Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T22:33:14.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Untraditional Intersectional Analysis of the 2008 Election

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2009

Ange-Marie Hancock
Ange-Marie Hancock
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Most will agree that scholars of political science will examine the two-year cycle of this American presidential election for generations to come. The essays in this symposium are “first reads,” and due to time and space constraints can only identify a handful of trends. Suffice it to say that Senator Hillary Clinton and Governor Sarah Palin's candidacies are a boon to women and politics scholars, offering a wide swath of research questions and data to mine. The use of gender as an analytical category (Hawkesworth 2006; Scott 1986) will enhance examinations of the vast difference in Clinton's and Palin's ideologies, candidacies, and gendered performances in a way that illuminates, rather than obscures, the ideological diversity among women in the United States (see Schreiber 2008). Yet the deep attention paid to Clinton and Palin has so far focused on gender despite the candidates' own allusions to race and class identities as complicating factors in their gendered self-presentations. To focus solely on their positions as female candidates obscures some important macro-level questions about the 2008 election as a watershed moment, whether the focus is on “18 million cracks in the glass ceiling” or the shift in target voters from soccer moms into hockey moms.

Type
Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 96 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Garcia Bedolla, Lisa. 2007. “Intersections of Inequality: Understanding Marginalization and Privilege in the Post–Civil Rights Era.” Politics & Gender 3 (June): 232–48.Google Scholar
Hancock, Ange-Marie. 2007. “When Multiplication Doesn't Equal Quick Addition: Examining Intersectionality as a Research Paradigm.” Perspectives on Politics 5 (1): 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkesworth, Mary. 2003. “Congressional Enactments of Race-Gender: Toward a Theory of Raced-Gendered Institutions.” American Political Science Review 97 (4): 529–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkesworth, Mary. 2006. Feminist Inquiry: From Political Conviction to Methodological Innovation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Junn, Jane. 2007. “Square Pegs and Round Holes: Challenges of Fitting Individual-Level Analysis to a Theory of Politicized Context of Gender.” Politics & Gender 3 (March): 124–34.Google Scholar
McCall, Leslie. 2005. “The Complexity of Intersectionality.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30 (31): 1771–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, Joan E. 2003. “Campaign Strategy.” In Women and American Politics: New Research, New Directions, ed. Carroll, Susan. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nash, Jennifer. 2008. “Re-Thinking Intersectionality.” Feminist Review 89 (1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreiber, Ronnee. 2008. Righting Feminism: Conservative Women and American Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Joan. 1986. “Gender: A Useful Category for Historical Analysis.” American Historical Review 91 (5): 1053–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Julie. 2007. “The Hollow and the Ghetto: Space, Race and the Politics of Poverty.” Politics & Gender 3 (June): 271–80.Google Scholar
Wolbrecht, Christina, Beckwith, Karen, and Baldez, Lisa, eds. 2008. Political Women and American Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zack, Naomi. 2005. Inclusive Feminism: A Third Wave Theory of Women's Commonality. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar