In the two readings both Cornell and Zerlli
examine the complexities that come with defining the concept of freedom with
regards to feminism. Cornell argues that feminism is the ego ideal free from
outside interference and inequality. She explains, “To understand feminism is
to defend its spirit of generosity because each woman or man will internalize
it as an ideal in her or his own way” . Cornell states that as creatures of
reason we are free to determine our own desires, we are given the autonomy to pursue
our desires by the laws of morality, or as Cornell states Dignity. Dignity is
the moral law that demands we individuality from the collective to carve our
own journey out in life. The concept of
feminism with regards to freedom is has no strict structure and is totally
dependent and formed by what the individual sees as an end to his/her desires.
Likewise Zerlli discuses freedom in feminism, but offers insight into this
freedom in the structure of democratic politics. Zerlli states, “Losing sight
of openness, feminism gets entangled in the impossible fantasy that women could
constitute a unified political group, without exclusion or remainder”. In
essence, a hegemonic form of feminism would ultimately ostracize many. Zerlli
reinforces Cornell’s argument that each woman or man will internalize feminism in
his or her own way. The very concept of democracy and feminism intersecting leaves
open the possibility that one will act to fulfill their own desires irrespective
of the collective group.
Your definitions really smooth out this complex reading! I like your point about how there is no feasible way that all women could represent a single "party" of "women." I would be interested to know how this overlaps with your political views in general and maybe, if the way to form the ideal of "feminism" could apply to bettering our current political system.
ReplyDelete