encompassed in the agency and subjectivity of university leadership education and using
the tools employed by women of color writers to critique the ways that feminism merely
inverted the gender binary instead of expanding and remaking ideas of gender to more
fully include race and class in the conversation- we can develop more expansive and
inclusive constructs of leadership theory that prioritize human subjectivity and agency in
all its multiplicities. With this perspective, we can begin to see the gaps found in
traditional university leadership education. By broadening our understanding of who can
lead and where that leadership can occur, we have the chance to better serve our students,
our universities, and ourselves.
References
Alarcón, N. (1990). The theoretical subject(s) of This Bridge Called My Back and
Angelo-American feminism. In G. Anzaldúa (Ed.), Making face, making soul:
Haciendo caras. (p. 356-369). San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute.
Benhabib, S. (1999). Sexual difference and collective identities: The new global
constellation. Signs, 24(2), 335-361.
Butler, J. (1997). The psychic life of power: Theories in subjection. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Felman, J. L. (2001). Never a dull moment: Teaching and the art of performance. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Previous Page Next Page