The Stanford Encyclopedia's coverage of Marxism and feminism: a revealing study in contrasts

I want to call attention to some important observations by philosopher Paul Russell (British Columbia/Lund) in the earlier thread on omissions at SEP.  In an initial comment, Professor Russell noted that it was surprising there were no entries on Lenin or Gramsci, both significant thinkers in the Marxist philosophical traditions.  I now reprint in its entirety his more recent comment:

[A]long with the two names I mentioned above (Lenin and Gramsci) I would also add that of Nikolai Bukharin. After Lenin, Bukharin was arguably the most important philosophical theoretician of the Russian Revolution. His work was admired by Lenin and was subject to criticism by, among others, Gramsci and Bertrand Russell. The Bukharin/Gramsci debate was not only a very important debate in within Marxist theory, it shaped much of the history of Marxist thought and had real impact in the political world. This debate is also is highly relevant to any assessment of "analytical Marxism" (i.e. as it developed at the end of the 20th C).

There is, in any case, little or nothing about the debate concerning Lenin/Bukharin/Gramsci et al in the SEP. What this shows is that there are significant movements and developments in philosophy (e.g. Marxism) that are still sorely neglected in the SEP. Despite its considerable merits and achievements, the SEP has a rather narrow and contentious conception of what 'philosophy' is. It is arguable that this reflects a deeper problem, with what could be called the "APA outlook". This is an outlook that includes a rather crude understanding of how philosophy can and should be politically "active". It is heavily focused on “professional” issues (and interests) and it is largely disconnected from real world politics and history - lacking any credible understanding of the role that philosophy has had and that it might play outside its narrow academic/professional concerns.

On Bukharin:

https://www.nytimes.com/1973/11/25/archives/bukharin-and-the-bolshevik-revolution-by-stephen-f-cohen.html
https://monthlyreview.org/product/philosophical_arabesques/
https://www.nytimes.com/1973/11/25/archives/bukharin-and-the-bolshevik-revolution-by-stephen-f-cohen.html

Arguably, Bukharin's most important work was "Historical Materialism":
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1921/histmat/index.htm

Finally, if anyone is trying to gauge how unbalanced the SEP is – and, arguably, the way in which this reflects a lack of balance and judgment throughout contemporary philosophy – you might consider the number of listings in the SEP that are devoted (entirely) to feminism and feminist issues.

SEP articles devoted to feminism and feminist philosophy:

Feminist Philosophy

Feminist Perspectives on Trans Issues
Feminist Perspectives on Rape
Latin American Feminism
Feminist Perspectives on Objectification
Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science
Feminist Moral Psychology
Feminist Bioethics
Feminist Philosophy of Law
*Feminist Perspectives on Science
Identity Politics
Feminist Perspectives on Sex Markets
Feminist Perspectives on the Body
Feminist Ethics
Feminist Perspectives on Disability
Feminist Philosophy of Religion
Feminist Philosophy of Language
Feminist Perspectives on the Self
Feminist Social Epistemology
*Feminist Perspectives on Sex and Gender
Feminist Metaphysics
Feminist Environmental Philosophy
Feminist Philosophy of Biology
Feminist Aesthetics
Feminist Perspectives on Class and Work
Feminist History of Philosophy
Feminist Perspectives on Globalization
Feminist Perspectives on Power
Feminist Political Philosophy
*The History of Feminism: Marie-Jean-Antoine-Nicolas de Caritat, Marquis de Condorcet
Intersections Between Analytic and Continental Feminism
Intersections Between Pragmatist and Continental Feminism
Psychoanalytic Feminism
Continental Feminism
Pragmatist Feminism
Analytic Feminism
Liberal Feminism

There are a total of thirty-seven articles devoted to feminism and feminist issues in the SEP. I have omitted from the above list (complete) articles devoted to a number of significant feminist philosophers and thinkers.

Along with many others, I share the concern that within philosophy (i.e. “the profession” of philosophy) women have, in any number of respects, been marginalized and treated with a lack of due concern and respect. Clearly, however, the SEP is not guilty of any charge of this kind. It is true, as well, that other imbalances – both over-representation and under-representation - could be found within the contents of the SEP. Nevertheless, when it comes to politics and social and political activism, broadly conceived, the contrast between Marxist philosophy and feminist philosophy seems particularly apt – and is certainly worth some further consideration. For example, it could be argued that the lack of balance and the various omissions found within the SEP shows that the existing “power relations” within “philosophy” are a messier affair than various APA apparatchiks would like us all to believe. The dominant interests and the interests that dominate may be more suspect than many of our (senior) colleagues are able or willing to acknowledge.

There is plainly no intellectual or philosophical justification for the imbalance between feminist and Marxist perspectives in philosophy, although the explanation for it is obvious once one looks at the political economy of universities in the capitalist countries and the class position and backgrounds of most faculty.  (Analytical feminists are sufficiently under-educated on average that they are often not even aware of the extent to which feminist approaches to different philosophical topics are paralleled by earlier approaches and debates in the Marxist traditions, from which useful lessons could be learned.)  In any case, I will just add my strong endorsement of this observation of Professor Russell's from the preceding:

Despite its considerable merits and achievements, the SEP has a rather narrow and contentious conception of what 'philosophy' is. It is arguable that this reflects a deeper problem, with what could be called the "APA outlook". This is an outlook that includes a rather crude understanding of how philosophy can and should be politically "active". It is heavily focused on “professional” issues (and interests) and it is largely disconnected from real world politics and history - lacking any credible understanding of the role that philosophy has had and that it might play outside its narrow academic/professional concerns.