Gründung eines Netzwerkes zum Thema: Einladung und Ort des ersten Treffens
As part of an effort to introduce feminist modes of analysis into more
tradition-bound areas of history, "gender" emerged in the late 1980s as an
analytical category. Ten years later, historians are focusing on the task
of re-examining such "traditional" areas of history - political, economic,
and military - through the lens of gender. Toward this end, 39 scholars from
16 different countries gathered in Berlin, Germany, March 25-28, 1998, at
the conference "Gendered Nations: Nationalisms and Gender Order in the Long
Nineteenth Century - International Comparisons." Chaired by Dr. Karen Hagemann
of the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies on Women and Gender at the Technical
University of Berlin in cooperation with Prof. Ida Blom of the University
of Bergen (Norway), and organized under the auspices of the Center for
Interdisciplinary Studies on Women and Gender at the TU and the Einstein
Forum Potsdam, the conference took the form of an intensive workshop. In
examining the juncture of gender and the nation during the crucial constitutive
phase of modern nationalism, the conference's goal was to assess the current
state of the research in this hitherto relatively neglected area, to identify
promising directions for future study, and to orient future work more toward
international comparison.
The number of participants was limited in the interest of promoting a focused
discussion and developing networks for future research and exchange. All
those present were grateful to the sponsors: the German Research Foundation
(Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft), the British Council, the German Marshall
Fund, the Hans Böckler Foundation, the Heinrich Böll Foundation,
and the Technical University of Berlin. Framed by incisive opening and closing
remarks, the bulk of the conference consisted of five thematic three-hour
sessions. Each panel began with half-hour commentaries on the papers (which
participants had circulated prior to the conference) followed by brief responses
from the authors, so that most of the time was devoted to highly fruitful
discussion. All participants agreed that the conference went well beyond
the goals that had been formulated for it. In light of the extraordinary
interest the conference attracted (over 40 inquiries from a variety of countries,
in addition to those who actually participated), plans are underway to publish
a collection of articles (in English) based on the conference papers. This
report will summarize the high points of each panel, then identify major
issues that ran through the entire discussion, and finally touch upon a few
areas where the need for further research appears to be most urgent.
Ida Blom's introductory lecture provided a useful framework for the discussions that followed. She noted that studies of individual nations remain the cornerstone and precondition for comparison, and that historians do not face an either/or choice between single-nation and comparative studies: both are needed. Comparison, especially at a transcultural level, risks becoming too abstract to be compatible with the historian's insistence on careful evaluation of evidence and historical specificity. However, grand-scale comparisons may offer a point of orientation for further studies, expose a Western-centric bias, illuminate pros and cons of research from an "outsider's" perspective, and draw attention to crossculturally common phenomena (such as the widespread importance of educating women in the formation of nation-states) as well as differences. More limited comparisons, looking at three or four nations, offer many of these advantages, while building on solid evidence and thus remaining "more in tune with historical methodology." Blom then illustrated this point with an example comparing Japan, India, Norway, and Sweden: She found that while images of the family were central in all cases, and all four nations utilized masculinity as the basis of granting rights, there were differences in notions of femininity that stemmed from different paths to modernization, from varying relations between the individual and the collectivity, and from the influence of religious fundamentalism. Blom further suggested that much more attention must be devoted to the study of the role of masculinity and war in forming and sustaining the nation-state; here, she cautioned against seeing war as wholly the province of men. Masculinity, like femininity, may be inflected by race, class, ethnic, colonial, and religious divisions and identities. She pointed to religion as a particularly neglected area in conjunction with nation and gender, and suggested that a "juggling" metaphor best described the process of trying to take all these facets of identity into account in historical writing.
The first panel considered problems of inclusion, exclusion, and difference
- of dominance and subordination - as affecting not only the gender hierarchy
but also the hierarchical relationships among various ethnic groups within
a "nation" and among various "nations" that either already exist or are fighting
for existence. Beth Baron's paper pursued the influence of gender (as well
as sexuality and religion) in "The Making of the Egyptian Nation." Looking
at several crucial, transformative moments in Egypt's movement from a part
of the Ottoman Empire to national independence, Baron argued that the Woman
Question, which emerged from the breakdown of the harem system in which slave
women were an indispensable link in reproducing the Ottoman elite, "became
the fault line of Egyptian nationalism," along which both men and women activists
negotiated "cultural adjustments." Catherine Hall, interrogating the juncture
of race, ethnicity, class, and gender in the British Reform Act of 1832,
submitted that "the idea of the nation ... was always fragile," and that
its survival depended on "a series of inclusions and exclusions of different
groups, locked momentarily in complex hierarchies which always threatened
dissolution." Hall's paper suggested that at the point when the Act was passed,
shoring up hierarchies of race and ethnicity in an imperial context was more
important that reinforcing the gender order. Ethnicity was also critical
to constructions of masculinity and the nation in Viktoria Schmidt-Linsenhoff's
article, "Male Otherness in the French Revolution." Analyzing two paintings
by Girodet, Schmidt-Linsenhoff showed how images of homoeroticism and the
former Afro-Caribbean slave as "noble savage," two visions of masculinity
that arguably deviated from a white, heterosexual norm, partook in discourses
on the form republicanism should take and on whom should be included in the
corps politique.
Commenting on these papers, Geoff Eley saw four common areas: each paper
looked at a particular historical conjuncture, each portrayed nationalism
as a particular project (modernization, defining citizenship), each examined
the body and embodiment, and each dealt with slavery and emancipation. In
striking a middle ground between primordialism and modernism, said Eley,
the papers demonstrated a dialectic between national identities as a matter
of sensibility and shared memory of belonging, on the one hand, and the
deliberate, contingent, and inventive actions of historical actors upon such
cultural dispositions, on the other. In addition to raising questions of
reception and representativeness (especially with regard to the images analyzed),
the discussion drew out the importance of sexuality and religion in conjunction
with ethnicity, and opened up the question of how and when one can find certain
factors, such as ethnicity or race, to have been more formative than, say,
gender or religion. This question of "juggling" different aspects of national
identity was to run throughout the entire conference.
The second panel examined both the significance of gender in mobilizing for
war, and how changes in the military system and means of waging war affected
construction of the nation and the gender order. Looking at the entire history
of the United States, Linda Kerber found a great deal of slippage in the
ostensible parallel between the obligation to bear arms and the rights of
citizenship: Not all men have been required to wage war, nor have women been
legally or practically excluded from doing so; yet women with military records
have frequently been denied various veterans' entitlements, and men's ostensibly
unique obligation to bear arms has been used as an argument to deny women
other privileges of citizenship, such as suffrage. Similarly, Karen Hagemann
also found discursive constructions of masculinity to have played a key role
in "The Formation of a 'Manful and Valorous Nation'" in Prussia during the
anti-Napoleonic uprising. Here, too, the citizen was equated with the "patriotic
warrior" and military service conflated with masculinity; while these images
of masculinity were inflected according to class, urban/rural differences,
and social status, they shaped a male and militaristic nation that excluded
women from the centers of political power, though women did occupy a place
in the metaphor of the nation as a "folk family." For early twentieth-century
Great Britain, Joanna Bourke traced changes in military training that
increasingly employed gendered instinct theory: Young male recruits from
disadvantaged classes were viewed as "not man enough," in need of training
to unlock a basic instinct to fight, while women's maternal instincts were
believed to make them uncontrollably ferocious in battle.
Ute Frevert's comments noted that although these papers addressed different
eras, types of wars, military systems, and political structures, they did
arrive at some common findings: All found an intimate relationship between
nation-building and war, constituted in specifically modern wars fought
exclusively by men (and increasingly with the expectation that the entire
male nation would participate); yet family images created a space for women
to participate in the making of the nation. Frevert further raised a set
of broad questions on the impact of the experience of war in shaping national
and gender identity; how war is connected to peacetime; the effects of different
military systems; how to account for class differences; methodological problems
of relating rhetoric to real politics; and how to capture change over time.
Discussion revolved around these questions (especially the transition from
war to peace, and the relationships between rhetoric and politics), as well
as how one can best define and understand the connection between arms-bearing
(as right and/or obligation) and citizenship, given that both of these terms
are highly malleable. The example of German views of France gave rise to
the observation that national identities are often constructed in relation
to neighboring countries. Discussants noted women's role in shaming men into
fighting and maintaining a semblance of normalcy, and the significance of
the trope of sacrifice both in mediating between the symbolic and the real,
and in securing women's and men's gender-specific collaboration in war.
Nations in Social and Cultural Practice - Gender-Specific Participation in
National Movements
Differences between men's and women's contributions were also central to
the third panel, which looked at specific, gendered forms and scopes of action
in the cultural and social practices of nations. Aparna Basu's study of the
"Nationalist Construction of the Indian Woman" during the colonial period
among social reformers, intelligentsia, nationalists, and publicly active
women found that motherhood, spirituality, and tradition played a prominent
part in nationalist discourse on women in its response to colonialist disdain
of Indian masculinity. However, this discourse was "not monolithic" and women
could draw on it (and later, on Gandhi's celebration of women's moral strength)
in forming associations and becoming politically active. For South Africa,
Helen Bradford offered a striking example of how interrogating the gendered
dimensions of nationalism may disrupt conventional wisdom in both directions:
During the Boer War, white rural Boer women bore the brunt of suffering and,
infused with zealous religious patriotism, proved to be the more bellicose
sex, urging their men to fight to the death and refusing to surrender despite
harrowing experiences in concentration camps. Appropriating a previously
male domain, these women nurtured anti-imperialist, maternalist cultural
nationalism in their families and associations after the war. Dirk Reder
argued that patriotic German women carved out a nationalist (albeit less
overtly martial) role for themselves during the German Wars of Liberation,
as well. Women's clubs, which were founded to equip volunteers and then extended
to help care for the wounded, opened up new opportunities for women to
participate in public life, made an active and important contribution to
winning the war, and expanded the permissible scope of proper womanly behavior
for German women - even in the face of backlash after the war ended. In contrast,
Margaret Ward found that Irish women, organized in the Ladies' Land League
in 1881 and 1882, were excluded from active roles in the Irish nationalist
movement after the demise of their League. More radical and intransigent
than their male counterparts because they perforce identified with other
disfranchised groups, these women refused to accept a mere auxiliary role
dispensing charity during the land war and were squeezed out of the movement
when male Irish nationalists reached an compromise with the British government.
The panel's commentator, Jane Rendall, perceived several areas of overlap
among the papers: a focus on short but significant key historical moments,
anti-imperial wars against the British, ongoing national struggles, and women's
participation (only Bradford showed a gendered transformation, instead).
She also identified four common issues that could benefit from further
elaboration with regard to gender-specific participation in nation-building:
the varying significance of religion; class differences, particularly the
role of the poor rural majority (in contrast to those who were urban, prosperous,
and educated); the impact of four varieties of nationalism (genealogical,
cultural/linguistic, civic/state, imperial); and how gender identities might
co-exist rather than be in opposition (a question intended to destabilize
the public/private dichotomy). Discussion dealt in part with the inevitable
ambiguities and ambivalences of nationalism and the nation, and with the
necessity for exclusion that is built into formation of a nation (a point
that implied "racial" nationalism would be a fifth variant). For women, greater
room to maneuver within a national movement is by no means identical with
emancipation, and indeed their inclusion - however partial - may often be
bought at the price of excluding others from participation in the nation.
Discussants further saw a need to take an expansive view of what is political,
including much of what is often viewed as "private," such as the home, the
family, and the body; and to take account of the institutional bases (schools,
media, legal systems) that initiate and sustain nation-building.
The fourth panel entailed an examination of national emotions and their
codification in various countries. It asked to what extent national feelings,
as constituted in rituals, celebrations, and myths, have also been an expression
of emotions as inflected by culture, social stratum or class, generation,
and above all gender. Eira Juntti's paper on "Images of Women and Men in
Early Finnish Nationalism" found that a young maiden was often used to represent
Finland poetically in newspapers during the 1830s. This image was counterposed,
seemingly as an "Other," to images of the "real" Finn who was always a man
- an honest, progressive farmer, whose steadfast Christian faith was intertwined
with his Finnish nationalism. With regard to the Czech national movement,
Jitka Malekova traced the nineteenth-century evolution of two legendary early
women leaders from marginal, ambivalent characters to central, heroic figures
in the myth of national origin. Malekova argued that this transformation
helped to construct an auxiliary myth, that of gender harmony, as constitutive
of the Czech nation (particularly in opposition to images of female subordination
in Germany). For Latvia, Irina Novikova found that although men dominated
the nationalist movement in the second half of the nineteenth century,
nationalist representations portrayed women as an integrative force, preserving
elements of the national past in their maternal roles as educators of children
and as collectors of folk artifacts. Images of the maternal also merged with
organic metaphors that symbolically unified and homogenized the Latvian nation.
Commentator Silke Wenk observed that in all three papers there was a disjuncture
between the lofty images of "the Feminine" used to represent the nation and
the exclusion of real women from many rights within the nation. Wenk asked
whether the modern construction of women as a subject is made possible through
national movements, whether femininity and modern binary gender distinctions
are necessary elements in the exclusion of national outsiders and in the
containment of ethnic and social differences, and whether the distinction
between culture and politics remains useful if we see women as acting primarily
in such realms as folklore and education. While the discussion gave some
consideration to the problematic aspects of myths of gender harmony, the
question of how to most usefully treat images and representations took the
foreground. Most participants agreed that a broader range of methodologies
is required when dealing with non-verbal materials, and that interdisciplinary
conversations (as here, between historians, art historians, and literary
scholars) could lead to fruitful and innovative approaches. Participants
proposed a number of desiderata, which included: scrutinizing everyday objects
for their role in propagating and reinforcing nationalist ideas in peacetime;
asking how linguistic genders are linked to the gendering of the nation;
looking at the structures of embodiment and desire in images; placing images
in their specific historical context and analyzing how and why they change
over time; examining the interplay between culturally available stores of
images and their selective use in the service of particular interests; and
when practicable, attending to the reception of images.
The fifth and final panel considered how identities are culturally constructed.
In addition to the question of what such identities have meant in various
places and periods (including the present), the panel was charged with
investigating how the construction of these identities may interact - that
is, how they may reciprocally condition, reinforce, or undermine one another.
Belinda Davis ascertained a shift from the masculine to the feminine in "Gendered
Images of the Nation in Wilhelmine Germany." Whereas in the 1890s, the nation
was identified with the soldier and women were suspected of weakening the
nation through a love of luxury, in the course of World War I an image of
women, and especially working class women, came to stand for the nation as
opposed to a state that had lost touch with the needs of its suffering people.
For a similar period, Marilyn Lake analyzed "The Anomaly of Woman in a Homosocial
Nation" in Australia, where the "imagined community" that white Australian
men discursively constructed in self-conscious contrast to indigenous people
and British imperialists was composed of virile, hard-living outback men,
autonomous yet loyal to their mates - a vision that excluded women from the
nation. Feminists responded with an alternative vision of a maternalist state
and alliances with Aboriginal women, but also with literary collaborations
in exclusionist national fantasies of unity. Dorinda Outram's paper on "The
Construction of National and Gender Identities in the French Revolution"
argued that republicans attempted to displace the corps politique of the
king by incorporating political power in the physical bodies of individual,
visible male leaders. Outram suggested that their performance of sovereignty
over self through "intense mimesis" of figures from classical antiquity
legitimated their partaking of sovereignty within the republic, but that
this legitimacy was too unstable to serve as the basis for persistent political
factions, thus creating a vacuum that the nation-state would later fill.
Carroll Smith-Rosenberg, who was unfortunately prevented from attending the
conference, nonetheless submitted her paper on "Dependent Ladies and Disappearing
Slaves: Constituting the Virtuous American Citizen 1786-1789." Using various
strands of the feminist critiques of liberal humanism, Smith-Rosenberg argued
that bourgeois print media portrayed women as weak and dependent, yet deceptive
and wily - "an irrational and ridiculous other to the sagacious middle-class
male citizen."
In her comments, Karen Offen pointed out that there are differences among
nations and nationalisms with regard to the emancipation of women, and that
the role of mother-educator was not simply constricting but could serve as
a powerful argument for women's education and civil rights. Offen also brought
up the issue of male anxiety of losing control (which was not limited to
white men). Finally, in the context of historians' responsibilities, Offen
raised the question of how one can go beyond current practices of complicating
and destabilizing, to making informed choices about which factors were
historically most important. The discussion dealt with how the lines are
drawn between inclusion and exclusion and with definitions of an "inner enemy"
in ethnic and racial terms as well as along gender lines. The point was
underscored that women, too, wield power and may participate in strategies
of exclusion. In addition, both nationalism and the gender order may look
different when observed at a local or regional level. Finally, participants
revisited questions of sexuality, desire, and embodiment.
In her closing remarks, Ruth Roach Pierson interlaced perceptive commentary
on the individual papers with more general observations. She framed these
observations in terms of a problem she (and many of her students) have
encountered with Benedict Anderson's enormously influential Imagined Communities:
that his analysis is "too bloodless and abstract" to answer the question
he poses, namely, why so many people have been willing to die for their nation.
This conference, Pierson suggested, provided a three-pronged corrective to
Anderson's account. Contrary to Anderson's account, the conference papers
showed how nationality and gender are "inextricably and ineluctably intertwined,"
rather than clearly separated. These papers also made a start at interrogating
"the deep structures of subjectivity and identity formation," particularly
with respect to images and erotic investments. Thirdly, and again in contrast
to Anderson, some of these papers attended to the problem of nation being
"raced" as well as gendered; here, Pierson invoked George Mosse's description
of racism as a "scavenger ideology" capable of "annexing" nationalism. However,
Pierson pointed out that only a minority of the papers took on race, sometimes
more as an addendum, and that their incomplete success in doing so underscores
the great difficulty of doing so in a single project. A number of Pierson's
comments on individual papers had broader applicability: She proposed that
the relationship between the image of women (or the lack thereof) in national
iconography and real women's agency in nationalist movements needs further
study. She raised the question of whether fears of women recede during times
of national danger and crisis, but only for the duration of the crisis. And
finally, she returned to the problem of integrating empire, ethnicity, and
race: One solution, as in Hall's paper, would be to juxtapose separate narrative
units in succession, which enhances narrative clarity but at the cost of
seeing "how these diverse actors simultaneously impinge on and constitute
one another." Pierson concluded that this conference considerably advanced
our understanding of gender and nation, while making a more modest contribution
to explaining how race and nation interact. The challenge that remains is
to examine the imbrication of race, gender, and nation.
A number of major issues cut through the entire discussion during the conference.
As a point of departure, all participants agreed, it is necessary to be aware
of one's own positionality. This includes such matters as one's own gender,
race, ethnicity, religion, and generational position, as well as whether
one is studying a given nation from an internal or external position. Moreover,
particular historical circumstances (currently, the rise of the European
Union, for instance) may shape the historian's view of nations and render
the history of nations and nationalism more compelling. The historian must
also remain aware that he or she is playing an active role in shaping national
memory, and thus altering the object of study. Another important consideration
from the outset is the need for a clear definition of terms, both within
one's own analysis and with respect to the historical phenomena and era under
study. Closely related to this is the ongoing obligation to attend carefully
to historical specificity and historical context - a task that is complicated
by attempts at comparison.
A recurrent concern in the discussion was the significance of war in shaping
nations. Here, a number of questions await further study. Against the suggestion
that nations are forged in war, a number of counterexamples (e.g., Scandinavian
nations) were adduced; where, then, does war appear to have been crucially
formative for the nation, and what accounts for the differences? To what
extent has the link between the nation and war formed the character of the
nation as a male-dominated invention? How do different forms of war
(anti-imperialist, civil, aggressive, wars of liberation) affect the
relationships among gender and nation? Participants agreed that the importance
of war is not confined to periods of active fighting but extends to memory
of war, cold wars, reconstruction, and preparation for war. Arms-bearing,
masculinity, and citizenship appear to have been associated in a variety
of contexts, but the historian must attend to the historical specificity
of this and also take into account various forms of women's belligerence.
Finally, a willingness to sacrifice is a central demand of all nations, and
especially so during wars and crises.
A number of participants insisted that a clear distinction be drawn between
the nation and the state. (Another way of casting this might be the difference
between the Kulturnation and the Staatsnation, though not everyone was equally
convinced that this was a useful way to frame the problem.) A state may be
multinational. Moreover, being a citizen is not identical with being a national
subject; the term "subject" here may refer to both subjectivity, in a Foucauldian
sense, and being subject to power. Pierson argued in her closing remarks
that the nation/state distinction is more than a mere analytical one; it
is also an ontological distinction. She pointed out that while women must
be included in one way or another within racist conceptions of the nation,
racism can lead to certain groups being extended at least some rights of
citizenship yet excluded from the nation.
Finally, the nation and nationalism are always ambivalent, and particularly
so for women and subaltern groups. Both inclusion and exclusion have their
price, be it collusion with racism on the one hand, or disfranchisement on
the other. If a group previously marginal to the nation achieves integration,
what ends does its integration serve (militarism, maintenance of empire,
etc.)? What is the trade-off for that group? And whose exclusion may then
be effected or reinforced? Furthermore, specific strategies to achieve inclusion,
such as stressing women's contribution to nation as mothers, also tend to
be ambivalent, and participation in a national movement by no means guarantees
a share of the fruits of that movement. Differences among women (even of
the same race and class) may be relevant here. Yet inasmuch as membership
in a nation may be the political precondition for a wide range of civil and
human rights, membership in a nation has often exerted a compelling attraction.
In addition, those who do not belong to a nation-state are also generally
excluded from influence in an international arena. For a specific historical
moment or period, the historian must ask: Is the national project one of
emancipation, progress, modernization, belligerence, or some combination
thereof? And how does one define terms such as emancipation or progress?
In conclusion, the conference produced a wealth of ideas for future research.
This report has referred to a good many of them above. The richness of this
field for future researchers is a reflection of the fact that work on gender
and nation is everywhere still in a relatively early phase, and much remains
to be done. Although this is true for all topical areas, two of these should
be emphasized here. For one, the intersection of nation, gender, and religion
remains largely unexplored. Several of the papers here indicated its importance,
whether in terms of religious differences and minorities (Baron on Moslems
and Copts in Egypt), a pagan past (Malekova on Czech nationalism), or forming
different gendered nationalism (Bradford on Boers in South Africa). Secondly,
there is a pressing need for further research on masculinity and the nation.
The papers by Schmidt-Linsenhoff, Hagemann, and Lake provided a variety of
models as to how one might proceed. Still, this conference could only be
an initial effort in this direction.
Methodologically, the conference made a contribution to two questions of
persistent urgency that will continue to occupy historians. In accounting
for gender, race, ethnicity, class, religion, and generation, both Blom's
juggling metaphor and Pierson's closing reflections suggest that an all-purpose
solution remains beyond reach. The general consensus in discussion was that
one must keep an eye on all these factors. However, in research and writing
one must focus on those that appear to have been most germane to a specific
historical situation, partly because their relative weighting and relevance
have indeed varied over time, and partly because the historian faces a pragmatic
imperative to write an account that will be readable. Secondly, the challenge
of comparison calls for ongoing work. Participants agreed that the comparison
is necessary, at the very least to put ostensible national "peculiarities"
to the test, and to recognize broader (perhaps even "general") mechanisms
at work. At this stage, comparison seems to be most productive when fairly
focused, examining a few nations at a time. Work will surely continue on
the most effective strategies for comparison and on how best to extend limited
comparisons to a larger field while respecting historical standards of evidence
and argumentation. Here, too, the conference could only make a beginning.
It illustrated the variety of questions at stake, clarified the most evident
similarities and differences, and more precisely formulated the theoretical
and methodological problems. The task now is to determine how comparative
projects should be designed in the future in order to most fruitfully build
on this beginning.
Liebe KollegInnen,
aufgrund des grossen Interesses an der Tagung "Gendered Nations. Nationalism and Gender Order in the long 19th Century - International Comparisons", die Ende Maerz 1998 vom Zentrum fuer interdisziplinaere Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung und dem Einstein-Forum Potsdam veranstaltet wurde, moechten wir eine 'Vernetzung' der KollegInnen vorschlagen, die im Raum Berlin und Brandenburg in den verschiedenen Disziplinen zum Thema "Gender and Nation" arbeiten. Wir halten es fuer erstrebenswert, mehr voneinander zu wissen, uns gegenseitig ueber einschlaegige Neuerscheinungen, Vortraege und Tagungen usw. zu informieren und evl. gar einen Diskussionszusammenhang zu aktuellen Forschungsfragen aufzubauen.
Daher moechten wir zu einem Treffen aller interessierten KollegInnen aus der Region einladen, das stattfinden soll:
am Montag, den 22.6.1998 ab 20.00 Uhr im Zentrum fuer Interdisziplinaere Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung der TU Berlin, Ernst-Reuter-Platz 7, D-10587 Berlin, Raum TEL 2003.
Fuer das Treffen schlagen wir zum ersten vor, dass alle anwesenden KollegInnen ihr Forschungsprojekt kurz vorstellen. Zu diesem Zweck moechten wir anregen, dass alle ca. 10 Kopien einer 1-2seitigen Skizze ihres Projekts mit Anschrift, Telefon- und Faxnummer sowie E-mail-Adresse mitbringen. Zum zweiten moechten wir darueber sprechen, ob es ueberhaupt ein Interesse an einem solchen 'Netzwerk' gibt und welche Form sowie welche Inhalte es haben koennte.
Das Treffen ist offen fuer alle interessierten KollegInnen, die zum Thema abeiten. Weshalb wir hierzu auch ueber H-Soz-u-Kult einladen. Wir wuerden uns des-halb sehr freuen, wenn die Einladung an Interessierte weitergereicht wird.
Karen Hagemann Dietlind Huechtker Claire Venghiattis
Dr. Karen Hagemann Zentrum fuer interdisziplinaere Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung am Fachbereich fuer Kommunikations- und Geschichtswissenschaften der Technischen Universitaet Berlin Ernst-Reuter-Platz 7, Sekr. TEL 20-1 D-10587 Berlin Tel.: 3142-6974, Fax: 3142-6988 E-mail: hagemann@kgw.tu-berlin.de
Dr. Dietlind Huechtker Admiralstr. 17 D-10999 Berlin Tel.: 61403500 E-mail:mnitsch@berlin.snafu.de
Claire Venghiattis c/o Gossmann Arndtstrasse 40 D-10965 Berlin Tel: 6929375 E-mail: 100657.1014compuserve.com
Copyright ©1996-2002, H-Soz-u-Kult · Humanities · Sozial- und Kulturgeschichte