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/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

In 1833, a time abounding with combative pamphlets, a particularly explicit declaration made its appearance: “This first writing by a woman is but a gauntlet thrown into the arena, yet in the author’s quiver remains more than one arrow for defending the truth of her first writing.” So reads the epigraph of a short brochure, published by its author and entitled Appel d’une femme au peuple sur l’affranchisement de la femme (Appeal of a woman of the people for the emancipation of woman). From what we know about the writer of this text and what remains of her work, she appears to be among those solitary figures whom Joan Wallach Scott has described as “neither typical . . . nor unique.” We find them where brothersand sisters-in-arms are challenged not only by the content or the mode of thought, speech, and action of their work, but by a political subjectivity that does not allow itself to be seamlessly integrated into the unified subjectivity presupposed, and, thereby, produced by social movements. This is particularly true for feminism: the fundamental historical importance of a unified subjectivity for the development of feminism was revealed most fully in the 1990s, when criticism of this unity led to what was perceived as a crisis of the movement. Among some historians of feminism, Judith Butler’s call to “take the construction of the subject as a political problematic” instead of presupposing this subject has become part of the program. I, too, am concerned with the reconstruction of a subject position that is not given but constituted by words, gestures, and acts. In this context, however, I am interested in a dimension that appears to me to have been insufficiently addressed in the history of subjectivity as well as in the history of feminism: temporality. While the Foucauldian question of how forms of subjectivization have changed over time is, of course, at stake here, I would like to turn our attention to yet another aspect: the extent to which historically specific interpretations of temporal

“Moi seule” 1833: Feminist Subjectivity, Temporality, and Historical Interpretation