Book ReviewWealth of Selves: Multiple Identities, Mestiza Consciousness, and the Subject of Politics. By Edwina  Barvosa. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2008.Identity before Identity Politics. By Linda  Nicholson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.After Identity: Rethinking Race, Sex, and Gender. By Georgia  Warnke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Signs ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 1019-1022
Author(s):  
Linda Martín Alcoff
Author(s):  
Anna Marie Smith

A chapter addressing the formation of the subject, and the rejection of the assumption that gender and sex are simply given, in various feminist theory paradigms. The project of advancing gender justice requires close attention to the ways in which categories of biological sex and gender, in intersectional relations with race, ethnicity, nationality, class and so on, are historically constructed and deployed to bring subjects into being, even as these same categories are resisted and re-negotiated at the same time in an always agonistic field of social relations. Special reference is made to three pairs of theoretical paradigms and practitioners: liberal feminism and Nancy J. Hirschmann; antiracist socialist feminism and Angela Davis; Derridean-Foucauldian theory and Judith Butler.


2006 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Brandy

Kønsbegrebet i sportsforskningen er hovedfokuset i denne artikel, som tager et særligt internationalt islæt i form af inddragelsen af nordamerikansk og britisk kønsforskning. Afslutningsvis kommer artiklen med bud på yderligere forskning inden for køn og sport. Susan J. Bandy: Gender and Sports Studies: A Historical PerspectiveIn the late 1970s, the concept of ‘gender’ was introduced into the discourse in sports studies and soon thereafter a number of interrelated forces converged to further promote its use by scholars in the discipline. It is argued that the incorporation of ‘gender’ into the discourse contributed to the academic development of knowledge in sports studies, and further that the concept of ‘gender’ changed over time, as did knowledge and methodological approaches in sports studies. The focus of this essay is principally on scholarship in North America and Great Britain because this scholarship includes the largest volume, the most varied examples and interpretation of the subject, and the fullest elaboration of the theoretical debates concerning gender and sport. It is argued that much of the research concerning gender and sport has been done in the context of three conceptual or theoretical frameworks that have been used by many feminists in the past twenty years, especially sports sociologists and sports historians. ‘Gender’ was first embraced following the distinctions made between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’. With an emphasis upon the academic and theoretical development of sports studies, sports philosophers and sports psychologists became interested in the study of the female athlete, as different from her male counterpart. Soon thereafter sports sociologists and sport historians argued that ‘gender’ should be understood in relational terms, and they began to critique sport and culture using interdisciplinary perspectives and adopting theories from a variety of disciplines, including women’s studies. More recently, interdisciplinary perspectives have given way to transdisciplinary perspectives, and ‘gender’ has been reconceived as a fluid concept and in interrelational terms with other concepts such as space, power, representation, narrativity, and language as these pertain to sport. The paper raises questions about the relative absence of the concept of ‘gender’ in some of the sub-disciplines, most notably exercise physiology and biomechanics, and the importance of new understandings of gender for the further development of theories, concepts, paradigms, and research methodologies in sports studies.


Author(s):  
Joanna Wróblewska-Skrzek

AbstractIt is not the main intention of this paper to prove that people are unfaithful, neither does it present the scale of the phenomenon, as it is hard, for objective reasons, to obtain reliable data on the subject. The text analyses the motives for, and consequences of infidelity from two different perspectives: sociobiology and the sociology of emotions, while gender constitutes the axis of analysis. Regardless of whether we will explain infidelity as motivated by human nature, drives, desires and genes, or treat it as a social construct, the argumentation for infidelity remains different for men and for women. What is more, both subdisciplines bring into light different consequences of infidelity for representatives of either sex.


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 226-247
Author(s):  
Lucy Nicholas

This article returns to Simone de Beauvoir’s philosophical oeuvre in order to offer a way of thinking beyond contemporary feminist divisions created by ‘gender critical’ or trans-exclusionary feminists. The ‘gender critical’ feminist position returns to sex essentialism to argue for ‘abolishing’ gender, while opponents often appeal to proliferated gender self-identities. I argue that neither goes far enough and that they both circumscribe utopian visions for a world beyond both sex and gender. I chart how Beauvoir’s ontological, ethical and political positions can be used to overcome the material/cultural, sex/gender bind that the contemporary divide perpetuates. I outline Beauvoir’s ‘ambiguous’ non-foundational ontology that attends to both the cultural origins, and material effects, of both sex and gender, and to the extent that humyns are fundamentally social. After outlining Beauvoir’s definition of freedom as purposive action, I then outline how the existence of the humyn-made and intersubjectively-upheld ‘situations’ of both sex and gender delimit this, urging feminists to return to the lost question of eradicating both. I use the utopian impulse in Beauvoir to argue that an ethics of reciprocity is an alternative mode of understanding the self and others. Beauvoir also calls for a political strategy that I call a ‘utopian realism’ that I apply to the contemporary divide. A way forward that is attentive to the concerns of both positions is the pragmatic use of identity politics that is nonetheless mindful of identity’s limits, alongside Beauvoir’s proto-intersectional vision of solidarity politics based not on identity but on a position of alterity and shared political strategy. Ultimately, I use this to argue that feminism would do better to unite around a shared commitment to challenging alterity, rather than further contributing to it.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document