Page 66 - The ISA Handbook in Contemporary Sociology

9781412934633-Chap-03 1/10/09 8:41 AM Page 37

SECURE, GENDERED POLITICS OF BELONGING 37

British soldiers explained in Iraq – ‘they real debate is often about the right of a
were only doing their jobs’. (This is, of particular patriarchal leadership to keep its
course, why the growing reliance in the power to define the collective political proj-
American army on reservists, who are ect. The acquisition of women’s rights often
dependent on the military for extra income means more changes in the communal power
but not their main jobs, is an inherent weak- relations than anything else. In fact, the
ness in American military strategy). freezing of cultures in a highly selective
The inherent paradox in women’s politics manner, which is beneficial to them, is often
of belonging is often somewhat different, and one of the major tactics of fundamentalist
relates to the different relationships that leaderships.
women usually occupy in ethnic and national Another paradox which concerns the rela-
collectivities. On the one hand, women tionship between belonging and security for
belong to and are identified as members of women is the fact that often the highest
the collectivity in the same way as men are. danger to women’s security lies where their
Nevertheless, there are always rules and reg- bonds of belonging lie as well. Feminists
ulations – not to mention perceptions and have always been preoccupied with ‘the
attitudes – specific to women. Such construc- enemy within’. They have pointed out that it
tions involve a paradoxical positioning of is often the woman’s nearest and dearest who
women as both symbols and ‘others’ of are the most violent towards her. Long before
the collectivity. On the one hand, women are the days of the ‘global war on terrorism’,
seen as signifiers of the collectivity’s honour feminist activists had looked for ways to
(Yuval-Davis, 1997a, b; Yuval-Davis and make women feel secure wherever they were,
Anthias, 1989), in defence of which nations whether at home or outside at work, to
go to war (‘for the sake of womenandchildren’ reclaim the street as a safe space, as well as
to use Cynthia Enloe’s (1990) expression). all other private and public spaces (e.g.,
On the other hand, they are a non-identical Bunch, 1997; Lees, 1997). However, while
element within the collectivity and subject to this preoccupation with women’s safety and
various forms of control in the name of security has constituted a major part of fem-
‘culture and tradition’. However, such a for- inist politics, it has also always been only
mulation reifies the notions of ‘culture and part of it. Feminist politics also called for a
tradition’ and homogenizes them, often thorough transformation of the relations of
under hegemonic formulations. Cultures and gender and sexuality within the family and
traditions are always contested as well as within society as a whole. To borrow from
constantly shifting and changing. One of the the differentiation made by ‘Aunt Lydia’ in
major debates in the arena of ‘human rights’ Margaret’s Atwood’s book The Handmaid’s
(which, in the 1994 UN human rights confer- Tale (1985; see also the introduction to
ence in Vienna, was termed the debate on Sahgal and Yuval-Davis, 1992 [2002]), femi-
‘Asian values’, see Herman, 2002; Ignatief, nist politics has always included both the notion
2001) has been to what extent communities of ‘freedom of’ as well as that of ‘freedom
have the right to keep their collective cultural from’. It is much easier for people to per-
traditions, even if the latter are in conflict ceive and sympathize with the idea of nega-
with accepted rights of individual men and tive freedom, however, than with that of a
women in those communities. Often the positive one. Often demands for women’s
debate is formulated in such reified terms safety get a more sympathetic ear than those
that any recognition of women’s rights is which call for the radical transformation
equated, by those who support collective cul- of social relations that is necessary for safety
tural rights, with (undesirable) Westernization to be realized. Moreover, as Charlotte Bunch
and secularization. However, as feminists (2002) has commented, even within such
from all over the world have pointed out, the constructions of negative freedom and