Feminist Interpretations of Immanuel Kant (Re-Reading the Canon) [Paperback]

Robin May Schott (Author, Editor)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 0271016760 | ISBN-13: 978-0271016764 | Publication Date: July 1, 1997 | Edition: First Edition

Because of his misogyny and disdain for the body, Kant has been a target of much feminist criticism. Moreover, as the epitome of 18th-century Enlightenment philosophy, his thought has been a focal point for feminist debate over the Enlightenment legacy - whether its conceptions of reason and progress offer tools for women's emancipation and empowerment or rather have contributed to the historical subordination of women in Western society. This volume presents divergent interpretations of Kant from feminist perspectives. Some essays see Kant as having contributed significantly to theories of rationality and autonomy in ways that can further feminist projects. Other essays argue that Kant is a pre-eminent exponent of patriarchal views and that gender hierarchies are inscribed in the very structure of his theories of morality and aesthetic judgement. But both critics and sympathizers challenge the accepted topography of Kantian philosophy by which central philosophical concerns are defined as those that are abstract, universal and transcendental. Instead, these feminist writers resituate Kantian questions in the politics of everyday life and emphasize the embodied nature of knowledge, morality and aesthetics. They analyze dilemmas that face concrete subjects, involving issues of friendship, collective responsibility, xenophobia and colonialism, among others. Contributors are: Annette C. Baier, Marcia Baron, Monique David-Menard, Kim Hall, Cornelia Klinger, Jane Kneller, Sarah Kofman, Marcia Moen, Herta Nagl-Docekal, Adrian M.S. Piper, Jean P. Rumsey, Robin May Schott, Hannelore Schroder, Sally Sedgwick and Holly L. Wilson.

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Robin May Schott is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Copenhagen and the author of Cognition and Eros: A Critique of the Kantian Paradigm (paperback edition, Penn State, 1993).

Product Details

• Paperback: 352 pages
• Publisher: Pennsylvania State Univ Pr (Txt); First Edition edition (July 1, 1997)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0271016760
• ISBN-13: 978-0271016764
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.3 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #919,708 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars mostly liberal feminist bitterness 4 kant can be fun to read, September 30, 2001

By 

c2588 (92103) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Feminist Interpretations of Immanuel Kant (Re-Reading the Canon) (Paperback)

i read this book on the road, and found many of its essays to be trite and simplistic, but some very exciting. so i admit some got skimmed and some pored over.
it is very easy to call Kant a woman hating enlightenment ivory tower jerk, which is pretty true, but harder to defend him.
some of the essays are very philosophically technical, and some are technical in their use of feminist concepts, but this book is primarily for folks who know a fair amount of philosophy (alot, in some cases, like the stuff about aesthetics and some political philosophy) and quite a bit less about feminism.
alot of the arguments assume the primacy of the "ethic of care" as suggested by gilligan, but some better essays answer this argument with alot of footnotes to "Feminist Ethics", which is a book for people with a larger understanding of feminism, and less of "philosophy" (e.g. kant and stuff).

this book assumes that you know alot about kant, or have certain popular impressions of him, like that he thought inclination was bad and duty good.

overall, if you think kant is a big loser and a jerk, and get angry every time he uses a male pseudogeneric, you have either already read this book or should.

also, it is well footnoted and i found many of its footnotes and citations very helpful.