Cornell and Zerlli's Themes of Feminism and Universality (Post #4)

In “Autonomy Reimagined” and “Reframing the Question in Feminism,” both Cornell and Zerlli examine the conflicts and contradictions that come with defining feminism. Using a psychoanalytical approach, Cornell describes feminism as the “ego ideal,” free from outside imposition or inequality. She explains, “To understand feminism physically is to defend its spirit of generosity because each woman or man will internalize it as an ideal in her or his own way” (Cornell, 144). This form of feminism has no strict structure and would allow women to continue to evolve while claiming their desires. Similarly, Zerlli discusses the importance of openness and contestation in feminism. Using the structure of democratic politics and Judith Butler’s argument as support, Zerlli articulates, “Losing sight of openness, feminism gets entangled in the impossible fantasy that women could constitute a unified political group, without exclusion or remainder” (Zerlli, 167). Plainly, a hegemonic form of feminism would ultimately ostracize many. Another point at which Cornell and Zerlli intersect is their idea of law formation and universality. For Cornell, she believes that legal reform should be proposed by people and agreed upon by those with various, philosophical ideas on the subject. (Cornell, 148). Regarding the international arena, she writes, “I would insist that to demand such agreement rather than try to achieve it through an overlapping consensus forces us to infuse new life into our imperialist legacy” (Ibid).  Zerlli follows Cornell’s ideas when discussing the idea of universality and the example of “women’s human rights”. She argues that universality should not be the process of subsuming others to rules, but rather making a political claims in a public space. Her example of this issue was the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights, where the “women’s rights are human rights” statement was publicly proposed. In attempting to create a universal alliance for women, the statement reflected the Western concept of “women” and failed to capture other feminist struggles.