Abstract
If the model of the humanist subject (that self-sufficient agent of unique thought, speech and action) has been exploded by postmodern revision, what remains for feminists, still seeking a subjectivity of their own? To what degree has the humanist model of the subject eclipsed the feminine, and is it possible to reformulate a female subjectivity outside the masculine economy? Recent feminist philosophy suggests (partial) answers to the questions raised in the debate over women’s self-definition.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alcoff, Linda. 1991. “Cultural Feminism Versus Post-Structuralism: The Identity Crisis in Feminist Theory,”Signs: Journal of Women, Culture and Society 13, 3, (Spring).
Belsey, Catherine. 1980.Critical Practice. London and New York: Routledge.
Boumelha, Penny. 1991. “Literary Feminism,”Australian Feminist Studies. 13 (Autumn).
Braidotti, Rosi. 1986. “The Ethics of Sexual Difference: The Case of Foucault and Irigaray,”Australian Feminist Studies. 3 (Summer).
Butler, Judith. 1990.Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York and London: Routledge.
De Beauvoir, Simone. 1989.The Second Sex. New York: Vintage Books.
De Lauretis, Teresa. 1987.Technologies of Gender. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Eagleton, Terry. 1983.Literary Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ebert, Teresa L. 1988. “The Romance of Patriarchy: Ideology, Subjectivity, and Postmodern Feminist Cultural Theory,”Cultural Critique. 10, (Fall).
Elshtain, Jean Bethke. 1982. “Feminist Discourse and Its Discontents: Language, Power, and Meaning,”Signs. (Spring).
Greene, Gayle and Kahn, Coppelia. (1986).Making a Difference: Feminist Literary Criticism. London and New York: Routledge.
Gross, Elizabeth. 1986. “Irigaray and Sexual Difference,”Australian Feminist Studies. 2 (Autumn).
Gross, Elizabeth. 1986. “Women and Writing: The Work of Julia Kristeva in Perspective,”Refractory GirL Writes. October 1982.
Irigaray, Luce. 1985.This Sex Which Is Not One. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Jefferson, Ann and Robey, David, editors. 1982.Modern Literary Theory. London: B.T. Batsford.
Johnson, Pauline. 1988. “The Dilemmas of Luce Irigaray,”Australian Feminist Studies. 6 (Autumn).
Jones, Ann Rosalind. 1984. “Julia Kristeva on Femininity: The Limits of Semiotic Politics,”Feminist Review. 18, (November).
Jones, Ann Rosalind. 1985. “Writing the Body: Toward an Understanding ofl’Ecriture Feminine.” in Newton, Judith and Rosenfelt, Debra, editors,Feminist Criticism and Social Change. New York: Methuen.
Moi, Toril, editor. 1986.The Kristeva Reader. New York: Columbia University Press.
Moi, Toril. 1985.Sexual Textual Politics. London and New York: Routledge.
Nye, Andrea. 1987. “Woman Clothed with the Sun: Julia Kristeva and the Escape From/to Language,”Signs (Summer).
Wright, Elizabeth, editor. 1992.Feminism and Psychoanalysis: A Critical Dictionary. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Eileen Schlee is currently completing doctoral studies at the University of Hawaii, where she will serve as lecturer in the Department of English (Fall 1993). Her undergraduate degree is from Williams College, Massachusetts. During her five years’ residency in Australia she earned both a Graduate Diploma in Education and a Master of Arts in English from the University of Melbourne. She also taught English for two years at Star of the Sea College (Melbourne). Her field of research and writing is Australian literature, literary theory and writing by women.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schlee, E. The subject is dead, long live the female subject!. Feminist Issues 13, 69–80 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02685735
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02685735