THE ROOTS OF RORTYS PHILOSOPHY: CATHARINE A.

MACKINNON
Susan Dieleman (York University, scd@yorku.ca)

will suggest that a slight modification to Rortys account of *ac+innons place within feminism can uncover middle ground between Rortys views and those of his critics1 grounds which may prove fertile for future investigations into the relationships to be forged between feminism and pragmatism. I will employ the e(ample of se(ual harassment, a concept *ac+innon

Intr !u"ti n

helped introduce into legal discourse, to elucidate the middle ground I recommend. I will conclude that it is

Although Rortys introduction to feminist theory came about purely by happenstance he claims to have started reading feminist books simply because his wife had dozens of them lying around the house I will suggest in this paper that his engagement with feminism resulted in an important shift to a more political version of pragmatism in his later works. Indeed, even though Rorty admits to not having anything special to say about feminism! "Rorty et. al. #$$#, %$&, a careful reading reveals that feminism seems to have had something special to say to Rorty. And now, with

Rortys e(posure to and engagement with *ac+innons writing that brings him to deal more e(plicitly with political issues and that, even though feminists have not been 'uick to adopt Rortys insights, further

investigation into his writing is likely to bring to light the many resources his philosophy has to offer progressive social movements.

#. Cat$arine A. Ma"Kinn n

*ac+innon is a prominent American feminist legal theorist who is well2known for her participation in a number of important legal pro.ects. 3he has been

increasing attention being paid to Rortys uni'ue brand of neopragmatism by feminists, it is becoming apparent that Rorty may have had something special to say to feminism after all.

engaged in groundbreaking international work on issues of se( e'uality. 4or e(ample, she represented 5osnian women survivors of 3erbian genocidal se(ual atrocities in

In this paper, I will e(plore the role )atharine A. *ac+innons work played in Rortys interest in feminism in the early ,--$s, and his conse'uent turn to more e(plicitly political topics in his later writing. In the first section, I will provide a brief overview of *ac+innons pro.ects for readers unfamiliar with her work, paying particular attention to her role in the development of the concept of se(ual harassment. In the second

a successful lawsuit which provided the first recognition that rape is an act of genocide. 3he is also well2known "and possibly notorious& for what are considered to be her radical views regarding pornography. Along with Andrea 6workin and other feminist activists, *ac+innon helped to develop the Antipornography )ivil Rights 7rdinance, a collection of local ordinances intended to be used to protect women from the harms of pornography under civil law. *ac+innon is also well known for the part she played in bringing to public awareness the phenomenon of se(ual harassment. Although each of these topics is worthy of lengthy 3ee )atharine A. *ac+innon and Andrea 6workin, Pornography and Civil Rights: A e! "ay #or $o%en&s '(uality ",-88&, and )n *ar%&s $ay: +he Pornography Civil Rights *earings ",--9&. # nd 3ee +adic v. +aradzic: 7pinion of # )ircuit re: 3ub.ect *atter ;urisdiction,! at Pro,ect "iana: -nline *u%an Rights Archive (At Yale .a! /chool).
, # ,

section, I will investigate the aspects of her work that make it the type of approach that interests Rorty, and in what ways and for what purposes her work appears in and influences his writing. In the third section, I will interrogate how Rortys use of *ac+innon impacts the reception of his views by other feminist theorists. /hat is, I will ask whether and how Rortys use of *ac+innons perspectives either serves or undermines his attempts to 0sell pragmatism to feminists. In the fourth section, I

T H E R O O T S O F R O R T Y S P H I L O S O P H Y : C A T H A R I N E A . M A C K I N N O N /usan "iele%an

investigation, I will limit myself here to e(ploring the final topic which serves as an e(ample throughout this paper before investigating how the methodology she employed in pursuing this and other issues led to the incorporation of her views and approach in Rortys ,--$ /anner <ecture, 4eminism and =ragmatism.!

organizations that the issue of se(ual harassment gained popular attention.

It was feminist perspectives in popular culture that led, in large part, to popular acceptance of the concept of se(ual harassment. /he media generally sought

womens personal testimonials, as well as feminist /he phenomenon the term se(ual harassment! perspectives on the issue of se(ual harassment, which included the idea that it was an issue of power rather than se(uality. As 5aker points out, /hese stories raised awareness about the issue, causing more women to speak up about harassment, to name the e(perience as a violation, and to fight it. @omen began to 'uestion coercive se(ual behavior in the workplace that they would before have accepted as the status 'uo! "5aker #$$%, ?#&. /he first appearances of the concept of

identifies was already a concern in the nineteenth century. As )arrie >. 5aker points out, social reformers at this time first conceptualized se(ual coercion in the workplace as a social problem, but framed it as a moral issue. Reformers were concerned with the moral

degeneration of women in the workplace, so they advocated protective labor laws that limited womens participation in the workplace to shield them from these influences! "5aker #$$%, ?,&. 6uring the so2called second wave of feminism in the ,-9$s, the problem of se(ual harassment was reconceptualized by feminists, 5aker suggests, as a civil rights issue. )oncerned with

se(ual harassment appeared in the popular press in the mid2,-9$s. In ,-9B, Enid >emys article @omen 5egin to 3peak 7ut Against 3e(ual Farassment at @ork! appeared in the e! York +i%es, and *ary 5raloves A )old 3houlder: )areer @omen 6ecry 3e(ual Farassment by 5osses and )lients! appeared in the $all /treet 3ournal in ,-9G. /here were, of course, critical

womens e'ual employment opportunities, feminists argued that se(ual harassment was se( discrimination! "?,&. In )n -ur +i%e: 0e%oir o# a Revolution, 3usan 5rownmiller recounts how a group of feminist activists of which she was a part realized there was no term they could use to identify the e(periences many women were having in their workplaces at the hands of their bosses or co2workers. In brainstorming to find a term, many were bandied about until someone came up with se(ual harassment.! 5rownmiller writes, @e wanted

responses to these mainstream treatments of se(ual harassment, yet the term had gained enough currency that women across >orth America were able to employ the concept in describing their own e(periences.

In ,-9-, *ac+innon published the first ma.or book on the topic of se(ual harassment, entitled /e1ual *arass%ent o# $orking $o%en: A Case o# /e1 "iscri%ination. In that te(t, she presents the legal

something that embraced the whole range of subtle and unsubtle persistent behaviors. 3omebody came up with harassment.! /e1ual harass%ent2 Instantly we agreed. /hats what it was! "Auoted in 4ricker #$$9, ,B$&. 3ome of the feminist activists in groups like the one 5rownmiller describes went on to form @orking @omen Cnited "later to become the @orking @omenDs Institute& and the Alliance Against 3e(ual )oercion, both of which were instrumental in bringing se(ual harassment to public attention through the late ,-9$s. It is largely due to the efforts of the women who worked with these

argument that se(ual harassment of women at work is se( discrimination in employment! "?&. /he strategy

*ac+innon employs when presenting se(ual harassment as a form of se( discrimination is a strategy that had already proven successful in feminist attempts to reconceptualize the problem of rape. *ore specifically, she suggests that se(ual harassment is less about se( than it is about power. 3he writes, Rape has recently been conceptualized as a crime of violence, not se(. 3e(ual harassment, so conceptualized, would be an

124

T H E R O O T S O F R O R T Y S P H I L O S O P H Y : C A T H A R I N E A . M A C K I N N O N /usan "iele%an

abuse of hierarchical economic "or institutional& authority, not se(uality! "#,92#,8&. In other words,

lying around the house, so I began reading them. If Id been single, Lod knows whether I would ever have read them! "%$2%,&. *arianne ;anack, editor of the recent anthology 4e%inist )nterpretations o# Richard Rorty, recounts a conversation she had with Rortys wife, *ary Marney Rorty, in which his choice of feminist authors is e(plained. ;anack 'uotes *ary Rorty: they I4rye and RichK grabbed you by the brain and imagination and rammed you into something you might not have thought about but sure were gonna think about now. IJK I/Khat kind of writing writing that clears a path for ideas, preferably outrageous ones, to wham into your brain that was Rortys meat. Fe aspired to it1 he recognized it when he saw it1 he absolutely respected it. Fe was glad of an occasion to acknowledge it ";anack #$$8, %$&. It is this engagement with feminist literature, induced simply by its availability, that prompts Rortys writing of

*ac+innon argues that se(ual harassment is a form of se( discrimination because it is an issue of power1 the act of se(ual harassment reinforces the social ine'uality of women to men, and it does this specifically by undermining womens potential for work e'uality as a means to social e'uality! ",-9-, #,G&. *ac+innons

efforts and persistence were, of course, rewarded: in ,-8$, the C3 E'ual Employment 7pportunity

)ommission "EE7)& employed *ac+innonDs framework in adopting guidelines prohibiting se(ual harassment by prohibiting both 'uid pro 'uo harassment and hostile work environment harassment.

%. R rt&s use ' Ma"Kinn ns ( r)

In the interview Against 5osses, Against 7ligarchies,! Rorty is asked to respond to the following observation the interviewer had made of his work: before you started talking about the American left in general, you focused pretty specifically on feminismHyouve written a number of articles about feminismHand it seems to be a politics that youre particularly attached to! "Rorty et. al. #$$#, #-&. Rorty responds: 7ne is always struck when one finds oneself guilty of taking things for granted. I was raised phallogocentric, homophobic, all the rest of it, and it took decades of propaganda to make me realize Id been raised wrong. IJK @hen you have the sense of your eyes being opened, you tend to write about how nice it is to have your eyes open. /hats why I wrote about feminism. 5ut it isnt that I think I have anything special to say about feminism "#-2%$&. Rorty became ac'uainted with the work of feminists most notably philosopher *arilyn 4rye, poet and essayist Adrienne Rich, and the focus of this paper, legal scholar )atharine *ac+innon because the books were, 'uite simply, made available to him. In Against 5osses, Against 7ligarchies,! Rorty mentions that he began reading feminist authors because of the influence of his wife. Fe is 'uoted as saying, 3he began reading more and more feminist books. /here were dozens of them

4eminism and =ragmatism,! originally presented in ,--$ as the /anner <ecture on Fuman Malues at the Cniversity of *ichigan.

In particular, it is *ac+innons methodology which involves investigating specific issues in pursuit of or in the conte(t of greater social progress that draws Rorty to her work. Fe sees her as a paradigm of the moral entrepreneur,! people who "in Rortys words& have a very specific target, call attention to a very specific set of instances of unnecessary suffering! "Rorty et. al. #$$#, ?9&. /hese moral entrepreneurs, Rorty argues, ultimately do more good than academic moralists who tend to be universalistic moral philosophers and see their .ob as providing moral principles to guide action. 7n Rortys view, Cniveralistic moral philosophers think that the notion of 0violation of human rights provides sufficient conceptual resources to e(plain why some traditional occasions of revulsion really are moral abominations and others only appear to be. /hey think of moral progress as an increasing ability to see the reality behind the illusions created by superstition, pre.udice, and unreflective custom. /he typical universalist is a moral realist, someone who thinks that true moral .udgments are %ade true by something out there in the world "Rorty #$,$, ##&.

125

T H E R O O T S O F R O R T Y S P H I L O S O P H Y : C A T H A R I N E A . M A C K I N N O N /usan "iele%an

If we adopt a universalistic account of moral progress, Rorty suggests, we will simply see *ac+innons approach as empty hyperbole! rather than as what it really is, and that is prophecy! "Rorty #$,$, ##&.

that, unsilenced, might say something that has never been heard! "*ac+innon in Rorty #$,$, #$&.

*ac+innons approach here sits well with Rortys linguistic pragmatism, in which linguistic innovation motivates social progress. According to Rorty,

)loser investigation of how *ac+innon understands the conte(t into which the new concept of se(ual harassment is introduced reveals still further reasons for why Rorty would be interested in her work. In the

*ac+innon is correct to think that assumptions become visible as assumptions only if we can make the contradictories of those assumptions sound plausible! "Rorty #$,$, #,&. In other words, only by describing a world in which our assumptions are reversed, and by making that world sound like it could e(ist, are we able to show that the assumptions currently at work are nothing but assumptions.

preface to /e1ual *arass%ent o# $orking $o%en, *ac+innon writes, 3e(ual harassment has been not only legally allowed1 it has been legally unthinkable! "(i&. In other words, because the legal concept of se(ual harassment had not yet been conceived and introduced, it did not, for all intents and purposes, e(ist. 5y

/his means that somebody must be willing to create and suggest a description of a different world a redescription of our own. Rorty continues, 7nly if somebody has a dream, and a voice to describe that dream, does what looked like nature begin to look like culture, what looked like fate begin to look like a moral abomination. 4or until then only the language of the oppressor is available, and most oppressors have had the wit to teach the oppressed a language in which the oppressed will sound crazy even to the%selves 5 if they describe themselves as oppressed "Rorty #$,$, #,&. /hus, new language must be presented, one which will, as Rorty puts it, facilitate new reactions! "Rorty #$,$, #,&. Fe suggests, by 0new language I mean not .ust new words but also creative misuses of language familiar words used in ways which initially sound crazy. IJK 3uch popularity Iof new descriptionsK e(tends logical space by making descriptions of situations which used to seem crazy seem sane! "Rorty #$,$, #,&.

presenting se(ual harassment as a form of discrimination an issue of power rather than of se( *ac+innon presented a new description of a phenomenon that the legal world would ultimately acknowledge. /his

approach sits very well with Rortys recommendation to stop talking about the need to go from distorted to undistorted perception of moral reality, and instead talk about the need to modify our practices so as to take account of new descriptions of what has been going on! "Rorty #$,$, ##2#%&. /his, of course, is why Rorty uses *ac+innon as an e(ample of the strategy best suited to attaining social progress. Indeed, given that Rorty

appreciates and admires the approach of the moral entrepreneur who provides new descriptions of states of affairs to render visible previously invisible assumptions, *ac+innons work becomes an e(emplar of the pragmatist position he seeks to forward. Fer work thus also prompts his theoretical engagement with feminism. In this section I will e(plore the use Rorty makes of *ac+innons work and then investigate, in the following section, whether it plays the role he hoped it would in his attempt to 0woo feminists.

Fere, a brief reminder of how Rorty thinks social progress occurs might be helpful. Recall that Rorty

thinks argumentation on its own is an inade'uate tool for seeking and attaining social progress. 7nly a new

In

4eminism

and

=ragmatism,!

Rorty

'uotes

vocabulary can displace an e(isting vocabulary, and he argues in Contingency, )rony, and /olidarity that it is the ironist who creates new vocabularies. employed by the ironist therefore relies on /he method

*ac+innons views on the ascension of women to *innesotas 3upreme )ourt: Im evoking for women a role that we have yet to make, in the name of a voice

126

T H E R O O T S O F R O R T Y S P H I L O S O P H Y : C A T H A R I N E A . M A C K I N N O N /usan "iele%an

redescription rather than inference. Ironists specialize in redescribing ranges of ob.ects or events in partially neologistic .argon, in the hope of inciting people to adopt and e(tend that .argon. An ironist hopes that by the time she has finished using old words in new senses, not to mention introducing brand2new words, people will no longer ask 'uestions phrased in the old words "Rorty ,-8-, 98&. /he ironist, which evolves into the prophet of Rortys later work "more on this shortly&, is responsible for instigating social progress, Rorty contends, because there are many situations in which argument will simply fail. 4or e(ample, he contends that irony or prophecy can be a useful ally in the feminist struggle in that it offers a strategy for feminists to use when argument fails. And, he proposes, Argument for the rights of the oppressed !ill fail .ust insofar as the only language in which to state relevant premises is one in which the relevant emancipatory premises sound crazy! "Rorty #$,$, #?&. In other words, because oppressed groups are re'uired to phrase their arguments in the discourse of the oppressor, or in commonsensical! language, the idea of emancipating the oppressed will inevitably sound unreasonable. Indeed, Rorty suggests that naming the language used by oppressed groups in their search for e'uality as crazy! or unreasonable! is an e(plicit tactic, used by the oppressor, to keep other groups in a subordinate position.
%

dominant discourse to recognize marginalized groups as members of we! rather than they.! As ;anack puts it, Rorty argues 4eminists should not tie themselves to the old paradigm by playing by its rules of argumentation and evidence, but should take on the challenge of providing a new paradigm, even at the risk of sounding crazy or having their appeals fall on deaf ears. 7nly by offering a new vision that could replace the old model of patriarchy a function fulfilled by prophecy, not by philosophy can feminists make progress ";anack #$$8, %%&. *. R rt& an! 'eminism

=ragmatist and feminist pro.ects are often motivated by the same concerns, and these concerns often lead their adherents to the same theoretical and practical conclusions. /hus, an alliance between them seems Indeed, Meroni'ue *ottier, in

almost inevitable.

=ragmatism and 4eminist /heory,! suggests that there can be found a natural affinity between key elements of pragmatism and feminist thought. 5oth privilege social and political practice over abstract theory, they evaluate theory from the point of view of its concrete effects on marginalized groups, including women, and both share a common emphasis upon the development of theory from sub.ects grounded e(perience. >evertheless, the history of the relations between pragmatism and feminism is largely one of a failed ? rendezvous "#$$?, %#%&.

/hus, oppressed groups re'uire another strategy to realize their goals of emancipation. /his strategy is, of course, persuasion, and more specifically, persuasion designed to arouse sentiments that would lead to greater solidarity1 to enable those who populate the

It seems that ironic redescription is not the only means by which social progress can be achieved. In -6,ectivity, Relativis%, and +ruth, Rorty writes =lain argumentative prose may, depending on circumstances, be e'ually useful.! ",G-& Interestingly, this is a bit of a throw2away, as Rorty does not seem to pursue it here, or elsewhere, and maintains his position that metaphor is %ore useful than making predictable moves in currently popular language2games.! ",G-& I assume that, by suggesting plain argumentative prose! may contribute to social progress, he is thinking of something similar to the type of progress that +uhn argues is possible !ithin normal science.

*ottier chalks this failure up to the lack of a clear political program in neopragmatism, and particularly in Rortys work. And, the politics that are at work in Rortys philosophy, she argues, rely too heavily on the distinction between the public and private spheres, and on traditional liberalism, with its emphasis on autonomous, rational sub.ectivity. 3he writes: Rortys unsophisticated liberalism, which amalgamates a liberalist understanding of the sub.ect as an autonomous individual with a liberal political pro.ect, is deeply problematic for feminist theory. Its unreflective a priori separation between public and private spheres and between theory and practice, as well as its failure to take into account the relational dimension of human e(istence, are at odds with current feminist debates on liberalism.! "%%,& Cnfortunately, *ottiers piece provides no account of Rortys actual position. /herefore, I will not take *ottiers criticisms further into account because it is not clear how she understands

127

T H E R O O T S O F R O R T Y S P H I L O S O P H Y : C A T H A R I N E A . M A C K I N N O N /usan "iele%an

@hile *ottier chalks this failure up to the lack of a clear political program in neopragmatism an accusation I do not deal with here I suggest that the lack of meaningful dialogue is more likely both less conscious and more strategic. /hat is, it is more ignorance of the

in his ,-8- Contingency, )rony, and /olidarity. /here, he suggests social progress occurs through linguistic innovation, and it is the ironist who envisions and creates a better society through their innovative uses of language. It is the liberal ironist who creates narratives that can cause a shift in a cultures final vocabulary. Fowever, he briefly notes that the books that are created by the ironist can be divided into two types, those books

pragmatists work and a desire to avoid an alliance with an already much2maligned movement that results in the so2called failed rendezvous.!

In any case, a conversation of sorts has developed among feminists about the value of pragmatism for their goals, and between feminists and pragmatists as well, to determine the value of their work for each others enterprises. 4or e(ample, =hyllis Rooney, in 4eminist2 =ragmatist Revisionings of Reason, +nowledge, and =hilosophy,! contends that a kind of critical dialectical relationship! between pragmatism and feminism can bring out their respective and mutual strengths, which can serve as a starting point for reimagining And although Rorty does not dismiss the possibility that the former type of book can prompt or contribute to social progress, it is the latter type of book that contributes to social progress by enlarging the scope of solidarity. Net he continues to assert at this point that the ideal citizen of a liberal utopia will therefore see those responsible for creating social change as individuals who prompt the creation of a new public final vocabulary through the creation of their own private final vocabularies. aimed at working out a new private vocabulary and those aimed at working out a new pu6lic vocabulary. /he former is a vocabulary deployed to answer 'uestions like @hat shall I beO! @hat can I becomeO! @hat have I beenO! /he latter is a vocabulary deployed to answer the 'uestion @hat sorts of things about what sorts of people do I need to noticeO "Rorty ,-8-, ,?%&.

epistemological concepts ",B&. 5oth movements, she claims, developed out of similar frustrations with what are seen as limiting aspects of traditional! philosophy! ",B&. Net despite these overlapping concerns, interests and pro.ects, few feminists have e(plicitly taken up the task of pursuing a distinctly pragmatist feminism or a feminist pragmatism. Even fewer still are the feminists who have taken up the pro.ect of being banner2wavers! for Rorty. As Rorty is one of the few contemporary philosophers to e(plicitly engage with feminist theory, this is perhaps surprising. Fowever, e(ploring the many possible reasons for the failed rendezvous! between feminism and pragmatism, or even between feminism and Rortys work specifically, is surely beyond the scope of this paper. @hat I will focus on is the conversation that has emerged as a result of Rortys use of *ac+innons views and his positing of her as a feminist prophet.

Interestingly, the distinction that Rorty raises here, between books aimed at working out a new private vocabulary and those aimed at working out a new pu6lic vocabulary,! is not, to my knowledge, mentioned at any other point in his works, although it does seem to be a background assumption in some areas, most notably in his discussion of Leorge 7rwells dystopian novels Fowever, the distinction made in ,-8-s Contingency, )rony, and /olidarity foreshadows the move Rorty makes from irony to prophecy, where the latter type of book is presented by someone Rorty identifies as a prophet

It is Rortys engagement with feminism, I suggest, that brings to life and clarifies a short but anomalous passage

rather than an ironist. Indeed, it is Rortys engagement with feminism that prompts him to recast the liberal ironist of Contingency, )rony, and /olidarity as a political

Rortys work, and what, therefore, she is actually criticizing.

actor, and he takes *ac+innon to be .ust such an actor. /hat is, it is an understanding of the struggles and

128

T H E R O O T S O F R O R T Y S P H I L O S O P H Y : C A T H A R I N E A . M A C K I N N O N /usan "iele%an

successes of feminism that prompts him to engage further with these books aimed at public audiences, where public! can be variously defined to include the larger public of a society or culture something along the lines of his bourgeois leftist intellectuals or smaller counterpublic spheres like feminist activist and

critically, and democratically, rather than imposed via prophetic pronouncements from mountaintops! "4raser ,--,, #GG&. /hus, while 4raser and Rorty agree on more than they disagree, as ;anack puts it, /he 'uestion to which they give different answers is: how does linguistic innovation work to create and sustain political changeO! ";anack #$$8, %?2%B&. In other words, while both

consciousness2raising groups.

theorists agree that linguistic innovation motivates social Fowever, the move from irony to prophecy, and the use of *ac+innon as an e(ample of a feminist prophet, has not received the warmest reception from feminist thinkers engaged with Rortys work. 4or instance, the concept of the feminist prophet sits uneasily with >ancy 4raser, who responds to Rortys /anner <ecture, arguing that a further move to politics is necessary after one has moved from irony to prophecy "4raser #$,$, B?&. 4raser is particularly concerned that the picture of the prophet offered by Rorty is too individualistic and does not account for the social nature of knowledge production. 3he notes moreover that Rortys view of the feminist prophet is simply inaccurate as a description of progressive movements throughout history. Is it the prophet who alters vocabularies by presenting new metaphors, thereby enabling political transformations, she asks, or is it marginalized communities themselves who are responsible for these changesO )ertainly, it has not proven to be the case that individual prophets within feminist circles are solely responsible for social change, 4raser argues. 3he suggests that important feminist In )nclusion and "e%ocracy, Iris *arion Noung seeks to develop a more inclusive version of political Although Rorty himself never employs or addresses it himself, the case of se(ual harassment is commonly employed by feminist theorists as an e(ample of the way social movements can be successful and moral progress can be achieved. I will investigate how some feminist theorists have used the development of the concept se(ual harassment! in their work to determine whether and how Rortys use of *ac+innons work was accurate and appropriate, and to begin to develop a middle ground between Rorty and his critics. +. Se,ual $arrasment progress, and even though 4raser welcomes Rortys move from irony to prophecy, she also worries that Rortys account is too apolitical. 4raser presents a

reading under which the development of the term se(ual harassment! did not come about as a result of *ac+innons prophetic insights, but rather as a process embodied by a counterpublic sphere.

redescriptions have developed through practices of consciousness2raising. consciousness2raising In fact, 4raser contends that presents a ma.or linguistic

communication which makes room for alternate discursive styles and methods. Any properly functioning deliberative democracy, she suggests, must make room for these different communicative styles so as to not unfairly e(clude anyone from political discourse. Noung outlines how the alternative discursive method of

innovation not only at the level of the meanings it has generated, but also at the level of the invention and institutionalization of a new language game or discursive practice! "4raser ,--,, #GG&.

/hus, she argues that the counterpublic sphere better represents the feminist movement than does Rortys prophetic characterization. 3he characterizes the

narrative specifically was used to develop the concept of se(ual harassment. In other words, this e(ample

elucidates how story2telling or narrative can introduce new terms into the prevailing normative discourse. Noung writes,

feminist counterpublic sphere as a discursive space where 0semantic authority is constructed collectively,

129

T H E R O O T S O F R O R T Y S P H I L O S O P H Y : C A T H A R I N E A . M A C K I N N O N /usan "iele%an

5efore the language and theory of se(ual harassment was inventedJwomen usually suffered in silence, without a language or forum in which to make a reasonable complaint. As a result of women telling stories to each other and to wider publics about their treatment by men on the .ob and the conse'uences of this treatment, however, a problem that had no name was gradually identified and named "9#2 9%&. In other words, an accumulation of cognitive

/he account of the development of the term se(ual harassment! is offered by 4ricker as an e(ample of the filling of a hermeneutical gap that threatens the e(perience and credibility of women. 4ricker outlines the e(ample at length, using it to elucidate what it means for there to be a gap in the collective hermeneutical resources available to individuals and groups to communicate their e(periences. In developing this term, feminists were able to plug the hermeneutical gap that had been affecting them, and make a whole new range of theoretical and activist resources available. 7nly in some cases will this gap constitute an in.ustice, however. In a situation of se(ual harassment, 4ricker e(plains, harasser and harassee alike are cognitively handicapped by the hermeneutical lacuna neither has a proper understanding of how he is treating her but the harassers cognitive disablement is not a significant disadvantage to him. Indeed, there is an obvious sense in which it suits his purpose! "4ricker #$$9, ,B,&. And it is this cognitive disablement that renders any specific

dissonances or felt anomalies led women to share between themselves their e(periences of what has come to be known as a form of se(ual discrimination. /he new metaphor developed by and among these women to describe their e(periences se(ual harassment! was meant to highlight the negative aspects of what up to that point had been thought of as harmless workplace interactions between men and women. metaphor gradually filled in what /his new feminist

epistemologist *iranda 4ricker calls a hermeneutical gap.

In 'piste%ic )n,ustice, 4ricker uses the e(ample to clarify her account of hermeneutical in.ustice, and the way in which a new term can bring to light e(periences that were previously ignored or marginalized because they could not be named. Recall that hermeneutical in.ustice, according to 4ricker, illustrates the following idea: relations of une'ual power can skew shared hermeneutical resources so that the powerful tend to have appropriate understandings of their e(periences ready to draw on as they make sense of their social e(periences, whereas the powerless are more likely to find themselves having some social e(periences through a glass darkly, with at best ill2fitting meanings to draw on in the effort to render them intelligible ",?8&. In other words, because those in power are able to determine the collection of hermeneutical resources that constitute a social imaginary, they will rarely find themselves without the words and phrases needed to communicate their e(periences to others. /he

instance of running up against a hermeneutical gap both harmful and wrongful: an in.ustice. 4ricker continues, the harassees cognitive disablement is seriously disadvantageous to her. /he cognitive disablement prevents her from understanding a significant patch of her own e(perience: that is, a patch of e(perience which it is strongly in her interests to understandJ Fer hermeneutical disadvantage renders her unable to make sense of her ongoing mistreatment, and this in turn prevents her from protesting it, let alone securing effective measures to stop it "4ricker #$$9, ,B,&. 4ricker also argues that the inability to name such mistreatment is best understood as a hermeneutical in.ustice because the background social conditions were such that the gap was an effect and instrument of power, specifically patriarchal power, as women were fighting against it in the late ,-G$s.

@hat makes the case of se(ual harassment noteworthy for commentators like 4raser, who oppose Rortys account of *ac+innons prophetic voice, is the fact that this term was not simply presented in literature and thus cannot be traced to its originator. As is the case with

powerless, on the other hand, must make do with the social meanings available to them, many of which will be inade'uate to the task of interpreting and

communicating their own e(periences.

130

T H E R O O T S O F R O R T Y S P H I L O S O P H Y : C A T H A R I N E A . M A C K I N N O N /usan "iele%an

most narrative e(amples of the development of a term like se(ual harassment,! it is difficult to determine who is responsible for its origin and thus, 4raser thinks identifying a prophet! who provides the impetus for social progress is inaccurate. Instead, she urges a further move, as is evidenced by the title of her response to Rorty, a move not .ust from irony to prophecy, but from prophecy to politics as well. Net positing that it was a group of women who were responsible for developing the new concept rather than an individual prophet does not in itself e(plain how such a term could serve to overcome "or at least mitigate& the hermeneutical in.ustice that its lack engenders. In order to fully

replies: ->o. I .ust stole her stuff and wrote it up in a slightly different form. 3he hasnt used me, Ive used her. IJK 3he read me before I began writing about feminism, but I dont think it was a big deal for her! "%$& Fowever, I contend there are hints suggesting that not only has *ac+innon influenced Rortys work, but that Rortys use of *ac+innon influenced *ac+innon as well. /hus,

while feminist engagement with Rortys work has thus far been sparse, and made up of, as he notes, more attacks than support, there is evidence that his views have caught the ears of some feminists including even *ac+innon herself.

overcome such an in.ustice, the term has to enter into the collective hermeneutical resources of a society such that it can be called upon by others to e(plain previously une(plainable e(periences.

In her ,--- essay Are @omen FumanO! republished in the #$$G collection Are $o%en *u%an7 And -ther )nternational "ialogues, *ac+innon frames her

approach in the terms provided by Rorty in 4eminism and =ragmatism.! 3pecifically, she writes, 5eing a

I suggest that, on a Rortyan account, this can be accomplished via argumentation on the part of an individual or group that could best be described as an advocate. /hat is, while redescription "also presented as abnormal discourse! by Rorty& is the method by which we understand possible methods to fill the gap, argumentation "or normal discourse!& facilitates the uptake of such redescriptions. In the case of se(ual harassment, what were the means by which the term became a hermeneutical resource upon which others could drawO 3urely *ac+innon played a pivotal role here. And although this role may not have been one of prophecy, perhaps identifying *ac+innon as an

woman is 0not yet a name for a way of being human, not even in this most visionary of human rights documents Ithe Cniversal 6eclaration of Fuman RightsK! ",---, ?%&. 3he takes up this specific 'uote again in her #$$9 book $o%en&s .ives8 0en&s .a!s to invoke the social and material conditions that create woman.! 3he

admonishes us to not invoke any abstract essence or homogeneous generic or ideal type, not to posit anything, far less anything universal, but to refer to this diverse and pervasive concrete material reality of social meanings and practices! "#$$9, #B&.

)ertainly, the claim could be made that *ac+innons re.ection of essentialism and universalism is more a result of her feminism than it is a result of her engagement with Rortys work and, in particular, his

advocate would be a move to a middle ground that would be welcomed by both Rorty and 4raser.

C n"lusi n

/anner <ecture. Net it would certainly be fair, I think, to suggest that Rortys characterization of her views in

In the interview Against 5osses, Against 7ligarchies,! Rorty suggests that, although some feminists had offered replies to some of his work, there were none who picked it up and J waved it as a banner! "%$& @hen asked whether or not )atharine *ac+innon had indeed played the role of a banner2waver for Rorty, he

4eminism and =ragmatism! captured *ac+innons imagination, to the point that she employed the concept in her own later works. In 4eminism and =ragmatism,! Rorty employs *ac+innons work to make the important move from irony to prophecy. 4raser argues that Rorty needs to make the further move from prophecy to

131

T H E R O O T S O F R O R T Y S P H I L O S O P H Y : C A T H A R I N E A . M A C K I N N O N /usan "iele%an

politics. I suggest that, understanding *ac+innons role as one of advocacy rather than prophecy finds the middle ground between Rortys and 4rasers views,

highlighting the implicit political nature of Rortys views that were prompted by his engagement with feminist theorists and activists like *ac+innon.

Re'eren"es 5aker, )arrie >. #$$%. =opular Representations of 3e(ual Farassment.! In Inness, 3herrie, ed. "isco "ivas: $o%en and Popular Culture. =hiladelphia: Cniversity of =ennsylvania =ress. 4raser, >ancy. ,--,. 4rom Irony to =rophecy to =olitics: A Response to Richard Rorty.! 0ichigan 9uarterly Revie! PPP:#, #B-2#GG. 4ricker, *iranda. 'piste%ic )n,ustice: Po!er : the 'thics o# ;no!ing. 7(ford: 7(ford Cniversity =ress, #$$9. ;anack, *arianne, ed. #$,$. 4e%inist )nterpretations o# Richard Rorty. Cniversity =ark: =ennsylvania 3tate Cniversity =ress. 2222222222. #$$8. /o =hilosophize or >ot to =hilosophizeO Rortys )hallenge to 4eminists! in )deas Y <alores ,%8: #-2%-. nd +adic v. +aradzic: 7pinion of # )ircuit re: 3ub.ect *atter ;urisdiction,! at Pro,ect "iana: -nline *u%an Rights Archive (At Yale .a! /chool). Retrieved from http:QQgraduateinstitute.chQfacultyQclaphamQhr docQdocsQA/)A+aradzic.htm ";une ?, #$,,&. *ac+innon, )atharine A. #$$G. Are $o%en *u%an7 And -ther )nternational "ialogues. )ambridge and <ondon: Farvard Cniversity =ress. 2222222222. ,-9-. /e1ual *arass%ent o# $orking $o%en: A Case o# /e1 "iscri%ination. >ew Faven: Nale Cniversity =ress. 2222222222. ,-8-. +o!ard a 4e%inist +heory o# the /tate. )ambridge and <ondon: Farvard Cniversity =ress. 2222222222. #$$9. $o%en&s .ives, 0en&s .a!s. )ambridge and <ondon: Farvard Cniversity =ress.*ac+innon, )atharine A. and Andrea 6workin. ,--9. )n *ar%&s $ay: +he Pornography Civil Rights *earings. )ambridge and <ondon: Farvard Cniversity =ress. 2222222222. ,-88. Pornography and Civil Rights: A e! "ay #or $o%en&s '(uality. *inneapolis: 7rganizing Against =ornography. *endieta, Eduardo, ed. #$$G. +ake Care o# 4reedo% and +ruth $ill +ake Care o# )tsel#: )ntervie!s !ith Richard Rorty. 3tanford: 3tanford Cniversity =ress. *ottier, Meroni'ue. #$$?. =ragmatism and 4eminist /heory,! in 'uropean 3ournal o# /ocial +heory =:>, %#%2%%B. Rooney, =hyllis. ,--%. 4eminist2=ragmatist Revisionings of Reason, +nowledge, and =hilosophy.! *ypatia: A 3ournal o# 4e%inist Philosophy 8:#, ,B2#%. Rorty, Richard. ,-8-. Contingency, )rony, and /olidarity. )ambridge: )ambridge Cniversity =ress. 2222222222. #$,$. 4eminism and =ragmatism.! In ;anack, *arianne, ed. 4e%inist )nterpretations o# Richard Rorty. Cniversity =ark: =ennsylvania 3tate Cniversity =ress. 2222222222. ,--,. -6,ectivity, Relativis%, and +ruth: Philosophical Papers, <olu%e ?. )ambridge: )ambridge Cniversity =ress. 2222222222. ,--8. +ruth and Progress: Philosophical Papers, <olu%e >. )ambridge: )ambridge Cniversity =ress. Rorty, Richard, 6erek >ystrom, and +ent =uckett, eds. #$$#. Against @osses, Against -ligarchies: A Conversation !ith Richard Rorty. )hicago: =rickly =aradigm =ress. Noung, Iris *arion. #$$$. )nclusion and "e%ocracy. 7(ford: 7(ford Cniversity =ress.

132