Contemporary sexism - The relationships among hostility, benevolence, and neosexism

Previous research has examined the relationship between the Modern Sexism Scale (Swim, Aikin, Hall & Hunter, 1995) and the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996) or the relationship between the Modern Sexism Scale and the Neosexism Scale (Campbell, Schellenberg, & Senn, 1997; Tougas, Brown, Beaten, & Joly, 1995). The present study examined the relationship between the ASI and the Neosexism Scale. Across three samples (N = 907), neosexism was found to be associated primarily with the hostile rather than the benevolent component of ambivalent sexism. Hostile sexism, benevolent sexism, and neosexism were all significantly associated with attitudes toward lesbians' and gay men's rights, and both hostile sexism and neosexism were significantly associated with attitudes toward women's rights. Neosexism and hostile sexism were negatively associated with a humanitarian-egalitarian orientation, whereas benevolent sexism was positively associated with a Protestant-ethic orientation. It is concluded that, although both the Neosexism Scale and ASI measure contemporary sexism, only the Benevolent Sexism subscale of the ASI taps the subjectively positive side of contemporary sexism.

Contemporary strategies for rural community development in Australia: a governmentality perspective

Contemporary strategies for rural development in Australia are based upon notions of self-help and bottom-up, community-based initiatives which are said to 'empower' the individual from the imposing structures of government intervention. While such strategies are not entirely new to Australia, they have, it seems, been inadequately theorised to date and are generally regarded, in rather functionalist terms, as indicative of attempts to cut back on public expenditure. Harnessing itself to the 'governmentality' perspective, this paper explores government and 'expert' discourses of rural community development in Queensland and suggests, instead, that these strategies are indicative of an advanced liberal form of rule which seeks to 'govern through community'. With this in mind, three basic research questions are identified as worthy of further exploration; how are the notions of self-governing individuals and communities constructed in political discourse; what political rationalities are used to justify current levels of(non) intervention and finally; what are the discourses, forms and outcomes of empowerment at the local level? The paper concludes by arguing that while the empowering effects of self-help are frequently cited as its greatest virtue, it is not so much control as the added burden of responsibility that is being devolved to local people. Given the emphasis of the governmentality perspective on strategies for 'governing at a distance', however, these conclusions can hardly be unexpected. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd, All rights reserved.

Governing society today: Editors' introduction

The notion of governing society has for a long time seemed self-evident. Society was conceived as a totality coincident with a certain space, a territory, and occupied by a population. Governing was undertaken by a unified agency that acted upon the society of which it was also a specialized part--the government, or, more broadly, "the state." The notion of "governing society" thus referred unproblematically to the binary of state and society. The articles in this special issue of Alternatives, however, each in its own and different way, address the question of "governing society today."