Split Decisions: How and Why to Take a Break from Feminism | Date: 28 April 2011, 07:08
|
Split Decisions: How and Why to Take a Break from Feminism
By Janet Halley
* Publisher: Princeton University Press
* Number Of Pages: 424
* Publication Date: 2008-04-01
* ISBN-10 / ASIN: 0691136327
* ISBN-13 / EAN: 9780691136325
Product Description:
Is it time to take a break from feminism? In this pathbreaking book, Janet Halley reassesses the place of feminism in the law and politics of sexuality. She argues that sexuality involves deeply contested and clashing realities and interests, and that feminism helps us understand only some of them. To see crucial dimensions of sexuality that feminism does not reveal--the interests of gays and lesbians to be sure, but also those of men, and of constituencies and values beyond the realm of sex and gender--we might need to take a break from feminism.
Halley also invites feminism to abandon its uncritical relationship to its own power. Feminists are, in many areas of social and political life, partners in governance. To govern responsibly, even on behalf of women, Halley urges, feminists should try taking a break from their own presuppositions.
Halley offers a genealogy of various feminisms and of gay, queer, and trans theories as they split from each other in the United States during the 1980s and 1990s. All these incommensurate theories, she argues, enrich thinking on the left not despite their break from each other but because of it. She concludes by examining legal cases to show how taking a break from feminism can change your very perceptions of what's at stake in a decision and liberate you to decide it anew.
Summary: A Conversation about Theoretical Feminism
Rating: 4
Janet Halley's *Split Decisions* is an impressive piece of critical inquiry. In it she outlines a genealogy of theoretical feminism from Catherine MacKinnon's work in the early 1980s through queer and trans theory in the late 1990s. Providing close readings of representative texts from this especially dynamic/fraught era in feminist thought (which coincides with the institutionalization of Women's Studies on college campuses), Halley offers the most complete picture to date of the major figures and theoretical debates in academic feminism.
Halley's first-person, conversational tone makes these debates accessible, even enjoyable, for lay audiences to follow. She breaks down difficult jargon terms into their constitutive elements, showing how theoretical feminists use language itself (and not just content-driven argument) to convey critical and political points. This sensitivity to language leads Halley to re-read the early work of MacKinnon in a way that's not supported by most theoretical feminists. By refusing the caricature of MacKinnon as the "anti-sex," power-hungry lawyer, Halley is able to understand and appreciate the radical appeal of her early work -- and how that appeal echoes throughout the feminist canon, even in unexpected domains (e.g., Judith Butler's "Against Proper Objects"). Such careful attention to language is rare in contemporary academic theory circles, where the "idea" is typically prioritized over clear, detailed analysis of language. As a legal and literary scholar, Halley brings a refreshing perspective to theory, and gives us examples of the many illuminating connections that can be made if we simply paid more attention to not only what people are saying but how they're saying it.
Halley's tone also makes it easier for readers to assess their own feelings about the so-called "Break" in feminism inaugurated by queer theoretical work on sexuality in the 1990s. While Halley is quite clear about where she stands in the debate (the book's subtitle advocates for "taking a break" from academic feminism), she presents the debate itself in pragmatic terms: "here are some of the gains and losses involved in leaving feminism behind to work on sexuality, but perhaps you see it differently" (my paraphrase). In other words, Halley's conversational approach doesn't lead you to think that hers is ultimately the "right" position to take in the Break debate. She's invested in persuading us that Taking a Break from feminism is desirable, but Halley's (legal) pragmatism also wants to acknowledge the appeal of viewpoints (such as Butler's) that diverge from hers.
In sum, whether or not you decide to leave feminism behind (as Halley does) to pursue other forms of critical inquiry, *Split Decisions* is necessary reading for understanding the overall landscape of contemporary debates in academic feminism. And again, while it's true that Halley has a point to make about Taking a Break from feminism, the conversational tone of her analysis resists compelling you to believe that she is "right." Perhaps it is in this regard that Halley's book enacts the best example of Taking a Break from feminism: NOT forcing you to side with her, making you feel bad for not siding with her, or saying that your investments in or outside of feminism aren't important for whatever kind of work you do.
Summary: Solid argument for multiple approaches
Rating: 4
This book is not actually a critique of feminism so much as a critique of feminism's ubiquity as a framework within which to think about gender and sex/sexuality. It has much more to do with stepping outside of the structuralism and moralism of feminism, to get a different perspective. It's also a great model for students, who will benefit from seeing a top scholar do close readings of important texts. I appreciate that while Halley is trading in big and often complex ideas, she writes to reveal and is very readable. I got a lot out of it.
Summary: selective and elitist
Rating: 1
What sounds like an intriguing book falls flat upon reading it. Halley's version of feminism is an elite and whitewashed feminism that has been under attack for 25 years. Her critique is nothing new. By positing her definition of feminism, Halley exposes her own ignorance, particularly of the central place women of color have in feminism. What's also frustrating is the complete lack of political efficacy in her argument. She completely avoids issues of reproductive rights, which are central to feminism. She attacks feminism on the ivory tower theory level (which just so happened to have helped get her, and other female professors, her job) but completely ignores the other side of feminism: activism. Halley's book was dated when it was published and does more harm than good. To critique feminism, she needs to use a fuller, more accurate, and contemporary definition.
|
DISCLAIMER:
This site does not store Split Decisions: How and Why to Take a Break from Feminism on its server. We only index and link to Split Decisions: How and Why to Take a Break from Feminism provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete Split Decisions: How and Why to Take a Break from Feminism if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.
|
 |
|
Comments (0)
All
