被动赋权:女性机构如何成为无所不能的女性

Serene J. Khader
{"title":"被动赋权:女性机构如何成为无所不能的女性","authors":"Serene J. Khader","doi":"10.5840/philtopics201846216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:In a world where paid work is touted as a development panacea, empowering women has started to look a lot like burdening them. I argue here that this burdening of women is a predictable result of the conception of empowerment as choice or agency. Dominant conceptions of empowerment characterize empowerment as the increase in a person's ability to do what they choose. Yet conditions of gender equality and poverty structure women's options such that choosing (among unacceptable alternatives), doing (too much), and doing more (than men) are often both women's best option and modes of disempowerment. Seeing the way increased agency can be disempowering requires shifting away from the view that social structures disempower by constraining individual agency. We instead need a conception of power as a constraint on individual action to a conception of power as structuring the field of available actions in ways that affect the relative position of social groups. Through a discussion of the gender division of labor and the feminization of responsibility, I argue that a more feminist conception of empowerment will weaken the link between empowerment and individual agency.","PeriodicalId":230797,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Topics","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Passive Empowerment: How Women's Agency Became Women Doing It All\",\"authors\":\"Serene J. Khader\",\"doi\":\"10.5840/philtopics201846216\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT:In a world where paid work is touted as a development panacea, empowering women has started to look a lot like burdening them. I argue here that this burdening of women is a predictable result of the conception of empowerment as choice or agency. Dominant conceptions of empowerment characterize empowerment as the increase in a person's ability to do what they choose. Yet conditions of gender equality and poverty structure women's options such that choosing (among unacceptable alternatives), doing (too much), and doing more (than men) are often both women's best option and modes of disempowerment. Seeing the way increased agency can be disempowering requires shifting away from the view that social structures disempower by constraining individual agency. We instead need a conception of power as a constraint on individual action to a conception of power as structuring the field of available actions in ways that affect the relative position of social groups. Through a discussion of the gender division of labor and the feminization of responsibility, I argue that a more feminist conception of empowerment will weaken the link between empowerment and individual agency.\",\"PeriodicalId\":230797,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophical Topics\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophical Topics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics201846216\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Topics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics201846216","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

摘要:在一个有偿工作被吹捧为发展灵丹妙药的世界里,赋予女性权力开始变得像给她们增加负担。我在这里认为,女性的这种负担是权力作为选择或代理的概念的可预见的结果。授权的主流概念将授权描述为一个人做他们选择的事情的能力的增加。然而,性别平等和贫困的条件构成了妇女的选择,因此选择(在不可接受的选择中)、做(太多)和做(比男人)更多往往既是妇女的最佳选择,也是剥夺妇女权利的方式。看到能动性的增强可能会削弱权力,就需要改变社会结构通过限制个人能动性而削弱权力的观点。相反,我们需要将权力的概念定义为对个人行为的约束,而不是将权力的概念定义为以影响社会群体相对地位的方式构建可用行动的领域。通过对性别分工和责任女性化的讨论,我认为一个更加女权主义的赋权概念将削弱赋权与个人能动性之间的联系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Passive Empowerment: How Women's Agency Became Women Doing It All
ABSTRACT:In a world where paid work is touted as a development panacea, empowering women has started to look a lot like burdening them. I argue here that this burdening of women is a predictable result of the conception of empowerment as choice or agency. Dominant conceptions of empowerment characterize empowerment as the increase in a person's ability to do what they choose. Yet conditions of gender equality and poverty structure women's options such that choosing (among unacceptable alternatives), doing (too much), and doing more (than men) are often both women's best option and modes of disempowerment. Seeing the way increased agency can be disempowering requires shifting away from the view that social structures disempower by constraining individual agency. We instead need a conception of power as a constraint on individual action to a conception of power as structuring the field of available actions in ways that affect the relative position of social groups. Through a discussion of the gender division of labor and the feminization of responsibility, I argue that a more feminist conception of empowerment will weaken the link between empowerment and individual agency.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Political Polarization and Social Media Interactive Self-Deception in Digital Spaces Absurd Stories, Ideologies & Motivated Cognition Conspiracy Theories as Serious Play Testimonial Epistemic Rights in Online Spaces
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1