McCormick J, Kirkham S R, Hayes V
University of British Columbia School of Nursing, Vancouver, Canada.
Health Care Women Int. 1998 Nov-Dec;19(6):495-504. doi: 10.1080/073993398246061.
Women's desire to take control of their own bodies creates a natural affinity between the projects of feminism and women's health research. Feminists have used the categories of woman/women, gender, and sex as foundation terms to designate the subject of feminist theories. Universal categories, which have been exposed as essentialist by postmodern and poststructural critiques, create falsely unified subject positions that fail to account for the diversity of women and also fail to acknowledge the situated interests of the dominant groups whose perspectives they reflect. Because it adopts these same categories, research in women's health is also permeated with this essentialized understanding, whether or not it is overtly feminist. In this paper, we point out the dangers of the unreflective use of woman/women, gender, and sex in women's health research. We conclude, that for political purposes, however, a carefully considered "strategic essentialism" can be warranted in research aimed at improving women's health.
女性掌控自身身体的愿望在女权主义事业与女性健康研究之间建立了一种天然的联系。女权主义者将“女性”“性别”和“性”等范畴用作基础术语来界定女权主义理论的主题。这些普遍范畴已被后现代和后结构主义批评揭示为本质主义的,它们制造了虚假统一的主体立场,既无法顾及女性的多样性,也没有承认其反映的主导群体的特定利益。由于女性健康研究采用了同样的范畴,所以无论是否公开秉持女权主义立场,这种本质化的理解都渗透其中。在本文中,我们指出了在女性健康研究中不加反思地使用“女性”“性别”和“性”等范畴的危险性。然而,我们得出结论,出于政治目的,在旨在改善女性健康的研究中,经过审慎思考的“策略性本质主义”可能是合理的。