Rape at Rome
will describe in detail below),
but it was muted by the coalitional styleadopted by feminists and compromised usually in the direction of struc-turalist rule choices.
Introduction to “Governance Feminism”
Chantal Thomas, Prabha Kotiswaran, Hila Shamir, and I have de-scribed a new feminist organizational style that has evolved over thecourse of the 1990s as Governance Feminism (GFeminism).
We devel-oped this term in part because it captures the strong resemblance of thenew, muscular non-governmental organization (NGO) formationsadopted by feminists to the prescription for political engagement withlaw produced by the “new governance” (NG) school.
Amy Cohen de-scribes the project of the NG literature as follows:[N]ew governance proponents aim to design a wide-scale prob-lem-solving praxis that is both maximally efficient andnormatively (democratically) legitimate. They envisage myriadindividual stakeholders grouped into “problem-solving ‘publics’
Part II.D.b.iv.4. Janet Halley, Prabha Kotiswaran, Hila Shamir & Chantal Thomas,
From the Inter-national to the Local in Feminist Legal Responses to Rape, Prostitution/Sex Work, and Sex Trafficking: Four Studies in Contemporary Governance Feminism
Harv. J.L. & Gender
at 340–42 (discussing the “new governance” (NG) project as it relates toGFeminism).
Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Em-powered Participatory Governance
(Archon Fung & Erik Olin Wright eds., 2003);
Lawand New Governance in the EU and the US
(Gráinne de Búrca & Joanne Scott eds.,2006); Joshua Cohen & Charles Sabel,
313, 313–42 (1997); Michael C. Dorf & Charles F. Sabel,
A Constitution of Democratic Experimental-ism
Colum. L. Rev.
267, 267–473 (1998); Jody Freeman,
The Private Role in PublicGovernance
N.Y.U. L. Rev.
543, 543–675 (2000); Brandon L. Garrett & James S. Lieb-man,
Experimentalist Equal Protection
Yale L. & Pol’y Rev.
261, 261–327 (2004);Oliver Gerstenberg & Charles F. Sabel,
Directly-Deliberative Polyarchy: An Institutional Ideal for Europe?
Good Governance in Europe’s Integrated Market
289 (Christian Jo-erges & Renaud Dehousse eds., 2002); Bradley C. Karkkainen,
“New Governance” in LegalThought and in the World: Some Splitting as Antidote to Overzealous Lumping
471, 471–97 (2004); James S. Liebman & Charles F. Sabel,
A Public Laboratory Dewey Barely Imagined: The Emerging Model of School Governance and Legal Reform
N.Y.U.Rev. L. & Soc. Change
183, 183–304 (2003); Orly Lobel,
The Renew Deal: The Fall of Regulation and the Rise of Governance in Contemporary Legal Thought
Minn. L. Rev.
342, 342–470 (2004); Charles F. Sabel & William H. Simon,
Destabilization Rights: HowPublic Law Litigation Succeeds
Harv. L. Rev.
1016–1101 (2004); Joanne Scott &Susan P. Sturm,
Courts as Catalysts: Re-Thinking the Judicial Role in New Governance
Colum. J. Eur. L.
565, 565–94 (2007); William H. Simon,
Solving Problems vs. Claiming Rights: The Pragmatist Challenge to Legal Liberalism
Wm. & Mary L. Rev.
127, 127–212 (2004); Susan Sturm,
Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Ap- proach
Colum. L. Rev.
458, 458–568 (2001).