Month: September 2019

Research Portfolio Post #5: Research Puzzle Proposal

ta7578a 1 Comment

I am proposing to research Western feminist jurisprudence because I want to know why some human rights practices and laws are unsuccessful/successful in improving the conditions of women to help my reader understand what barriers exist in the international system that impede progress for women.

It is becoming relatively mainstream to recognize gender equality as a part of democratization and human rights law rather than a separate issue within these topics.[1] This is evident by the increased awareness of gender-based violence and the economic status of women in the Global South. This trend can be traced back to the United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in 1979.[2]  The proposed International Violence Against Women Act is an example of how the heightened awareness of women’s issues has influenced U.S foreign policy.[3]

However, the increased awareness has not led to necessarily better outcomes for women. There is an ongoing debate over the validity and effectiveness of gender mainstreaming.[4] There is also some concern that increased awareness is really a result of feminist discourses being co-opted.[5] Another debate within this research puzzle is if an increased reliance on policing and legislation to promote gender equality creates more problems for women.[6]

The significance of my research topic gets at the core debate within feminist discourses: should we work towards reforming patriarchal systems or should we dismantle them? In the context of my research question, the significance would be related to if the inadequacies of human rights responses are a result of an inherently flawed system or if we can parse out what works and what doesn’t. The policy implications can go both ways. Whether the research can be used to highlight something fundamentally wrong with institutions or to pinpoint areas for improvement will be both dependent of the reader and my findings. I am also open to seeing how my research can question whether it makes sense to research gender equality from this perspective.

My research is important within feminist circles because it also addresses the issue of solidarity. One major debate in feminist discourses is if transnational solidarity is possible. Can women from the Global North ever be in true solidarity with women from the Global South? Does the international system reproduce a hierarchy or does western feminist discourses inadvertently play into it? Is it both? Is there an inherent conflict of interest between both or is it more nuanced?  This is an important debate to consider because the of policy implications. We may have to rethink how we understand gender in relation to human rights abuses, conflict, migration/asylum, trafficking, and most certainly development.

I have a few specific research questions that I would like to explore. One aspect of this puzzle I would like to understand is what factors make it more likely for women’s equality to be used as a justification for some interventions but not others. Moreover, I would like to understand why women’s rights was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003. In answering this question, I would hope to find out what makes gender equality a mobilizer for domestic and international support rather than other types of equality (racial, ethnic, class, religious, etc).

Another question I would be interested in exploring is why punitive measures are understood to be a necessary means of preventing gender-based violence. A case specific question I could ask is why the practice of detaining prostitutes is used in South Asia to stop sex trafficking, if prostitutes are essentially the victims of sex trafficking. In answering this question, I would hope to understand the reigning “logic” that allows for policies like this to occur.

Bibliography:

Hilary Charlesworth, “Not Waving but Drowning: Gender Mainstreaming and Human Rights

in the United Nations,” Harvard Human Rights Journal 18 (2005): 1

UN General Assembly, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 18 December 1979, A/RES/34/180, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3b00f2244.html [accessed 29 September 2019]

 

Hunt, Krista (2006). “‘Embedded Feminism’ and the War on Terror”. In Hunt, Krista; Rygiel, Kim (eds.). (En)Gendering the War on Terror. War Stories and Camouflaged Politics. Hampshire: Ashgate. pp. 51–71.

 

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, International Violence Against Women Act of 2018, 115thCong., 2ndstsess., H.R. 5034. Accessed on 29 September 2019, Art. I-XVII, Sec. 2.

 

Bernstein, Elizabeth. 2012. “Carceral politics as gender justice? The “traffic in women” and neoliberal circuits of crime, sex, and rights.” Theory and Society 41, no. 3: 233-259, http://proxyau.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.proxyau.wrlc.org/docview/1008903097?accountid=8285.

[1] Hilary Charlesworth, “Not Waving but Drowning: Gender Mainstreaming and Human Rights

in the United Nations,” Harvard Human Rights Journal 18 (2005): 1

[2] UN General Assembly, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 18 December 1979, A/RES/34/180, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3b00f2244.html [accessed 29 September 2019]

[3] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, International Violence Against Women Act of 2018, 115thCong., 2ndstsess., H.R. 5034. Accessed on 29 September 2019, Art. I-XVII, Sec. 2.

[4] Charlesworth, 2

[5] Hunt, Krista (2006). “‘Embedded Feminism’ and the War on Terror”. In Hunt, Krista; Rygiel, Kim (eds.). (En)Gendering the War on Terror. War Stories and Camouflaged Politics. Hampshire: Ashgate. pp. 51–71.

[6] Bernstein, Elizabeth. “Carceral Politics as Gender Justice? the “Traffic in Women” and Neoliberal Circuits of Crime, Sex, and Rights.” Theory and Society 41, no. 3 (05, 2012): 233-59, http://proxyau.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.proxyau.wrlc.org/docview/1008903097?accountid=8285.

Research Portfolio Post #4: Article Comparison

ta7578a 4 Comments

The first article I found discussed the idea of gender mainstreaming and its flaws when applied to international human rights law.[1] The article was by Hilary Charlesworth and titled “Not Waving but Drowning: Gender Mainstreaming and Human Rights in the United Nations”. The second article I found was titled “International Human Rights Law, Feminist Jurisprudence, and Nietzsche’s “Eternal Return”: Turning the Wheel”. This article focuses on how feminists can use human rights law to their advantage both domestically and internationally.[2]

Both sources are interesting and speak to each other. I would say that both pieces are legal research and follow interpretivist methodologies. I believe both articles utilize discourse analysis to explain differing outcomes of applying international law. They use the literature review to ground their analysis in relation to preexisting theories. Then, both articles go into detail on which theories are most relevant and can explain the knowledge they have generated through the research they have done.

I chose these two articles because they do not necessarily disagree with each other, rather they offer insights into the same conversations. Both articles contribute to an understanding of how law can be influenced by feminist jurisprudence. The articles also identify areas of improvement in feminist jurisprudence.

Both articles are incredibly important. For one they offer an overview of some important terminology and legal constructs. Since I have not had any classes on legal theory and international law, this was important background information that I needed to understand early on in my research process. One major problem with both articles is that they are articles that have been peer reviewed for acceptance into legal journals rather than social science journals. So, they did not look as familiar as the articles I had read for class. However, I found the literature reviews for both to be more straightforward and more helpful.

 

[1] Hilary Charlesworth, “Not Waving but Drowning: Gender Mainstreaming and Human Rights in the United Nations,” Harvard Human Rights Journal 18 (2005): 1-3

[2] Barbara Stark, “International Human Rights Law, Feminist Jurisprudence, and Nietzsche’s Eternal Return: Turning the Wheel,” Harvard Women’s Law Journal 19 (1996): 169-200

Research Portfolio Post #3: Philosophical Wagers

ta7578a 3 Comments

When I first began the readings the terms methodology and ontology were new concepts. Now I think I am starting to understand what these concepts mean. To me ontology is what things we question, and methodology is how we decide we will answer our questions about social reality.

I think research can study both things we cannot see like social norms and decision making and things we can see. I think that is why both ontology and methodology are so important. While we can ask questions about most things, we must ask questions and develop research designs in a certain way to make some sound conclusions. Social science research is not about finding an objective truth. So if we understand that the goal of research is to create new knowledge, we can study most things.

To me, I don’t think a researcher can be truly objective. A researcher can make sound conclusions and create internally valid research designs. However, that does not make them immune to bias at all. A researcher cannot separate themselves from the world that they study. Social science research can’t be excluded from the social world. In our quest to find answers, we ultimately create the reality we intended to study. When we decide on definitions of concepts, questions we will ask, and the conclusions we make, we create new understandings. We can always observe social facts, but ultimately, we must decide what those facts mean to gain a better understanding of reality.  I am not sure if it matters if research is objective. Before, I believed objectivity was the only way to measure the worthiness of a research project. Now I understand that social science is not about finding absolute truths, but about cultivating knowledge.

For example, we discussed the Wedeen’s piece titled “Acting “As If”: Symbolic Politics and Social Control in Syria” in class and how she used notes to explain how she was a moving part in the social reality she was studying. In her first note she explained how she immersed herself in the culture of the people she studied, the backgrounds of the people she studied, and the places she stayed when completing the research.[1] This example is what came to mind when I thought about if we can be separate from our research.  Prior to Olson’s I would have saw this as an example of a lack of objectivity and a flaw. Now that I understand what social science research is, I realize that Weeden acknowledging her background is a part of the knowledge that was produced.

 

 

[1] Wedeen, Lisa. “Acting “As If”: Symbolic Politics and Social Control in Syria.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 40, no. 3 (1998): pg. 503 http://www.jstor.org/stable/179273.

 

Research Portfolio Post #2: Mentor Meeting

ta7578a 1 Comment

This past Wednesday, I met with my mentor for about an hour to discuss my research interests. My mentor, Dr. Hardig, is also a research methodology professor. So, we spent the meeting discussing the different ways he guides his students on finding their research puzzles. While I am still struggling to decide on a particular topic, I have a more clear idea.

After my mentor read my first research progress post, he said that I might be more interested in interpretivist methodologies. My mentor said to still keep an open mind but from what he could discern from my first blog post, my research interests lean towards interpretivism. We discussed how there may be some merit in first deciding what types of knowledge (neo-positivist vs interpretivist) interests me more before settling on a topic. Trying to think of my research interests in this way helped a lot and I was able to cross off some ideas.

Another tip he offered to help me decide on a research project is to consider what is feasible and what is not. When I think of my original research question, I know one major obstacle could be the language of the primary source documents. I also realized how some of the interpretivist questions I want to ask could be better answered with ethnography. As a result of time and limited resources, an ethnography could be difficult.

The way Dr. Hardig explained discourses to me made me realize I am more interested in finding out how people come to understand ideas. From his explanation, I understand discourse analysis to be about finding how people come to understand social reality and how that understanding is influenced or changed overtime. I know a discourse analysis may be more accessible to me but the language barrier could still be an obstacle.

I think our meeting was very productive and I did leave with a few next steps. Dr. Hardig suggested I pay close attention to the articles concerning interpretivist methodology included in the class syllabus. He also proposed that I write down the questions I have for each topic to help decide which puzzle to research. I also decided a good next step would be to do some more preliminary research on feminisms in the middle east to identify which branches of feminist thought I will focus on. Hardig mentioned that there are two main groups of feminists: secular and Islamist.

I am still not sure if I should stick to the topic I originally proposed. I know regardless of topic I am interested in looking at discourses. My major concern is identifying what exactly will I study. I understand that is a major part of the process of research but it can be hard to embrace this level of uncertainty.

Research Portfolio Post #1: Research Interests

ta7578a 3 Comments

When I applied to be an Olson Scholar, I hoped to explore feminisms before the Arab Spring to see if they influenced at all understandings of democracy within the Middle East and North Africa. I wanted to pay specific attention to internet feminist activism. Several facets of this research puzzle struck me as interesting. I hoped to explore these questions below:

  • What do marginalized people under autocratic regimes understand democracy to mean? How does living in oppressive states that mimic democracy influence perceptions of freedom and civil rights?
  • Do grassroots movements abroad or locally impact understandings of democracy?
  • What did feminism in MENA look like during what is considered the third wave of feminism (1990s to early 2010s) in the West?
  • How does feminism inform understandings of postcolonial struggles and democratization?
  • How does the internet influence the translation of understandings of freedom from one movement to another movement? Is solidarity easier to establish?

This research topic intrigued me because I wanted to understand how oppressed people understand human rights and democracy. I know in the West, particularly the United States, it is marginalized people that have largely been responsible for movements that have led to the democratization of society.

Prior coursework in feminist theory drove me to embark on this research topic. The feminist theory that inspired me derived from Lila Abu-Lughod’s ethnographic research. Specifically, two of Abu-Lughod’s conclusions sparked the questions above. The idea that women’s issues in the Middle East are not ahistorical but deeply connected to a history of imperialism and that transnational solidarity among feminists is necessary for democratization were striking to me (Abu Lughod 783-790). So naturally I wanted to answer the questions what were the feminist movements in the Middle East, how do they define human rights, and what can be learned from them. Also, the intersection of feminist theory and post-colonization intrigued because of my background as a first-generation Haitian-American.

Before I began my studies at SIS, I was interested in studying diasporas and transnational activism. Also, I was interested in legal issues concerning boundaries (carceral spaces, contested borders, occupied territory, etc) and what those boundaries mean for diasporas confined to them. After some reflection, I have have been wanting to change my research question. I think it would be interesting to study forced deportation and incarceration and how that impacts democratization and gender equity.  I would hope to explore these issues using examples from diasporas in the Middle East and Caribbean.

While I am passionate about the research question I originally proposed, I have some reservations. I know I already have some ideas of what I want my answers for my research questions to be. I fear this research project could become more about filling in the blanks. There have been fewer opportunities for me to explore the research interests I had before SIS. So, I know it could be potentially more rewarding and challenging studying something different. I realize I have the opportunity to delve deeper into a complex topic through the Olson Scholar Program. The regional requirement for this major makes it difficult to explicitly explore issues concerning diasporas, boundaries, and legal theory. I also think having a better understanding of what people within diasporas understand transnational solidarity to mean could make me think about my original research question differently.

 

Works Cited

Abu-Lughod, Lila. “Do Muslim Women really Need Saving? Anthropoligical Reflections on Cultural Relativism and its Others.” American Anthropologist, vol. 104, no. 3, 2002, pp. 783-790. ProQuest, http://proxyau.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.proxyau.wrlc.org/docview/198217752?accountid=8285.