Western moral and political theorists have recently devoted considerable attention to the perceived victimisation of women by non-western cultures. In this paper, the author argues that conceiving injustice to poor women in poor countries primarily as a matter of their oppression by illiberal cultures presents an understanding of their situation that is crucially incomplete. This incomplete understanding distorts Western theorists’ comprehension of our moral relationship to women elsewhere in the world and so of our theoretical task. It also impoverishes our assumptions about the intercultural dialogue necessary to promote global justice for women., Alison M. Jaggar, and Anglické resumé
This article examines the nature of the relationship between the kind of textual politics, here referredto as ‘women’s writing’, and the dominant discursive practice of Czech culture, whoselogic and functioning is best encapsulated in the Derridean term ‘phallogocentrism’. Women’swriting is defined here as the kind of writing which locates itself outside the domain and logicof a phallogocentric discourse, trying to challenge and undermine its hegemonic status. In thisrespect, women’s writing is not delimited by the sex of an author, but by his/her gendered subjectivity,his/her position within the discursive formation, and his/her attitude to hegemonic languagepractices. Women’s writing, as understood in this thesis, critically reflects upon the role oflanguage as a decisive medium for our thinking, and questions the notion of subjectivity, whichis usually equated with the Cartesian Ego and conceived as an autonomous entity. Through itstextual strategies, women’s writing reflects upon the fact that we all are inevitably ‘inserted’ intolanguage. Consequently, rather than striving to free itself of – inevitable – discursive formationand constraints, it highlights the formative role of language by means of an ironic, palimpsest‑likere‑writingof conventional literary narratives, as well as by means of textual politics definedby the continuous displacement of meaning. The criticism of the phallogocentric concept of subjectivityis on the one hand informed by the decentring of the identity of the narrating subject,and on the other by one’s awareness of one’s epistemic situatedness within a particular discursivespace. The logic and economy of women’s writing is determined by the tension between itsdrive towards non‑phallogocentricdiscourse, and its paradoxical, yet inevitable dependence onsymbolic codes and hegemonic discursive practices. The subversive potential of women’s writing,as understood here, is thus not situated within a space seen as a radical ‘beyond’, but is directedinwards, into the fissures of the phallogocentric discourse itself.In order to exemplify the features of women’s writing, the article discusses a novel Slabikářotcovského jazyka (A Primer of the Father Tongue) by Sylvie Richterová (who is, apart fromSoučková, Linhartová, Hodrová, and Hrabal, one of the authors discussed in a monograph ofwhich the present article is an excerpt). Richterová’s novel, which may be read as a radical reassessmentof the genre of autobiography, is considered in the article a fragmented space ofmemory, which provides an ambiguous ground for an attempt to integrate a discontinuous identity,an integration that can never be fully accomplished. The paper then argues that one’s identitycan never be grasped as a full and unmediated presence due to both the nature of languagebased on the mechanism of constant deferral (Derrida) and the nature of always already splitsubjectivity based on an essential and constitutive lack (Lacan). Given this crucial yet impossibletask of achieving one’s identity in its full presence, what the text does is to enact textuallythe process of inevitable, benign ‘failure’. Thus, rather than a simple proposition, a meaning ora function of the text resides in recording textual traces of this profoundly meaningful ‘failure’. Ultimately,the article argues, the subversive potential of women’s writing can paradoxically only residein a strategic staging and performance of its very own discursive and epistemological limitsin process, or, as Miroslav Petříček puts it, as a pragmatic contradiction, which means that atthe textual and stylistic level, the text performs the exact opposite of what it conveys at the levelof its proposition.
In her essay, the author deals with the traditional position of woman in Jewish society. Although woman’s life role may seem very restricted and insignificant, according to the tradition, Jewish woman is considered to be the pillar of the family and the key element in passing on the Jewish tradition to future generations. Women’s participation in religious life is limited, yet their main attention is almost exclusively directed towards family and child raising. their absence from religious rituals is perceived as a positive element which enables women to fully concentrate on their most important role of a mother. Jewish families are traditionally large. Among Jewish woman’s main tasks is the observance of family purification rules, preparation of kosher food, arrangements for family celebrations of Sabbath and festivals and child raising. Attention is also paid to the basic principles of matrimonial cohabitation, to the educational opportunities of Jewish women in the past, their charitable and associational activities and the most frequent ways of earning their living.
Článek interpretuje Humovu teorii asociace idejí především se zřetelem k podobnosti jako jednomu z principů asociace a k obecným idejím (či pojmům) jako zásadnímu produktu asociace. Na základě této interpretace autor tvrdí, že Humovo pojetí podobnosti a obecných termínů není podmíněno přijetím tzv. „mýtu daného“. V důsledku přijetí tohoto předpokladu však vyvstávají nové otázky, zejména proč asociací vznikají zrovna ty obecné pojmy, které reálně vznikají, a jak dochází k jejich intersubjektivnímu sdílení. Tyto otázky vedou k nutnosti doplnit obrázek mysli jako „zrcadla přírody“ ze začátku první knihy Humova Pojednání o lidské přirozenosti obrázkem mysli jako „zrcadla druhých“ z jeho druhé knihy., The article interprets Hume’s theory of association of ideas, primarily with respect to resemblance as one of the principles of association and to general ideas (or concepts) as a principal consequence of association. On the basis of this interpretation, the author argues that Hume’s conception of resemblance and general terms is not conditioned by the acceptance of the so-called “myth of the given”. As a result of accepting this assumption, however, new questions arise; in particular, why is it that just those general concepts arise that in fact arise and how are they intersubjectively shared. These questions lead to the need to supplement the image of the mind as a “mirror of nature” from the beginning of Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature, book I, with the image of the mind as a “mirror of others” from book II., and Der vorliegende Artikel bietet eine Interpretation von Humes Theorie der Assoziation von Ideen, insbesondere im Hinblick auf die Ähnlichkeit als eines der Assoziationsprinzipien und auf die allgemeinen Ideen (bzw. Begriffe) als Grundprodukte der Assoziation. Auf Grundlage dieser Interpretation stellt der Autor die Behauptung auf, dass Humes Auffassung der Ähnlichkeit und der allgemeinen Begriffe nicht durch die Annahme des sog. „Mythos des Gegebenen“ bedingt ist. Infolge der Annahme dieser Voraussetzung treten jedoch neue Fragen auf, insbesondere die Frage, warum durch Assoziationen ausgerechnet jene allgemeinen Begriffe entstehen, die real entstehen, und wie es zu deren intersubjektiven Mitteilung kommt. Diese Fragen führen zu der Notwendigkeit, das Bild vom Denken als „Spiegel der Natur“ am Anfang des ersten Buches von Humes Abhandlung über die menschliche Natur durch das Bild des Denkens als „Spiegel der Anderen“ aus dem zweiten Buch zu ergänzen.