Drucilla Cornell’s and Linda Zerlli’s works are very compatible and complementary. Identify and discuss at least two ways in which the themes and discussions of the two readings intersect, e.g. Zerilli on freedom and Cornell on autonomy. Also, are there any significant differences in their approaches?
Both of the readings discuss the subjectivity of good and bad in terms of different types of morality. Cornell describes an internal morality or way of being that is to be self-determined and provide agency when she discusses one's determination of desire. Zerlli questions morality in terms of societal structures, and ultimately determines that the individuals do not have the power of moral determination in a democracy, rather that society maintains control with the majority of the individuals.
The readings also discuss how determination of the self and therefore moralilty--whether in terms of desire or in terms of the political sphere--is based on the perception of others. Zerlli highlights this idea when she discusses an individuals place in politics and deforming the moral law. Cornell states that "we determine ego ideals by envisioning ourselves either through real or imaginary others."
The differences between the articles and the writers opinion stem from acknowledgement of different contexts of the self, different contexts the individual sees themself in. Zerlli approaches the self as an individual of self-determination which is shaped by society. Cornell's approach views the individual as having both a subconscious and conscience and forming the self through the self. (This is not to say society doesn't play a role, but creates autonomy and pushes cultural influence into the subconscious.)
I appreciate the distinctions you draw between the morality shaped within the political sphere and morality shaped though self-determination/autonomy. While you recognize the importance of the self as a relation to Other, the individual consciousness is still respected. Additional elaboration on the self as a point of contention in Cornell and Zerilli's work would have been helpful. I am left a bit confused about psychoanalytic approach taken by Cornell and "forming the self through the self." Otherwise, this was a straightforward and insightful investigation into the commonalities and differences between Cornell and Zerilli's work on self-determination and autonomy.
ReplyDelete