Paradoxes in Zerilli and Cornell

Zerilli and Cornell both discuss feminist theory in terms of identity and freedom. I found the biggest similarity between the two pieces was how they defined feminism in a cyclical and often paradoxical way. Zerilli states that "feminists demanded freedom and, in demanding it, offered figures of the newly thinkable as well as themselves in the form of examples" (182). Essentially, Zerilli is arguing that women who have advocated for women's rights and freedom have made more of an impact by demonstrating themselves as an example of autonomy than by catalyzing change in the actual freedoms they were fighting for. Zerilli also draws on Cavell to define democratic politics. While inherent in the idea of autonomy is an individual speaking up for him/herself, Zerilli argues that autonomy can only be achieved through a conversation- and this requires individuals to speak for others and generate responses. The journey to autonomy is therefore paradoxical in that it is defined as individuals speaking for themselves, but requires others' voice; "speaking politically is about testing the limits to every claim to community... and about discovering what happens when the agreement breaks down" (172).

Cornell also uses a paradoxical definition of freedom, she claims "since we are dependent on others, and we come into existence as subjects through the discourse of the big Other, our freedom is always social and relational" (147). The idea of freedom as being contingent upon other people completely perverts the basic understanding of the definition freedom. Additionally, Cornell claims that when we exercise our freedom to make evaluations and judgments, we are "[defining] who we are morally" (147). However, if our freedom is always relational and dependent on social constructions and norms, when we exercise it, we are defining who we are morally in terms of our social setting, rather than as a definition of our pure selves.