Feminist Appropriations : Law, Property and Personality

Abstract

EGINNINGS ARE always difficult. Ideally, an academic article shouldbegin with a reasonably clear proposition, amplify some pertinentproblems, traverse a certain territory, gain some ground, and end with a sound conclusion. To comply with norms of scholarship and knowledge the article must look like a complete object. So let me begin by saying that, even if that qualifies as a beginning, I do not have a conclusion. I have some problems, and lots of questions. And let me also say that in an early draft of this article I shaped these problems and questions into what I thought was a very respectable scholarly object, only to be told that I was at times patronizing, often obscure, nearly always abstract, too frequently defensive, even rigid, and that my paragraphs were way too long. Having got over the shock sufficiently to set down some more words, I realized that I had fallen without even thinking about it straight into the ancient trap of re-enacting precisely the position I had set out to criticize. At least I can safely say that I am not the first person ever to get enmeshed in her own critique (though nor is this an appropriate moment for an accusatory footnote, since I am writing a confession). Why particularly did I remain caught in a circle by making my article into such an alienating scholarly object? The simple answer is that this article is on one level a critique of the ways in which knowledge, and particularly knowledge of

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 32 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.