What's Gender Got to Do with It? Gender History as Foreign Relations History

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

The request to write this essay came the day I submitted my tenure papers. These had forced me to articulate why I considered myself both a women's historian and a historian of U.S. foreign relations. As I struggled to explain my research interests in the allotted three pages, I imagined the assorted deans, chemists, and engineers who would eventually read my file shaking their heads and asking: “What's gender got to do with it?” This was a question I had confronted quite often in the early nineties, when I was a graduate student in women's history embarking on a dissertation on the Spanish-Cuban-American and Philippine-American Wars. But the ascent of cultural and social history meant that in the past decade I have heard this question less and less from my colleagues.

Roughly half the faculty in my department characterize themselves as cultural historians – a term that obscures as much as it illuminates, for their interests could also be categorized as social, economic, political, and other subsets of history. In the academic circles I frequent, my disparate interests rarely raise eyebrows. After all, it's been over fifteen years since Joan Scott published her influential article “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis” that made the case for using gender to understand issues of power. Drawing on contemporary feminist scholarship, Scott maintained that gender did not refer to fixed biological differences between men and women but to socially-determined symbols, norms, and identities.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationExplaining the History of American Foreign Relations
EditorsMichael J Hogan, Thomas G Paterson
PublisherCambridge University Press
Pages304-322
Number of pages19
Edition2
ISBN (Electronic)9780511806445
ISBN (Print)9780521832793
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2004

Fingerprint

History
Gender History
Historian
File
Social History
Women's History
Graduate Students
Cultural Historians
Historical Analysis
Symbol
Engineers
Economics
Philippine-American War
Chemist
Cuban Americans
Cultural History
Tenure

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Arts and Humanities(all)

Cite this

Hoganson, K. (2004). What's Gender Got to Do with It? Gender History as Foreign Relations History. In M. J. Hogan, & T. G. Paterson (Eds.), Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations (2 ed., pp. 304-322). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511806445.019

What's Gender Got to Do with It? Gender History as Foreign Relations History. / Hoganson, Kristin.

Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations. ed. / Michael J Hogan; Thomas G Paterson. 2. ed. Cambridge University Press, 2004. p. 304-322.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Hoganson, K 2004, What's Gender Got to Do with It? Gender History as Foreign Relations History. in MJ Hogan & TG Paterson (eds), Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations. 2 edn, Cambridge University Press, pp. 304-322. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511806445.019
Hoganson K. What's Gender Got to Do with It? Gender History as Foreign Relations History. In Hogan MJ, Paterson TG, editors, Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations. 2 ed. Cambridge University Press. 2004. p. 304-322 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511806445.019
Hoganson, Kristin. / What's Gender Got to Do with It? Gender History as Foreign Relations History. Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations. editor / Michael J Hogan ; Thomas G Paterson. 2. ed. Cambridge University Press, 2004. pp. 304-322
@inbook{245d721287ee4dfb8aa2d53d12b62fea,
title = "What's Gender Got to Do with It?: Gender History as Foreign Relations History",
abstract = "The request to write this essay came the day I submitted my tenure papers. These had forced me to articulate why I considered myself both a women's historian and a historian of U.S. foreign relations. As I struggled to explain my research interests in the allotted three pages, I imagined the assorted deans, chemists, and engineers who would eventually read my file shaking their heads and asking: “What's gender got to do with it?” This was a question I had confronted quite often in the early nineties, when I was a graduate student in women's history embarking on a dissertation on the Spanish-Cuban-American and Philippine-American Wars. But the ascent of cultural and social history meant that in the past decade I have heard this question less and less from my colleagues.Roughly half the faculty in my department characterize themselves as cultural historians – a term that obscures as much as it illuminates, for their interests could also be categorized as social, economic, political, and other subsets of history. In the academic circles I frequent, my disparate interests rarely raise eyebrows. After all, it's been over fifteen years since Joan Scott published her influential article “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis” that made the case for using gender to understand issues of power. Drawing on contemporary feminist scholarship, Scott maintained that gender did not refer to fixed biological differences between men and women but to socially-determined symbols, norms, and identities.",
author = "Kristin Hoganson",
year = "2004",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/CBO9780511806445.019",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9780521832793",
pages = "304--322",
editor = "Hogan, {Michael J} and Paterson, {Thomas G}",
booktitle = "Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
address = "United States",
edition = "2",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - What's Gender Got to Do with It?

T2 - Gender History as Foreign Relations History

AU - Hoganson, Kristin

PY - 2004/1/1

Y1 - 2004/1/1

N2 - The request to write this essay came the day I submitted my tenure papers. These had forced me to articulate why I considered myself both a women's historian and a historian of U.S. foreign relations. As I struggled to explain my research interests in the allotted three pages, I imagined the assorted deans, chemists, and engineers who would eventually read my file shaking their heads and asking: “What's gender got to do with it?” This was a question I had confronted quite often in the early nineties, when I was a graduate student in women's history embarking on a dissertation on the Spanish-Cuban-American and Philippine-American Wars. But the ascent of cultural and social history meant that in the past decade I have heard this question less and less from my colleagues.Roughly half the faculty in my department characterize themselves as cultural historians – a term that obscures as much as it illuminates, for their interests could also be categorized as social, economic, political, and other subsets of history. In the academic circles I frequent, my disparate interests rarely raise eyebrows. After all, it's been over fifteen years since Joan Scott published her influential article “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis” that made the case for using gender to understand issues of power. Drawing on contemporary feminist scholarship, Scott maintained that gender did not refer to fixed biological differences between men and women but to socially-determined symbols, norms, and identities.

AB - The request to write this essay came the day I submitted my tenure papers. These had forced me to articulate why I considered myself both a women's historian and a historian of U.S. foreign relations. As I struggled to explain my research interests in the allotted three pages, I imagined the assorted deans, chemists, and engineers who would eventually read my file shaking their heads and asking: “What's gender got to do with it?” This was a question I had confronted quite often in the early nineties, when I was a graduate student in women's history embarking on a dissertation on the Spanish-Cuban-American and Philippine-American Wars. But the ascent of cultural and social history meant that in the past decade I have heard this question less and less from my colleagues.Roughly half the faculty in my department characterize themselves as cultural historians – a term that obscures as much as it illuminates, for their interests could also be categorized as social, economic, political, and other subsets of history. In the academic circles I frequent, my disparate interests rarely raise eyebrows. After all, it's been over fifteen years since Joan Scott published her influential article “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis” that made the case for using gender to understand issues of power. Drawing on contemporary feminist scholarship, Scott maintained that gender did not refer to fixed biological differences between men and women but to socially-determined symbols, norms, and identities.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84885123916&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84885123916&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/CBO9780511806445.019

DO - 10.1017/CBO9780511806445.019

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:84885123916

SN - 9780521832793

SP - 304

EP - 322

BT - Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations

A2 - Hogan, Michael J

A2 - Paterson, Thomas G

PB - Cambridge University Press

ER -