hncr~r<, fc1Dlb _,j !iI" ñrl.!n* traño.;-nJ..*nt.d ... '.'I' .... I"tblh."" 111 It~ lUlktlc-.n ,)1 ñ'"l1m~ UBil!" (H;\hcrm;t;,; 1'It'{ ... \~(,), I ~_ ",h\.' d,j;m, :h,jt chi .. al'p:o;_l~h k' the hi~t.'fY "j pbd\~'f~'" I;,ll,,,,;~ \X'ah .... 'lRenpllH" tl\:nh,I)~tl' [,ll/.?:. ~ l<,!\. iknpmm ,U\J ArcnJ .... iured.t h,Jrtnr "t Hq .. 'd'~ l'hi.!'~1~n,. .,f'llbh'f';. 'I,nd. In ñ[JhJl'ir\ V!,,*W. "her r('~l"'11~ \,:,(.~ rhe "'lm~' ,1.." Ihl~l: "hI t.cc,!k the cham <II' n;ilf;!tIV<' ""otil,\,!j,\, .. _ I" ~tr~ .. ,.l",!oll'Iellt.mH ... * ... ,., hl"(0';.::.1I Jc~,ll*I1.i.." t.Uhlfl:". ,n).! rurll1r>'~" t :9'-16<1.. :,:,;L 1-4. J",m ::;"-,,It\ t;..:n.1 .. -r dad His!(ff) be the 1.I(\J~ c\,b"'I~1.!~ jur d-'H' ":f1l1"-1U'" d ,hh \ icw~ ~Fet\l1nh( lll~I"'~' Ih~'n hC":~lnlC" n,\' ,he ret::mmtmg ,\I ).!f't,1.1 J~~.J<; rl"rt~mnc,11'Y """men hit 111<.' ~''''r-'h\;r~' ,'f Ille plt,'n "lent .l.nJ hIJJ":1l ,,!'<"r,ln,m- "I' .:';I1.';{"'f th.H ,1fC :1,'n,,'t1wh:~_ l'r ... ~ent ,1IlJ clchnm_1! l"fn'~ in th.: ,'f),,!.\l1l:;lIjnl'l c>f rr.,r.( ~'>(":l"!Il"~. \'VHh t~l!~ Jppn1;.u.:h \\'\lmdl~ i\l>-h'r\ cr.rH;.I!1y .::"nlr.Ii';'" the 361 r"h:I'~ "f .... xi~{il~ hi~I,'r\ auJ llk .... *li.thlr j,,-,>.'iJl~ thx fl,"wnt:!l_,,- ,,( hbll'I'Y~ l5':,_lti l>i~6. 2i). I r .... ulfi' h' ~(,n 1a.1:'r. I". In "DC.5lmlu'l<m JllJ ~-\c...*"ñtmc:u"il:* GaJa/nd S'IY". "\('i-<ei) 1 ~p':;lk <t!tf;!dnl.l!1 JnJ l:~,nv<!',- s'l(j"n wuh tL1Jm,'n, I an-,;o no \\'..l'! rUlt~n;.: f~lrv.*,lrd.\ .::,,11...'<.:[\\',' ~ul>j<X:[" luaJm.lkr 1'ki9. II i;_ J6. ::k~' Ll'hlrL..~ T.n-Illr\ uaJarnl.'tlan h.k;; "I .Irucubth)t\~ "In tfolt1;;kr -wi.;" lu~ "ur,\; rn the ic\*d ,'I ul",;ill,cm),! rnn':lf'h' I~}f r*fL'}cnt l'I.\CllC .... ~ .... nJ hen.::t.: h,,',!,'qJ l':;:aminat!p!l mto a n",w t.lf WhiCh Ih~fL' ~'.111 !~ ro;;;I,,'ñ e:tr.rt t.,r ,or ag;lUht," Lli.:e LIJ.J'lm~*r, T .. ybr m~l~l} that MlCh;1 1'ro)e.:1 " .. k~ \1>' t<l "lInJ •• \l'rJ.:l'tuñ::" (T.!\"l.'r l'l!'l-t. 2::..\. ! /. Th ... ~:\111'" HljslHl..krq,!n,ll11~ \t1t<.nn" lh~ H;.b~'Tlln"I"'i:t ..-nt;~I:U~ ,If ~'-~'lnL'J ",;:"nHllunllan- ;11.;0-," ~;l,h .1" L1YI<1T, Tilyk'f'" .:-nti'!u .... l~ \1>'1 aJ,,, .. :aung .h,lt \'~' .r.d"o)! fl' L.Hlll1l\!mti.*~ h~ll. hh~ l;;t,\am..;r. ,.ll",;nllJ.! ,In ')Jlh,I''I..!I<.'.,lp.,rtUIt uI pur 1'ltI.'II\l! 10 langll;l~'" an,1 hISh)f~. Thb i",nr;m ...:nfl- <.:!:~'~ rh.: pr.".c,lar.ll pdrn,llt III 1.!I\)!u,,!.!<:, .lnJ ~uhi~"tt~'HY ;1" .1 Ji~!,n:fI:J ,Inc! tmrll\'l~fl~Iu.:J fI'ncl "f T1,',b1 1nlllj.!: l:-. 1".1\,I.'r pVn .• t;;)J,nH~*n.m .:n;\'IU'-' .11 rT<\,,-,,*!'hH,)h~[ a";";Olllñ un ,h,,' i""t!l' \>1 lh,nghl .ñl thc ,,1"0.1 Hl *'Til ..... .\hm .... audll B.:h;nJ dw Pr,,..* ..... lur:\h~t EtiH<_~.'" "11", pr"( .... '-lurallh~,';ry I" ,m illu* ~i."11 j'e.(.IU!oC II r.:~~" urc,n .J ~ur~;,m;J\'e ñi"r! ,!j tiw i.o!,,,,,I" tl'"y!.,[ 1'»;1,\. 1')81. 1"1. ~h..;h;Il:'1 s'm,id -..1)" rhl." well In Ius .::riu'lll<.: "t R;\wb: "A,~ iho.: rd('flrr "f J\I~lk-l.' :In,...: I-r.'ltl th..: 11",,,,d hl Jl~r;ngui~h tlw ~t ... nJ_lrJ.>1 ,lppr.lIs'lllr'Hll :hc ¥1(ldy \->.;mg .ll'prolb..:d, thl! pn"nl}-"l T1,<:, sdl ;1:-1St.'" lnuli rh<~ l"\"Im!ld n ..... J :,.JI,.t1t1~Ubh trw -"Uf.I-Cd Iwm ir", .. t(It.lti,m" (Sandd jv:;,:, 2.,,))_ 20. ~.:ltllt;! l:.f' pf":~lI!'r')HH,'ñ <.1 ;;:,unml;l1lc"iun ,b ;1hl~rnIK"l Hl,lUI1Wn.l, r,nho.:l dUll .I~ hl~' !<)tl":I::< .. J ti';I<LllIl~'n:ln tr'\1Jill",n,~. m . .l\...*eo ,'.1)).' p..:kill;::i"f BLlrh.,-, whl' ..::t'lchuk~ .n .. * ,.ppr",,~~'J [.If ":('ll<T,h.h,:nn>! t!-.l* hi ... t"ñ*<!llllL"'.tn\llg til lllli\*~*n.JI-i!\'. '~lI\->j"''':b wh.\ .h,I\'~* J,.'(-n \.'~dmk",llnl111 o.:nlr,lIl- ..:h!~<"llil:'HI ]'Y ,::>:I~lfl'" <,:..I1\'Cllll<1l\'" t:'\\'~-n1l1\l! rh" -C;>l,du:'I~In;;'f'l-' ~l ... nllltl<'l) "I ,h .. llm ... ~'r~li '.:1:..: th.: l:mgn:IJ:>.' ,>i '-'nti-:H'idll~"'UWtlf ,1""\ sc, tnh) nhln,m;, 'p,-,ri.,nnan\"e (,Illl!.tJklll'll: d:illllHc" I .. h .. : uw- ~*fl*J h: lk,t ullln-!',.;!I, fh~*td,\ -: .... t't'~m).: Ih~ olmr.dH'h.r\ dUfa<':kr"ll'r'-'\'h'II~,,*,q\'~nH"n.III.'I- ll1ulau .. m .. "j I!\~ unl\'cr"'ll" \ B~Hk'r I 'Ñ _1, ~'ii :: L :-:"' ... bn.LI :\k, ol'(, .l!~<:u~ __ ."n ,.j thl' kl!~h'n 1:1 klll!ni,t th ... *,,:~ l~l*H\"' ... *n dllr~!'r"'f-<"Il ':"Il- .. lmOI\'I:>.{ ~\.m(~'o- {.I\.I';IIJ I--~n,l..:r \<".~" Butl .... r ;II,,! ),',11'0 Su,H) ,m..! ti\l,>'~' \\'h., rl"lUl'\-(.' ~erl"l!n I'Ll":tI.:c~ (nun Ih-.: I':tlrl,lr ... *h;li b.:;':l:tlt .. H\\ \:-\lo.:<>1t l<.Jt-.M) I .k*\'d,,1' my \'\\n 1~1"'>J.'i.!Y, in ,:h'!J'-'*' "F~'Ill11ll~l 11W'lri~''': Bcy"n"j ~';.,<.:nl];\h-.m, .mJ t :.HblflJI:B\ IMU," HI L *nuc.lll;,m)l'lIl1[,Hhllb (~l~'dc' ! 'N/.I\. f.>!' "l'~'~'i:k ll~_~' ,'1 (',I,!,dlll'; III t.:nHl1I'; th ... ,p., '>CI: 11~I1;-.iery.'11 I'Ñ'. 22_ :-;~.,: ~"r~dalh Irw ~l'<,;lh'll~ enu:kJ. ",'11\ Ih" 1 I; .. h'nl'! II\<" \\','r,l Erkhll':' "Th" L. 'lId'!'! .l! E;l .... hnl~ . ., ,U\J ''1..Jrltl'jl1L* _,I Ih..: _'\-f",lLKlj,>ll Inlwn:nt 1:1 Anth .. *J 1<l:-'>n"-I'"I.<n,*~~." I \\dl I," ll' l~r~_"lll;<I.l.IlI\~T\ r<",l\.!l1l;': ,'1 nl1d\~'\*. who ;,:,j\ .... dw t<"nn Ibhr~1 Hllp.'ft,U*,t l~I,,,I ... nl ,L.:m'!IhlH_.\ laU.:r ,K .. :i'lnn \"tluid h.l\*~* \<, 1 ... oK at t',lJ,Il>ler\ f\.',Klmj.! "I HH;;~r1,lncll khln:.wf. ~\' rh~~l'r l~J')f ::. L 1-1.lt1i _~'nl1C:~ h,l"" l.lkcl'l III' l;ad.llH~r'~ dwlk!l!!:r;: 1<' ;te~Jlwl!L ;1\1('.'H",1>\*. 01\\' "t tlll' m.:~1 lhlp"nanl i~ l'<tal lollt,,*f'. i,.',ln'At' ,nul:( :"l\!CU~. wlwr~' h~' ~b"w_ he\\' th~' Iñntl!rh'n ,,! !nerary ..;n!I(l'_m :n"-,,kc,1 dw ","j'.ll.lll,'n .>tth<" .k'~tlldK IruIn ttll' l'di1l('.!I.md th", rd~1'''*IU1.11 III or,iL-r II' .1 ..... ,,II-:r;>l~' ,mJ L'x,--\u,k AfnL~ln ;\uh.;rlL'll\ !r(L'r.ItLfL' I"r I!' cñh,:c'll\\.'''t. ':'4. In I-l..:""d"- -, ,I~'m. 'if! 1-';\ I,I\U'f j"nn ,,1 th.l\l>!ht linn rhd"",pi",\,. wh:..::h t\:,!h:~,,~ !lK'b ;n t!W ':"!l~~Tr. P~I-~'''' 1'~l!,-"t! "',h,nkin;: "*\;ll"";!lc:",h~' j,>r1ll "i l .... "ltf\* 1m" tho.: h,nn '" dl~' l'tlTl' ..;:,'11<'-:1"1 ", tH~*;:d 1'-17(;. II, 'Tlb\.. S" .... t;:h.l.ml<.':'~ ;:"Il)Pl..*:-; ..:rith,u<: ,md r':\fl<:\*.ll e,l Hc)!d 111 H"l!~'!'lJi.d'~*n' \ 1<.J~111 .m_llim,ud .. It;! Ty:rtr. J.ld_\l.:ln'!i.L ..'.1_ St.'C" 1:.nhln'B \X:ñht \ !'-)i'o{l) t,;r " i.!,,,-,,i an,Ii~-~il> pj :h .. * '1-":"'1,1,11 ,' •• ..: _hm~""~l,m <'I l'aJ."'''*r*" ,mJ..*f~LlI\jl!lg "I bn>.:.u.IL ...... In h,,,: ,-h"'<:ll"'~l"a ,'I IH"'f;,tur~ ! in l':lrn.:ubr l.. ,;iJ;lIn>:r i!JY-n. h"w""*l:'r. \.ia,\.mwf l;,:n"R', r!'Ñ .tnJ th10 :.,-....-,...1, t,~U~Ifl#! ,,11 f'l,ctn*. $ ,1",-,,," Hed .... ~;:.::r. ::';ti~h.1 h><':l1~ i~ uIlIl'f' 1l1t).!"* "alL\.' It h...lprCll1h'rt:c the ,h"T.'n.:~' ~tv.*""':B hi(*r.1Hlr..: .mJ. ':\'l!n.1.I',' ilk. m.\k!H~ IH_ .. 1"IH,r,* ,I ,ite t~'r ,";.,.tr",,:Jin;n1 "'XI''''(K'jKL'_ ~6. fl, 'II\' ~.I\"', "\\'hCtll'tHl"~"l'h\h.l~ !fnl~heJ ~h"l.q:1),! th,l~ 1,.'\ d,*truñ l' J ~,"-1.1: ,-"lh!~.!d, II ~t.'e' nd nt'll' IiJed.] ... \\'h,..-11 ~,'LI,.l':"lhH\I..:t_< hl [tol,lIll ,lnJ \\'h:..-h r" hTLt..:: .... :* In "Fenlll1l-n1. 302 Enj!enJering Gadamo.:rian C0nv~rs..(j,.ms lJ..,.,IUj;Y ~md L'lec.,nSrrlll.:tIlll1: A Pm,gmati,,( Critique," Hytmthl S I, 1991, 96j. GaJ.lmer dit-r~ do v.err JitJercnr un.]t!rsran,ling l,f ,he "lin:;uisfIC tunl." 21. j will i0.::u~ .. m Excitable Sp~l!ch an.j Burler':s c,)otrlt-\lliL'fi t;, Femini:5! CU1\lcs-w::i<lT!s: .-"\ Ph./(;,wpil(.:ui E~dkmg,*. m 'whKh :she J(*hales. v,'lth BcrJtahLh, Druc;lll<l C.ln\t:!t ~nJ Nnnc-y FraliN. ZK In Tñ Psyduo: Lf/! Ili Po-«--.. ,. ,md ~i.:s Th .. u f..!a(rer: Tn.: Discl.lHW" Limils "f'Sex,' ButierJt"\'d- ')i'" rb.", "con£lItuti\'~ oUDlde" m {'l»'chuaIulyric <crms ,1:> the "J.,;.:r,oJ..,J tlbj~...:t" ut !).;lHh' ~x Je"ile, wlu..::h IS ... ~I\PUllCeJ :mJ lmelnah::-ed (Buder 199" J). Heterõe>:uali[y is [hl1~ me-ianchuljc sinct" it ';,1:111,'1 w)tP..""-~ :I:hl !l,,-lum tht' kl~s ,'f lhil'. de:>Ifi.,', }.<J. j=,tu...:auh 5J\"" that hermCUl'uticll seeks- "the rc'apf'wplklt1lm thr"'..I~h rh.: m~Ulil~s( me;UHñ "f Jb..:~>tlr..tc "I ,mother me-aninv <II <lru.:e s..-':OlklaT)' ,m~1 r-rim:ary dut b 1ll,)!C hiJJ.::n hut ail'u [Jhlr(:' {unJ~Hlwt"ill- (F,lU(;ndt 197L1, HH, 3. . .1. Llkc LkrdJa. Butler Ihinks that dk nCHlh.'net.\tic: iJC".I Uf"UflJ~'[s[andinl-:" j" hlO grml~Ii(ISe l!llJ ,11"'!'>tilf;\ mmnllal:ist-iJca ll( :.en,",:!. UOn .. l,f tht' t1ulllo""SEC ]hL", \':''''-'-''- "Sih'tl~lrur-<.' C,uueXt En'fll"] W;15 Jlh'lng;1,t l,. th"1 the mmima[ making s"n"L' <.It" l\\)lUl'thi:'l1t (as ~"0nlort~tlty tf' tlw c,-.J ... , gmmman<:ality. d..:J I:. mcummen;.ul"<1te with the ;lUl'-tU;}te UI~rsto.nJiñ ,II intt!nJeJ llli:ilninl;" (DcrriJn IvTi.10}i. J 1. 1 ~ll~u~ th.:: Dcr[idafScad~ ,jeh,tl' in the ulnlext 01 h .. rmcll~u[jc.~ :n Srt.'t:k* \ 11».J7a, 47-57): )2, Sl't" Henry L1W>G.Ltd., The Si.kVlIiying Mlmlt .. ,), \ I YbSl. til wiuch h .. ~li~"Cul>..~" hl)\\' rhc Afn..:;m Amerk:;m tmJiuon ,,( "M!;»jtying" rCW(ltk~ rlu.' Mastel' . ., l:mot;lJaj.!e. O'lIe" \',\UUal~~ hl."lwt:l:n :.I l"\<:7IJe~ul .::h..lr;l<.:tl:n;:;ni.)n ol,~lgntfYing anJ a hemlelWl~nc lllte thou ~['Cah "f tta<.lttj,m, l .. .:!-wn thb '::,1L1tr .. ,Ik!I;'n :il1J H~ l>i~lllt"lC,IIK'" lO Steele (1996). B. in tt--~\: lnffi:><.iuction to Th .. Ps)'c1tir Life II{ Pmn:T, Buder ~f!~';lks ,,' tlw r.:n"i<.lth b~t\'i*e<.'n two i-l.'ml"~rdl U\Ic ... !\lhH .. '" llf ,;ubjt'Cllon, hCt\h'I.-"t"l rh.: rr.m;;..:e-nJl"Hlal cun-dtti"n an.i the ~d{,un,lcfl>t'l!ld, ing: .... First, a,~ whm is fur the tuhjC'ct always pr;tur. nutl<ide of if~dl anJ ul'Cratl,*\." tWill the start: ';1;'::- ,II-W 'L~ tho: will..:.! cf(,'c[ ,JI the ~uhjcct" {i-U, }4. Thll> :..Ulle pT,.hl..'n) Ill' int<.;rpre[ivt' jtlJgml'!1t tlnJi'Tmi-oe~ J'l,m SClitt'~ J'::C<ln"rructln' "hlswry" Ill' i~'Hli!Hjnl in Franc .. in UJi!:; Para.lm:('~ T.. Ofl.:r {l\)')6}. Scot{'~ tr,mKrfl,kntal genera!,,, 1." ,I i"rnul paradox l'hlJU;.:cd hy Ih~' Jemands OII.-"qU;llit)" :md JiitiJren<cc, Thi~_pimh.iux i~ then r"-I:)- ".crihL.J r-r tile parn..:ubr hl~till"ic.lllanw-tal-.~~ l.-'1npl"~'L"1.1 rOrl1uilh tllllt': "Til the extent rhar 1 ... lUliWifU ~Kk,,-l j"f 'w"rm:n: tCllllnii>m pwdu>::C'u {hI." ~cx!.ul ,"li(fÑnc\' it "' .... [gin hl dimjnat~_ This p;u;ctJu~- rhl.: nl"'I'"J 1",t;\ II' ,l(.cept .mJ lu r~:'m;c '~x:m~l ,;httcrC"n..:..-'-w.\~ tlw cHn:,titutwc c,m,{UIlll' HI 1 .... mi~ T\1~m,~,1 p,)htll.; .. l mOYCnk'n;d1Tnu~h ih l<.lfig hhrory." Ahh,lugh "th~' t.:rm" "i h>:r IIIl<' :.uhJc.::t "f kmml~ml n:pre:.cnLltllln ~IHltL.J" (14), ;:hey n<lñ,thd ... ,,~ Jlu"tI"aH.' a lluntr,)nsrcnJaht ... pamJn:-;; "Femml~m I.' ll<lt " n!:lCrt,'n Ii! rel'uhli'::Hñm, r.dl ,Ilk "f Ib etfect;;. pfllJuccd hy <;(lntrnJict')T)' ;'l~M:r* tinn_ .lh"ut tn .. 1)00\.*l*r~.\l human rig-Ius \If in.ll\*iJu;lk I'n th .. ' <1m: hand, .mJ exdusj"lls :t!tnt.utL'1.l ,~,' '~CXIJ:I! .. lLlt"":TIo;1\..:e: <In JIll' "rh .. r. Fctniml>1 ãcncy ill. "\!ll.~r:tuttLJ lw thi~ paraJox" i 1 {18}. l:':i. 1-:bher1!1,'~ ,tl~" ;lo.:crb thi:. lInp"Y<?ffshl:J 101.: i;n philll""phy in "Phll'lM)phy a5. StanJ-In Iml.::rfd~r," m Afr~r l'hilu.\,.ph); End 'l' Tmmfrmnilu,m.' (19S7t 1('-,_ Ik-nh,<Nl' fde~ herl.' h,.l dd'">LJtt' b"-Iw~""n ;<l,ln ~"'::l'[[ ,mJ Lmclil G,jrdlln ,),..-r women'" :It.:\'n..::)1H ;\lgltS I') (['N01: 54~5~, AldhJUgh Iht' JeJ,;1h' hegilll iI~ ,1 <.lC,-e"lhlO tl\'~-r th\' ~t'eCI(K:> faIH:.1 hr <"jnnl,m',. ;nnf:"Ulhln III a).!em:y ." .he \V,ln'e!' 111 h""r b.l'lk Heft'<-'! ,,1' Then UWH i.tt'<o':S. Ihe ar!.'l.Ul1cm ~lUKkl'i <:!».:,lLLte-ilLlhl a ~IUl.:"l>tllln ,11 wh;n pru ..... lt'mattc l'houlJ he med hI r,..,.IJ w"lllen';.ll\'L'~ thnlUgh- ~'ttr hi~!\,ry_ :::;("[1',, i<N1) h,,,k I~ a ""':'lud {" lhb nrl!umt'IU. i7 SC"H .• bc'. ':.Il!" ur th ... "na\l,l'er."n lit "!ifx,ral :tgency" in t,rJe-r ttl jll>'til\' hL'; T'f>,hlematlc '"1:."\"<.'<1..1 .,{ "",",unHI_\j! then iI!:,-'nq: t~>lb\\'s t"rum ,Ill lUna!e hum.Ln WIll, I w.ltIt h' Ulhll:"r,.t:mJ te[nlmsm ill (enll~ ,'Ilh..: ,l!;;...::ur;j\"(' PtllC"'S-,..-~-tlw eJ'j~teII\<.llp;;l":--;, :n"titurlOñ. nnJ l"'f,t..:tK~-tha: f'r,dll':J.: p"luK.J.1 :>llht;:>.:b. that In;.lk~ :lj...>e'JlCr .. , r<"'~iNe""-\S.::vn 1996, 11), She Ju .. '~ I.;x~ctl)" th .. ~tllt: thinl< m he. w.:li-kno'nl argunu:nt f~'l:\ ;;::m"'lructlVl~1 y;cw "f ""e-xp\'fI.:m:c:' She c<lll~ up tlw ~pecter .. ( ,} !li\J'!.'l' -dPPt.',ll t" <:xl'.:ncn.:e .1,. ul1":"Llh:~!ablt' .. 'nJen..:e alltl,l~ <-'ng:;n.lry p..'lOt "f-":XrLmLul"n" (m "En,.l,'no.:.c ul L"1'-n..:n.w:," is'::~Ht l<Nl, T'l}, But [hc-rei~..:t;,)n ,,f '\niliu! ,l}!",n..;,-" .mJ ""CXpL'fLen...:e 161 ~ c\-IJenri.lry beJn>..;k" in l'\~l \;"<li' entails ht'T JeKrll'tiOll_ Tht' key "lue!\ti,,-'l1 is the1'_nL' ~he ll'av~'" nut; h,lW ~h"uld we ..:h"r<lcteri~cthc.':>t" !ang:uã:.? ,"\s i WIll shu.\\", tht' an"wcr b 1\ maHer ,n' ~nteT' prcrivc jW.l:mem:, nut JctCHl1incd r.y I.:"Lthc-r a consrrucrjvll>! ur he!m~'11eutic POSitl'lij ,}l) 1a11~_U<l~, 's. OaJalUcr is Inakmg ,L c'lfItrihun .. m [" mt~ll'ren\'t' hiswry, not cll-l~.li hi~t'lry_ j;! th''''t: wh" S,I}" thm a-,.:au:.;lI,Kc~lum c,'mr1l:!dy m\<lh,brl'~ an IJe-fllisric ,lCC,'Ul-lt-L.e .. ':,mringen..:y and P<'-,\"L""f ratho:r than iJc;;~ Jrivl: history "'-, rh,lt hbtllricul ;!Cwr:; dn.' ,lcl'ply J ... CCI\'C.!---G;;J;lllKT '::"llIJ ;IÕ;'\*L"T rh;lr hi,;.tl.lr): l~ m~y ,mJ thJt IJe~l~ <lfe ndrh.:r \.k'\.:l~l';e H<,r irrde'l':lnt, Bl~tler:mJ ;;::.:,)rt an; nur mak1l1j! <in L'"lnl'in>.:al. GW!)';I! claim, h~t .• Ir.lllic .. nJl:nt;l{ chum [,'f;t,") "hemati .... :' rr,lH .. ma11i.:. 39, In spe;lkln},! Ilf thl;' ~al'C~ .. -,f rcaJmg RLlk",. GB,bmer >an, "Thllu l!l.Lht iL!rer til}' lil"'~" \l1aj<uucf I 07i, 104-)_ That ~aid, I wvuld h,n'i G,dalm~r':Ctltir", Wh,' r\~Lr'H ,Ktf {hat tu~ an:l!y"ls 1~'Lmb (W, h-\l\\ the chan;;e~ :h .. lt ML' i'nluj.!i1r ;,th,lU! duuugh ,li,;k>g:u" rr".!UC>: umty 1',lth..:r !h:m Jitlcrem:c. Tim ... , "T,1 rc,t..:b:J.l-l -.lnJ"'1~r,.ñlinl-! in ,I Jl;J!.I!.!U"i". _ h:iñ ir.msf.lrllk.J IIl1».l C\'l\lllHml"n IJ) wb .. *h w ..... Jo n,l( remam \\-h.u -"\'-l;'wcr..:" (Ca..-l;Ul.l..:f IW.J., 17lJ). 4i.'S"::llrr "'i1}1> "I' the women ~h:: "ru,h .. "" "I J,l n;>t thlnk ,)f 111<.'1<1.:: \\\ltnel\ u'> IC':x.empl,lry hcr\"Il~'~' iml"L"tJ 1 think ,)!th~'m .11> ~lI~"r-hist<'rk<lll:n.::Uhll>1> ,Iud m;lrkcfl<--whcf<? .::ruClal po1.[1;:;il an.! ~-ul, I.Ilral ":Hnte-'th an! ~n;lct<-,J ;mJ ":.!n hot c"',lmint'J in ",lOW •. kf~\il. j;, fit!ure ,I p..:r'l<1I1-1n thb G\"'~, ,1 w.,lI\an-.b rtK~' "r I,l.:ati:lli I;' ntH ft. JI.:"ll.Y her humanity; It I~ r,ltb~r ti.' rl'c,'pli:e the m:lny t',,<.:t<>l"'" th;\t cuñlilut~ her ;tg,""H<':Y, the ":'lll1rl..:;.; .Ifl~l m\lhipl.: w.w,; in wb:.::h 1>1Ie I~ ,;nn:-!Iud,.'d ,L~.I IU'h>;-iC.ll :",£<11" {SOl[! 11}<)6. 161. Eur cn,ru~h_ &It rhL' hm>!u;~ge tlmlHl-lh Ivhh:h w<: ~'h,lfaC1C[!:': thL""'- '"/<\<.:,ltj"m" Il< nt,1 it rn-;.ttIVbttc unt' hut ,me llllhueJ \nrh Ilit' l:j('pe~ aoJ idc,.j~ ut the ~!X',lker_ 41. C,uhy C.lfLlth, "lmr"Ju<':ll"ñ Tmmn;i :mJ b:pcTlt'flce" (C,Lnlfh leN'lL ::X'e ,\/"" ;:';,ml Fnt'Jlllll,lt:r',l> ,\-iemur\". Hh, .. n', an,! rlw Ex{eflr.itktnlJn ,{ til.: ).:w\ in EUf'UJJt: \ il.,hi H. 42.. Tunl },Iurri"";l',, .r)';I.:'t'~;J. Hff<':f!.- ,1\1 :.>-x..:dlenl cx;nm~k .,1 tmUltl:l .111,1 \nrnC"~Ul~, h'rh .... *iJhm [h~ n,)ñI-l:.~., S~,tht' 1I11J t\1ul D.-Jr'.J hetlWl'1l ,h<..' ;~"xr iln,! x-,h.1cr. M~"-:-l"llI retdb !hl' ~!an' nMrnll\*~*l~cau~..: IIf tilt" !;.iluf<..' "I' Amt'ncan ~:CI<..'ty h' WlBW~ th.., tr.IlJRhI ,-,I ,tl\"!!l"j. iUICrc:-Ull;.!iy. Butkr ,h;:;..:u.~~t';:; MprriO!\lll In E'("llithl.: S"{l<:.:dl <loly ft' IUu:-lr~ue dw rh"'''h !h~n the ,,"UhjLX!- .J"..,~ lh'! ""nt_n.t tU\~u;!!.:e, anJ Ill'; 11)[ Ihe Il1IlCr~uhJ~'nl\-": ;Khi<: .... <..'Ult'llb ill ~ll!rn,,'n'" wuti.. on. :->e~' P.:!~...:ai Midt<lll'~ (20u .. 'Q ~,w~ri\l! ,:mi~tUl' d Ci-..J~IlI\lT'" f(,.luo.:{Jv(', H<?IJ..'h'1!-'."TlOm !JllJt'f- ~t:u)Jm;; lIllangu;L-gc ll.r tho.: W\ly It Jnll<..'s \lut lh ... ~ingd,.tLc '!Jv"r,.it~* ill th~' ill"h'fY ,d IU.cf;U!.lfl' .nn! pW!K hf..:, lHL: 1mbt~. h'f msratKc, that the prnp<'J" rn:n..:h tmnsl.lrit'H ,-l"~rf;l(.-he" I" "l'\Ll)!\l~'_" n,>I "hm~1I-:"" ,]r "Jl"":'lun.,~l I Jt~\>lv .... rL.J :-.-li.::h":1',, ~uJr f.1\.' Ish' f<' mlcgWt~ 11 mit) llIY ~*xp..'~!ll<)n. 1-:11 !lw .::h.tll<..'Llw: hh w,)rk lJUi .. 'ht f<1.>C to Ill\" rt.'mlir.g: "I \. ;b~pl.'U j .. linf rhl' """\,!1IlJ.! ,Jl"\\~ h"I\' We l;L't.J h> k\IV\.' G.w<lmcr h.:hinJ r-.I(hl.'r lh,\ll :lPPWPft1fl: hlr).}. -+4. ~I:" Lurminl.' c.",lc\ ,1i~lrN' 11"i d tlw "tufT In Rh.:t,!rico.ll S/I<KL'): E~'"--l;'~ ,'11 t iL"1lJ ... '1"6.i Lj '~',Ui"Jb. ;-l'5-4v. "Gb'rell'" 'hlry ,1i"IcN ~) C,Hun' j',>[H'll! .,1' kn.,\\'l<.:~k(: pr" . .llldtnn" (14-71. 4"1, :x-,e Gjlligan \ Jill,;u" .. J"n uf th..: ~T. ,rr in -Mor •• l Oric-m:lll<lll anJ }\\.Jr'll Dc\"d"rm~;m,~ in \'Cml<?n mid '\<Jol(:/ Th<'uf)' (1'1~7l, 46. l Jb<:u~'Gilhg;\1\'l> rl:; ... lin'<! "t !h,,,. "it.lf)* ,It teñth in Th"on:m.( h'xrw.l Slif,:"d~ .-\~"'!1~-' ,N} Upj)rcswm ! I '-NIl .. , l J}- )4\. Aloltf'. Lind.I, 191'{-8. "I\H"tructur;thsm 'imJ Cultur<ll F<:"1l.1I11i51l1: Th" IJC"ntif\' Cñ1~ m Feminl~t The_'!)'," Slgns 13: 4-16. :\rt'nJr, Hannah. [95$. HHman Cmdiliun, Chicagll: Uni ... -er_"ity ,,'iChi.::.l-":~l rrl:_~~. lvii, fi;.'Hn'>l'l1 Pll!1l .md Fhwr.:, Ne\\" Y,)rk: i't:n.gutn, ---, lI.}7$. Lif,: ,)f ~ :\1inJ. New Yvrk; H~\rc" .. 1rt f1nlC .. " ---. 1l)<S'=:. i£L'Hm!.s tin Kam':, PPlllica/ Phiiw;oph)'. Chicat..'o: Uru\"t'r~ity ,-)f Chi,,--,Ig<) Pre;.-" Rakhtni. l\lIkh:.IiL 19td .. Th" Vi.<ipj!ic lma,!{inarion. Tran .. _ Clryl EllIl'(:'>Ol1 "mJ M;:cha<.'l H,)l"ilil"t. Austin: (jniver~iry (lfTcxã Press. Bt.*nh .. lh:h. ~~'Ia_ 19b6, Cmiq1(e, .\iunn, .mJ l~tojn.:{, New ''{\.Irk: Cdumbia UniYl"~lt\' PrQ». ---. 1 ,:N2. SilHating Tile !:\dfNew York: R.,utleLi).,.'(:. . ---. I~J-9'). "Sul-je:ctl\'it\" Hl~tl\ri'Jgrarhy, :.mJ r.,lirk"." In F('min( .. ~ ClJmt'swtlol!S: A rhd"s'Jrhi~YII Ex,;ha.lljr"'. N(;"\\Yllrk: Ruutlt*~Ig" ... ---. i YY6a. H.Uutdh Arl.'nJr: Th ... Rdw:WlH MiJdo::nL TI*t\lll~;tn,J Lbks. Cdit" .• Sag .. ,. IlN6b. *;T .. Jw,lrd ;) Dellbt"f<lciv\.' ~ldJd ,l( IA*m\lc:;KY." In D ... I11<1l*f',;lC< ::ma /)£ifcfLlk* ... : C'.IIl(d"<in.~ .h,; BHiu-ul«ric.,* u{Uu." P,41U~aL ... J. ScyL"l BenllJ.!lib. rriñ .. *t"n: f'rincd,m c:nh-* .... ~iry Pres". Benh.lhlh, Serb, Drudlla C'lmeB. ,md Kmcy Fñr, c .. h, l~lJ'). F<'mini.:i! l*>mc-miull.'i: ,-\ l'hil(}~(jl'hi.cai. ExdltJ.ngr. Ñw Y~Jrk: Ruurh.':J:., ..... Burlt:r. Judith. i993. B,xil<''> Tlwt 1-.-luna: Th~* lJisn1TSH": Lmmx oj" ""S~'x." Ne:w Yl)rt.:: RI1udcJgt:. ---. I !./~). "L:dI1Hllg<.*nt EJUnJa£l\lOs." In F .... miniH C(jm~*.Htlti!,ñ. /\ P1irlõ'lfphicdl Exdt<lng<.*. Nt:'w YfiTk: Ruutledge. ---. I'Nil!. Ewrubi.: Spet'ch: A Puuu .. *coj lik' P .. 'Tj;)nth1[ii.\!. St*w 'I'd,\.;: RllurtcJgL'. ---. ItJt.J7b. Tit.! PS)'.:.hic Lift.' of Ppm,'L l'-! .... w "'lurk: R;lutblg:..:. Rurla. JLJ~lith_ anJ Joan ~("j,)tt, cJ~. 11./\)2. h'll1inis{s Tit .. :1Jri~~ rJl~' P(iiid<'fli. I\:~w York: Rt)IHledgt.". Can,nh, l:'nhr. 19r.}j. "Intr~xiucti<)ll: Ttnullld añi E"Xr..:rknc(:." In Ti* .. uHntl: Expl,lhuipn.' in ML<Hl,n:-*. Baltimo.e: John Horkins Uni\'ersiry Pft:.j~. (\!J~, Lurraine. t99.1), Rhcwric,al ){1(!l.*<!s: Ess.t).':'\ lin (l;.'II,[,,;rdJ Locdci.ms. ~t'W Y,'rk: R,lutk..igL' ñ-rriJa, J,h:"iU"'~1977, '-Limir~J Inc." Gl;;/llt .!: 162-2')4. r.Hlt.:OIUIr, :-vtichd, 197('1. The Or,L!.,. ilf Thitl!{s. Tran.". Aian ::-;hl..'n.bn. Ñw Y~'rk: R,mJlll.H H~1tIM'. _.--. i\);s4. "\X/hat is Enlighrl.'"nnh:m!" In Til"; F1iIt~'<lHll Hl'ud.'r, cd. [';lui R .. hm,t\\", !\t:W ),',wk: Pantht.'I.'Il. Fnl'.tl,m.la. Saul. l\l\lJ. ,\1L'nlliry, J-liS[(JT)" •. mJ !h..: E.n.:rmllwwm tlfrh., J~*ttj itl Em*('ik'. m{lomim.!,hm: lnJhtn* .. Uni"L'ninrr ... ~~. l ;~h.lilnwr, I la['..:-~Gn}fg. ['-)7 (j. H4'j!",r:. i.Ji:u<* .. :ti .. :: Fit.: H~'nl! .. 'n<'Hn<.*al Sw.li~'s. Tr<m:-.. P. L1uistupher Smith. New H;l\"t!I1:- ,{,Ill.' Unlvt'r;,i!s l'f\:s~. ---. 19,,). P;liiosoi,hic~ll AI)pl'1!mi~..:shil)"', Tmn:-. R"h~n Sullh"tn. l...:alHhrid~e, \-la,;.".; ?\UT Prl'~:-'. ---. 1977. Philo.~tI!,hlCt.l.i H ... 'T71lL'!leWics. Trañ. [laviJ LIIl!.!\:. Bc:-hky ;\ñJ L.IS Angd.::-.: l:ni\'l'r"hy olf Calit~'rnla rre;,.~, --"-. i';J~7. *'Th ... PfI)h!..*m oi HbloW.:;d CI:1[l"Li\,u.mes:>." [n JmcfJ)h:fit'L' \';~'wl SciL'nl*~*: A S<'cuml Louk. eJ. Paul Ra:hm~l\\" .1nd "W'iHiam ~lIllj\*an. Rt'rkdt,\, ,mJ L..):o, Angdc~; UI1l\'~rs-ity d Cal!{llmia Pr(-s:.. ---. !':J?N. "D<:Sirufu-irJ1: an.! De-.::-<.n<;rrucliu1\." In Dl,.luglk' .m,;; Ll,,'.:,mstY llclhlll, <':~1. DlalH: }d:..::hdk'kier and Rkhah! I\dlll.t:'r. Aih:!n\,: Sratl' Lin1\*er~Il\* pf NI..'w YllTk Pn .. ~~. ---. !<.).:}4. LH<.'r..Hur,-' an.d Philll~lph) 111 Dl<lL.'.~I~': ESl>.r:-'s m Gl'r';n.:m Lil':hl1:> ThcflT,'" Tr:\ll_~, R",hcrr Pa"iick. Alr-any: ~tat~* liniv..or~:ty l,f j'-;.;t'w Y,\rk rrl'''~' ---. IV'1). TWf.h lmJ .'vi~,th,),1. :U ft"*. <."~l. Tram .. Jncl Wl:!in.,heiml:T <In,j [\mal.j \.1. }"'l.'f,.,h,,ll. Ñw Y~.rk: C,mw1uum. G;Ht~ Ht.:lH,* L"Hi~. I\lS~. Th~~ ::;.gmj\'i"n;,: ;\.'lunkl.'''. N .. ~w Y,J,h:: ()xf\.r-~I Unirt.'r'-It~ rrl'~"', L1iHiA,m, CH~i-L J%7, "k\iIJf:tl (".lr.i<"llr,';i'lIl anJ M;-ralll(',*d'lf1IHem."In \X*Um.:l: dlld ,\1.11"<11 Th"'iIl""L \:J. b:a Kina,' and Diane tde\,~Ts, Tot.l\\ .... l'i.J.:_R~w .. ll1;ln_,LIl'"J Lmh:tll:1J. Glasrdl, Su~~m. i9IIll."'A J~ln' ,It H ... r Pt:~rs." In B\,st StuTit's .IJ 1917. B'l~t,m: ~[n;lll, Mavnard. Gilr~Sb.*t't;;l1. Bewrly. Hlf,_ \\-~mb nf FlU; An Antil'Jlux-:.' of .--\j~*!Cdn AmL'rk:<ill F ... *)lWIL~: TJwlIJ;hi. Ntw Y.)rk: The ]'>.;"c,w Pr.;~. thlX'fl.uas, JLirg-~n. 19,,6 .. -\UWWlIl1Y' dnd :-;,,/ltlmfY: Im<!rñ'~l~, EJ. P<:ttr 1\.:\\" .... ~J.'w )" 'l'k: \*ct':-,o, ---. 19,:)7:1. PhJbsoph;cai. Uisc,*ñ' ul ,\-tud",nmy, Twu". Fr\.'~krkk LI\\'f~Ih.;,:". C~\ll!hñl~'e, }'1.b~,: ~'11T Pr..-s:" ___ . l'Jti7b. "l'hi!'}S'lf'ny ~ SwnJ-ln Inrt:'"rprdt-r:' In Aft<.:r j)hlio!Wjl.1y: End "r Tr,msillmldril)ñ CamhriJg<:. M",,>s.; }.{IT. ---. 1990. 1>.1/iTdi Cl1mcltJttsik'SS <Old C:mmUlmL£ltit.'~' Ã'li{m. Tran,-.. Chrh(hin L.;nhar,1i all,1 Sht:'"rrv Wd"lt:'r Nidwlsen, Cunt>riJ,o.lt;", l-.laM:..: MIT Pr .. *s~. ---. 11./1)6 ... B~!ln:r:n F.Kn a.nd ''\~Onll\_ T,am. \X!i1ham Rehf!' CamhnJg.-:. l\.-i.l_~'i'.; ~IlT Pr\:!>7>, --_. IlJ'.)6h. "Tl)T<'::_~ N,IHluti\'c !\h,Jeb tlf ñ'lIl-,)..:r'lCY." In V"ol)l:II-'nlt::-* ,mJ V!JJ,'r~'th:.": ClJm..:mng .Ii.: BiJtlllJari~.\ ,-,J th.: p,Jjck',d, t'~L .serb. Benh.lbih. Princ~rnn: rnnCth III Ull!n,'*r"in* Prt::;~. Hegel, Ue"r!! \Y./." F 197t). A<..'"tll.:t]c.;; L.'~*l!tr," "n Fin!.' An, Tr.l!h. T. M. Knl':-;-. \.. h:<.,r.t: I...)xlurd L'111\"l-r"ity Pn'''''' f-k'n,!t'r:-.\)J1, M~ll'. 1t.)9l'. ",::;p,."\~ iñ III T<'n!.!J.l'~: 1 :J.lI\).;::I~*". lll<d~'dh"'-, dH,j lh\; Bi;!L~ \Xi'1I1mn \X!ritl ... r',. Llt\.'nn--.- ; r . .JilldL" In RntJUlJ.: 1>~I<'k, lwl!l.ii71~ F~'H:!l!isl. ... d. H~'m\ Lt\ub Gatc., ]1'- ;-" ... '\\ ;.'11-.; \k'7kli,m. Km11. Jltlm;mlld. I'-JSi. L 'll'ri,pt~' "J )Illjg:!.'nh.'nt. Tr.lñ. Werr.l*r Phfh;lr. irKlun, 11'>1 ,b*: I LH:h*ll. Lltlrt'L\ P.LUl. t<.)\) 1. Callum an.! COlHeX!_\. !\J\."\\" Yurk; l)xf'ld Unl\*er .. il\ l*r .. *~" l\i.ldntyrl', Al..,~~bir. IQ?i4. ,-\}r.,1'" \'il'w.'. 2,1 eJ. Nt\tf .. " {):lIlll': i *llinTOo-lT*~ "I ~',Hrc [);Hlh' Pre.,." :-"kl :;1[[hy, T~hlma:>. j\N4. Critlc,d Th<!"f~_ C~!in!"r:J,!,:: BLK\..:.\wlL MI~h,-,n,. P;L.....:al. 2\..\.~0. P:>Jri<jllt.' J'Hn..: .l!l!hmdlr»;"A"~h:. i_'Jll'rill<::h.'1!!i:ltI<.' ,t* \_i",.i.tHI<'L P,!!'l": Vrin. Rkh, ;\Jrit.'nn .... !",)'j'J. {)11 Li .. *!>, .s ... '<.TCL'i. ami .siL>'ld: Sd,xu'.i I'nr.lI,' jl)(}{J-iI.J7."l. ~t'\\' YOl'h: ~<'rhl[1. Rb~cr. J;ml'-*.~. 1".Ni. Hentlt'll<:IHI .. *, <mJ 1ft!.' Vi'h_Y ,,"I {,lk Uih ... ,~: R<'--H":dJill,t; tj",;d))h"'r\ iJiliuJ.\(lilhi~*ul H~'nnl.'rl",'Mks. A!f-"my: ~!atl*lJllI\'L'rsity ~II l'-.:C'w \"'lrk rre:--. .... Rll!1}-. Ri.Lh~rJ. ft.J'.),}-. "Fl'minlsm.lJ"dn<,.!y. ~1l1J l'k.:on:,uVt:riun: .-\ Pr;,'-!m'l!b[ l:rithlUc." Hy*jkHid K: <}b-10_L ~-anJ~1. }'l1..:had. j"J?i2. Lih.:r~l1l$'l1 tlllJ ~hc Lnnits "l justKL, C"mhnJgl": C,lInbn,i!.!.l* Uniwl'!>lry rfl'~~" S.:-h,'H, Rol'lll. 1941. "\'V'hõ~ 1---I;:lIne i~ It Any,,*;!!-? A Fcnunist Rnrlm'i'~ h' G}IJankr*" Hl*rllwlu'utt..:-i-:' 1n {j,Wcllllt;'f .mJ H .... n-n.m~'.dl<-*S, ~J. Hugh ~d\'~m\;(n. ~~'\\" ,",d,,; R,'utk..,jg~, Sc,)[f. Jo .. m. 11.)Sh, l:;.;n.i.:r anJ Hlst(,TY*' New '("dc C,-,lumbia L:ni\,~l),it'( rrl:'~". ---. l G.l)]. "EnJcIKI:' <.If ExreTience." CriU~'Ji JñlHlry 17: 'i{J-Q7. ---. I <'\96. Un!} Punkiox{.'i To-. UJf<'-r. C.unhiJ!..!~: Haf\:arJ Univt'r:-irv rre".~. :-;h'Jw,-Ih:~r, ELune. 1 Q77. A Uk'lUml"t' (:1* TlIdr Ui-'.11. Princt'(lm: PruxehlH Unn't>r.,!t\* rr<;:~", ~tt:d .... , ~ieili. 199o. "Mct.l*Thc,,~ty and tbt! Subject' of Democracy in the Wm"k<Jf Ralrh Ellis.nn." :-.Jtu., Literal\' Hfstur,' 27: 32HZ. ---11.)97;\. "'Fcmini:>t Theu[k~: BevonJ Essentialism and Constructivism." In Criticd! Cifnfnmt,JrWns: Lic,;-rary Tht't),ies in Dia!ogu~. COlu1l1hia: Uniwrsiry of 5..JUth C,lf<.J1 ina Pres:.. ---I YV7h. ñ,)'ri~lng Textual SuhjeCts: :\gel1C)' and Oppression. Cambridge: Cambridgl;! Unin:-fsity Pr!.:s};. ---, Fnnh...-:oming, "Arendt versus EUiwn on UtIle Rock: The Role l,f Lmguage_ in Pn!ttlcal Judgment." Cuusre1lariJJm; A j<!Ul1U!t of Cr-itical and Dt.'Jnvcrari.: Tht!crr';. T .. ylnr, Ch;lde::,.. l';liH. *'Philo;.,urhy and los Hbrmy."ln Philosophy in Hi~wry. ed. RkhãJ Rilrry cf .d. Cdmbndge: C.lmhriJge UniYcrsi_t'i Press. ----. P'N L "Thl.' rVI0ti\rati~;n BehinJ ,iI PruceJuml Ethics." In Kant and Politkd! PhilLr:w/Jfty,. N<;'"w H.l'vL'Il.! Yak University Pre.ss. \\\.,l1m>.:r, .A.{hrechL 1996. "Hannah Arendt un Judgment: Thr Unwrincn Ductrint:' of Re,J."'Jl1.." In HannM Arendt: TWL'1UY )""ars Laler. C.lmbriJge, Mas.:..: MiT Pr~, 'X'rit(hL K-arh-Iecn. 1986. "GaJ<lm~r and tht' Sp~cll1-.. tivt' StHlctllTt!' of Lmgu:.1ge." !n H<'ntk'ncmic!> <l1Id i\.toae"rn PhUU:lrJ/lily, ed. Bnce Wru.::ht~-rhmher. A,1J-.;uny: State UnivcrsH"y ~lfNew York Prt."S.. .. 15 Three Applications of Gadamer's Hermeneutics Philosophy-Fai th-Feminism Laura Duhan Kaplan A colleague invited me to write an -essay about some of The ditficulrit.*s I (ace in trying to reconcile my philosophy, my feminism, anJ my t~li[h. After two botched attempts to outline such an essay, I Gll1W to rcali:e that I had 110thing to say on the topic because I have nn difficulties rc(:ondling philt'1Sophy. feminism, and faith. lnstead, aU three pursuits t:oñ verge in my unJersranding of tTadition. This unde-rstanding is 11\)f .111 intellectual achievement. but a W!l)' of life. It is Jifficult for me ttl rip this way of life far enough Out of lt5 context to articulate It in words.. Bur per~ haps I do not have to. as the words of other writers can -serve me well here. For exanl.ple l Hans~_Georg Gadamer has written that "understanding is not to be thought of so much as an actinn of one's su~j.ecti\'ity, hm as the placing of oneself within a tradition, in which past and present ~lre constantly fused" (Gadamer 1995, 258)_ For Gadamer, interpretation" n{lt adequatelr described by the phennmenological hermeneu(i~s ~)f P,lui Rieneur and others) as an encounter between a human subject anJ a rext or social fact. -~1ore is at stake than simDhthese two reasonablr nlli.:'n