Women, Gender, and Politics
Session: N1(b) - Political Ideas in the 21st Century
Date: May 31, 2016 | Time: 08:45am to 10:15am | Location: Science Theatres 61
Chair/Présidente: Jane Arscott (Athabasca University)
Discussant/Commentatrice: Megan Gaucher (Trent University)
Participants & Authors/Auteurs:
Paul Saurette (University of Ottawa), Kathryn Trevenen (University of Ottawa) : Beyond Mere Fear: Ideology and the Political Use of Emotion
Abstract: The study of ideology in the anglo-american world is faced with a strange conundrum today. On one hand, most of the dominant (anglo-american) traditions of ideological analysis have dismissed the possibility that taking into account the 'emotional dimension' of politics might be crucial to understanding the core meaning and functioning of contemporary ideologies. On the other hand, it is becoming increasingly impossible to ignore that even many mainstream ideological phenomena are profoundly defined and influenced by their emotional content.
In response, this paper seeks to offer a critical overview of the ways in which the emotional dimension has (or hasn’t) been taken into account by various historical and contemporary traditions of ideological analysis and then to demonstrate how an understanding of the emotional dimension changes our understanding of contemporary ideology and political events. The first part of the paper offers a brief intellectual history/synthesis of the ways that the major modes of ideological analysis have (or have failed to) consider the ‘emotional dimension’ of ideology and politics. The second part critically analyzes and evaluates several recent theoretical attempts ot incorporate an analysis of the emotional dimension into ideological analysis. The paper then concludes with a discussion of several recent political events (Rob Ford’s mayorship; the 2015 federal Canadian election campaign; Donald Trump’s success in the Republican primaries) to demonstrate how an appreciation of the emotional dimension of politics changes our understanding of these events.
Alexa Degagne (Athabasca University) : Moral Values, Moral Regulation: Calling Out Hypocrisy
Abstract: In the past decade, progressives in Canada have engaged in several attempts to expose and chastise the “hypocritical” actions of high-profile Conservative politicians who politically promote “Christian morality,” but who personally engage in “morally deviant” acts. Progressives have justified their actions by arguing that exposing such hypocrisy will undermine Conservatives’ attempts to create legislation and policies based on their “Christian morality.”
In this paper, I ask whether these efforts end up reinforcing practices of moral regulation. As Foucault argues in Abnormal, there are always clear and un-traversable boundaries of what is socially acceptable vs requiring reprimand and regulation (Foucault 2003). Foucault argues that since at least the 18th century, the confessional mode has been used to compel individuals to publically admit to deep and ‘deviant’ inclinations, drives and desires (1978, 58-9) – a discursive practice which requires a listener to put it in context, to judge it, and to legitimize it. (Foucault 1978, 62).
Through the analysis of four cases wherein Conservative politicians were accused of engaging in homosexuality, adultery, the procurement of sex work and drug use, I argue that progressives have tried to compel Conservative politicians to confess to their deviance and in so doing have engaged in the reprimand, regulation and ostracization of these Conservative politicians. In contrast, I argue that progressives could actually use such moments of “hypocrisy” to engage in a politics that seeks to challenge political and social judgments and regulations of non-heteronormal sexuality, non-monogamy, for-pay sex acts and drug use.
Kelly Gordon (University of Ottawa) : Sex Work and Conservative Ideology in Canada
Abstract: While the Canadian movement against the legalization of sex work has largely been led by a coalition of conservatives and abolitionist feminists, the bulk of academic study has tended to focus on sex work as a wedge issue within the North American feminist movement. Less attention, however, has been paid to the ways that anti-sex work discourse has worked to construct conservative discourse and ideology in Canada.
Given this gap in the literature, this paper will examine the debate over legal sex work in Canada following the 2013 Bedford decision that ruled Canada’s prostitution laws unconstitutional. Focusing on the Conservative government’s response (in the form of bill c-36, which criminalized the purchase of sexual services), this paper will argue that the cooptation and re-appropriation of progressive language plays a crucial role in the construction of conservative ideology in Canada.
Based on a systematic and rigorous qualitative and quantitative study of the debate over sex work in Canada, this paper will examine the new and surprising rhetorical strategies employed by the contemporary Canadian conservatives, focusing particularly on the ways that this discourse is appropriating and employing traditionally feminist language in ways that challenges our traditional conceptions of conservative ideology.
Kathryn Trevenen (University of Ottawa) : Is Whiteness an Idea? Contemporary Feminism and the Politics of Race
Abstract: ‘Whiteness’, like heterosexuality and many other types of social identities, is often understood as the non-descript background starting point of normality – something that is so deeply inscribed in our practices, perceptions and expectations that it profoundly frames and defines the limits of many political and social policies and debates while simultaneously escaping our conscious conceptualization. How should political science understand phenomena like this? Is ‘whiteness’ an idea? A discourse? A practice? How should we call attention to it, understand and evaluate it, respond to it?
A wide variety of feminist thinkers have sought to address these issues. This paper examines what the rise of a popular critiques of the “White Feminism” represented by celebrity figures like Taylor Swift and Meryl Streep can tell us about the nature of ‘whiteness’ and the implications for our analysis of the political nature of contemporary ideas and discourse.
The paper first defines “White Feminism” and examines the emergence of a pop cultural critique of this feminism. It then examines the key discourses and concepts central to the critique. I argue that this intersectional and multifaceted critique often mobilizes grassroots and marginalized voices and experiences, and challenges the increasingly corporate and neo-liberal institutions of feminist and gender contained in the academy and in many NGOs. This “popular” form of emerging feminist critique is changing both the discourses and the tools used in feminist analysis and activism, and in doing so, challenges us to expand our understanding of political ideas.
"What does it mean to study political ideas today, in the media-saturated and highly gendered context that is contemporary North America? Often, the consideration of ideas and principles in political science is relegated to the realm of ‘normative’ political theory. To the extent that ideas and discourse are understood seen as factors relevant to our understanding of ‘concrete’ politics, they are most commonly analyzed either as highly abstract phenomenon (e.g. political ideologies; political culture) or as very specific tactics (e.g. political communication).
This panel seeks to explore the complex roles that ideas play in the terrain between these two levels by asking how ideas and discourse work in the 21st century – particularly in relationship to gender. What are ideas and discourse today and how do they persuade/impact the political realm? What is the role of emotion in political ideas and discourse? What does it mean for ideas to be ‘conservative’ or ‘progressive’? Are our contemporary political ideas more promiscuous and multi-partisan than previously? What type of ideas should count as ‘political’ today? Only those that are explicitly framed as political? Or might the most politically impactful ideas and discourse today propagate and circulate in realms largely removed from the formal political sphere? Which theoretical perspectives might help us to best examine these issues?
The papers in this panel bring a wide variety of perspectives – from political theory to gender studies to queer theory to discourse analysis – to address these questions."
Back to Sessions
