Catherine's essay - Cardiff University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

arena (Pateman, 1976; Pateman and Mills, 1988; Pateman and Mills, 2007). As politics is also conducted in the public arena, it is a natural conclusion that politics is perceived as a masculine pursuit, with women represented by their association with men. Furthermore, in maintaining this public/private dichotomy, politics intrinsically excludes the interests of women (Pateman and Mills, 1988). Amy Caiazza (1997) discusses this in depth and concludes that if feminism is ignored as political theory, then politics cannot be truly understood. For Savigny and Marsden (2011) this issue of gendering holds the key for explaining the divide between political science and feminism. They claim that feminism rejects traditional constructs of gender on many levels whether this is a post-colonial rejection of ‘female’ as a non-classed, non-racial asexualised group or the challenges issued by post-modernists and constructivists to traditional notions of gender roles (Savigny and Marsden, 2011). The execution of power is perhaps worth exploring at this juncture. The concept of power as a hierarchical structure was reconceptualised by Michel Foucault, who theorised that power is displayed and executed in all relationships (Foucault, cited by Lynch 2011). Lynch explains that for Foucault, power must be understood as a force born of struggles, confrontations and transformations. It is upheld by support systems and the schema in which they take effect. In his work Panopticisim, Foucault hypothesised that political power is exercised by each individual through the very smallest of actions, all of which work together to create discourse. So, for Foucault, the male-gendering of political research is a result of a power struggle that renders women inadequate for politics. Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz (1962) develop this concept to hypothesise that the hierarchies and power exercised within social sciences are cyclical, that they feed into one another and thereby political science remains largely separate to developments made in feminism. This is not to say however that it remains so. Raewyn Connell (2006) acknowledges that, whilst feminism’s initial complaint that social science was gender-ignorant was valid, sufficient progress has been made for the state of patriarchy to be re-valued. Sharon Krause (2011) concurs, stating that the field of social science has diversified greatly as a result of feminisms and that this has led to an expansion of our understanding. Lynne Segal (1999) advises that, just as feminism has diversified, we should allow this diversification to filter into all fields of social sciences. There is certainly some evidence to suggest that, whilst
women still fail to hold the highest positions available within academia, more women are publishing academic articles (Evans and Bucy, 2010). The theory that diversification is required for effective research has led to a field of study known as ‘intersectionality.’ Cho et al (2013) explain that Intersectionality Studies examines the dynamics of difference. It emerged as a response to the criticisms of feminist and antiracist scholars, as a method to counter the singular thinking that has prevailed within social scientific research. Walby et al (2012) give a detailed history of its emergence as a field of study, citing key theorists such as Kimberlé Crenshaw, Leslie McCall and Ange-Marie Hancock. For example, Crenshaw argued that not only is it inadequate to assume that the concerns of a white American male are comparable to those of a black American female, but that the experiences of those women can be negated by the inaction of anti-racism and feminism. For Crenshaw, then, considering all people to be of race, class, gender, sexuality and history is part of the ethical considerations of any effective social scientific researcher. Of course, this approach is not without limitation. McCall (2005, cited by Walby et al 2012) warns that the preference for fluidity over rigid categories makes data analysis difficult and threatens to destabilize the quality of the research. Indeed, inclusivity presents a great deal of problems, to both the research design and the structure of analysis (Walby, et al 2012). However, these problems are not insurmountable. Elizabeth Cole (2009) reminds us that translating the theory of intersectionality into practice does not require a new set of methods, but rather a restructuring of the methods already in use so that they can incorporate inclusivity in order to improve research. Intersectionality allowed Deborah Schultz (2012) to examine the Romani-Gadže Feminist Alliance activity in its multi-cultural entirety and learn some valuable lessons on the manner in which feminists in the Balkan states are combatting issues such as ethnic hatred, violence against women and extreme social exclusion. Similarly, it has allowed Gina Miranda Samuels and Fariyal Ross-Sheriff (2008) to study the internalised notions of femininity as shaped by societal attitudes, by studying the political empowerment of Afghan women at home in Afghanistan as compared to Afghan women as refugees in Pakistan. These are two examples of a stable research design that demonstrate the fluidity that an intersectional approach allows. In conclusion, the gender identities currently accepted within our societies are social constructs that dictate the way we are expected to conduct ourselves. We have introduced the theory that politics has also been constructed as a ‘male’ pursuit and not suitable to a ‘female’
Page 1 and 2: Where Are The Women? Are women syst
Page 3: in male-dominated areas. She explai
Page 7 and 8: REFERENCES Bachrach, P. and Baratz,
Page 9: Walby, S., Armstrong, J. and Strid,

Catherine's essay - Cardiff University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?