Talk:Strategic essentialism

Philosophy: Social and political / Continental Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy
	Continental philosophy

Deletion discussion

This article survived a nomination for deletion, following a rewrite. The discussion can be found here. Flower party■ 02:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly dispute deletion for this article. Strategic essentialism is one of the more vital and crucial terms in academia today. It serves a major and intellectual purpose: if there is, ultimately, no referent for the state, woman, homosexuality, Islam, or some other idea--that is there is no there there, in the end--then we can strategically choose to treat topics as fixed, stable, and meaningful. It's a significant idea.

Indeed, this article is deserving of much elaboration. I could add some, but I'd like to see a more accomplished scholar in this area come forward.--Dylanfly 20:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support retaining this article and expanding it. This is a core concept in university courses on critical and social theory, so it would be a shame if it were not represented on Wikipedia.

I wuold also support keeping and expanding this article. This concept is central to cultural studies and social theory, and it deserves a better treatment rather than deletion. To merge it into identity would be like merging an article on Money into the article on Economy just because the two are related--namely, it would be a bad idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.30.73.158 (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date of first appearance?

I would also like to ask: on what date did strategic essentialism first appear? In what publication first? My own recollection is in the forward to Derrida's _Grammatology_ but I might be off.

I did a little hunting. Seems like Spivak first talked about this in an interview in 1984-5: Criticism, feminism, and the institution,” interview with Elizabeth Gross, Thesis Eleven, 10/11, November/March: 175-87.--Dylanfly 21:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use in the work of Irigaray

I added a citation tag after the claim that Irigaray uses this concept, based on the following reasoning: if Irigaray explicitly refers to the term "strategic essentialism," it should be referenced. If she didn't, it is not at all self-evident that she uses the concept of mimesis in the same way, so some source for this claim should be cited. I'm not too familiar with Iragaray so I can't provide a source either way, but from what I understand she uses mimesis rather as a subversive tool, i.e. employing the concept to which women were reduced to put into question this very reduction.77.251.49.84 (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]