Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-24T12:47:48.401Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Square Pegs and Round Holes: Challenges of Fitting Individual-Level Analysis to a Theory of Politicized Context of Gender

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2007

Jane Junn
Jane Junn
Affiliation:
Rutgers University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In “Gender in the Aggregate, Gender in the Individual, Gender and Political Action,” Nancy Burns makes the compelling argument to integrate individual- and aggregate-level perspectives in the study of gendered political action. She issues a call for action for the two to assess similarities and differences in approaches, identify unique contributions and weaknesses, and move forward to better understand gender and political action. Beyond this general goal is an ambitious effort to build a theory of politicized context around gender in order to stake out a position for political science to contribute to our understanding of women in action. In this regard, her ambitions are to identify mechanisms that work to strengthen normative goals of enhancing equality and dignity in women's lives, and in politics more generally.For helpful comments, I thank Nadia Brown, Sue Carroll, Mary Hawkesworth, Hannah Holden, Anna Mitchell, Kira Sanbonmatsu, participants at the conference on Political Women and American Democracy at the University of Notre Dame in May 2006, and the editors of Politics & Gender.

Type
CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON GENDER AND POLITICS
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 124 - 134
Copyright
© 2007 The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association

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

Ambar, Saladin. 2006. Ph.D. comprehensive examination in American Politics. Rutgers University. Unpublished manuscript.
Beckwith, Karen. 2005. “A Common Language of Gender?” Politics and Gender 1 (March): 128–37.Google Scholar
Burns, Nancy. 2005. “Finding Gender.” Politics and Gender 1 (March): 137–41.Google Scholar
Burns, Nancy, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Sidney Verba. 2001. The Private Roots of Public Action: Gender, Equality, and Political Participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Frymer, Paul. 1999. Uneasy Alliances: Race and Party Competition in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gaventa, John. 1982. Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
Hawkesworth, Mary. 2005. “Engendering Political Science: An Immodest Proposal.” Politics and Gender 1 (March): 141–56.Google Scholar
Marable, Manning. 1983. How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America. Boston: South End.
McCall, Leslie. 2001. Complex Inequality: Gender, Class, and Race in the New Economy. New York: Routledge.
McCall, Leslie. 2005. “The Complexity of Intersectionality.” Signs 30 (3): 1771–1800.Google Scholar
Mettler, Suzanne. 1998. Divided Citizens: Gender and Federalism in New Deal Public Policy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Mettler, Suzanne. 2005. Soldiers to Citizens: The G.I. Bill and the Making of the Greatest Generation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nie, Norman, Jane Junn, and Kenneth Stehlik-Barry. 1996. Education and Democratic Citizenship in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Scott, James. 1979. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Scott, Joan. 1986. “Gender: A Useful Category for Historical Analysis.” American Historical Review 91 (5): 1053–75.Google Scholar
Valian, Virginia. 1998. Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Walton, Hanes Jr., and Robert C. Smith. 2000. American Politics and the African American Quest for Universal Freedom. New York: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Young, Iris Marion. 1994. “Gender as Seriality: Thinking About Women as a Social Collective.” Signs 19 (3): 713–38.Google Scholar