1/2007 The Discipline of History and the Punishment of Empire

Гендер и публичная сфера: западная генеалогия

Мэри Хоуксуорт

1/2007

FORUM AI
ГЕНДЕР И ПОСТСОВЕТСКИЕ НАЦИИ

Материал публикуется на английском (на английской части сайта)

SUMMARY:

“Публичная сфера” кажется на первый взгляд инклюзивной концепцией, однако феминистские исследователи рассматривают публичную сферу как гендерное пространство. В качестве мужской территории это пространство было осмыслено еще античными политическими философами. В дальнейшем оно было заново переопределено в этом качестве в контексте республиканских революций XVIII века. В целом “публичная сфера” оказалась крайне устойчивой к равноправному участию в ней женщин. В настоящей статье рассматриваются гендерные механизмы, которые позволяли и позволяют воспроизводить “публичную сферу” как мужской домен, и анализируется их влияние на современные трактовки национализма.

Доступ

Оформите подписку, чтобы получить полный доступ к текстам

Оформить подписку

Read in English

Сноски

1.Amanda Vickery. The Gentleman’s Daughter: Women’s Lives in Georgian England. New Haven, 1998. P. 166.↩

2.Carole Pateman. The Patriarchal Welfare State // Joan Landes (Ed.). Feminism, the Public and the Private. New York, 1998. P. 260.↩

3.Nancy Fraser. Sex, Lies, and the Public Sphere: Reflections on the Confirmation of Clarence Thomas // Joan Landes (Ed.). Feminism, the Public and the Private. P. 314.↩

4.To suggest that phenomena as diverse as assumptions, concepts, beliefs, arguments, theories, methods, laws, policies, and institutions may be “gendered” is to note that they may tacitly or explicitly privilege one gender at the expense of the other. In principle, a gendered practice could privilege men or women. But the history of male-dominance has resulted in systematic male power advantages across diverse social domains. Feminist usage of the adjective “gendered” reflects this male power advantage. Hence a gendered practice is synonymous with androcentric practice in common feminist terminology. This equation also draws upon linguistic terms which characterize the male as unmarked/universal and the female as marked/other. Within this framework, the allegedly neutral and inclusive term “gender” reflects the universal/male norm. Social practices may be gendered in diverse ways. Exclusionary practices which bar women from participation lie at the most overt end of a gendered spectrum. But practices which are officially “gender-blind,” “gender-neutral,” or “equal opportunity” may also be gendered if they are rooted in experiences typically associated with men but not with women, or if certain factors make it more difficult for women than for men to achieve the same outcome by following the same procedures.↩

5.Sonia Alvarez. Engendering Democracy in Brazil: Women’s Movements in Transition Politics. Princeton, NJ, 1990; Nanette Funk, Magda Mueller. Gender Politics and Post-Communism. New York, 1993; Jane Jaquette (Ed.). The Women’s Movement in Latin America: Feminism and the Transition to Democracy. Boston, 1989; Jane Jaquette, Sharon Wolchik. Women and Democracy: Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe. Baltimore, 1998; Anne McClintock. Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in Colonial Context. New York, 1995; Francesca Miller. Latin American Women and the Search for Social Justice. Hanover, NH, 1991; Carol Nechemias, Kathleen Kuehnast. Post-Soviet Women Encountering Transition: Nation Building, Economic Survival, and Civic Activism. Washington, DC, 2004; Barbara Nelson, Najima Chowdhury (Eds.). Women and Politics Worldwide. New Haven, 1994; Andrew Parker, Mary Russo, Doris Sommer, and Patricia Yaeger. Nationalisms and Sexualities. New York, 1992; Sara Radcliffe, Sallie Westwood (Eds.). Viva: Woman and Popular Protest in Latin America. New York, 1993; Michelle Saint Germain. Women, Democratization, and Public Policy // Policy Sciences. 1994. No. 27. Pp. 269-276.↩

6.Joan Landes. Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution. Ithaca, 1988. P. 3.↩

7.Ibid.↩

8.Leonore Davidoff. Regarding Some “Old Husbands’ Tales”: Public and Private in Feminist History // Joan Landes (Ed.). Feminism, the Public and the Private. New York, 1998. Pp. 165.↩

9.Jean Bethke Elstain. Public Man, Private Woman: Women in Social and Political Thought. Princeton, 1981. P. 11.↩

10.Ibid. P. 10.↩

11.Ibid. P. 5.↩

12.Ibid.↩

13.Ibid. P. 4.↩

14.Ibid. P. xiv; Pp. 15-16.↩

15.Ibid. Pp. 142-143.↩

16.Mary Dietz. Citizenship with a Feminist Face: The Problem of Maternal Thinking // Political Theory. 1985. Vol. 13. No. 1. Pp. 19-37.↩

17.Ibid. Pp. 28-29.↩

18.Ibid. P. 34.↩

19.Marilyn Lake. The Inviolable Woman: Conceptions of Citizenship in Australia, 1900-1945 // In Joan Landes (Ed.). Feminism, the Public and the Private. New York, 1998. Pp. 223-240.↩

20.Ibid. P. 225.↩

21.Ibid. P. 236.↩

22.Kristen Poole. “The Fittest Closet for All Goodness”: Authorial Strategies of Jacobean Mothers’ Manuals // Studies in English Literature. 1995. Vol. 35. No. 1. Pp. 69-89; Amanda Vickery. The Gentleman’s Daughter: Women’s Lives in Georgian England. New Haven, 1998.↩

23.Stella K. Tillyard. Aristocrats: Caroline, Emily, Louisa and Sarah Lennox, 1750-1832. London, 1995; Alison A. Smith. Gender, Ownership and Domestic Space: Inventories and Family Archives in Renaissance Verona // Renaissance Studies. 1998. Vol. 12. No. 3. Pp. 375-391.↩

24.Joan Landes. The Public and the Private Sphere: A Feminist Reconsideration // Joan Landes (Ed.). Feminism, the Public and the Private. P. 138; Jurgen Habermas. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society [original German publication 1962] / Trans. Thomas Berger and Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge, MA., 1989.↩

25.Diane Willen. Women and Religion in Early Medieval England // Sherrin Marshall (Ed.). Women in Reformation and Counter-Reformation Europe: Public and Private Worlds. Bloomington, 1989. P. 155-156.↩

26.Kristen Poole. “The Fittest Closet for All Goodness”: Authorial Strategies of Jacobean Mothers’ Manuals; Amanda Vickery. The Gentleman’s Daughter.↩

27.Joan Landes. Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution. Ithaca, 1988; Joan Landes. The Public and the Private Sphere: A Feminist Reconsideration.↩

28.Joan Landes. The Public and the Private Sphere: A Feminist Reconsideration. P. 143.↩

29.Joan Landes. Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution. Ithaca, 1988. P. 22.↩

30.Ibid. P. 38.↩

31.Bonnie Anderson. Joyous Greetings: The First International Women’s Movement, 1830-1860. New York, 2000; Karen Offen. European Feminisms, 1700-1950. Stanford, 2000.↩

32.Jean Jacques Rousseau. Politics and Arts: Letter to M. D’Alembert on the Theatre.↩

33./ Trans. Allan Bloom. Ithaca, 1960. P. 109.↩

34.In Emile (Jean Jacques Rousseau. Emile.↩

35./ Trans. Barbara Foxley. New York, 1955. P. 332), Rousseau envisioned an educational program to train women “to bear the yoke from the first, so that they may not feel it, to master their own caprices and to submit themselves to the will of others.” Indeed he insists that “The education of women should be always relative to the men. To please, to be useful to us, to make us love and esteem them, to educate us when young, and take care of us when grown up, to advise, to console us, to render our lives easy and agreeable; these are the duties of women at all times, and what they should be taught in their infancy” (328). Rousseau’s educational prescriptions are instructive because they ingeniously display the means by which gender differences can be created and inculcated in a species in which individuals have unlimited potential and malleable characters. Perhaps what is most remarkable about Rousseau’s recommendations for the training of women are the precise mechanics he identifies for the production of docile, good natured, self-sacrificing creatures: “Girls must be subjected all their lives to the most constant and severe restraint, which is that of decorum: it is therefore necessary to accustom them early to such confinement, that it may not afterwards cost them too dear; and to the suppression of their caprices, that they may the more readily submit to the will of others. If, indeed, they are fond of being always at work, they should be sometimes compelled to lay it aside... Deny them not the indulgence of their innocent mirth, their sports and pastimes; but ever prevent their sating themselves with one to run to another; permit them not for a moment to perceive themselves entirely freed from restraint. Use them to be interrupted in the midst of their play, and sent to work, without murmuring. Habit alone is sufficient to inure them to this, because it is only affirming the operations of nature” (Ibid. P. 333). Surveillance, discipline to ensure conformity, continual interruptions and distractions, frivolous commands, and rigid control are the key to women’s successful socialization. When indulged systematically, they will produce a woman of excellent character. For a discussion of the rise of “republican motherhood” in the U.S. following the American Revolution, see: Linda Kerber. Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America. Chapel Hill, 1980.↩

36.Reflecting Quaker influence, New Jersey’s first constitution awarded voting rights to single women who owned property. This right was rescinded in 1807. For a discussion of the politics behind women’s enfranchisement and subsequent disenfranchisement, see: Apter Klinghoffer, Judith and Lois Elkis. The “Petticoat Electors”: Women’s Suffrage in New Jersey, 1776-1807 // Journal of the Early Republic. 1992. Vol. 12. No. 2. Pp. 159-193.↩

37.Karen Offen. European Feminisms, 1700-1950. P. 58.↩

38.Ibid. Pp. 61-63; Joan Landes. Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution. Pp. 144-146.↩

39.Carol Smart. The Woman of Legal Discourse // Social Legal Studies. 1992. Vol. 1. No. 1. Pp. 29-44.↩

40.Karen Offen. European Feminisms, 1700-1950. P. 59. It is worth noting the irony that this proposal for women’s withdrawal from the public sphere bears striking resemblance to some contemporary Islamist doctrines. As Farhat Haq (Farhat Haq. Militarism and Motherhood: The Women of Lashkar-i-Tayyabia in Pakistan // Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 2007. Vol. 32. No. 4. Forthcoming) has pointed out, the Muslim ummah (political community) imagined by the Islamists, gives women a vital role in formulating the Muslim polity precisely because they are to willfully absent themselves from the public arena in order to validate the difference between a Muslim and non-Muslim polity. The most influential formulation of this gendered Islamic polity is presented by Maududi (1903-1979), and the Jammat-i-Islami, the religio-political movement founded in South Asia. Maududi’s reasoning is markedly similar to that of the eighteenth century republicans. In his major opus, Purdah, which was first published in 1938 and has been widely translated since, Maududi asserts that “there is a fundamental difference in the nature of men and women. Any attempt at creating a just social and political system must take these differences in to account” (Ibid. P. 6). Indeed Maududi links the rise of civilization to the proper recognition of natural gender difference and predicts the fall of civilization if gender differences are ignored, an argument first advanced by bourgeois social Darwinists. For an elaboration of these gendered and raced civilizational discourses in the nineteenth century, see: Louise Newman. White Women’s Rights: The Racial Origins of Feminism in the United States. New York, 1999.↩

41.Thomas Laqueur. Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud. Cambridge, MA, 1990.↩

42.Mary Wollstonecraft. Vindication of the Rights of Woman↩

43.. Norton, 1975. P. 189.↩

44.Joan Landes. Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution. P. 171.↩

45.Claire Moses. French Feminism in the Nineteenth Century. Albany, 1984. P. 18.↩

46.Leonore Davidoff. Regarding Some “Old Husbands’ Tales”.↩

47.Bonnie Anderson. Joyous Greetings: The First International Women’s Movement, 1830-1860; Joan Landes. Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution; Karen Offen. European Feminisms, 1700-1950.↩

48.Carole Pateman. The Patriarchal Welfare State // Joan Landes (Ed.). Feminism, the Public and the Private. P. 248.↩

49.Pateman points out the pronounced gap between rhetoric and reality in this campaign. In 1912, 45% of the male workers in Australia were single, yet they were paid the family wage; while women workers, one-third of whom were supporting dependents, were paid 46-50% less than male wages on the myth that they were not breadwinners.↩

50.Ibid. P. 248.↩

51.Leonore Davidoff. Regarding Some “Old Husbands’ Tales”. P. 184.↩

52.Carole Pateman. The Patriarchal Welfare State. P. 261.↩

53.Nancy Fraser. Sex, Lies, and the Public Sphere: Reflections on the Confirmation of Clarence Thomas // Joan Landes (Ed.). Feminism, the Public and the Private. Pp. 314-337.↩

54.For an overview of feminist transformative efforts, see: Peggy Antrobus. The Global Women’s Movement: Origins, Issues, and Strategies. New York and London, 2004; Mary Hawkesworth. Globalization and Feminist Activism. Lanham, MD, 2006; Valentine Moghadam. Globalizing Women: Transnational Feminist Networks. Baltimore, 2005; Nancy Naples, Manisha Desai. Women’s Activism and Globalization: Linking Local Struggles to Transnational Politics. New York, 2002; Rosalind Petchesky. Global Prescriptions: Gendering Health and Human Rights. London and New York, 2003.↩

55.Michel Foucault. The History of Sexuality. Vol. 1. New York, 1978. P. 140.↩

56.Michel Foucault. Discipline and Punish / Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York, 1977; Giorgio Agamben. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life / Trans. Daniel Heller-Roazen. Stanford, 1995; Wendy Brown. States of Injury. Princeton, NJ, 1995.↩

57.For this analysis, I am indebted to Ruth Miller’s insights in “Rights, Reproduction, Sexuality, and Citizenship in the Ottoman Empire and Turkey.” Although her essay focuses primarily on citizenship in Turkey, I have extrapolated from her arguments to develop these more general claims about the effects of biopower. Ruth Miller. Rights, Reproduction, Sexuality and Citizenship in the Ottoman Empire and Turkey // Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 2007. Vol. 32. No. 2. Pp. 347-374.↩

58.Ruth Miller points out that Mussolini’s Codice Rocco includes an article on “Crimes against the Integrity and Health of the Race” that located the integrity of the “race” in Italian women’s wombs and lodged responsibility for “protecting” those wombs from contraception or abortion within the fascist state.↩

59.It is important to note that nationalist pronatalist policies are always racialized. Whether the form of racism involves attacks on Jews, Blacks, Roma, or members of particular ethnic groups, some citizens are encouraged or required to reproduce, while others are restricted or prohibited from reproducing, or as in the case of genocide, annihilated. To foreground this connection between nationalism and racism, Jackie Stevens coined the term “race-nation”: Jacqueline Stevens. Reproducing the State. Princeton, NJ, 1999.↩

60.Ruth Miller. Rights, Reproduction, Sexuality and Citizenship in the Ottoman Empire and Turkey. P. 362.↩

61.Ibid.↩

62.Ibid. P. 367.↩

63.One might also analyze decriminalization and legalization of prostitution, as well as the involvement of state actors in sexual trafficking in the context of biopower. Within this frame, it is possible to develop quite different interpretations of the recent debate in Germany about including prostitution (recently legalized) among the employment options offered to women through state agencies. Rather than an egregious violation of personal integrity, requiring women to accept jobs as prostitutes is perfectly consistent with biopower’s construction of the sexualized woman citizen.↩

64.Working within a very different intellectual tradition, Anita Allen developed an argument for women’s needs for the beneficial aspects of privacy in: Anita Allen. Uneasy Access: Privacy for Women in a Free Society. Totowa, NJ, 1988.↩

65.Rupert Taylor. Political Science Encounters “Race” and “Ethnicity” // Racial and Ethnic Studies. 1996. Vol. 19. October. Pp. 884-895.↩

Примечания

[1]Amanda Vickery. The Gentleman’s Daughter: Women’s Lives in Georgian England. New Haven, 1998. P. 166.

[2]Carole Pateman. The Patriarchal Welfare State // Joan Landes (Ed.). Feminism, the Public and the Private. New York, 1998. P. 260.

[3]Nancy Fraser. Sex, Lies, and the Public Sphere: Reflections on the Confirmation of Clarence Thomas // Joan Landes (Ed.). Feminism, the Public and the Private. P. 314.

[4]To suggest that phenomena as diverse as assumptions, concepts, beliefs, arguments, theories, methods, laws, policies, and institutions may be “gendered” is to note that they may tacitly or explicitly privilege one gender at the expense of the other. In principle, a gendered practice could privilege men or women. But the history of male-dominance has resulted in systematic male power advantages across diverse social domains. Feminist usage of the adjective “gendered” reflects this male power advantage. Hence a gendered practice is synonymous with androcentric practice in common feminist terminology. This equation also draws upon linguistic terms which characterize the male as unmarked/universal and the female as marked/other. Within this framework, the allegedly neutral and inclusive term “gender” reflects the universal/male norm. Social practices may be gendered in diverse ways. Exclusionary practices which bar women from participation lie at the most overt end of a gendered spectrum. But practices which are officially “gender-blind,” “gender-neutral,” or “equal opportunity” may also be gendered if they are rooted in experiences typically associated with men but not with women, or if certain factors make it more difficult for women than for men to achieve the same outcome by following the same procedures.

[5]Sonia Alvarez. Engendering Democracy in Brazil: Women’s Movements in Transition Politics. Princeton, NJ, 1990; Nanette Funk, Magda Mueller. Gender Politics and Post-Communism. New York, 1993; Jane Jaquette (Ed.). The Women’s Movement in Latin America: Feminism and the Transition to Democracy. Boston, 1989; Jane Jaquette, Sharon Wolchik. Women and Democracy: Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe. Baltimore, 1998; Anne McClintock. Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in Colonial Context. New York, 1995; Francesca Miller. Latin American Women and the Search for Social Justice. Hanover, NH, 1991; Carol Nechemias, Kathleen Kuehnast. Post-Soviet Women Encountering Transition: Nation Building, Economic Survival, and Civic Activism. Washington, DC, 2004; Barbara Nelson, Najima Chowdhury (Eds.). Women and Politics Worldwide. New Haven, 1994; Andrew Parker, Mary Russo, Doris Sommer, and Patricia Yaeger. Nationalisms and Sexualities. New York, 1992; Sara Radcliffe, Sallie Westwood (Eds.). Viva: Woman and Popular Protest in Latin America. New York, 1993; Michelle Saint Germain. Women, Democratization, and Public Policy // Policy Sciences. 1994. No. 27. Pp. 269-276.

Ab Imperio

Ab Imperio

Гендер и публичная сфера: западная генеалогия

Примечания