Some beginnings of U. S. women's movement were closely related with anti-slavery movement. First of all, most of the feminist pioneers were abolitionists. Looking into the situation of slaves, female abolitionists could recognize the unequal social positions and the lack of rights of women. And encountering the opposition of male fellows against female lecturers, these women stood for the rights of women to speak and act in the public sphere.
Second beginning was about Seneca Falls convention in 1848. This convention was the result of female activist experiences and knowledges which had been gained in anti-slavery movement. This convention led to many women's rights conventions in various forms and levels in 1850s. Those who led these conventions were white middle class intellectual women. However, at that time African Americans such as Frederick Douglass or Sojourner Truth could join forces with them.
Third beginning was about the departure of some activists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan Anthony from the radical reformers who had been abolitionists. This departure was due to black male suffrage and a race priority policy which reformers and Republicans took at that time. Stanton and Anthony aligned themselves with racist Democratic politicians.
This fluctuating process of women's movement reminds us the difficulty and significancy of collaboration which is always necessary for women's movement both internally and externally.
(Seoul National University/thursday@snu.ac.kr)

Louise Otto-Peters was widely acknowledged as the mother of the German women's movement. She was the editor of the “Frauen- Zeitung”, the first political women's newspaper in Germany, which was founded in the aftermath of the democratic revolution of 1848/49 and the founder of “Allgemeiner Deutscher Frauenverein”, the first “German” women's rights association. Germany in the second half of the 19th century was pretty much a conservative society. Hence, her campaigns were under serious surveillance. The government of the federal state of Germany, Sachsen which was her home state, issued “Lex Otto” which prohibited women from being the editors of newspaperssince it was concerned that Louise Otto- Peters would mobilize the women against the government. As a result, the “Frauen-Zeitung” was relatively short-lived: it had been published only between 1849~1951. She restarted her campaigns by organizing the “Allgemeiner Deutscher Frauenverein” in 1865. Her association did not turn into true suffrage, but focused on female education and increasing job opportunities for women. Louise Otto- Peters grounded her feminist cause on the women's difference from males, in other words, the maternity.
Her relational approach, rather than individualist one, was widely viewed or even criticized as the symbol of the passivity of German feminism. However, it was not uncommon that feminists grounded their campaigns not only on the individual's rights and personal autonomy but also equality-in-difference, and many sought entitlement as citizens in terms of sexual difference. In that sense, Otto's feminism cannot be dismissed simply as a deviation from the “right” course of feminism. Although many feminist activists of the first generation firmly believed that their suffrage should be the first step or gateway to the achievement of the genuine feminist goals, it turned out that there could not be one decisive solution on the way to achieving gender equality. Against this backdrop, we can say that Louise Otto's relational and gradualist approach to the gender equality mattered just as much.
(Hanyang Univeristy / munshyun@hanyang.ac.kr)

The question which motivated to compose the article is that most of the communardes was certainly working women in the state of 'la Misere,' in other words deprived of time and money indispensable for the idea of social transformation. Then how and why they were engaged actively in the whole process of the defeated but historical Commune of Paris (1871), in particular as the status of women?
To find out some feasible answers to that question, we called on Louise Michel and Andre Leo at the same time on the assumption that both had enough reason to be represented not by any election system but through reciprocal and tacit consent among the delegated people. Without any official title in the Commune Government nor in the minority leadership for the women except a little activity of International or Montmartre Vigilance Committee, Louise Michel had been incarnated as the armed women citizen and Andre Leo as 'soldier of idea' by her journalism. These representative words and deeds are in a sense contradictory but both aimed for the realization of social revolution without doubt. But the social revolution for the women does not mean taking power from the bourgeois class. Rather it stands first of all in the extension of the fighting for the country known to them during the precedent Paris Occupation by the German army.
The Commune women wanted to exert the full citizenship by the military participation like meal preparation and ambulance amidst the fighting National Guard against Versailles regular army. They naturally claimed for legalized reform measures like equal pay for equal work, and also for liberated from the complicated system of marriage to enjoy the independent way of life as producer and gender. More vast problem was the oppressive authority the Church largely imposed to them The women's constant claim for better education was owing to such institutions. The Commune Government had not enough time and capability for the women question but tried to apply new principles in that field.
What is remarkable for the two female communardes, was their keeping of ethic shared with their audience: they are conscious that for the durable revolutionized society could be founded upon democratic building of men and women's relationship. If we could denominate it Commune feminism it was characterized by the intimate face to face contacts, not by distant regarding between elite and mass. Finally the feminism of Louise Michel and Andre Leo showed, even for the moment, the possibility of discovering hidden but neglected will of change in the working women of Commune For them the idea of change was cherished not only for the society itself but for each of themselves. Supported by the probable evidences we could tell the feminism of Commune was a courageous, firm adventure of laboring women who refused vanquished under the pressure of material destitution.
(Humanities Research Institute of Chungnam National University / ecouter@hanmail.net)

This study examines the Australian women's suffrage movement over the late 19th century to through the first half of the 20th century in the aspects of 'politics and racism.' It looks over the Australian Women's Movement, which presupposes the issue of “identity” and “politics” in addition to investigating how the Australian women's movement developed, and what it suggests. It also observes the activities of the aboriginal women activists as well as internationalization and politicization of the Australian women's movement.
This study virtually raises the question that the feminism of white women was the restoration of the order and gender consideration that practiced education, religion and cultural norms of the whites. It also points out that, in addition to the de-hegemony as well as the breakaway from the government-oriented Australian women's movement, it should move away from advocating the politics of the women's movement as inclusion in male-created political system. Above all, it emphasizes that the Australian women's movement must leave the contradiction of 'liberation and exclusion' and 'assimilation and enforcement' remaining in the Australian history. This study thus suggests that the Australian women's movement should start from the network of solidarity that takes into consideration of the problems and various perspectives of all the members, not just white feminists, such as Aboriginal women and migrant women, in accordance with the characteristics of multi-ethnic, multi-cultural nations.
(Catholic Kwandong University, Verum College of Liberal Arts / minklee@ cku.ac.kr)

This article aims to reconstruct the prison experiences of the suffragettes and seeks to have a deeper understanding of hunger strike and force-feeding. Revisionist feminist scholars have attempted to restore women suffrage prisoners, mostly members of the Women's Social and Political Union, in the historiography of the suffrage movement and attained a fair success in repelling the traditional and often unsympathetic view on these activists. With respect to the prison life of the suffragettes, they stress how the confinement experience united these women: those who were put in jail while seeking the Cause shared common experiences of hardship and, consequently, developed a concrete collective identity across the boundaries of class. Such explanation, however, fails to fully account for the realities as they were. This article argues that the activists' prison experiences varied, mostly depending on their social backgrounds, and that the difference often divided them, rather than uniting them. The experiences of hunger strike and subsequent forcible feeding, the most tragic and extreme part in the WSPU members' imprisonment narratives, also proved that class certainly affected the ways in which they were treated in jail. The suffragettes from middle- or higher classes, including the leaders of the WSPU, were keenly aware of their privileged status compared to their comrades from the lower social strata, even when they refused any special favor provided by the prison authority. Militant suffrage activists with working-class backgrounds often expressed their frustration as they realized that they were in a more vulnerable position than their middle-class fellows. It is also misleading to claim that the middle-class suffragettes came to familiarize themselves with a wider range of women's issues and to formed a common bond among all womankind by encountering other prisoners and wardresses from lower classes. This article maintains that it is as dangerous to idealize or mythify the suffragettes as to denigrate them, urging to take a balanced and more nuanced approach.
(Seoul National University / hjeanhwang@naver.com)

From the mid-sixteenth century until the early twentieth century, London expanded without limits. Several attempts at limiting the city's expansion did exist, however. The crown regulated new buildings near London by promulgating 80 or so proclamations from the 1580s to the 1670s. Parliament also seriously considered regulating new buildings and levying a tax on the violators as part of its policy efforts to reform and secure tax measures due to the increasing necessity of the state after the English Civil War. However, with the pamphlet published in 1678 by London's leading developer Nicholas Barbon, the pro-regulation argument faced serious challenges. Barbon expounded the idea that building contributed to commerce, and that the wealth that commerce generated provided the basis of social order. Other publications opposing the regulation accepted Barbon's argument and further appropriated the ideas of national profit and the reason of state, which began to exert influence in contemporary English society, to bolster their claim. After the 1670s, the initiative to regulate new buildings was virtually abandoned.
Barbon and others' arguments contributed to the failure of the initiative in two related ways. By introducing the new line of thought, they overcame the limitations of previous anti-regulation discussions, while directly addressing the assumptions posited by the proponents of the regulation. Arguments against the building regulation had existed for some time before Barbon, but they were not convincing enough. They had pointed out various legal and procedural flaws in the regulation, but the interpretation of the Common Law and legal principles were not conclusive enough to offer any secure support for the opponents' claim. Similarly, procedural problems could be evaded with improvements in administration. The exaggerated rhetoric of poverty employed by the opponents was also negligible. In this context, the new argument was particularly compelling because it directly addressed the premise of the pro-regulation argument on social order and proposed an alternative social model. Even until the 1670s, Parliament had relied on the regulatory language of the kings, which construed building as a 'nuisance' to society, to legitimize the regulation. Building was portrayed as a nuisance to society because it allowed a significant number of people to renounce communal bonds and obligations, the very basis of the commonwealth, by flocking to cities, which purportedly did not have sufficient means to discipline them socially. Barbon, in contrast, contended that building reinforced social order by bringing people together in cities and making them dependent on each other through trade. Such a conceptualization of society was in stark contrast to what the proponents of regulation had assumed and articulated the unsuitability of the building regulation with much more persuasiveness than before.
(Seoul National University / steph314@naver.com)

The Russian Revolution of 1917 did not pass by Siberia, and Siberia fell into chaos. Under this circumstance, Siberia's Regionalists, led by Grigori Nikolayevich Potanin, appeared at the front of the Siberian political stage. They opposed centralization and argued that Siberia should enjoy extensive autonomy as a historical unit, the 'region.'
However, there are mixed views on the Regionalism movement. On the one hand, even though Regionalism failed due to unfavorable socioeconomic conditions, it is argued that the idea itself had its own identity and influence. On the other hand, some argue that Regionalism failed not only because of socioeconomic situations, but also because of the ideology itself which did not have its own identity or influence. To understand the nature of the Regionalism movement and properly evaluate it, it is necessary to understand how major Regionalist such as Potanin actually acted after the Revolution.
Potanin advocated Regionalism from the late 19th century to improve the backwardness of Siberia. He thought that Siberia should have its own independent Duma and enjoy extensive autonomy to solve this backwardness. To realize these reforms, he believed that it was necessary for the people of Siberia to realize their identity as a Siberian and their unique interests.
After the Revolution, from May 1917, Potanin began his political career in Tomsk. He tried to establish the Siberian Regional Duma in various regional organizations. In this process, He criticized the Social Democratic Party and the Constitutional Democratic Party which seek centralization. This shows that he opposed centralization regardless of left and right, and that his regionalism had its own identity and was not just liberal elitism. This aspect is more evident in the fierce opposition of Potanin to Bolshevik.
After the October Revolution, Potanin continued to work for the establishment of Siberian Regional Duma. However, his efforts were hampered by the Social Revolutionary Party, as it sought to establish the Regional Duma which exclude the bourgeoisie, considering the power of Bolshevik. Potanin opposed this, which illustrates the conservative position of Potanin's Regionalism.
From this period, however, only conservative elitism rather than considering of regional interests stood out in the Regionalism of Potanin. In 1918 the civil war started, and the Provisional Siberian Government, which was anti-Bolshevik government in West Siberia, was a regime that looked like Regionalist government but was actually seeking centralization. But Potanin actively defended this government.
Later, after the Ufa meeting, the Provisional All-Russian Government was formed, which closed down the Regional Duma to remove the appearance of Regionalism. As such, the Provisional All-Russian Government became an apparently reactionary white military government, and Kolchak eventually took over the government through a coup. Kolchak was a character who had no consideration for Regionalism. But Potanin supported his government until the end of the Kolchak's regime.
Right after the Revolution, Potanin tried to realize his own ideas of Regionalism by showing extraordinary consideration for regional interests. But with the civil war escalating and political forces polarizing, he gradually gave up consideration to the region which was the heart of Regionalism and stuck to conservative elitism. Given this, it is not surprising that Regionalism, which had lost its distinction from other forces, disappeared from historical stage with the collapse of the Kolchak's regime.
(Seoul National University / gbm10@snu.ac.kr)