A different take on a complex subject
by - Written: Aug 03 '02
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: A new way of looking at philosophy
Cons: May not be understandable to everyone (to put it mildly)
The Bottom Line: It's difficult to find, but well worth making the effort to get it.
|
|
|
| Kidnykid's Full Review: Sarah Lucia Hoagland - Lesbian Ethics: Toward New ... |
Sarah Lucia Hoagland is a lesbian separatist. (This means, in part, that she tries to avoid being with men in either her work environment or her social life whenever possible.) She is also a college professor here in the Midwest, at least as of the writing of this book.
LESBIAN ETHICS is her attempt to define a standard of ethics applicable to lesbians. One of the things she mentions fairly soon into the book is that most systems of ethics amount to little more than "do's and don'ts." Put another way, most ethical systems amount to fairly stereotypical ways of looking at the world - think of the way someone like Hegel, for example, structures his philosophy.
Because lesbianism is not a mainstream lifestyle in the same sense as is heterosexuality, Hoagland recognizes that this approach doesn't work. Therefore, she modifies her language and approach in the following ways.
First of all, she structures her ideas of ethics in terms of "responsiveness" rather than "responsibility" or "rules." She sees people, in other words, as "capable of responding" to one another, rather than "having responsibilities to" one another. This is her attempt to avoid negative stereotyping of others; she feels strongly that the word "responsibility" (as but one example of the English language) emphasizes what we must do for others too much, while the word "responsiveness" tends more to emphasize her belief that people have a capability of responding to each other. It's a more positive outlook on human behavior.
Secondly, she sees everyone (herself included) as having the capability of choosing what they want to do. Even people in the most dire circumstances have a number of choices regarding the way they behave. Granted, those in such dire circumstances don't have the wide availability of choices open to them that those in less-dire circumstances do. But we all have a greater or lesser number of choices available to us, given our circumstances. There is no one on earth that does not have choices open to them.
Finally, another use of language in this book comes to mind. I remember that she discusses rape and assault as it pertains to women. Let's take, for example, the statement "I was raped." That's in what grammarians call the passive voice - I am the victim being acted upon. I have not mentioned anything about the rapist. Is it a man or a woman? Hoagland is speaking as a lesbian separatist and a feminist when she says that it is preferable to say "a man raped me." Someone took action upon me; I was the victim of a man who assaulted me, at least for the purposes of this example. She feels that in such circumstances, language should be used in such a fashion as to hold men accountable for the crimes they commit against women. (Although I'm straight, I happen to agree with her here.)
Men - particularly straight men - might feel uncomfortable with Hoagland's perspective here. That's because her separatism seems to me to bleed through every page I have read of this book. However, that doesn't make her separatism an invalid perspective, nor does it make this book necessarily bad for everyone.
If you aren't uncomfortable with this perspective, and are willing to broaden your philosophical horizons, this book is well worth buying and reading. Keep in mind, though, that it is difficult to find. I had to go to a feminist bookstore on the North Side of Chicago to find it. It isn't widely available in most bookstores.
Recommended:
Yes
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
