Not tonight, I have a headache

To quote the (in)famous Jack Lechelt, channeling his historiographical Yoda, “None of this was easy to understand or get through, but incredible importance I sensed.” 

I too both enjoyed, but struggled through parts of these articles.  The ones I found hardest to comprehend were ironically the foundational “gender” article and to a lesser extent its interpretation by Meyerowitz.  Fortunately, the next two pieces; one I considered to be a sample of the work that “Joan Scott” was originally calling for; as well as Joan Scott’s own analysis of the response to “Joan Scott” helped to bring it all together.

In essence, what Scott was calling for was to move gender beyond basic labels, simplistic considerations, and traditional stove pipes of historical and other disciplines.  In her words, “’Gender’ is about asking historical questions; it is not a programmatic or methodological treatise.  It is above all an invitation to think critically about how the meanings of sexed bodies are produced, deployed, and changed; that, finally, is what accounts for its longevity.” 

She believed that there was no ideal approach to gender or fixed definitions, rather, “…questions about gender can be asked and answered only in specific contexts…gender is not a universally applicable concept with fixed parameters or referents; like “class,” it is most useful when it points the way to specific investigations of meanings, whether of social relationships or rhetorical proclamations”

As an example of this in practice, I found the Ditz piece to be a very interesting read and I thought it was an excellent application of using language to examine the state and influence of gender through extensive primary sourcing.  As Ditz described in a footnote, “My approach assumes that the letters are an important site for the articulation, not simply the reporting, of experience.”  This ‘articulation’ demonstrated how the text of the sources went far beyond just words and provide a lens through which to examine the fabric of society at that time and consider implications for the birth and development of our great nation.

I have to admit, at times, particularly during the discussions of the role of psycho analysis and the issues of ‘sexual identities’ not based on physical characteristics I began to think of Scott as somewhat of an Activist Historian, a label that I think reflects her fondness for Foucault and the linguistic turn.

Interestingly, this is the third straight week where I have had my understanding of the importance of objectivity to historiography challenged.

Like Kendra, I too have a headache after all these deep thoughts!