Angaben zur Quelle [Bearbeiten]
| Autor | Laura A. Wackwitz / Lana F. Rakow |
| Titel | Feminist Communication Theory: An Introduction |
| Sammlung | Feminist Communication Theory. Selections in Context |
| Herausgeber | Lana F. Rakow / Laura A. Wackwitz |
| Ort | Thousand Oaks, CA; London; New Delhi |
| Verlag | Sage |
| Jahr | 2004 |
| Seiten | 1-10 |
| URL | https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/feminist-communication-theory/book6187#contents and https://archive.org/details/feministcommunic0000unse/page/1/mode/2up |
Literaturverz. |
yes |
| Fußnoten | yes |
| Fragmente | 9 |
| [1.] Dsi/Fragment 081 06 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2022-08-20 07:06:58 WiseWoman | BauernOpfer, Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wackwitz Rakow 2004 |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 81, Zeilen: 6-21 |
Quelle: Wackwitz Rakow 2004 Seite(n): 1, 2, 4, Zeilen: 1: Title; 2: left col., last paragraph, right col. 1ff; 4: right col. |
|---|---|
| D. Feminist Communication Theory
That an area of scholarly work is identified by a term such as feminist communication theory reveals as much about nonfeminist communication theory as it does about itself. The field of communication, existing as disciplinary departments in universities and scholarly divisions in professional associations, has mainly developed from the Western perspective, which expresses the mindset of white men and deceptively universalizes their particular experiences. Thus, in spite of the potential for communication scholarship to recognize, support, and give voice to the great diversity of human experience, it can be said that the feminist communication field, in this respect, is largely marked by failure (Rakow & Wackwitz, 2004, p. 2). What are the beginnings and the status of this field called feminist communication theory? The history and contours of feminist communication study—and the efforts of the feminist scholars—have been described, reviewed, and critiqued by a number of authors since the mid-1980s (Altman, 1987; Ardzonni [sic], 1998; Blair, Brown, & Baxter, 1994; Long, 1989; McLaughlin, 1995; Press, 1989; Rakow, 1989, 1992; Schwichtenberg, 1989; Steeves, 1987; Treichler & Wartella, 1986). 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.] Altman, K.E. (1987). Conversing at the margins: A polemic, or feminism and communication studies. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 11(1), 116-117. Ardizonni [sic], M. (1998). Feminist contributions to communication studies: Past and present. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 22(3), 293-316. Blair, C., Julie, R., [sic] & Baxter, L.A. (1994).Disciplining [sic] the feminine. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 80, 383-409. Long, E. (1989). Feminism and cultural studies. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 6, 427-435. McLaughlin, L. (1995). Feminist communication scholarship and the woman’s question in the academy. Communication Theory, 5(2), 144-161. Press, A. (1989). The ongoing feminist revolution. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 6(2), 196-202. Rakow, L.F. (1989). Feminist studies: The next stage. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 6(2), 209-213. 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. Schwichtenberg, C. (1989). Feminist cultural studies. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 6(2), 202-208. Steeves, H.L. (1987). Feminist theories and media studies. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 4(2), 95-135. Treichler, P.A., & Wartella, E. (1986). Interventions: Feminist theory and communication studies. Communication, 9(1), 2-18. |
[page 1]
Feminist Communication Theory [page 2] FAILURES OF THE COMMUNICATION FIELD That an area of scholarly work is identified by a term such as feminist communication theory reveals as much about nonfeminist communication theory as it does about itself. The field of communication, existing as disciplinary departments in universities and scholarly divisions in professional associations, has largely developed out of the Western worldview, which expresses the thinking of white men and falsely universalizes their particular experiences. Thus, despite the potential for communication scholarship to recognize, support, and give voice to the great diversity of human experience, the field, in this regard, is largely marked by failure. [page 4] IDENTIFYING FEMINIST COMMUNICATION THEORY What are the origins and the status of this arena we call feminist communication theory? The history and contours of feminist communication study—and the struggles of feminist scholars—in our field have been described, reviewed, and critiqued by a number of authors since the mid-1980s (see Altman, 1987; Ardizonni [sic], 1998; Blair, Brown, & Baxter, 1994; Long, 1989; McLaughlin, 1995; Press, 1989; Rakow, 1989, 1992; Schwichtenberg, 1989; Steeves, 1987; Treichler & Wartella, 1986). 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. Altman, Karen E. (1987). Conversing at the margins: A polemic, or feminism and communication studies. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 11(1), 116–117. Ardizonni [sic], Michaela. (1998). Feminist contributions to communication studies: Past and present. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 22(3), 293–316. Blair, Carole, Julie R. Brown, and Leslie A. Baxter. (1994). Disciplining the feminine. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 80, 383–409. Long, Elizabeth (1989). Feminism and cultural studies. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 6, 427–435. McLaughlin, Lisa. (1995). Feminist communication scholarship and the woman's question in the academy. Communication Theory, 5(2), 144–161. Press, Andrea. (1989). The ongoing feminist revolution. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 6(2), 196–202. Rakow, Lana F. (1989). Feminist studies: The next stage. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 6(2), 209–213. Rakow, Lana F. (1992). The field reconsidered. In Lana F. Rakow (Ed.), Women making meaning (pp. 3–1). [sic] New York: Routledge. Schwichtenberg, Cathy. (1989). Feminist cultural studies. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 6(2), 202–8. Steeves, H. Leslie. (1987). Feminist theories and media studies. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 4(2), 95–135. Treichler, Paula A. and Ellen Wartella. (1986). Interventions: Feminist theory and communication studies. Communication, 9(1), 2–18. |
The second entry in the bibliographies should be for Ardizzoni 1998 [1]. Both have spelled the name wrong. The entry in the bibliography for Blair, Brown & Baxter 1994, is given as Blair, Julie & Baxter 1994, apparently the first and last names of the second author have been mixed up. There is no entry for Rakow 1992. Although the source is given, it is not made clear how much has been taken word-for-word. |
|
| [2.] Dsi/Fragment 082 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2022-12-29 20:54:01 Schumann | BauernOpfer, Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wackwitz Rakow 2004 |
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
| [3.] Dsi/Fragment 083 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2022-12-29 20:55:19 Schumann | BauernOpfer, Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wackwitz Rakow 2004 |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 83, Zeilen: 1-18, 22-23 |
Quelle: Wackwitz Rakow 2004 Seite(n): 5, 6, 8, Zeilen: 5: left col., 37 ff.; right col, 9 ff.; 6: left col., 8 ff.; 8: right col., 13 ff. |
|---|---|
| [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).
Rakow and Wackwitz (2001, p. 6) propose that feminist communication theory differs from other theory by virtue of three criteria, which need to be emphasized in spite of their obviousness: 1. Feminist communication theory theorizes gender; 2. Feminist communication theory theorizes communication; 3. And feminist communication theory theorizes social change. Rakow and Wackwitz (2001, p. 6) added that feminist communication theory begins with the goals of understanding and explaining gender, refusing to accept stock answers and unchallenged common-sense assumptions. It does not begin with an assumption about or definition of communication, as does, ironically, most of the work in the field of communication, including that done by many feminist activists. Instead, understanding and explaining communication, like understanding gender, are key outcomes anticipated by their work. Finally, unlike most of the communication field, which assumes the continuation of the social order it examines, feminist communication theory starts with an assumption that the world is in need of deep structural change to produce new social relations and just societies. “Unlike most traditional communication theory, however, feminist communication theory is political, polyvocal, and transformative. These properties ensure it does not look much like received communication theory – this is its great strength” (Rakow & Wackwitz, 2004, p. 6). Rakow and Wackwitz (2004) identified three premises that provide a flexible framework within which one may approach feminist communication theory. These three [premises – difference, voice, and representation – are neither exclusive nor distinct.] 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. |
[page 5]
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). [...] We propose that feminist communication theory can be distinguished from other theory by virtue of three criteria, criteria that we feel the need to emphasize despite their obviousness.
[...] Feminist communication theory, on the other hand, begins with the goals of understanding and explaining gender, refusing to accept stock answers and unchallenged common-sense assumptions. It does not begin with an assumption about or definition of communication, as does (ironically) most of the work in the field of communication, including that done by many feminist activists. Instead, understanding and explaining communication, like understanding gender, are key outcomes anticipated by our work. Finally, unlike most of our field, which presumes the continuation of the social order it examines, feminist communication theory begins with an assumption that we are in need of deep structural change to produce new social relations and just societies. [page 6] Unlike most traditional communication theory, however, feminist communication theory is political, polyvocal, and transformative. These properties ensure it does not look much like received communication theory—this is its great strength. [page 8] We identified three themes that seemed to us to provide a supple framework from within which to approach feminist communication theory. These three themes—difference, voice, and representation—are neither exclusive nor distinct. Rhode, Deborah L. (Ed.). (1990). Theoretical perspectives on sexual difference. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. |
There is only a somewhat mangled reference to Rakow Wackwitz 2004 in the references, but no Rakow Wackwitz 2001. Lines 18-21 are a properly referenced, direct quotation from Rakow Wackwitz 2004, so these lines are not counted. However, it is not made clear how close the rest of the text is to the given source. |
|
| [4.] Dsi/Fragment 084 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2022-08-22 20:35:45 WiseWoman | BauernOpfer, Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wackwitz Rakow 2004 |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 84, Zeilen: 1-11 |
Quelle: Wackwitz Rakow 2004 Seite(n): 8, 9, Zeilen: 8: right col. 16-20; 32ff; 9: left col. 1-4 |
|---|---|
| [These three] premises – difference, voice, and representation – are neither exclusive nor distinct. Other premises are clearly also present in feminist theorizing, such as community, identity, and place.
Difference refers to particular linguistic, material, and political systems that create oppressive relationships within and between racial and ethnic groups, economic classes, political orientations, genders, and sexualities. These differences have been conceptualized by feminist scholars who have challenged previous assumptions about the nature of difference. Their work questions the political and philosophical foundations and outcomes of difference (a) between genders and (b) among women, thus problematizing early white, heterosexual assumptions about the solidarity and stability of the category ‘woman’ (Rakow & Wackwitz, 2004, pp. 8-9). 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. |
[page 8]
These three themes—difference, voice, and representation—are neither exclusive nor distinct. Other themes certainly are present in feminist theorizing, such as community, identity, and place. [...] Difference. Certain linguistic, material, and political systems establish oppressive relationships within and between racial and ethnic-groups, genders, sexualities, economic classes, and political orientations. The readings in this section explore a variety of ways in which "differences” such as these have been conceptualized by feminist scholars who provide challenges to previous assumptions about the nature of difference. Their work questions the political and philosophical underpinnings and consequences of difference (a) between [page 9] genders and (b) among women, thus problematizing early white, heterosexual assumptions about the solidarity and stability of the category "woman.” |
The source is given, but it is not made clear how close the text is to the source. |
|
| [5.] Dsi/Fragment 085 17 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2022-08-22 20:41:18 WiseWoman | BauernOpfer, Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wackwitz Rakow 2004 |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 85, Zeilen: 17-23 |
Quelle: Wackwitz Rakow 2004 Seite(n): 9, Zeilen: left col., second paragraph |
|---|---|
| Voice refers to how too often women are either denied access to communicative forums or admitted to them only to have their ideas dismissed out of hand as deviant or irrelevant. To have voice is to possess both the opportunity to speak and the respect to be heard. Feminist authors theorize about such issues as women’s lack of access— physical, psychological, and technological—to communicative forums, men’s domination of conversation, women’s attempts to name their experiences and to challenge traditional language ‘authorities,’ women’s interactional preferences, and the creative means by [which women have found their own outlets and styles of expression (Rakow & Wackwitz, 2004, p. 9).]
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. |
[page 9]
Voice. Too often women are either denied access to communicative forums—interpersonal, group, organizational, and mediated—or admitted to them only to have their ideas dismissed out of hand as deviant or irrelevant. To have voice is to possess both the opportunity to speak and the respect to be heard. Imported from across a range of traditional communication research areas, the readings in this section include feminist work examining the ways in which women have been silenced or have asserted and claimed their speaking rights in social, political, and intellectual contexts. These feminist authors theorize about such issues as women’s lack of access—physical, psychological, and technological—to communicative forums, women’s attempts to name their experiences and to challenge traditional language “authorities,” men’s domination of conversation, women’s interactional preferences, and the creative means by which women have found their own outlets and styles of expression. |
The source is given, but it is not made clear how close the text is to the source. |
|
| [6.] Dsi/Fragment 087 22 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2022-08-22 20:45:53 WiseWoman | BauernOpfer, Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wackwitz Rakow 2004 |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 87, Zeilen: 22-23 |
Quelle: Wackwitz Rakow 2004 Seite(n): 9, Zeilen: left col., third paragraph |
|---|---|
| Lastly, representation refers to the systems or representation in popular culture, the media, and other social, political, and intellectual forums that are harming to women. | Representation. Systems of representation in popular culture, the media, and other social, political, and intellectual forums are damaging to women. |
This fragment continues on the next page and references Wackwitz Rakow 2004 there. But it is not made clear how close the text is to the source. |
|
| [7.] Dsi/Fragment 088 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2022-08-22 20:49:04 WiseWoman | BauernOpfer, Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wackwitz Rakow 2004 |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 88, Zeilen: 1-4 |
Quelle: Wackwitz Rakow 2004 Seite(n): 9, Zeilen: left col., 35-40 |
|---|---|
| Because socially constructed systems of difference and exclusion are related to the process of representation, feminist theorists struggle with the limits inflicted by their membership in particular ethnic, racial, class, and sexual groups (Rakow & Wackwitz, 2004, p. 9).
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. |
Because socially constructed systems of difference and exclusion are linked with the process of representation, feminist theorists struggle with the boundaries imposed by their membership in particular ethnic, racial, class, and sexual groups. |
The source is given, but it is not made clear how close the text is to the source. |
|
| [8.] Dsi/Fragment 294 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2022-08-22 20:57:17 WiseWoman | Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung, Wackwitz Rakow 2004 |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 294, Zeilen: 1-5, 14-16, 22-23 |
Quelle: Wackwitz Rakow 2004 Seite(n): 8, 9, Zeilen: 8: right col, third paragraph; 9: left col., second paragraph |
|---|---|
| Difference refers to particular linguistic, material, and political systems that create oppressive relationships within and between racial and ethnic groups, economic classes, political orientations, genders, and sexualities. These differences have been conceptualized by feminist scholars who have challenged previous assumptions about the nature of difference. [...]
Voice refers to how too often women are either denied access to communicative forums or admitted to them only to have their ideas dismissed out of hand as deviant or irrelevant. [...] To have voice is to possess both the opportunity to speak and the respect to be heard. |
[page 8]
Difference. Certain linguistic, material, and political systems establish oppressive relationships within and between racial and ethnic-groups, genders, sexualities, economic classes, and political orientations. The readings in this section explore a variety of ways in which "differences” such as these have been conceptualized by feminist scholars who provide challenges to previous assumptions about the nature of difference. [..] [page 9] Voice. Too often women are either denied access to communicative forums—interpersonal, group, organizational, and mediated—or admitted to them only to have their ideas dismissed out of hand as deviant or irrelevant. To have voice is to possess both the opportunity to speak and the respect to be heard. |
This fragment is in the final chapter "CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION". It repeats material from Dsi/Fragment_084_01 and Dsi/Fragment_085_17 that is referenced there, but not made clear how close the text is to the source. |
|
| [9.] Dsi/Fragment 295 08 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2022-08-22 21:01:44 WiseWoman | Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung, Wackwitz Rakow 2004 |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 295, Zeilen: 8-11 |
Quelle: Wackwitz Rakow 2004 Seite(n): 9, Zeilen: third paragraph |
|---|---|
| Lastly, representation refers to the systems or representation in popular culture, the media, and other social, political, and intellectual forums that are harming to women. Feminist theorists often struggle with the limits inflicted by the socially constructed systems of difference. | Representation. Systems of representation in popular culture, the media, and other social, political, and intellectual forums are damaging to women. [...] Because socially constructed systems of difference and exclusion are linked with the process of representation, feminist theorists struggle with the boundaries imposed by their membership in particular ethnic, racial, class, and sexual groups. |
This fragment is in the final chapter "CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION". It repeats material from Dsi/Fragment_087_22 and Dsi/Fragment_088_01 that is referenced there, but not made clear how close the text is to the source. |
|