Presentation on theme: "Master of business administration Module : organization theory Rasha maswod lowreen Ibrahim."— Presentation transcript:
Master of business administration Module : organization theory Rasha maswod lowreen Ibrahim
Women’s ways of knowing it is all about love ! author : Carla locatelli Volume : 12 No : 2 Year : 2007 Pages : 339 – 350 Published by : SAGE Publication
structure key words. aim of the study. methodology and design. the cheek ambivalent of the article’s title. women’s placing. essential questions. the reasons which have marginalized the love. the reasons which have marginalized the women’s knowing? how can the knowledge is developed and transmitted ? The new vision of love findings
Key words Co(n)texts : the texts that are contributed to explain meaning of something in context, Like term ‘love’ in our article. (gynocentric)cultural memory : the thoughts, traditions and opinions of society toward women. politics of desire : the ways that feminists have used to construct more fairness and equality between men and women. (dis)identification : women’s trying in order to be existent in society,through thinking, behavior and reaction
Aim of the study the goal is to make the knowledge equally recognizable, just as the men knowledge secured by cultural memory is recognized and honoured. to define what knowledge is, and how it can be formed, represented and transmitted in gynocentric terms. love of knowledge is at the core of women’s ways of knowing.
Methodology and design this study has depended on historical methodology in which the author offered many sections from texts for another authors who wrote in the same domain among them : Lea Melandri (1991:329),Cixous (1991). Barbara Johnson ( 1987b : 70-169), Virginia Woolf (1993 )
The cheek ambivalent of article’s title which has implied : 1.On one hand it is provocative because : It has referred to the major cultural stereotype ascribed to women’s natural loving attitude, which justifying women’s exploitation in the most divers social situation. the domain of women’s knowing is emotional, emphatic, timic. So it is illogical and non-objective. 2.On other hand it isn’t provocative at all because : It aims at indicating an attitude that feminists have related to a politics of desire, in which they have recognized their effort to construct a more balanced,more society.
Women’s placing the difficulty, for women, is unlearning self-repression and ambiguation conciliation, reaching affirmation. women come to deceive themselves into being ‘really’ safe,but they are vulnerable, defenseless, open to institutionalized abuse. Women used to being ignored as women (they are taught to read as men, to think as men, to prove themselves equal to men ). Women still receive the stability of the negative : they are non-men.so they have to negotiate a visibility which language denies to them. Women grow up, learning and dealing with double front of identification themselves in relation to both the 'outside' (to a hegemonically stable and determined world of patriarchy) and to an 'inside' (to themselves as women ),they have to knew enough to bear insecurity and uncertainty.
Questions Essential why is the passion of loving and of knowing blotted out and marginalized so frequently ? how can we face the potential destructiveness of love, and how can we develop this knowledge, and eventually transmit it ? what knowledge, and what do we define as knowledge ? are self-resistance and uncertainty negotiable values determined on the mere basis of gender ?should they be ? can the educational system take responsibility for this loss ? Can schools and universities intervene in resisting obvious acceptance and irresponsible desolation ?
the reasons which have marginalized the love 1.the complexities of ‘love’ have de facto determined current timidity, and /or a cultural cynicism, which prevent people from talking about ‘love’ in empowering ways. 2.The notion of informational fuzziness, and emotional blurring in concept formation of love has been used to reinforce subjective disappearance in society. 3. though feminists,both men and women, can easily ascribe this passivity in responding to love to pervasive, as well as often invisible, ruling-form of institutional violence, all over the world.
the reasons which have marginalized women’s knowing 1. the cultural reaction against women’s texts because of non-written of women’s texts into co-textual tradition. 2. women has encountered the difficulties, when accessing literature because women’s language was non-recognized. 3. women have aspired at producing texts that will be recognized as authoritative, like men’s texts.
How can the knowledge is developed and transmitted by focusing on the ways of reading, like starting with negotiation of interpretants, at the core sign formation. by building a visible and equally praised tradition which is recognized as authoritative. women have to work on a form of political and/ or cognitive bonding, which would empower them as women.
new vision for the love Only a great love can push you into making decisions which bring into play your whole life, and a great love is needed in order to understand'. Today we should admit that love is on 'national' and 'trans- national' agenda, as in imagining the future of political party, of a parliament's agenda, of nation's international relations. Love should be interpreted as an action, rather than a feeling, in order to talk about a practice of love in which love is not reduced to ;care; nor to cosmetic, sentimental option.
Findings a successful gynocentric memory can be achieved if transmission of knowledge regards and involves women as women, subjects thought of, and valorized from, an as women position. in spite of the fact that there are relatively many names of and feminists circulating today, it is still hard to configure a women’s canon, because there is no culturally accepted site which they are inscribed.
Findings the university’s mission makes knowledge visibly open. knowledge should be clearly transformable through dialogue and negotiation, not through deterministic ‘progress ‘. the global perspective allows us to thing of the subjects involved in knowing and learning as human beings in charge of future. there are always difference, so we need to negotiate the valorization or the obliteration of such difference,so which differences do we want to keep ? Which ones do we want to reduce or eradicate ? the real question becomes : do we want difference to make difference specifically, or not ? And if we do, for whom do we want to make a difference, or do we want a difference made ?