Abstract

At the 1992 Women in the History of Philosophy Conference at Cambridge, the contestability of the title "philosopher" was a major item of discussion. Historically, it seemed, women could claim the title only if there was no doubt that their work was original, where originality had everything to do with producing writings that did not "merely" derive from, comment upon, contribute to, or critique the works of male philosophers. The requirement is odd in an intellectual discipline shaped and sustained by critical-constructive debate that constitutes both its history and its substance, many of whose canonical participants have directed their major efforts to corroborating, refuting, and/or extending the ideas of their semblables elsewhere or in other times. The "merely derivative" criterion is difficult to credit when it merely confirms fixed assumptions about women's place in a social order where they had no audible public voice and achieved minimal wider acknowledgement for their private utterances. For, although no simple conspiracy theory could account for women's philosophical silence, the original-versus-derivative distinction has often functioned as a double standard, recognizing many men as philosophers because of their engagement with topics that preoccupied other, already established philosophers, denying women recognition because of equivalent engagements. The injustice of these practices prompts Linda McAlister's project of collecting these eighteen articles, which span the time period from the work of Hypatia in the fourth century BC to the late-twentieth-century work of Hannah Arendt and Angela Davis. Many of the essays first appeared in Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, some of them are reprinted from other journals, and five appear here for the first time. In presenting detailed, engaged philosophical analyses of the work of women philosophers, the essays begin to address the belief that women, "denied the opportunity to stand on the shoulders of their foremothers", have frequently had to enter philosophical discourse through the auspices of men. They attest to the contingencies of canon formation in determining who can claim a place in the lineage of the fathers.