Sabina Lovibond replies: Perhaps I should have confined myself more strictly to the ‘specific bit of textual exploration’ which I announced at the beginning of my paper. I ventured further afield out of a sense of alarm at the growing tendency for postmodernist views of subjectivity to be deployed, not just against vanguardism on the left, but against any kind of conscious resistance to patriarchal or capitalist normality in everyday life. And I mentioned Elizabeth Wilson because her work on fashion has seemed to me to give comfort, over the last few years, to people with a vested interest in female consumerism. I did not go so far as to say that Elizabeth Wilson countenanced this application of her ideas, and it is good to be told explicitly that she does not.
Back to issue
I/180•Mar/Apr 1990
NLR I/180, March–April 1990
Back to issue
I/180•Mar/Apr 1990By this author
Related articles
- Sabina Lovibond, ‘Feminism and Postmodernism’
- Elizabeth Wilson, ‘The Postmodern Chameleon’
- Kate Soper, ‘Postmodernism, Subjectivity and the Question of Value’
- Sabina Lovibond, ‘Feminism and Pragmatism: A Reply to Richard Rorty’
- Sabina Lovibond, ‘Feminism and the 'Crisis of Rationality'’
- Sabina Lovibond, ‘Meaning What We Say: Feminist Ethics and the Critique of Humanism’
Cite
Sabina Lovibond, ‘A Reply to Elizabeth Wilson’, NLR I/180, March–April 1990
DOI: doi.org/10.64590/d1u