Scott - Gender, Language and an Analytical Tool

I found parts of Scott’s “Gender” to be difficult to untangle and understand.  I definitely see the influence of language and of Foucault in her discussion of defining gender.  I’m beginning to think that anything that gives me a headache must be influenced by the Linguistic Turn approach!  However, I think a key point made by Scott (beyond her discussion and defining of gender) is that feminism/gender history needed an analytical tool and methodology which could be reproduced by other scholars within the field but also by scholars in related fields such as race and class.  Even though Scott uses language in a very Foucaultian manner and her work is very literary, I think her call for a more scientific and replicable analytical tool for her discipline not only legitimizes the field but also creates the possibility for other scholars to build on what she has started and eventual move the discipline forward in new directions; keeping it an active and viable field of inquiry and scholarship.  Case in point, Ditz was able to take Scott’s scholarship and apply it to mercantile representations of masculinity in 18^th century Philadelphia.  I think this exemplifies the value and importance of Scott’s work not only in feminist/gender studies, but also in other fields of social and cultural historiography.

I greatly appreciated reading Scott’s second article “Unanswered Questions” and Meyerowitz’s “A History of Gender.”  Both of those really helped my understand Scott’s first article, “Gender.”  In addition, these articles reminded me that new concepts are not always initially embraced with open arms by others in the discipline and that is often only in hindsight of many decades that we recognize the importance of a scholar and their work.  I found Scott’s reflection on this process in her second article very interesting.

In regards to a definition of gender by Scott – it’s complicated! Scott gives her two part definition in “Gender” (p. 1067-68) but she also defines gender in “Unanswered Questions” by stating, “Gender, I would argue, is the study of the relationship (around sexuality) between the normative and the psychic, the attempt at once to collectivize fantasy and to use it for some political or social end, whether that end is nation-building or family structure.” (p.1428)  Scott sees gender as a “primary way of signifying relationships of power” (Gender 1067) and that gender legitimizes and constructs social relationships (Gender 1070).  In her article “unanswered Questions” Scott touches on these concepts again and mentions that the idea of “gender constructing politics” has generated considerable research, but that there has been much less research involving “politics constructing gender.”  I am interested in these ideas but am not very clear on them and would enjoy discussing them further in class.