Hinweise und Tipps

Über heteronormative Machtmechanismen und die Verletzlichkeit nonkonformer Geschlechter

›Neue‹ Existenzweisen der Geschlechter wie z.B. Transgender, Intersexuelle, Transsexuelle und Crossdresser_innen sind längst Alltag.

Was bedeutet es, wenn geschlechtlich nonkon- forme Personen von massiven Gewalt- und Diskriminierungswiderfahrnissen berichten, die gesellschatlich unbekannt und/oder nicht anerkannt werden?

Die vorliegende Studie befasst sich mit dieser Leerstelle der Gewaltforschung. Geschlechtlich nonkonforme Personen, die sich selbst beispielsweise als ›Transgender‹, ›Interqueer‹, ›Quee- rer Transboy‹, ›Lesbian Boy‹, ›Transfrau‹, ›Transmann‹ oder ›Butch‹ verorten, berichteten in 18 qualitativen Interviews und in einer Gruppendiskussion von ihren Gewalt- und Diskriminierungswiderfahrnissen. Die Analyse systematisiert die verschiedenen Dimensionen der Diskriminierung und Gewalt, und befasst sich mit den Möglichkeiten zum Widerstand. Im Fokus stehen Auseinandersetzungen mit der Subjektkonstituierung, mit dem Coming Out, mit der zweigeschlechtlichen Architektur, mit sexueller Gewalt und Gewalt in Normierungsinstanzen. Aus poststrukturalistischer Perspektive zeigt die Gewaltstudie Funktionsweisen heteronorma- tiver Machtverhältnisse auf und veranschaulicht, dass geschlechtliche und sexuelle Eindeutigkeit in binären Systemen ein heteronormatives Privileg darstellt.

Dazu will die Stiftung EVZ ein Projekt initiieren und fördern:

Es soll praxisorientiertes Material entwickelt werden, welches für die historisch-politische Bildung in Deutschland einen verflechtungsgeschichtlichen Ansatz ausführt und verbreitet – exemplarisch für die Verflechtungen von Nationalsozialismus und Kolonialismus und ihrer jeweiligen Aufarbeitungsdiskurse. Für die Entwicklung, Implementierung und Verbreitung stehen insgesamt bis zu 150.000 Euro zur Verfügung.


Weitere Informationen finden sie hier.

Editors: Tiffany M. Gill and Keisha N. Blain

The scholarship on the Black International has been predominately male-centric, emphasizing individuals such as W.E.B. Du Bois, George Schuyler, Paul Robeson and C.L.R. James. With few exceptions, black women have been marginalized in historical narratives of black internationalism, which center on the global visions of black people in the United States and their sustained efforts to forge transnational collaborations and solidarities with people of color from across the globe. This volume is a collection of essays that analyze the gendered contours of black internationalism and explore the creative and critical ways women articulated black internationalism during the twentieth century. Highlighting the writings, speeches, performances, activism, and overseas travel of a diverse range of female actors, this collection moves black women from the margins to the center of the historical narrative. However, this anthology does more than just expand the paucity of scholarship on black women and internationalism.  Indeed, this volume is both an assessment of the field as well as an attempt to expand the contours of black internationalism theoretically, spatially, and temporally.  In contrast to studies that confine black internationalism to foreign policy agendas and political insurgencies, this collection captures the shifting meanings, complexities, and varied articulations of the term.

The editors seek historical essays that employ a gender analysis, foreground black women’s voices, and reveal the underappreciated importance of women in shaping black internationalist movements and discourse(s) during the twentieth century. We are especially interested in manuscripts that reconceptualize internationalism beyond narrowly defined notions of political struggle to include consumption practices, leisure, and artistic expressions. We also seek manuscripts that expand the scholarly discourse on black internationalism to include the ideas and activities of the black working class. We encourage potential contributors to submit articles that explore topics that include but are not limited to the following:

 *   Black women’s travels
 *   Black women’s international activism
 *   Expressions of cosmopolitanism
 *   International consumer practices
 *   Global Feminism(s)
 *   International cultural exchanges/ practices
 *   Working-class internationalism
 *   Gender and Pan-Africanism
 *   Global religious expressions
 *   Global black beauty culture and adornment practices
 *   Global performative and artistic expressions
 *   Black women’s engagement with the Black Atlantic/ Black Pacific
 *   Black women’s internationalist writings
 *   Black women and the military
 *   Black women’s engagement with foreign policy
 *   Anti-colonial/ Anti-imperial discourses

Completed manuscripts, due December 30, 2014, should be submitted electronically in Microsoft Word to BWIAnthology[at]gmail.com. Essays should be no more than 35 typed, double spaced pages (12 pt. font), including endnotes. Citations should follow the latest version of the Chicago Manual of Style. All entries should be accompanied by a title page and an abridged version of the author’s C.V. Please direct all inquiries to the editors via email at BWIAnthology[at]gmail.com. 

For additional information, please visit our website: www.BWIAnthology.com

Ort und Datum: 24th - 26th June, 2014 - Keele University, UK

Call for abstracts: The research practice of intersectionality in work and organisations

Stream Convenors:
Eve Ewington, Newcastle University, ENGLAND Elisabeth Anna Günther, Vienna University of Technology, AUSTRIA Katherine Ravenswood, AUT University, NEW ZEALAND Jenny K. Rodriguez, Newcastle University, ENGLAND

'What tools do we need to use to bring down the master's house if we cannot do it with the master's tools?'

This stream seeks to showcase conceptual, theoretical and theoretically informed empirical discussions about the research practice of intersectionality in work and organisations. Intersectionality continues to draw the interest of scholars looking to examine and understand inequality, how it shapes individual, multifaceted identities, and what needs to be done to challenge the 'givenness' of social categories (Hancock, 2007a; Ferre, 2009). Intersectional analysis moves beyond one-dimensional examination of inequalities based on its main proposition that in order to grasp social reality within work and organisations it is important to mind its complexity and avoid oversimplifying the effects of social categories. Instead the analysis focuses on "inequality regimes" (Acker, 2009), looking at the multilayered set of processes, policies, and practices that (re)produce inequality (Walby 2004). Ultimately, as an analytical framework that focuses on the interplay between political power and social inequality, intersectionality "will prove to be of importance in understanding organisations and working life in the next decade" (Harding et al. 2012, p.57).

However, despite its theoretical persuasiveness, intersectionality remains an open and contested term, with particular implications for its use as a research paradigm (Ferre, 2009, Hancock, 2007b). Nash (2008) has identified the lack of a defined intersectional methodology as an important tension within intersectionality scholarship. This issue remains unresolved with scholars struggling to apply the theory in practice, to hold onto the different levels of intersectionality (micro, meso, macro and global) and to deal with the analytical complexity posed by the potential need for different methodological approaches for each of the levels. In that respect, more work is needed that highlights the actual and potential methodological uses of intersectionality to examine the interplay between power and inequality in work and organisations. Indeed, whilst it is important to look closely and comprehensively at the underlying and intertwined processes and effects of inequality and privilege, it is equally important to understand what 'closely' and 'comprehensively' translate into in research practice. Research methods in social sciences were developed without the intersectional framework in mind, hence the underlying methodology is not suitable in order to grasp the complexity of intersectionality (Bowleg 2008, McCall 2005). Therefore, as Audre Lorde (1983/2010) has said, "the master's tool will never dismantle the master's house".

Moreover, although feminist researchers (c.f. Bowleg, 2008; MacKinnon, 2013) have pointed out that conventional frameworks fail to grasp the dynamics of power relations and effects of intertwined social processes; with particular exceptions (Hancock, 2007b; Simien, 2007), few discussions have engaged with intersectionality as a research paradigm and discussed the practical aspects of methodology and method for intersectional analyses. So, if the "master's tools" do not serve to unveil intersectionality in work and organisation, which tools should we use? How should intersectional research be designed?

As intersectionality is now "'a leading feminist paradigm' with expansive interdisciplinary reach [.] it is a critical moment to engage with its contradictions, absences, and murkiness" (Nash 2008, p.3). In the spirit of this call, this stream welcomes conceptual, theoretical and empirical papers that focus on the crafting of intersectional research in work and organisations. Important questions that the stream is seeking to explore are:
.        What do people do when they say they are doing intersectional analysis, both in terms of research design, and analysis and interpretation?
.        What makes intersectional analyses methodologically different from other types of feminist analyses?
.        How do we account in research design for the heterogeneity of social categories?
.        How do we craft multi-level intersectional analyses?
.        Is intersectionality useful and appropriate in all research contexts?
.        What does 'intersectional methodology' look like?
.        What is to be gained, or lost, through applying and adapting conventional quantitative and qualitative research methods to conduct intersectional analysis?
.        How can we avoid pitfalls, such as overemphasizing essentialist and oversimplified categories which do not capture the social reality of the research field?

Abstracts of approximately 500 words (ONE page, Word document NOT PDF, single spaced, excluding references, no header, footers or track changes) are invited by 1st November 2013 with decisions on acceptance to be made by stream leaders within one month. All abstracts will be peer reviewed. New and young scholars with 'work in progress' papers are welcomed. Papers can be theoretical or theoretically informed empirical work. In the case of co-authored papers, ONE person should be identified as the corresponding author. Note that due to restrictions of space, multiple submissions by the same author will not be timetabled. Abstracts should be emailed to: elisabeth.guenther@tuwien.ac.at    Abstracts should include FULL contact details, including your name, department,  institutional affiliation, mailing address, and e-mail address. State the title of the stream to which you are submitting your abstract. Note that no funding, fee waiver, travel or other bursaries are offered for attendance at GWO2014.

Flyer zum downloaden >>

Montag, 2. September 2013 / 16.00 – 20.00Uhr

Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung / Haus 1, Hiroshimastr. 17 / 10785 Berlin


Livestream ab 16.00 Uhr unter: http://fes.talk42.de

2013 ging ein #Aufschrei durch Deutschland, der eine bundesweite Sexismus-Debatte lostrat. Mit der Twitter-Aktion machten Hunderte von Frauen sichtbar, wie alltäglich Sexismus und sexuelle Übergriffe sind. Etwa zeitgleich dominierte die Frage den öffentlichen Diskurs, wie mit rassistischen Begriffen in Kinderbüchern umzugehen sei. Beide Debatten sind nicht neu, wurden aber selten derart in den Massenmedien und den Weblogs – der sogenannten Blogosphäre – verhandelt. Auffallend ist der unterschiedliche Verlauf der Berichterstattung: Während die Blogosphäre etwa den Änderungsvorschlägen für Kinderbücher überwiegend zustimmte, sprachen die öffentlichen Medien von Zensur bis hin zu einem Angriff auf die literarische Freiheit. Auch die Sexismus-Debatte sorgte für geteilte Meinungen, vor allem in der Blogosphäre selbst.

Doch wie können Rassismus und Sexismus durch Medien sichtbar gemacht werden? Wie und durch wen geschieht dies? Welches Potenzial bergen die Massenmedien und wie unterscheidet sich davon die Blogosphäre? Wer kann durch welche Medien wie erreicht werden? Verlaufen die Debatten parallel oder konzentrieren sie sich auf einen Kanal?

>> Veranstaltungsflyer zum Download





« Januar 2021»
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30