The following text has been automatically reproduced by an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) algorithm. It may not have been checked over by human eyes. For matters of precision please consult the original pdf.

21 Editorial

Although we have received few contributions in
response to our request for articles on racism,
we still hope to receive enough material to enable
us to devote the whole, or a large part of, a future
issue to this.

In the meantime we publish in this issue a substantial, and no doubt in some important respects,
controversial, piece of work on the subject by Martin
Barker. Barker’s main contention is that recent
years have seen the emergence of a new style of
racism all the more frightening in that it is receiving systematic’ authorisation in a th~ory of ‘biological culturalism’ that stems directly from
studies in human ethology and sociobiology. One
conclusion from his exnosure of the lacunae and
inconsistencies in the allegedly scientific founding
of racism is Jhat a genuinely scientific ethology
should be developed. Another is that any such
attempt – through positing the human species as an
object for science·- must supoort racism.

Those whose acquaintance with Derrida derives
. more from the appeals to his authority in the texts
of others rather than from those of Derrida himself,
should welcome the chance nrovided by David Ward’S
article to begin to chart their bearings in relation
to a figure so seemingly ubiquitous on the intellectual horizon. A stimulus and an aid to the ‘reading

of Derrida, his lucid introduction has the additional
advantage that-it opens up various lines of criticis m
and atte-mots an assessment of the importance of
Derrida’s work to radical thought.

Debate on the dialectic is continued in this issue
with articles by Roy Edgley, who renlies to criticisms (by Russell-Keat-and Peter Dews) of his
initial article in Radical Philosophy 15, and by
Richard Norman, who replies to Rip Bulkeley’s’

article in Radical Philosophy 18.

The discusSion section features a reply by Colin
Gordon to Jonathan Ree’s editorial in the laSt issue.

It is a reply by a member of the editorial c;ollective
to a member of the editorial collective on a subject
– the content and style of a journal such as Radical
Philosophy, its future directions, its responsibilities – of central importance to readers. We hope
that readers will continue the diSCUSSion, and we
welcome contributions on it.

printing difficulties, No-. 20 was distributed
later than scheduled; Rather than have this issue
following it in the same college term, we decided
to -in effect – skip an issue, and bring out No.21
in January 1979. In future, each issue will be
published at the beginning of each term. Subscriptions are unaffected, as these are for 3 issues,
not one year.




To develop the theory of Women’s liberation and debate the
politic!1i perspectives and strategy of the movement.

To be a forum for work in progress and current research and debates
in Women’s Studies.

Articles planned for the first issues include:

War in the Nursery: child care provision
Denise Riley
in World War 11
Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination: a pioneer
Mandy SneII
study of the weaknesses of the Acts
M.A. Macciocchi
Female Sexuality in Fascist Ideology
Helen Taylor
Charlotte Bronte’s ‘Shirley’

Visual Art, Politics and the Women’s
Tricia Davis and
liberation Mov.ement
Phil Goodall

First issue January 1979.

Subscriptions (3 iS$ues per year) £3.50 (individual), £10 (institutions)
Overseas subscribers please add £1.

Send to: The Feminist Review (Subscriptions”), 65 Manor Road,
London N16.


Buy the newest RP in printDownload the PDF