nationalism and gender
April 11, 2007 by thinking girl
I know, I”ve been totally boring the past couple weeks. It’s the end of term, what can I say?
Anyway, I felt like I was neglecting y’all, so here’s a little something to munch on while I’m away. It’s a paper I wrote last term for a class on gender and international development. Sorry if it l ooks weird, things don’t translate so well from MS Word sometimes.
(Imagi)Nations: Discourses of (Domi)Nation
Introduction
Mother country, homeland, motherland, mother tongue, land of our forefathers, brotherhood of men. These symbolisms are commonly spoken in moments of nation-building, painting a picture of “nation” as inextricably tied to personal connections of home and family. These symbolisms also inform identities in particular ways through intricately woven overlapping relational discourses of gender, race, sexuality, and nation. They are presented in the usual way of ideology – as divorced from any notion of embodiment.
However, these symbolisms are not just rhetorical devices, devoid of meaning and impact on those whose bodies match the symbols. They are part of nationalist discourses that have negative ramifications on bodies – specifically, the bodies of women. This paper problematizes the conflation of nationalist representations of idealized, symbolic female bodies with real women’s bodies, through a discussion of two important intersections of nationalism and female embodiment – reproduction and mass rape – and argues that nationalism threatens women’s physical safety, rights and freedoms, and citizenship.
(Imagi)Nations
In 1983, Benedict Anderson wrote that the nation is an “imagined political community” – imagined because members will never know all other members, “yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion,” and community because “regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship.”[i] There are ideological underpinnings binding each nation together into a cohesive political unit – an (imagi)nation.[ii] (Imagi)Nations are not tantamount to states; states are sovereign political units with official borders recognized by the international community.[iii] National boundaries do not always end with the geographical boundaries of the state, as evidenced by transnational unions like the European Union and the African Union. Nations sometimes have no “official” geographical location, as in Zionism, or Black Nationalism; nations, unlike states, are not tangible.
(Imagi)Nations hold identities, which are constructed in relation to other identities. National identities often exist in opposition to other national identities – Palestine and Israel, for example – and are also constructed in relation to the nation’s members in terms of racial, gendered, and sexual identities. Nations denote borders, borders that open and close, that include some and exclude others. These borders are largely imaginary – although they can be conflated with state boundaries – constructing an (imagi)nation along racial, ethnic, religious, sexual, and gendered borders.
Social Constructionism
Gender, race, and sexuality are all social and cultural constructions, just as are (imagi)nations. All of these categories of identity are normative, historical categories formulated in relation to each other and differing from culture to culture. Each of these constructs breaks down into sub-constructs, which are involved in binary, oppositional relationships with each other, and each of these relationships is a relation of power. Gender breaks into “man” and “woman,” with man holding privilege. Race is broken into basic categories of “white” and “non-white,” privileging those who are white. Sexuality divides into “heterosexual” and “homosexual,” with heterosexuality holding privilege. (Imagi)Nations define themselves in terms of “insiders” and “outsiders,” privileging insiders.
These constructions are contentious, because they are far too broad. Gender leaves out those who are transgendered, transsexual, androgynous, and intersexed. The racial category “non-white” is obviously and laughably broad, and even “white” neglects the importance of ethnicity; also at issue here is the exclusion of people of combined race/ethnicity. Binary ways of viewing sexuality define away the experiences of bisexual and queer people. Finally, nations are problematic, as questions arise about who is an “insider” and who is an “outsider,” leaving in limbo millions of immigrants, refugees, displaced persons, and asylum seekers. It becomes clear how troubling these constructions are, as these imagined categories of identity are applied in arbitrary but systematic ways to real, embodied people. Nevertheless, it is these incomplete and non-contextual constructions that are the building blocks of society. It is these constructions that bind societies together and allow for the formation of nationalism.
Indoctrinations: Representations of Women in Nationalist Discourses
Nationalism, then, writes Tamar Mayer, is “the exercise of internal hegemony, the exclusive empowerment of those who share a sense of belonging to the same ‘imagined community.’”[iv] Nationalism speaks to a shared loyalty to the ideologies that bind members of the (imagi)nation together. Nationalist ideologies draw on social constructions of gender, race, sexuality and nation, and offer representations of members based on these categories. These representations are then used as part of nationalist discourse. These narratives almost always present the nation itself as a feminized figure in need of protection, thus positioning women and men in particular ways.[v] Mayer writes, “The intersection of nation, gender and sexuality [and also race] is a discourse about moral code, which mobilizes men… to become its sole protectors and women its sole biological and symbolic reproducers.”[vi]
The nation is envisioned as a patriarchal family, a “fraternity”[vii] or brotherhood of men, in which the traditions of the “forefathers” are passed down through the generations to young men who become the heroic protectors of those traditions. Women, on the other hand, are defined out of participating in the fraternal national project as equals, and are conceived as mothers, the reproducers of the nation whose wombs bring forth the next generation of the patriarchal line. Julie Mostov writes, “women physically reproduce the nation, and men protect and avenge it.”[viii]
Women become “the mothers of us all”[ix] in nationalist discourse, the keepers of morality and traditions of the forefathers through sexual and reproductive purity,[x] which emphasizes the racialized nature of (imagi)nations. Here, racism creates hierarchy, coded through gendered formulations of family.[xi] These gendered, racialized familial formations are strongly heterosexist, defining out of membership lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. People who produce combined-race children are conceived as a threat to the cohesiveness of the nation, and childless people become disloyal members, as participation in national family values and traditions requires reproduction.[xii]
(Imagi)Nations reinforce and support male privilege: when the nation is imagined as a patriarchal family, and citizenship is imagined as a brotherhood, women are excluded from positions of power and there is no equal sisterhood in citizenship. Zillah Eisenstein writes, “Nations are made up of citizens and the fiction here requires that anyone can be of the nation… [Women] are absented from the fraternity… They are given no voice.”[xiii]
Women instead become markers for the nation – women’s status stands in for the progress of the nation as a whole.[xiv] Through this process of homogenization, individual women are silenced, their identities lost. Women’s bodies become sites for viewing the nation, sites for debates around tradition, and sites where the (imagi)nation is regenerated. Women’s bodies are fetishized in nationalist discourses, and the boundaries of women’s bodies are conflated with the borders of the nation. Hence, nationalist discourses seek to protect and maintain the integrity of national/female bodily borders from invasion/penetration of “outsider” (male) citizens/nationalists, once again demonstrating the racialized nature of (imagi)nations. The maintenance of the nation’s racial and ethnic integrity can be clearly seen in the practical control nations exert over the sexuality and reproduction of both their own and other nations’ women.
Dominations and Subordinations: Reproductive Control
(Imagi)Nations control women’s reproductive role in a number of ways. In Indonesia, population control is a major part of national identity, and women are encouraged to limit the number of children they have. Indonesia is presenting an image of a controlled and focussed nation to the world, a modern nation ready to participate in the global political economy. Key to this project is presenting a controlled image of the national family – national family planning, so to speak – and it is doing so through stringent control over female contraception.[xv] Reproduction is divorced from sexuality in this context,[xvi] and heavy emphasis is placed on modern medical contraceptive technologies – indigenous methods are tied to ignorance and tradition (which in this context is not-progressive, and therefore not valued).[xvii] Other western ideologies have come along with contraception, transforming Indonesian society from one in which divorce was frequent, family ties were flexible, and women were key participants in public spaces to one in which monogamy, marriage, and the image of virtuous Indonesian housewives and mothers are normative.[xviii] Contraception is turned into a spectacle by which “model couples” who have been using contraception for several years are rewarded before a national audience, children’s television programs include the national mantra “two children are enough” in songs and skits, signs are posted on the doors of houses where contraception is practiced, and village maps are posted in town halls indicating which families are contraceptive users, or “acceptors”.[xix] Women are positioned as the primary targets of contraception, making women’s bodies the sites on which nationalist discourses and political values are articulated.
In Ireland, control over reproduction takes quite the opposite form. Here, women are encouraged to have children in order to continue the Irish nation, its traditional and religious values, and its political movement for independence.[xx] The national imagery in Ireland is not one of a generic female figure that represents the nation – the figure that represents the Irish nation is the Virgin Mary, mother of Christ. Mary is used as a national symbol of Irish purity and morality, and acts as a fantasmic icon of femininity for Irish women to mimic. Angela Martin writes, “It is through mimetic performance that Irish women come to embody femininity and, by extension, the Irish nation.”[xxi] Following the theological teachings of the Catholic Church, abortion is illegal in Ireland,[xxii] which restricts women’s reproductive choices and conflates women’s bodies with the borders of the nation as debate swirls over whether or not to allow pregnant women to travel outside Ireland in order to avail themselves of more lenient abortion laws in neighbouring areas. In 1992, the famous “X Case” was brought before the Irish court. “Miss X” was a 14-year-old girl who was impregnated during a rape, and was denied permission to leave the country to obtain a legal abortion in England. The Irish High Court ruled to allow Miss X to travel to England only after her attorneys convinced the court she would commit suicide if she were not permitted to leave.[xxiii] The X Case demonstrated a conflation of national boundaries with the female body, and that a member of an (imagi)nation cannot shed her identity so easily as she may cross national borders. The morality of the entire Irish nation was placed on the womb of one young girl, a rape survivor, whose participation in the (imagi)nation was limited to coerced motherhood, her body appropriated by nationalism for political ends.
Exterminations, Impregnations and Alienations: Mass Rape
When conflict arises between nations, one of the chief points of attack on the nation is on the embodiment of all the nation’s ideals – the nation’s women. Mass rape attempts to eradicate the (imagi)nation by destroying the representation of the nation as a cohesive patriarchal family unit. Because the nation is imagined as a woman, and nationalism makes women responsible for reproducing the nation, women are placed in a precarious position. In many war-torn areas, such as the former Yugoslavia, Nazi Germany, Rwanda, the Sudan, Somalia, and the Congo, mass rape has been and is being used as a method for stamping out national identity. Male nationalist soldiers and rebels hope to gain power over an opposing nation by forcing women to reproduce a different (imagi)nation through forced impregnation. Women’s bodies became the literal boundaries of the (imagi)nation,[xxiv] emphasizing the representation of women as a “symbolic collective.”[xxv]
While the violation actually happens to the bodies of the women of the nation in a systematic way, the violation is conceived as one against the nation’s men.[xxvi] The conceptual outrage over mass rape is not primarily outrage over widespread gendered violence. The outrage is that mass rape is a form of systematic racism against the men of the nation. Mass rape is commonly viewed as more serious than widespread rape, for example in South Africa where rape statistics are the highest in the world,[xxvii] for the simple reason that mass rape is genocide – it is not directed merely at the women who are victimized, but at the entire race/ethnicity, including and most importantly, the men to whom the women belong. Rape presents a challenge to women’s citizenship because it is a political act committed against people based on their membership in a particular social category – that of “women.”[xxviii] Rape, whether during war-time or not, is a hate crime. However, it is not taken seriously as such until it is performed on a widespread scale on the basis of membership in a particular ethnic group – a group to which men also belong. Mass rape is viewed as a national security issue, as in the Bosnian-Serbian conflict in which international intervention in response to mass rape in the region ended the war.[xxix] In this process, women have been silenced and forgotten, abandoned by their families and often forced to bear their rapists’ children, thereby reproducing a new (imagi)nation.
Conclusion
Nations are at once “imagined communities,” and a category that inform the identities of its members. Nations present a picture of cohesive identity to the world and to its own members. Nations are conceived alternatively as patriarchal families, and as women in need of protection. Nationalism takes these pieces and puts them together into a narrative, which is experienced differently by different members. Women are represented in these narratives as the reproducers of the nation, the moral centre of the nation, the mothers of us all. Men are positioned as protectors and avengers of the nation’s moral purity.
Nationalist narratives not only position women into restrictive roles of subordination, they place women in dangerous and precarious positions. The representations of women in nationalist discourses have real effects on the bodies of real women. The narratives of nationalism mould the experiences of real women in national settings. Because nations and states are not identical, national narratives challenge women’s rights of state citizenship and threaten women’s physical safety and integrity by conflating women’s bodies with national borders and ensuring that women fulfill their roles as reproducers and keepers of morality. When representations of women are reiterated and embedded so deeply in the rhetoric, language, and imagery of a nation, one cannot expect an absence of tangible effects on the bodies of the real women who hold membership in that nation.
One cannot expect, either, for women to remain silent and submissive. The women of the nation are not fantasmic symbols, but embodied agents. The face of nationalism is changing, as third world and post-colonial feminist discourses challenge nationalism and find spaces for discursive and material resistance against oppressive nationalist representations of women. The good thing about socially constructed categories, like gender, sexuality, race, and nation, is that they are not grounded in any objective truth. There is possibility for changing these categories, and the discourses that come out of them.
NOTES
[i] Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Revised Edition ed. London and New York: Verso, 1991, 5-7.
[ii] (Imagi)Nation is a term I’ve coined to draw particular attention to the imagined nature and aspects of nations and national identities. - JS
[iii] Mayer, Tamar. “Gender Ironies of Nationalism: Setting the Stage” in Gender Ironies of Nationalism: Sexing the Nation (Mayer, T., ed.). London: Routledge, 2000, 2.
[iv] Mayer, ibid, 1.
[v] Mayer, ibid, 10.
[vi] Mayer, ibid, 6.
[vii] Anderson, ibid, 7.
[viii] Mostov, Julie. “Sexing the Nation/Desexing the Body: Politics of National Identity in the Former Yugoslavia” in Gender Ironies of Nationalism: Sexing the Nation (Mayer, T., ed.). London: Routledge, 2000, 89.
[ix] Eisenstein, Zillah. “Writing Bodies on the Nation for the Globe” in Women, States, and Nationalism (Ranchod-Nilsson, S., and Tetrault, M.A., eds.). London: Routledge, 2000, 35.
[x] Mayer, ibid, 7
[xi] Eisenstein, ibid, 41.
[xii] Mostov, ibid, 91.
[xiii] Eisenstein, ibid, 42.
[xiv] Eisenstein, ibid, 43.
[xv] Dwyer, Leslie K. “Spectacular Sexuality: Nationalism, Development and the Politics of Family Planning in Indonesia” in Gender Ironies of Nationalism: Sexing the Nation (Mayer, T., ed.). London: Routledge, 2000, 29.
[xvi] Dwyer, ibid, 32.
[xvii] Dwyer, ibid, 34.
[xviii] Dwyer, ibid, 39.
[xix] Dwyer, ibid, 41-42.
[xx] Martin, Angela K. “Death of a Nation: Transnationalism, Bodies and Abortion in Late Twentieth-century Ireland” in Gender Ironies of Nationalism: Sexing the Nation (Mayer, T., ed.). London: Routledge, 2000, 67.
[xxi] Martin, ibid, 69.
[xxii] Actual law remains ambiguous under a litany of amendments and appeals. As it stands now, abortion is illegal unless it is necessary to save the pregnant woman’s life. See the Irish Family Planning Association: “Abortion Law in Ireland - A Brief Summary” at <http://www.ifpa.ie/abortion/hist.html >, the Center for Reproductive Rights: “The World’s Abortion Laws” at < http://www.crlp.org/pub_fac_abortion_laws.html > and The Site: “Abortion in Ireland” at <http://www.thesite.org/sexandrelationships/safersex/unplannedpregnancy/abortioninireland >for more information. All accessed online November 22, 2006.
[xxiii] Martin, ibid, 75.
[xxiv] Mostov, ibid, 90.
[xxv] Mostov, ibid, 91.
[xxvi] Mostov, ibid, 96.
[xxvii] Du Toit, L. “A Phenomenology of Rape: Forging a New Vocabulary for Action,” in (Un)thinking Citizenship (A. Gouws, ed., 2005). 253-274.
[xxviii] Du Toit, ibid
[xxix] Hansen, Lene. “Gender, Nation, Rape: Bosnia and the Construction of Security,” in the International Feminist Journal of Politics 3, 1 (2001). 55-75.
Works Cited:
1. Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Revised Edition ed. London and New York: Verso, 1991.
2. Dwyer, Leslie K. “Spectacular Sexuality: Nationalism, Development and the Politics of Family Planning in Indonesia” in Gender Ironies of Nationalism: Sexing the Nation (Mayer, T., ed.). London: Routledge, 2000, 27-62.
3. Du Toit, Louise. “A Phenomenology of Rape: Forging a New Vocabulary for Action,” in (Un)thinking Citizenship (A. Gouws, ed., 2005). 253-274.
4. Eisenstein, Zillah. “Writing Bodies on the Nation for the Globe” in Women, States, and Nationalism (Ranchod-Nilsson, S., and Tetrault, M.A., eds.). London: Routledge, 2000, 35-53.
5. Hansen, Lene. “Gender, Nation, Rape: Bosnia and the Construction of Security,” in the International Feminist Journal of Politics 3, 1 (2001). 55-75.
6. Martin, Angela K. “Death of a Nation: Transnationalism, Bodies and Abortion in Late Twentieth-century Ireland” in Gender Ironies of Nationalism: Sexing the Nation (Mayer, T., ed.). London: Routledge, 2000, 65-86.
7. Mayer, Tamar. “Gender Ironies of Nationalism: Setting the Stage” in Gender Ironies of Nationalism: Sexing the Nation (Mayer, T., ed.). London: Routledge, 2000, 1-22.
8. Mostov, Julie. “Sexing the Nation/Desexing the Body: Politics of National Identity in the Former Yugoslavia” in Gender Ironies of Nationalism: Sexing the Nation(Mayer, T., ed.). London: Routledge, 2000, 89-110.
Interesting paper, Thinking Girl. Is this topic mostly the basis of the class you wrote it for, or is it just a segment of the course? Either way, it’s a topic I’ve never really given much thought to, but it definitely raises some interesting questions. I found the paragraph on Ireland to be particularly interesting and consequently the strongest point of the argument (in my opinion) because it is such a blatant transition from nationalist morality to international relations. Good show.
Only one instance comes to my mind where nationalist propaganda and ideology actually held some benefit for women, and that’s the whole Rosie the Riveter, “we can do it” movement. But yeah, other than that one event in history, I’m at a loss for counterexamples, so I think the concept of your paper is pretty spot on.
One thing did kind of irk me, however – and I know how you’re dying for my input. But you say that it is women in particular who are generally harmed by nationalism, and then you go on to mention how young men are the “protectors and avengers.” I think another way of looking at this is that young men are generally considered to be expendable enough to be sent to their deaths in the name of their country’s safety. Yes the symbolism behind it furthers the idea that women are weak and must be protected and men are strong and must be the protectors, but what this directly translates to is men being sent away to die in battle. This symbolism is also much more insidious in that it is a completely double-edged sword. On the one hand, you have men being portrayed in a more positive light as the strong ones and the “protectors,” but on the other hand, this is only IF they are willing to fulfill that role. It has historically been used to put a tremendous amount of pressure on young men to join the military and risk their lives. This explains all of the shame directed at “draft dodgers,” who are negatively affected for not conforming to the nationalist discourse. However, I would argue that this shame pales in comparison to the price paid by the ones who have historically gone along with their nationalist roles as “protectors and avengers” and lost life and limb. I know this veers off of what your original post was about (and I apologize for having a tendency to do that), but I think it is another aspect to gender roles and nationalism.
Hi Kyassett - glad you liked the paper. It was not at all the basis of the class - the class was far more basic, about the way gender has generally been treated by the development “industry” historically, what sorts of approaches have been taken and the strengths and weaknesses of those development models. My paper wasn’t at all related to the material of the class actually! But, my prof approved the topic, so I was glad, since this was a really interesting field of gender study that had been introduced to me only brielfy, and I wanted to explore it more.
I agree for the most part with your point, that the ideologies I outlined also results in gender requirements for men. It wasn’t my focus, but this is a good point.
I think this is changing now, however, with the inclusion of women in the military, which is interesting. I’ve noticed some of the proponents for the “men are oppressed too” argument have argued this very thing, that gender roles result in men getting killed in combat more than women. what is strange about this argument to me is that it ignores women in the military, and ignores the gender biases that still make it more difficult for women to enter the military if they so desire - including gender stereotypes! OF COURSE more men than women are dying in combat - there are more men in the military!! and part of the reason for that is gender oppression!!
but the fact remains that women have fought hard political battles to get to participate in the military, and to be able to serve their countries in combat. It wouldn’t be me, but I’m glad that some of the women who want to do so are getting more opportunity. I sure wish their fellow colleagues would stop raping them at such ridiculously high rates, though. Yet another reason for me to say No Thanks to my dad’s constant refrain of “you should join the service”…
Whoa… I’m…right? Hot fuck, that totally caught me off guard. Thanks, Thinking Girl. Man, I was all prepared for the impending argument, but I guess I’ll settle for an agreement. Man…
Anyway, good point about the women in the military today. The degree to which they participate today and the why’s and how’s behind this are a topic all on their own, but it is important to note that the traditional military set-up is definitely shifting in this area. And women’s participation should definitely not be ignored simply to make an argument about men dying at higher rates. The same argument can be made while still giving credit where credit is due.
Your class sounds interesting. Good job going with an original topic. Hope it got you a good grade.
Oh and I get the same “you should join the service” wrap from my grandpa. No thanks.
oh it’s so annoying isn’t it? My dad STILL tells me I should join the military, so they will pay for my law degree. Despite the fact that 90% of my first year is looked after. Despite that I’m a pacifist. Despite that I dislike authority and hate taking orders.
hey, I agree with people!
actually, the class wasn’t so interesting as I hoped it would be, for me. It was a 4th year class, but it was filled with IDS (international development studies) students who had never taken a class in gender before, so it was REALLY basic - most of this was stuff I had covered in the course of one lecture in another class I had already taken. But, I’m sure for other students it was more interesting, since it was material that was new to them.
thanks, it was a really interesting paper to research and I enjoyed writing it. I got an A on the paper. I *almost* always write papers for every class that take a perspective of gender analysis, no matter what the class is about (when I don’t, it tends to be about another aspect of social justice). It ends up being a very interesting body of academic work. I’ve been lucky that only one of my profs has not appreciated my feminist approach. I had to get that grade appealed.
I just found out one of my papers is going to be published, so that’s exciting. Not that publishing my own papers on my blog isn’t exciting.
Gadamn, that’s pretty cool. What’s the topic of the paper that’s going to be published?
thanks! it’s on female genital cutting, using a Foucaultian analysis of power to describe the practice itself, and how women might become empowered to resist. it’s one of my favourites.
ImagiNation, SubordiNation and DomiNation… fantastic!
To put it simply, I hate the concept of “nation”.
Hi Thinking Girl,
I am a new reader; great blog and great paper. I enjoyed the clarity that you bring to this complex subject. The point about rape as crime against the men of a nation was particularly strong.
My question is: how do women who identify as feminists and come from a post-colonial situation oppose sexist nationalisms that come from within their own (imagin)ations, while also resisting co-option into racist nationalisms from other imagin(nations) i.e. U.S.A ? I think that this may be a theoretical problem that comes from conflating all nationalisms, but, if so, how would you distiguish between post-colonial nationalist movements and empire’s nationalist movements?
Anyways, thanks for sharing and kudos on publishing your paper. I hope you share the info on the journal after it is released.
I first must confess I haven’t had time to read the whole thing, but thus far, a phrase has come to mind that is probably obliquely related to your theme - “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.”
The women of the nation are not fantasmic symbols, but embodied agents. I liked that sentence & the whole last paragraph, acually.
We do have the power to wrest our souls from those who would dominate us.
I meant to ask this before, Thinking Girl, but somehow forgot: where is your article being published?
LL - thanks! I completely agree, “nation” sucks.
Hi Nikki - thanks for your comment, it really made me think. I think there is a problem of conflating nationalisms, definitely, but I do see your point, and I think there is a specific challenge involved in post-colonial nationalism. I think there is a real drive in post-colonial situations to push for a coherent and independent national identity, in rejection of “westernization,” (the new colonialism) and I’m afraid some of that has led to a return to “tradition” - much of which presents a challenge to women’s rights.
so how to combat that? I guess it’s going to be different for every nationalistic situation, but I guess overall, asserting at every opportunity women’s right to self-definition, independence, equal opportunity, and personhood, is key. A quote from Emma Goldman:
DBB - yep, good phrase.
L>T - yeah, you know, I try to finish up my papers with a bit of a hopeful call to action. It’s the idealist in me, I guess. I do envision a much better world than the one we’ve got. I try to keep that on the front-burner of my mind with each paper I write (otherwise it’s easy to get bogged down by the details of how shitty things have been and still are).
by the way L>T, that quote above - I keep it on a post-it tagged to my computer screen, and I read it everyday. it helps me to stay strong and remember to demand from the world what I want for myself.
Kyassett - it’s being published through my university’s journal of gender studies.
Hi Thinking Girl,
Stumbled upon your blog. Would like to commend you on your paper. I would like to bring up two points that seem to be missing in your analysis.
1. Throughout your paper you tend to treat the woman as an ontological individual, meaning a subject that is a priori. What I have found, through other readings, is that the woman itself is produced out of the nation, not merely changed or oppressed, but its very identity and sense of self. In this sense, organizing around the identity of woman, no matter what nation, is in itself derived from discourses built by the nation.
2. In looking at how different nations oppress or suppress women, it is easy to see the injustice inherent within the nation. Yet, what can be problematic, is the manner in which the liberation of women is itself used as a discourse of imperialism. For instance: the way arabs, muslims, communists etc treat “their” women gives even more power to ideas of bringing “freedom” to the non-West, all of course, for the sake of “all” women.
Considering the broad general view of your paper they don’t need to be gone into in-depth, yet the glaring omission seems troubling.
Some authors to check out include: Laura Stoler, Sabha Mahmood, Wendy Brown, and Judith Butler.
Thanks for the time and good luck with the intellectual pursuits.
Hi AESL - thanks for commenting, glad you stumbled in.
interesting points. it’s true, in a short 10 page paper it’s hard to cover all the points that are relevant to a discussion of nationalism. Your first point comes up in the brief mention of mimetic performance among Irish women of the figure of the virgin mary - that was really interesting in the paper I used for that section, I wish I could have had more room to talk about that. And re: the very brief intro to social construction - boy, I could talk about that for days! - there’s only so much you can do to explain your starting position when you have limited wordcount to work within.
I really liked your second point - couldn’t agree more.
First time commenter here! I’ve been obsessed with the complexities of women, gender, nationalism and militarism since I first encountered the work of Nira Yuval-Davis (if you’re not familiar with her work, check her out!). I think it’s really fascinating to deconstruct the whole idea of citizenship from this perspective - it certainly explains a lot of what the political stuff going on in the US in terms of militarism and the attack on reproductive rights.
HI debbie -
thanks for commenting - I think the whole subject of citizenship and nationalism and gender and race is also fascinating! I haven’t read Yuval-Davis, but will certainly look for some of her work.
still so much to read after undergrad!