Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:36:31.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

(Re)framing the Relationship between Discourse and Materiality in Feminist Security Studies and Feminist IPE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2015

Heidi Hudson
Heidi Hudson*
Affiliation:
University of the Free State
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

While feminists usually try to ground the meanings that they study, theorizing the mundane or the everyday may very well represent a detour—or even a dead end—if bread-and-butter issues related to the security and economic well-being of ordinary women and men are ignored. What value does feminist theorizing (even if it draws from women's lived experiences) have in war-affected contexts where meeting immediate needs is paramount? At what point does the theorizing of the body under such circumstances become a means to satisfying intellectual fetishes? Theorizing the everyday is messy because it has to contend with the immediate social setting in which popular culture is inseparable from the economic materiality of the conditions of oppression.

Type
Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 2015 , pp. 413 - 419
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baaz, Maria Eriksson, and Stern, Maria. 2013. Sexual Violence as a Weapon of War? Perceptions, Prescriptions, Problems in the Congo and Beyond. New York: Zed.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex.” New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Card, Claudia. 2003. “Genocide and Social Death.” Hypatia 18 (1): 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, William E. 2013. “The ‘New Materialism’ and the Fragility of Things.” Millennium—Journal of International Studies 41 (3): 399–412.Google Scholar
Fierke, Karin M. 2013a. Political Self-Sacrifice. Agency, Body and Emotion in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fierke, Karin M. 2013b. Is There Life Beyond Language? Discourses of Security. Presented at the International Studies Association Conference, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. 2013. “How Feminism Became Capitalism's Handmaiden—and How to Reclaim It.” The Guardian, October 14. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/14/feminism-capitalist-handmaiden-neoliberal (accessed November 25, 2014).Google Scholar
Griffin, Penny. 2010. “Gender and the Global Political Economy.” In The International Studies Encyclopedia, ed. Denemark, Robert A.. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. http://www.isacompendium.com/subscriber/tocnode.html?id=g9781444336597_yr2013_chunk_g97814443365979_ss1-3 (accessed December 1, 2014).Google Scholar
Hansen, Lene. 2006. Security as Practice. Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hughes, Christina, ed. 2013. Researching Gender. Researching Bodies, Emotions and New Materialisms, vol. IV. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Jean-Bouchard, Évelyne. 2013. Sexual Violence Issues in Eastern Congo: Normative Processes of Local and Global Co-constitutions. Presented at the International Studies Association Conference, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Peterson, V. Spike. 2007. A Critical Rewriting of Global Political Economy: Integrating Reproductive, Productive and Virtual Economies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shepherd, Laura J. 2008. Gender, Violence and Security. Discourse as Practice. London: Zed.Google Scholar
Sylvester, Christine. 2013. “Experiencing the End and Afterlives of International Relations/Theory.” European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 609–26.Google Scholar
Wilcox, Lauren. 2012. What the Body Does: Theorizing Hunger Striking and Embodied Agency in International Relations. Presented at the Millennium Conference on Materialism and World Politics, London.Google Scholar