In this week’s reading, Dietz discusses the political theory
of liberalism and how it relates to citizenship. She discusses how in many
feminist dialogues, sociocultural inequality is addressed but the issues of
women pertaining particularly to the political arena are barren. She then goes
on to explicate the two prevailing feminist voices in the issue: those of the Marxist
feminists and those of the maternal feminists.
According to her, Marxist
feminists believe that “a system of economics and gender rooted in capitalist,
male-dominant structures underlies much of the liberal ideology, from the
notion of the independent rational man to the conception of separate private
and public realms, from the value of individualism to the equation of freedom
with free trade,” and then goes on to say that while this view challenges the
patriarchal nature of capitalism and other current forms of free trade and
labor, it does little to talk about the issues surrounding citizenship
specifically (Dietz 8). Dietz counteracts this by suggesting that maternal
feminists do more to discuss the issues of citizenship, however their idea of citizenship
in terms of women’s right and liberties is often domestic in nature and
revolves around the free expression of qualities dubbed feminine (and thus more
morally upright); such as love and caring for others. Dietz argues that “citizenship
must be conceived of as a continuous activity and a good in itself” and not a
as a means to an end like many political parties represent it as. In doing so,
keeping democratic citizenship as a dynamic dialogue permits the voices of many
women from different ethnic and class backgrounds to contribute and partake in.
Judith Butler similarly shares her take on the idea of autonomy, and how as
rational, living, beings, we often cannot escape the doings or undoings of
those around us. Like Dietz, she discusses the importance of a collective and
the danger of abandoning that collective in the name of some obscure autonomous
state where we think we exist outside of the influence of others.
I like what you said about "keeping democratic citizenship as a dynamic dialogue." I think this gets at what Deitz is arguing, but I think Butler's argument is slightly different. I'm not entirely sure of how Butler conceives of political citizenship. Butler's critique of feminist politics seems to be more ontological. It seems like Deitz tries to answer the question of how we can be good democratic citizens while also pursuing feminist ends (because I do believe feminism has many ends-based objectives). Butler, on the other hand, questions the term "citizen" in the first place--why must we individuate ourselves as political beings? Is it even possible to do so? In class, I would love to hear other people's thoughts on how they view autonomy. Do we exercise individual autonomy? Is that even possible in a democratic political system?
ReplyDelete