Sociology

In her article titled The Gender of Sovereignty, (2008, p.1) Lisa Lowe states current definitions for state sovereignty date back to the Treaty of Westphalia (1713). At that time it was assumed that state sovereignty should provide special rights for contemporary nation states to govern their people and territories. The United States Constitution was crafted to reflect this mindset. Providing special rights outside of regular law has presented some problems, both for the people and her government. For example, under the newly titled war on terror those original rights of governance afforded under our Constitution have been appended to include the largely unilateral US invasion in Iraq, as well as, our seemingly endless occupation in Afghanistan. At other times throughout our history this appendage has attempted to mitigate, or perhaps even reverse, the flow of illegal aliens into the USA.  Applying a feminist lens to this scenario Lisa Lowe suggests this may be movement via special policy toward a new world order. 

As one example of supporting data for this new world order argument Lisa Lowe (2008, p.2) proposes the fence and beefed-up border presence along the US border between US territories and Mexico. This particular governmental stance was supposed to help remedy to the immigration crisis post 911 when there was a certain hysteria about our porous borders. This knee jerk reaction has recurred over the years, sometimes with the same players and at other times differing crisis partners. While on the surface this may seem like a good policy to adopt it has failed to address issues of a transnational nature especially in the agribusiness and service sectors that have largely been filled by this unchecked influx of cheap Mexican labor. Oftentimes, these policies have been at odds with those directives issued under Immigration and Naturalization and border patrol.

Data regarding the unilateral decision to go to war in Iraq was more about control of valuable resources than political response to US territorial threat to sovereignty in the post 911 USA. (Lowe, 2008, p.2) In the oil and gas arena the USA stands way behind other nations in production, refining, and overall GDP. Control of oil and gas on the world markets would go a long way toward the US to becoming more competitive with China and Asia. In retrospect embarking on this war has been costly, both in terms of dollars spent annually and lives lost in pursuit of the Taliban. It can also be argued that the huge outlay of cash in this endeavor may have precipitated our economic tsunami which occurred in the Fall of 2008. A secondary problem with this line of warmongering logic is the destabilization of the entire Middle Eastern region.

Academic discourse, thus far, have been shaped by using a political science lens to address emergence of transnational governance. The biopolitical nature of this discourse is that borders and governance have been blurred and focus has been on populations instead. (Lowe, 2008, pgs.3-4) This has been beneficial, in that it has helped rationalize actions taken under the war on terror and immigration crisis. However, to neglect to point out the bad side of this rationalization is that this mindset perpetuates fear of our citizenry, has abrogated civil rights for detainees in Gitmo, promulgated false patriotism, and given military unilateralism political equality over social injustice. 

Andrea Smith Sovereignty Argument
Andrea Smith argues that we must include the Native American women in scholastic discourse or attach no feminist theory to the arguments that already exist. (2008, p.309) She endeavors to open our eyes to the struggles of current female organizers in this realm of social injustices.

On the notion of nation-state Smith prefers the Judith Butler definition of nation-state sovereignty. Judith Butler indicates that sovereignty provides nation-state with absolute power legitimacy. (2008, p.309-10) It is because of this absolute power in the name of sovereignty that governments can negate laws designed to serve otherwise in civil, military, and international matters. Smith hypothecates that this absolute power is where leaders deem it is prudent to imprison some without trial. Smith concludes that this was the case with regard to actions taken under George W. Bushs presidency in reference to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and the detainees held there without benefit of legal counsel, without official charges being levied against them, or right to trial. Butler contends that these actions wereare unconstitutional and only served to grind down our democracy and civil rights.

Smiths argument is supported by Sora Han, legal scholar. Han contends that the U.S. Constitution provides remedy for government to proscribe laws above those of her citizenry. (2008, p.310) If that theory holds true then we must also be able to ascertain that the selective use of genocide of certain segments of her citizenry, (i.e. Native Americans, women, blacks), provide foundation and cover for the Constitution as story about origin. David Kazanjian terms using the Constitution as origin story and then applying it to actions taken under Bush as a colonizing trick. This type of political duality has helped to divide the governing parties leaving the left and right at odds regarding how this country was constructed and intended to be governed. (p.311) Liberal ideals state that the Constitution was built on democratic principles and the conservative doctrine upholds capitalism, white supremacy, and colonialism as the pillars of same.

Smith states (2008, p.312) that if we could for a moment forget the US exists and that there are other forms of governance around the globe we might further the argument about nation-state sovereignty from the feminist perspective and otherwise. She posits that nation states are governed by heteropatriarchy, coercion, control, and dominion of territory above all else. In contrast, indigenous nationhood fosters shared responsibility and caring for her people. If we fail to act responsibly or challenge this ill-fated line of logic we are only perpetuating heteropatriarchy as the norm. (p.313)

Paramount in combating the heteropatriarchial argument is the need for sustainable and collaborative processes whereby we can, as a world community, share our triumphs, failures, and struggles.

Conclusion
There are three perspectives which shared philosophies overall. The end result is basically the same in that we need to challenge the nation-state sovereignty status quo by continuing to change the dialogue to include the feminist and Native American perspectiveslens such that our world governments work better for people.

Jennifer Denetdale on Dine Marriage Act
While there are some similarities between the previous two authors, and to some degree even Ms. Dentendales definition, on the topic of national sovereignty Jennifer Denetdales argument differs in that it adds the tribal sovereignty and thirdfourth gender roles in Native American folklore twist to the mix. (2008, pgs.1-4) Denetdale highlights how the Native Americans have been marginalized time and again by White American leadership in America and yet throughout this tumultuous history the Native Americans have proven to be quite patriotic, as in numbers enrolled in our military service serving at home and abroad. Native American men and women alike have joined in safeguarding America and Americans on foreign and domestic soil. Many scholars see this movement and adoption of American tradition as Americanization or proof of assimilation into American society. Native Americans have reaped some rewards from this cultural connection in that they, via military service and other nuances of the American culture. Military service is largely seen as being a significant milestone in achievement of manhood, status, and pride. Paul Rosier calls this hybrid patriotism. Cherokee scholar, Jennette Hayes Writer (p.4-5) suggests that by studying the connection between American colonialism and Native American patriotism we might unearth some of the historical trends that have contributed to American imperialism.

The Dine Marriage Act in the Native American community was about defining marriage as between a man and a woman. (Denetdale, 2008, pgs.5-6) This particular Act has similar connections to those sought and upheld under the Presidency of George W. Bush where the same matter came under the legislative microscope. Previously, the Native American people had folklore that perpetuated and described a thirdforth sexgender called the nahleehi. This nadleehi or hermaphrodite was first described to the Western world in the 1930s by anthropologist, W.W. Hill. Nadleehi were noted as being first class weavers, as well as, harmonizers between men and women, especially in times of conflict or unrest.