Advertisement

Feminist Legal Studies

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 315–318 | Cite as

Embodied Practices

  • Ruth Fletcher
Article

In thinking about law, gender and sexuality (LGS) as a field, at first I struggled with the conception of a field. What counts as a field of scholarship? What’s the difference between a discipline and a field, or between a body and a field? Intuitively I think of a field as less than a discipline and more than a body of scholarship. For me, a field connotes an area of research and teaching, rather than a disciplinary mode of knowledge production, or a collection of academic scholarship. So if fields feed and evaluate the scholarship they produce, what is useful or good about being a field? Moreover, is ‘fieldness’ a quality of LGS?

In thinking this through, the primary image of a field that came to mind was that of an agricultural field. As I visualised green fields with crops and animals it became clearer that there were different kinds of fields even as they all produce new entities which take on a life of their own. I could think of fields as needing things like rest and food in...

Keywords

Critical Practice Cluster Workshop Distinct Logic Compulsory Heterosexuality Feminist Legal Study 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Rosemary Hunter for her helpful feedback on an earlier version, to Davina Cooper for her stimulating questions, and to the participants at the roundtable for their insightful comments.

References

  1. Adkins, Lisa, and Beverley Skeggs (eds.). 2005. Feminism after Bourdieu. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Fletcher, Ruth, and Marie Fox (eds.). 2008. Special issue: Theorising legal embodiment. Medical Law Review 16: 321–457.Google Scholar
  3. Franklin, Sarah. 2007. Dolly mixtures: The remaking of genealogy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Fraser, Mariam, Sarah Kember, and Celia Lury (eds.). 2005. Inventive life: Approaches towards a new vitalism. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Grabham, Emily, Davina Cooper, Jane Krishnadas, and Didi Herman (eds.). 2008. Intersectionality and beyond: Law, power and the politics of location. London: Routledge Cavendish.Google Scholar
  6. Grosz, Elizabeth. 1994. Volatile bodies: Towards a corporeal feminism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Herman, Didi. 1994. Rights of passage: Struggles for lesbian and gay legal equality. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  8. McNay, Lois. 2007. Against recognition. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. O’Brien, Mary. 1981. The politics of reproduction. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  10. Peillon, Michel. 1996. Bourdieu’s field and the sociology of welfare. Journal of Social Policy 27: 213–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rose, Nikolas. 2006. The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Sheldon, Sally, and Michael Thomson (eds.). 1995. Feminist perspectives on healthcare law. London: Cavendish.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawKeele UniversityStaffordshireUK

Personalised recommendations