#MeToo and the Clash of Philosophies

Thesis Project This thesis project is part of an interdisciplinary research perspective and is seeking funding to ensure its continuity and scientific impact. #MeToo and the Clash of Philosophies #MeToo and the Clash of Feminist Philosophies: Between Continental and Analytic Traditions, a Reading in Terms of Anglo Saxon Soft Power 1. Context and Justification The MeToo movement, born in the United States in 2017, quickly acquired global reach. It is not only a social and media phenomenon, but also a philosophical moment: it raises questions about responsibility, consent, power, and justice. The reception of MeToo reveals a fracture between two feminist philosophical traditions: Continental philosophy (inspired by Derrida, Foucault, Butler, Irigaray), which emphasizes structures of power, discourse, and the deconstruction of norms. Analytic philosophy (influenced by Rawls, Nussbaum, MacKinnon, Anderson), which privileges conceptual clarity, normative argumentation, and legal frameworks. This divide is not merely academic: it also reflects a geopolitical dynamic in which the Anglo Saxon world, through its universities and media institutions, exercises soft power by imposing its categories of thought and modes of debate. 2. Research Question To what extent does the MeToo movement illustrate a clash between continental and analytic feminist political philosophy, and how does this tension contribute to the diffusion of Anglo Saxon soft power within global feminist thought? 3. Research Hypotheses MeToo is interpreted differently depending on philosophical traditions: The continental tradition highlights critique of patriarchal structures and normative discourses. The analytic tradition emphasizes precise definitions of consent, legal responsibility, and institutional reforms. The global success of MeToo is linked to Anglo Saxon academic and media power, which disseminates its conceptual categories as instruments of soft power. This clash reveals a tension between the universalization of feminist norms and the plurality of philosophical traditions. 4. Theoretical Framework Continental philosophy: Foucault (power and discourse), Derrida (deconstruction), Butler (gender performativity), Irigaray (critique of phallocentrism). Analytic philosophy: Rawls (justice as fairness), Nussbaum (capabilities approach), MacKinnon (sexual harassment law), Anderson (egalitarianism). Soft power: Nye (concept of soft power), analysis of Anglo Saxon academic and media institutions. 5. Methodology Comparative analysis of continental and analytic feminist philosophical texts on consent, power, and justice. Study of the reception of MeToo in different academic spaces (journals, conferences, universities). Discursive analysis of Anglo Saxon vs. Francophone/continental media. Interdisciplinary approach: political philosophy, sociology of social movements, gender studies, international relations. 6. Expected Results Identification of conceptual divergences between continental and analytic traditions in the interpretation of MeToo. Recognition of the role of Anglo Saxon soft power in disseminating dominant feminist categories. Proposal of a theoretical framework that acknowledges the plurality of feminist philosophies without reducing their diversity to a single tradition. 7. Selected Preliminary Bibliography Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble. Derrida, J. (1992). Force of Law. Foucault, M. (1976). The Will to Knowledge. Irigaray, L. (1974). Speculum of the Other Woman. MacKinnon, C. (1979). Sexual Harassment of Working Women. Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and Human Development. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Nye, J. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics