I plan to use her definition as the starting point for my description of a feminist ethic of care. Throughout the entry, i ask questions about her phases and her definition of care. One question i ask is this: are trouble staying and curiosity-as-care only about paying attention? Do they offer other forms of care? Are they only valuable because they make us aware of a problem/need for care? Horton as troublemaker and troublestayer: In this final entry of the three, i write about how Horton, from Horton hears a who is a troublemaker who engages in productive troublemaking/staying not just because he pays attention to the voices on the speck that are crying. The care he gives is focused on connecting his attentiveness to the world with his passion for social justice. In concluding this essay, i attempt to link hortons speech to the sour Kangaroo (the a persons a person, no matter how small speech) with a passage from Michel foucaults The masked Philosopher.
Who, is your Role model, essay
I have decided to call these essays blog mash-ups. I will write and submit as many of these mash-ups as I possibly can this summer. So, heres my first mash-up, all taken from the tag, care: what does it mean to care? defining care horton the caring elephant who not only makes trouble but stays in it an awesome article on feminist ethics so heres a summary of each entry: what does it mean to care? In this entry, i critically assess how care is understood and articulated in a childrens book, we care, that pdf is about a third grade classs successful efforts to help/care for people in a homeless shelter. While i appreciate much of what the book is trying to do (encouraging students to care and linking care with specific and repeated practices i ultimately argue that the book presents the reader (aimed at a 3rd grader) with a limited and problematic view. I suggest that the students are not encouraged to ask questions or think critically about why the shelter (or homelessness) exists and what kinds of care strategies and practices are most effective. I also suggest that the failure of the story to include the actual residents of the shelter (as characters or even as illustrations) reinforces a very problematic division between the care-giver as subject (student) and the care-receiver as absent object (shelter residents). My main point in this entry: this book offers a insufficient and ineffective definition of care, one that has potentially troubling consequences for readers as they develop their own moral vision of the world and how to treat/exist in the midst of others. Defining care: In this entry, i describe joan Trontos definition of care as it is outlined in the fourth chapter of her book, moral boundaries. I also highlight her four inter-related yet distinct phases of care: caring about; taking care of; care-giving; care-receiving.
So far, i have resisted this process. Academic writing working tends to be boring and painful. And it takes time away from the writing that i enjoy; the writing that moves my spirit and that inspires. But, i believe that I need to change my assessment of formal writing. This summer I need to take my ideas and do something more with them. I need (and not just for my cv) to write some articles and get them published. And I want to use the blog to help me do this by documenting my writing process (what Im working on, what Im stuck on, etc) and by posting parts-in-progress for review by others. I also want to use what I have already written, my archive of mini-essays on troublemaking and troublestaying, as the foundation for my manuscripts. In particular, i want to combine several entries, with similar or complementary themes, to create an academic publication-worthy essay.
It has also enabled me to make productive connections between seemingly disparate topics: Eminem and Socrates; The Brady bunch and Habermas ; Hannah Montana and Judith Butler ; laura Ingalls and bourdieu (hint: only briefly in the note at the end just to name. When I began this blog last year, my plan was to use it as a writing tool. Heres what I wrote about it on my about this site red page: The most important way that i am using this site is as a writing tool. I have been thinking and teaching about troublemaking for several years now and I thought that it was about time that I started actually writing about it (okay, i have written about it a little). I have talked for a long time (over a decade, sometimes) about certain ideas/theories/topics that would make a great article or book chapter. Life (kids, moves, PhDs, illness) got in the way and, for that matter, is still getting in the way. So, i thought trying out blog writing might help to get me writing again, especially with the limited amount of time i have (did I mention I have two very young kids?). I write a lot now. And on this blog I have stockpiled a large number of ideas, many of which are just waiting to be converted into articles (and maybe books?).
Is there a way to connect these (Hortons rejection of the smothering mother with critics of feminist care ethics rejection of the nurturing/caring mother)? What would it look like to have. Care ethics without the mother? Or, maybe with a different sort of mother/mothering? More time is needed in order to think this through I had a brief brainstorm about Horton as a different sort of mothera queer mother (he did hatch an egg after all). Posted on, june 6, 2010, categories, experiments. Seuss, feminist ethics, horton hears a who, mash-up, mother, queer ethics over the past year, this blog has been incredibly helpful in enabling me to process, work through and archive my critical reflections on troublemaking and troublestaying.
Essay on Earthquake in Nepal Cram
And my discussion. We care touches upon the problematic importance that is placed on caring feeling good about yourself and how you have cared for others. What would an ethics that rejected feeling certain and feeling good look like? I think that my readings of both of these childrens stories (. Horton as movie, we care as book) enables me to think about the value of troublemaking/staying in terms of ethics and to envision a different understanding of care that is not about being careful and certain, but attentive and open to other ways of being.
And that prioritizes feeling passionate about fighting against injustice over feeling good about oneself and the care that has been given. There is something else that keeps nagging me about the horton essay and its connection to an ethics of care: the mother figure (ha ha). In Horton, the mother figure, sour Kangaroo, is the classic smothering mother who tries to stop Horton from caring effectively for the Whos on the speck. For critics hampshire of care ethics, the mother is a problemcaring for others frequently gets figured only in terms of the nurturing mother which reinforces the ways women have always already been limited to their supposedly natural roles as caregivers. And, it seems to prioritize womens motherly nurturing over other potential visions of care.
While there are many sources from which to draw upon this idea of being bad as counter to ethics and as rejecting ethics/morality (so many that it is difficult to find/remember just one i want to highlight one articulation of it by marilyn Frye. In her essay, a response. Lesbian Ethics: Why Ethics? She argues that ethics, which is primarily concerned with our need to know what to do and our having confidence that we have acted rightly (. Feminist Ethics 53 is something that we need to grow out. Our desire to be good stems from a need to be accepted and acceptableto be privileged and have status as a dutiful daughter.
For Frye, to want to be good is to reinforce oppressive and unjust structures, which discusses in relation to white feminists and their shoring up of white privilege and racist structures. . She cautions white feminists to resist the call to ethics: it seems that it would behoove women who claim to abhor race and class privilege to give up the habit of pursuing them by being and trying to be good. The discovery that one is not good, or doesnt know how to be good, might be welcomed as releasing one from the game of good and evil and thus from the will-bindings that keep us bonded to our oppressors (Frye 58). I am struck by Fryes rejection of knowing whats good (she argues that certainty is not always possible and that we cant wait for it to act) and feeling good (we sometimes do the wrong thing, even with good intentions; the need to feel good. In my two entries on the kids books, horton hears a who and, we care, i address these two issues. My discussion of Horton is very much about the value of uncertainty, or of troubling rigid, fixed notions of what is certain.
Seuss books essay
Finally, three years later, i actually feel able to online push past my preliminary interest. I dont think i will include this second part in my essay, but I wanted to archive it, so it wasnt accidentally lost (it almost was; I had to dig for a while to find it). As I review these early statements, i am starting to see how I might frame troublemaking in relation to feminist ethics and. Horton hears a who. In my above descriptions, i indicate that troublemaking is seen as counter to ethics. There are all sorts of ways that I could approach this (indeed, i find myself struggling to stay focused and not get overwhelmed here). Here is one way writing i can imagine: Daring to be bad: Rejecting rules, being improper, challenging the system, disruption, destruction, deconstruction. I should mention that. Daring to be bad is the title of Alice Echols book about radical feminism in America.
As many feminists have argued, women (in a number of different ways) have been labeled trouble: we are a mystery, we are too much, we talk, think, and emote too much. And, if we dare to challenge or to question we are dismissed, discouraged, belittled as trouble (Butler discusses this very briefly in the preface. The label troublemaker is used to silence us and, from an early age, we are taught animal that if we want to grow up to be proper women—women who are not spinsters, women who are successful, women who are beautiful—we need to learn not. In the spirit of inhabiting, twisting and proudly claiming categories that have been used against us, i want to claim troublemaking as a valuable and virtuous practice. I want to promote it as something that we should. In more personal terms, i want to claim it for myself and for my daughter—she is 15 months old and is always already making lots of trouble in the most virtuous sense of the word—I want to claim it for her so that her questioning. This passage above offers some of my earliest articulations of why troublemaking is ethically valuable.
new ethical norms or at least expand upon the old ones? Even though this description is a little too vague, i like. Perhaps I should use it in my essaywith a few tweaks. I could contrast this with the classic assessment of feminist ethics as nurturing, mothering, ethics of care. Heres a few more lines from that presentation: Troublemaking is a practice that many of us (inside and outside of feminism) have always already done but have been discouraged from doing; thinking about troublemaking as an important virtue enables us to claim and value. Now, i am particularly (but not exclusively) thinking about this in terms of girls and women.
But, what if we twisted our understanding of troublemaking and thought about it as useful and productive? Instead of dismissing it as that which hinders or disrupts our actions, what would happen if we embraced troublemaking as that which is essential for mobilizing us to action, enabling us to shake our cynicism and ever-increasing hopelessness? Going even further, what if we thought about troublemaking as an important ethico-political virtue for feminism and its role as a democratic movement? Now, thinking about troublemaking as important for feminism is nothing new; indeed, feminism as a radical social movement has been based on the practice of making trouble for the status quo and those oppressive institutions that deny or strip individuals/groups of their humanity. Feminists have embraced their role as unruly subjects and rebellious outlaws. So, while there is clearly a precedent for emphasizing troublemaking within feminism, not enough critical and systematic attention has been given to troublemaking—how it should be performed and what ethico-political value it has for feminist individuals. Moreover, troublemaking is still seen as improper; when feminists make trouble, they dare task to be bad (borrowing from Alice Echols).
Seuss books term paper help
Dr seuss Horton hears a who.3.2008 22:14, mint 351 0,.?.,.! Now that writing I have chosen the entries for my first mash-up and picked the general theme for the essay, feminist ethics: care and troublemaking, I need to develop my angle or approach. In thinking about my angle, i am trying to get at the why bother? And whats my particular take on these ideas? Here are some of my thoughts: Troublemaking is important for feminist ethics. If you havent already noticed on this blog, i am particularly interested in exploring the ethical value of troublemaking. Here are some of my preliminary thoughts (from an nwsa presentation in 2007 entitled, judith Butler and the virtue of Troublemaking The predominate understanding of troublemaking is that it is bad, improper, and/or counterproductive, performed by those individuals or groups who are up.