Zerilli & Cornell

The readings by Cornell and Zerilli explore conflicts within feminism. Zerilli’s piece explores the conflict between openness and closure feminism. Openness in feminism being this over-arching type of feminism that attempts to unify all women. The reading critiques this approach as it can lead to particular groups of women speaking for other groups of women. Whereas, closure in feminism is the idea that there are sub-groups within feminism, which allows particular groups of women to speak for themselves. However, the closure approach has its own conflicts because it infers that feminists cannot come together and form a type of feminism that is inclusive of all women. Whereas, Cornell seems to be stressing the importance of the individual on feminism as a whole. Cornell states, “unless someone is able to claim her desire as her own, she does not even know what she is reasoning about” (147). The conflict here seems to be on the individual level. We are often in conflict with our desires and ourselves as we are living in the “imaginary domain”. In this imaginary place, we basically form ourselves in relation to others rather than what we truly desire. Furthermore, this a severe conflict as Cornell states that it is form through “ego-ideals”, which carry unconscious material that we can never fully grasp or come to terms with.

Moreover, I think the two entries are similar because they both in some way explore the idea that feminism cannot be static. Cornell’s piece does this by stating that the “images and norms as we externalize them and act out our lives as men and women” (145). This means that through our continuous actions we have the power to deconstruct gender norms. Whereas Zerilli’s piece infers that feminism cannot be static through  the idea that people should have the freedom to debunk, question and alter things within a democracy and within feminism.