Skip to content

„Því miður eruð þér ekki á kjörskrá.“: samtvinnun sem greiningartæki í sagnfræði.

Höfundur:
Birtist í
No data was found
Ártal:
Bls:
DOI:
Femínískar kenningar um samtvinnun hafa notið mikilla vinsælda undanfarna áratugi og verið notaðar þvert á landamæri og fagsvið. Enn sem komið er hefur þeim þó lítið verið beitt við rannsóknir á sögu Íslands. Í þessari grein verður gerð grein fyrir kenningum og aðferðum samtvinnunar og þeim beitt til þess rýna með gagnrýnum hætti í „sigurgöngusöguna“ um kosningarétt kvenna sem fékkst þann 19. júní 1915. Í fyrstu var aldurtakmark nýrra kjósenda, kvenna og vinnumanna, takmarkað við 40 ára aldur og allt til ársins 1934 missti fátækt fólk, sem var í skuld fyrir sveitarstyrk, kosningarétt sinn og kjörgengi. Í upphafi voru kyn, aldur og stétt því samtvinnaðir þættir sem takmörkuðu með afgerandi hætti lýðræðisréttindi fólks. Með því að beita aðferðum samtvinnunar og „spyrja öðruvísi spurninga“ um þær hindranir sem sumar konur (og karlar) stóðu frammi fyrir eftir að kosningarétturinn var í höfn kom þó fram margslungnari mynd. Félagsbundin valdamismunun, sem varð til í kringum þætti eins og hjúskaparstöðu, „ómegð“, aldur, fötlun og heilsufar, var samtvinnuð kyni og stétt og mótaði samfélagslega stöðu fólks og takmarkaði möguleika þess til að stíga fram sem pólitískir þegnar og gerendur í samfélaginu. Til þess að varpa ljósi á það hvernig samtvinnun virkaði í raun verður kastljósinu sérstaklega beint að nokkrum konum sem neyddust til þess að þiggja sveitarstyrk vegna langvarandi eða tímabundinna erfiðleika sem tengdust veikindum eða makamissi og barnafjölda. Fyrir vikið voru þær sviptar hinum nýfengna kosningarétti um lengri eða skemmri tíma.
"Unfortunately, You Are Not Registered to Vote": Applying Intersectionality as an Analytical Tool in Historical Research The 2015 centenary of female suffrage in Iceland sparked interest in a more detailed, intersectional examination of how the civil rights granted to women in the first decades of the 20th century were affected and limited by various intersecting hindrances. The present study is novel in two ways. Firstly, since intersectional historical studies have not become common in Iceland, it seeks to explain the origins and objectives of feminist intersectional theories for domestic readers, suggesting that the intersectional methodology of “asking the other question” may prove rewarding for historical research. Secondly, for illustration, the article applies feminist theories of intersectionality to examine how, during the first decades of the 20th century, socio-cultural factors such as age, class, disability, poor health, marital status, and motherhood (number of children) intersected with gender to limit a women’s possibilities to participate in politics by voting in parliamentary elections. In the time around 19 June 1915, when Icelandic women gained the right to vote and run for the Althing, two intersecting and restrictive aspects were in place. On the one hand, women’s suffrage was severely limited by age, as they had to be at least 40 while men only had to be 25, though male servants or farmhands also had to be 40 or older. The imposition of these gender/age discrepancies, unique to Iceland, was certain to diminish the number of new voters and serve to maintain the status of those in power, i.e. middle-class men. However, age restrictions were formally abolished in 1920. The second, longer-lasting intersectional hindrance was socio-economic class. Poverty continued to be a stumbling block for suffrage, and until 1934 people who had received poverty relief had no franchise. A study of Reykjavik’s voter rolls for the Althing election of 1916 and of that city’s poor relief records from 1910 to 1925 reveals that the relief was often needed due to sickness or disability, old age, widowhood, or numerous children to care for. Gender and class intersected in these aspects, shaping not only the living conditions but also the political circumstances of many women (and some men) during the first decades of the 20th century. The article presents some disconcerting stories of women who showed up at polling stations, only to be humiliated by finding out that they had lost the right to vote because they had received poor relief. Finally, the article links the past to the present, noting that citizenship and poverty still intersect in contemporary Iceland, as foreigners who have received financial support from municipalities have to wait for three years before becoming eligible for Icelandic citizenship.