Women's history and poststructuralism

Women's History Review

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 5-7

  Purvis, June ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 61949400226     PISSN: 09612025     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09612029600200104     Document Type: Editorial

References (20)

1. J. Hoff (1994), Gender as a postmodern category of paralysis, Women's History Review, 3, pp. 149-168
2. J. Purvis (1992), Editorial, Women's History Review, 1, p. 7
3. For useful discussions of the terms postmodernism and poststructuralism see. for example, M. Humm (1994) A Reader's Guide to Contemporary Feminist Literary Criticism, Chapter 6. (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf)
4. S. Jackson (1992/3) The amazing deconstructing woman, Trouble and Strife, 25
5. and J. Stacey (1993) Untangling feminist theory, in D. Richardson & V. Robinson (Eds) Introducing Women's Studies, pp. 64-71 (London: Macmillan) offer readable introductions to some of the issues that poststructuralism poses for feminism
6. There are innumerable books covering the relationship between feminism and poststructuralism - see, for example, J. Butler & J. W. Scott (Eds) (1992) Feminists Theorize the Political (London: Routledge)
7. and M. Ferguson & J. Wicke (Eds) (1994) Feminism and Postmodernism (Durham: Duke University Press)
8. See, for example, the articles in the section 'Theoretical and methodological dialogue on the writing of women's history' in Journal of Women's History, 2(3), 1991, pp. 58-108
9. and K. Canning (1994) Feminist history after the linguistic turn: historicising discourse and experience, Signs, 19, pp. 368-404
10. The two key earlier texts that argued that a poststructuralist approach could transform women's history were, of course, J. Wallach Scott (1988) Gender and the Politics of History (New York: Columbia University Press)
11. and D. Riley (1988)"Am I that Name ?" Feminism and the Category of "Women" in History (London: Macmillan)
12. Contributions here include C. Hall (1991) Politics, poststructuralism and feminist history (which reviews Scott's Gender and the Politics of History and Riley's "Am I that Name ?"), Gender and History, 3, pp. 204-210
13. and J. Purvis (1995) From 'women worthies' to poststructuralism? Debate and controversy in women's history in Britain, in J. Purvis (Ed.) Women's History: Britain, 1850-1945, pp. 12-15 (London: UCL Press)
14. See, for example, the relevant articles in the issues of 1991-4 in these two journals. J. Vernon (1994) Who's afraid of the 'linguistic turn' ? The politics of social history and its discontents, Social History, 19, p. 83, claims that historians in Britain have engaged in "uninformed, fierce denunciation" of poststructuralism
15. See Humm, A Reader's Guide to Contemporary Feminist Literary Criticism [note 2]
16. M. Maynard (1995) Beyond the 'big three' : the development of feminist theory into the 1990s, Women's History Review, 4, p. 275
17. L. Stanley (1990) Recovering women in history from feminist deconstructionism, Women's Studies International Forum, Special Issue on British Feminist Histories, (Ed.) L. Stanley, p. 152
18. J. Purvis (1995) Women's history in Britain: an overview, European Journal of Women's Studies, 2, pp. 7-19
19. and Purvis, 'From "women worthies" to poststructuralism? Debate and controversy in women's history in Britain'
20. S. Kingsley (1996) Mistrials and diatribulations: a reply to Joan Hoff, Women's History Review, 5, pp. 9-18