| LEADER |
04361nam a22002417a 4500 |
| 001 |
0151789 |
| 041 |
|
|
|a eng
|
| 044 |
|
|
|b مصر
|
| 100 |
|
|
|a صبرى، سمية سامى
|g Sabry, Somaya Sami
|e مؤلف
|9 408380
|
| 245 |
|
|
|a A Theoretical Exploration of Social Conceptions of Space and Ecofeminism Through A Reading of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
|
| 246 |
|
|
|a استكشاف الحركة البيئية فى الأدب النسوى من خلال قراءة لرواية مارى شيلى فرنكنستين
|
| 260 |
|
|
|b رابطة الأدب الحديث
|c 2015
|g أبريل
|
| 300 |
|
|
|a 33 - 62
|
| 336 |
|
|
|a بحوث ومقالات
|b Article
|
| 520 |
|
|
|a من المواضيع التي يتجدد النقاش حولها دائما في التفكير البيئي النسوي هو علاقة المرأة بالطبيعة، فالحركة البيئية النسوية تهتم باستكشاف العلاقات بين قهر المرأة والهيمنة البيئية ولكن ينقسم أصحاب الاتجاه البيئي النسوي بين جعل العلاقة بين البيئة والمرأة كمصدر لتمكين المرأة والنظر إليها كمصدر للقهر، يقوم هذا البحث بعرض أهمية إدخال فكرة "المكان" بأبعاده الاجتماعية Social Space التي أدخلها Henry Lefebvre كوسيلة لإعادة رسم العلاقة بين المرأة والطبيعية.
|
| 520 |
|
|
|b An ongoing topic of discussion in ecofeminist thought is the relation between the female body and nature; by nature here I am referring to the non-human natural world. As a critical theoretical position, ecofeminism explores the links between the oppression of women and the domination of nature. The origin of the link between these two forms of oppression is an issue which ecofeminists are divided over. Ecofeminists with essentialist tendencies relate the gendered female image of nature to biological similarities between the reproductive female body and a reproductive nature. They consider this relation as empowering because of its connection to past fertility goddess myths. Ecofeminists with constructionist tendencies however argue that the female body/nature image is a construction of history and society. They perceive it as detrimental because it objectifies females within a hierarchical, oppressive conceptual framework that places culture and the masculine above nature and the feminine. According to them, these hierarchical categories are all social constructions; between these two positions in ecofeminism there is a lot of variation overlap. Stacy Alaimo posits that gendered tropes of nature related to "earthkeeping" or "earthshaking" are questionable because "they continue the tiresome, overburdened, and predominantly pernicious link between woman and nature" (183). She questions binary modes of thought and points out that, "[t]he challenge, then, is to develop nongendered tropes of nature that emphasize continuity between humans and nature while still respecting nature's difference" (183). An application of Henri Lefebvre's theory of social space as a tool of investigation provides a generative model to consider these issues because it takes into consideration the dynamic nature of space, instead of regarding it as passive and constructing it as feminine. Moreover, within a concept of social space, dualistic conceptual frameworks as applied to nature and women's bodies are reformulated, and the social effects of this framework on the nature/female body interrelationship are conceptualized and interrogated. Analyzing how ecofeminists of essentialist and constructionist tendencies shape their arguments regarding nature and the female body can help us re-envision how the nature/female body functions in early nineteenth century women's writing, using Mary• Shelley's Frankenstein as ground for inquiry through which these ideas can be further explored and probed.
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a الفكر البيئى
|a الأدب النسوى
|a رواية " فرنكنستين "
|a شيلى، ماري وولستنكرافت، 1797 - 1851م.
|
| 773 |
|
|
|4 الادب
|6 Literature
|c 016
|e Fikr wa Eibda
|l 092
|m ج92
|o 0682
|s فكر وإبداع
|v 000
|
| 856 |
|
|
|u 0682-000-092-016.pdf
|
| 930 |
|
|
|d y
|p y
|q y
|
| 995 |
|
|
|a HumanIndex
|
| 995 |
|
|
|a AraBase
|
| 999 |
|
|
|c 772276
|d 772276
|
