This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Philadelphoff-Puren, N. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The mark of refusal

Sexual violence and the politics of recontextualization

Monash University, Nina.Puren{at}arts.monash.edu.au

What consequences do poststructuralist theories of language have for feminist strategies addressing rape? In particular, what might be the fate of attempts to secure the meanings of certain words uttered by women in this context, such as ‘no’? Can we bracket off such statements from the agon of the juridico-linguistic domain in a manner that short-circuits all contest? In contrast, if we agree that such contest is an irrevocable component of the field in which feminist struggles take place, does this mean we no longer need to attend to the destiny of women’s refusal before the law? This article will consider these questions in relation to the framing of refusal in a recent Australian sexual assault trial. I will suggest that a poststructuralist feminist strategy might turn to the political process of recontextualization that attends such utterances, in order to contest the institutional rewriting of rape as romance.

Key Words: rape • consent • poststructuralism • iterability • feminist theory • language

Feminist Theory, Vol. 5, No. 3, 243-256 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/1464700104046975


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?