Content area
Full Text
Split Decisions: How and Why to Take a Break from Feminism. By Janet Halley. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006; pp. xi 1 402. $25.95 paper.
In Split Decisions: How and Why to Take a Break from Feminism, Janet Halley, Royall Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, periodically announces "cardson- the-table moments" to reveal her own intellectual and/or personal relationships to the theoretical ideas she covers: feminist and queer theory between the 1980s and 2000. Following suit, I begin this review with my own such disclosure. Raised a feminist by both a mother and father committed to 1960s and 1970s white second-wave feminism and as someone who still primarily identifies as a feminist scholar, I was immediately suspect of Split Decisions because the subtitle seemed to suggest some kind of post-feminist-i.e., there is no longer a need for feminism-argument. However, in spite of its misleading title, Split Decisions provides an excellent rereading of the theoretical, political, and legal implications of recent feminist and queer theorizing while revealing the problems and possibilities of both.
To begin, I feel compelled to caution readers that Split Decisions is theoretically dense and complex. Wading through the book is worth it, however, because readers will discover an expansive and impressive rethinking of key intellectual ideas about power and sexuality. Moreover, in part 1, "Taking a Break from Feminism," Halley helps readers by laying out her key terms, overarching argument, and basic understanding of feminism. Halley argues that the last 25 years have "produced a rich range of theories of sexuality," resulting in a "wide array of incommensurate theories of sexuality and of power" (3). Halley then proposes "an alternative to the normative demand to harmonize them, reconcile them, and smooth out their clashes. I argue here for a politics of theoretic incommensurability" (3). In short, Halley...