Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!aero!rshapiro@BBN.COM From: rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: theory and action Message-ID: <47313@bbn.COM> Date: 25 Oct 89 14:17:45 GMT References: <8910130354.AA03023@mimsy.UMD.EDU> <8910140446.AA08021@mimsy.UMD.EDU> <47048@bbn.COM> <7064@cs.utexas.edu> <47221@bbn.COM> <1989Oct24.211107.9199@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu> Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Reply-To: Richard Shapiro Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA Lines: 41 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Status: R In article <1989Oct24.211107.9199@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu> geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >Very interesting that the arch-sexist himself (Freud) is employed >to argue a feminist position. It is indeed interesting to see that Freud's model is productive even in contexts which disagree with his own particular conclusions. This is exactly the point of Irigaray's book -- she uses Freud's concepts to deconstruct his own highly unsatisfactory ideas about the feminine, thus demonstrating the resilience of the general model. Freud made mistakes like anyone else, and his general theory is good enough to uncover those mistakes. > Why we should accept Freud's >authority in a day when he has been scientifically discredited >is another question. This is not the place to argue the relationship between science and psychoanalysis. Freud's general model provides convincing and coherent explanations for the observed facts about gender, far more convincing and complete than any strict empiricist model. The supposed "discrediting" is really nothing more than a difference in paradigm between empirical science and psychoanalysis. The former cannot provide a good accounting of gender; the latter can do so (though of course other conceptual frameworks might do even better -- I just don't know what they are). That's enough "accrediting" for me. Of course there's no way for you to know this if you refuse to investigate (feminist) psychoanalysis. >>* I can provide references for readings on this subject. >Yes, of course, and others can provide references for their >views and theories. Are you prepared to read those also? Either I'll read them, or I'll shut up about them. Will you do likewise? PA is a highly evolved and sophisticated (and rigorous) conceptual model, and it takes some kind of education to understand it. You really can't expect your comments to be taken seriously if you're speaking from ignorance.