In this interview with documentary filmmaker Apolena Rychlíková, Anna Šabatová, one of the most remarkable figures of modern Czechoslovak history, considers not only the intellectual foundations of Charter 77 and the dissident movement, but also what shaped Šabatová’s personal background. The interview introduces an often-overlooked continuity between dissent and critical approaches to the post-communist era. This continuity is present in the humanistic, left-wing thought of Anna Šabatová, stemming from the tradition of the Czechoslovak democratic left, which permeates her whole life, not only philosophically and intellectually, but above all practically. Anna Šabatová’s lifelong efforts for a more just society have never stopped, connecting the period before 1989 with the period that followed.
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
V roce 1966 byl vydán český překlad výboru z knihy Simone de Beauvoir Druhé pohlaví. Nad tímto vydáním se na stranách Literárních novin takřka okamžitě rozběhla debata, jejímiž účastníky byli kromě čtenářů Jan Patočka, Ivan Sviták, Irena Dubská a Helena Klímová. Článek se zabývá právě touto debatou, přičemž z předložené argumentace vyplývá, že se v ní objevily dva základní přístupy k otázce prosazování genderové rovnosti. Tyto přístupy bychom mohli zhruba definovat na základě protikladu „stejnost versus rozdílnost“. Článek zároveň zasazuje jednotlivé debatní příspěvky do dobového expertního diskurzu šedesátých let minulého století, zabývajícího se genderovou rovností ve vztahu k genderové politice socialistického státu, pro nějž byla genderová agenda jednou z jeho hlavních ideových opor., The article addresses the debate that took place on the pages of Literární noviny during 1967 and whose subject was the Czech translation of Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex (1966). The participants in the debate were Jan Patočka, Ivan Sviták, Irena Dubská and Helena Klímová. From the argumentation in the article we can see that two basic approaches to the advancement of gender equality emerge from the debate, which we could roughly define on the basis of the antithesis of “sameness versus difference”. At the same time, the article situates the individual contributions to the debate in the context of the specialist discourse of the 1960s that dealt with the issue of gender equality in relation to the gender policy of the socialist state, for whom the gender agenda was one of its main ideological pillars., and Gegenstand des Artikels ist die Debatte, die im Jahr 1967 im Literaturmagazin Literární noviny stattfand, und deren Thema die tschechische Übersetzung (1966) des Buchs Das andere Geschlecht von Simone de Beauvoir war. An der Debatte nahmen Jan Patočka, Ivan Sviták, Irena Dubská und Helena Klímová teil. Aus der Argumentation im vorliegenden Artikel ergeben sich für diese Debatte zwei grundlegende Ansätze zur Frage der Gendergleichstellung, die wir in etwa als Gegensatzpaar „Gleichheit – Unterschiedlichkeit“ definieren könnten. Im Artikel werden die einzelnen Beiträge zur Debatte gleichfalls in die Fachdiskussion der 60. Jahres des vergangenen Jahrhunderts in Bezug auf die Genderpolitik des sozialistischen Staates eingeordnet, für den die Gender-Agenda eine der wichtigen ideologischen Stützen war.
Th is article critically engages in the perplexed ontology of the complaint, which crosses the boundaries between the personal and the public and at the same time undermines the presuppositions organizing said division within the academic workplace. A feminist counterpublic – as Nancy Fraser defi nes it – opens ways of opposing the existing inequalities by producing a discursive space of critique of the status quo from an oppressed or marginalized position. Following the analysis of the complaint off ered by Sara Ahmed, this article emphasizes the political dimension of the complaint, showing how it actually needs to become something else, probably more than a mere procedure, to bring any change. Th e passage from complaint to counterpublic built here is an eff ort to combine the critique of academic procedures of justice as potentially discriminatory practices within neoliberal academia with a suggestion that perhaps a more public and labour rights oriented strategy is better suited to accomplish equality.
Simone de Beauvoir’s Th e Second Sex was translated into Czech in 1966, the fi rst translation of the book to be published in a socialist state. It was, like many other translations during this period, a compilation of selections and was edited by the phenomenologist Jan Patočka who, in his postscript, presented the work primarily within its philosophical context. Th e book, which was published in three editions within two years and reached a combined print run of almost one hundred thousand copies, reaped substantial acclaim both among the lay and the academic public. Th e main debate about the book unfolded in the magazines Literární noviny and Vlasta, in which the contributors aired their views on the book from various positions – as advocates of phenomenology, Marxism, and the women’s press.
Building on historical narrative and social-theoretical analysis, Fraser explores the place of second-wave feminism in relation to three specific moments in the history of capitalism. The first point refers to the movement’s beginnings in the context of ‘state-organized capitalism’. The second point refers to the process of feminism’s evolution in the dramatically changed social context of rising neoliberalism. And the third point refers to a possible reorientation of feminism in the present context of capitalist crisis and US political realignment, which for her could mark the beginning of a shift from neoliberalism to a new form of social organization. Orienting her analysis around four key points of feminist critique-androcentrism, economism, étatism and Westphalianism-Fraser charts a fascinating journey of second-wave feminism since the 1960s to identify a “dangerous liaison” second-wave feminism developed with capitalism. She concludes that in order to reclaim second-wave feminism as a robust critique conjoining both claims for recognition and redistribution- which were unlinked during the period of rising neoliberalism-eminism needs to become more historically self-aware., Nancy Fraser ; přeložila Marcela Linková., and Přeloženo z : New Left Review 56/2009
The article introduces feminist political economy as an analytical tool or interpretative frame for exploring current economic crisis. In the beginning of the article, the authors focus on the wider context of feminist theories and approaches to capitalism within their development. The point is to show that contemporary feminist critiques of global capitalism tie in with the earlier tradition of feminist thought. In the next part, the authors introduce the theoretical grounds and basic theses of feminist political economy through the work of V. Spike Peterson and J. K. Gibson-Graham. The last part of the article focuses on specific issues linked to the current crisis of global capitalism and on the questions raised by this approach. The main questions are: how can we describe the crisis and what solutions can we search for? Is it a crisis of the hegemonic capitalist mode of production, a crisis of the capitalocentrist order, or just a crisis of certain institutions? Is the current economic crisis only a negative phenomenon, or does it open the way to establishing alternative paradigms to that of the global hegemony of capitalism?, Veronika Šprincová, Miroslav Jašurek., Obsahuje bibliografii, and Anglické resumé