Within recent feminist philosophy, controversy has developed over the desirability, and indeed, the possibility of defining the central terms of its analysis—“woman,” “femininity,” etc. The controversy results largely from the undertheorization of the notion of definition; feminists have uncritically adopted an Aristotelian treatment of definition as entailing metaphysical, rather than merely linguistic, commitments. A “discursive” approach to definition, by contrast, allows us to define our terms, while avoiding the dangers of essentialism and universalism.

Within recent feminist philosophy, controversy has developed over the desirability, and indeed, the possibility of defining the central terms of its analysis—“woman,” “femininity,” etc. The controversy results largely from the undertheorization of the notion of definition; feminists have uncritically adopted an Aristotelian treatment of definition as entailing metaphysical, rather than merely linguistic, commitments. A “discursive” approach to definition, by contrast, allows us to define our terms, while avoiding the dangers of essentialism and universalism.

The disciplines of western philosophy and theology are linked by their development of concepts of the ‘other’, figured as what lies outside the ‘discourses of man. The relations between the two discourses of the other deserves the attention of feminists, given their ongoing debate of Simone de Beauvoir s claim that woman is the ‘absolute other in these discourses. While the theology of God s otherness responds to the particularity which is God, the logic that underlies this theology is of (...) general application, and so may be borrowed to theorize the anomalous status of other figures of the other. French philosopher Luce Irigaray, for example, exploits the relations between philosophy and theology in claiming that the other may be represented as at once feminine and divine. (shrink)

Within recent feminist philosophy, controversy has developed over the desirability, and indeed, the possibility of defining the central terms of its analysis-"woman," "femininity," etc. The controversy results largely from the undertheorization of the notion of definition; feminists have uncritically adopted an Aristotelian treatment of definition as entailing metaphysical, rather than merely linguistic, commitments. A "discursive" approach to definition, by contrast, allows us to define our terms, while avoiding the dangers of essentialism and universalism.