Political Theory

H05(a) - Feminism and Queer Theory

Date: Jun 12 | Time: 03:30pm to 05:00pm | Location: Zoom (see details/voir détails)

Chair/Président/Présidente : Vertika (McGiIl University)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Pinar Dokumaci (University College Dublin)

Zoom Meeting Link | Meeting ID : 824 2282 2231 | Password: 808043

Representing political interests: A missing link between descriptive representation and deliberative democracy: Olivia Kamgain (University of Ottawa)
Abstract: The merits of descriptive representation for improving political inclusion have been considered extensively (Mansbridge, 1999; Young, 2002). Empirical literature has provided evidence that the presence of women or minority legislators translate into inclusive policies (Celis, 2007; Reynolds, 2013). Descriptive representatives are elected officials who have similar demographic characteristics to those they represent, i.e., who “look like” them in some way. Yet, there is a missing argument to explain why some political interests cannot be represented by outgroup members. Objections toward descriptive representation have challenged its compatibility with electoral accountability when these representatives are not elected directly by those they aim to speak for. By reflecting on the case of political inclusion of LGBTQ people in Canada, my paper addresses key questions to provide answers to this current gap in political theory. Who can voice LGBTQ political interests? Why does their representation depend on the presence of group members in parliaments? In this paper, I develop an argument that expands on the growing reflection about the preferable representatives to promote minority political interests (Dovi, 2009) and reinforces the value of descriptive representatives for both political inclusion and deliberative democracy. I first draw on contributions in queer theory (Warner, 2002; Butler, 2005; Ahmed, 2006) to define the boundaries of the LGBTQ political interests that may require members of the group to represent them. I then expand on the literature on epistemic injustice to articulate why these interests can be better represented by in-group members (Fricker, 2007; Dotson, 2018; Davis, 2020).

From Nationalism to Equality: Tracing the Normative Foundations of Early Chinese Feminism, 1897-1907: Devin Ouellette (Univesity of Toronto)
Abstract: Employing an “ideas in context” approach to the writings of early Chinse feminism, this paper examines the history of the normative foundations of feminism in China and the practices these foundations legitimated; that is, it aims to illuminate the conditions that enabled Chinese men and women to begin to think of women as an important socio-political entity. This paper argues that, normatively, two alternative moral foundations for feminism emerged in China: nationalism and equality. Feminism in China first emerged as a normative desideratum subsumed by the importance of nation-building in a context of encroaching Euro-American and Japanese imperialism. In the subsequent evolution of Chinese nationalism, the conceptualization of women’s equality, and the means by which to achieve it, was deepened, demonstrating the troubling of the uneasy marriage between nationalism and feminism. Finally, the link between feminism and nationalism was severed by the anarcho-feminist Hé-Yīn Zhèn 何殷震 (1884-1920?), whose systematic critique of nationalist feminism shifted feminism to an independent normative basis of equality. Practically, this paper argues that nationalist feminism legitimated women’s education and participation in broader areas of social and economic life. As feminism was severed from nationalism by He-Yin, a total social revolution was championed in order to eliminate gender hierarchy, which, He-Yin argued, is produced and reproduced through linguistic, social, and intellectual practices of gender differentiation. This paper thus employs existing methodologies to the study of non-Western political thought, thereby contributing to the growing field of Comparative Political Theory.

Motor Activities and Power-with: The Political Philosophy of Mary Parker Follett: Etienne Cardin-Trudeau (University of Toronto)
Abstract: Mary Parker Follett’s (1868-1933) work was reviewed in the New York Times, the Times of London, the Journal of Philosophy and the Political Science Quarterly; praised and criticized by such illustrious scholars and political figures as Theodore Roosevelt, Viscount Haldane, Roscoe Pound, Bernard Bosanquet, Herbert Cooley, Harold Laski and many others. She was, for all practical purposes, among the most well-respected and renowned political theorists of her time. And yet, since then, she has almost been entirely lost to the field. This paper aims at correcting that injustice, and at recovering and reconstructing her political philosophy as a theory of participatory democracy that emphasizes the motor aspect of politics. I argue that Follett helps us understand democracy as a “network of human relations,” where “concrete activities,” such as common menial tasks, sports, and everyday interactions, contribute to an everlasting process of community-building that reduces the need for overt coercion in politics. Follett, in that sense, grapples with the intractable puzzle of how to reconcile individual freedom with collective agency, or how to increase the individual’s willingness to subordinate his or her interests to the well-being of all freely. Her answer differs from the mainstream theories of democracy by emphasizing the motor, or embodied element of participation.