Both Cornell and Zerilli discuss the relationship between feminism and freedom or autonomy. In both of their discussions they acknowledge the need for an autonomous subject to experience the states of freedom or autonomy. Where they differ is in what constitutes the existence of freedom. Is it the ability to perform or claim actions? Or is it the existence of an autonomous state of being at all?
In her piece, Cornell discusses autonomy from a philosophical standpoint focusing on the relationship between desire, dignity, and autonomy. She explains that autonomy and dignity, in classical philosophical and moral contexts, are connected and that having the autonomy to express desire and to make decisions is a reflection of being dignified. Cornell references what we've been referring to as "choice feminism" when she says, "There is no bright line between good desires and bad desire because the whole point here is to emphasize the importance of women claiming their desiring subjectivity. This means that it's not so much about the moral status of the desires themselves, but that autonomy and dignity is tied up in the action of claiming to have and be able to desire at all. In this way, it is a woman's choice not to identify as a feminist and so a woman practicing "choice feminism" should honor that desire.
Zerilli points out that theorizing about freedom within feminism is inherently tied to the study of politics and democracy more generally. Liberal feminist viewpoints and discussions about freedom and autonomy are linked to the existence of a liberal subject with the ability to navigate society freely in the first place. She points out how for feminists to seek this freedom is somewhat paradoxical because women have usually not been included in the category of liberal subjects. She also notes how politics has a goal and to make political claims is always to work towards an end, but what is that end for feminists seeking democratic freedom?
I agree with Kelsey's analysis of Zerelli and Cornell's take on autonomy within feminist discourse. While the two ideas were dense, I think Zerilli makes an interesting point about the connection between democracy and feminist discourse. Because many of the discussions within feminism are multi-dimensional and complex, often at the expense of more marginalized voices, creating a space for women who can constantly add to the discourse via an ebb and flow is certainly ideal. However if we cannot create a definable space even for these women, the ebb and flow may appear like a set of ideas and theories with no boundaries or definitions. This is connected to democracy in many ways.
ReplyDelete