Mohanty, Nussbaum, MacKinnon
Here’s a sampling of the wonderful and famous “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses” for your delectation. I have to tell you – it’s kack. Read that and then read a page of Martha Nussbaum – for instance her essay ‘Judging Other Cultures: the Case of Female Genital Mutilation’ which I just read this morning; or read a page of Susan Moller Okin or Catharine MacKinnon or Katha Pollitt – and you will see a difference. Mohanty is all pretension and extended jargon-mongering; the others are clear (without necessarily being easy, much less dumbed down) and precise and specific. Mohanty is not really trying to argue a case (if she were, she would do it in a different way); she is doing something more like trying to score points in a very particular kind of game. (And clearly she has succeeded fairly well, since she gets people in a particular discipline to refer to her as famous a lot.) Nussbaum and the others I mentioned are indeed trying to make an argument: they don’t waste time on verbal pirouetting, on showing off their High Theoretical vocabulary, they’re too busy doing other things. Other and better things.
The relationship between Woman – a cultural and ideological composite Other constructed through diverse representational discourse (scientific, literary, juridical, linguistic, cinematic, etc.) – and women – real, material subjects of their collective histories – is one of the central questions the practice of feminist scholarship seeks to address…I would like to suggest that the feminist writing I analyse here discursively colonize the material and historical heterogeneities of the lives of women in the third world, thereby producing/representing a composite, singular ‘third-world woman’ – an image which appears arbitrarily constructed but nevertheless carries with it the authorizing signature of western humanistic discourse.
That’s Mohanty. Now for a bit of Nussbaum. (‘Judging Other Culture’ Sex and Social Justice page 122):
It is wrong to insist on cleaning up one’s own house before responding to urgent calls from outside. Should we have said ‘Hands Off Apartheid,’ on the grounds that racism persists in the United States?…It is and should be difficult to decide how to allocate one’s moral effort between local and distant abuses. To work against both is urgently important, and individuals will legitimately make different decisions about their priorities. But the fact that a needy human being happens to live in Togo rather than Idaho does not make her any less my fellow, less deserving of my moral commitment. And to fail to recognize the plight of a fellow human being because we are busy moving our own culture to greater moral heights seems the very height of moral obtuseness and parochialism.
And some Catharine MacKinnon, from her essay ‘Postmodernism and Human Rights’ in Are Women Human?:
Abuse has become ‘agency’ – or rather challenges to sexual abuse have been replaced by invocations of ‘agency,’ women’s violation become the sneering wound of a ‘victim’ pinned in arch quotation marks. (p. 55)
Postmodernism has decided that because truth died with God, there are no social facts. The fact that reality is a social construction does not mean that it is not there; it means that it is there, in society, where we live. (p. 56)
Women often serve power and do have power over children, but postmodernists have to portray women actually having power that men largely have in order to confuse people about power. (That they want to avoid being called sexist in the process, we have accomplished.) (pp. 59-60)
I know which I prefer.
I have to agree with the prominent postcolonial and transnational feminist theorist Ms O.B. that this is serious doody!
Just for fun what would be a good handle for O.B?
Ohhhhhh – I see it all in a different light now. I didn’t understand about the crosscutting of space and temporality before. [flings ashes over head]
They’re from Gallifrey?
Don’s citing of Gallifrey suggests that he knows more about the crosscutting of space and temporality in feminist discourse than he is letting on. He may therefore be interested in attending the 20th Annual Feminist & Women’s Studies Association (UK & Ireland) Conference on Feminism and Popular Culture (June 29th-July 1st 2007) at Newcastle University, the agenda for which includes:
“Re-Programming Gender: The Anti-Feminist Backlash in Dr Who and The Avengers”
Not to be missed by all Dr Who fans, and those interested in space and temporality crosscutting. Or, indeed, cross-dressing:
“Gender Bending or Back to Basics?: Sex(ed) Roles, Feminism and The L Word”
http://tinyurl.com/29w67b
Oops! I haven’t quite caught up with the fact that we’re in 2008 now! Sorry all you Dr Who fans, you missed it.
What about all us Avengers fans? A plague on all this Whoocentric binary Doctorization. I think I’ll set up a conference to discuss the matter.
Ophelia: A confession just between the two of us: I had to check out Gallifrey on the internet.
You’ll need to get a grant or two for your prospective conference. That shouldn’t be too difficult if you do it under the auspices of a University Women’s Studies department. My web browsing brought up details of a “roundtable” on Transnational Feminism held at UCLA which received grants from no less than four sources: UCLA’s Center for Modern and Contemporary Studies, Center for the Study of Women, Research Group on Transnational and Transcolonial Studies, and the UCLA International Institute.
http://tinyurl.com/yrxwfo
It seems that when Women’s Studies event organisers go requesting funds there are guys and gals out there who just cain’t say no.
Interestingly, one feminist writer has this to say about financial backing for transnational feminist projects:
“Transnational feminism has depended for its organizational growth not on funds generated from grass-roots membership but on resources provided by powerful institutions such as the UN, social democratic governments in the North, and private foundations in the capitalist core countries.”
“Transnational Feminism and The Struggle for Global Justice”
Johanna Brenner
http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue34/brenne34.htm
Well here’s a confession, Allen: I haven’t looked Gallifrey up yet and I haven’t got the faintest idea what it is…
Ohhhhhhhh. Now I get it.
Silly OB. Don’t you realize that making a clear statement and defending it is just so passe?
Also, I think it’s amusing that whenever a Muslim woman or other non-Western woman dares to criticize her own faith without using theory-jargon, plenty of so-called leftists will jump on her for being a tool of the West or a sell-out or something. See: Ayaan Hirsi Ali (whose views on Iraq I disagree with completely, but that’s irrelevant), Irshad Manji, even Shirin Ebadi…
Well, see, they’re not prominent postcolonial and transnational feminist theorists, so what do they know about it? They’ve just lived it, but the point is to theorize it.
It looks to me as if Mohanty simply loaded Said’s ‘Orientalism’ into Microsoft Word and did a find and replace with ‘third world woman’.
I have to confess that while Nussbaum’s quote is spot-on, I have found a lot of MacKinnon’s writing descends into obscurantism in efforts to make the case that we in the west live in some all-encompassing patriarchy when – quite simply – we don’t.
If we did, there would be no difference for women between life in Afghanistan and in, say, Sweden. Which brings us back to Nussbaum’s very well made point.
Yeah – I don’t like all of MacKinnon (or all of Nussbaum, for that matter). But parts of her are excellent. (Curate’s egg joke.)
On the subject of Nussbaum–while she’s quite right, it’s also 100% true that focusing on others’ oppression can lead one to forget ones’ own.
For instance, Kikuyu women in Africa were clitoridectomized in colonial times–but in every other respect, the average Kikuyu woman was much better off (in terms of power, freedom, security, etc.) than the average British woman at the time (who might have been able to keep her clitoris, but certainly wasn’t allowed to use it, and was subject to a host of restrictions that either a modern woman or a Kikuyu woman would have found unbearable). British officials in Kikuyu territory would commonly gripe about how uppity the women were and how much influence they had, and how that influence would get in the way of the comfy alliances the British had with male elders. A British woman could be institutionalized, hysterectomized and drugged for her natural life-span if she exhibited the sort of self-assertive behavior common to Kikuyu women. (Lynn Thomas’s “The Politics of the Womb” is a good anthropological source of info on Kikuyu clitoridectomies).
Does this excuse the clitoridectomy? Hell, no. But it does point out that oppression happens along many axes, that powerful elements within your culture can encourage you to focus on oppressive elements within other cultures so you don’t notice your own culture’s flaws and that we should be on guard against this trap. I wouldn’t want to be either Kikuyu or British, and I shouldn’t have to choose between those two restricted options.