Politics versus Practicality

The question of “naturality” is evident throughout this week’s readings, i.e. Is war “natural,” is national citizenship “natural?” And yet the question of what is natural begs the question of what is real and realistic? And is it possible that what may not be “natural” may be redefined as “real” and once something is real can it not then be considered natural? How much of these paradigms are essentially renewable? In other words is it possible for Ruddick’s notion of care-giving and peace politics to gain strong relevance? Similarly, how realistic is the No Borders movement? Is it possible that women somehow have a right, a separate power almost, to declare such revolutions and make them so? What allows women to uniquely position themselves at such radical crossroads? How can these movements, which begin on the fringe, yield success as well as gain popular (and male) support?