|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 82, Zeilen: 1 ff. (entire page) |
Quelle: Wackwitz Rakow 2004 Seite(n): 4, 5, Zeilen: 4: right col, 29 ff.; 5: left col, 1 ff. |
|---|---|
| [In general, frequent themes in those] works stress the need for and promise of feminist scholarship in communication, specifically due to the scholarship’s disappointing effect on the communication field.
One way of measuring the status of feminist scholarship is by looking at its presence in scholarly communication journals, a status analyzed by Timothy Stephen (2000). Stephen concludes that feminist scholarship comprises two different eras in communication – the period before the mid-1980s and the period since that time. Unfortunately, his “concept map” of gender issues addressed in published articles does not address theoretical differences among authors and, most important, whether or not they used feminist theory. He does, nevertheless, refer to the same turning point that has been identified as the start of the era of feminist communication theory. Even though many outstanding feminist scholars and concerned others were documenting the communication concerns of women and pushing the limits of communication research even before the latter half of the 1980s, it was only then that feminist theory emerged into the field in a significant way. Since then, two schools of thought have appeared in communication journals: one that adds women or gender to existing communication theory, and another that is grounded in feminist theory (Rakow & Wackwitz, 2004, pp. 4-5). Traditionally, ‘theory’ has been restricted for white men in the academy (Kramarae, 1989). Women, some argue, either have had little to say on the subject or have lacked the history of ideas necessary to properly develop good theory and thereby earn their theoretical entitlement. Given this history, it is possible to understand why the term theory has not been embraced by all feminists (Butler & Scott, 1992). In response, Deborah Rhode (1990) urges feminists to consider that their suspicions about theory [“should not hinder us from the practice of theorizing about what justice in a postmodern world would look like” (p. 29).] Butler, J. & Scott, J. W. (Eds.). (1990). Feminists theorize the political. New York: Routledge. Kramarae, C. (1989). Feminist theories of communication. In Erik Barnouw (Ed.), International encyclopedia of communications (vol. 2, pp. 156-160). New York: Oxford University Press. Rakow, L.F. & Wackwitz, L.A. (Eds.). (2004). Feminist communication theory: An introduction. In Lana F. Rakow L.F. [sic] & Laura A. Wackwitz (Eds.). Feminist communication theory: Selections in context. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rhode, D.L. (Ed.), (1990). Theoretical perspectives on sexual difference. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Stephen, T. (2000). Concept analysis of gender, feminist, and women’s studies research in the communication literature. Communication Monographs, 67, 193-214. |
[page 4]
In general, recurring themes in those works emphasize the need for and promise of feminist scholarship in communication, particularly in light of that scholarship's disappointing effect on the communication field. One measure of the status of feminist scholarship is its presence in scholarly communication journals, a status analyzed by Timothy Stephen (2000). Stephen concludes that feminist scholarship consists of two distinct eras in communication—the period before the mid-1980s and the period since that time. Unfortunately, his “concept map” of gender issues addressed in published articles is not subtle enough to address theoretical differences among authors and, most important, whether [page 5] or not they used feminist theory. He does, however, refer to the same dividing point we have identified as the start of the era of feminist communication theory. Although a number of outstanding feminist scholars and concerned others were documenting the communication concerns of women and pushing the boundaries of communication research prior to the latter half of the 1980s, it was only then that feminist theory was brought into the field in a significant way (see Rakow, 1992, for a more complete discussion of this topic). Since then, two streams of work have appeared in communication journals: one that adds women or gender to existing communication theory and another that is grounded in feminist theory. Our interest clearly is in the latter. It is time to take stock of the developments and the potential of feminist communication theory. Naming our book Feminist Communication Theory is itself a political act. Traditionally, “theory” has been reserved for white men in the academy (Kramarae, 1989). Women, or so the argument goes, either have had little to say on the subject or have lacked the history of ideas necessary to properly develop good theory and thereby earn their theoretical stripes. Given this history, it is possible to understand why the term theory has not been embraced by all feminists (Butler Scott, 1992; cf. Trebilcot, 1991). [...] We find the arguments of Deborah Rhode (1990) compelling in response. She urges us to consider that our suspicions about theory “should not hinder us from the practice of theorizing about what justice in a postmodern world would look like” (p. 29). Butler, Judith and Joan W. Scott. (Eds.). (1990). Feminists theorize the political. New York: Routledge. Kramarae, Cheris. (1989). Feminist theories of communication. In Erik Barnouw (Ed.), International encyclopedia of communications (vol. 2, pp. 156–160). New York: Oxford University Press. Rakow, Lana F. (1992). The field reconsidered. In Lana F. Rakow (Ed.), Women making meaning (pp. 3–1). [sic] New York: Routledge. Rhode, Deborah L. (Ed.). (1990). Theoretical perspectives on sexual difference. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Stephen, Timothy. (2000). Concept analysis of gender, feminist, and women's studies research in the communication literature. Communication Monographs, 67, 193–214. Trebilcot, Joyce. (1991). Ethics of method: Greasing the machine and telling stories. In Claudia Card (Ed.), Feminist ethics (pp. 45–51). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. |
The source is given, but it is not made clear how close this page is to the source. |
|