Search

How can we build a path from the binary of gender to the unity of common humanity? What kind of difference can the "different voice" of feminism make as a "human voice?" In this article, Naoko Saito argues that the way we talk about the "difference" of a "different voice" needs to be radically transformed. To envision a route to such a transformation, she explores an alternative possibility of feminism in the American transcendentalism of Margaret Fuller and Ralph Waldo Emerson. First, Saito critically examines the politics of recognition and suggests a susceptibility to binary thinking in its approach. Second, as a way of transcending the binary mode of thinking, Saito introduces the humanist feminism of the nineteenth-century American transcendentalist Margaret Fuller. Third, as a way of elucidating the radicality of Fuller's transcendentalist feminism, Saito introduces the feminine voice of two male philosophers -- Ralph Waldo Emerson and Stanley Cavell -- as her conversational partners. By radically converting the way we talk about difference of voice, the transcendentalist feminism of Fuller, Emerson, and Cavell provides a third way that lies beyond the politics of recognition and care ethics. In conclusion, Saito proposes that the cultivation of the feminine subject requires an alternative political education that resists assimilation into political realism. This would realize our common humanity and, in its crossing of divides between men and women, would create democracy from within.

The matter of crossing borders in the creation of democratic communities arises in ways that are pressing, both within the nation-state and on a global scale. Tensions between tendencies toward nationalism and the cosmopolitan call for global understanding touch the heart of ideas of democracy as beginning at home--at political, psychological, and existential levels. Yet in both orientations there is a certain consolidation of what John Dewey called the "we." In this essay Naoko Saito and Paul Standish address questions concerning the "I's" relation to the "we." It is through an exploration of the "apparently" apolitical approach of Stanley Cavell, through what he calls the "politics of interpretation," that Saito and Standish try to give substance to the critical destabilization of these terms and tensions that they believe to be necessary. Cavell's Wittgensteinian approach to skepticism and his account of the Emersonian sense of the tragic help to demonstrate the need to meet the political crisis of democracy with language of a more subtly critical kind. The antifoundationalism Cavell derives from these sources, with its concomitant notion of "philosophy as translation," provides us with a language that answers to the problems of the "we." This is, the authors conclude, a better formulation of, and a more hopeful response to, the challenge of crossing borders within. It touches despair but realizes within it the prophetic power of language. And it shows the political crisis in which democracy finds itself to be something that is not peculiar to our times but internal to the very nature of our (political) lives.

Dewey's idea of "mutual national understanding" faces new challenges in the age of globalization, especially in education for global understanding. In this essay Naoko Saito aims to find an alternative idea and language for "mutual national understanding," one that is more attuned to the sensibility of our times. She argues for Stanley Cavell's idea of "philosophy as translation" as such an alternative. Based upon Cavell's rereading of Thoreau's "Walden," Saito represents Thoreau as a cross-cultural figure who transcends cultural and national boundaries. On the strength of this, she proposes a Cavellian education for global citizenship, that is, a perfectionist education for imperfect understanding in acknowledgment of alterity. Our founding of democracy must depend upon a readiness to "deconfound" the culture we have come from, the better to find new foundations together. The "native" is always in transition, by and through language, in processes of translation.

How can we build a path from the binary of gender to the unity of common humanity? What kind of difference can the "different voice" of feminism make as a human voice? In this article, Naoko Saito argues that the way we talk about the difference of a "different voice" needs to be radically transformed. To envision a route to such a transformation, she explores an alternative possibility of feminism in the American transcendentalism of Margaret Fuller and Ralph Waldo Emerson. First, Saito critically examines the politics of recognition and suggests a susceptibility to binary thinking in its approach. Second, as a way of transcending the binary mode of thinking, Saito introduces the humanist feminism of the nineteenth‐century American transcendentalist Margaret Fuller. Third, as a way of elucidating the radicality of Fuller's transcendentalist feminism, Saito introduces the feminine voice of two male philosophers — Ralph Waldo Emerson and Stanley Cavell — as her conversational partners. By radically converting the way we talk about difference of voice, the transcendentalist feminism of Fuller, Emerson, and Cavell provides a third way that lies beyond the politics of recognition and care ethics. In conclusion, Saito proposes that the cultivation of the feminine subject requires an alternative political education that resists assimilation into political realism. This would realize our common humanity and, in its crossing of divides between men and women, would create democracy from within. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]