What problems in other approaches to political analysis has feminism sought to address - Essay Example

?Topic: What problems in other approaches to political analysis has feminism sought to address? Has any strand of feminism been successful in that regard? Introduction Off late, leading innovations in political analysis have been presented by two schools of feminism. Feminism has been one of the most ‘significant intellectual movements of the late twentieth century’ While researching the issues over various approaches to political analysis by feminism, it needs to be observed that negative and far-away approaches can provide legal and authentic inputs but can also at the same time marginalise the feminist interests to the limits that can actually harm the cause of feminism. Such a strategy can become an obstacle in managing efficiently, the types of problems, as described above. Precaution needs to be taken not to unnecessarily reject an approach leading to actual analysis, thus limiting feminist considerations (Lawson, 1999). The aim of feminist approaches in politics is to change the research and practice of politics, differentiating it from actions that just include women or links between women and men as a field of significance. For many academicians, a major add-on is the notion of ‘gender’. Although this term is mostly taken for ‘women’, feminist study is precautious to differentiate between ‘sex’, biological variations between women and men and ‘gender’, social contexts provided to these differences in terms. A change to gender has two wide implications: one is to shift the attention away from biological sex to framed gender identities, and the other is that it shifts overall concern with women while thinking of the effect of masculinities and femininities, besides the relations between men and women, on political awareness and results (Childs and Krook, 2006). Given women’s concurrent cornering from the political arena, centring on ‘women’ becomes significant for measuring designs of political empowerment, attitudes and impacts. Nevertheless, theories of gender provide an opportunity to study more deeply by researching masculinities and femininities, along with the comparative ranking of men and women, in the behaviour of political life. Another aim of feminists is to widen the scope of ‘politics’. Political scholars are in the habit of using this term to mean formal political procedures in relation to government and elections. Nevertheless, women’s movement activism has led scientists to theorize two more meanings. On the one side, feminists have enlarged the meaning of ‘politics’ to include informal politics and the forces of routine life. Feminists view social movements as a type of inclusion equal to their participation inside the state (Beckwith, 2007)). On the same line, they point out towards the power relations that cover all aspects of social life, including relations within the private arena, assuming ‘the personal is political’ (Okin, 1979)). Other than that, feminists and postmodern theorists have also followed a concept of ‘politics’ as any representation of power relations (Butler, 1990)). This approach separates most from positivist premises, theorizing about not only the politics of the state and social movements but also the politics of language (Driscoll & Krook, 2011). A third trait of feminist study is a dedication to bring about political transformation. In certain cases, this aim is employed as an opposition to feminist work on the basis that it is not ‘objective’, as political aims intrude with the finding of ‘truth’ (Hammersley and Gomm, 1997)). In reaction to these objections, feminist philosophers debate for identifying the contextual and incomplete nature of all knowledge assertions, with some ideating that the outlooks of the sidelined should be considered as a man for creating relatively sound knowledge about the world (Hartsock, 1983)). Irrespective of their methodological approaches, which may catapult between wide agreement of the present instruments of the subject, a state called as feminist empiricism, to tryst with finding new methods of analysis, feminist academics are unanimous that study should add to realising some kind of positive change, whether it is related to empowerment of women as an entity or opposing the making of gendered types in the designing of public policy (Driscoll & Krook, 2011). Rational Choice Theory One of the approaches to political analysis is stated to be through the rational choice theory, the ‘paradigm in social science that offers the promise of bringing a greater theoretical unity among disciplines than has existed until now’ (Coleman, 1989: 5)). Although a collective desire to reconsider the research on politics exists, scholarship employing these two outlooks seldom inter-crosses. One approach concludes that although feminist scholars seem to welcome a large ambit of ways and approaches, only a few use a rational choice design (Krook and Squires, 2006). Other perspectives find that study on gender and identity is mostly observed as least complying to rational choice analysis. Nevertheless, some political scholars consider this division or analyse the possibility for shared understanding. Feminism and the approach to the rational choice theory needs to be researched in the context of political analysis for getting an insight on the shared achievements to be gained by following this approach (Driscoll & Krook, 2011). Rational choice theory is sometimes designed as the classically positive approach in political science. The purpose is to properly divide the statistical information from the normative appraisals of the happenings in politics and develop a clear presentation of the incentive mechanisms and organisations that balance the dynamics of individual and social choice. In comparison, a number of feminists view their research to be post-positivist although a number of other feminists also research within a positivist design. They are doubtful of the positivist viewpoint in an objective reality, finding the masculine assumptions mostly weaved into in what are observed as ‘neutral’ political ideas (Goertz and Mazur, 2008). Therefore, they are not sure of the probability to oust partiality totally from social research and debate that statistical study should consider social conditions of the actors. However, variations within different approaches indicate that a number of researchers may be interested to delve deep into these variations in fruitful methods. The generalised attempts of early rational choice studies have been increasingly ignored, for instance, an increased number of studies have identified the requirement to develop increasingly standardised generalisations (Driscoll & Krook, 2011). As a result, rational choice theorists have become relatively thoughtful, asserting that neither total objectivity nor generalised application will work. Many political researchers agree over the need for socialised models of human discussion and support positivist hypotheses for organising analysis easily than positivist bigotry for their own interest. Nevertheless, a number of feminists are fully dedicated to gather right insight and awareness for the cause of social justice. For this purpose, feminist statisticians have shown their eagerness to experiment with a range of positivist study tools although they agree that there are other procedures available as well to frame researches that promote right kind of knowledge while also showing attachment with feminist issues (Krook and Squires, 2006). Let’s reconsider the political analysis that feminism seeks to address via the rational choice theory. Feminist and rational choice approaches offer basic objections to prevailing approaches for political analysis. Although each approach is marked by various kinds of perspectives, they are unanimous over their attempts to generate superior knowledge of the political realities. Feminist scholars debate that this includes study of ‘gender’ as a type of analysis, enlarging current definitions of ‘politics’, and producing awareness that may be employed to follow some level of political transformation. For rational choice theorists, this requires linking micro-level exchanges to macro-level happenings and procedures, giving thought on how people make selections in the context of mechanics over the functions of others and when confronting hurdles and limitations (Driscoll & Krook, 2011). Rational choice approach Concerning any strand of feminism gaining some degree of success in the context of different approaches to political analysis, various scholars of the subject have named the rational choice approach variously, such as a paradigm, a research program, a theory, a methodology, and a map (Green and Shapiro, 1994; Levi, 1997; Ferejohn, 2002)). As hinted through the terms, rational choice theorists’ purpose is to bring about a change in political analysis to produce thrifty statements of social procedures so that hypotheses could be quantified along with not-befitting theories within wider application conditions. The initial measure is to offer ‘rationality’ to all stakeholders in a model. This is a pivotal point of disagreement among critics as political stakeholders seldom behave in rational way, speaking practically. They are cheated by their deficient will power; they may be moved by custom or trend, or they may not be certain about the choices before them (Driscoll & Krook, 2011). In actuality, the rationality viewpoint is randomly more of an analytical choice than a psychological assertion: until it is taken for granted that stakeholders can behave knowingly as grounded on their views and inclinations, it could be attainable to extrapolate about statistical designs in their attitude. Therefore, rational choice models are not based on prior advisory of aims or inspirations. For being known as ‘rational’, priority claims have to be both comprehensive and changeable: choices are comparable in the mind of the actor and priority claims suit together in a reasonably persistent method. Therefore, in its most ordinary form, rationality is embraced as a method of linking meaningful stakeholders to their functions, setting an analytic ground from where it is attainable to project claims and recognise causal framework (Hindmoor, 2011). Once the claim of rationality is embraced and priorities, outcomes and limitations are zeroed-in by the researcher scholar, the aim is to connect these behavioural patterns to the institutions and functions that trigger aggregate results. This approach is most robust under much organised situations, as differences in limitations often carry more descriptive weight than variations in basic choices, taken as permanent and taken from outside of the model (Hindmoor, 2011). Therefore, the aim of making claims is to smoothen out, in stead of describing by stating how transformations in organisations or directions create varied results. A range of limitations – including conditions, methods and risk factors impress imbalances in the knowledge of specific stakeholders. These organisations mould how singular functions are tactically performed and how decisions are taken collectively, changing micro-level attitudes into macro-level events. Thoughts about rationality and function within limitations guide two kinds of rational choice inquiry, which bestow various preferences to the function of cooperative and non-cooperative tactical interaction. One division is social choice theory, which guides theories of shared decision-making wherein personal priorities are aggregated into social results. These analyses point out a ‘social choice function’, or the aggregation design via which personal priorities are transcribed into shared development. Another division is game theory, which takes it for granted that stakeholders interact tactically with other rational stakeholders to attain their most favoured result. The ‘strategy’ in these models comes out from the reciprocity of social interaction, as outcomes depend on the functions of others to a certain extent (Driscoll & Krook, 2011). Success of the rational choice theory can be judged from the works of past scholars. For instance, Anna Harvey (1998)) has employed a rational choice mechanism to state rise in the process of policies linked to women’s rights in the United States, which has nothing to do with her desire to link this with a feminist outlook. She debates that these designs erupt from the legacy of women’s delayed right to vote, which has derived that women, as late-entrants to the suffrage, the political right to vote, have not been successful in changing their voting rights into the formulation of policies to the advantage of women. Rather, it shows that parties preferred such problems at times when aristocracy thought that women formed an electoral bloc and faced the risk of electoral counter-attack by women’s organisations. These situations were formed only in the 1920s, after the right to vote struggle and during the 1970s, with the appearance of second wave feminism (Driscoll & Krook, 2011). Harvey’s research employs the instruments of rational choice theory, centring on mechanism and behaviour, to link micro-level interactions to macro-level procedures. Nevertheless, her scholarship also throw light on feminist issues to identify the function of gender in moulding the conditions of women’s involvement in formal politics, asking attention to the wider political–organisational causes behind the exit of women’s problems from the scene of political discussion (Driscoll & Krook, 2011). Power in Politics Feminists are strongly conscious of power relations in politics and their impact in moulding the balances of political life, including lines drawn around the ‘political’. Therefore, a feminist outlook needs full attention to issues of power, which are pivotal to but mostly underestimated in different kinds of political analysis. A task of power for feminists includes examples of clear manipulation, besides more gentle ways of exclusion. On the contrary, power is a circumferential instrument in most usages of rational choice theory, primarily because of an inclination to observe political bodies as organisations of voluntary cooperation that find solutions to shared action issues and benefit all stakeholders equally (Driscoll & Krook, 2011). Nevertheless, as Terry Moe (2005)) states, the political procedures that generate institutions create structures that are beneficial not for all, as a stronger group would enforce its will. It is seen that democratic institutions are oppressive to women because of the underrepresentation of women in elected politics. Initiating a focus on power is therefore crucial to a feminist–rational choice approach, which can help literature by framing the operation of power in various situations to mould political results (Driscoll & Krook, 2011). Conclusion It is clear that various approaches exist to political analysis, as framed by feminists but one approach of feminists has been overwhelming in positive outcomes. It is the approach towards the rational choice theory, which has the caliber to change the political scenario for the better fro the feminism perspective. Scholars have expressed doubt over the application of the rational choice theory but leaving aside certain exceptions, overall the approach is not devoid of reaching a rapprochement. Nevertheless, the various tools can help in analysing the different approaches to political analysis. A shared research strategy can open up new possibilities for furthering research and discover new tactics for introducing political change. References Childs, S. and Krook, M.L., 2006. Gender, politics, and political science: A reply to Michael Moran. Politics, 26 (3), 203–205. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9256.2006.00270.x. [Accessed 10 December 2012]. Driscoll, A., & Krook, M.L., 2011. Feminism and rational choice theory. European Political Science Review. Available from: http://mlkrook.org/pdf/driscoll_krook_forth.pdf [accessed 10 December 2012]. Goertz, G., & Mazur, A.G., 2008. Politics, gender, and concepts. New York: Cambridge University Press. [Accessed 10 December 2012]. Hindmoor (2011). Review Article: ‘Major Combat Operations Have Ended’? Arguing about Rational Choice. British Journal of Political Science, 41, pp 191-210. doi:10.1017/S0007123410000372. [Accessed 10 December 2012]. Krook, M.L. & Squires, J., 2006. Gender quotas in British politics. British Politics 1(1), 44–66. doi:10.1057/palgrave.bp.4200002 [accessed 10 December 2012]. Lawson, T., 1999. Feminism, realism, and universalism. Feminist Economist, 5 (2), 25-59. Available from: http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/faculty/lawson/PDFS/Feminism_Realism_and_Universalism.pdf [accessed 10 December 2012]. Read More