{"title":"性别与保守主义:现代美国保守主义中的父权","authors":"Terrell Carver","doi":"10.1017/S1743923X17000290","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This is quite a novel book, and indeed almost a novel in itself. The (anti)hero is “modern American conservatism,” born (in Dudas’s account) in 1955 with the publication of William F. Buckley Jr.’s “Our Mission Statement” in the first issue of his own National Review. Dudas’s novel of education recounts the highs and lows, triumphs and tribulations, of this discursive character (i.e., “modern American conservatism”) through the Ronald Reagan era in state and federal politics, Clarence Thomas’s tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court, and on to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign as a concluding flourish. Crucially, though, we have a “figure” here, a discourse, a trope that is central to Dudas’s narrative, as opposed to the (apparently) real men — Buckley, Reagan, and Thomas — whose personalities are not really their own. As Dudas presents his conservative troika of titans, they are instead avatars of a paradox. The paradox is this: how do political actors embrace both the radical independence of “rugged individualism” and submission to the authoritarianism of “fatherly rule”? This paradox is clearly of interest to political theorists, as it pits the moral and political individualism of rights discourse against the dependency and subservience of authoritarian and gender-hierarchical patriarchalism. Dudas takes this opposition pretty much as read and formulates his","PeriodicalId":203979,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Gender","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Themed Book Review on Gender and Conservatism Raised Right: Fatherhood in Modern American Conservatism\",\"authors\":\"Terrell Carver\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1743923X17000290\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This is quite a novel book, and indeed almost a novel in itself. The (anti)hero is “modern American conservatism,” born (in Dudas’s account) in 1955 with the publication of William F. Buckley Jr.’s “Our Mission Statement” in the first issue of his own National Review. Dudas’s novel of education recounts the highs and lows, triumphs and tribulations, of this discursive character (i.e., “modern American conservatism”) through the Ronald Reagan era in state and federal politics, Clarence Thomas’s tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court, and on to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign as a concluding flourish. Crucially, though, we have a “figure” here, a discourse, a trope that is central to Dudas’s narrative, as opposed to the (apparently) real men — Buckley, Reagan, and Thomas — whose personalities are not really their own. As Dudas presents his conservative troika of titans, they are instead avatars of a paradox. The paradox is this: how do political actors embrace both the radical independence of “rugged individualism” and submission to the authoritarianism of “fatherly rule”? This paradox is clearly of interest to political theorists, as it pits the moral and political individualism of rights discourse against the dependency and subservience of authoritarian and gender-hierarchical patriarchalism. Dudas takes this opposition pretty much as read and formulates his\",\"PeriodicalId\":203979,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Politics & Gender\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-02-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Politics & Gender\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X17000290\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics & Gender","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X17000290","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
这是一本相当新颖的书,实际上它本身几乎就是一本新颖的书。(反)英雄是“现代美国保守主义”,(在杜达斯的描述中)诞生于1955年,当时威廉·f·巴克利(William F. Buckley Jr.)的《我们的使命宣言》(Our Mission Statement)发表在他自己的《国家评论》(National Review)的第一期上。杜达斯的这部教育小说讲述了这位散文家(即“现代美国保守主义”)在罗纳德·里根时代的州和联邦政治、克拉伦斯·托马斯(Clarence Thomas)在美国最高法院的任期,以及唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)的总统竞选中的盛衰、胜利和磨难。然而,至关重要的是,我们在这里有一个“人物”,一种话语,一种比喻,这是杜达斯叙事的核心,与(显然)真实的人——巴克利、里根和托马斯——相反,他们的个性并不真正属于他们自己。当杜达斯展示他的保守派三巨头时,他们反而是一个悖论的化身。矛盾之处在于:政治行动者如何既接受“粗犷的个人主义”的激进独立,又屈服于“父权统治”的威权主义?这一悖论显然引起了政治理论家的兴趣,因为它将权利话语的道德和政治个人主义与专制主义和性别等级父权主义的依赖和屈从对立起来。杜达斯把这种反对意见看得很清楚,并制定了自己的反对意见
Themed Book Review on Gender and Conservatism Raised Right: Fatherhood in Modern American Conservatism
This is quite a novel book, and indeed almost a novel in itself. The (anti)hero is “modern American conservatism,” born (in Dudas’s account) in 1955 with the publication of William F. Buckley Jr.’s “Our Mission Statement” in the first issue of his own National Review. Dudas’s novel of education recounts the highs and lows, triumphs and tribulations, of this discursive character (i.e., “modern American conservatism”) through the Ronald Reagan era in state and federal politics, Clarence Thomas’s tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court, and on to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign as a concluding flourish. Crucially, though, we have a “figure” here, a discourse, a trope that is central to Dudas’s narrative, as opposed to the (apparently) real men — Buckley, Reagan, and Thomas — whose personalities are not really their own. As Dudas presents his conservative troika of titans, they are instead avatars of a paradox. The paradox is this: how do political actors embrace both the radical independence of “rugged individualism” and submission to the authoritarianism of “fatherly rule”? This paradox is clearly of interest to political theorists, as it pits the moral and political individualism of rights discourse against the dependency and subservience of authoritarian and gender-hierarchical patriarchalism. Dudas takes this opposition pretty much as read and formulates his