Seeing everyday life in the Balkans / David W. Montgomery -- The (historical) context of everyday life -- Early Balkan everyday life / Andrew Wachtel -- Crimes and misdemeanors : scenes of everyday life among the gendarmerie in Ottoman Macedonia, ca. 1900 / Ipek K. Yosmaoglu -- It's what's inside that counts : furnishing the modern in the apartments of socialist Yugoslavia / Patrick Hyder Patterson -- Consuming lives: inside the Balkan kafene / Mary Neuburger -- Burek, da! sociality, context, and idiom in Macedonia and beyond / Keith Brown -- The home(s) of everyday life -- Kinship and safety nets in Croatia and Kosovo / Carolin Leutloff-Grandits -- "This much we know" : domestic remedies and quotidian tricks since Tito's Bosnia / Larisa jasarevic -- Femininity, fashion, and feminism: women's activists in Bosnia and Herzegovina / Elissa Helms -- That black cloud upon our family : everyday life of gays and lesbians in Slovenia / Roman Kuhar -- Between past and future : young people's strategies for living a "normal life" in postwar Bosnia and Herzegovina / Monika Palmberger -- "But where else could they go?" the state, family, and private care in a Bosnian town / Azra Hromadzic -- The livelihoods of everyday life -- Cars, coffee, and "the crisis" : Balkan migration in precarious times / Ana Croegaert -- "We don't belong anywhere" : everyday life in a Serbian town where immigrants are former refugees / Mila Dragojevic -- Neoliberal spaces of immorality : the creation of a Bulgarian land market and "land-grabbing" foreign investors / Deema Kaneff -- Making ends meet in a rural community : the life and times of Aleksandar Zivojinovic / Andrew Konitzer -- A lot of sweat, a little bit of fun, and not entirely "hard men": worker's masculinity in the Uljanik shipyard / Andrea Matosevic -- Perceptions of Balkan belonging in postdictatorship Greece / Daniel M. Knight -- The politics of everyday life -- Neither the Balkans nor Europe : the "where" and "when" in present-day Albania / Natasa Gregoric Bon -- Growing up in Montenegro : a story of transformation and resistance / Jelena Dzankic -- War criminals, national heroes, and transitional justice in Macedonia / Vasiliki P Neofotistos -- A lively border : Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia on the shifting banks of the Drina / Carna Brkovic and Stef Jansen -- "Politicians are all crooks!" : everyday politics in Bulgaria / Emilia Zankina -- Life among statues in Skopje / Ilka Thiessen -- The religion(s) of everyday life -- "The hardest time was the time without morality" : religion, transition, and social navigation in Albania / David W. Montgomery -- Ramadan in Prizren, Kosovo / Frances Trix -- The cross at the crossroads : the feast of slava between faith and custom / Milica Bakic-Hayden -- Boundaries of freedom, boundaries of responsibility : everyday religious life of Croatian Catholic women / Slavica Jakelic -- Religious boundaries, komshuluk, and sharing sacred spaces in Bulgaria / Magdalena Lubanska -- The everyday of religion and politics in the Balkans / Albert Doja -- The art of everyday life -- Unintentional memorials : everyday places of memory in postransition Bucharest / Alyssa Grossman -- Between east and west, folk and pop, state and market : changing landscapes of bulgarian folk music / Carol Silverman -- Mothers in Balkan film / Yana Hashamova -- Memories of foreign love / Ervin Hatibi -- The sound of charcoal rustling : drawing from life in Belgrade / Marko Zivkovic -- Postface / David W. Montgomery
Posterity has arrived: the necessary emergence of museum activism / Robert R. Janes and Richard Sandell -- Detoxing and decolonising museums / Sara Wajid and Rachael Minott -- Growing an activist museum professional / Elizabeth Wood and Sarah Cole -- Dividing issues and mission-driven activism: museum responses to migration policies and the refugee crisis / Maria Vlachou -- Access as activism: bringing the museum to the people / Catherine Kudlick and Edward M. Luby -- Fossil fuel sponsorship and the contested museum: agency, accountability and arts activism / Paula Serafini and Chris Garrard -- The activist role of museum staff / Victoria Hollows -- From the ground up: grassroots social justice activism in American museums / Laura-Edythe S. Coleman and Porchia Moore -- Spectacular defiance / Julie McNamara -- "I'm gonna do something": moving beyond talk in the museum / Bernadette Lynch -- Feminism and the politics of friendship in the activist museum / Viv Golding -- Memory exercises: activism, symbolic reparation, and non-repetition in Colombia's National Museum of Memory / Cristina Lleras, Michael Andrés Forero Parra, Lina Díaz and Jennifer Carter -- Auto agents: inclusive curatorship and its political potential / Jade French -- Museums as public forums for 21st century societies: a perspective from the national museums and monuments of Zimbabwe / Njabulo Chipangura and Happinos Marufu -- Museums in the climate emergency / Steve Lyons and Kai Bosworth -- Activism, objects and dialogues: re-engaging African collections at the Royal Ontario Museum / Silvia Forni, Julie Crooks and Dominique Fontaine -- Museological activism and cultural citizenship: collecting the Hong Kong umbrella movement / Selina Ho and Vivian Ting -- Museums in the age of intolerance / Sharon Heal -- Activist practice through networks: a case study in museum connections / Mercy McCann -- Whose memories for which future? Favela museums and the struggle for social justice in Brazil / Marcelo Lages Murta -- From vision to action: the journey towards activism at St. Fagans National Museum of History / Sioned Hughes and Elen Phillips -- Active museums: inside out / Moya McFadzean, Liza Dale-Hallett, Tatiana Mauri and Kimberley Moulton -- Quiet is the new loud? : on activism, museums and changing the world / Åshild Andrea Brekke -- Heritage and queer activism / Sean Curran -- The activist spectrum in United States museums / Dina A. Bailey -- Up against it: contending with power asymmetries in museum work / Kevin Coffee -- Taking a position: challenging the anti-authorial turn in art curating / Lynn Wray -- Memory activism and the holocaust memorial institutions of the 21st century / Diana I. Popescu -- Advocacy and activism: a framework for sustainability science in museums / Sandra L. Rodegher and Stacey Vicario Freeman -- Narratives of transformation: stories of impact from activist museums / Jennifer Bergevin -- Memorial museums at the intersection of politics, exhibition and trauma: the study of the Red Terror Martyrs Memorial Museum / Bridget Conley -- "I attack this work of art deliberately": suffragette activism in the museum / Nicola Gauld -- Museums, activism and social media (or, how Twitter challenges and changes museum practice) / Jennie Carvill Schellenbacher -- Unprecedented times? shifting press perceptions on museums and activism / Jenny Kidd.
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Herausgeber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie diese Quelle zitieren möchten.
Ann Tickner on Feminist Philosophy of Science, Engaging the Mainstream, and (still) Remaining Critical in/of IR
Feminist IR is still often side-lined as a particularistic agenda or limited issue area, appearing as one of the last chapters of introductory volumes to the field, despite the limitless efforts of people such as Cynthia Enloe (Theory Talk #48) and J. Ann Tickner. She has laboured to point out and provincialize the parochialism that haunts mainstream IR, without, however, herself retreating and disengaging from some of its core concerns. In this Talk, Tickner elaborates—amongst others—on the specifics of a feminist approach to the philosophical underpinnings of IR; discusses how feminism relates to the distinction between mainstream and critical theory; and addresses the challenges of navigating such divides.
Print version of this Talk (pdf)
What is, according to you, the central challenge or principal debate in International Relations? And what is your position regarding this challenge/in this debate?
I think the biggest challenge for IR is that it is relevant and helps us understand important issues in our globalized world. I realize this is not a conventional answer, but too often we academics get caught up in substantive and methodological debates where we end up talking only to each other or to a very small audience. We tend to get too concerned with the issue of scientific respectability rather than thinking about how to try to understand and remedy the massive problems that exist in the world today. Steve Smith's presidential address to the ISA in 2002 (read it here), shortly after 9/11, reminded us of this. Smith chastised the profession for having nothing to say about such a catastrophic event.
How did you arrive at where you currently are in your thinking about IR?
I've gone through quite a few transformations in my academic career. My original identity was as an International Political Economy (IPE) scholar; my first academic position was at a small liberal arts college (College of the Holy Cross) where I taught a variety of IPE courses. In graduate school I was interested in what, in the 1970s, we called 'North-South' issues, specifically issues of global justice, which were not the most popular subjects in the field. So I always felt a little out of place in my choice of subject matter. In the 1980s when I started teaching, IR was mostly populated by men. As a woman, one felt somewhat uncomfortable at professional meetings; and there were very few texts by women that I could assign to my students. I also found that many of the female students in my introductory IR classes were somewhat uncomfortable and unmotivated by the emphasis placed on strategic issues and nuclear weapons.
It was at about the time when I first started thinking about these issues, I happened to read Evelyn Fox Keller's book Gender and Science, a book that offers a gendered critique of the natural sciences (read an 'update' of the argument by Keller here, pdf). It struck me that her feminist critique of science could equally be applied to IR theory. My first feminist publication, a feminist critique of Hans Morgenthau's principles of political realism, expanded on this theme (read full text here, pdf).
Teaching at a small liberal arts college where one was judged by the quality of one's work rather than the type of research one was doing was very helpful—because I could follow my own, rather non-conventional, inclinations. So I think my turn to feminism, after ten years in the field, was a combination of my own consciousness-raising and feeling that there was something about IR that didn't speak to me. Later, I was fortunate to be hired by the University of Southern California, a large research institution, with an interdisciplinary School of International Relations, separate from the political science department. When I arrived in 1995, the School had a reputation for teaching a broad array of IR theoretical approaches. The support of these institutional settings and of a network of feminist scholars and students, some of whom I discovered were thinking along similar lines in the late 1980s, were important for getting me to where I am today.
What would a student need (dispositions, skills) to become a specialist in IR or understand the world in a global way?
It depends on the level of the student: at the undergraduate level, a broad array of courses in global politics including some economics and history. Language training is very important too, and ideally, an overseas experience. We need to encourage our students to be curious and have an open mind about our world.
At the graduate level, this is a more complicated question. The way you phrased the question 'to understand the world in a global way,' can be very different from training to become an IR scholar, especially in the United States. I would emphasize the importance of a broad theoretical and methodological training, including some exposure to the philosophy of science, and to non-Western IR if possible, or at least at a minimum, to try to get beyond the dominance of American IR, which still exists even in places outside the US.
Why should IR scholars incorporate gender in the study of world politics? What are the epistemological and ontological implications of adopting a feminist perspective in IR?
Feminists would argue that incorporating feminist perspectives into IR would fundamentally transform the discipline. Feminists claim that IR is already gendered, and gendered masculine, in the types of questions it asks and the ways it goes about answering them. The questions we ask in our research are never neutral - they are a choice, depending on the researcher's identity and location. Over history, the knowledge that we have accumulated has generally been knowledge about men's lives. It's usually been men who do the asking and consequently, it is often the case that women's lives and women's knowledge are absent from what is deemed 'reliable' knowledge. This historical legacy has had, and continues to have, an effect on the way we build knowledge. Sandra Harding, a feminist philosopher of science, has suggested that if were to build knowledge from women's lives as well, we would broaden the base from which we construct knowledge, and would therefore get a richer and more complex picture of reality.
One IR example of how we limit our research questions and concerns is how we calculate national income, or wealth—the kind of data states choose to collect and on which they base their public policy. We have no way of measuring the vast of amount of non-remunerated reproductive and caring labour, much of which is done by women. Without this labour we would not have a functioning global capitalist economy. To me this is one example as to why putting on our gender lenses helps us gain a more complete picture of global politics and the workings of the global economy.
Feminists have also argued that the epistemological foundations of Western knowledge are gendered. When we use terms such as rationality, objectivity and public, they are paired with terms such as emotional, subjective and private, terms that are seen as carrying less weight. By privileging the first of these terms when we construct knowledge we are valuing knowledge that we typically associate with masculinity and the public sphere, historically associated with men. Rationality and objectivity are not terms that are overtly gendered, but, when asked, women and men alike associate them with masculinity. They are terms we value when we do our research.
In one of the foundational texts of Feminist IR, 'You Just Don't Understand: Troubled Engagements between Feminists and IR Theorists' (1997, full text here, pdf), you highlighted three particular (gendered) misunderstandings that continue to divide Feminists and mainstream IR theorists. To what extent do these misunderstandings continue to inform mainstream perceptions of Feminist approaches to the study of international politics?
I think probably they still do, although it's always hard to tell, because the mainstream has not engaged much with feminist approaches. I've been one who's always calling for conversations with the mainstream but, apart from the forum responding to the article you mention, there have been very few. In a 2010 article, published in the Australian Feminist Law Journal, I looked back to see if I could find responses to my 1997 article to which you refer. I found that most of the responses had come from other feminists. The lack of engagement, which other feminists have experienced also, makes it hard to know about the misunderstandings that still exist but my guess would be that they remain. However I do think there has been progress in accepting feminism's legitimacy in the field. It is now included in many introductory texts.
The first misunderstanding that I identified is the meaning of gender. I would hope that the introduction of constructivist approaches would help with understanding that gender is social construction - a very important point for feminists. But I think that gender is still largely equated with women. Feminists have tried to stress that gender is also about men and about masculinity, something that seems to be rather hard to accept for those unfamiliar with feminist work. I think it's also hard for the discipline to accept that both international politics as practice and IR as a discipline are not gender neutral. Feminists claim that IR as a discipline is gendered in its concepts, its subject matter, the questions it asks and the way it goes about answering them. This is a radical assertion for those unfamiliar with feminist approaches and it is not very well understood.
Now to answer the second misunderstanding as to whether feminists are doing IR. I think there has been some progress here, because IR has broadened its subject matter. And there has been quite a bit of attention lately to gender issues in the 'real world' - issues such as sexual violence, trafficking, and human rights. Of course these issues relate not only to women but they are issues with which feminists have been concerned. Something I continue to find curious is that the policy and activist communities are generally ahead of the academy in taking up gender issues. Most international organizations, and some national governments are under mandates for gender mainstreaming. Yet, the academy has been slow to catch up and give students the necessary training and skills to go out in the world and deal with such issues.
The third misunderstanding to which I referred in the 1997 article is the question of epistemology. While, as I indicated, there has been some acceptance of the subject matter, with which feminists are concerned, it is a more fundamental and contentious question as to whether feminists are recognized as 'doing IR' in the methodological sense. As the field broadens its concerns, IR may see issues that feminists raise as legitimate, but how we study them still evokes the same responses that I brought up fifteen years ago. Many of the questions that feminists ask are not amenable to being answered using the social scientific methodologies popular in the field, particularly in the US. (I should add that there is a branch of IR feminism that does use quantitative methods and it has gained much wider acceptance by the mainstream.) The feminist assumption that Western knowledge is gendered and based on men's lives is a challenging claim. And feminists often prefer to start knowledge from the lives of people who are on the margins – those who are subordinated or oppressed, and of course, this is very different from IR which tends toward a top-down look at the international system. One of the big problems that have become more evident to me over time is that feminism is fundamentally sociological – it's about people and social relations, whereas much of IR is about structures and states operating in an anarchic, rather than a social, environment. I find that historians and sociologists are more comfortable with gender analysis, perhaps for this reason. I'm not sure that these misunderstanding are ever going to be solved or that they need to be solved.
Although Feminist methodology is often conflated with ethnographic approaches, in 'What Is Your Research Program? Some Feminist Answers to International Relations Methodological Questions' (2005, pdf here), you argued that there is no unique Feminist research methodology. Nonetheless, Feminist IR is well known for using an autoethnographic approach. What does this approach add to the study of gender in IR? What might account for the relative dearth of autoethnography in other IR paradigms?
I think it is important to remember that feminists use many different approaches coming out of very different theoretical traditions, such as Marxism, socialism, constructivism, postpositivism, postcolonialism and empiricism. So there are many different kinds of feminisms. If you look specifically at what has been called 'second-generation feminist IR,' the empirical work that followed the so-called 'first generation' that challenged and critiqued the concepts and theoretical foundations of the field, much of it, but not all, (discourse analysis is quite prevalent too), uses ethnographic methods which seem well suited to researching some of the issues I described earlier. Questions about violence against women, domestic servants, women in the military, violent women, women in peace movements– these are the sorts of research questions that demand fieldwork and an ethnographic approach. Because as I stated earlier, IR asks rather different kinds of questions, it does not generally adopt ethnographic methods. Feminists who do this type of ethnographic research tell me that their work is often more readily received and understood by those who do comparative politics, because they are more comfortable with field research. And since women are not usually found in the halls of power – as decision-makers. IR feminists are particularly concerned with issues having to do with marginalized and disempowered peoples' lives. Ethnography is useful for this type of research.
I see autoethnography as a different issue. While the reflexive tradition is not unique to feminists, feminism tends to be reflectivist. As I said earlier, feminists are sensitive to issues about who the creators of knowledge have been and whose knowledge is claimed to be universal. Most feminists believe that there is no such thing as universal knowledge. Consequently, feminists believe that being explicit about one's positionality as a researcher is very important because none of us can achieve objectivity, often called 'the view from nowhere'. So while striving to get as accurate and as useful knowledge as we can, we should be willing to state our own positionality. One's privilege as a researcher must be acknowledged too; one must always be sensitive to the unequal power relations between a researcher and their research subject – something that anthropology recognized some time ago. Feminists who do fieldwork often try to make their research useful to their subjects or do participatory research so that they can give something back to the community. All these concerns lead to autoethnographic disclosures. They demand a reflexive attitude and a willingness to describe and reassess your research journey as you go along. This autoethnographic style is hard for researchers in the positivist tradition to understand. While we all strive to produce accurate and useful knowledge, positivists' striving for objectivity requires keeping subjectivity out of their research.
Robert W. Cox (Theory Talk #37) famously distinguished two approaches to the study of international politics: problem-solving theory and critical theory. How does the emancipatory project of the latter inform your perspective of IR and its normative goals? And is this distinction as valid today as it was when Cox first formulated it, over 3 decades ago?
Yes I think it's still an important distinction. It's still cited very often which suggests it's still valid, although postmodern scholars (and certain feminists) have problems with Western liberal notions of emancipation. I see my own work as being largely compatible with Cox's definition of critical theory. Like many feminists, I view my work as explicitly normative; I say explicitly because I believe all knowledge is normative although not all scholars would admit it. What Cox calls problem-solving theory is also normative in the conservative sense of not aiming to changing the world. A normative goal to which feminists are generally committed is understanding the reasons for women's subordination and seeking ways to end it. It's also important to note that the IR discipline was borne with the intention of serving the interests of the state whereas academic feminism was borne out of social movements for women's emancipation. The normative goals of my work are to demonstrate how the theory and practice of IR is gendered and what might be the implications of this, both for how we construct knowledge and how we go about solving global problems.
Much of your work addresses the parochial scope and neopositivist inclination of International Relations (IR) scholarship, especially in the United States. What distinguishes other 'Western' institutional and political contexts (in the UK, Europe, Canada and Oceania) from the American study of IR? How and why is critical/reflectivist IR marginalized in the American context? What is the status of these 'debates' in non-Western institutional contexts?
With respect to the parochial scope of US IR, I refer you to a recent book, edited by Arlene Tickner and Ole Wæver, International Relations Scholarship Around the World. It contains chapters by authors from around the world, some of whom suggest IR in their country imitates the US and some who see very different IRs. The chapter by Thomas J. Biersteker, ('The Parochialism of Hegemony: Challenges for 'American' International Relations', read it here in pdf) reports on his examination of the required reading lists for IR Ph.D. candidates in the top ten US academic institutions. His findings suggest that constructivism accounts for only about 10% of readings and anything more radical even less. Over 90% of assigned works are written by US scholars. The dominance of quantitative and rational choice approaches in the US may have something to do with IR generally being a subfield of political science. Critical approaches often have different epistemological roots. And I stress 'science' because while IR is also subsumed in certain politics departments in other countries, the commitment to science, in the neopositivist sense, is something that seems to be peculiarly American. Stanley Hoffman's famous observation, made over thirty years ago, that Americans see problems as solvable by the scientific method is still largely correct I believe (read article here, pdf). I find it striking that so many formerly US based and/or educated critical scholars have left the US and are now based elsewhere – in Canada, Australasia, or Europe.
Biersteker sees the hegemony of American IR extending well beyond the US. But there is generally less commitment to quantification elsewhere. This may be due to IR's historical legacy emerging out of different knowledge traditions or being housed in separate departments. In France, IR emerged from sociological and legal traditions and, in the UK, history and political theory, including the Marxist tradition, have been influential in IR. And European IR scholars do not move as freely between the academy and the policy world as in the US. All these factors might encourage more openness to critical approaches. I am afraid I don't know enough about non-Western traditions to make an informed comment. But we must recognize the enormous power differentials that exist with respect to engaging IR's debates. Language barriers are one problem; having access to research funds is an enormous privilege. Scholars in many parts of the world do not have the resources or the time to engage in esoteric academic debates, nor do they have the resources to attend professional meetings or access certain materials. The production of knowledge is a very unequal process, dominated by those with power and resources; hence the hegemonic position of the US that Biersteker and others still see.
As methodological pluralism now retains the status of a norm in the field, John M. Hobson (Theory Talk #71) recently argued that the question facing IR scholars no longer revolves around the debate between positivist and postpositivist approaches. Rather, the primary meta-theoretical question relates to Eurocentrism, that is, 'To be or not to be a Eurocentric, that is the question.' To what extent do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?
Given my answer to the last question, I am not sure that methodological pluralism has reached an accepted status in the US yet. However, John M. Hobson has produced a very thoughtful and engaging book that asks very provocative questions. Unfortunately, I doubt many IR scholars in the US have read it and would be rather puzzled by Hobson's claim. But certainly the Eurocentrism of the discipline is something to which we should be paying attention. I find it curious how little IR has recognized its imperial roots or engaged in any discussion of imperialism. As Brian Schmidt and other historical revisionists have told us, when IR was borne at the beginning of the twentieth century, imperialism was a central preoccupation in the discipline. Race also has been ignored almost entirely by IR scholars.
To Hobson's specific claim that the important question for IR now is about being or not being Eurocentric rather than about being positivist or postpositivist, I do have some problems with this. I am concerned with Hobson's painting positivism and postpostivism with the same Eurocentric brush. Yes, they are both Eurocentric; but postpositivists or critical theorists – to use Cox's term – are at least open to being reflective about how they produce knowledge and where it comes from. If one can be reflective about one's knowledge it does allow space to be aware of one's own biases. Those of us on the critical side of Cox's divide can at least be reflective about the problems of Eurocentrism, whereas positivists don't consider reflexivity to be part of producing good research. Nevertheless, Hobson has made an important statement. He has written a masterful and insightful book and I recommend it all IR scholars.
Last question. Your recent work is part of an emergent collective dialogue that aims to 'provincialize' the Western European heritage of IR. In a recent article entitled 'Dealing with Difference: Problems and Possibilities for Dialogue in International Relations' you highlight the need for non-Eurocentric approach to the study of IR. In IR, what are the prospects for genuine dialogue across methodological and geographical borders? Where do you see this dialogue taking place?
This is a very tough issue. There are scholars like Hobson who talk about a non-Eurocentric approach, but given what I said about resources, about language barriers, and about inequalities in the ability to produce knowledge, this is difficult. As I've said at many times and in many places, the power difference is an inhibitor to any genuine dialogue. So, where is dialogue taking place? Among those, such as Hobson, who advocate a hybrid approach that takes other knowledge traditions seriously and sees them as equally valid as one's own. And mostly on the margins of what we call 'IR', where some very exciting work is being produced. Feminism is one such site. Feminist approaches are dedicated to dialogic knowledge production, or what they call knowledge that emerges through conversation. Feminists believe that theory can emerge from practice, listening to ordinary people and how they make sense of their lives. I also think that projects like the one undertaken by Wæver and Tickner (which is still ongoing) that is publishing contributions from scholars from very different parts of the world is crucial.
J. Ann Tickner is Distinguished Scholar in Residence at the American University. She is also a Professor Emerita at the University of Southern California where she taught for fifteen years before coming to American University. Her principle areas of teaching and research include international theory, peace and security, and feminist approaches to international relations. She served as President of the International Studies Association from 2006-2007. Her books include Gendering World Politics: Issues and Approaches in the Post-Cold War Era (Columbia University Press, 2001), Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving International Security (Columbia University Press, 1992), and Self-Reliance Versus Power Politics: American and Indian Experiences in Building Nation-States (Columbia University Press, 1987).
Related links
Faculty Profile at American University Read Tickner's Hans Morgenthau's Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformulation (Millennium, 1988) here (pdf) Read Tickner's You Just Don't Understand: Troubled Engagements between Feminists and IR Theorists (1997 International Studies Quarterly) here (pdf) Read Tickner's What Is Your Research Program? Some Feminist Answers to International Relations Methodological Questions (2005, International Studies Quarterly) here (pdf)
El objetivo de la investigación es comprender el acceso a espacios políticos de las mujeres indígenas, mediante la historia oral de la primera mujer agente municipal de la Región Triqui Alta, Oaxaca, México. Se traen como referencia teórica los conceptos de poder, comunalidad y resistencias, así mismo posicionamos la crítica desde una lectura del feminismo comunitario, que reconoce los procesos por los cuales las mujeres indígenas resisten las múltiples opresiones derivadas de diversas intersecciones como clase, etnia y género. El diseño de la investigación es exploratorio-descriptivo, utilizando un enfoque cualitativo basado en el método de casos que recupera la historia Oral de la primera mujer agente municipal de la región Triqui Alta en Oaxaca México. Una de las características de las comunidades indígenas es que rigen por el sistemas de usos y costumbres en donde la asamblea es el máximo órgano para la toma de decisiones y, fue en 1992 que se decidió que fuera Marcelina la primera mujer Agente Municipal de Santa Cruz Progreso, uno de los catorce pueblos que pertenecen a la Región de San Andrés Chicahuaxtla. Para Marcelina, estar en un espacio de poder desarrollando roles asignados culturalmente a hombres, negociando con toda la comunidad y realizando gestiones sociales para el bien común, ha sido un proceso difícil pero que a su vez deja claro la capacidad de mujeres de ocupar estos puestos que les han sido negados por mucho tiempo. The objective of the research is to understand the access to political spaces of indigenous women, through the oral history of the first female municipal agent of the Triqui Alta Region, Oaxaca, Mexico. The concepts of power, communality and resistance are brought as a theoretical reference, likewise we position the criticism from a reading of community feminism, which recognizes the processes by which indigenous women resist the multiple oppressions derived from various intersections such as class, ethnicity and gender. . The research design is exploratory-descriptive, using a qualitative approach based on the case method that recovers the Oral history of the first female municipal agent of the Triqui Alta region in Oaxaca, Mexico. One of the characteristics of indigenous communities is that they govern by the system of uses and customs where the assembly is the highest decision-making body and, it was in 1992 that it was decided that Marcelina would be the first woman Municipal Agent of Santa Cruz Progreso, one of the fourteen towns that belong to the San Andrés Chicahuaxtla Region. For Marcelina, being in a space of power developing roles assigned culturally to men, negotiating with the entire community and carrying out social efforts for the common good, has been a difficult process but which in turn makes clear the ability of women to occupy these positions that have been denied them for a long time.
The aim of this article is contributing to a great variety of theoretical perspectives and empirical settings to generate cumulative evidence about the influence of historical legacies and organizational ability for managing the past. In a continuation of critical perspectives that challenges the dominance of Anglo-Saxon onto-epistemologies in management and organization studies (MOS), we conducted an empirical study on a multinational airline company whose past successes depended on the North/South, Anglo/Latin American borderlands. We analyzed the grand narratives of Pan American Airways' (PAA) corporate archival material to determine its dominant discourses about people from Latin America. Based on the three themes of politics, economics, and culture, we present three grand narratives, or official stories, that we argue summaries PAA storytelling about Latin America between 1927 and 1960. Following decolonial feminism, we aim to recontextualize the past and the hegemonic storytelling embedded in PAA's grand narratives. ; El objetivo de este artículo es contribuir a una gran variedad de perspectivas teóricas y escenarios empíricos para generar evidencia acumulada sobre la influencia de los legados históricos y la capacidad organizativa para gestionar el pasado. Continuando con la perspectiva crítica que desafía el dominio de las epistemologías anglosajonas en los estudios de gestión y organizaciones, realizamos un estudio empírico sobre una aerolínea multinacional cuyos éxitos pasados dependieron de las fronteras Norte/Sur; anglo-latinoamericanas. Analizamos las grandes narrativas del material de archivo corporativo de Pan American Airways (PAA) para establecer discursos dominantes sobre las personas de América Latina. Sobre la base de tres temas: política, economía y cultura, desarrollamos tres grandes narrativas o historias oficiales que argumentamos son un resumen de la narrativa de PAA sobre América Latina entre 1927 y 1960. Utilizando el marco teórico del feminismo decolonial, nuestro objetivo es recontextualizar el pasado y la narración hegemónica incrustada en las grandes narrativas de PAA. ; O objetivo deste artigo é contribuir para uma grande variedade de perspectivas teóricas e configurações empíricas para gerar evidências cumulativas sobre a influência de legados históricos e capacidade organizacional para gerenciar o passado. Continuando com a perspectiva crítica que desafia o domínio das epistemologias anglo-saxônicas nos estudos de gestão e organização, realizamos um estudo empírico sobre uma companhia aérea multinacional cujos sucessos passados dependiam das fronteiras norte/sul anglo-latino-americanas. Analisamos as grandes narrativas da Pan American Airways (PAA) a partir dos arquivos corporativos da empresa a fim de determinar quais os discursos dominantes acerca daspessoas da América Latina. Com base nos temas: política, economia e cultura, apresentamos três grandes narrativas, ou histórias oficiais, que sumariam os discursos da PAA acerca da América Latina entre 1927 e 1960. A partir do feminismo decolonial, buscamos recontextualizar o passado e o discurso hegemônico incorporado nas grandes narrativas do PAA.
Digital Humanities projects such as Documenting the Now and Chicana por mi Raza have demonstrated the importance of preserving and documenting social movements in the United States. Due to recent feminist protests in Mexico and Latin America, it is important to think about models to intervene in power structures that construct and document history through racist and misogynic attitudes reflected in archives, monuments and policies. Huellas Incómodas (Uncomfortable Footprints) seeks to document, contextualize, and digitally preserve the traces of local social protest movements, and to explore related issues such as privacy, ephemerality, and transnational and local community partnerships. In its first phase, launched during the COVID-19 pandemic, it worked toward pedagogies and research to create digital resources, preservation methods and a non-hierarchical learn-by-doing participatory model to preserve physical and digital activism of the 2019-20 student-feminist movement at Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México. As Roopika Risam writes, there is a "confluence of digital humanities and postcolonial studies [.] great potential for engaging students in interpreting the politics that shape knowledge production and teaching them how to become critical producers who are prepared to engage in the task of intervening in the digital cultural record" (89). This panel of 90 minutes (10 minutes each panelist and 30 minutes of discussion), in English and Spanish, features presentations from several team members (students, librarians and professors) discussing the process of creating this project. The panel will open by explaining the origins of the project, and discussing the opportunities, challenges and practical arrangements in making this grassroots transnational collective happen. Secondly, it will go over the various processes of collecting data to document the movement, including (1) creating a collective repository to invite students and members of the movement to submit images, videos or stories; and, (2) identifying and extracting shared information that students and organizations shared through social media. The third panelist will discuss how the digital resources (timelines, maps and juxtapositions) created during these months allowed the team to keep a record of the media coverage and ephemeral material in public spaces that the movement produced from 2020 to 2021. The fourth presenter will touch on two processes of how systematic searches were carried out, first showing there is no prior work that covers the particular subject that the project is analyzing; and, second, delimiting the thematic field within studies on social movements, feminism and graffiti as an act of political resistance. The last two panelists will highlight the role librarians and digital humanists in the US have played when working with colleagues in Mexico and Ecuador in a project that shows the potential that digital humanities and postcolonial praxis have. The presentation will discuss the inclusive pedagogy and research methods implemented under COVID-19 to ethically create a transnational project, centered in student participation to prevent the risk of a student-feminist movement in Mexico in the 21st century of disappearing from the collective memory.
In this article we propose to reflect on the possible links between aesthetics and politics, based on an analysis of the social protests of the feminist movement in the city of Rosario and the different appearance policies that are configured there. To do so, we will analyze the expressive resources that make up social protests as aesthetic practices, as actions that are reiterated and updated and as devices that carry a certain social knowledge that is transferred. We will dwell, specifically, on the green scarf as an aesthetic resource with centrality within the toolkit of feminisms. First, we briefly reconstruct the trajectory of the scarf as a political aesthetic resource on which different traditions of struggle have tested their street activism. Then, we focus on the modulations of the green scarf and establish the links that allow us to understand its itinerary, its use, its expressive capacity and the constitution of a territory of common understanding within the feminist movement. ; En este artículo nos proponemos reflexionar acerca de las posibles vinculaciones entre estética y política, a partir de analizar las protestas sociales del movimiento feminista en la ciudad de Rosario y las distintas políticas de aparición que allí se configuran. Para ello, nos propondremos analizar los recursos expresivos que conforman las protestas sociales como prácticas estéticas, como acciones que se reiteran y se actualizan y como dispositivos que cargan un determinado saber social que se transfiere. Nos detendremos, específicamente, en el pañuelo verde como un recurso estético con centralidad dentro del herramental de los feminismos. En primera medida, reconstruimos brevemente la trayectoria de los pañuelos como recurso estético político sobre el cual distintas tradiciones de lucha han ensayado su activismo callejero. Seguidamente, centramos la mirada en las modulaciones del pañuelo verde y en establecer los encadenamientos que permiten comprender su itinerario, su uso, su capacidad expresiva y la constitución de un territorio de entendimiento común dentro del movimiento feminista. ; Neste artigo propomos reflectir sobre as possíveis ligações entre estética e política, a partir da análise dos protestos sociais do movimento feminista na cidade de Rosário e as diferentes políticas de aparência que aí se configuram. Para tal, analisaremos os recursos expressivos que compõem os protestos sociais como práticas estéticas, como acções que são reiteradas e actualizadas e como dispositivos que transportam um certo conhecimento social que é transferido. Centrar-nos-emos, especificamente, no lenço verde como um recurso estético com centralidade dentro do conjunto de ferramentas dos feminismos. Primeiro, reconstruímos brevemente a trajectória do lenço como um recurso estético político sobre o qual diferentes tradições de luta testaram o seu activismo de rua. Depois, concentramo-nos nas modulações do lenço verde e estabelecemos as ligações que nos permitem compreender o seu itinerário, a sua utilização, a sua capacidade expressiva e a constituição de um território de entendimento comum no seio do movimento feminista.
This research focuses on the study of discursive emotionality in the institutional sphere from a gender perspective. The analysis of emotions in politics is of particular interest in the current context of growing feminisation of public-political spaces. This study is thus based on the need to delve deeper into those factors and strategies of political communication that can drive a discursive transformation and, therefore, a social and democratic evolution (Arias Maldonado, 2016). This approach to the problem takes into account the influence of the affective turn that has led feminism to theorise emotions in order to generate knowledge and transform society from a political perspective. Specifically, the article examines the new role of emotions in the public sphere, from an approach centred on a case study of people elected to the legislative bodies of the Basque Autonomous Community (BAC), i.e. Provincial Councils and Parliament. The empirical study draws a line that relates two elements traditionally ignored in the public-political space: women and emotions or personal feelings. This analysis uses the digital survey as a research technique. The results allow us to observe the significant differences between elected women and elected men in relation to the manifestation of their emotions, as well as to investigate the motives and causes that lead both genders to exclude emotions in their speeches. ; Esta investigación se centra en el estudio de la emotividad discursiva en el ámbito institucional desde la perspectiva de género. El análisis de los afectos en política reviste un especial interés en el contexto actual de creciente feminización de los espacios público-políticos. Este estudio parte así de la necesidad de profundizar en aquellos factores y estrategias de la Comunicación Política que pueden impulsar una transformación discursiva y, por ende, una evolución social y democrática (Arias Maldonado, 2016). Esta aproximación al problema tiene en cuenta la influencia del giro afectivo que ha llevado al feminismo a teorizar las emociones para generar conocimiento y transformar la sociedad desde lo político. Específicamente, el artículo examina el nuevo papel de las emociones en la esfera pública desde una aproximación centrada en un estudio de caso sobre las personas electas en los órganos legislativos de la Comunidad Autónoma Vasca (CAV), es decir, Diputaciones forales y Parlamento. El estudio empírico traza una línea que relaciona dos elementos ignorados tradicionalmente en el espacio público-político: las mujeres y las emociones o los sentimientos personales. Este análisis utiliza la encuesta digital como técnica de investigación. Los resultados permiten observar las diferencias significativas entre mujeres electas y hombres electos en relación a la manifestación de sus emociones, así como indagar acerca de los motivos y causas que llevan a ambos géneros a excluir las emociones en sus discursos.
Whereas there is a "politically correct" discourse that recognizes equal rights between men and women, and there have been advances in the legislation of different countries, there are sectors in our society that have reviled and discredited the fact of being a feminist and that have attacked some of the main principles of the movement, such as gender violence, or the defense of policies that promote substantive equality between men and women. The objective of this work is to analyze this type of demonstration against the feminist agenda as an ultra-conservative movement, with a specific logic and form of action. Based on the concept of reaction by Susan Faludi and the proposals for the analysis of counter movements by Meyer and Staggenborg, and Dillard, we analyze the mechanisms with which conservative groups are articulating a discourse that directly questions the demands of feminism. We start from the Agenda Europe document, where a line of action is established, and review the case of VOX in Spain. We use the technique of discourse analysis, to study how it has been articulated from the party (with the leading role of one of its most emblematic representatives, Rocío Monasterio, president of VOX Madrid), and to exemplify the strategies adopted and the way in which a counter-movement has been formed, with an anti-feminist agenda, which has managed to penetrate important sectors of Spanish society. ; En contraste con un discurso "políticamente correcto" que reconoce la igualdad de derechos entre hombres y mujeres, y con los avances logrados en la legislación de los diferentes países, hay sectores en nuestra sociedad que han denostado y desprestigiado el hecho de ser feminista y que han atacado algunas de las principales banderas del movimiento, como es el caso de la violencia de género o la defensa de políticas que promuevan una igualdad sustantiva entre hombres y mujeres. El objetivo de este trabajo es analizar este tipo de manifestaciones en contra de la agenda feminista como un movimiento de carácter neoconservador, con una lógica y una forma de actuación específica. A partir del concepto de reacción de Susan Faludi y de las propuestas de análisis de los contramovimientos de Meyer y Staggenborg, y Dillard, se analizan los mecanismos con los que las corrientes conservadoras están construyendo un discurso que cuestiona de manera directa las demandas del feminismo. Para ello se parte de la propuesta de acción planteada en el Manifiesto del grupo Agenda Europa y se examina el caso de VOX en España. Se hace un análisis del discurso que se ha articulado desde el partido (con el protagonismo de una de sus representantes más emblemáticas, Rocío Monasterio, presidenta de Vox Madrid), para ejemplificar las estrategias adoptadas y la manera en que se ha conformado un contramovimiento, con una agenda antifeminista, que ha logrado calar en sectores importantes de la sociedad española.
The rise and revival of far-right political groups in Spain has resulted in an increase in hate speech against, and hateful portrayal of, both feminism and the LGTBIQ+ community (Kimmel, 2019; Halberstam, 2018). Hegemonic and non-hegemonic discourses are waging a war for representation (Hall, 1997), from which minority groups have been excluded, resulting in their continuing discrimination. The democratization of social media has allowed for a critical space whence non-hegemonic publics are now able to subvert dominant discourses and generate new symbolic images by means of appropriationism and cultural sabotage (Morduchowicz, 2012; Harold, 2004). This is the case with 'Gaysper', a ghost icon dressed in the rainbow colors of the LGTBIQ+ pride flag, which the far-right Spanish party Vox wielded as an online meme to deride that community and portray it as a national enemy. This research has drawn on a critical analysis of this particular case of study and two focus groups made up by participants in an online debate. This article reflects critically on appropriationism and the use of humor as subversive tools for deactivating homophobic and sexist atacks by today's rising far right. 'Gaysper' exemplifies how social media currently make for an outstanding scenario for the construction of political identities, and what a long way the creative power of the LGTBIQ+ movement has come to transform something born out of homophobic and sexist violence into a call for hope and pride. ; El auge y resurgimiento de grupos extremistas conservadores en el Estado español ha venido acompañado de un incremento de imágenes y mensajes de odio contra el feminismo y el colectivo LGTBIQ+ (Kimmel, 2019; Halberstam, 2018). Los discursos hegemónicos y no hegemónicos se encuentran en una batalla por la representación (Hall, 1997) de la que los grupos minoritarios han quedado excluidos y discriminados. La democratización que han supuesto las redes sociales ha generado un espacio crítico desde el que los públicos no hegemónicos pueden subvertir los discursos dominantes y generar nuevas imágenes simbólicas a partir de la apropiación y el sabotaje cultural (Morduchowicz, 2012; Harold, 2004). Este fue el caso de "Gaysper", un fantasma con la bandera del orgullo LGTBIQ+, que el partido político Vox empleó en un meme de internet para representar al colectivo como uno de los enemigos nacionales. Esta investigación se ha realizado a partir de un análisis crítico del caso de estudio mencionado así como la constitución de dos grupos de discusión con participantes del debate online. El artículo supone una reflexión crítica sobre el apropiacionismo y el uso del humor como herramientas subversivas de desactivación a los ataques homófobos y sexistas de las nuevas olas conservadoras. "Gaysper" ejemplifica la consolidación de las redes sociales como escenario excepcional para la construcción de identidades políticas, y un símbolo del poder creativo del colectivo LGTBIQ+ para convertir en orgullo y esperanza, lo que surgió desde la violencia homófoba y sexista.
Street art is an artistic activity focused on the graphic intervention of the urban infrastructure of cities by transfiguring physical structures into expressive supports to show different ideas of a social, cultural or political nature. Sociopolitical interests turn street art into a contextual movement, since the participants are concerned about the problems of cities. This is the case of the Seed Woman collective in the town of Aguascalientes, who cares about the situations that women live in the hydro-warm society. The interest is materialized in the elaboration of pieces of paste up when representing the experiences that they have lived in the locality. The activities of Woman Seed were analyzed under the theoretical postulates of Judith Butler (2007) proposed within the book: The gender in dispute. Feminism and the subversion of identity. The author raises the possibility of constructing gender identity voluntarily through the repetition of acts. It is precisely the identity diversity that was observed in the paste-up pieces of the collective due to the search to graphically present options of women's identities on the infrastructure of the city, but, aimed at the hydro-warm society. It is concluded that the participation of Mujer Semilla is a symbolic act that aims to change people's frames of reference by showing them bodily identities, phrases and feelings associated with the daily life of women ; El street art es una actividad artística centrada en la intervención gráfica de la infraestructura urbana de las ciudades al transfigurar a las estructuras físicas en soportes expresivos para mostrar diferentes ideas de índole social, cultural o político. Los intereses sociopolíticos convierten al street art en un movimiento contextual, ya que las y los participantes se preocupan por las problemáticas de las urbes. Es el caso de la colectiva Mujer Semilla de la localidad de Aguascalientes a quien le importa las situaciones que viven las mujeres en la sociedad hidrocálida. El interés se ve materializado en la elaboración de piezas de paste up al representar las experiencias que han vivido en la localidad. Las actividades de Mujer Semilla se analizaron bajo los postulados teóricos de Judith Butler (2007) propuestos dentro del libro: El género en disputa. El feminismo y la subversión de la identidad. La autora plantea la posibilidad de construir la identidad de género de manera voluntaria mediante la repetición de actos. Es precisamente la diversidad identitaria lo que se observó en las piezas de paste up de la colectiva debido a la búsqueda por presentar gráficamente opciones de identidades de mujeres sobre la infraestructura de la ciudad, pero dirigidas a la sociedad hidrocálida. Se concluye que la participación de Mujer Semilla es un acto simbólico que pretende cambiar los marcos de referencia de las personas al mostrarles identidades corporales, frases y sentimientos asociados a la cotidianidad de las mujeres
In the United States feminism did not originate from the women that were more directly victims of the sexist oppression; mentally, physically and spiritually beaten daily; women without the necessary strength to change their life conditions" (Hooks, 2004, p.33). Feminist activists were white and wealthy class even as black women were a silent majority. Although many women were part of Black Power, the movement was defined and assembled in the media, the pop culture and the arts by men. These groups maintained a patriarchal organization; structures constituted by male leadership. They "realized of the nature of the male domination when participating in anti-classist and anti-racist spaces with men who spoke to the world about the importance of freedom despite subordinating the women among their own ranks" (Hooks, 2017, p.22). There was neither a place destined for black women amongst white feminists nor the Black Power of men. ; En Estados Unidos el feminismo no surgió de las mujeres que de forma más directa eran víctimas de la opresión sexista; mujeres golpeadas a diario, mental, física y espiritualmente; mujeres sin la fuerza necesaria para cambiar sus condiciones de vida" (Hooks, 2004, p.33). Las activistas feministas eran blancas y burguesas, mientras que las mujeres negras eran una mayoría silenciosa. Si bien muchas mujeres participaron del Black Power, el movimiento era definido y articulado en los medios, la cultura popular y las artes por hombres. Los grupos mantenían una organización patriarcal, estructuras caracterizadas por el liderazgo masculino. Ellas "tomaron conciencia de la naturaleza de la dominación masculina cuando militaban en espacios anticlasistas y antirracistas con hombres que hablaban al mundo sobre la importancia de la libertad mientras subordinaban a las mujeres en sus filas" (Hooks, 2017, p.22). Había un no lugar destinado para las mujeres negras entre las feministas blancas y el Black Power de los hombres. ; Nos Estados Unidos, o feminismo não emergiu de mulheres que foram mais diretamente vítimas da opressão sexista; mulheres espancadas diariamente, mentalmente, fisicamente e espiritualmente; mulheres sem a força necessária para mudar suas condições de vida" (Hooks, 2004, p.33). As ativistas feministas eram brancas e burguesas, enquanto as mulheres negras eram uma maioria silenciosa. Embora muitas mulheres participassem do Poder Negro, o movimento foi definido e articulado na mídia, na cultura popular e nas artes pelos homens. Os grupos mantinham uma organização patriarcal, estruturas caracterizadas pela liderança masculina. Eles "tomaram consciência da natureza da dominação masculina quando militaram em espaços anti-classe e anti-racistas com homens que falaram ao mundo sobre a importância da liberdade enquanto subordinavam as mulheres em suas fileiras (Hooks, 2017, p.22). Não havia lugar para mulheres negras entre feministas brancas e Black Power masculino.
This paper aims to carry out a critical analysis of the multimodal discourse of 11 texts collected from the socio-semiotic landscape in Santiago that refer to sound in the context of the Chilean social outbreak. To do this, we use a three-level dynamic model of analysis that includes the multimodal sound text, the sociosemiotic urban landscape and the socio-political and cultural context of the Chilean "social outbreak", approached from Critical Multimodal Discourse Studies (CMDS). The results indicate that the sound inscribed -shout, voice and noise, is intended as threat and resistance against the government, its institutions and the neoliberal model. Silence, on the contrary, alludes to the complicity with state policies or to the fear of repression. In addition, the sound is presented to highlight the specific demands of movements such as feminism, and the processes of cultural resistance and political-identity revitalization of the Mapuche people. ; Este artículo tiene por objetivo realizar un análisis crítico del discurso multimodal de 11 textos que conforman el paisaje sociosemiótico de Santiago y que hacen referencia al sonido en el contexto del estallido social chileno. Para ello, utilizamos un modelo dinámico de tres niveles de análisis que abarca el texto multimodal sonoro, el paisaje sociosemiótico urbano y el contexto sociopolítico y cultural del "estallido social", abordado desde los Estudios Críticos del Discurso Multimodal (ECDM). Los resultados indican que el sonido -grito, voz y ruido, es inscrito con una intencionalidad de amenaza y de resistencia en contra del gobierno, de sus instituciones y del modelo neoliberal. El silencio, al contrario, alude a la complicidad con las políticas estatales o es producido debido al miedo a enfrentarse a la represión. Además, el sonido representado visibiliza las demandas específicas de movimientos como el feminismo y los procesos de resistencia cultural y revitalización político-identitaria del pueblo mapuche. ; Este artigo tem como objetivo realizar a análise crítica do discurso multimodal de 11 textos que conformam a paisagem socio-semiótica de Santiago e que fazem referência ao som no contexto da explosão social no Chile. Para isso, utilizaremos um modelo dinâmico de três níveis de análise que abrange o texto multimodal sonoro, a paisagem socio-semiótica urbana e o contexto sociopolítico e cultural da "explosão social", abordada desde os Estudos Críticos do Discurso Multimodal (ECDM). Os resultados indicam que o som, onde se inclui o grito, a voz e o barulho, é inscrito com uma intencionalidade de ameaça e de resistência contrárias ao governo, às suas instituições e ao modelo neoliberal. O silêncio, pelo contrário, alude à cumplicidade com as políticas estaduais ou é produzido devido ao medo a se enfrentar à repressão. Além disso, o som é representado para visibilizar as demandas específicas de movimentos como o feminismo e nos processos de resistência cultural e revitalização político-identitária do povo mapuche.
This work aims to problematize the construction of feminist genealogies from the South, based on the postulation –following Benjamin- that there is a secret key connecting emancipatory attempts from the past to those in the present. The relationship between past and present is an arena of struggle where selective traditions have been built in order to expel subalternized subjects. Due to its historical and political significance, the paper focuses on a momentous period of this struggle: the cycle of revolts and revolutions that gave way to the breakdown of classic colonial ties. National histories have erased rule-breaking and defiant women, including those of them who were racialized but also those who were considered enlightened, since their accounts are intruded by the hindrances of androcentric, classist, racist and Eurocentric views. Besides dwelling on the meanings of emancipation, this work seeks to uncover the complexities and tensions of our genealogies as feminists from the South, based on the revision of historical documents relating to Hispanic America's independence and its national histories, as well on a theoretical reflection on the notions of emancipation, temporality, and feminism(s). The unfinished past, fraught with revolutionary promises, stands as witness of our ephemeral victories and our defeats, and it counters –both as interruption and warning- the continuous past of the dominant class, articulated as masculine, bourgeois and white. ; El trabajo apuesta a complejizar la construcción de genealogías feministas desde el sur a partir de una reflexión que parte del supuesto de que, por decirlo a la manera de Benjamin, una secreta clave liga las tentativas emancipatorias del pasado y las del presente. La relación entre pasado y presente es un territorio de combate en el cual se han construido tradiciones selectivas que buscan expulsar a los/las sujetos subalternizados. Debido a su significado histórico y político uno de los momentos privilegiados, una suerte de puerta de entrada a esta reflexión, es el ciclo de revueltas y revoluciones que culminó con la ruptura del lazo colonial clásico. Las historias patrias han borrado a las mujeres transgresoras e insumisas, a las racializadas e incluso a las ilustradas, pues sus relatos están cruzados por los obstáculos del androcentrismo y la mirada clasista, del racismo y el eurocentrismo. Este trabajo busca no solo reflexionar sobre los sentidos de la emancipación, sino recuperar las complejidades y tensiones de nuestras genealogías como feministas del sur a partir de la revisión de documentos históricos de la independencia hispanoamericana y de las historias patrias, así como también a partir de una reflexión teórica sobre las nociones de emancipación, temporalidad, feminismo(s). El pasado inconcluso y preñado de promesas de las revoluciones se erige como testigo de nuestras efímeras victorias y nuestras derrotas y se contrapone, a la manera de interrupción y advertencia, al pasado continuo de la clase dominante que se conjuga en masculino, blanco y burgués.
