rights of a woman

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 e...

... middle of paper ...

...he 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.