{"title":"女权主义者对霍布斯的看法","authors":"A. Chadwick, Eva Odzuck","doi":"10.1163/18750257-bja10007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Feminist approaches to the history of political thought have expanded our understanding of Hobbes’s political theory from two main directions: first, they have sought to explain why women in his theory move from a position of natural equality—and indeed, in sharp contrast to patriarchal accounts, a position in which they possess right over their children—to one of subordination to men. Second, feminist perspectives have expanded the range of issues which are considered subjects for “political” theory, and hence on which we might look to Hobbes for insight. The first two papers in this issue fall into the first category; the third focuses on an issue that feminism has helped us acknowledge is a political issue: sexual morality. Yet all deal with questions of fundamental importance to interpreting Hobbes’s thought. For example, how should we interpret his idea of “equality”? How should we understand the “state of nature”? What is the relationship between conquest and consent? What moral imperatives exist before the establishment of positive law? The contribution of feminism to the history of political thought has in many respects been so successful that few readers would now dispute the significance of the topics discussed. But recent interest does not counterbalance years of neglect.1 Almost a decade after the “first collection of essays dedicated exclusively to feminist interpretation of Hobbes” by Nancy J. Hirschmann and Joanne H. Wright,2 this special issue is based on the premise that the topic still deserves more attention. It is thus intended to continue to stimulate important strands of thinking about Hobbes’s philosophy.3 The issue assembles papers from three scholars who bring in their approaches to Hobbes’s work expertise in political philosophy and the history of","PeriodicalId":42474,"journal":{"name":"Hobbes Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18750257-bja10007","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feminist Perspectives on Hobbes\",\"authors\":\"A. Chadwick, Eva Odzuck\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18750257-bja10007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Feminist approaches to the history of political thought have expanded our understanding of Hobbes’s political theory from two main directions: first, they have sought to explain why women in his theory move from a position of natural equality—and indeed, in sharp contrast to patriarchal accounts, a position in which they possess right over their children—to one of subordination to men. Second, feminist perspectives have expanded the range of issues which are considered subjects for “political” theory, and hence on which we might look to Hobbes for insight. The first two papers in this issue fall into the first category; the third focuses on an issue that feminism has helped us acknowledge is a political issue: sexual morality. Yet all deal with questions of fundamental importance to interpreting Hobbes’s thought. For example, how should we interpret his idea of “equality”? How should we understand the “state of nature”? What is the relationship between conquest and consent? What moral imperatives exist before the establishment of positive law? The contribution of feminism to the history of political thought has in many respects been so successful that few readers would now dispute the significance of the topics discussed. But recent interest does not counterbalance years of neglect.1 Almost a decade after the “first collection of essays dedicated exclusively to feminist interpretation of Hobbes” by Nancy J. Hirschmann and Joanne H. Wright,2 this special issue is based on the premise that the topic still deserves more attention. It is thus intended to continue to stimulate important strands of thinking about Hobbes’s philosophy.3 The issue assembles papers from three scholars who bring in their approaches to Hobbes’s work expertise in political philosophy and the history of\",\"PeriodicalId\":42474,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hobbes Studies\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18750257-bja10007\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hobbes Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18750257-bja10007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hobbes Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18750257-bja10007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
研究政治思想史的女性主义方法从两个主要方向扩展了我们对霍布斯政治理论的理解:首先,她们试图解释为什么在他的理论中,女性从自然平等的地位——实际上,与父权的描述形成鲜明对比的是,在父权的描述中,女性拥有对子女的权利——转变为对男性的从属地位。其次,女权主义视角扩大了被认为是“政治”理论主题的问题范围,因此我们可以向霍布斯寻求见解。本期的前两篇论文属于第一类;第三本书关注的是女权主义帮助我们认识到的一个政治问题:性道德。然而,所有这些都涉及对解释霍布斯思想至关重要的问题。例如,我们应该如何理解他的“平等”思想?我们应该如何理解“自然状态”?征服和同意之间的关系是什么?在实在法建立之前,存在哪些道德要求?女权主义对政治思想史的贡献在许多方面是如此成功,以至于现在很少有读者会质疑所讨论话题的重要性。但最近的兴趣并不能抵消多年来的忽视在南希·赫希曼(Nancy J. Hirschmann)和乔安妮·h·赖特(Joanne H. Wright)“第一部专门讨论女权主义解读霍布斯的文集”出版近十年后,这期特刊的前提是,这个话题仍然值得更多关注。因此,它的目的是继续激发对霍布斯哲学的重要思考这一期汇集了三位学者的论文,他们将自己的研究方法引入霍布斯在政治哲学和历史方面的专业知识
Feminist approaches to the history of political thought have expanded our understanding of Hobbes’s political theory from two main directions: first, they have sought to explain why women in his theory move from a position of natural equality—and indeed, in sharp contrast to patriarchal accounts, a position in which they possess right over their children—to one of subordination to men. Second, feminist perspectives have expanded the range of issues which are considered subjects for “political” theory, and hence on which we might look to Hobbes for insight. The first two papers in this issue fall into the first category; the third focuses on an issue that feminism has helped us acknowledge is a political issue: sexual morality. Yet all deal with questions of fundamental importance to interpreting Hobbes’s thought. For example, how should we interpret his idea of “equality”? How should we understand the “state of nature”? What is the relationship between conquest and consent? What moral imperatives exist before the establishment of positive law? The contribution of feminism to the history of political thought has in many respects been so successful that few readers would now dispute the significance of the topics discussed. But recent interest does not counterbalance years of neglect.1 Almost a decade after the “first collection of essays dedicated exclusively to feminist interpretation of Hobbes” by Nancy J. Hirschmann and Joanne H. Wright,2 this special issue is based on the premise that the topic still deserves more attention. It is thus intended to continue to stimulate important strands of thinking about Hobbes’s philosophy.3 The issue assembles papers from three scholars who bring in their approaches to Hobbes’s work expertise in political philosophy and the history of
期刊介绍:
Hobbes Studies is an international peer reviewed scholarly journal. Its interests are twofold; first, in publishing research about the philosophical, political, historical, literary, and scientific matters related to Thomas Hobbes"s own thought, at the beginning of the modern state and the rise of science, and also in a comparison of his views to other important thinkers; second, because of Hobbes"s enduring influence in stimulating social and political theory, the journal is interested in publishing such discussions. Articles and occasional book reviews are peer reviewed. The International Hobbes Association is associated with the journal but submissions are open.