Post by Tamrin on Sept 6, 2008 22:42:15 GMT 10
Where Are All the Women in Labor History?
by Dr. Bob James, The Australian Centre for Fraternal Studies
written in 1991 for a Labour History Conference
(Excerpt)
by Dr. Bob James, The Australian Centre for Fraternal Studies
written in 1991 for a Labour History Conference
(Excerpt)
In Conclusion:
1. Logically, women are part of labour history however membership is defined. Whether the criteria is 'people who labour' or 'people who sell their labour', they and their representatives must be present at any future meetings of this sort, which would otherwise have to be seen as living a lie. Even if maleness was adopted as the criterion, women would still have to be part of the record, either as persons 'done to' by those accorded pre-eminent status, as 'stand-ins' in various forms for those insiders, or as indispensable parts of the means whereby those pre-eminent persons did what they did. The crisis in labour history is an opportunity for re-wording the field's content, an opportunity which should not be let slip.
2. It seems the crisis must be confronted directly with other symposia insisting on thorough ventilation of the possibilities.
3. If the response to my earlier, perhaps over-simplified provocation is that no feminist historian or philosopher would be so crass as to suggest that genitalia was the only determinant factor, then at least the language of feminist scholarship must be reviewed.88 It is all very well to claim strategic moral advantage by implying that the words 'female'and 'women' apply un-problematically to all that is diverse, fluid, plural, and processual, eg:
I am not here questioning the fact of repression, but rather suggesting some causation beyond but inclusive of gender. Once the formulation of the problem to be solved moves away from the physicalities known as 'women' and 'men', to something external to both such as a social construction or an ideology which effects both, then the language must reflect power relativities which cut across the gender division. This is an issue much-debated but, I would argue, without much result, and I herewith make an intervention in order to break a perceived impasse. Lake's formulation, following Scott, that 'gender is a primary way of signifying relationships of power' seems reasonable. What feminist historians have failed to do, is to integrate, satisfactorily, this way of signifying relationships of power, with other ways. I hasten to add that most male historians have not even made the effort. Including information on women's work, their experience and on sexual struggle would certainly change the content of labour history and also the way it is regarded. But these suggestions could be followed without necessarily altering the values determining inclusion. There are many males who have been arbitrarily excluded from 'labour history', and it was not because of their gender. Summers, back in 1975 while arguing for 'new' concepts, asked a rhetorical question:
1. Logically, women are part of labour history however membership is defined. Whether the criteria is 'people who labour' or 'people who sell their labour', they and their representatives must be present at any future meetings of this sort, which would otherwise have to be seen as living a lie. Even if maleness was adopted as the criterion, women would still have to be part of the record, either as persons 'done to' by those accorded pre-eminent status, as 'stand-ins' in various forms for those insiders, or as indispensable parts of the means whereby those pre-eminent persons did what they did. The crisis in labour history is an opportunity for re-wording the field's content, an opportunity which should not be let slip.
2. It seems the crisis must be confronted directly with other symposia insisting on thorough ventilation of the possibilities.
3. If the response to my earlier, perhaps over-simplified provocation is that no feminist historian or philosopher would be so crass as to suggest that genitalia was the only determinant factor, then at least the language of feminist scholarship must be reviewed.88 It is all very well to claim strategic moral advantage by implying that the words 'female'and 'women' apply un-problematically to all that is diverse, fluid, plural, and processual, eg:
Female experience is of a fluid continuum, rather than a rigid dichotomy...The masculine universe must be deconstructed by an integrating feminism.whereas 'man' and 'male' do not, but this will not do for historians, feminist or not, who must deal with real people. It is not only men
who must learn to renounce a certain mastery and control, the unification of their bodies and subjectivities under the singular principles of hierarchical organisation, in order to remain in touch with the multiple possibilities of bodily pleasure.The 'masculist' nature of women's history is also available for study, and must be asked the same questions as men's history. At the same time, the counter-notion is also true: any disclaimers must be even-handedly applied: if women exhibiting 'phallocentric values' can be excused by virtue of their having been repressed, then men exhibiting the same values can be likewise excused.
I am not here questioning the fact of repression, but rather suggesting some causation beyond but inclusive of gender. Once the formulation of the problem to be solved moves away from the physicalities known as 'women' and 'men', to something external to both such as a social construction or an ideology which effects both, then the language must reflect power relativities which cut across the gender division. This is an issue much-debated but, I would argue, without much result, and I herewith make an intervention in order to break a perceived impasse. Lake's formulation, following Scott, that 'gender is a primary way of signifying relationships of power' seems reasonable. What feminist historians have failed to do, is to integrate, satisfactorily, this way of signifying relationships of power, with other ways. I hasten to add that most male historians have not even made the effort. Including information on women's work, their experience and on sexual struggle would certainly change the content of labour history and also the way it is regarded. But these suggestions could be followed without necessarily altering the values determining inclusion. There are many males who have been arbitrarily excluded from 'labour history', and it was not because of their gender. Summers, back in 1975 while arguing for 'new' concepts, asked a rhetorical question:
Once this pluralism [amongst women] is conceded, to what extent does it still make sense to speak of women as a universal category? Are we not in danger of reproducing that very form of sexism which we so vehemently reject?Most politically-aware women, concerned about space for themselves, have duplicated the organisational forms used by men, and it was these forms which carried assumptions about the pre-eminence of male agendas along with them. It is exactly the same dilemma which arose inside theorisations of class struggle - why didn't those who were repressed break the shackles according to the theories? Why did they in fact embrace and follow their gate keepers? An acknowledgement of the co-existence of women and men inside the fortress and faced with the same tasks, can mean that the connections and the interactions between genders can be acknowledged. This is where the ground potentially begins to shift.
