p. 357). This is a strong review of what Alarcón (1990) calls Anglo-American feminism
and its unconcerned attachment to “the autonomous, self-making, self-determining
subject” (p. 357) who merely substitutes woman for man, thereby maintaining a gender
binary, without evaluating the power in self-identifying and naming that feminism has
claimed in its criticism of structural patriarchy.
The same criticism can be directed towards Kellerman’s (2012) leadership
critique. She does not question the subject of leader even as she would like to “reinvent
the entire enterprise” (p.190). Other than naming herself a leadership expert who works
from Harvard University, she does not otherwise offer us any idea of her own subject
position. The closest she comes to considering social context is when she states,
“leadership where the leader minimizes or disregards ‘the other’- that is, those outside the
group or organization for which the leader is directly responsible” (p.191). This
reference to ‘the other’ is passing and no time is devoted to understanding how social
mores create ‘the leader’ and ‘the other.’ Context is important to this critique of
leadership, but Kellerman’s criticism does not touch upon subjectivity or agency.
Returning to the article by Norma Alarcón (1990), Flax continues to show while
feminism has centered gender relations as a way to understand the world, feminist theory
“has not problematized the subject of knowledge…The subject (and object) of knowledge
is now woman, but the inherited view of consciousness has not been questioned at all” (p.
357). By bringing the subject of feminism into question, women of color writers are
resisting becoming subsumed under a falsely unifying title of woman, as Monique
Witting (1992) reminds us matriarchy is just as confining as patriarchy, “it is only the sex
of the oppressor that changes” (p. 10). The writers Alarcón (1990) represents “want to