Women write the rights of woman: The sexual politics of the personal pronoun in the 1790s

This article investigates patterns of personal pronoun usage in four texts written by women about women's rights during the 1790s: Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), Mary Hays' An Appeal to the Men of Great Britain (1798), Mary Robinson's Letter to the Women of England (1799) and Mary Anne Radcliffe's The Female Advocate (1799). I begin by showing that at the time these texts were written there was a widespread assumption that both writers and readers of political pamphlets were, by default, male. As such, I argue, writing to women as a woman was distinctly problematic, not least because these default assumptions meant that even apparently gender-neutral pronouns such as I, we and you were in fact covertly gendered. I use the textual analysis programme WordSmith to identify the personal pronouns in my four texts, and discuss my results both quantitatively and qualitatively. I find that while one of my texts does little to disturb gender expectations through its deployment of personal pronouns, the other three all use personal pronouns that disrupt eighteenth century expectations about default male authorship and readership. Copyright © 2007 SAGE Publications

Law, Environment, and the “Nondismal” Social Sciences

Over the past 30 years, the influence of economics over the study of environmental law and policy has expanded considerably, becoming in the process the predominant framework for analyzing regulations that address pollution, natural resource use, and other environmental issues. This review seeks to complement the expansion of economic reasoning and methodology within the field of environmental law and policy by identifying insights to be gleaned from various “nondismal” social sciences. In particular, three areas of inquiry are highlighted as illustrative of interdisciplinary work that might help to complement law and economics and, in some cases, compensate for it: the study of how human individuals perceive, judge, and decide; the observation and interpretation of how knowledge schemes are created, used, and regulated; and the analysis of how states and other actors coordinate through international and global regulatory regimes. The hope is to provide some examples of how environmental law and policy research can be improved by deeper and more diverse engagement with social science

Geographies of shit: spatial and temporal variations in attitudes towards human waste

Taboos surrounding human waste have resulted in a lack of attention to spatial inequalities in access to sanitation and the consequences of this for human, environmental and economic health. This paper explores spaces where urgent environmental health imperatives intersect with deeply entrenched cultural norms surrounding human waste and the barriers they create for the development of more appropriate excreta management systems. The primary focus is on the global South (particularly India), although literature on sanitation histories in Europe and its colonies is drawn upon to illustrate spatial and temporal differences in cultural attitudes towards excrement

Toilets, bodies, selves: enacting composting as counterculture in Hawai'i

Defecation has received limited attention within the social sciences and humanities. Toilets not a great deal. Urination even less. However, examining the practice of composting faeces and ‘pee[ing] on any tree’ by white, West Coast US ‘hippies’ and ‘drop-outs’ living in Hawai’i suggests that the disposal of excreta is never simple disposal. Rather, it entails engagement with the state, one’s own body and sense of placedness. Through looking at the everyday defecatory practices of hippies and drop-outs in Hawai’i, this article seeks to examine the interplay of the act of defecation and urination with the materiality of toilets themselves. Each depends on the other, and both exist in relation to various others: other toilet designs, other communities, other people. As such, it becomes possible to extend beyond Douglas’s argument that ‘dirt is matter out of place’ to explore the notion that – at least in relation to toilets – ‘dirt is relations out of place’. By placing relationships at the heart of this analysis of defecation and urination, this article provides fertile ground for the exploration of embodiment at its most base level, as site of generative action and social critique