In Under Western Eyes:
Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses, Chandra Mohanty is critical of
the concept of 'women as a category of analysis' which has been used in western
feminist discourse to universalize the assumed shared oppression of 'third world women.' The portrayal of non-western or 'third world women'
as a homogenous group suggests they all share identical goals, dependencies, oppressions
and struggles. Western feminist narratives are highly contested by Mohanty as
she claims these representations fail to account for the varied identities,
histories, cultures and experiences among women that uniquely shape and determine
the conditions of their individual lives.This framework suggests that gender
is what distinguishes women as a group instead of the multitude of factors
including one's socio-economic status, culture, history, ethnicity, etc.
The
astounding ignorance toward ‘third world women’ and societies is prevalent in
the some of the texts written by certain western scholars in the series, 'Women
in the Third World.' These authors construct a monolithic image of 'third world
women' as exploited, victimized, and subjugated which suggests
their assumed lack of agency too. Mohanty mentions how these
over-generalizations of third world women are destructive to the potentiality
of solidarity and coalition work among western and non-western women.While western feminist narratives
write about 'third world women' not only do they position themselves as the
gate keepers of knowledge regarding these subjects, but they simultaneously
create a contrasting dichotomous image that classifies both groups in
simplistic opposition to each other. This type of 'feminist orientalism' situates 'third
world women' as poor, oppressed, uneducated, traditional, sexually repressed
and powerless; while western women are self-represented as educated, modern,
secular, sexually autonomous and in complete control of their lives.
One
of the aspects Mohanty centers her discussion on is the re-presentation of
'third world women' as a homogenous powerless group who are seen as victims of
cultural and socio-economic systems. She further argues that western feminist
narratives perpetually constitute ‘third world women’ as an already powerless
group, prior to the historical and political analysis in question. Mohanty uses the practice
of veiling as one example. Through a western feminist framework, the veil has
often been perceived as a marker of female subordination and backwardness
assumed to be forced upon third world women in Muslim societies as a form of
control. When in actuality there are various reasons why women veil (many willingly
chose to) and the reasons are not always limited to mandatory law. One example Mohanty mentions is
when women veiled in Iran during the revolution to embrace solidarity between
working class women. In comparison to contemporary Iran, women are required by
law to veil. The meaning and value attached to the practice of veiling in these
examples are both different and can only be understood when taking into account the specific cultural,
historical and ideological contexts.
Like
Mohanty, Lila Abu-Lughod suggests that one must understand and take into
consideration the historical context of the situation of women prior to an
analysis of their roles and positions within (in this case) contemporary Egyptian society. Abu-Lughod
examines the Islamist and secularist visions of women's ideal roles within Egyptian
society. Although both groups envision themselves as oppositional forces in
Egypt, they interestingly seem to generally share similar beliefs when the 'question
of woman' is debated within the context of familial systems. In one of her
arguments, Abu-Lughod analyzes Islamist desires to return to cultural
authenticity and traditionalism in an effort to 'retraditionalize' women's
roles so they become proper mothers and wives. She claims that the value placed
on marital love and the nuclear family that Islamists seem to emphasize the
importance of (as seen in newspaper articles and advice columns) are in fact also
modernist ideologies that are influenced by western notions. These traditional
ideologies have not developed indigenously within the context of Islamic
tradition. In fact, Abu-Lughod explains that it is not possible for there to be
an authentic tradition because of Egypt's historical encounter with the
West.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kBadnr2NTc
In this video, British women talk about why they willingly choose to wear the niqab.
I like that you highlighted Mohanty's point that western feminists that write about "third world women" position themselves as the gatekeepers of this knowledge. I agree that this creates a very one dimensional image of these women and serves the purpose of positioning the western feminist superior. It also puts them in the position of defining what is and is not feminism, which silences the voices of these "third world women". The example of the veil, even though it discussed very often, provides a very clear example of western feminists judging what qualifies as feminism from a western perspective and ignoring the voices of the women themselves. That's why looking for sources that are straight from the folks who have first hand experiences is super important.
ReplyDelete-Samantha Dippert
I liked the clip you sampled as it provided examples of various reasons women themselves had chosen to wear the veil. One woman in the video said, “I see the veil as a form of liberation because it says judge me for who I am not what I wear”. This quote challenges the dominant understanding of the veil as a form of oppression. The readings this week challenged the same dominant western feminist discourse that third world women are oppressed. As you said, concrete meanings attached to veiling is different in different contexts. “Third world women” have been constructed by many mainstream feminists as a homogenous, powerless group of women described as victims to their given cultural socio-economic status. This image helps to preserve “first world women’s” image, as without the third-world there would be no first. “One enables and sustains the other”. This was something new for me to consider, I’ve always assumed that the homogenization of the third-world was a result of ignorance. Mohanty takes it further referring to a “discursive self-preservation” of western women. It is more than just ignorance that prompts such ignorant portrayals of the third-world, it is also a matter of self-interest.
ReplyDeleteTess Wilkens