Week 8: Gender and the Politics of History

Chapter 9: American Women Historians, 1884-1984 (p. 178-199)

Summary:

Scott introduces this chapter by stating that in terms of recorded history, the universal man is a white male and all others (women and people of different ethnicities) were marginalized. Her focus in this essay is the difference of gender, or sexual difference in history and she examines women historians.

This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section focuses on the American Historical Association (hereafter, the AHA). This organization was founded in 1884 and women were allowed to become members. However, upon entry they were still discriminated against and it is thought that their inclusion was only implemented to get away from history presented from an antiquarianism perspective. The AHA wanted to change the way that history was taught and since many women were professors, it was seen as important to include them. Even though women were included, they were treated as the same category as Man, but they were “always different from and subordinate” to Man (p. 183). Also, it was ignored that the leaders of the AHA were white men, thus limiting the historical perspective. Scott points out one important moment in the history of the AHA. In 1943 a woman became the president of the organization. Conversely, there was not much development in the AHA for women’s rights and another woman was not elected president until 1987.

Section two introduces strategies used by women to fight discrimination in the AHA. First, women could accept the limitations and operate around them within the organization. Second, they could explain discrimination as individual cases of misogyny. Finally, one could recognize gender differences and try to give women a position equal to or greater than men’s position. Lucy Salmon believed that women should be included “in the universal idea of humanity” and be treated equally (p. 187). Salmon worked for the equality of women in the field of history by recruiting more women members to the AHA and by encouraging women to become historians. However, her work was often brushed over in history and women were still depicted as invisible players despite her efforts and talent. Overall, this section highlights that women were still ignored historically and the idea of the Universal (white) Man continued in the depiction of history.

The final section focuses on efforts to include women in history. A new group was formed called the Committee on Women Historians (CWH). During the 1970s within the AHA women were now included more in certain committees and councils, thus giving them a chance to change and create policies. The problem was the idea of difference. Women could accept and celebrate the difference of gender or work to create a new identity that still suggested difference. This led to women’s history being included within the larger discipline of history, but as a subcategory. It wasn’t really integrated into history; it was still treated as something separate and different. Scott suggests: “The way out of the equality-difference dilemma seems to me to lie in another direction, one that critically analyzes the categories we most often take for granted: history, women, men, equality, difference, the terms of political theory itself” (p. 196). She believes that women cannot truly be included in history until it is accepted that the recorded history of the past was based on the white male as a universal symbol and the exclusion of all others.

Reaction:


I thought that it was interesting to examine the roots of recorded history in academia. The AHA seems like a pivotal group in analyzing the invisibility of women throughout recorded history. I was also not surprised that Women’s History was seen as a sub-discipline of history. It makes me think of the discipline of Women’s Studies as a distinct subject even though it is quite possible to include feminist theory within many other disciplines. It feels like even though women are looking for equality, what we get is another way to highlight that we are different and require separate disciplines within academia.


Chapter 10: Some More Reflections on Gender and Politics (p. 199-222)

Summary:


Scott begins this chapter by stating that it would be impossible to summarize all of the issues of gender and politics. She chooses instead to analyze four assumptions that have been used most within this book. Scott begins with: “The Sex/Gender Distinction: ‘Useful in Principle, but by No Means Widely Observed’” (p. 199). The title of this subsection refers to the idea that “sex” and “gender” are often used interchangeably by the mass culture. She also notes that sex versus gender can be reduced to nature versus culture. Both rely on the notion of difference and gender is, therefore, based on sex. Scott believes that in order for sex and gender to be removed from the economic and the political domains we must get rid of the ideas called to mind when we hear “men” and “women.” We must also accept that these terms refer to established ideals that are culturally based and that social roles only highlight the difference between men and women.

The next section, titled: “Gender and Politics: Formations of Fantasy” (p. 207), introduces the idea that even though there have been developments throughout history and a Renaissance in the 16th century, women did not benefit from any of this. Also, Scott states: “The political empowerment of men does not rest on claims to superior experience…skill or qualifications…but rather on sexual difference” (p. 210). Basically, the author suggests that women’s presence in history has been a fantasy, they did not benefit from revolutions and change in the same way that men did.

“Does the Presence of Women Always Call for Gender Analysis?” (p. 211) focuses on the distinctions made between men and women within societies. Scott opines: “The point is that the physical presence of females is not always a sure sign that ‘women’ are a separate political category, that they have been mobilized as women” (p. 212). Even though women have been present throughout history, it does not mean that they were aware of the rights they deserved or worked collectively for equality.

The final subsection, “The Subject of Rights” (p. 214), focuses on the idea that universal rights due to men and women suggest a perfect society where everyone is equal. However, this is another “fantasy.” Scott also believes that the term “Universal” is strictly a western term and can only be applied in this type of society. Equality is the basis for many societies, but since it has never been fully achieved it is part of an ideal that does not exist in practice.


Reaction:


This chapter was very dense and presented a lot of complicated topics quickly. I found it hard to follow, but I understand why it would be a good concluding chapter if you had read the entire book. She provided examples for each subsection, but I feel like these topics were so large that they were covered quickly to conserve space. She even began the chapter by stating that you could not analyze the entire situation of politics and gender, so she chose four themes to examine. I feel like I understand these topics in a very broad sense, but it was not helpful in clarifying their meanings for me.