WS472-Journals 4

Apr 29, 2008 19:43

  • Code, Lorraine. (2000). "How to Think Globally: Stretching the Limits of Imagination." In Uma Narayan and Sandra Harding (Eds.) Decentering the center: Philosophy for a Multicultural, Postcolonial, and Feminist World. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
    In the "Cultural Relativism and Global Feminism" Symposium at the 1997 APA Pacific Division conference, Participants were asked to address "the apparent dilemma posed by the normative demands of cultural relativism when they clash with our firmly held moral belief of what is just and right" and to propose a new "theoretical model" to counter the culturally imperialist threat implicit in "the global optimizing strategy of the utilitarian approach...reinforced by deontic rationalism." (68)

Cultural relativism vs. Global feminism (theoretical model differences): "an ecological model dependent for its global salience on stretching the limits of imagination(s) toward responsive local sensitivity, both close to and far from "home." (68)

"it is precisely the supremely privileged who claim to have access to the one true story, presume to speak from nowhere and for everyone, and assume the material detachment that sustains the objectivist illusion in whose name relativism is condemned as irrational. Only they can imagine that "our" firmly held beliefs are direct descendants of Justice and Right." (69)
-I often times think that I should have been a theologian, or something to that extent. I find it interesting "presume to speak from nowhere and for everyone." This totally sounds like God, the Christian God, the omnipotent smear on society. Religio-politics and that is what politics should be called there hasn't truly been a separation for thousands of years....How doesn't the feminist political movement fit into all of this? It isn't a specific religion. How are we going to revamp a religio-political system? Has it been looked at this way when theorized about? Show me I want to read it. It's dangerous, I know, Way too personal: but, seriously, why hasn't it been address?

Centrisms...

Jung's prevalent theory of Archetypes and the collective unconscious i see can be problematic. when reading Code's statement, "knowledge' has a univocal, universal meaning" I thought about the problems that arise in the theory of the collective unconscious and how this is embraced by Feminists, especially in the art world. This seems to have an over arching overtone that there is a universal way of thinking. Feminists have begun to silence themselves in the critical outlook of other countries, so we were quiet and then too loud and then we are quiet again? Does this really make sense? I realize that there is a world of difference out there but there has to be a balance somewhere. Feminism makes my head spin with do's and don't's and I am wondering where the balance is going to step in. Should we be putting do's and don't's on issues. Is that making us level with patriarchy?
Previous post Next post
Up