Killing the Mother?

Butler after Barad in Feminist (Post) Qualitative Research
  • Patti Lather


There is a secret agreement between past generations and the present one. Our coming was expected on earth. Like every generation that preceded us, we have been endowed with a weak Messianic power, a power to which the past has a claim. That claim cannot be settled cheaply.


Feminist Theory Queer Theory Sense Publisher Ideology Critique Aesthetic Education 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28(3), 801–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe half-way. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barad, K. (2012). Intra-active entanglements: An interview with Karen Barad. Kvinder, Kon and Forskning NR, (1–2), 10–23. (Malou Juelskjer and Nete Schwennesen.)Google Scholar
  4. Barzilay, A. (2012). Back to the future: Introducing constructive feminism for the twenty-first century. Harvard Law and Policy Review, 6, 407, 418.Google Scholar
  5. Behar, R. (1996). The vulnerable observer: Ethnography that breaks your heart. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  6. Benjamin, W. (1968/1940). Theses on the philosophy of history. In H. Arendt (Ed.), Illuminations (pp. 253–264). New York, NY: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
  7. Berlant, L. (2011). Cruel optimism. Durham NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bloom, H. (1973). The anxiety of influence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bogost, I. (2012). Alien phenomenology or what it’s like to be a thing. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowman, P. (Ed.). (2003). Interrogating cultural studies, politics, theory and intervention. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  11. Braidotti, R. (2005). A critical genealogy of feminist post-postmodernism. Australian Feminist Studies 29(47), 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Braidotti, R. (2009). Introduction: Learning from the future. Australian Feminist Studies, 24(59), 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bryant, L. (2006). Larval subjects blog. Retrieved from http://www.larvalsubjects.wordpress.comGoogle Scholar
  15. Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Childers, S. (2008). Methodology, praxis, and autoethnography: A review of getting lost. Educational Researcher, 37(5), 298–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Childers, S., Jeong, E. R., & Daza, S. (Eds.). (2013). Feminist methodologies: The dirty theory and messy practice of educational research beyond gender. Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(5), 507–523.Google Scholar
  18. Davis, H., & Sarlin, P. (2008). “On the risk of a new relationality:” An interview with Lauren Berlant and Michael Hardt. Reviews in Cultural Theory. Retrieved August 23, 2012, from Scholar
  19. Daza, S. (2013). A promiscuous (feminist) look at grant-science: How colliding imaginaries shape the practice of NSF policy. Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(5–6), 580–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deleuze, G. (1988). Foucault. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dolphijn, R., & van der Tuin, I. (2012). New materialism: Interviews and cartographies. Ann Arbor, MI: New Humanities Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor-network theory and education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Fisher, M. (2014). Marijuana’s rising acceptance comes after many failures. Is it now legalization’s time? Washington Post.Google Scholar
  24. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harman, G. (2009). Prince of networks: Bruno Latour and metaphysics. Melbourne: Re-press.Google Scholar
  26. Hey, V. (2006).The politics of performative resignification: Translating Judith Butler’s theoretical discourse and its potential for a sociology of education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27(4), 439–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Iversen, M., & Melville, S. (2010). Writing art history: Disciplinary departures. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jackson, A., & Mazzei, L. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Kirby, V. (2002). When all that is solid melts into language: Judith Butler and the question of matter. International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies, 7(4), 265–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 56(3), 257–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lather, P. (2007). Getting lost: Feminist efforts toward a double(d) science. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lather, P. (2010). Engaging science policy: From the side of the Messy. New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  33. Lather, P. (2012). Becoming feminist: An untimely meditation on football. Cultural Studies/Critical Methodology, 12(4), 357–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lather, P. (2013a). An intellectual autobiography: The return of the (feminist) subject? In M. B. Weaver-Hightower & C. Skelton (Eds.), Leaders in gender and education (pp. 117–128). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lather, P. (2013b). Methodology -21: What do we do in the afterward? Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 634–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lather, P. (2015, July). Against proper objects: Toward the diversely qualitative. Keynote presented at the 4th Summer Institute in Qualitative Research, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester.Google Scholar
  37. Lather, P., & Smithies, C. (1997). Troubling the angels: Women living with HIV/AIDS. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lenz-Taguchi, H. (2012). A diffractive and Deleuzean approach to analyzing interview data. Journal of Feminist Theory, 13(3), 265–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lenz-Taguchi, H. (2013). Becoming “Molecular Girl”: Transforming subjectivities in collaborative doctoral research studies as a micro-politics of the academy. Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(9), 1101–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. MacLellan, M., & Talpalaru, M. (2012). Remaking the commons. Reviews in Cultural Theory. Retrieved August 22, 2012, from Scholar
  41. Marcus, G. (2009). Introduction. In J. Faubion & G. Marcus (Eds.), Fieldwork is not what it used to be (pp. 1–31). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Mazzei, L. (2013). Materialist mappings of knowing in being: researchers constituted in the production of knowledge. Gender and Education, 25(6), 776–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McCoy, K. (1997). Killing the father/Becoming uncomfortable with the mother tongue: Rethinking the performative contradiction. Educational Theory, 47(4), 489–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Povenilli, E. (2011). Economies of abandonment: Social belonging and endurance in late liberalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Spivak, G. (2012). An aesthetic education in the era of globalization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  46. St. Pierre, E. (2011). Post-qualitative research: The critique and the coming after. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 611–635). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Van der Tuin, I. (2009). ‘Jumping generations’: On second- and third-wave feminist epistemology. Australian Feminist Studies, 24(59), 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van der Tuin, I., & Dolphijn, R. (2010). The transversality of new materialism. Women: A Cultural Review, 21(2), 153–171.Google Scholar
  49. Weems, L., & Lather, P. (2000). A psychoanalysis we can bear to learn from [Review of Deborah Britzman, Lost Subjects, Contested Objects: Toward a Psychoanalytic Inquiry of Learning, SUNY, 1998]. Educational Researcher, 29(6), 41–42.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patti Lather
    • 1
  1. 1.Educational StudiesOhio State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations