Postcolonial feminism - Wikipedia
Postcolonial Feminist Criticism This paper mainly seeks to explore the dynamic relation between post-colonialism and feminism. It will approach to both of them. Relationships Feminism and Postcolonialism: (En)gendering Encounters E. John, Discrepant Dislocations: Feminism, Theory and Postcolonial Histories!. Are you asking about the relationship between postcolonialist theory and feminist theory? If so, the answer is in the overlap between them, since feminism can.
It thus promoted the systematic integration of cultural, geographical, and historical features in any discourse on women, on their representation, and on patriarchy. Underlying this interest, however, is the sensitive issue of how France perceives its colonial past and its protective reflex towards contemporary feminist thought, the French roots of which are encroached on by gender studies.
Danielle Haase-Dubosc et al. The publication project in French is thus accompanied, as Haase-Dubosc writes, by a concomitant publication in India of a volume on French feminism.
In other words, in this volume, heterogeneity prevails over any attempt to standardize women, oppression, and the modes of struggle.
Lalita on literary history; N. John on gender and development. In other words, it argues that women can speak in an alternative, even subversive, language. It has a chronological orientation that may, admittedly, bear witness to the evolution and transformations in feminist struggles. She also demonstrates the difficult emancipation of women from the family and especially from marriage, where ordinary domination is also exercised through brutality.
But this dubious heritage, the chapter concludes, is not sufficient to define a unique feminism and femininity, which result from a social, historical, and cultural context. If some feminist struggles are India-specific dowry, child marriage, sati, etc. Focusing on two well-known characters from the lowest castes or classes? Women can thus speak, the author implicitly concludes, by inventing alternative strategies of resistance, and constructing parallel histories and ways of formulating them.
Clearly, these are reductive readings of the female subject that do not recognize her agency and question neither the metaphorization and reification of women, nor their incorporation, under the features of Shakti or Sita, into a nationalist project saturated with patriarchal discourses. The identification of a duplicity Sita vs. Even more troubling is its relation with Western discourses, which it holds as implicit and often anachronistic models.
Or, on the contrary, can feminism resist the cultural exception that could compromise its essential principles? Voices from the Partition of India, Durham: Chakravarty, Dipesh Provincializing Europe: Orientalism makes the West speak on behalf of the Orient. The discourses that the West constructed toward the Orient continues in some way in Western feminism as Mohanty argues. The hegemonic structure of Western feminism pushes the Third World women to an atemporality by putting them to a permanent victim position, a homogeneous and monolithic category, by overlooking the ways of producing their subjectivities.
The main criticism of Mohanty is concerned with the archetypical victimization of Third World women as the victims of male control. Even if the assumption that these women are generally sufferers of the male domination is true, Mohanty defines the problem as putting the Third World woman into a frozen category without any reference to their subjectivities. Thus, it might be argued that Western feminism puts the Third World women into silence like the West did toward the Orient.
Likewise the West provides its selfness by creating the Orient as the other, Western feminism also confirms its exceptional existence by creating representations of Third World women around a type of otherness. The position of Western feminist women corresponds to a complicated one because of the fact that she is dominated in relation to western man, but at the same time she has a master identity vis a vis the Third World.
Hence, Western women are at the same time in both the dominant and oppressed sides. Due to this complication, the attitude of Western feminism vis a vis non-Western women involves a problematic aspect.
Even if there is an intention to make a connection on the base of sisterhood within Western feminism, Mohanty argues that the master identity surrounding with Western logocentrism does not stop following Western women.
In such a situation, "Western feminists alone become the true 'subjects' of this counterhistory. Third World women, on the other hand, never rise above the debilitating generality of their 'object' status. The Third World woman becomes a category of analysis due to the being trapped under her object status. Nevertheless, such an answer is also not quite adequate to solve the problem as was the fake transparency within the voice of Western women. There is the necessity to look the particularities of Third World women in order to cover a distance on the representation problem.
There are two significant components of Third World women: On one hand, the gender issue seems the most important aspect when talking about the situation of being woman under a specific gender structure.
Thus it could be said that both gender and race ethnicity affect and 8 sometimes determine the position of women within the hegemonic structure, therefore her experience of womanhood is shaped in relation to both of them. Hence, the approaching to Third World women involves a hierarchal consideration between these two components. This is a quite important question that we should face with.
If Western feminists become the true subjects and Third World woman sticks with the object status, then how can the Third World woman construct her own subjectivity within the equation of race and gender vis a vis the West? If we accept that there is the necessity of speaking of subjects on behalf of their subjectivities, it corresponds to the ethnic voice of womanhood which contains both components at the same time. Besides it will be the amalgamation of two kinds of engagement: Thus, it may be argued that the combination of these two terms struggles with two strata of hegemony at the same time which interpenetrate each other: Suleri argues that the problem still could not easily be solved even if the necessity is revealed as the ethnic voice of womanhood and the existence of postcolonial feminist.
She asks another considerable question at this point: This question brings us to think about the feature of ethnic voice. From this point of view, it is the authentic voice which reveals the very authenticity of womanhood. However, Suleri claims that the aim of the finding the authentic voice opens a new discussion. Hence, the concern of the authenticity emerges as another problem since the source of narrative is asserted as an important aspect of the experience of the woman who is ethnically constructed.
There is another question that the non-Western women seeking to problematize the mispresentation — the lack of subjectivities- created by the West, are forced to be faced with: She reveals the authenticity as something subjected by hegemonic power relations and blames the West by using the authenticity as a challenge. Besides, in this context, the authenticity is not just a concern but rather it is a means which reproduces the unequal relation. If we refer again to Trinh T.
The authenticity creates a space in which the difference is recalled again and again rather than a space in which the difference is ruled out in order to enable different subjectivities. Gayatri Spivak also indicates that there is a delusion in the First world. She argues that the encouragement or the giving to the subaltern a chance to speak - we may consider it as a Third World woman in this context- does not mean to the making the subaltern speak.
Similarities between Feminism and Postcolonialism.
She receives positively the emergence of the information remains in the silence within the fields such as anthropology, sociology etc.
And the subaltern woman will be 11 as mute as ever. Thus the epistemic violence might be considered as the result of the colonialist move as Mohanty indicated. It should be noted that there are several problems that the attempts from outside to make the subaltern speak bring. There is on one hand a logocentric assumption of solidarity stemming from the epistemic violence and on the other hand the dependence upon the Western women to speak for the subaltern condition.
As for subaltern women, she argues: This is the reason why the subaltern cannot speak. The representative practice of Western intellectuals — white feminist women or white men- assigns a centrality to the western subject even when there is an intention to create a space for the voice of the subaltern. To conclude, on one hand the debates that post-colonial feminism brought should be considered as the production of new symbolic capitals within the intellectual field.
On the other hand, within the context of these debates hand the representation issue will always occupy an important space by its very nature. However it could be argued that both these two aspect enable to emergence of new possibilities within both the academic field and the politics concerning the woman struggle with the criticism that they led.
Outline of a theory of practice. The order of things: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism. Grossberg eds Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture.
A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present. Feminism and the Postcolonial Condition.