Poststructuralist Gender Historians: Are We Those Names?
1990; Athabasca University Press; Volume: 25; Linguagem: Inglês
10.2307/25143354
ISSN1911-4842
AutoresMariana Valverde, Denise Riley, Joan Wallach Scott,
Tópico(s)Labor Movements and Unions
ResumoWHAT MANY SOCIAL HISTORIANS are dubbing 'the controversy about discourse theory' is often posed as a single yes-or-no question. It may be more useful, however, to use a review of two key works in this controversy to clarify several related but distinct debates regarding theory, method, and politics which often are lumped together in an indigestible polemical mass. These two books are generally 'on the same side,' politically and theoretically, but tackle different questions and have different concerns. Reading them together suggests that there is more than one debate, and that each of the debates has more than two sides. An ancient debate being re-enacted through the discussion of discourse and poststructuralism is that which concerns 'fact ' Just the facts, ma'am is still a call heard among both liberal and Marxist historians who privilege quantitative data, and believe that one can map social 'facts' and social structures without paying attention to the words and values of human beings. Empiricists — no matter of what political stripe — naturally dismiss all attempts to understand culture and meaning as a frivolous and marginal form of historical research far inferior to their own 'scientific' labours. Some of Joan Scott's essays are biting attacks on empiricism, particularly as practiced by historians of women. Women's history, however, like labour history, generally has moved beyond simple empiricism. As Riley suggests, the prevailing paradigm among feminist scholars is based not on 'facts,' but on the newer notion of 'experience.' This was the central category in the pioneering work of EP. Thompson and, as Ellen Trimberger has pointed out, it was imported into feminist
Referência(s)