Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-06T04:27:22.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Confessing Feminist Theory: What's “I” Got to Do with It?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Susan David Bernstein
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Confessional modes of self-representation have become crucial in feminist epistemologies that broaden and contextualize the location and production of knowledge. In some versions of confessional feminism, the insertion of “I” is reflective, the product of an uncomplicated notion of experience that shuttles into academic discourse apersonal truth. In contrast to reflective intrusions of the first person, reflexive confessing is primarily a questioning mode that imposes self-vigilance on the process of self positioning.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 7 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Philosophy and Language , Spring 1992 , pp. 120 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alcoff, Linda. 1988. Cultural feminism versus post‐structuralism: The identity crisis in feminist theory. Signs 13 (3): 405–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlant, Lauren. 1988. The female complaint. Social Text 19/20 (Fall): 237–59.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Susan David. 1989. Confessing Lacan. In Seduction and theory, ed. Hunter, Dianne. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender trouble. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cixous, Helene. 1981. The laugh of the Medusa. In New French feminisms, ed. Marks, Elaine and De Courtivron, Isabelle. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
De Lauretis, Teresa. 1987. Technologies of gender. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DuBois, Page. 1986. Antigone and the feminist critic. Genre 19 (Winter): 371–83.Google Scholar
DuPlessis, Rachel Blau. 1978. Washing blood. Feminist Studies 4 (2): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felski, Rita. 1989. Beyond feminist aesthetics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Kathy. 1990. Interpretation and genealogy in feminism. Signs 16 (2): 322–39.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1988. Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In Language, counter‐memory, practice, ed. Bouchard, Donald F., Trans. Bouchard, and Simon, Sherry. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Frey, Olivia. 1990. Beyond literary Darwinism: Women's voices and critical discourse. College English 52 (5): 507–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallop, Jane. 1988. Thinking through the body. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, Marianne, and Keller, Evelyn Fox eds., 1990. Conflicts in feminism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jardine, Alice. 1989. Notes for an analysis. In Between feminism and psychoanalysis, ed. Brennan, Teresa. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
MacLean, Gerald. 1989. Citing the subject. In Gender and theory: Dialogues on feminist criticism, ed. Kauffman, Linda. New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Martin, Biddy, and Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. 1986. Feminist politics: What's home got to do with it? In Feminist studies/critical studies, ed. De Lauretis, Teresa. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Messer‐Davidow, Ellen. 1989. The philosophical bases of feminist literary criticisms. Gender and theory Dialogues on feminist criticism, ed. Kauffman, Linda. New York: Basil Blackwell. First published in New Literary History 19, 1 (1987): 65–103.Google Scholar
Michel, Ellen, n.d. Jane Gallop's cryptogrammatic discourse: Rebuses of elation and violation in Thinking through the body. Unpublished ms.Google Scholar
Michie, Helena. 1989. Not one of the family: The repression of the other woman in feminist theory. In Discontented discourses, eds Barr, Marleen S. and Feldstein, Richard. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Nancy K. 1991. Getting personal: Feminist occasions and other autobiographical acts. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Moi, Toril. 1988. Feminism, postmodernism, and style. Cultural Critique 9:3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Joan W. 1991. The evidence of experience. Critical Inquiry 17 (2): 773–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedgwick, Eve K. 1987. A poem is being written. Representations 17 (Winter): 110–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1988. French feminism in an international frame. In In other worlds. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1990. The post‐colonial critic: Interviews, strategies, dialogues, ed. Harasym, Sarah. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Steedman, Carolyn. 1987. Landscape for a good woman: A story of two lives. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Stimpson, Catharine R. 1990. Feminism and feminist criticism. In Where the meanings are. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tompkins, Jane. 1989. Me and my shadow. Gender and theory: Dialogues on feminist criticism, ed. Kauffman, Linda. New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Torgovnick, Mariana. 1990. Experimental critical writing. Profession 90 (MLA, New York): 25–27.Google Scholar
Walker, Cheryl. 1990. Feminist literary criticism and the author. Critical Inquiry 16 (1): 551–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Patricia J. 1991. The alchemy of race andrights. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Young‐Bruehl, Elisabeth. 1991. Pride and prejudice: Feminist scholars reclaim the first person. Lingua Franca (February): 15–18.Google Scholar