4개의 게시물을 찾았습니다.
J. Ann Tickner
We are socialized into believing that war and power politics are spheres of activity with which men have a special affinity and that their voiced in describing and prescribing for this world are therefore likely to be more authentic. The roles traditionally ascribed to women – in reproduction, in households, and even in the economy – are generally considered irrelevant to the traditional construction of the field. Ignoring women’s experiences contributes not only to their exclusion but also to a process of self-selection that results in an overwhelmingly male population both in the foreign policy world and in the academic field of international relations. (4-5)
… the marginalization of women in the arena of foreign policy-making through the kind of gender stereotyping suggests that international politics has always been a gendered activity in the modern state system. (5)
Since foreign and military policy-making has been largely conducted by men, the discipline that analyses these activities is bound to be primarily about men and masculinity. (5)
Socially constructed gender differences are based on socially sanctioned, unequal relationships between men and women that reinforce compliance with men’s stated superiority. (6)
While what it means to be a man or a woman varies across cultures and history, in most cultures gender differences signify relationships or inequality and the domination of women by men. (7)
… one could characterize most contemporary feminist scholarship in terms of the dual beliefs that gender difference has played an important and essential role in the structuring of social inequalities in much of human history and that the resulting differences in self-identification, human understandings, social status, and power relationships are unjustified. (7)
In political discourse, this becomes translated into stereotypical notions about those who inhabit the outside. Like women, foreigners are frequently portrayed as “the other”: nonwhites and tropical countries are often depicted as irrational, emotional, and unstable, characteristics that are also attributed to women. The construction of this discourse and the way in which we are taught to think about international politics closely parallel the way in which we are socialized into understanding gender differences. (9) – gender as ‘the other’
A more fundamental challenge to realism came from scholars influenced by the Marxist tradition. Motivated by a different agenda, one that emphasizes issues of equality and justice rather than issues of order and control, scholars using a variety of more radical approaches attempted to move the field away from its excessively Western focus toward a consideration of those marginalized areas of the world system that had been subject to Western colonization. (12-3)
While it is obvious that not all women are feminists, feminist theories are constructed out of the experiences of women in their many and varied circumstances, experiences that have generally been rendered invisible by most intellectual disciplines. (14)
Most contemporary feminist scholars claim that the sources of discrimination against women run much deeper than legal restraints: they are emeshed in the economic, cultural, and social structures of society and thus do not end when legal restraints are removed. Almost all feminist perspectives have been motivated by the common goal of attempting to describe and explain the sources of gender inequality, and hence women’s oppression, and to seek strategies to end them. (15)
Feminists claim that women are oppressed in a multiplicity of ways that depend on culture, class, and race as well as on gender. (15)
While Marxist feminists believe that capitalism is the source of women’s oppression, radical feminists claim that women are oppressed by the system of patriarchy that has existed under almost all modes of production. Patriarchy is institutionalized through legal and economic, as well as social and cultural institutions. (15)
Feminists in the psychoanalytic tradition look for the source of women’s oppression deep in the psyche, in gender relationships into which we are socialised from birth. (15)
Socialist feminists claim that women’s position in society is determined both by structures of production in the economy and by structures of reproduction in the household, structures that are reinforced by the early socialisation of children into gender roles. Women’s unequal status in all these structures must be eliminated for full equality to be achieved. (15-6)
Socialist feminism thus tries to understand the position of women in their multiple roles in order to find a single standpoint from which to explain their condition. Using standpoint in the sense that it has been used by Marxists, these theorists claim that those who are oppressed have a better understanding of the sources of their oppression than their oppressors. (16)
This notion of standpoint has been seriously criticized by postmodern feminists who argue that a unified representation of women across class, racial, and cultural lines is an impossibility. Just as feminists more generally have criticized existing knowledge that is grounded in the experiences of white Western males, postmodernists claim that feminists themselves are in danger of essentializing the meaning of woman when they draw exclusively on the experiences of white Western women. Postmodernists believe that a multiplicity of women’s voices must be heard lest feminism itself become one more hierarchical system of knowledge construction. (16)
Any attempt to construct feminist perspectives on international relations must take this concern of postmodernists seriously. (16)
The world of international politics is a masculine domain, how could feminist perspectives contribute anything new to its academic discourse? Many male scholars have already noted that, given our current technologies of destruction and the high degree of economic inequality and environmental degradation that now exists, we are desperately in need of changes in the way world politics is conducted. (17)
Feminist theories, which speak out of the various experiences of women – who are usually on the margins of society and interstate politics 0 can offer us some new insights on the behaviour of states and the need of individuals, particularly those one the peripheries of the international system. (18)
Feminist theories must go beyond injecting women’s experiences into different disciplines and attempt to challenge the core concepts of the disciplines themselves. Concepts central to international relations theory and practice, such as power, sovereignty, and security, have been framed in terms that we associate with masculinity. Drawing on feminist theories to examine and critique the meaning of these and other concepts fundamental to international politics could help us to reformulate these concepts in ways that might allow us to see new possibilities for solving our current insecurities. Suggesting that the personal is political, feminist scholars have brought to our attention distinctions between public and private in the domestic polity: examining these artificial boundary distinctions in the domestic polity could shed new light on international boundaries, such as those between anarchy and order, which are so fundamental to the conceptual framework of realist discourse. (18)
The construction of hierarchical binary oppositions has been central to theorizing about international relations. Distinctions between domestic and foreign, inside and outside, order and anarchy, and centre and periphery have served as important assumptions in theory construction and as organizing principles for the way we view the world. (19)
Feminists can bring to light gender hierarchies embedded in the theories and practices of world politics and allow us to see the extent to which all these systems of domination are interrelated. (19)
Thinking of security in multidimensional terms allows us to get away from prioritizing military issues, issues that have been central to the agenda of traditional international relations but that are the furthest removed from women’s experiences. (22-3)
If we were to include women’s experiences in our assumptions about the security-seeking behaviour of states, how would it change the way in which we think about national security? Given the sexual division of labour, men’s association with violence has been legitimated through war and the instruments of the state. Feminist perspectives must introduce the issue of domestic violence and analyse how the boundaries between public and private, domestic and international, political and economic, are permeable and interrelated. (23)
Like most contemporary feminists, Evelyn Fox Keller rejects this positivist view of science that imposes a coercive, hierarchical, and conformist pattern on scientific inquiry. Since most contemporary feminist scholars believe that knowledge is socially constructed, they are sceptical of finding an unmediated foundation for knowledge that realists claim is possible. Since they believe that it is language that transmits knowledge, many feminists suggest that the scholarly claims about the neutral uses of language and about objectivity must continually be questioned. (36)
When we consider security from the perspective of the individual, we find that new thinking is beginning to provide us with definitions of security that are less state-centred and less militaristic. (53)
Feminist reformulations of the meaning of security are needed to draw attention to the extent to which gender hierarchies themselves are a source of domination and thus an obstacle to a truly comprehensive definition of security. (53)
Third World women defined insecurity more broadly in terms of the structural violence associated with imperialism, militarism, racism, and sexism. Yet all agreed that security meant nothing if it was built on others’ insecurity. (54-4)
… contemporary new thinkers also include the elimination of structural violence in their definition of security. (55)
Claiming that militarism, sexism, and racism are interconnected, most feminists would agree that the behaviour of individuals and the domestic policies of states cannot be separated from state’s behaviour in the international system. Feminists call attention to the particular vulnerabilities of women within states, vulnerabilities that grow out of hierarchical gender relations that are also interrelated with international politics. (56)
In militarized societies women are particularly vulnerable to rape, and evidence suggests that domestic violence is higher in military families or in families that include men with prior military service. Even though most public violence is committed by men against other men, it is more often women who feel threatened in public places. Jill Radford suggests that when women feel it is unsafe to go out alone, their equal access to job opportunities is limited. (56)
Feminist theories draw our attention to another anarchy/order distinction – the boundary between a public domestic space protected, at least theoretically, by the rule of law and the private space of the family where, in many cases, no such legal protection exists. In most states domestic violence is not considered a concern of the state, and even when it is, law enforcement officials are often unwilling to get involved. Domestic assaults on women, often seen as “victim precipitated,” are not taken as seriously as criminal assaults. (57)
Feminist perspectives on security would assume that violence, whether it be in the international, national, or family realm, is interconnected. Family violence must be seen in the context of wider power relations; it occurs within a gendered society in which male power dominates at all levels. If men are traditionally seen as protectors, an important aspect of this role is protecting women against certain men. (58)
Feminist perspectives on national security take us beyond realism’s statist representations. They allow us to see that the realist view of national security is constructed out of a masculinised discourse that, while it is only a partial view of reality, is taken as universal. Women’s definitions of security are multilevel and multidimensional. Women have defined security as the absence of violence whether it be military, economic, or sexual. (66)
Feminist perspective on national security demonstrates that there are equally plausible alternative ways of conceptualising security and prescribing for its realization. They also draw our attention to examining the world from perspectives not of elite decision-makers but of those who are outside positions of power yet can present an equally plausible representation of reality. (132)
(from Butler, Gender Trouble and translated version)
Within philosophical discourse itself, the notion of "the person" has received analytic elaboration on the assumption that whatever social context the person is "in" remains somehow externally related to the definitional structure of personhood, be that consciousness, the capacity for language, or moral deliberation. (22)
철학적 담론 자체로 '사람' 이란, 그 사람이 '처한' 모든 사회적 맥락이 어쨋든 사람됨을 정의하는 구조와 외적으로 연관되어 있다는 전제에 입각한 분석적 연구를 수용해왔다. (115)
"Intelligible" genders are those which in some sense institute and maintain relations of coherence and continuity among sex, gender, sexual practice, and desire. In other words, the spectres of discontinuity and incoherence, themselves thinkable only in relation to existing norms of continuity and coherence, are constantly prohibited and produces by the very laws that seek establish causal or expressive lines of connection among biological sex, culturally constituted genders, and the "expression" or "effect" of both in the manifestation of sexual desire through sexual practice. (23)
'인식 가능한' 젠더는 어떤 의미에서는 섹스, 젠더, 성 습관, 그리고 욕망 간에 일관성과 연속성의 관계를 설정하고 유지한다. 다시 말해 불연속성이나 비일관성이라는 유령들, 기존의 연속성이나 일관성의 규범과 관련해서만 존재할 법한 그 유령들은 다름 아닌 법 때문에 계속 금지되고, 또 그 법 때문에 생산된다. 이 법은 생물학적 섹스, 문화적으로 구성된 젠더, 그리고 성 습관을 통해 표명되는 섹스와 젠더의 '표현물' 이나 '결과물' 가운데 어떤 인과론적이거나 표현론적인 관계망을 설정하고자 한다. (116)
Gender is the repeated stylisation of the body, a set of repeated acts within a highly rigid regulatory frame that congeal over time to produce the appearance of substance, of a natural sort of being. (45)
젠더는 본질의 외관, 자연스러운 듯한 존재를 생산하기 위해 오랫동안 응결되어온 매우 단단한 규제의 틀 안에서 반복된 몸의 양식화이자 반복된 일단의 행위이다. (147)
The replication of heterosexual constructs in non-heterosexual frames brings into relief the utterly constructed status of the so-called heterosexual original.
비이성애적 틀 안에서 이성애의 구성물을 반복하는 것은, 이른바 이성애적 원본이라는 것이 순전히 만들어진 위상임을 분명하게 드러낸다. (144)
i was thinking of the tourism poster that i mentioned in previous post, and seeing these women in traditional coustume made me think how this image produces meaning and gender. if i have to relate 'performative gender' to this image, i would have to borrow from Butler that, gender is a set of repeated acts within a highly rigid regulatory frame that congeal over time to produce the appearance of substance, of a natural sort of being (45). thus, the image of women in Hanbok carefully preparing food is highly sexed gender as 'female' with (socially recognised or socially accepted) female characteristics, female roles and heterosexuality (who serves king). this reinforces coherent gender. so no good. i mean i wouldn't be this annoyed if there wasn't two women in hanbok and such text. it could've been better if there was both male and female, or two women smiling at camera (so they don't look very submissive), or no person, no text. it could've been better to appeal foreign tourists with only food images. don't put women in traditional coustume with no face or feast like a king kinda stuff.
What is gender?
- questionig the sex/gender distinction and the idea that 'gender is socially constructed'
- if gender is socially constructed, why should we assume that men are constructed from male bodies, women from female bodies, and why are there only two genders?
- sex (sexual difference) is as culturally constructed as gender, and sex is culturally constructed as natural.
Compulsory Heterosexuality and the Heterosexual Matrix
- the concept of 'normal' closes down any suggestion that understandings might once have been different, or might not even have existed, by its evocation of its opposite abnormal or pathological.
- heterosexuality as a political institution.
- the heterosexual matrix: a regulatory fiction which functions to make the convergence of sex/gender/sexuality (desire) seem natural.
- the genders male and female are themselves constructed by reference to socially and historically constituted definitions of heterosexuality - the positively coded sexuality.
- male behaviour eqates with heterosexual, masculine behaviour; female with heterosxual, feminine behaviour.
- gender and heterosexuality can be seen as categories which regulate (and create) individual subjects, according to how they are prepared to perfom their sexuality.
(A. Cranny-Francis et al., Gender Studies: Terms & Debates)
최근 댓글 목록