Michaele L. Ferguson – författare

Bandita is a powerful critique of the persistent marginalization of feminist scholarship. Taking up the work of Iris Marion Young, Michaele L. Ferguson argues that feminist political theorists have been "internally excluded": formally included in the discipline while their most disruptive insights are misread, dismissed, or ignored. Young—one of the most influential feminist political theorists of the past fifty years—is well known for her work on difference, democracy, and structural injustice, yet nonfeminist readers tend to treat feminism as merely incidental to her thought. Resituating her scholarship squarely within a feminist intellectual and activist tradition, Ferguson reconstructs her distinctly feminist account of structure and reveals what is lost when Young's readers—and even Young herself—fail to center her feminist commitments. Building from Young's own self?description as a "Bandita"—a feminist outlaw who selectively steals from male philosophers while leaving behind whatever of their work is sexist or unhelpful—Ferguson develops the figure of the bandita as a lens through which to understand the ambivalent, asymmetric, and often unreciprocated intellectual relationships between feminist and nonfeminist political theorists. The book exposes how reading practices, writing conventions, and citation norms pressure feminist scholars to veil their political commitments in order to secure recognition within the masculinist academy.Part intellectual biography, part disciplinary reckoning, part feminist manifesto, Bandita insists we move from structural critique to structural change. It breaks desire paths for feminists and nonfeminists alike to follow, offering practical strategies for including feminist scholarship in political theory: reading off the beaten track, writing in resistance to compulsory heterosexuality in academia, and citing feminism as a living, ongoing tradition of scholarship.A love letter to the banditas who came before and a call to arms for those yet to come, Bandita insists that feminist political theory's internal inclusion is possible if we read promiscuously, write loyally, and cite intentionally.

Bandita is a powerful critique of the persistent marginalization of feminist scholarship. Taking up the work of Iris Marion Young, Michaele L. Ferguson argues that feminist political theorists have been "internally excluded": formally included in the discipline while their most disruptive insights are misread, dismissed, or ignored. Young—one of the most influential feminist political theorists of the past fifty years—is well known for her work on difference, democracy, and structural injustice, yet nonfeminist readers tend to treat feminism as merely incidental to her thought. Resituating her scholarship squarely within a feminist intellectual and activist tradition, Ferguson reconstructs her distinctly feminist account of structure and reveals what is lost when Young's readers—and even Young herself—fail to center her feminist commitments. Building from Young's own self?description as a "Bandita"—a feminist outlaw who selectively steals from male philosophers while leaving behind whatever of their work is sexist or unhelpful—Ferguson develops the figure of the bandita as a lens through which to understand the ambivalent, asymmetric, and often unreciprocated intellectual relationships between feminist and nonfeminist political theorists. The book exposes how reading practices, writing conventions, and citation norms pressure feminist scholars to veil their political commitments in order to secure recognition within the masculinist academy.Part intellectual biography, part disciplinary reckoning, part feminist manifesto, Bandita insists we move from structural critique to structural change. It breaks desire paths for feminists and nonfeminists alike to follow, offering practical strategies for including feminist scholarship in political theory: reading off the beaten track, writing in resistance to compulsory heterosexuality in academia, and citing feminism as a living, ongoing tradition of scholarship.A love letter to the banditas who came before and a call to arms for those yet to come, Bandita insists that feminist political theory's internal inclusion is possible if we read promiscuously, write loyally, and cite intentionally.

It is frequently assumed that the "people " must have something in common or else democracy will fail. This assumption that democracy requires commonality - such as a shared nationality, a common culture, or consensus on a core set of values - sets theorists and political actors alike on a futile search for what we have in common, and it generates misplaced anxiety when it turns out that this commonality is not forthcoming. In Sharing Democracy, Michaele Ferguson argues that this preoccupation with commonality misdirects our attention toward what we share and away from how we share in democracy. This produces an ironically anti-democratic tendency to emphasize the passive possession of commonality at the expense of promoting the active exercise of political freedom. Ferguson counteracts this tendency by exposing the reasons for the persistent allure of the common. She offers in its stead a radical vision of democracy grounded in political freedom: the capacity of ordinary people to make and remake the world in which they live. This vision of democracy is exemplified in protest marches: cacophonous, unpredictable, and self-authorizing collective enactments of our world-building freedom.Ferguson develops her radical vision of democracy by drawing on Hannah Arendt's account of how we share a world in common with others, Ludwig Wittgenstein's later philosophy of language, and Linda Zerilli's critique of the essentialist/anti-essentialist debates in feminist theory. She juxtaposes critical readings of democratic theorists with readings of authors in related fields, such as Benedict Anderson, Robert Putnam, and Charles Taylor. Her theoretical argument is illustrated and informed by interpretations of political events, including the Arab Spring, the integration of Little Rock High School, debates over Quebec secession, immigrant rights protests in the US in 2006, and the Occupy movement.

It is frequently assumed that the ?people? must have something in common or else democracy will fail. This assumption that democracy requires commonality - such as a shared nationality, a common culture, or consensus on a core set of values - sets theorists and political actors alike on a futile search for what we have in common, and it generates misplaced anxiety when it turns out that this commonality is not forthcoming. In Sharing Democracy, Michaele Ferguson argues that this preoccupation with commonality misdirects our attention toward what we share and away from how we share in democracy. This produces an ironically anti-democratic tendency to emphasize the passive possession of commonality at the expense of promoting the active exercise of political freedom. Ferguson counteracts this tendency by exposing the reasons for the persistent allure of the common. She offers in its stead a radical vision of democracy grounded in political freedom: the capacity of ordinary people to make and remake the world in which they live. This vision of democracy is exemplified in protest marches: cacophonous, unpredictable, and self-authorizing collective enactments of our world-building freedom. Ferguson develops her radical vision of democracy by drawing on Hannah Arendt''s account of how we share a world in common with others, Ludwig Wittgenstein''s later philosophy of language, and Linda Zerilli''s critique of the essentialist/anti-essentialist debates in feminist theory. She juxtaposes critical readings of democratic theorists with readings of authors in related fields, such as Benedict Anderson, Robert Putnam, and Charles Taylor. Her theoretical argument is illustrated and informed by interpretations of political events, including the Arab Spring, the integration of Little Rock High School, debates over Quebec secession, immigrant rights protests in the US in 2006, and the Occupy movement.

It is frequently assumed that the "people " must have something in common or else democracy will fail. This assumption that democracy requires commonality - such as a shared nationality, a common culture, or consensus on a core set of values - sets theorists and political actors alike on a futile search for what we have in common, and it generates misplaced anxiety when it turns out that this commonality is not forthcoming. In Sharing Democracy, Michaele Ferguson argues that this preoccupation with commonality misdirects our attention toward what we share and away from how we share in democracy. This produces an ironically anti-democratic tendency to emphasize the passive possession of commonality at the expense of promoting the active exercise of political freedom. Ferguson counteracts this tendency by exposing the reasons for the persistent allure of the common. She offers in its stead a radical vision of democracy grounded in political freedom: the capacity of ordinary people to make and remake the world in which they live. This vision of democracy is exemplified in protest marches: cacophonous, unpredictable, and self-authorizing collective enactments of our world-building freedom.Ferguson develops her radical vision of democracy by drawing on Hannah Arendt's account of how we share a world in common with others, Ludwig Wittgenstein's later philosophy of language, and Linda Zerilli's critique of the essentialist/anti-essentialist debates in feminist theory. She juxtaposes critical readings of democratic theorists with readings of authors in related fields, such as Benedict Anderson, Robert Putnam, and Charles Taylor. Her theoretical argument is illustrated and informed by interpretations of political events, including the Arab Spring, the integration of Little Rock High School, debates over Quebec secession, immigrant rights protests in the US in 2006, and the Occupy movement.

It is frequently assumed that the ?people? must have something in common or else democracy will fail. This assumption that democracy requires commonality - such as a shared nationality, a common culture, or consensus on a core set of values - sets theorists and political actors alike on a futile search for what we have in common, and it generates misplaced anxiety when it turns out that this commonality is not forthcoming. In Sharing Democracy, Michaele Ferguson argues that this preoccupation with commonality misdirects our attention toward what we share and away from how we share in democracy. This produces an ironically anti-democratic tendency to emphasize the passive possession of commonality at the expense of promoting the active exercise of political freedom. Ferguson counteracts this tendency by exposing the reasons for the persistent allure of the common. She offers in its stead a radical vision of democracy grounded in political freedom: the capacity of ordinary people to make and remake the world in which they live. This vision of democracy is exemplified in protest marches: cacophonous, unpredictable, and self-authorizing collective enactments of our world-building freedom. Ferguson develops her radical vision of democracy by drawing on Hannah Arendt''s account of how we share a world in common with others, Ludwig Wittgenstein''s later philosophy of language, and Linda Zerilli''s critique of the essentialist/anti-essentialist debates in feminist theory. She juxtaposes critical readings of democratic theorists with readings of authors in related fields, such as Benedict Anderson, Robert Putnam, and Charles Taylor. Her theoretical argument is illustrated and informed by interpretations of political events, including the Arab Spring, the integration of Little Rock High School, debates over Quebec secession, immigrant rights protests in the US in 2006, and the Occupy movement.

Taking seriously the “W Stands for Women” rhetoric of the 2004 Bush–Cheney campaign, the contributors to this collection investigate how “W” stands for women. They argue that George W. Bush has hijacked feminist language toward decidedly antifeminist ends; his use of feminist rhetoric is deeply and problematically connected to a conservative gender ideology. While it is not surprising that conservative views about gender motivate Bush’s stance on so-called “women’s issues” such as abortion, what is surprising-and what this collection demonstrates-is that a conservative gender ideology also underlies a range of policies that do not appear explicitly related to gender, most notably foreign and domestic policies associated with the post-9/11 security state. Any assessment of the lasting consequences of the Bush presidency requires an understanding of the gender conservatism at its core.In W Stands for Women ten feminist scholars analyze various aspects of Bush’s persona, language, and policy to show how his administration has shaped a new politics of gender. One contributor points out the shortcomings of “compassionate conservatism,” a political philosophy that requires a weaker class to be the subject of compassion. Another examines Lynndie England’s participation in the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in relation to the interrogation practices elaborated in the Army Field Manual, practices that often entail “feminizing” detainees by stripping them of their masculine gender identities. Whether investigating the ways that Bush himself performs masculinity or the problems with discourse that positions non-Western women as supplicants in need of saving, these essays highlight the far-reaching consequences of the Bush administration’s conflation of feminist rhetoric, conservative gender ideology, and neoconservative national security policy.Contributors. Andrew Feffer, Michaele L. Ferguson, David S. Gutterman, Mary Hawkesworth, Timothy Kaufman-Osborn, Lori Jo Marso, Danielle Regan, R. Claire Snyder, Iris Marion Young, Karen ZiviMichaela Ferguson and Karen Zivi appeared on KPFA’s Against the Grain on September 11, 2007. Listen to the audio.Michaela Ferguson and Lori Jo Marso appeared on WUNC’s The State of Things on August 30, 2007. Listen to the audio.