FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2030443395> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2030443395 endingPage "35" @default.
• W2030443395 startingPage "30" @default.
• W2030443395 abstract "From Supplementarity to Parasitism? Afsaneh Najmabadi (bio) Feminism's History has several plot lines, all aimed at coming to terms with the vexing question: What future, if any, for feminist history? Vexing because, as Scott notes, discussions about the future, whether of feminism, women's studies, or feminist history, seem to provoke a sense of un-ease, if not peril; a preference for deferring the challenge of a straight answer, a clear vision, a defined project, as once was the case. This once upon a time refers to the 1970s. One emplotment of the story in Feminism's History unfolds as what could be called the completion of Enlightenment project. Scott tells this story through a conversation with Clio: Our challenge to her seemed simple: to make women's stories central to the memory she transmitted to mortal humans. In order to ease her task we would supply the materials she needed: histories of the lives and activities of women in the past (10). In the unfolding of this story line, Scott emphasizes the double aspect of our feminist project: to change the discipline fundamentally by writing women into history and by taking our rightful place as historians(10). She also recounts the field's achievements: The last several decades have seen the realization of both these aims (11); while recognizing some of the limits: Of course the achievement is not perfect; neither women's history nor women historians are fully equal players in the discipline and we have by no means rewritten all the stories (11). In this semi-celebratory mode, the answer to the question why is it so difficult to imagine a future for feminist history? becomes suspiciously and unsatisfactorily simple: Feminism has been remarkably successful in what it set off to achieve. In its emphasis on the successes of feminist history, this story barely notes the temporal and geographical unevenness of these achievements. Much of our success story is located in the present. Feminist re-mapping of the fields of ancient history, even medieval and early modern, is far less developed than modern Euro-America. In Middle Eastern history—a field I am most familiar with—there has been some headway made in introducing women into modern social history, but gendering history (especially histories of pre-, early, and medieval Islam) is only marginally, if at all, on the intellectual map of the field. In subaltern studies and postcolonial history, however, there has been more successful integration. While in some subfields, such as cultural history, feminism has been more successful in reshaping the field, in others, such as political history or diplomatic history, [End Page 30] not to speak of history of international relations, it barely has a presence. Is this differential pattern an effect of incidentally different degrees of institutional resistance? At one point, Scott points to such undoubtedly real institutional problems: Unlike Clio, we cannot punish those who would deny our accomplishment; nor can we be only amused by the folly of those brothers of Prometheus who claim to be the real innovators, treating us as imitators or usurpers (11). More important, the limits of our feminist achievements are told as imperfections, inequalities of the playing field, and incompleteness of stories told. This would solicit an obvious answer to the question does feminist history have a future?: We need to do more of the same to complete the project, even out the players' field, tell all the stories. If one did not ask what the gaps, disparities, and inequalities of the field have to do with the gains and achievements themselves, unwittingly perhaps, Feminism's History could be read as a story that needs completion, a progress narrative that would end in the death of feminism upon completion. Feminism's redundancy would be its ideal desired end. Clearly this most obvious answer is not what Feminism's History is happy with. Wary of a death end for feminism, Scott refuses feminism as a simple addition to the Enlightenment project. The resistance against a most obvious answer stems from the fact that, as Scott herself has argued here and in her numerous writings on this topic, feminism is not simply a perfector of the Enlightenment project..." @default.
• W2030443395 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2030443395 creator A5063352625 @default.
• W2030443395 date "2004-01-01" @default.
• W2030443395 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2030443395 title "From Supplementarity to Parasitism?" @default.
• W2030443395 cites W1606448394 @default.
• W2030443395 cites W2066859287 @default.
• W2030443395 cites W2068118696 @default.
• W2030443395 cites W2089963910 @default.
• W2030443395 cites W2570651475 @default.
• W2030443395 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/jowh.2004.0048" @default.
• W2030443395 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W2030443395 type Work @default.
• W2030443395 sameAs 2030443395 @default.
• W2030443395 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2030443395 countsByYear W20304433952014 @default.
• W2030443395 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2030443395 hasAuthorship W2030443395A5063352625 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConcept C107993555 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConcept C167651023 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConcept C2777200299 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConcept C2777688943 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConcept C2780326160 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConcept C46312422 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConceptScore W2030443395C105795698 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConceptScore W2030443395C107038049 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConceptScore W2030443395C107993555 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConceptScore W2030443395C111472728 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConceptScore W2030443395C138885662 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConceptScore W2030443395C144024400 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConceptScore W2030443395C167651023 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConceptScore W2030443395C2777200299 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConceptScore W2030443395C2777688943 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConceptScore W2030443395C2780326160 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConceptScore W2030443395C33923547 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConceptScore W2030443395C46312422 @default.
• W2030443395 hasConceptScore W2030443395C95457728 @default.
• W2030443395 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2030443395 hasLocation W20304433951 @default.
• W2030443395 hasOpenAccess W2030443395 @default.
• W2030443395 hasPrimaryLocation W20304433951 @default.
• W2030443395 hasRelatedWork W1752637824 @default.
• W2030443395 hasRelatedWork W1974317653 @default.
• W2030443395 hasRelatedWork W1986870568 @default.
• W2030443395 hasRelatedWork W1987033788 @default.
• W2030443395 hasRelatedWork W2013822974 @default.
• W2030443395 hasRelatedWork W2021948690 @default.
• W2030443395 hasRelatedWork W2084043941 @default.
• W2030443395 hasRelatedWork W2317596408 @default.
• W2030443395 hasRelatedWork W2725294242 @default.
• W2030443395 hasRelatedWork W4245531623 @default.
• W2030443395 hasVolume "16" @default.
• W2030443395 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2030443395 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2030443395 magId "2030443395" @default.
• W2030443395 workType "article" @default.