Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-29T02:09:28.729Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analogy as Destiny: Cartesian Man and the Woman Reader

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Carol H. Cantrell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Feminist studies in the history and philosophy of science have suggested that supposedly neutral and objective discourses are shaped by pairs of dualisms, which though value-laden are assumed to inhere in the order of nature. These hierarchical pairs devalue women, particularly their bodies and their labor, as they sanction the domination of nature. Readers of literature can draw on these studies to address texts and genres which do not thematize gender but rather purport to portray “the human condition.” Samuel Beckett's Molloy, with its clear structure of Cartesian divisions, provides a dramatic example of how an examination of dualisms reveals the presence of a language of gender informing a minimalist literary text.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 5 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Feminism and Aesthetics , Summer 1990 , pp. 7 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrams, M. H., gen. ed. 1986. The Norton anthology of English literature: The major authors. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Allen, Jeffher. 1983. Motherhood: The annihilation of women. In Mothering: Essays in feminist theory. Trebilcot, Joyce, ed. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allenheld.Google Scholar
Atwood, Margaret. 1972. Surfacing. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. New York: Popular Library, 1976.Google Scholar
Beckett, Samuel. 1955. Molloy. Bowles, Patrick and Beckett, Samuel, trans. New York: Grove Press.Google Scholar
Ben‐Zvi, Linda. 1986. Samuel Beckett. Boston: G.K. Hall.Google Scholar
Bordo, Susan. 1986. The Cartesian masculinization of thought. Signs 11(3): 439–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellmann, Mary. 1968. Thinking about women. New York: Harcourt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elshtain, Jean Bethke. 1981. Public man, private woman: Woman in social and political thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Griffin, Susan. 1980. Woman and nature: The roaring inside her. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1984. Is gender a variable in conceptions of rationality? In Beyond domination: New perspectives on women and philosophy. Gould, Carol, ed. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allenheld.Google Scholar
Horkheimer, Max, and Adorno, Theodor W. 1972. Dialectic of enlightenment. New York: Seabury Press.Google Scholar
Hubbard, Ruth, Sue Henifen, Mary and Fried, Barbara. 1979. Women look at bioiogy looking at women: A collection of feminist critiques. Boston: G. K. Hall.Google Scholar
Jordanova, L. J. 1980. Natural facts: A historical perspective on science and sexuality. In Nature, culture and gender. See MacCormack (1980).Google Scholar
Jordanova, L. J. 1986. Naturalizing the family: Literature and the biomédical sciences in the late eighteenth century. In Languages of nature: Critical essays in science and literature. Jordanova, L. J., ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1985. Re/lections on gender and science. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Geneviève. 1984. The man of reason: ‘Male’ and ‘female’ in western philosophy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
MacCormack, Carol P. 1980. Nature, culture, and gender: A critique. In Nature, culture and gender. MacCormack, Carol and Strathern, Marilyn, eds. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, Carolyn. 1980. The death of nature: Women, ecology and the scientific revolution. San Francisco: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Ortner, Sherry B. 1974. Is female to male as nature is to culture.' In Woman, culture and society. Rosaldo, Michelle Z. and Lamphere, Louise, eds. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard. 1979. Philosophy and the minor of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Judith. 1982. “Women's studies”: A note on the perils of markedness. Signs 7(3): 717–721.10.1086/493911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Dorothy E. 1974. Women's perspective as a radical critique of sociology. Sociological Inquiry 44 (1): 7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Dorothy E. 1979. A sociology for women. In The prism of sex: Essays in the sociology of knowledge.]. Sherman, and Beck, E. T., eds. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Whitbeck, Caroline. 1986. Theories of sex difference. In Women and values: Readings in recent feminist philosophy. Pearsall, Marilyn, ed. Sacramento, California: California University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Raymond. 1973. The country and the city. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 1983. Is male gender identity the cause of male domination? In Mothering. See Allen (1983).Google Scholar