固定交叉性:在 PSI 性暴力政策中表演性地纳入女权主义专门知识

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 WOMENS STUDIES
Corinne Mason , Irene Shankar
{"title":"固定交叉性:在 PSI 性暴力政策中表演性地纳入女权主义专门知识","authors":"Corinne Mason ,&nbsp;Irene Shankar","doi":"10.1016/j.wsif.2024.102911","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In light of public scandals and legislative pressure, Canadian universities have instituted sexualized violence policies in an attempt to curb harm on campus. As the first step, policy-making committees and task forces were established to spearhead institutional change. Using data from 49 qualitative interviews with feminist faculty across Canada, we examine how these policy-making committees utilized feminist expertise, particularly whether feminists with intersectional positionalities and expertise were invited to the table and if their expertise was used to inform the resulting institutional policies. As our findings illustrate, even though policies profess to seek or incorporate intersectionality, experts in intersectionality– particularly those with intersectional positionalities– are rarely invited or heard. As we argue in this article, post-secondary institutions actively work against intersectionality by narrowing the mandates of committees and siloing task forces from other Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) concerns. Additionally, invitations to serve as experts on sexualized violence committees are often reserved for feminists deemed by administrators to be palatable, and those invited who embody diversity are used to rubber stamp the process of creating sexualized violence responses instead of informing the policies. This article illustrates the various ways in which PSI committees' constitutions and their mandates tend to make intersectionality a performative rather than informative guiding principle.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47940,"journal":{"name":"Womens Studies International Forum","volume":"104 ","pages":"Article 102911"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Immobilizing intersectionality: The performative inclusion of feminist expertise within PSI sexual violence policies\",\"authors\":\"Corinne Mason ,&nbsp;Irene Shankar\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.wsif.2024.102911\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In light of public scandals and legislative pressure, Canadian universities have instituted sexualized violence policies in an attempt to curb harm on campus. As the first step, policy-making committees and task forces were established to spearhead institutional change. Using data from 49 qualitative interviews with feminist faculty across Canada, we examine how these policy-making committees utilized feminist expertise, particularly whether feminists with intersectional positionalities and expertise were invited to the table and if their expertise was used to inform the resulting institutional policies. As our findings illustrate, even though policies profess to seek or incorporate intersectionality, experts in intersectionality– particularly those with intersectional positionalities– are rarely invited or heard. As we argue in this article, post-secondary institutions actively work against intersectionality by narrowing the mandates of committees and siloing task forces from other Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) concerns. Additionally, invitations to serve as experts on sexualized violence committees are often reserved for feminists deemed by administrators to be palatable, and those invited who embody diversity are used to rubber stamp the process of creating sexualized violence responses instead of informing the policies. This article illustrates the various ways in which PSI committees' constitutions and their mandates tend to make intersectionality a performative rather than informative guiding principle.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47940,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Womens Studies International Forum\",\"volume\":\"104 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102911\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Womens Studies International Forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539524000499\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"WOMENS STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Womens Studies International Forum","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539524000499","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"WOMENS STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

鉴于公众丑闻和立法压力,加拿大各大学制定了性暴力政策,试图遏制校园伤害。作为第一步,成立了政策制定委员会和特别工作组来引领制度变革。利用对加拿大各地女权主义教师的 49 次定性访谈数据,我们研究了这些决策委员会如何利用女权主义的专业知识,特别是是否邀请了具有交叉立场和专业知识的女权主义者参与讨论,以及是否利用她们的专业知识为最终的机构政策提供信息。我们的研究结果表明,即使政策声称要寻求或纳入交叉性,但交叉性专家--尤其是具有交叉性立场的专家--很少被邀请或听取意见。正如我们在本文中所论述的那样,中学后教育机构通过缩小各委员会的任务范围,并将工作队与其他平等、多样性和包容性(EDI)问题隔离开来,积极地反对交叉性。此外,被邀请担任性暴力委员会专家的人往往是被管理者认为可接受的女权主义者,而那些被邀请的体现多样性的人则被用来为制定性暴力应对措施的过程盖橡皮图章,而不是为政策提供信息。这篇文章说明了 PSI 委员会的章程及其任务往往以各种方式使交叉性成为一种表演性而非信息性的指导原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Immobilizing intersectionality: The performative inclusion of feminist expertise within PSI sexual violence policies

In light of public scandals and legislative pressure, Canadian universities have instituted sexualized violence policies in an attempt to curb harm on campus. As the first step, policy-making committees and task forces were established to spearhead institutional change. Using data from 49 qualitative interviews with feminist faculty across Canada, we examine how these policy-making committees utilized feminist expertise, particularly whether feminists with intersectional positionalities and expertise were invited to the table and if their expertise was used to inform the resulting institutional policies. As our findings illustrate, even though policies profess to seek or incorporate intersectionality, experts in intersectionality– particularly those with intersectional positionalities– are rarely invited or heard. As we argue in this article, post-secondary institutions actively work against intersectionality by narrowing the mandates of committees and siloing task forces from other Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) concerns. Additionally, invitations to serve as experts on sexualized violence committees are often reserved for feminists deemed by administrators to be palatable, and those invited who embody diversity are used to rubber stamp the process of creating sexualized violence responses instead of informing the policies. This article illustrates the various ways in which PSI committees' constitutions and their mandates tend to make intersectionality a performative rather than informative guiding principle.

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
2.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
63
审稿时长
79 days
期刊介绍: Women"s Studies International Forum (formerly Women"s Studies International Quarterly, established in 1978) is a bimonthly journal to aid the distribution and exchange of feminist research in the multidisciplinary, international area of women"s studies and in feminist research in other disciplines. The policy of the journal is to establish a feminist forum for discussion and debate. The journal seeks to critique and reconceptualize existing knowledge, to examine and re-evaluate the manner in which knowledge is produced and distributed, and to assess the implications this has for women"s lives.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信