In full-blown patriarchy, citizenship equals masculinity; and since modern states are descended from patriarchies, there is still a strong connection. This is manifest in the dominance of the public realm, in almost all parts of the world, by men. A few years ago, I noticed in the statistics of parliamentary representation that the percentage of men in public office was rising, not falling, globally. I think it probable that the process of capitalist globalization, under the control of corporations almost wholly controlled by men, will, to a considerable extent, outflank the gains made by women at the level of local welfare states. The liberal state that developed in Europe and the colonies of settlement in the 18th-19th centuries was built against an Ancien Regime legitimated through religion. This new liberal state asserted against that a legitimacy based on the consent of the governed. Thus, liberal states in the nineteenth century developed a sharp contradiction between exclusive citizenship and their need for legitimacy; this was the point where liberal feminism gained leverage, in the form of the suffrage movement. There was a massive contradiction when groups who were governed but not represented began asserting claims to citizenship, as was done by colonists, workers, and women. Unlike the liberal state, today’s multinational companies do not have a massive need for legitimation. They get their way mainly by simple coercion, and the collapse of the Soviet dictatorship has paradoxically cleared the ground for a reassertion of global patriarchy. States may become more woman-friendly; I think the Scandinavian states have gone a good way in that direction. But I have yet to see a woman-friendly money market, and it is global finance (stock exchanges, bond markets, futures markets, currency markets, loan markets, etc.) that is increasingly calling the tune in world affairs. — R. W. Connell, 1998
Posted on: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 01:29:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015