Review Weedon–What is subjectivity? Why is the concept Weedon describes relevant to gender (and other) studies?
Review Scott–What is her take on theories of gender common when she wrote this? What does she propose as an alternative?
Appleby, Hunt, Jacob, Telling the Truth about History, ( New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1995). Entire book.–For class (posting is unnecessary), why the title? What is their main point? Do they believe it is possible to do history? Why?
According to Weedon, subjectivity is understanding who you are by accepting the notion of who you from the point of view of others. By understanding the roles and identities assigned to gender by institutional and cultural authority, gender can be defined and put into historical context.
Scott argued that historians used descriptive terms to report on gender, that in examining women, they focused on activities that were appropriated to them. Women were given gender roles, such as childbirth and household maintenance, and historians reported on their activities in those spheres, wile ignoring their participation in influencing social and political events.
She suggests that gender should be considered as an element of social relationships and as a product of power posturing within those relationships. She argues that gender should be understood as a product of cultural and institutional assignment.
Subjectivity, in the sense that Weedon is using it, is “our sense of ourselves,” which is “constructed.” According to Weedon, it is not innate, but rather in socially produced in a whole range of discursive practices, which are the subject of constant power struggles. Language is used to construct subjectivity in socially specific ways, which is why it is relevant to gender and other identity studies. It is also “neither unified nor fixed.” In Weedon’s framework, which is focused on the ways and reasons that different “subjects” perceive themselves and are perceived by others, the possibility exists for different interpretations of historical events from different perspectives, and with different meanings. In my experience reading gender studies, and any such identity studies, one of the fundamental reasons for these fields’ existence is to present an alternate view of the meanings and causes of events. For instance, in Dr. Lehfeldt’s course, we have been reading gender histories about early modern Europe. This would be next to impossible to do without the concept of subjectivity as described by Weedon. Sources do not directly generally address the role of women, and are written by men for the most part. Also, as we read in the Joan Scott article, gender is socially constructed, and is defined in society, which uses the sex-based differences to reinforce these gender identities and internalize them in a variety of ways, including language, which is also stressed by Weedon. The same could be said of other identity studies. In addition to identity studies, the emphasis that Weedon places on society imposing subjectivity as part of a power struggle would make this a relevant concept when looking at history from a Marxist perspective.
Appleby et al, in Telling the Truth about History, have as their central argument that “skepticism and relativism about truth, not only in science but also in history and politics, have grown out of the insistent democratization of Western society. The opening of higher education to nearly all who seek it, the rewriting of American history from a variety of cultural perspectives, and the dethroning of science as the source and model for what may be deemed true, all are interrelated phenomena.” Basically, once the traditional narrative was shown to be but one interpretation of events, history splintered based on the diversity of experience of students after World War II. The title speaks not only to the skepticism regarding the historical narrative, but to the prescriptive nature of the book in regards to how to “do history.” In order to do this, history needs to become more than memorization of events, and open up about the practice of history, i.e. historiography. Along with this, a “democratic practice of history,” that encourages skepticism towards the historical narrative, and use the study of history towards “the rigorous search for truth usable by all peoples.” While this is an interesting proposition,(albeit presented in what I felt was a very condescending manner) I wonder how workable such an approach would actually be for children and teenagers. My background in psychology tells me that it is unlikely that children would be able to conceptualize these ideas before they reach college age. Pressing this type of analysis of history on students at too young an age could have disastrous effects, especially if handled poorly by educators that may be unable to conceptualize these ideas themselves, or see it as an opportunity to impress their own agendas. This concern was acknowledged in a way by the authors when discussing the human nature aspect of wanting to reframe history from a perspective of pride in one particular group or ethnicity. Also, while I acknowledge there are many flaws in the standardized testing for students, this approach would make any attempt at legitimately evaluating students at a state or national level next to impossible.
By the way, since one of the purposes of history is to instill citizenship values, don’t forget to vote today.