战时劳动中去中心化的二分法:哥伦比亚革命武装部队的性别、胁迫和代理轨迹(1964-2016)

IF 0.7 4区 管理学 Q1 HISTORY Labor History Pub Date : 2023-03-07 DOI:10.1080/0023656X.2023.2187765
Alexis Henshaw
{"title":"战时劳动中去中心化的二分法:哥伦比亚革命武装部队的性别、胁迫和代理轨迹(1964-2016)","authors":"Alexis Henshaw","doi":"10.1080/0023656X.2023.2187765","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Labor history and international relations (IR) each offer insights regarding the extent to which women contribute to non-state armed groups and the value of their labor. Yet questions remain about how agency in joining armed movements – and, conversely, the forced participation of women – are operationalized and even fetishized by observers. Positivist empirical work in IR has operationalized agency and coercion as a dichotomy in gendered wartime labor, implying that where women’s labor is coerced it may have a lesser impact on the conduct of conflict or conflict outcomes. This paper challenges the existence of an agency-coercion binary, drawing on the case of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Analyzing archival sources in a manner informed by both feminist international relations and labor history scholarship, I show the complex interplay of agency and coercion in women’s lived experience within a non-state armed group. I further reflect on how a temporal understanding of labor relations, examining coercion and choice at the moments of entry, work, and exit, contributes to a more complete understanding of the gender dynamics of wartime labor.","PeriodicalId":45777,"journal":{"name":"Labor History","volume":"64 1","pages":"269 - 286"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"De-centering dichotomies in wartime labor: trajectories of gender, coercion, and agency in the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (1964-2016)\",\"authors\":\"Alexis Henshaw\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0023656X.2023.2187765\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Labor history and international relations (IR) each offer insights regarding the extent to which women contribute to non-state armed groups and the value of their labor. Yet questions remain about how agency in joining armed movements – and, conversely, the forced participation of women – are operationalized and even fetishized by observers. Positivist empirical work in IR has operationalized agency and coercion as a dichotomy in gendered wartime labor, implying that where women’s labor is coerced it may have a lesser impact on the conduct of conflict or conflict outcomes. This paper challenges the existence of an agency-coercion binary, drawing on the case of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Analyzing archival sources in a manner informed by both feminist international relations and labor history scholarship, I show the complex interplay of agency and coercion in women’s lived experience within a non-state armed group. I further reflect on how a temporal understanding of labor relations, examining coercion and choice at the moments of entry, work, and exit, contributes to a more complete understanding of the gender dynamics of wartime labor.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45777,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Labor History\",\"volume\":\"64 1\",\"pages\":\"269 - 286\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Labor History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0023656X.2023.2187765\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Labor History","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0023656X.2023.2187765","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

劳工史和国际关系(IR)都提供了关于妇女对非国家武装团体的贡献程度及其劳动价值的见解。然而,问题仍然存在,即参加武装运动的机构-以及反过来,妇女的强迫参与-是如何被观察员运作甚至崇拜的。国际关系中的实证主义实证工作将代理和强制作为战时性别劳动的二分法进行操作,这意味着在强迫妇女劳动的情况下,它可能对冲突的行为或冲突的结果产生较小的影响。本文以哥伦比亚革命武装力量(FARC)为例,对机构-强制二元对立的存在提出了挑战。我以女权主义国际关系和劳工历史学术的方式分析档案资料,展示了非国家武装团体中妇女生活经验中的代理和强迫的复杂相互作用。我进一步思考了对劳动关系的时间理解,考察了进入、工作和退出时的强迫和选择,如何有助于更全面地理解战时劳动的性别动态。
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
De-centering dichotomies in wartime labor: trajectories of gender, coercion, and agency in the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (1964-2016)
ABSTRACT Labor history and international relations (IR) each offer insights regarding the extent to which women contribute to non-state armed groups and the value of their labor. Yet questions remain about how agency in joining armed movements – and, conversely, the forced participation of women – are operationalized and even fetishized by observers. Positivist empirical work in IR has operationalized agency and coercion as a dichotomy in gendered wartime labor, implying that where women’s labor is coerced it may have a lesser impact on the conduct of conflict or conflict outcomes. This paper challenges the existence of an agency-coercion binary, drawing on the case of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Analyzing archival sources in a manner informed by both feminist international relations and labor history scholarship, I show the complex interplay of agency and coercion in women’s lived experience within a non-state armed group. I further reflect on how a temporal understanding of labor relations, examining coercion and choice at the moments of entry, work, and exit, contributes to a more complete understanding of the gender dynamics of wartime labor.
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
Labor History
Labor History Multiple-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
28.60%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: Labor History is the pre-eminent journal for historical scholarship on labor. It is thoroughly ecumenical in its approach and showcases the work of labor historians, industrial relations scholars, labor economists, political scientists, sociologists, social movement theorists, business scholars and all others who write about labor issues. Labor History is also committed to geographical and chronological breadth. It publishes work on labor in the US and all other areas of the world. It is concerned with questions of labor in every time period, from the eighteenth century to contemporary events. Labor History provides a forum for all labor scholars, thus helping to bind together a large but fragmented area of study. By embracing all disciplines, time frames and locales, Labor History is the flagship journal of the entire field. All research articles published in the journal have undergone rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and refereeing by at least two anonymous referees.
期刊最新文献
Workers and generals: military-controlled transitions and labor movements in Brazil and Egypt The great standardisation: working hours around the world A history of progressive Doxa : an exploration of Bengali women’s labour power The Master in Bondage: factory workers in China, 1949-2019 The Master in Bondage: factory workers in China, 1949-2019 , by Huaiyin Li, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 2023, 330 pp. $71.25 (hardcover) $25 (paperback), ISBN 9781503634541 (hardcover) 9781503635289 (paperback) 9781503635296 (eboo Strikes and stones: stone quarries in the Southern Triangle as a site for shaping ethnic segregation, industrial relations, and labor militancy in Israel, 1949-1952
×
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