No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Rah-Rah-Radical: The Radical Cheerleaders' Challenge to the Public Sphere
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 September 2006
Abstract
The name “Radical Cheerleaders” refers to loosely organized groups of women and men who use creative cheers and costumes to engage in political protest. This article explores the ways in which the Radical Cheerleaders challenge gendered assumptions about women's political activity. Through their aggressive presence on the streets, their rejection of norms of civility, and their use of humor, the Radical Cheerleaders (ab)use the traditionally gendered practice of cheering to stage transgressive political spectacles that cannot easily be subsumed into or appropriated by mainstream political discourse. The Radical Cheerleaders' tactics, in other words, resist governmentality. In so doing, they trouble our ideas about political deliberation and citizenship and expand the boundaries of the contemporary public sphere.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © 2006 The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association
References
Aristotle.
1952.
Politics and Poetics.
Trans. Benjamin Jowett and Thomas Twining. New York:
Viking.
Associated Press.
2003.
“Radical Cheerleaders Raise Ruckus.”
November 14. www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/14/national
(January 17, 2006).
Associated Press.
2005a.
“Rosa Parks, Matriarch of Civil Rights, Dies at
92.”
October 25. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9809237/
(December 12, 2005).
Associated Press.
2005b.
“Rosa, Take Your Rest.”
November 2. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/national/main1002585.shtml
(December 12, 2005).
Bakhtin, Mikhail.
1981.
The Dialogical Imagination: Four Essays.
Ed. Michael Holquist, trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist.
Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Banfield, Edward C., ed.
1992.
Civility and Citizenship in Liberal Democratic Societies.
New York:
Paragon House.
Baum, Geoffry.
2005.
“The Daily Show: Discursive Integration and the Reinvention of
Political Journalism.”
Political Communication
22 (September/October):
259–76.Google Scholar
Benjamin, Walter.
1968.
Illuminations: Essays and Reflections.
Ed. Hannah Arendt. New York:
Schocken Books.
Berlant, Lauren, and
Elizabeth Freeman.
1992.
“Queer Nationality.”
Boundary 2
19 (Spring):
149–80.Google Scholar
Buck-Morss, Susan.
1986.
“The Flâneur, the Sandwichman, and the
Whore.”
New German Critique
39:
99–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caiazza, Amy.
2005.
“Don't Bowl at Night: Gender, Safety, and Civic
Participation.”
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society
30 (Winter):
1607–31.Google Scholar
Carlson, Allen.
2004.
“Marriage and Procreation: On Children As The First Purpose of
Marriage—October 20, 2004.” http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PL04J01
(December 12, 2005).
Carter, Stephen.
1998.
Civility: Manners, Morals, and the Etiquette of Democracy.
New York:
Basic Books.
Cixous, Hélène.
1980.
“The Laugh of the Medusa.” In
New French Feminisms: An Anthology, ed.
Elaine Marks and
Isabelle de Courtivron.
Amherst:
University of Massachusetts,
245–64.
CMT (Country Music Television).
2005.
Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders: Making the Team. http://www.cmt.com/shows/dyn/dallas_cowboys_cheerleaders/seriesabout_special.jhtml
(December 12, 2005).
Critchley, Simon.
2002.
On Humor.
New York:
Routledge.
Dean, Jodi.
1995.
“Discourse in Different Voices.” In
Feminists Read Habermas: Gendering the Subject of Discourse,
ed.
Johanna Meehan.
New York and London:
Routledge,
205–29.
Dean, Jodi.
2002.
Publicity's Secret: How Technoculture Capitalizes on
Democracy.
Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
DeMott, Benjamin.
1996.
“Seduced by Civility: Political Manners and the Crisis of
Democratic Values.”
The Nation, December 9:
11–19.
Dobson, James.
2005.
“Focus on Social Issues: Marriage and Family
Home.” http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/
(December 12, 2005).
Douglas, Mary.
1966.
Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and
Taboo.
New York:
Praeger.
Dryzek, John S.
2000.
Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics,
Contestations.
Oxford and New York:
Oxford University Press.
Elias, Norbert.
2000.
The Civilizing Process: Sociogenic and Psychogenic
Investigation.
Trans. Edmund Jephcott, ed. Eric Dunning, Johan Goudsblom, and
Stephen Mennell. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Freud, Sigmund.
1964.
Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious.
Trans. James Strachey New York:
W. W. Norton.
Gardner, Carol Brooks.
1995.
Passing By: Gender and Public Harassment.
Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Gray, Francis.
1994.
Women and Laughter.
Charlottesville:
University Press of Virginia.
Foucault, Michel.
1991.
“Governmentality.” In
The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, ed.
Graham Burchell,
Colin Gordon, and
Peter Miller.
Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press,
87–104.
Habermas, Jürgen.
1989.
The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere.
Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Hayward, Clarissa Rile.
2003.
“The Difference States Make: Democracy, Identity, and the
American City.”
American Political Science Review
97 (November):
501–14.Google Scholar
Hefner, Robert, ed.
1998.
Democratic Civility: The History and Cross-Cultural Possibility of a
Modern Political Ideal.
New York:
Transaction.
Himmelfarb, Gertrude.
1995.
The De-Moralization of Society: From Victorian Virtues to Modern
Values.
New York:
Alfred A. Knopf.
Indiana University Southeast Cheerleading Handbook.
2005. http://www.ius.edu/Athletics/cheerleading/INDIANA%20UNIVERSITY%20SOUTHEAST.doc
(June 21, 2006).
Kennedy, Randall.
1998.
“State of the Debate: The Case against ‘Civility.’”
The American Prospect
41 (November–December):
84–90.Google Scholar
Koskela, Hille.
1999.
“‘Gendered Exclusions’: Women's Fear of
Violence and Changing Relations to Space.”
Geografiska Annaler Series B: Human Geography
81 (2):
111–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landes, Joan.
1988.
Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French
Revolution.
Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Landes, Joan.
1995.
“The Public and Private Sphere.” In
Feminists Read Habermas: Gendering the Subject of Discourse,
ed.
Johanna Meehan.
New York and London:
Routledge,
91–116.
Lee, Orville.
1998.
“Culture and Democratic Theory: Toward a Theory of Symbolic
Democracy,”
Constellations
5 (4):
443–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenton, Rhonda,
et al.
1999.
“Sexual Harassment in Public Places: Experiences of Canadian
Women.”
Canadian Review of Sociology & Anthropology
36 (November):
517–40.Google Scholar
Long, Victoria.
2005.
“R is for Revolution: Radical Cheerleaders Shake It
Up!”
Iris: A Journal About Women
50 (March):
20–27.Google Scholar
Love, Nancy S.
2002.
“Singing for Our Lives: Women's Music and Democratic
Politics.”
Hypatia
17 (Fall):
71–94.Google Scholar
Morreall, John, ed.
1987.
The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor.
Albany:
State University of New York Press.
NYC Radical Cheerleaders.
2004.
“Call to Action.” http://www.nycradicalcheerleaders.org/index.php?name=pagetool_news&news_id=2
(January 16, 2006).
NYC Radical Cheerleaders.
2005.
“Who Are the NYC Radical Cheerleaders?” http://www.nycradicalcheerleaders.org/index.php?name=about
(January 16, 2006).
Oceania.
2005.
“Radical Cheerleaders—Beyond the Pom Poms.”
http://www.girlphoria.com/wie/radicalcheer.htm
(January 13, 2006).
Radical Cheerleaders.
2005a.
“RC Cheers/Revolution Cheers.” http://www.geocities.com/nycradicalcheerleaders/cheers.html
(December 12, 2006).
Radical Cheerleaders.
2005b.
“Queer, Sex Positive Cheers.” http://radcheers.tripod.com/RC/id2.html
(December 12, 2005).
Radical Cheerleaders.
2006.
“Radical Cheerleaders.” http://radcheers.tripod.com/RC/
(January 16, 2006).
Sapiro, Virginia.
1993.
“‘Private’ Coercion and Democratic Theory: The
Case of Gender-Based Violence.” In
Reconsidering the Democratic Public, ed.
George E. Marcus and
Russell L. Hanson.
University Park:
Pennsylvania State University Press,
427–49.
Sapiro, Virginia.
1999.
“Considering Political Civility Historically: A Case Study of
the United States.”
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Society of
Political Psychology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, July
18–20.
Shapiro, Ian.
2002.
“The State of Democratic Theory.” In
Political Science: State of the Discipline, eds.
Ira Katznelson and
Helene V. Milner.
New York:
W. W. Norton,
235–65.
Shils, Edward.
1992.
“Civility and Civil Society.” In
Civility and Citizenship in Liberal Democratic Societies, ed.
Edward C. Banfield.
New York:
Paragon House,
1–16.
Shugart, Helene A., and
Catherine Egley Waggoner.
2005.
“A Bit Much: Spectacle as Discursive Resistance.”
Feminist Media Studies
5 (March):
65–81.Google Scholar
Sparks, Holloway.
1997.
“Dissident Citizenship: Democratic Theory, Political Courage
and Activist Women.”
Hypatia
12 (4):
74–110.Google Scholar
Sparks, Holloway.
2000.
“Beyond Civility: Anger and Democratic
Communication.”
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political
Science Association, Washington, DC, August 31–September
3.
Syracuse University Cheerleading Handbook.
2005. http://suathletics.com/Pdfs/gen/2004/4/28/SUCheerleadinghandbook.pdf
(December 12, 2005).
Usborne, David.
2003.
“Meet the Ra-Ra Radicals,”
The Independent (London). August 23,
12–15.
Vacarro, Jeanne.
2004.
“Give Me an F: Radical Cheerleading and Feminist
Performance.”
e-misférica, Performance and Politics in the Americas
1 (Fall). http://hemi.nyu.edu/journal/1_1/cheerleaders.html
(January 17, 2006).Google Scholar
Washington Interscholastic Athletic Association.
2005. http://www.wiaa.com/pub/handbook/html/12.0.0.htm
(December 12, 2005).
Wilson, Elizabeth.
1995.
“The Rhetoric of Urban Space.”
New Left Review
209 (January–February):
146–60.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion.
1996.
“Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative
Democracy.” In
Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the
Political, ed.
Seyla Benhabib.
Princeton:
Princeton University Press,
120–35.
Young, Iris Marion.
1997.
Intersecting Voices: Dilemmas of Gender, Political Philosophy, and
Policy.
Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Zerilli, Linda M.G.
2005.
“Response to Thiele.”
Political Theory
33 (October):
715–20.Google Scholar