English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In their responses, Alexandra Woods and Garth Stevens take care to unpack my sometimes-clumsy efforts at finding the conceptual language for unconsciousness-raising. Similarly, both responses offer an immanent critique of how I put this language into practice. As such, their responses compelled me to reappraise many of my original propositions. For this, I am deeply indebted to both scholars. I begin this reply by offering my appreciation to Woods and Stevens for drawing attention to how my essay – despite proclaiming to do otherwise – differentiates unconsciousness-raising from consciousness-raising. Each of their responses offers useful ways by which to consider unconsciousness-raising and consciousness-raising as inextricably entangled, or part of a single, dialectical process. I then consider some of Stevens’ helpful remarks on lack and its relationship to organizational formations and solidarity, after which I engage with Woods’ illuminating critiques of my reflexive practice and my assessment of this practice. I conclude by reiterating my gratitude to Woods and Stevens for taking the time to offer such generative, fruitful commentaries.

Unconsciousness-Raising Reconsidered: Reply to Woods and Stevens