Scott's Definitions Of Gender And Politics example essay topic

In her article "Women's History" Joan Scott states that it is important for historians to be attentive to both "the ways in which politics constructs gender and gender constructs politics". First, definitions for politics and gender will be established in order to analyze Scott's claim. Second, what Scott meant by the claim "politics constructs gender" will be illustrated. Third, the contradictory claim "gender constructs politics" by Joan Scott will be explained. Finally, this paper will evaluate why it is important for historians to be attentive to both the notion that politics constructs gender and gender constructs politics.

The usefulness of Scott's claim on our understanding of both politics and gender will also be examined. The point that Scott was trying to get across in stating that historians should be attentive to the circular claim that "politics constructs gender and gender constructs politics" is that an incomplete history will be recorded if both sides of the equation are not considered hand in hand. To portray why Joan Scott believes it is important for historians to be cognizant of both gender's effect on politics and politics effect on gender we must first establish what Joan Scott's definitions of gender and politics are. Gender has many definitions that have been developed through the numerous approaches to history and the many other social sciences. The basic debate in defining gender is at what point is the distinction made between the natural (sex) and the cultural (gender).

Gayle Rubin's definition in "The Traffic in Women: Notes on the 'Political Economy' of Sex" is that "sex" is the raw material on which culture uses to produce "gender" and that gender is the cultural expectations of the differences between men and women. The important aspect of the definition of gender is that it is culturally defined and does not remain static over time. As society adjusts, so do its definitions of gender. Politics is the other key word in Scott's statement that must be defined.

Politics, according to Scott in "Women's History", is not just formal government but all relationships involving unequal distributions of power. Scott uses this broad definition of politics in order to explain the "cultural determination of the terms of sexual difference". In other words this definition allows for a more complete explanation of what has shaped society's expectations of the two genders in regards to relative power. If only the effects of formal government on the determination of the terms of gender were studied then an incomplete, and therefore inaccurate, history would be written.

Both politics (all relationships involving unequal distributions of power) and gender involve cultural definitions and as a result politics and gender have influence on each other. Historians, as Joan Scott states, must be aware the influence that politics and gender have on one another in order to create a complete, accurate history. The idea that historians should be aware that "politics constructs gender" in the first part of Scott's claim seems logical. In order to understand why it is important for historians to be attentive to the idea that politics constructs gender it must be demonstrated what Joan Scott meant by this claim. All relationships can be defined by their respective balance of power. There is either an equal balance of power or there is an unequal balance of power.

Relationships that have an unequal balance of power, as Joan Scott defines, involve politics. It can be generalized that in order to maintain power those with influence create rules or perform actions that seek to sustain their authority. The rules and actions do not have to be formal and include methods such as labeling individuals, biological groups, or socially created groups such as gender. Over time, gender type has been associated, or labeled, with power by those who have the power. As the balances of power change over time, the rules and actions towards those without influence fluctuate. This is what Joan Scott meant in regards to how politics (imbalance of power in relationships) has constructed gender.

The claim that historians should be attentive to both "the ways in which politics constructs gender and gender constructs politics" seems circular at first reading but what Scott meant is that if historians do not consider the effects that gender has had over time then a biased and incomplete history will be recorded. Political historians focus on how gender has been shaped by the prescribed rules, decisions, and actions of the formal governmental authorities. However, gender has been defined over time not just by structured government but by those seeking to maintain power in all inequitable relationships. Each relationship is affected by characteristics of the individuals or groups within that relationship. One such characteristic is gender. Due to constant changes in society, the definition of gender fluctuates.

As the definition of gender changes so do relative balances of power (politics). This is the simplified explanation of what Joan Scott means in the statement "gender constructs politics". Regardless of any individual or groups place on the hierarchical ladder, each individual or group has an influence. Historians must therefore consider the effect of all individuals and groups, even "non-actors" on politics when explaining history in order to create an accurate and complete history. Scott states that historians should be conscientious of the ways that gender and politics affect each other.

One of the reasons that this is true, and which has been stated several times previously in this paper, is that in order for a truly accurate, unbiased history to be recorded, historians must look at the complete picture of how gender was established. The definition of gender was not just created by formal politics but by all asymmetrical power relationships. Another reason that it is important for historians to be aware of the relationship between politics and gender is that history in itself furthers the definition of gender. The recording of a history that is biased towards one gender will perpetuate society's expectations of that gender. This allows the bias of historians to influence the definition of gender when the role of historians should be to record history and its significance. The third reason historians should look at the relationship between politics and gender is that if historians only look at the way formal politics shapes gender then a black and white picture of gender is portrayed.

If a broad definition of politics is used, such as the one used by Joan Scott, then "arguments about the separate and distinctive qualities of women's character and experience" can be avoided. As a result a clearer picture of history will be drawn that does not rely on "fixed distinctions" that have been made between the genders over time and in the present. Finally, by paying attention to the idea that gender and politics have an effect on one another we can get a clearer picture of where women's history fits into the history books. In conclusion, Scott's claim that historians should be attentive to both the ways in which gender constructs politics and politics constructs gender is a thought provoking comment that must be considered if an accurate and unbiased history is to be produced. Politics and gender are both socially construed notions and by definition will have an influence on one another.