Chapter 3: “Of Balkans and Banustans: Ethnic Cleansing and the Crisis in National Legitimation” by Rob Nixon
Summary:
This chapter is mainly concerned with comparing the ethnic cleansing of the Balkans (in the Serbia region of southeast Europe) and the Banustans (in southwest Africa, now Namibia). Nixon introduces this chapter by stating that ethnic nationalism and more new states have arisen in Europe and Eurasia since the end of WWII (“boundaries appear to be more elastic”) (p. 69). Imperial collapse has led to instability within nations, which has in turn led to the importance of ethnicities. Nixon states: “The project of ‘cleansing’ such places may be vindicated by the contention, among others, that ‘improving’ a community’s ethnic consistency requires short-term violence for ends of long-term peace” (p. 70-71).
As stated, the focus of this chapter is to compare and contrast the ethnic cleansing of the Balkans and the Banustans and I have chosen a few examples from the chapter to present. After the breakup of Yugoslavia ethnic cleansing occurred as part of the new order. In contrast, in South Africa ethnic cleansing was part of the old order, or traditional order. The suffering of these two groups is also compared. Banustans suffered: “collective expulsion; forced migration; the bulldozing, gutting or seizure of homes; the mandatory carrying of ‘passes’ detailing the holder’s putative ethnicity and movements; and the corralling into rural ghettos of people decreed to be ‘illegal squatters,’ ‘surplus,’ ‘idle,’ ‘alien’ or ‘unassimilable’” (p. 74). Nixon continues to explain that “ethnicity serves as an ethical leveler” (p. 76) and that “the distinction between a paradigm foregrounding physical features and one emphasizing cultural contingencies is by no means absolute” (p. 77). However, cultures generally present these differences as biological differences. Nixon also briefly discusses the role of women, they are given “symbolically crucial roles as reproducers of the nation and as upholders of its innermost values” (p. 77). On the other hand, this does not mean that they are given equal rights. He continues: “Mass rape is, among other things, organized insemination, men’s way of interfering with the lineage of the enemy” (p. 78).
In conclusion, Nixon offers an explanation of homogeneity for ethnic cleansing. He states that there are greater rewards for pursuing sameness and that it is enough of an incentive for violence.
Reaction:
I found this chapter to be a little bit dense in terms of information. I also did not find it clear why the author wanted to explain the differences between these two ethnic cleansings. I assumed that they were presented as different to present the loss of human life on both sides, but at the end of the article this was still unclear. I found some of the similarities to be more interesting and revealing than the dissimilarities. I preferred the next chapter in terms of presenting information and examples of post-colonial issues of “gender, race, and nationalism.”
Chapter 4: “‘No longer in a Future Heaven’: Gender, Race and Nationalism”
Summary:
McClintock begins this chapter by stating: “All nationalisms are gendered; all are invented; and all are dangerous” (p. 89). This statement basically sums up the entire chapter. She continues by explaining that national identity is gendered and males are given the power based on gender difference. Nira Yuval-Davis and Floya Anthias identified five ways that women have been implicated into nationalism: 1) as biological reproducers of the members of national collectivities 2) as reproducers of the boundaries of national groups (through restrictions on sexual or marital relations 3) as active transmitters and producers of the national culture 4) as symbolic signifiers of national difference and 5) as active participants in national struggles (p. 90).
McClintock explains that in the family model, it is accepted as natural that the man is the head of the household. It then proceeds “logically” that he would be the head of the nation and of national identity. Women are always implicated as being part of society, but subservient to men. The author also explains that history must be recorded in order to show improvement and progress within the society, and thus legitimize certain actions. “Women were seen not as inhabiting history proper but as existing, like colonized peoples, in a permanently anterior time within the modern nation” (p. 93). McClintock introduces Frantz Fanon as an important figure in demystifying gender in nationalism. Fanon questions the naturalness of nationalism, looks at the family model as a product of social power, and recognizes military power structures within the family (authority of father). Next, the author discusses the inventing of traditions to legitimize history and create a false sense of nationalism. She gives the example of the “Tweede Trek,” in Africa which was basically a spectacle that was created to draw attention and make people feel that they had a collective identity. This was adopted from a similar plan used by the Nazis. Here people traveled long distances in covered wagons from town to town and became known as national heroes. McClintock labeled this as a “collective fetish spectacle” (p. 102).
The last section is titled “Feminism and Nationalism.” Here McClintock makes concluding remarks about women’s rights in Africa. She addresses the title of this chapter; it is a quote by Fanon that states: “national transformation is ‘no longer in a future heaven’” (p. 110). Basically, McClintock is referring to the fact that even in revolutions feminism has never really been the focus and that no revolution leads to a perfect society.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
Week 9: Epistemology of the Closet: Chapter 2: Some Binarisms (I): Billy Budd: After the Homosexual (p. 91-130)
Summary:
This chapter is a deconstructive analysis of the novella Billy Budd written by Herman Melville, but not published until after his death in 1924. The story concerns Billy Budd, a sailor who was very charismatic and well-liked aboard the ship “Bellipotent.” However, although generally popular among the crew, one member named Claggart falsely accuses Budd of conspiring a mutiny against the ship’s captain Vere which leads to his death. This novella was also turned into a very popular opera by E.M. Forrester and Benjamin Britten.
Sedgwick introduces this chapter by explaining the purposes of this chapter and the following chapter concerning “binarisms”: 1) introduce and define binarisms 2) analyze Billy Budd and The Picture of Dorian Gray and 3) look at 1891 as an important moment in history here a modern homosexual identity and the issue of sexual orientation began.
The author introduces Billy Budd as the story of a homosexual, Claggart, who is presented as different from his fellow sailors and an opposition to Vere, who is portrayed as normal. Also, there is an overarching theme of homosexuality, it questions the “essential nature of men’s desire for men” (p. 94). Sedgwick continues by providing a deconstructive analysis of the text to explain how she has come to recognize Claggart as a homosexual. She explains the following binaries within the work: 1) knowledge/ignorance; natural/unnatural 2) urbane/provincial; innocence/initiation; man/boy 3) cognition/paranoia; secrecy/disclosure 4) discipline/terrorism 5) public/private 6) sincerity/sentimentality 7) health/illness and 8) wholeness/decadence; utopia/apocalypse.
This chapter basically provides a detailed analysis of Billy Budd and the author explains how all of these exist within the novella even though they are seemingly contradictory. For example, being depraved can be natural or unnatural. Claggart’s character is explained as being explained in two possible ways, he is “depraved because homosexual, or alternatively depraved because homophobic—is of course an odd problem” (p. 96). Another example from this chapter concerning knowledge explains that “knowledge of the world” is equated with “the ability to recognize same-sex desire” which is “also a form of vulnerability as much as it is of mastery (p. 100). The false accusation of mutiny by Claggart can also be seen as the cognition/paranoia binary in this way. An illustration of the public/private binary is seen in the presentation of the ship’s actual space. It is never clearly defined which space belongs to the public and what actions are official and unofficial on the part of the captain because of the lack of space definition. Although, Vere is portrayed as the normal counterbalance to Claggart, he also represents the health/illness binary. He represents: “competence and craziness, or discipline and desire” (p. 124). In the final section, wholeness/decadence; utopia/apocalypse, Sedgwick discusses “gay genocide” or omnicide. “The deadlock of the past century between minoritizing and universalizing understandings of homo/heterosexual definition can only have deepened this fatal bond in the heterosexist imaginaire” (p. 128). She also explains that AIDS has become a “tragedy confined to our generation” (p. 129). She ends the chapter by stating that in order to get rid of this minority/universal binary we must open it up by recognizing it and thoughtfully analyzing it.
Reaction:
This chapter was difficult to summarize because it was a detailed analysis of a novella that I was not previously familiar with. I also do not think that it was clearly explained why binaries should be used to define one of the characters as homosexual. I understood the examples provided to show that Claggart was homosexual, however, I’m not sure if there was an explicit reason that binaries and a deconstructive analysis was chosen. I feel like binaries highlight difference and it seemingly draws a clear line between heterosexuality and homosexuality. The analysis was interesting, but I would have been more interested to read the following chapter since I have read The Picture of Dorian Gray.
This chapter is a deconstructive analysis of the novella Billy Budd written by Herman Melville, but not published until after his death in 1924. The story concerns Billy Budd, a sailor who was very charismatic and well-liked aboard the ship “Bellipotent.” However, although generally popular among the crew, one member named Claggart falsely accuses Budd of conspiring a mutiny against the ship’s captain Vere which leads to his death. This novella was also turned into a very popular opera by E.M. Forrester and Benjamin Britten.
Sedgwick introduces this chapter by explaining the purposes of this chapter and the following chapter concerning “binarisms”: 1) introduce and define binarisms 2) analyze Billy Budd and The Picture of Dorian Gray and 3) look at 1891 as an important moment in history here a modern homosexual identity and the issue of sexual orientation began.
The author introduces Billy Budd as the story of a homosexual, Claggart, who is presented as different from his fellow sailors and an opposition to Vere, who is portrayed as normal. Also, there is an overarching theme of homosexuality, it questions the “essential nature of men’s desire for men” (p. 94). Sedgwick continues by providing a deconstructive analysis of the text to explain how she has come to recognize Claggart as a homosexual. She explains the following binaries within the work: 1) knowledge/ignorance; natural/unnatural 2) urbane/provincial; innocence/initiation; man/boy 3) cognition/paranoia; secrecy/disclosure 4) discipline/terrorism 5) public/private 6) sincerity/sentimentality 7) health/illness and 8) wholeness/decadence; utopia/apocalypse.
This chapter basically provides a detailed analysis of Billy Budd and the author explains how all of these exist within the novella even though they are seemingly contradictory. For example, being depraved can be natural or unnatural. Claggart’s character is explained as being explained in two possible ways, he is “depraved because homosexual, or alternatively depraved because homophobic—is of course an odd problem” (p. 96). Another example from this chapter concerning knowledge explains that “knowledge of the world” is equated with “the ability to recognize same-sex desire” which is “also a form of vulnerability as much as it is of mastery (p. 100). The false accusation of mutiny by Claggart can also be seen as the cognition/paranoia binary in this way. An illustration of the public/private binary is seen in the presentation of the ship’s actual space. It is never clearly defined which space belongs to the public and what actions are official and unofficial on the part of the captain because of the lack of space definition. Although, Vere is portrayed as the normal counterbalance to Claggart, he also represents the health/illness binary. He represents: “competence and craziness, or discipline and desire” (p. 124). In the final section, wholeness/decadence; utopia/apocalypse, Sedgwick discusses “gay genocide” or omnicide. “The deadlock of the past century between minoritizing and universalizing understandings of homo/heterosexual definition can only have deepened this fatal bond in the heterosexist imaginaire” (p. 128). She also explains that AIDS has become a “tragedy confined to our generation” (p. 129). She ends the chapter by stating that in order to get rid of this minority/universal binary we must open it up by recognizing it and thoughtfully analyzing it.
Reaction:
This chapter was difficult to summarize because it was a detailed analysis of a novella that I was not previously familiar with. I also do not think that it was clearly explained why binaries should be used to define one of the characters as homosexual. I understood the examples provided to show that Claggart was homosexual, however, I’m not sure if there was an explicit reason that binaries and a deconstructive analysis was chosen. I feel like binaries highlight difference and it seemingly draws a clear line between heterosexuality and homosexuality. The analysis was interesting, but I would have been more interested to read the following chapter since I have read The Picture of Dorian Gray.
Monday, October 12, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)