The Connection between Gender Policy and National Politics - Essay Example

Question Gender politics and national politics were both used to reassert and sustain the status quo relative to ideas concerning masculinity andproper sex roles during a prolonged role of national crisis. Specific examples of this are not difficult to find in the media and popular culture during this time period. One example of this relationship places the man squarely in the role of protector and provider while the woman is expected to provide the back-up support necessary for the man to go out and do his manly thing. This is played out in nearly every popular movie of the era. Perhaps the ultimate male adolescent fantasy about protecting the homeland from this era is presented for consumption in a movie titled “Red Dawn”. In short, the Commies (Russians and Cubans) invade America. A band of brave high school kids escape the clutches of the evil Reds and become freedom fighters somewhere in the Midwest. The expected roles of men and women are displayed perfectly in the film. Some freedom fighters evolve into bloodthirsty rebels while others maintain as much dignity as freedom fighters can maintain. The role of the only two women in the film is to give the men (boys?) something to protect while their subjection to sexual assault by the bad guys is subtly alluded to. The low point of the movie for the freedom fighters comes when they are no longer able to protect the women or themselves. The homeland appears lost, and it would be saving for the legends that spread far and wide about the brave exploits of this band of brothers. The women die, but this only serves to highlight the temporary weaknesses of the boys. Their real strength in saving the nation is in the manly ideals they instilled in others (who would hopefully do a better job protecting their women!). Though a bit tongue-in-cheek, this B-movie really does show a key interaction between gender politics and national politics during the cold war. Men desired women to do what they had always done during times of war. They wanted the home-fires burning while they went off to war. And for men, war meant combat and after that, opportunity for adulation and heightened levels of power. For women, the gender politics encouraged them to do much the same as they had during war time. The gender politics of the cold war dictated women sacrifice personal ambition for the good of the Nation stay home and pine away for their fighting men. Men were to sacrifice their lives for the good of the nation. One sacrifice was rewarded and the other was not. Indeed, the fact that something as abstract as a nation would be worth sacrificing for is testament to the power the nation-state holds as an invented community. National politics worked to reinforce these gender politics. A specific example of this during the cold war was the debate surrounding the Equal Rights Amendment of the late 1970’s in the United States. This legislation was intended to give women equal access to all aspects of American life. The focus was on giving women equal rights in the workplace and to educational opportunities. Other elements that were threatening to some in this legislation were the proposed power to increase women’s reproductive choices. The Equal Rights Amendment was very unpopular and was ultimately defeated as an amendment to the United States constitution. The resistance this Cold War Era amendment encountered is explained by Gramsci’s ideas concerning Cultural Hegemony. This idea states that in a society, many different classes of people work together to sustain the society. The idea of Cultural Hegemony states that one class of people seeks to control other classes by dictating how they can participate in the society. This idea fits well with the proscribed gender politics displayed during the Cold War. Women needed to be kept in their place not just for the good of the nation or the protection of “womanhood”, but because an alteration of this gender classes role in the society would encroach upon the hegemony currently enjoyed by the male class. Question #2 Boundary construction between Israel and Palestine can best be described by the Clash of Civilizations theory put forth by Samuel P. Huntington. The history surrounding the creation of the state of Israel is a good example of how this theory works. Briefly, Huntington suggests that the current arrangement of nation-states is in decline. The future of conflict will not be between superpowers such as the United States and the former U.S.S.R. during the Cold War. Conflict will instead emerge along the boundary lines between civilizations. Civilizations by definition are different than one another, according to Huntington, and it is these differences that has led to conflict in the past and will be the cause of most conflict in the future. In the case of the creation of Israel, a “people without a land” as the Zionists called the Jews, was established as a people with a land after WWII. The creation of this state was full of duplicity and political maneuvering by the victorious western powers. The state for the Jews was established to the detriment of nearly 700,000 Palestinians that were living on the land that was now established as a homeland for the Jews. Individual conflicts broke out immediately between Jews and neighboring Arab states. Huntington would argue that these conflicts weren’t really Israel against Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Syria, but was actually a continuation of conflict that has been ongoing for many hundreds of years between Jewish civilization and Islamic civilization. This is not to say that religion is the driving force behind the conflict, rather the conflict is created by tensions between the civilizations. In the establishment of the boundaries for the state of Israel, the civilizations that were in conflict were Western Christianity, Islamic and Jewish civilizations. According to Huntington, there are six reasons that civilizations, not nation-states, will clash with more frequency in the coming years. Each of these examples can be seen in the conflict over the establishment of borders for the state of Israel. Hunting first suggests that the first source of conflict between civilizations is quite simply differences in thoughts about god, personal rights, equality and liberty. He is quick to point out that differences don’t automatically mean conflict, but in the case of civilizations, they often do. For example, in the establishment of boundaries for the state of Israel, differences in how Jews and Muslims view access sacred sites for religious purposes, land ownership and migration patterns were not taken into consideration by the United Nations. As a result, the current boundaries are viewed by Muslims as invalid because they are established by a Western Christian dominated organization (the U.N.) and Jews are not satisfied because special needs for access to Holy sites were not secured. A second cause of conflict is proximity to those of different civilizations. In a smaller, more mobile world, increased interaction between civilizations will increase cultural misunderstandings and conflict. Drawing a hard boundary between Muslim and Jew in Israel creates an identity on false Nationalism that really does little to assuage the real differences between civilizations. Another change that will cause cultures to clash is the changing global economy. AS people become more mobile, identification with a nation-state will lessen. AS a result, identification of friend or foe becomes more problematic. For example, in Israel, during the war years the identified enemy was an Iraqi, a Syrian or and Egyptian for Jews. As national identity fades, a more globalized enemy will emerge, one that will be described in terms of civilization, such as Muslim, but not Egyptian. This makes the surety of boundaries and borders that delineate the nation-state less powerful because civilizations tend to be trans-national entities. The hegemony of the Western Christian civilization is another source of conflict between civilizations. At one time, the leaders of developing nations wanted to be seen as pro-Western by boasting of Western contacts or even educational degrees from Western universities. Ordinary citizens in non-Western civilizations new identify most closely with the West while the leaders in these civilizations attempt to keep the West at arm’s length as a check to Western hegemony. This dichotomy within and between the Muslim and Jewish civilizations and their relationships with the West on the micro and macro scale is sure to be a source of conflict in the future. The immutability of civilization is another point that exacerbates conflict. In the Jewish and Muslim civilizations, individuals can change political allegiance or alter socio-economic status, but switching civilization isn’t something that is done. It is not possible to be a part of two civilizations at once. For example, a person operating on a national identity could hold a dual citizenship that showed they were a citizen of a Western nation, such as the United States while also holding citizenship in a Muslim nation such as Kuwait. But it is much more difficult to be half-Catholic and half-Jewish or half-Muslim. Civilizations tend not to change. Historical momentum tends to keep civilizations from changing and adapting. This is evidenced in the boundaries for the state of Israel because the historical claims of the Jewish civilization were used as justification for the original boundaries for the new state. The conflict between the three civilizations of the Jews, Muslims and Western Christians are playing out as the borders of Israel are drawn, discussed, disputed and re-drawn. Physical barriers like the green line wall being erected by Israel is further proof that the civilizations living side by side in this region believe that conflict can be avoided by drawing firm lines in the sand and each party behaving themselves on the proper side. Huntington’s thesis on conflict between civilizations would dispute this idea. Civilizations are too big and amorphous to keep on one side of the line or other. While Huntington does not claim to predict the future, his thoughts do not hold out much hope for a resounding, peaceful resolution to the existing conflict between the West, Jews and Muslims. Read More