Women's Organisation Under The

Women’s Srudrcs hr. Forum. Vol. 8. No 5. pp. 521-529. 1985 0277-5395185 $3.CKI+ .oO Pnnted in Great Bntatn. fQ 1985 Pergamon Press Ltd.

GENDER AND COLONIALISM: WOMEN’S ORGANISATION UNDER THE RAJ

JOANNA LIDDLE*

School of Industrial, and Business Studies, University of Warwick. Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.

and

RAMA JOSHI:

Shri Ram Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources, 5 Sadhu Vaswani Marg, New Delhi 110 005, India

Synopsis-The popular media have recently born witness to a renewed interest in India under British rule. This article examines the portrayal of Indian liberation struggles in two of the more serious expositions, The Jewel in the Crown and Gandhi. questioning the political implications of this portrayal. It shows that they both neglect the crucial role played by women in the maintainance and demise of the Raj. We argue that women’s contribution was so significant that its omission constitutes a misrepresentation of history that can fairly be termed revisionist. We suggest that the reason for this process of mystification lies in the relevance of India’s fight for national liberation and sexual equality in the early twentieth century, to present day struggles against imperialism and male domination, which are two of the most explosive issues affecting the modern Western world.

We have recently seen in the popular British media question in relation to the portrayal of women, by a re-kindled interest in India under British rule, focussing on Gandhi and Jewel in the Crown as the which Salman Rushdie has termed the Raj Revival most popular of the more serious projects. (Rushdie, 1984). It includes the films Gandhi and Salman Rushdie’s critique of Jewel in the Crown Octopu.s~y, the television showings of two novels, attacks the Revival as a ‘revisionist enterprise’, re- The Jewel in the Crown and The Far Pavilions, and writing the history of India’s freedom struggle as the the documentaries Clive of India, and War of the activities of the ‘officer class and its wife’ and Springing Tiger on Subhas Chandra Bose. The film justifying contemporary conservative ideologies of of A Passage to India was released recently. The white racial superiority (Rushdie, 1984: 19). Mihir debate over the meaning of the Revival is Bose, who defends Subhas Chandra Bose from his unresolved. It has been described in the Financial portrayal in War of the Springing Tiger agrees with Times as an ‘extraordinary process of re-educa- Rushdie’s analysis (Bose, 1984). Julian Barnes tion on the British Empire’ (Dunkley, 1984). The denies these charges and argues that the Revival is dispute centres on whether the re-education is progressive on the grounds that some of the projects revisionist or progressive. We intend to examine this focussed on British withdrawal rather than the establishment of the Raj, that Clive of India presented an unambiguously anti-imperialist stance, * Joanna Liddle is a lecturer in Social and Industrial and that Jewel in the Crown attributed the ‘damn Psychology at the University of Warwick and teaches on bloody senseless mess’ to the British (Barnes, 1984: Industrial Relations and Women’s Studies courses. Her 21). Ken Taylor, who adapted Jewel in the Crown research interests are in women’s work. for television, doesn’t seem to know what he, or t Rama Joshi is a Research Associate at the Shri Ram Paul Scott the author, intended, for he writes, ‘I am Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources, sure that Paul Scott never intended anything so New Delhi. She teaches Industrial Psychology and crude as a simple condemnation of the Raj, or of the Personnel Management. Her research inierests-ire in Industrial Relations and in Women Workers. Labour Government which brought it to an end. Recently they have completed a joint study of There is so much more to it than that’ (Taylor, 1984: Professional Women in India in which thev address issues 10). But he gives no hint of what that might be. of gender, caste and class. It will be pubIcshed shortly by Of course, the projects do not all contrive to Zed Books. present the same picture, nor do the authors collude

521 522 JOANNA LIDDLE and &MA JOSHI to produce one message. With the possible As we will show, women held a special significance exception of Clive of India, however, what they for the British Raj and, perhaps as a result, they also have in common is the mystification of some crucial played a vital part in its downfall. To examine this aspect of history which thereby obscures our question we will look at two features: the understanding of events. The subtlety of the more significance of women to the British rulers, and the serious programmes lies precisely in the fact that part women played in the Freedom Movement. they do not convey an entirely Western ethnocentric view, but contain a limited critique of the British WOMEN AND THE RAJ occupation and plundering of the colonies. To this extent the Revival is progressive. But next to the The British in India saw themselves as a force for critique is posed an insidious legitimation of the enlightenment, especially for women. To support Western presence, quite apart from historical errors their claim, they pointed to the laws liberalising and omissions. Salman Rushdie shows how Jewel in women’s legal position. Between 1772 and 1947 they the Crown overstressed the importance of British introduced nine major reforms. including the laws actions and underplayed the significance of Indian forbidding female infanticide, sati and child resistance (Rushdie, 1984). Madhu Kishwar demon- marriage, and those raising the age of consent, strates the same effect in Gandhi, where the allowing widow remarriage, and improving women’s Mahatma was consistently portrayed in relation to inheritance rights (Everett, 1981: 144-145; Thapar, Western political leaders and sycophantic hangers- 1963: 482,487; Mirchandani, 1970: 253). They were on, in what she terms the Mountbatten view of supported in all these cases by Indian reformers. But history, rather than in relation to the people of British support for the issues was often ambiguous, India, thus obscuring the Indian perspective and and their actions on other issues contradicted their mystifying India’s history (Kishwar, 1983). It is this claim to be a progressive influence. mediation of imperialism through Western perspec- Official British policy was of non-interference in tives of justification which is revisionist and which personal and religious matters, which inhibited the appeals to British audiences, for it legitimates even evolution of social change in written law. But as in its criticism. Jana Matson Everett shows (1981: 141-144), this One of the major ways in which the Raj Revival would not have mattered had not Warren Hastings, mystifies Indian history is in its treatment of women. Governor of Bengal, interfered with the Hindu The Jewel in the Crown was billed as ‘the story of a concept of law in 1772. Hindu law was based on rape’ (see for example the advertisement in the New custom, flexibly interpreted in line with prevailing Statesman, 6.1.1984 p.13). One might be forgiven opinion, and embodying a vast diversity of for thinking that the main character would be approaches according to cultural, regional and caste female, but the picture under these words adver- differences. Most law was unwritten, except that of tising the programme reveals two men confronting the brahmins (the highest caste). But Hastings each other-one English, one Indian. Perhaps then imposed the brahmins’ religious texts upon all the rape is a metaphor for Britain’s violation of Hindus as the sole legal authority, in an attempt to Indian territory and property? But if so, one can make Hindu custom fit in with British law, applying only ask along with Salman Rushdie, why the rape uniformly to everyone and based on the binding was not of an Indian woman by and Englishman. In force of Parliamentary Acts interpreted according to fact, in contrast to the plethora of Englishwomen precedent. there is hardly an Indian woman to be seen in the The effect of this was to impose the constraints entire twelve week series apart from little Edward’s which previously applied only to high caste women ayah. onto all Hindu women. High caste women were If Jewel in the Crown defines the Freedom subject to the strictest legal constraints on their Movement as the activities of the officer class and its activities in order to preserve the purity of caste. For wife, Attenborough’s Gandhi projects it as the instance, most high caste women could not own activities of Indian men. The few women who immovable family property, could marry only once feature in the film play largely passive and even if widowed in infancy, and were not allowed stereotyped roles. As Madhu Kishwar points out, divorce. Lower caste women had no customary most of the women are presented as Gandhi’s prohibition on divorce or remarriage, and no formal personal servants, his wife Kasturba is positively prohibition on the ownership of property. slavish, and Sarojini Naidu is given one minute in a Britain further rigidified Indian law shortly after three hour film in which to represent female the British Crown took over the Government of participation in the struggle (Kishwar, 1983). These India from the East India Company. In 1858 criticisms do not constitute another plea to Victoria’s Proclamation as the first Empress of India rediscover women’s history. The charge they make confirmed the policy of non-interference (Wolpert, is that women’s role was so crucial in the Raj that its 1977: 240-241), but after 1864 the legal interpreta- neglect constitutes a misrepresentation of history. tion of religious texts by Hindu pundits was replaced Women’s Organisation Under the Raj 523 by the decisions of Western educated Indian judges Family organkation interpreting the texts according to developing precedent. The effect was to tie Indian law even The Nayars of Malabar in the state of Kerala more firmly to the past, inhibiting its evolution in maintained a matrilineal form of family until the accordance with changing custom (Everett, 1981: British removed the women’s marriage and inheri- 144). tance rights in the nineteenth century, as shown by Two examples illustrate the contradictory ap- Maria Mies (1980: 84-90). The Nayar family or proach of the British to women’s legal position in ‘taravad’ consisted of a woman, her brothers and India. Sati (widow burning) was probably the cause sisters, and successive generations of the women’s for which they claimed most credit. By contrast, the children (Mencher, 1965: 298). Women received the destruction of the matrilineal family through the right to sexual activity at puberty, after a marriage imposition of economic and legal measures, is ceremony in which neither partner received any discretely forgotten. rights or duties towards the other. The woman could then have ‘sambandhan’ relationships with visiting husbands, which could be begun and ended without Sati formality. The husbands lived in their mother’s The British took a lot of credit for suppressing house and could only visit their wives in the evening. sati. The rite was widely practised by some of the Family property was held in common by all upper castes, especially kshatriyas (the second members of the taravad, and could not be divided highest caste) in the eighteenth century. In some unless everyone agreed that the taravad had grown states, one of the measures of a prince’s achieve- too large. The eldest brother (the ‘karanavan’) held ments was the number of women he took to the authority and administered the property, but could funeral pyre with him. Twenty was considered not dispose of it, and the taravad could remove him ‘normal’ but cases were recorded of as many as 84 if they considered him incompetent (Mies, 1980: (Thompson, quoted in Baig, 1976: 20). The matter 84-85). The taravad contained no in-laws, no was first raised in the British parliament at the turn husbands and no fathers. Subsistence for all of the nineteenth century by Wellesley, Govemor- members was provided in the natal family, and there General of India, but his plea to abolish sati was was no father-child relationship, and no concept of consistently rejected (Spear, 1970: 123). In 1812, a marital family, since sambandhan relationships 1815 and 1817 the British Government passed laws had no necessary permanence. prohibiting the use of force or intoxication to induce In the nineteenth century the British enacted a a woman to the pyre, but they still refused to outlaw series of laws which radically altered the organisa- sati itself. Not until 1829, thanks to the liberal tion of sexuality and inheritance in the Nayar family. Governor-General Bentinck, was sati finally pro- In 1868 a law was passed that a man had to provide hibited in British India (Mirchandani, 1970: 235). for his wife and children, a concept that was More than 20 years of inaction went by before this meaningless within the organisation of the taravad was done, despite the campaigns of Indian and (Rao, 1957: 133). Karanavans then began giving British reformers. Even amongst the liberals like taravad property to their own children, and 4365 Bentinck, British motives were by no means cases were brought against them in the Travancore unambiguous. The liberal coalition challenging Tory courts between 1887 and 1906 (Kapadia, 1968: 344). ideas in England at that time consisted of the In 1896 the Madras Marriage Act designated the Radicals and the Evangelicals. The former saw India sambandhan relationship a monogamous marriage, as backward and irrational, the latter saw her as dissolvable only through legal process, and giving heathens awaiting salvation from superstitions like the wife and children the right to maintenance by sati through the enlightenment of Christianity the husband. Fortunately this law had little effect (Spear, 1970: 121-122). Their purpose was not to since sambandhan relationships were not registered liberate women but to introduce their own concept (Mies, 1980: 87). of reason and their own religion respectively. Subsequently a number of Nayar Regulation The suppression of sati marked the first Laws declared the giving of a gift to the woman (as Government intervention in the Hindu religion, and was expected at the start of a relationship) a legal act was claimed by the British as their first initiative of marriage; polygamy was prohibited; marriage towards the liberation of Indian women. But the could be dissolved only through a legal divorce; and ambiguities behind the move could clearly be seen in the non-Nayar father was given the right to inherit the ulterior motives behind the intervention and in the property of his wife’s family. This resulted in the the reluctance to intervene over two decades. In death of the symbolic marriage ceremony at puberty contrast, however, the laws imposed on the (Rao, 1957: 98-100). The Malabar Wills Act of 1898 matrilineal family explicitly and deliberately re- gave the man the right to dispose of his private moved women’s former freedoms and imposed on property to his children, which was impossible in the them new constraints. taravad because all property was owned in common. 524 JOANNALIDDLE~~~ RAMAJOSHI

The 1912 Travancore Nayar Regulations permitted most primitive African or Australian savages’ the division of taravad land, and the 1933 Madras (quoted in Andrews, 1967: 114). Marriage Act designated the wife’s children rather And it ended: than the sister’s children, that is the taravad, as a man’s heirs (Rao, 1957: 139-144). ‘Katherine Mayo makes the claims for Swaraj The British saw the sexual freedom of the women (Self Rule) seem nonsense and the will to grant it as promiscuity rather than simply a different form of almost a crime.’ (Quoted in Andrews, 1967: family organisation, and viewed the collective 110-111). ownership of property through the female line as the dispossession of the males. Their onslaught against Had the book not been written in the context of foreign rule, or had it acknowledged the contribu- Nayar organisation of sexuality and inheritance tion of colonialism to the maintenance of patriarchal destroyed the structure of the matrilineal family, abuses, the defensive reactions it provoked amongst removed the women’s sexual rights, abolished Indians could have been categorised as apologies for collective ownership of property and dispossessed patriarchy, but the colonial context confounded the women from their inheritance. As Maria Mies such an interpretation. For Mayo’s book was used demonstrates, the change was not the inevitable by the equally patriarchal British, not to argue for result of urbanisation and industrialisation, but the the abolition of male dominance, but to perpetuate outcome of concerted legal and economic actions the oppression of imperialism. Indian patriarchy initiated by the British to eliminate a form of social formed one of the pillars upon which the British organisation to which they were deeply hostile. colonists built their rule over the country. (Mies, 1980: 89).

WOMEN AND SWARAJ The importance of women’s subordination to the Raj In view of the way patriarchy was used by the colonists it is not surprising that when women began The attack on the Hindu concept of law, and the to organise against male domination during the last actions over sati and the matrilineal family, show fifty years of the Raj, they focussed on imperialism that the British approach to the position of women as one of the major causes of their oppression. As was contradictory. They liberalised the law for some Geraldine Forbes notes (1982: 529) the women groups of women, but imposed constraints on blamed their subordination not on men, but on others. They claimed both to be a liberalising custom, arising out of India’s history of wars, influence and that their poIicy was of non- invasions and imperialism, and argued that women’s interference. The fact is that they were highly issues could not be separated from the question of selective both in their non-interference and in their foreign domination. They defused male opposition liberalising. and won support for their cause by linking freedom The reason for this was that the subordination of for women with freedom for India, forming an women by Indian men provided the British with one alliance with the national movement in the struggle of their favourite justifications for foreign rule. They for Swaraj. had an interest both in maintaining women’s The benefits of this alliance did not accrue only to subordinate position and in liberalising it. The the women, for the freedom movement gained too. former was to show that India was not yet fit for Self Gandhi recognised the importance of drawing Rule, the latter to demonstrate Britain’s superiority women into the Swaraj campaigns in order to create in relations between the sexes. This is well a mass movement, and in doing so he too linked illustrated by the controversy created by a book national liberation to women’s liberation. ‘Many of written in 1927 by Katherine Mayo called Mother our movements’, he said ‘stop halfway because of India. The book described the effects of patriarchal the condition of our women. Much of our work does abuses on women, and concluded that it was male not yield appropriate results’ (Gandhi quoted in dominance, not British colonialism, which was Kishwar, 1983: 46). Gail Omvedt shows that one of responsible for India’s ‘poverty, sickness, ignorance his skills as leader of the Indian National Congress melancholy, ineffectiveness inferiority’ was to mediate the discontents of the mass of &lHyo, 1927: 22). In conflating the two issues of women so that they remained targeted at foreign imperialism and patriarchy, the book provided the rule, uniting both sexes behind the cause of perfect legitimation for rejecting India’s demands Independence (Omvedt, 1975: 47). But besides the for Self Rule. The New Statesman wrote in 1927 that numerical success of the movement, there was a the book revealed: deeper reason why Gandhi valued women’s ‘the filthy habits of even the most highly educated presence. He believed that women’s qualities made classes in India-which, like the degradation of them perfectly suited to his philosophy and practice Hindu women, are unequalled even amongst the of non-violent resistance, and indeed suggested that Women’s Organisation Under the Raj 525 he had learnt this approach from his wife’s ‘As the day wore on, even in the European streets implacable but silent resistance to his own demands I noticed that in ones and twos Indian women on her (Kishwar, 1983: 46). He believed that women were seating themselves on chairs at the doors of would become the leaders in ‘satyagraha’ (non- certain shops . . . . But if anyone attempted to violent resistance), which is based on self sacrifice: enter, the lady joined her hands in supplication: she pleaded, she reasoned, and if all else failed, ‘I do believe that it is woman’s mission to exhibit she would throw herself across the threshold and . . . ahimsa (non-violence) at its highest and best. dare him to walk over her body. These women For woman is more fitted than man to make have been known to fling themselves in front of a ahimsa. For the courage of self-sacrifice woman is car, and lie upon the ground before its wheels, any way superior to man, as I believe, man is to until its owner yielded and took back into the woman for the courage of the brute’ (Gandhi, shop the forbidden goods he had bought . . . . 1938: 21, quoted in Mies, 1980: 125). The picketers went in their hundreds to prison, And he had no doubt about who had the most to but always there were more to take their place contribute to the struggle, and which sex he would . . . . If they have not yet won Swaraj for India, prefer to have as his campaigners: they have completed the emancipation of their own sex. Even in the Conservative North, I heard ‘I would love to find that my future army the ripping of curtains and veils.’ (Brailsford, contained a vast preponderance of women over 1943: 178-179). men. If the fight came, I should then face it with a greater confidence than if men predominated. I The British response to the civil disobedience would dread the latter’s violence. Women would campaign was to declare the National Congress an be my guarantee against such an outbreak’ illegal organisation and to arrest most of the leaders. (Gandhi, 1939, quoted in Kishwar, 1983: 46). It was at this point that the women on their own initiative took over the direction and organisation of the campaign, to the surprise even of Nehru: Freedom for India ‘Most of us menfolk were in prison. And then a Women in fact took part in the Swaraj remarkable thing happened. Our women came to campaigns of all kinds, peaceful and militant, the front and took charge of the struggle. Women legal and illegal. Aparna Basu writes: had always been there of course but now there ‘Women organised themselves into groups and was an avalanche of them, which took not only were willing to join processions, face police firing the British government but their own menfolk by and go to prison. They broke the salt law, surprise . . . . Here were these women, women of picketed shops selling liquor and foreign manu- the upper or middle classes, leading sheltered factured cloth. There were women who joined lives in their homes, peasant women, working terrorist groups and helped in editing and class women, rich women, poor women, pouring distributing banned newspapers and manufactur- out in their tens of thousands in defiance of ing bombs.’ (Basu, 1976: 39). government order and police lathi (baton).’ (Nehru. 1946: 29-30). No commentator could ignore the success of the Freedom Movement in bringing women out of their Some of the women leaders are now famous names seclusion. The British historian Percival Spear in Indian history. Sarojini Naidu directed the salt notes: protest after Gandhi’s arrest until she herself was arrested (Everett. 1981: 114). Her biographer wrote ‘The event which did more than any other single that she was named the Indian ‘Judith’, and was factor to speed the process of women’s rights was heard telling the police, ‘We ask no quarter and we the Civil Disobedience movement of 1930-31. shall give none, and I will cut the barbed wire with Feeling was then so strong that those women pliers, and seize the salt with my own hands’ already in public life joined Congress Committees (Sengupta, 1966: 234). Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay and took to organising pickets for liquor and cloth was equally bold, as the biographer of Nehru’s sister shops, processions and demonstrations . . while commented: many thousands came out of conditions of privacy and semi-seclusion to support the cause. Some of ‘Processions only of women marched in cities, these were so ardent that at times, as in Delhi. towns and back country roads. Leaving their they directed the whole Congress movement in an homes in thousands, they put themselves in the area until arrested.’ (Spear, 1970: 213-214). forefront where police and soldiers blocked the line of the march. Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay An English eye witness at the time of the campaigns . . . is said to have rallied women to join her, reported the following scene with some wonder and interposing between men surrounding Gandhi, admiration: and the British cavalry about to ride them down, 526 JOANNA LIDDLE and RAMAJOSHI

with the remark: “It is much harder to murder weight to the cause and at the same time threw women than men.” Ordered to charge, British into greater relief police atrocities. At first there troops refused to obey; and Kamaladevi was, and were only rumblings and cursings below the is, a national heroine.’ (Andrews, 1967: 130-131). breath on the part of the authorities, but later they became more vociferous.’ (Chattopadhyay, But army disobedience in the face of women 1958: 26). engaged in civil disobedience was the exception. British army and police officers and government The presence of women taking an active part in officials had no compunction about ordering women the campaign of deliberate law-breaking was the to be treated to the same brutality as the men, most remarkable feature of the Freedom Move- whether it was a peaceful demonstration or a display ment, noted by observers everywhere. The move- of passive resistance. On 21 January 1931 Ganga- ment itself and commentators both contemporary behn Vaidya ‘led a procession of 1200 women in and historical (see for example Nehru, 1946; Borsad. The procession was lathi-charged, Ganga- Brailsford, 1943; Spear, 1970) concurred with behn was severely beaten up and bled profusely, but Kamaladevi’s assessment that ‘with the very first she did not give up the tricolour she was carrying. phase of the political movement, a new chapter had She was in and out of jail till 1934’ (Basu, 1976: 27). opened in the history of Indian women. There is no Nor was it only the women leaders who were doubt that theirs was a key role. It can be mistreated. More than 80,000 people were arrrested confidently said that without their help the during the salt campaign, and of these over 17,000 movement could never have been a success’ were women (Basu, 1976: 29). The British often (Chattopadhyay, 1958: 29). sentenced teenage girls to two years rigorous imprisonment ‘for merely shouting slogans or gathering in assembly’ (Andrews, 1967: 132-133). When the police could no longer arrest because the Women’s liberation jails were full, they tried other ways of intimidating The women did not only fight for the freedom of the women: India. They also worked for their own liberation. ‘The then Government of India, which considered The Women’s Movement had strong links with the itself the custodian of Lancashire and Man- Freedom Movement since its inception, but the chester interests, was certainly not going to look radicahsing influence of participation in the struggle on complacently at these feminine antics. for Swaraj made the Women’s Movement more Picketing was declared illegal and picketers began explicitly political. They set up autonomous to be arrested, but the more the arrests the larger women’s organisations, in which they developed an became the number of picketers. In fact the ban analysis of women’s oppression and a programme of only added fire to the campaign . . the prisoners action (Forbes, 1982). They saw their oppression as began to be let off without convictions because stemming from the impact of imperialism, which the problem of housing them became an was why they put their energy into the Swaraj impossible one. campaigns; but they also saw their oppression in the The police hit on various devices to terrorize patriarchal organisation of the family, which they women. In some places, particularly the larger expressed through a number of demands including cities, they bundled them into police vans and the Hindu Code. drove them out into jungles and released them The Hindu Code embodied changes in the area of when the night came on, hoping that they would be personal law which particularly affected women. too frightened to drift back into the campaign such as marriage and inheritance. The Code which again. But it did not work. eventually became law after Independence provided In other places the police turned water hoses on for monogamy, inter-caste and inter-religion mar- the women, hoping to cause discomfiture and riage, divorce, and equal inheritance and adoption embarrassment. They also tried throwing mustard rights for women. Many men in the National and pepper powder at them and even beating Movement opposed it since it challenged the basis of them.’ (Chattopadhyay, 1958: 25). their own privilege in the family, but the Code was finally enacted after the first General Election, As Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay observed, the thanks mainly to Nehru’s sponsorship and his British disliked the presence of large numbers of established supremacy in the new government women in the movement because it exposed police (Everett, 1981: 187-188). The women’s organisa- brutality and added a moral dimension to the tions also tried to have housework included in the struggle: national accounting process (Mazumdar, 1979: xvi), ‘The authorities from the very first regarded and attempted to insert a clause into the women as intruders and resented their presence in Constitution guaranteeing equality in marriage the movement. Women undoubtedly added moral (Everett, 1981: 161-162). Both attempts failed, but Women’s Organisation Under the Raj 527 they demonstrate that the Women’s Movement had stereotypes of Indian women, demonstrating that a clear vision of the source of their oppression in the they were not the subjugated creatures the British personal areas of marriage, inheritance and domes- had supposed, it also exposed their hypocrisy over ticity, as well as from the impact of imperialism. Indian men’s maltreatment of women, since they On some of their other demands they were more themselves were prepared to order the intimidation clearly supported by the men in the Freedom and beating of women demonstrators by troops and Movement. Women’s suffrage, for example, was police. And it undermined the legitimacy of British supported by all the major political groupings in rejection of Swaraj, for the very women whom the India as early as 1919, for a number of reasons. One British claimed they were there to protect and was that any increase in Indian suffrage was likely to liberate from the patriarchal abuses of their own be unfavourable to the British. Another was to men were taking up the fight against their foreign demonstrate that India was eager for women to have ‘protectors’, destroying the moral argument for the vote, in contrast to British men who failed to Britain’s presence in a foreign land at the same time fully enfranchise their own women until 1928 after a as adding a moral force to the cause of freedom. It 50-year fight. This was illustrated by Dumasia, a was this which the British authorities so bitterly member of the Provincial Assembly who, com- resented. menting on India’s adoption of the principle of On the constructive side, the presence of women female suffrage, said: in the freedom struggle had a profound effect on the institutions of the new society at Independence: a ‘It is gratifying to find that in a country where men constitutional guarantee of sex equality decades are accused of treating women as chattels the before women in the U.S. began their unsuccessful political progress of women has been more rapid campaign for the Equal Rights Amendment; a than in England’ (Leg. Ass. Debates 1926, quoted guarantee against discrimination in employment or in Forbes, 1979). offices long before Britain’s Sex Discrimination Act Thanks to the Women’s Movement’s activities entered the statute books; female suffrage without a around both national and female liberation, the fight, twenty years before women in Switzerland Indian National Congress adopted the principles of received the vote; and in the 195Os, a comprehensive female suffrage and sexual equality in 1928, in its reform of Hindu personal law, which began to draft Constitution. At Independence Congress challenge the very basis of men’s privilege in the instituted universal adult suffrage and a constitu- family. How the laws were implemented is, of tional guarantee of sex, caste and religious equality course, another issue in all these countries. (Everett, 1981: 113-115). So women not only played So women’s subordination was an important a vital and active part in the struggle against factor in the maintenance of the Raj, and women imperialism, but were also responsible for the played a crucial role in it’s demise. In the process introduction of two revolutionary concepts into they revolutionised women’s legal position and Indian politics: universal adult suffrage and eco- introduced the concept of equal individual rights nomic and political equality of the sexes. into Indian politics. This was the heritage and the achievement of the Women’s Movement as much as of the Freedom Movement. The importance of women in the demise of the Raj Women’s participation in the Freedom Movement was crucial for a number of reasons. The presence of PROGRESSIVE OR REVISIONIST? vast numbers of women helped to turn the struggle The popular re-education of the British on the into a mass movement, filling the courts and the subject of their former Empire has not merely prisons, and taking over the leadership when the neglected, but grossly distorted, the crucial signifi- men were arrested. Second, quite apart from the cance of women’s role in the Raj and the consideration of numbers, women provided a achievement of Swaraj. We have tried to show that different quality to the campaign. Gandhi believed this omission constitutes a serious misrepresentation that women’s capacity for self-sacrifice and years of of history, not simply a detail which could be silent suffering were the ideal training for the ignored in the interests of presentational constraints courage and self-control required of his passive in film and television. From the point of view of resisters. His view was that, unlike men, women women’s contribution, the Raj Revival has been a could be relied upon to act passively and non- process not of re-discovering Indo-British history, violently in the face of violent provocation from the but of hiding it. Far from a progressive re- authorities. Women responsded to his call, and to assessment, it represents a conservative cover-up of Gandhi’s unique faith in their abilities. Britain’s cynical abuse and manipulation of Indian A third and extremely significant factor was the women’s subordination in the interests of imperial- impact that the presence of large numbers of women ism, and a reactionary eradication of their politicisa- had on the British. Not only did it upset their tion, contained within a rather cosy critique. To this 528 JOANNALIDDLE and RAMAJOSHI

extent the Revival can rightly be accused of women’s greater skill at non-violent resistance, revisionism. women picketers lying down in shop doorways and What then is the revisionist view of the Raj that is in roadways, women being beaten by police, being popularly portrayed and enthusiastically courting arrest, filling the prisons. These actions all responded to by the television and film watching have their counterparts today. But to have public, and why has such a revision taken place? The acknowledged Indian women’s contribution in the Revival contains two important political messages interests of mere historical accuracy would have which are relevant today. Both are deeply reaction- drawn attention to the similarities, legitimating ary for people still concerned with the issues raised women’s struggles today and suggesting a source during the Swaraj movement. from which we might learn some of the lessons of The first concerns the liberation of the third world our own history. To make these links with our from their colonial masters, and is best expressed in foremothers across international barriers would be the Jewel in the Crown. The series largely avoided too topical, too threatening for the authorities of the Indian version of history, whether of men or today, too uncomfortable for men, and too inspiring women. The focus of the story was the rape of an for women. The message of the film Gandhi is that Englishwoman who was too sympathetic towards Indian women were suppressed and servile and their India, by a gang of Indian peasants, during which all contribution to the freedom fight not worth the structural divisions of society-sex, class and recounting. The implications are to confirm male race-were violated. As a metaphor for the sexual superiority and to hide from black and white economics of Indo-British relations, the rape is women alike their heritage of struggle. meaningless, but as a metaphor for the ideological relations between imperialism and patriarchy, it makes sense. It represents Britain’s moral right to REFERENCES occupy India in order to curb the uncivilised barbarities of Indian men, respecters of neither sex Andrews, Robert Hardy. 1967. A Lamp for India: the nor class nor race. The rape is the modern Story of Madame Pandit. Arthur Barker, London. equivalent of Katherine Mayo’s book in the 192Os, Baig, Tara Ah. 1976. India’s Woman Power. Chand, New Delhi. highlighting the ‘filthy personal habits’ of the Indian Barnes, Julian. 1984. Farewell to the jewel. The Observer masses, and by implication the ‘degradation of (8 April): 21. Hindu women’, but wrapped in a fashionable Basu, Aparna. 1976. The role of women in the Indian critique of the political colonialism of the past, as if struggle for freedom. In Nanda B. R., ed., Indian the West’s economic exploitation of the third world Women from Purdnh to Modernity. Vikas, New Delhi. were not still continuing. The message is that despite Bose, Mihir. 1984. Thorn in the crown. New Statesman (20 mistakes, Britain was justified in occupying India January): 17-18. because of the backwardness of the people. We are Bra&ford, H. N. 1943. Subject India. Victor Gollancz. shown little of the realities of Indian life except its London. Chattopadhyay, Kamaladevi. 1958. The struggle for squalor in comparison with the comforts of England. freedom. In Baig, Tara Ali, ed., Women of India. The implications are to legitimate the white racial Government of India, Delhi. superiority of the past and. worse, to justify Dunkley, Chris. 1984. The Financial Times, quoted by continued Western supremacy in the present. David Boulton, A man of straw. New Statesman (13 The second message concerns the liberation of April 1984): 21. women, and is embodied in the film Gandhi. Here Everett, Jana Matson. 1981. Women and Social Change in the Indian version of the story is more apparent, but India. Heritage, New Delhi. equally revisionist in its historically incorrect Forbes. Geraldine. 1982. Caged tigers: ‘First wave’ suggestion that the Freedom Movement was a male feminists in India. Women’s Skd. 1nr~Q. 5 (6): 525-536. Gandhi, M. K. 1938. Woman and social injustice. affair and women’s participation a minor insignifi- Ahmedabad. Quoted in Mies, Maria. 1980. Indian cance. If Jewel in the Crown avoided any Women and Patriarchy. Concept, New Delhi. encouragement to anti-imperialists thinking that Gandhi, M. K. 1939. Harijan. December. Quoted in they could by their own activities break free of Kishwar. Madhu. 1983. Attenborough’s version of Western control, Attenborough’s Gandhi ensures Gandhi. Manushi 3 (3): 44-48. that no encouragement is given to women supposing Kapadia, K. M. 1968. Marriage and Family in India. that they can through their own initiative change the &ford University Press, London. institutions and attitudes of their society, or even Kishwar, Madhu. 1983. Attenborough’s version of that their contribution to other struggles might be Gandhi. Manushi 3 (3): 44-48. - Legislative Assembly Debates File No 28, Public of 1926. accorded any value. Anyone reading about the Quoted in Forbes, Geraldine. 1979. Votes for women. women’s actions in the Swaraj campaign’s cannot In Mazumdar, Vina, ed., Symbols of Power. Allied fail to be struck by the parallels with contemporary Publishers, New Delhi. struggles of women in Britain and around the world. Mayo, Katherine. 1927. Mother Indin. Harcourt Brace, Women cutting down barbed wire with pliers, New York. Women’s Organisation Under the Raj 529

Mazumdar, Vina. 1979. Symbols of Power. Allied Book Depot, Bombay. Publishers, New Delhi. Rushdie, Salman. 1984. The Raj revival. The Observer (1 Mencher, Joan. 1965. The Nayars of South Malabar. In April): 19. Nimkoff, M. F., ed., Comparative Family Systems. Sengupta, Padmini. 1966. Sarojini Naidu: a Biography. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Asia Publishing House, London. Mies. Maria. 1980. Indian Women and Patriarchy. Spear, Percival. 1970. A History of India. Volume II. Concept, New Delhi. Penguin, Harmondsworth. Mirchandani, G. G. 1970. Status of women in India. India Taylor, Ken. 1984. Jewel box. The Guardian (17 April): Today. United News of India Research Bureau, Delhi. 10. Nehru. Jawaharlal. 1946. The Discovery. of. India. John Thapar, Romila. 1963. The historv of female emancioation Day, New York. in-Southern Asia. In Ward, Barbara, ed., Women-in the Omvedt. Gail. 1975. Caste. class and women’s liberation in New Asia. UNESCO. Paris. India. Bull. of Concerned Asian Scholars 7 (1): 4-7. Wolpert, Stanley. 1977: A New History of India. Oxford Rao, M. S. A. 1957. Social Change in Malabar. Popular University Press, New York. UNDER WESTERN EVES'

Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses.

Chandra Talpade Mohanty

Any discussion of the intellectual and political construction of "thirdworld feminisms" must address itself to two simultaneous proj­ ects: the internal critique of hegemonic "Western" feminisms, and the formulation of autonomous, geographically, historically, and culturally grounded feminist concerns and strategies. The first project is one of deconstructing and dismantling; the second, one of building and con­ structing. While these projects appear to be contradictory, the one working negatively and the other positively, unless these two tasks are addressed simultaneously, "third world" feminisms run the risk of marginalization or ghettoization from both mainstream (right and left) and Western fem­ inist discourses. It is to the first project that I address myself. What I wish to analyze is specifically the production of the "third world woman" as a singular monolithic subject in some recent (Western) feminist texts. The definition of colonization I wish to invoke here is a predominantly discursive one, focusing on a certain mode of appropriation and codification of "schol­ arship" and "knowledge" about women in the third world by particular

-This is an updated and modified version of an essay published in Boundary 2 12, no. 3/13, no. 1 (Spring/Fall 1984), and reprinted in Feminist Review, no. 30 (Autumn 1988). r

(l

52 Power,Representation,andFeministCritique VNDERWESTERNEYES 53

analyticcategoriesemployedinspecificwritingsonthesubjectwhich tegiccoalitionsacrossclass,race,andnationalboundaries.Theanalytic takeastheirreferentfeministinterestsastheyhave beenarticulatedin principlesdiscussedbelowservetodistortWesternfeministpoliticalprac­ theV.S.andWesternEurope.Ifoneofthetasksofformulatingand tices,andlimitthepossibilityofcoalitionsamong(usuallywhite)Western understandingthelocusof"thirdworldfeminisms"isdelineatingthe feministsandworking-classfeministsandfeministsofcoloraroundthe wayinwhichitresistsandworksagainstwhatIamreferringtoas"West­ world.Theselimitationsareevidentintheconstructionofthe(implicitly ernfeministdiscourse,"ananalysisofthediscursiveconstructionof"third consensual)priorityofissuesaroundwhichapparentlyallwomenare worldwomen"inWesternfeminismisanimportantfirststep. expectedtoorganize.Thenecessaryandintegralconnectionbetween

ClearlyWesternfeministdiscourseandpoliticalpracticeisneither feministscholarshipandfeministpoliticalpracticeandorganizingdeter­ singularnorhomogeneousinitsgoals,interests,oranalyses.However, minesthesignificanceandstatusofWesternfeministwritingsonwomen itispossibletotracea coherenceofeffectsresultingfromtheimplicit inthethirdworld,forfeministscholarship,likemostotherkindsofschol­ assumptionof"theWest"(inallitscomplexitiesandcontradictions)as arship,isnotthemereproductionofknowledgeaboutacertainsubject.

theprimaryreferentintheoryandpraxis.My referenceto"Westernfem­ Itisadirectlypoliticalanddiscursivepracticeinthatitispurposefuland inism"isbynomeansintendedtoimplythatitisamonolith.Rather,I ideological.Itisbestseenasamodeofinterventionintoparticularheg­ am attemptingtodrawattentiontothesimilareffectsofvarioustextual emonicdiscourses(forexample,traditionalanthropology,sociology,lit­ strategiesusedbywriterswhichcodifyOthersasnon-Westernandhence erarycriticism,etc.);itisapoliticalpraxiswhichcountersandresiststhe themselvesas(implicitly)Western.ItisinthissensethatIusetheterm totalizingimperativeofage-old"legitimate"and"scientific"bodiesof

Westernfeminist.Similarargumentscanbemadeintermsofmiddle-class knowledge.Thus,feministscholarlypractices(whetherreading,writing, J urbanAfricanorAsianscholarsproducingscholarshiponorabouttheir critical,ortextual)areinscribedinrelationsofpower-relationswhich ruralorworking-classsisterswhichassumestheirownmiddle-classcul­ theycounter,resist,orevenperhapsimplicitlysupport.Therecan,of It turesasthenorm,andcodifiesworking-classhistoriesandculturesas course,benoapoliticalscholarship.

\ r Other.Thus,whilethisessayfocusesspecificallyonwhatIrefertoas Therelationshipbetween"Woman"-aculturalandideologicalcom­

"Westernfeminist" discourseonwomeninthethirdworld,thecritiques positeOtherconstructedthroughdiverserepresentationaldiscourses(sci­ ii

Iofferalsopertaintothirdworldscholarswritingabouttheirowncultures, j entific,literary,juridical,linguistic,cinematic,etc.)-and"women"-real, whichemployidenticalanalyticstrategies. materialsubjectsoftheircollectivehistories-isoneofthecentralques­

Itoughttobeofsomepoliticalsignificance,atleast,thattheterm tionsthepracticeoffeministscholarshipseekstoaddress.Thisconnection colonizationhascometodenoteavarietyofphenomenainrecentfeminist betweenwomenashistoricalsubjectsandthere-presentationofWoman andleftwritingsingeneral.Fromitsanalyticvalueasacategoryofex­ producedbyhegemonicdiscoursesisnotarelationofdirectidentity,or ploitativeeconomicexchangeinbothtraditionalandcontemporaryMarx­ a relationofcorrespondenceorsimpleimplication.2Itisanarbitrary isms(cf.particularlycontemporarytheoristssuchasBaran1962,Amin relationsetupbyparticularcultures.Iwouldliketosuggestthatthe

197J,andGunder-Frank1967)toitsusebyfeministwomenofcolorin feminist writingsIanalyzeherediscursivelycolonizethematerialand tileV.5.todescribetheappropriationoftheirexperiencesandstruggles historicalheterogeneitiesofthelivesofwomeninthethirdworld,thereby byhegemonicwhitewomen'smovements(cf.especiallyMoragaandAn­ producing/re-presentingacomposite,singular"thirdworldwoman"-an zaldua1983,Smith1983,JosephandLewis1981,andMoraga1984), imagewhichappearsarbitrarilyconstructed,butneverthelesscarrieswith colonizationhasbeenusedtocharacterizeeverythingfromthemostev­ ittheauthorizingsignatureofWesternhumanistdiscourse.3

identeconomicandpoliticalhierarchiestotheproductionofaparticular Iarguethatassumptionsofprivilegeandethnocentricuniversality, culturaldiscourseaboutwhatiscalledthe"thirdworld."1Howeverso­ ontheonehand,andinadequateself-consciousnessabouttheeffectof phisticatedorproblematicalitsuseasanexplanatoryconstruct,coloni­ Westernscholarshiponthe"thirdworld"inthecontextofworld a system zationalmostinvariablyimpliesarelationofstructuraldomination,and dominatedbytheWest,ontheother,characterizea sizableextentof a suppression-oftenviolent-oftheheterogeneityofthesubject(s)in Westernfeministworkon womeninthethirdworld.An analysisof question. "sexualdifference"intheformofacross-culturallysingular,monolithic

My concernaboutsuchwritingsderivesfrommyownimplicationand notionofpatriarchyormaledominanceleadstotheconstructionofa investmentincontemporarydebatesinfeministtheory,andtheurgent similarlyreductiveandhomogeneousnotionofwhatIcallthe"third politicalnecessity(especiallyintheageofReagan/Bush)offormingstra- worlddifference"-thatstable,ahistoricalsomethingthatapparentlyop-

,I''.:....

;ji I

55 54 Power,Representation,andFeministCritique ( UNDERWESTERNEYES

pressesmostifnotallthewomeninthesecountries.Anditisinthe tial.However,itisbothtotheexplanatorypotentialofparticularanalytic

productionofthis"thirdworlddifference"thatWesternfeminismsap­ strategiesemployedsuch bywriting,andtotheirpoliticaleffectinthe

propriateand"colonize"theconstitutivecomplexitieswhichcharacterize contextofthehegemonyofWesternscholarshipthatIwanttodraw

thelivesofwomeninthesecountries.Itisinthisprocessofdiscursive attentionhere.WhilefeministwritingintheU.S.isstillmarginalized homogenizationandsystematizationoftheoppressionofwomeninthe (exceptfromthepointofviewofwomenofcoloraddressingprivileged

thirdworldthatpowerisexercisedinmuchof recentWesternfeminist whitewomen),Westernfeministwritingonwomeninthethirdworld

discourse,andthispowerneedstobedefinedand named. mustbeconsideredinthecontextoftheglobalhegemonyofWestern

InthecontextoftheWest'shegemonicpositiontoday,ofwhat Anouar scholarship-i.e.,theproduction,publication,distribution,andconsump­

Abdel-Malek(1981)callsa strugglefor"controlovertheorientation, tionofinformationandideas.Marginalornot,thiswritinghaspolitical regulationanddecisionoftheprocessofworlddevelopmentonthebasis effectsandimplicationsbeyondtheimmediatefeministdisciplinary or

oftheadvancedsector'smonopolyofscientificknowledgeandidealcre­ audience.Onesuchsignificanteffectofthedominant"representations"

ativity,"Westernfeministscholarshiponthethirdworldmustbeseen ofWesternfeminismisitsconflationwithimperialismintheeyesof

andexaminedpreciselyintermsofitsinscriptionintheseparticularre­ particularthirdworldwomen.4Hencetheurgentneedtoexaminethe lationsofpowerandstruggle.Thereis,itshouldbeevident,nouniversal politicalimplicationsofouranalyticstrategiesandprinciples. patriarchalframeworkwhichthisscholarshipattemptstocounterand My critiqueisdirectedatthreebasicanalyticprincipleswhichare resist-unlessonepositsaninternationalmaleconspiracyormonolithic, a presentin(Western)feministdiscourseonwomeninthethirdworld. ahistoricalpowerstructure.Thereis,however,aparticularworldbalance SinceIfocusprimarilyontheZedPressWomenintheThirdWorldseries, ofpowerwithinwhichanyanalysisofculture,ideology,andsocioeco­ my commentsonWesternfeministdiscoursearecircumscribedbymy nomicconditionsnecessarilyhastobesituated.Abdel-Malekisuseful analysisofthetextsinthisseries.5Thisisawayoffocusingmy critique. here,again,inremindingusabouttheinherenceofpoliticsinthedis­ However,eventhoughIamdealingwithfeministswhoidentifythem­ coursesof"culture": selvesculturally as orgeographicallyfromthe"West,"asmentioned

earlier,whatIsayaboutthesepresuppositionsorimplicitprinciplesholds

Contemporaryimperialismis,inarealsense,ahegemonicimperialism,ex­ foranyonewhousesthesemethods,whetherthirdworldwomeninthe

ercisingtoamaximumdegreearationalizedviolencetakentoahigherlevel West,orthirdworldwomeninthethirdworldwritingontheseissues

thaneverbefore-throughfireandsword,butalsothroughtheattemptto andpublishingintheWest.Thus,Iamnotmakingaculturalistargument

controlheartsandminds.Foritscontentisdefinedbythecombinedaction aboutethnocentrism;rather,Iam tryingtouncoverhowethnocentric ofthemilitary-industrialcomplexandthehegemonicculturalcentersofthe universalismisproducedincertainanalyses.Asa matteroffact,my West,allofthemfoundedontheadvancedlevelsofdevelopmentattained , argumentholdsforanydiscoursethatsetsupitsownauthorialsubjects bymonopolyandfinancecapital,andsupportedbythebenefitsofboththe

astheimplicitreferent,i.e.,theyardstickbywhichtoencodeandrep­ scientificandtechnologicalrevolutionandthesecondindustrialrevolution

resentculturalOthers.Itisinthismovethatpowerisexercisedindis­ itself.(145-46)

course.

Westernfeministscholarshipcannotavoidthechallengeofsituating ThefirstanalyticpresuppositionIfocusonisinvolvedinthestrategic itselfandexaminingitsroleinsuchaglobaleconomicandpoliticalframe­ locationofthecategory"women"vis-a-visthecontextofanalysis.The work.Todoanylesswouldbetoignorethecomplexinterconnections assumptionofwomenasanalreadyconstituted,coherentgroupwith betweenfirstandthirdworldeconomiesandtheprofoundeffectofthis identicalinterestsanddesires,regardlessofclass,ethnicracial orlocation,

onthelivesofwomeninallcountries.Idonotquestionthedescriptive orcontradictions,impliesanotionofgenderorsexualdifferenceoreven andinformativevalueofmostWesternfeministwritingsonwomenin patriarchywhichcanbeapplieduniversallyandcross-culturally.(The thethirdworld.Ialsodonotquestiontheexistenceofexcellentwork contextofanalysiscanbeanythingfromkinshipstructuresandtheor­

whichdoesnotfallintotheanalytictrapswithwhichIam concerned. ganizationoflabortomediarepresentations.)Thesecondanalyticalpre­

InfactIdealwithanexampleofsuchworklateron.Inthecontextof suppositionisevidentonthemethodologicallevel,intheuncriticalway anoverwhelmingsilenceabouttheexperiencesofwomeninthesecoun­ "proof"ofuniversalityandcross-culturalvalidityareprovided.Thethird tries,aswellastheneedtoforgeinternationallinksbetweenwomen's isamorespecificallypoliticalpresuppositionunderlyingthemethodol­ politicalstruggles,suchworkisbothpathbreakingandabsolutelyessen- ogiesandtheanalyticstrategies,i.e.,themodelofpowerandstruggle T ,11 11,.. 11.1, ,. " 56 Power, Representation, and Feminist Critique I UNDER WESTERN EYES 57 I, they imply and suggest. I argue that as a result of the two modes-or, labeling women weak, emotional, having math anxiety, etc.) This focus I' 111I!.•1 rather, frames-of analysis described above, a homogeneous notion of the is not on uncovering the material and ideological specificities that con­ oppression of women as a group is assumed, which, in turn, produces I stitute a particular group of women as "powerless' in a particular context. II! the image of an "average third world woman." This average third world It is, rather, on finding a variety of cases of "powerless" groups of women woman leads an essentially truncated life based on her feminine gender to prove the general point that women as a group are powerless. (read: sexually constrained) and her being "third world" (read: ignorant, I In this section I focus on five specific ways in which "women" as a poor, uneducated, tradition-bound, domestic, family-oriented, victimized, category of analysis is used in Western feminist discourse on women in etc.). This, I suggest, is in contrast to the (implicit) self-representation of the third world. Each of these examples illustrates the construction of Western women as educated, as modern, as having control over their own "third world women" as a homogeneous "powerless" group often located bodies and sexualities, and the freedom to make their own decisions. I as implicit victims of particular socioeconomic systems. I have chosen to The distinction between Western feminist re-presentation of women 1 deal with a variety of writers-from Fran Hosken, who writes primarily in the third world and Western feminist self-presentation is a distinction about female genital mutilation, to writers from the Women in Interna­ of the same order as that made by some Marxists between the "main­ t tional Development school, who write about the effect of development tenance" function of the housewife and the real "productive" role of wage policies on third world women for both Western and third world audi­ labor, or the characterization by developmentalists of the third world as ences. The similarity of assumptions about "third world women" in all being engaged in the lesser production of "raw materials" in contrast to these texts forms the basis of my discussion. This is not to equate all the the "real" productive activity of the first world. These distinctions are texts that I analyze, nor is it to equalize their strengths and weaknesses. made on the basis of the privileging of a particular group as the norm or The authors I deal with write with varying degrees of care and complexity; referent. Men involved in wage labor, first world producers, and, I suggest, however, the effect of their representation of third world women is a Western feminists who sometimes cast third world women in terms of coherent one. In these texts women are defined as victims of male violence "ourselves undressed" (Michelle Rosaldo's [1980] term), all construct (Fran Hosken); victims of the colonial process (Maria Cutrufelli); victims themselves as the normative referent in such a binary analytic. of the Arab familial system Ouliette Minces); victims of the economic development process (Beverley Lindsay and the [liberal] WID School);

"Women" as Category of Analysis, or: We Are All Sisters in Struggle and finally, victims of the Islamic code (Patricia Jeffery). This mode of defining women primarily in terms of their object status (the way in which By women as a category of analysis, I am referring to the crucial they are affected or not affected by certain institutions and systems) is assumption that all of us of the same gender, across classes and cultures, what characterizes this particular form of the use of "women" as a cat­ are somehow socially constituted as a homogeneous group identified prior egory of analysis. In the context of Western women writing/studying to the process of analysis. This is an assumption which characterizes much women in the third world, such objectification (however benevolently feminist discourse. The homogeneity of women as a group is produced motivated) needs to be both named and challenged. As Valerie Amos and not on the basis of biological essentials but rather on the basis of secondary Pratibha Parmar argue quite eloquently, "Feminist theories which ex­ sociological and anthropological universals. Thus, for instance, in any amine our cultural practices as 'feudal residues' or label us 'traditional,' given piece of feminist analysis, women are characterized as a singular also portray us as politically immature women who need to be versed group on the basis of a shared oppression. What binds women together and schooled in the ethos of Western feminism. They need to be contin­ is a sociological notion of the "sameness" of their oppression. It is at this ually challenged ... " (1984, 7). point that an elision takes place between "women" as a discursively constructed group and "women" as material subjects of their own history. 6 Women as Victims of Male Violence Thus, the discursively consensual homogeneity of "women" as a group is mistaken for the historically specific material reality of groups of Fran Hosken, in writing about the relationship between human rights women. This results in an assumption of women as an always already and female genital mutilation in Africa and the Middle East, bases her constituted group, one which has been labeled "powerless," "exploited," whole discussion/condemnation of genital mutilation on one privileged "sexually harassed," etc., by feminist scientific, economic, legal, and so­ premise: that the goal of this practice is "to mutilate the sexual pleasure ciological discourses. (Notice that this is quite similar to sexist discourse and satisfaction of woman" (1981, 11). This, in turn, leads her to claim

I I, I.. I11

I'

UNDERWESTERNEYES 59 58 Power,Representation,andFeministCritique

Presspublication,WomenofAfrica:RootsofOppression,byMariaRosa IIII thatwoman'ssexualityiscontrolled,asisherreproductivepotential.

Cutrufelli,whoisdescribedonthecoverasanItalianwriter,sociologist, AccordingtoHosken,"malesexualpolitics"inAfricaandaroundthe

1 Marxist,andfeminist.Inthe1980s,isitpossibletoimaginewritinga I. world"sharethesamepoliticalgoal:toassurefemaledependenceand

bookentitledWomenofEurope:RootsofOppression?Iam notobjecting against iI subserviencebyany andallmeans"(14).Physicalviolence totheuseofuniversalgroupingsfordescriptivepurposes.Womenfrom women(rape,sexualassault,excision,infibulation,etc.)isthuscarried

I the continentofAfricacanbedescriptivelycharacterizedas"womenof out"withanastonishingconsensusamongmenintheworld"(14).Here,

Africa."Itiswhen"womenofAfrica"becomesa homogeneoussocio­ womenaredefinedconsistentlyasthevictimsofmalecontrol-the"sex­ logicalgroupingcharacterizedbycommondependenciesorpowerless­

uallyoppressed."7Althoughitistruethe thatpotentialofmaleviolence ness(orevenstrengths)thatproblems arise-wesaytoolittleandtoo againstwomencircumscribesandelucidatestheirsocialpositiontoa muchatthesametime. certainextent,definingwomenasarchetypalvictimsfreezestheminto Thisisbecausedescriptivegenderdifferencesaretransformedintothe "objects-who-defend-themselves,"meninto"subjects-who-perpetrate­ divisionbetweenmenandwomen.Womenareconstitutedasa group violence,"and(every)societyintopowerless(read:women)andpowerful viadependencyrelationshipsvis-a.-vismen,whoareimplicitlyheldre­ (read:men)groupsofpeople.Maleviolencemustbetheorizedandin­ sponsiblefortheserelationships.When"womenofAfrica"asa group

terpretedwithinspecificsocieties,inorderbothtounderstanditbetter (versus"menofAfrica"asagroup?)areseenasgroup a preciselybecause

andtoeffectivelyorganizetochangeit.Sisterhood 8 cannotbeassumed theyaregenerallydependentandoppressed,theanalysisofspecifichis­

onthebasisofgender;itmustbeforgedinconcretehistoricalandpolitical toricaldifferencesbecomesimpossible,becauserealityisalwaysappar­ practiceandanalysis. entlystructuredbydivisions-twomutuallyexclusiveandjointlyex­

I haustivegroups,thevictimsandtheoppressors.Herethesociologicalis 1"1 WomenasUniversal[)ependents substitutedforthebiological,inorder,however,tocreatethesame-a

unityofwomen.Thus,itisnotthedescriptive potentialofgenderdif­ BeverlyLindsay'sconclusiontothebookComparativePerspectivesof

ferencebuttheprivilegedpositioningandexplanatorypotentialofgender ThirdWorldWomen:TheImpactofRace,SexandClass(1983,298,306)

differenceastheoriginofoppressionthatIquestion.Inusing"women states:"dependencyrelationships,baseduponrace,sexandclass,are illl ofAfrica"(asanalreadyconstitutedgroupofoppressedpeoples)as a beingperpetuatedthroughsocial,educational,andeconomicinstitutions.

categoryofanalysis,Cutrufellideniesanyhistoricalspecificitytothe ThesearethelinkagesamongThirdWorldWomen."Here,asinother

locationofwomenassubordinate,powerful,marginal,central,orother­ places,Lindsayimpliesthatthirdworldwomenconstituteanidentifiable

wise,vis-a.-visparticularsocialandpowernetworks.Womenaretaken grouppurelyonthebasisshared of dependencies.Ifshareddependencies

asunified a "powerless"grouppriortotheanalysisinquestionThus,it wereallthatwasneededtobindustogetherasagroup,thirdworld

isthenmerelyamatterofspecifyingthecontextafterthefact."Women" womenwouldalwaysbeseenasanapoliticalgroupwithnosubjectstatus. arenowplacedinthecontextofthefamily,orintheworkplace,orwithin Instead,ifanything,itisthecommoncontextofpoliticalstruggleagainst

religiousnetworks,almostasifthesesystemsexistedoutsidetherelations class,race,gender,andimperialisthierarchiesthatmayconstitutethird ofwomenwithotherwomen,andwomenwithmen. worldwomenasastrategicgroupat thishistoricaljuncture.Lindsayalso

Theproblemwiththisanalyticstrategy,letme repeat,isthatitas­ statesthatlinguisticandculturaldifferencesexistbetweenVietnamese sumesmenandwomenarealreadyconstitutedassexual-politicalsubjects andblackAmericanwomen,but"bothgroupsarevictimsofrace,sex,

priorto theirentryintothearenaofsocialrelations.Onlyifwesubscribe andclass."AgainblackandVietnamesewomenarecharacterizedbytheir

tothisassumptionisitpossibletoundertakeanalysiswhichlooksatthe victimstatus. "effects"ofkinshipstructures,colonialism,organizationoflabor,etc.,on Similarly,examinestatementssuchas"Myanalysiswillstartbystat­

women,whoaredefinedinadvanceasagroup.Thecrucialpointthatis ingthatallAfricanwomenarepoliticallyandeconomicallydependent"

forgottenisthatwomenareproducedthroughtheseveryrelationsaswell (Cutrufelli1983,13),"Nevertheless,eitherovertlyorcovertly, prostitu­ asbeingimplicatedinformingtheserelations.AsMichelleRosaldoar­ tionisstillthemainifnottheonlysourceofworkforAfricanwomen"

gues,"woman'splaceinhumansociallifeisnotinanydirectsensea (Cutrufelli1983,33).AllAfricanwomenaredependent.Prostitutionis productofthethingsshedoes(orevenless,afunctionofwhat,biolog­ theonlyworkoptionforAfricanwomenasagroup.Bothstatementsare

ically,sheis)butthemeaningheractivitiesacquirethroughconcretesocial illustrativeofgeneralizationssprinkledliberallythrougharecentZed 60 Power, Representation, and Feminist Critique UNDER WESTERN EYES 61 interactions" (1980, 400). That women mother in a variety of societies is before the initiation are constituted within a different set of social relations not as significant as the value attached to mothering in these societies. compared to Bemba women after the initiation. To treat them as a unified The distinction between the act of mothering and the status attached to group characterized by the fact of their "exchange" between male kin is it is a very important one-one that needs to be stated and analyzed to deny the sociohistorical and cultural specificities of their existence, and contextually. the differential value attached to their exchange before and after their initiation. It is to treat the initiation ceremony as a ritual with no political Married Women as Victims of the Colonial Process implications or effects. It is also to assume that in merely describing the structure of the marriage contract, the situation of women is exposed. In Levi-5trauss's theory of kinship structure as a system of the ex­ Women as a group are positioned within a given structure, but there is change of women, what is significant is that exchange itself is not con­ no attempt made to trace the effect of the marriage practice in constituting stitutive of the subordination of women; women are not subordinate be­ women within an obViously changing network of power relations. Thus, cause of the fact of exchange, but because of the modes of exchange women are assumed to be sexual-political subjects prior to entry into instituted, and the values attached to these modes. However, in discussing kinship structures. the marriage ritual of the Bemba, a Zambian matrilocal, matrilineal people, Cutrufelli in Women of Africa focuses on the fact of the marital exchange Women and Familial Systems of women before and after Western colonization, rather than the value attached to this exchange in this particular context. This leads to her Elizabeth Cowie (1978), in another context, points out the implications definition of Bemba women as a coherent group affected in a particular of this sort of analysis when she emphasizes the specifically political way by colonization. Here again, Bemba women are constituted rather nature of kinship structures which must be analyzed as ideological prac­ unilaterally as victims of the effects of Western colonization. tices which designate men and women as father, husband, wife, mother, Cutrufelli cites the marriage ritual of the Bemba as a multistage event sister, etc. Thus, Cowie suggests, women as women are not located within "whereby a young man becomes incorporated into his wife's family group the family. Rather, it is in the family, as an effect of kinship structures, as he takes up residence with them and gives his services in return for that women as women are constructed, defined within and by the group. food and maintenance" (43). This ritual extends over many years, and Thus, for instance, when Juliette Minces (1980) cites the patriarchal family the sexual relationship varies according to the degree of the girl's physical as the basis for "an almost identical vision of women" that Arab and maturity. It is only after she undergoes an initiation ceremony at puberty Muslim societies have, she falls into this very trap (see especially p. 23). that intercourse is sanctioned, and the man acquires legal rights over her. Not only is it problematical to speak of a vision of women shared by This initiation ceremony is the more important act of the consecration of Arab and Muslim societies (i.e., over twenty different countries) without women's reproductive power, so that the abduction of an uninitiated girl addressing the particular historical, material, and ideological power struc­ is of no consequence, while heavy penalty is levied for the seduction of tures that construct such images, but to speak of the patriarchal family an initiated girl. Cutrufelli asserts that the effect of European colonization or the tribal kinship structure as the origin of the socioeconomic status has changed the whole marriage system. Now the young man is entitled of women is to again assume that women are sexual-political subjects to take his wife away from her people in return for money. The implication prior to their entry into the family. 50 while on the one hand women is that Bemba women have now lost the protection of tribal laws. How­ attain value or status within the family, the assumption of a singular ever, while it is possible to see how the structure of the traditional mar­ patriarchal kinship system (common to all Arab and Muslim societies) is riage contract (versus the postcolonial marriage contract) offered women what apparently structures women as an oppressed group in these so­ a certain amount of control over their marital relations, only an analysis cieties! This singular, coherent kinship system presumably influences an­ of the political significance of the actual practice which privileges an other separate and given entity, "women." Thus, all women, regardless initiated girl over an uninitiated one, indicating a shift in female power of class and cultural differences, are affected by this system. Not only are relations as a result of this ceremony, can provide an accurate account of all Arab and Muslim women seen to constitute a homogeneous oppressed whether Bemba women were indeed protected by tribal laws at all times. group, but there is no discussion of the specific practices within the family However, it is not possible to talk about Bemba women as a homo­ which constitute women as mothers, wives, sisters, etc. Arabs and Mus­ geneous group within the traditional marriage structure. Bemba women lims, it appears, don't change at all. Their patriarchal family is carried ......

111111'

1I

62 Power,Representation,andFeministCritique UNDERWESTERNEYES 63

'I!II\ WhileJeffery'sanalysisdoesnotquitesuccumbtothiskindofunitary overfromthetimesoftheprophetMohammed.Theyexist,asitwere,

notionofreligion(Islam),itdoescollapseallideologicalspecificitiesinto outsidehistory.

economicrelations,anduniversalizesonthebasisofthiscomparison.

'Ill'

WomenandReligiousIdeologies

WomenandtheDevelopmentProcess

II111' A furtherexampleoftheuseof"women"asacategoryofanalysisis

Thebestexamplesofuniversalizationonthebasisofeconomicre­ foundin cross-culturalanalyseswhichsubscribetoacertaineconomic I1I

ductionismcanbefoundintheliberal"WomeninDevelopment"liter­ reductionismindescribingtherelationshipbetweentheeconomyand

ature.Proponentsofthisschoolseektoexaminetheeffectofdevelopment factorssuchaspoliticsandideology.Here,inreducingthelevelofcom­ onthirdworldwomen,sometimesfromself-designatedfeministper­ parisontotheeconomicrelationsbetween"developedanddeveloping"

spectives.Attheveryleast,thereisanevidentinterestinandcommitment countries,anyspecificitytothequestionofwomenisdenied.MinaMo­ toimprovingthelivesofwomenin"developing"countries.Scholarssuch dares(1981),inacarefulanalysisofwomenandShi'isminIran,focuses 11 asIreneTinkerandMichelleBoBramsen(1972),EsterBoserup(1970), [11 onthisveryproblemwhenshecriticizesfeministwritingswhichtreat

andPerditaHuston(1979)haveallwrittenabouttheeffectofdevelop­ Islamasanideologyseparatefromandoutsidesocialrelationsandprac­

\1 mentpoliciesonwomeninthethirdworld.9Allthreewomenassume tices,ratherthanadiscoursewhichincludesrulesforeconomic,social, "development"issynonymouswith"economicdevelopment"or"eco­ andpowerrelationswithinsociety.PatriciaJeffery's(1979)otherwise nomicprogress."Asinthe caseofMinces'spatriarchalfamily,Hosken's informativeworkonPirzadawomeninpurdahconsidersIslamicideology \1 malesexualcontrol,andCutrufelli'sWestemcolonization,development

apartialexplanationforthestatusofwomeninthatitprovidesajusti­ herebecomestheall-timeequalizer.Womenareaffectedpositivelyor ficationforthepurdah.Here,Islamicideologyisreducedtoasetofideas negativelybyeconomicdevelopmentpolicies,andthisisthebasisfor whoseintemalizationbyPirzadawomencontributestothestabilityof cross-culturalcomparison. thesystem.However,theprimaryexplanationforpurdahislocatedin Forinstance,PerditaHuston(1979)statesthatthepurposeofherstudy

1,: thecontrolthatPirzadamenhaveovereconomicresources,andtheper­ istodescribetheeffectofthedevelopmentprocessonthe"familyunit

I sonalsecuritypurdahgivestoPirzadawomen. anditsindividualmembers"inEgypt,Kenya, Sudan,Tunisia,SriLanka,

I11 Bytakingspecific a versionofIslamastheIslam,Jefferyattributesa

11' andMexico.Shestatesthatthe"problems"and"needs"expressedby

I,

, singularityandcoherencetoit.Modaresnotes,"'IslamicTheology'then ruralandurbanwomeninthesecountriesallcenteraroundeducation becomes imposedonaseparateandgivenentitycalled'women.'Afurther andtraining,workandwages,accesstohealthandotherservices,political 11'

unificationisreached:Women(meaningallwomen),regardlessoftheir 1\ participation,andlegalrights.Hustonrelatesallthese"needs"tothe i! differingpositionswithinsocieties,cometobeaffectedornotaffectedby lackofsensitivedevelopmentpolicieswhichexcludewomenasagroup

Islam.Theseconceptionsprovidetherightingredientsforanunproble­ 11 orcategory.Forher,thesolutionissimple:implementimproveddevel­

\1,' maticpOSSibilityofacross-culturalstudyofwomen"(63).MamiaLazreg

I opmentpolicieswhichemphasizetrainingforwomenfieldworkers,use

I' makesasimilarargumentwhensheaddressesthereductionisminherent womentrainees,andwomenruraldevelopmentofficers,encouragewom­

!i inscholarshiponwomenintheMiddleEastandNorthAfrica: en'scooperatives,etc.Hereagain,womenareassumedtobeacoherent

I1 grouporcategorypriorto theirentryinto"thedevelopmentprocess."

I,ll Aritualisestablishedwherebythewriterappealstoreligionasthecauseof Hustonassumesthatallthirdworldwomenhavesimilarproblemsand

genderinequalityjustasitismadethesourceofunderdevelopmentinmuch 11 needs.Thus,theymusthavesimilarinterestsandgoals.However,the

ofmodernizationtheory.Inanuncannyway,feministdiscourseonwomen interestsofurban,middle-class,educatedEgyptianhousewives,totake

II1 fromtheMiddleEastandNorthAfricamirrorsthatoftheologians'own onlyoneinstance,couldsurelynotbeseenasbeingthesameasthose II1 interpretationofwomeninIslam.... oftheiruneducated,poormaids.Developmentpoliciesdonotaffectboth Theoveralleffectofthisparadigmistodeprivewomenofself-presence,

III groupsofwomeninthesameway.Practiceswhichcharacterizewomen's of being.Becausewomenaresubsumedunderreligionpresentedinfunda­

statusandrolesvaryaccordingtoclass.Womenareconstitutedaswomen I1I mentalterms,theyareinevitablyseenasevolvinginnonhistoricaltime.They

I throughthecomplexinteractionbetweenclass,culture,religion,andother virtuallyhavenohistory.Anyanalysisofchangeisthereforeforeclosed.

ideologicalinstitutionsandframeworks.Theyarenot"women"-aco- (1988, 87)

I11

I11

11'

I1I

I11 1"

"

1'1'11'

,

li" jl:1 UNDERWESTERNEYES 64 Power,Representation,andFeministCritique 65

ofexploitationinthisindustryandtheimpactofthisproductionsystem 1111 herentgroup-solelyonthebasisofa particulareconomicsystemor

ontheworkandlivingconditionsof thewomeninvolvedinit.Inaddition, policy.Suchreductivecross-culturalcomparisonsresultinthecoloniza­

sheisabletoanalyzethe"ideologyofthehousewife,"thenotionofa tionof thespecificsofdailyexistenceandthecomplexitiesofpolitical

Ill' womansittinginthehouse,asprovidingthenecessarysubjectiveand interestswhichwomenofdifferentsocialclassesandculturesrepresent

socioculturalelementforthecreationandmaintenanceofa production andmobilize. II! systemthatcontributestotheincreasingpauperizationofwomen,and Thus,itisrevealingthatforPerditaHuston,womeninthethirdworld

111'1 keepsthemtotallyatomizedanddisorganizedasworkers.Mies'sanalysis countriesshewritesabouthave"needs"and"problems,"butfewifany

showstheeffectofacertainhistoricallyandculturallyspecificmodeof have"choices"orthefreedomtoact.Thisisaninterestingrepresentation

IIIill patriarchalorganization,anorganizationconstructedonthebasisofthe ofwomeninthethirdworld,onewhichissignificantinsuggestinga illI11I1 definitionofthelacemakersas"non-workinghousewives"atfamilial, latentself-presentationWesternwomen ofwhichbearslookingat.She

local,regional,statewide,andinternationallevels.Theintricaciesandthe writes,"Whatsurprisedandmovedme mostasIlistenedtowomenin

effectsofparticularpowernetworksnotonlyareemphasized,butthey suchverydifferentculturalwas settingsthestrikingcommonality­

11111:: formthebasisofMies'sanalysisofhowthisparticulargroupofwomen whethertheywereeducatedorilliterate,urbanorrural-oftheirmost

issituatedatthecenterahegemonic, of exploitativeworldmarket. basicvalues:theimportancetheyassigntofamily,dignity,andservice 1\11

Thisisagoodexampleofwhatcareful,politicallyfocused,localanal­ toothers"(1979,115).WouldHustonconsidersuchvaluesunusualfor

ysescanaccomplish.Itillustrateshow thecategoryofwomeniscon­ womenintheWest?

II11I structedinavarietyofpoliticalcontextsthatoftenexistsimultaneously Whatisproblematicalaboutthiskindofuseof"women"asagroup,

II1 andoverlaidontopofoneanother.Thereisnoeasygeneralizationin asastablecategoryofanalysis,isthatitassumesanahistorical,universal

thedirectionof"women"inIndia,or"womeninthethirdworld";nor Ilil I unitybetweenwomenbasedonageneralizednotionoftheirsubordi­

isthereareductionofthepoliticalconstructionoftheexploitationofthe nation.Insteadanalytically of demonstratingtheproductionofwomenas '11 III lacemakerstoculturalexplanationsaboutthepassivityorobediencethat socioeconomicpoliticalgroupswithinparticularlocalcontexts,thisan­

'Ill, I, mightcharacterizethesewomenandtheirsituation.Finally,thismode alyticalmovelimitsthedefinitionofthefemalesubjecttogenderidentity,

I oflocal,politicalanalysiswhichgeneratestheoreticalcategoriesfrom completelybypassingsocialclassandethnicidentities.Whatcharacterizes

IIII withinthesituationandcontextbeinganalyzed,alsosuggestscorre­ womenasagroupistheirgender(sociologically,notnecessarilybiolog­

spondingeffectivestrategiesorganizing foragainsttheexploitationfaced IIIIIically,defined)overandaboveeverythingelse,indicatingamonolithic

bythelacemakers.Narsapurwomenarenotmerevictimsofthepro­ notionofsexualdifference.Becausewomenarethusconstitutedasa

ductionprocess,becausetheyresist,challenge,andsubverttheprocess II11coherentgroup,sexualdifferencebecomescoterminouswithfemalesub­

atvariousjunctures.Hereisoneinstanceofhow Miesdelineatesthe ,11 ordination,andpowerisautomaticallydefinedinbinaryterms:people connectionsbetweenthehousewifeideology,theself-consciousnessof whohaveit(read:men),andpeoplewhodonot(read:women).Men 1'1 thelacemakers,andtheirinterrelationshipsascontributingtothelatent iil exploit,womenareexploited.Suchsimplisticformulationsarehistorically

resistancessheperceivesamongthewomen: III reductive;theyarealsoineffectualindesigningstrategiestocombat

oppressions.Alltheydoisreinforcebinarydivisionsbetweenmenand

Thepersistenceofthehousewifeideology,theself-perceptionofthelace women.

Illi makersaspettycommodityproducersratherthanasworkers,isnotonly Whatwouldananalysiswhichdidnotdothislooklike?MariaMies's upheldbythestructureoftheindustryassuchbutalsobythedeliberate workillustratesthestrengthofWesternfeministworkonwomeninthe 11 propagationandreinforcementofreactionarypatriarchalnormsandinsti­

thirdworldwhichdoesnotfallintothetrapsdiscussedabove.Mies's

'I'I, tutions.Thus,mostofthelacemakersvoicedthesameopinionaboutthe

11I,ll studyofthelacemakersofNarsapur,India(1982),attemptstocarefully rulesofpurdahandseclusionintheircommunitieswhichwerealsopropa­

analyzeasubstantialhouseholdindustryinwhich"housewives"produce gatedbythelaceexporters.Inparticular,theKapuwomensaidthattheyhad

III1 lacedoiliesforconsumptionintheworldmarket.Througha detailed nevergoneoutoftheirhouses,thatwomenoftheircommunitycouldnot

1IIIIIanalysisofthestructureofthelaceindustry,productionandreproduction doanyotherworkthanhouseworklace andworketc.butinspiteofthefact

relations,the sexualdivisionoflabor,profitsandexploitation,andthe thatmostofthemstillsubscribedfullytothepatriarchalnormsofthegosha lii,l

'il women,therewerealsocontradictoryelementsintheirconsciousness.Thus, overallconsequencesofdefiningwomenas"non-workinghousewives"

althoughtheylookeddownwithcontemptuponwomenwhowereableto III andtheirworkas"leisure-timeactivity."Miesdemonstratesthelevels

III

I ,11

I'll

I

III

"

I' Ill'

111,1,"

I T I111 66 Power,Representation,andFeministCritique UNDERWESTERNEYES 67 ',I

:1,1. 11' workoutsidehouse-like the theuntouchableMalaandMadigawomenor ofnumbers.Itisadescriptivegeneralization.However,itistheanalytic ':1

womenofotherlowercastes,theycouldignore not thefactthatthesewomen leapfromthepracticeofveilingtoanassertionitsgeneral of significance I IIII111 wereearningmoremoneypreciselybecausetheywerenotrespectablehouse­ incontrollingwomenthatmustbequestioned.Whiletheremaybea

wivesbutworkers.Atonediscussion,theyevenadmittedthatitwouldbe IIIli'll physicalsimilarityintheveilswornbywomeninSaudiArabiaandIran,

betterifthey couldalsogooutanddocooliework.Andwhentheywere thespecificmeaningattachedtothispracticevariesaccordingtothecul­ askedwhethertheywouldbereadytocomeoutoftheirhousesandwork ill'1111 turalandideologicalcontext.Inaddition,thesymbolicspaceoccupied inoneplaceinsomesortofa factory,theysaidtheywoulddothat.This bythepracticeofpurdahmaybesimilarincertaincontexts,butthisdoes 11IIII! showsthatthepurdahandhousewifeideology,althoughstillfullyinternal­ notautomaticallyindicatethatthepracticesthemselveshaveidentical ized/alreadyhadsomecracks,becauseithasbeenconfrontedwithseveral

Ili111,1 significanceinthesocialrealm.Forexample,asiswellknown,Iranian contradictoryrealities.(157)

middle-classwomenveiledthemselvesduringthe1979revolutionto

11II111'1 Itisonlybyunderstandingthecontradictionsinherentinwomen/s indicatesolidaritywiththeirveiledworking-classsisters,whileincon­

I11\1, locationwithinvariousstructuresthateffectivepoliticalactionandchal­ temporaryIran,mandatoryIslamiclawsdictatethatallIranianwomen

lengescanbedevised.Mies/sstudygoesalongwaytowardofferingsuch wearveils.Whileinboththeseinstances,similarreasonsmightbeoffered

11'111' analysis.WhiletherearenowanincreasingnumberofWesternfeminist fortheveil(oppositiontotheShahandWesternculturalcolonizationin

1',

,y writingsinthistradition/lOthereisalso,unfortunately,alargeblockof thefirstcase,andthetrueIslamicizationofIraninthesecond),thecon­

writingwhichsuccumbstotheculturalreductionismdiscussedearlier. cretemeaningsattachedtoIranianwomenwearingtheveilareclearly

differentinbothhistoricalcontexts.Inthefirstcase,wearingtheveilis II1,1

MethodologicalUniversalisms,or:Women/sOppressionIsaGlobal bothanoppositionalandarevolutionarygestureonthepartofIranian

I1II1 Phenomenon middle-classwomen;inthesecondcase,itisa coercive,institutional

mandate(seeTabari1980fordetaileddiscussion).Itisonthebasis of Westernfeminist writingsonwomeninthethirdworldsubscribeto

suchcontext-specificdifferentiatedanalysisthateffectivepoliticalstrat­ a varietymethodologies of todemonstratetheuniversalcross-cultural

egiescanbegenerated.Toassumethatthemerepracticeofveilingwomen operationofmaledominancefemale and exploitation.Isummarizeand

ina numberofMuslimcountriesindicatesthe universaloppressionof critiquethreesuchmethodsbelow,movingfromthesimplesttothemost

womenthroughsexualsegregationnotonlyisanalyticallyreductive,but complex.

alsoprovesquiteuselesswhenitcomestotheelaborationofoppositional First,proofofuniversalismisprovidedthroughtheuseofanarithmetic

politicalstrategy. method.Theargumentgoeslikethis:thegreaterthenumberofwomen IIII

Second,conceptssuchasreproduction,thesexualdivisionoflabor, whoweartheveil,themoreuniversalisthesexualsegregationandcontrol

thefamily,marriage,household,patriarchy,etc.,areoftenusedwithout ofwomen(Deardon1975/4-5).Similarly,alargenumberofdifferent,

theirspecificationinlocalculturalandhistoricalcontexts.Feministsuse III fragmentedexamplesfromavarietycountries of alsoapparentlyaddup

theseconceptsinprovidingexplanationsforwomen/ssubordination,ap­ toauniversalfact.Forinstance,MuslimwomeninSaudiArabia,Iran,

parentlyassumingtheiruniversalapplicability.Forinstance,howisit Pakistan,India,andEgyptallwearsomesortofaveil.Hence,thisin­

dicatesthatthesexualcontrolofwomenisauniversalfactinthosecoun­ possibletoreferto"the"sexualdivisionoflaborwhenthecontentofthis

triesinwhichthewomenareveiled(Deardon1975/7/10).FranHosken divisionchangesradicallyfromoneenvironmenttothenext,andfrom

I writes,"Rape,forcedprostitution,polygamy,genitalmutilation,pornog­ onehistoricaljuncturetoanother?Atitsmostabstractlevel,itisthefact

raphy/thebeatingofgirlsandwomen,purdah(segregationofwomen) ofthedifferentialassignationoftasksaccordingtosexthatissignificant;

I

areallviolationsofbasichumanrights"(1981/15).Byequatingpurdah however,thisisquitedifferentfromthemeaningorvaluethatthecontent

withrape,domesticviolence,andforcedprostitution,Hoskenassertsits ofthissexualdivisionlabor ofassumesindifferentcontexts.Inmostcases

"sexualcontrol"functionastheprimaryexplanationforpurdah,whatever theassigningoftasksonthebasisofsexhasanideologicalorigin.There

thecontext.Institutionsofpurdaharethusdeniedanyculturalandhis­ isnoquestionthataclaimsuchas"womenareconcentratedinservice­

toricalspecificity,andcontradictionsandpotentiallysubversiveaspects orientedoccupationsinalargenumberofcountriesaroundtheworld"

aretotallyruledout. isdescriptivelyvalid.Descriptively,then,perhapstheexistenceofasim­

Inboththeseexamples,theproblemisnotinassertingthatthepractice ilarsexualdivisionlabor of(wherewomenworkinserviceoccupations

ofwearingaveiliswidespread.Thisassertioncanbemadeonthebasis suchasnursing,socialwork,etc.,andmeninotherkindsofoccupations)

\

68 Power,Representation,andFeministCritique UNDERWESTERNEYES 69

ina varietyofdifferentcountriescanbeasserted.However,theconcept tiationofthiscategory.Inotherwords,empiricalstudiesofgenderdif­

ofthe"sexualdivisionoflabor"ismorethanjustadescriptivecategory. ferencesareconfusedthe withanalyticalorganizationofcross-cultural

Itindicatesthedifferentialvalueplacedon"men'swork"versus"wom­ work.BeverlyBrown's(1983)reviewofthebookNature, Cultureand

en'swork." Gender(StrathernandMcCormack1980)bestillustratesthispoint.Brown

Oftenthemereexistenceofa sexualdivisionoflaboristakentobe suggeststhatnature:cultureandfemale:malearesuperordinatecategories

proofoftheoppressionofwomeninvarioussocieties.Thisresultsfrom whichorganizeandlocatelessercategories(suchaswild/domesticand

a confusionbetweenandcollapsingtogetherofthedescriptiveandex­ biology/technology)withintheirlogic.Thesecategoriesuniversal arein

planatorypotentialtheconcept of ofthe sexualdivisionoflabor.Super­ thesensethattheyorganizetheuniverseofasystemofrepresentations.

ficiallysimilarsituationsmayhaveradicallydifferent,historicallyspecific Thisrelationistotallyindependentoftheuniversalsubstantiationofany

explanations,andcannotbetreatedasidentical.Forinstance,theriseof particularcategory.Hercritiquehingesonthefactthatratherthanclarify

female-headedhouseholdsinmiddle-classAmericamightbeconstrued thegeneralizabilityofnature:culture::female:maleassubordinateor­

asasignofgreatindependenceandfeministprogress,wherebywomen ganizationcategories,Nature,Cultureand Genderconstruesuniver­ the

areconsideredtohavechosentobesingleparents,thereareincreasing salityofthisequationtolieatthelevelofempiricaltruth,whichcanbe

numbersoflesbianmothers,etc.However,therecentincreaseinfemale­ investigatedthroughfieldwork.Thus,the usefulnessofthenature:culture

headedhouseholdsinLatinAmerica,l1wherewomenmightbeseento ::female:maleparadigmasauniversalmodeoftheorganizationofrep­

I havemoredecision-makingpower,isconcentratedamongthepoorest resentationwithinanyparticularsociohistoricalsystemislost.Here,

I strata,wherelifechoicesarethemostconstrainedeconomically.A similar methodologicaluniversalismisassumedonthebasisthe ofreductionof

I argumentcanbemadefortheriseoffemale-headedfamiliesamongblack thenature:culture::female:maleanalyticcategoriestoademandforem­

andChicanawomenintheU.S.Thepositivecorrelationbetweenthis piricalproofofitsexistenceindifferentcultures.Discoursesofrepresen­

andthelevelofpovertyamongwomenofcolorandwhiteworking-class tationareconfusedwithmaterialrealities,andthedistinctionmadeearlier

womeninthe U.S.hasnowevenacquiredaname:thefeminizationof between"Woman"and"women"islost.Feministworkwhichblursthis

poverty.Thus, whileitispossibletostatethatthereisariseinfemale­ distinction(whichis,interestinglyenough,oftenpresentincertainWest­

headedhouseholdsintheU.S.andinLatinAmerica,thisrisecannotbe ernfeminists'self-representation)eventuallyendsupconstructingmon­

discussedasa universalindicatorofwomen'sindependence,norcanit olithicimagesof"thirdworldwomen"byignoringthecomplexand

bediscussedasa universalindicatorofwomen'simpoverishment.The mobilerelationshipsbetweentheirhistoricalmaterialityonthelevelof

meaningofandexplanationfortheriseobviouslyvaryaccordingtothe specificoppressionsandpoliticalchoices,ontheonehand,andtheir

sociohistoricalcontext. generaldiscursiverepresentations,ontheother.

Similarly,theexistenceofasexualdivisionoflaborinmostcontexts Tosummarize:Ihavediscussedthreemethodologicalmovesidenti­

cannotbesufficientexplanationfortheuniversalsubjugationofwomen fiableinfeminist(andotheracademic)cross-culturalworkwhichseeks

intheworkforce.Thatthesexualdivisionoflabordoesindicatea de­ touncoverauniversalityinwomen'ssubordinatepositioninsociety.The

valuationofwomen'sworkmustbeshownthroughanalysisofparticular nextandfinalsectionpullstogetherprevious the sections,attemptingto

localcontexts.Inaddition,devaluationofwomenmustalsobeshown outlinethepoliticaleffectsoftheanalyticalstrategiesinthecontextof

throughcarefulanalysis.Inotherwords,the"sexualdivisionoflabor" Westernfeministwritingonwomeninthethirdworld.Thesearguments

and"women"arenotcommensurateanalyticalcategories.Conceptssuch arenotagainstgeneralizationmuchas astheyareforcareful,historically

asthesexualdivisionoflaborcanbeusefulonlyiftheyaregenerated specificgeneralizationsresponsivetocomplexrealities.Nordothesear­

throughlocal,contextualanalyses(seeEldhom,Hams,andYoung1977). gumentsdenythenecessityofformingstrategicpoliticalidentitiesand

Ifsuchconceptsareassumedtobeuniversallyapplicable,theresultant affinities.Thus,whileIndianwomenofdifferentreligions,castes,and

homogenizationofclass,race,religious,anddailymaterialpracticesof classesmightforgeapoliticalunityonthebasisoforganizingagainst

womeninthethirdworldcancreateafalsesenseofthecommonalityof policebrutalitytowardwomen(seeKishwarandVanita1984),ananalysis

oppressions,interests,andstrugglesbetweenandamongwomenglobally. of policebrutalitymustbecontextual.Strategiccoalitionswhichconstruct

Beyondsisterhoodtherearestillracism,colonialism,andimperialism! oppositionalpoliticalidentitiesforthemselvesarebasedongeneralization

Finally,somewritersconfusetheuseofgenderasa superordinate andprovisionalunities,buttheanalysisofthesegroupidentitiescannot

categoryoforganizinganalysiswiththeuniversalisticproofandinstan- bebasedonuniversalistic,ahistoricalcategories. ...

UNDERWESTERNEYES 71 70 Power,Representation,andFeministCritique

Whatdoesthisimplyaboutthestructureandfunctioningofpower TheSubject(s)ofPower

relations?Thesettingupofthecommonalityofthirdworldwomen's

Thislastsectionreturnstoanearlierpointabouttheinherentlypo­ strugglesacrossclassesandculturesagainstageneralnotionofoppression

natureof feministscholarship,andattemptstoclarifymy point litical (primarilythegroupinpower-i.e.,men)necessitatestheassumptionof aboutthepossibilityofdetectingacolonialistmoveinthecaseofaheg­ whatMichelFoucault(1980,135-45)callsthe"juridico-discursive"model emonicfirst-thirdworldconnectioninscholarship.Theninetextsinthe ofpower,theprincipalfeaturesofwhichare"anegativerelation"(limit

ZedPressWomenintheThirdWorldseriesthatIhavediscussed12focused andlack),an"insistenceontherule"(whichformsabinarysystem),a onthefollowingcommonareasinexaminingwomen's"status"within "cycleofprohibition,"the"logicofcensorship,"anda"uniformity".of varioussocieties:religion,familyjkinshipstructures,thelegalsystem,the theapparatusfunctioningatdifferentlevels.Feministdiscourseonthe sexualdivisionoflabor,education,andfinally,politicalresistance.A large thirdworldwhichassumesa homogeneouscategory-orgroup-called numberofWesternfeministwritingsonwomeninthethirdworldfocus womennecessarilyoperatesthroughthesettingupoforiginarypower onthesethemes.OfcoursetheZedtextshavevaryingemphases.For divisions.Powerrelationsarestructuredintermsofunilateral a andun­ instance,twoofthestudies,WomenofPalestine(Downing1982)and differentiatedsourceofpowerandacumulativereactiontopower.Op­

IndianWomeninStruggle(Omvedt1980),focusexplicitlyonfemalemil­ positionisageneralizedphenomenoncreatedasaresponsetopower­ itanceandpoliticalinvolvement,whileWomeninArabSociety(Minces which,inturn,ispossessedbycertaingroupsofpeople.

1980)dealswithArabwomen'slegal,religious,andfamilialstatus.In Themajorproblemwithsuchadefinitionofpoweristhatitlocksall addition,eachtextevidencesavarietyofmethodologiesanddegreesof revolutionarystrugglesintobinarystructures-possessingpowerversus careinmakinggeneralizations.Interestinglyenough,however,almostall beingpowerless.Womenarepowerless,unifiedgroups.Ifthestruggle thetextsassume"women"asacategoryofanalysisinthemannerdes­ forajustsocietyisseenintermsofthemovefrompowerlesstopowerful ignatedabove. forwomenasagroup,andthisistheimplicationinfeministdiscourse

Clearlythisisananalyticalstrategywhichisneitherlimitedtothese whichstructuressexualdifferenceintermsofthedivisionbetweenthe

ZedPresspublicationsnorsymptomaticofZedPresspublicationsingen­ sexes,thenthenewsocietywouldbestructurallyidenticaltotheexisting eral.However,eachoftheparticulartextsinquestionassumes"women" organizationofpowerrelations,constitutingitselfasasimpleinversion havea coherentgroupidentitywithinthedifferentculturesdiscussed, ofwhatexists.Ifrelationsofdominationandexploitationdefined arein priorto theirentryintosocialrelations.Thus,Omvedtcantalkabout termsofbinarydivisions-groupswhichdominateandgroupswhichare

"Indianwomen"whilereferringtoa particulargroupofwomeninthe dominated-surelytheimplicationisthattheaccessiontopowerof

StateofMaharashtra,Cutrufelliabout"womenofAfrica,"andMinces womenasgroup a issufficienttodismantletheexistingorganizationof about"Arabwomen"asifthesegroupsofwomenhavesomesortof relations?Butwomenasagrouparenotinsomesenseessentiallysuperior obviousculturalcoherence,distinctfrommeninthesesocieties.The"sta­ orinfallible.Thecruxoftheproblemliesinthatinitialassumptionof tus""position" or ofwomenisassumedtobeself-evident,because womenasahomogeneousgrouporcategory("theoppressed"),afamiliar womenasanalreadyconstitutedgroupareplacedwithinreligious,eco­ assumptioninWesternradicalandliberalfeminisms,13 nomic,familial,andlegalstructures.However,thisfocuswherebywomen Whathappenswhenthisassumptionof"womenasanoppressed areseenasa coherentgroupacrosscontexts,regardlessofclassoreth­ group"issituatedinthecontextofWesternfeministwritingaboutthird nicity,structurestheworldinultimatelybinary,dichotomousterms, worldwomen?ItisherethatIlocatethecolonialistmove.Bycontrasting wherewomenarealwaysseeninoppositiontomen,patriarchyisalways therepresentationofwomeninthethirdworldwithwhatIreferredto

earlierasWesternfeminisms'self-presentationinthesamecontext,we necessarilymaledominance,andthereligious,legal,economic,andfam­

seehowWesternfeministsalonebecomethetrue"subjects"ofthiscoun­ ilialsystemsareimplicitlyassumedtobeconstructedbymen.Thus,both men andwomenarealwaysapparentlyconstitutedwholepopulations, terhistory.Thirdworldwomen,ontheotherhand, neverriseabovethe

debilitatinggeneralityoftheir"object"status. andrelationsofdominanceandexploitationarealsopositedintermsof

Whileradicalandliberalfeministassumptionsofwomenasasexclass wholepeoples-wholescomingintoexploitativerelations.Itisonlywhen

mightelucidate(howeverinadequately)theautonomyofparticularwom­ menandwomenareseenasdifferentcategoriesorgroupspossessing

en's strugglesintheWest,theapplicationofthenotionofwomenas a differentalreadyconstitutedcategoriesexperience, of cognition,andin­

homogeneouscategorytowomeninthethirdworldcolonizesandap- terestsasgroupsthatsuchasimplisticdichotomyispossible.

r

Ill!

72 Power,Representation,andFeministCritique UNDERWESTERNEYES 73

I'll

simultaneouslocationofdifferentgroups byhomogenizingandsystematizingtheexperiencesofdifferentgroups .11 propriatesthepluralitiesofthe

ofwomenin socialclassandethnicframeworks;indoingsoitultimately ofwomeninthesecountries,erasesallmarginalandresistantmodesand

lill robsthemoftheirhistoricalandpoliticalagency.Similarly,manyZed experiences.ISItissignificantthatnoneofthetextsIreviewedintheZed

Pressauthorswhogroundthemselvesinthebasicanalyticstrategiesof Pressseriesfocusesonlesbianpoliticsor thepoliticsof ethnicandreli­

I1 traditionalMarxismalsoimplicitlycreatea"unity"ofwomenbysubsti­ giousmarginalorganizationsinthirdworldwomen'sgroups. Resistance I:

tuting"women'sactivity"for"labor"astheprimarytheoreticaldeter­ canthusbedefinedonlyascumulativelyreactive,notassomethingin­

minantofwomen'ssituation.Hereagain,womenareconstitutedas a herentintheoperationofpower.Ifpower,asMichelFoucaulthasargued

.1 coherentgroupnotonthebasisof"natural"qualitiesorneedsbuton recently,canreallybeunderstoodonlyinthecontextofresistance,16this

11 thebasisofthesociological"unity"oftheirroledomestic in production misconceptualizationisbothanalyticallyandstrategicallyproblematical. 1:1

andwagelabor(seeHaraway1985,esp.p.76).Inotherwords,Western ItlimitstheoreticalanalysisaswellasreinforcesWesternculturalim­

11: feministdiscourse,byassumingwomenascoherent, a alreadyconstituted perialism.Forinthecontextofa first/thirdworldbalanceofpower,

1

groupwhichisplacedinkinship,legal,andotherstructures,definesthird feministanalyseswhichperpetrateandsustainthehegemonyofthe idea

III worldwomenassubjectsoutsidesocialrelations,insteadoflookingat ofthesuperiorityoftheWestproduceacorrespondingsetofuniversal

thewaywomenareconstitutedthrough theseverystructures. imagesofthe"thirdworldwoman,"imagessuchastheveiledwoman,

1,1

Legal,economic,religious,andfamilialstructuresare treatedphe­ as thepowerfulmother,thechastevirgin,theobedientwife,etc.These

nomenatobejudgedbyWesternstandards.Itisherethatethnocentric imagesexistinuniversal,ahistoricalsplendor,settinginmotionacolo­

universalitycomesintoplay.Whenthesestructuresaredefinedas"under­ nialistdiscoursewhichexercisesaveryspecificpowerindefining,coding,

developed"or"developing"andwomenareplacedwithinthem,anim­ andmaintainingexistingfirst/thirdworldconnections.

plicitimageofthe"averagethirdworldwoman"isproduced.Thisisthe Toconclude,then,letmesuggestsomedisconcertingsimilaritiesbe­

transformationofthe(implicitlyWestern)"oppressedwoman"intothe tweenthetypicallyauthorizingsignatureofsuchWesternfeministwrit­

"oppressedthirdworldwoman."Whilethecategoryof"oppressed ingsonwomeninthethirdworld,andtheauthorizingsignatureofthe

woman"isgeneratedthroughanexclusivefocusongenderdifference, projectofhumanismingeneral-humanismasWestern a ideologicaland

"theoppressedthirdworldwoman"categoryhasanadditionalattribute­ politicalprojectwhichinvolvesthenecessaryrecuperationofthe"East"

the"thirdworlddifference!"The"thirdworlddifference"includes a and"Woman"asOthers.Manycontemporarythinkers,includingFou­

paternalisticattitudetowardwomeninthethirdworld.14Sincediscussions cault(1978,1980),Derrida(1974),Kristeva(1980),DeleuzeandGuattari

ofthe variousthemesIidentifiedearlier(kinship,education,religion,etc.) (1977),andSaid(1978),havewrittenatlengthabouttheunderlying

areconductedinthecontextoftherelative"underdevelopment"ofthe anthropomorphismandethnocentrismwhichconstituteahegemonichu­

thirdworld(whichisnothinglessthanunjustifiablyconfusingdevel­ manisticproblematicthatrepeatedlyconfirmsandlegitimates(Western)

opmentwiththeseparatepathtakenbytheWestinitsdevelopment,as Man'scentrality.FeministtheoristssuchasLuceIrigaray(1981),Sarah

wellasignoringthedirectionalityofthefirst-thirdworldpowerrelation­ Kofman(seeBerg1982),andHeleneCixous(1981)havealsowritten

ship),thirdworldwomenasagrouporcategoryareautomaticallyand abouttherecuperationandabsenceofwoman/womenwithinWestern

necessarilydefinedasreligious(read"notprogressive"),family-oriented humanism.Thefocusoftheworkofallthesethinkerscanbestatedsimply

(read"traditional"),legalminors(read"they-are-still-not-conscious-of­asanuncoveringofthepoliticalintereststhatunderliethebinarylogic

their-rights"),illiterate(read"ignorant"),domestic(read"backward"), ofhumanisticdiscourseandideologywhereby,asavaluablerecentessay

andsometimesrevolutionary(read"their-country-is-in-a-state-of-war;putsit,"thefirst(majority)term(Identity,Universality,Culture,Disin­

they-must-fight!")Thisishowthe"thirdworlddifference"isproduced. terestedness,Truth,Sanity,Justice,etc.),whichis,infact,secondaryand

Whenthecategoryof"sexuallyoppressedwomen"islocatedwithin derivative(aconstruction),isprivilegedoverandcolonizesthesecond

particularsystemsinthethirdworldwhicharedefinedonascalewhich (minority)term(difference,temporality,anarchy,error,interestedness,

isnormedthroughEurocentricassumptions,notonlyarethirdworld insanity,deviance,etc.),whichisinfact,primaryandoriginative"(Spanos

womendefinedinaparticularwaypriortotheirentryintosocialrelations, 1984).Inotherwords,itisonlyinsofaras"Woman/Women"and"the

butsincenoconnectionsaremadebetweenfirstandthirdworldpower East"aredefinedasOthers,or asperipheral,(Western) thatMan/Hu­

shifts,theassumptionisreinforcedthatthethirdworldjusthasnot manismcanrepresenthim/itselfasthecenter.Itisnotthecenterthat

evolvedtotheextentthattheWesthas.Thismodeoffeministanalysis, determinestheperiphery,buttheperipherythat,initsboundedness, 74 Power,Representation,andFeministCritique UNDERWESTERNEYES 75

determinesthecenter.JustasfeministssuchasKristevaandCixousde­ whichareconjuredupinusingsuchterminology.Iusetheterm"thirdworld"

constructthelatentanthropomorphisminWesterndiscourse,Ihavesug­ withfullawarenessofitsproblems,onlybecausethisistheterminologyavailable

gestedaparallelstrategyinthisessayinuncoveringalatentethnocentrism tousatthemoment.Theuseofquotationmarksismeanttosuggestacontinuous

questioningofthedesignation.EvenwhenIdonotusequotationmarks,Imean inparticularfeministwritingsonwomeninthethirdworld.17 tousethetermcritically. As discussedearlier,a comparisonbetweenWesternfeministself­ 2.IamindebtedtoTeresadeLauretisforthisparticularformulationof the presentationandWesternfeministre-presentationofwomeninthethird projectoffeministtheorizing.SeeespeciallyherintroductionindeLauretis,Alice

worldyieldssignificantresults.Universalimagesof"thethirdworld Doesn't:Feminism,Semiotics,Cinema(Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,

1984);seealsoSylviaWynter,"ThePoliticsofDomination,"unpublishedman­ woman"(theveiledwoman,chastevirgin,etc.),imagesconstructedfrom

uscript. addingthe"thirdworlddifference"to"sexualdifference,"arepredicated 3.ThisargumentissimilartoHomiBhabha'sdefinitionofcolonialdiscourse upon(andhenceobviouslybringintosharperfocus)assumptionsabout asstrategicallycreatinga spacefora subjectpeoplethroughtheproductionof Westernwomenassecular,liberated,andhavingcontrolovertheirown knowledgesandtheexercisepower. ofThefullquotereads:"[colonialdiscourse

lives.ThisisnottosuggestthatWesternwomenaresecular, liberated, is]anapparatusofpower....anapparatusthatturnsontherecognitionand

disavowalofracial/cultural/historicaldifferences.Itspredominantstrategicfunc­ andincontroloftheirownlives.Iam referringtoadiscursiveself-pres­

tionisthecreationofa spacefora subjectpeoplethroughtheproductionof entation,notnecessarilytomaterialreality.Ifthiswereamaterialreality, knowledgesintermsofwhichsurveillanceisexercisedandacomplexformof therewouldbenoneedforpoliticalmovementsintheWest.Similarly, pleasurefunpleasureisincited.It(i.e.colonialdiscourse)seeksauthorizationfor

onlyfromthevantagepointoftheWestisitpossibletodefinethe"third itsstrategiesbytheproductionofknowledgesbycoloniserandcolonisedwhich

world"asunderdevelopedandeconomicallydependent.Withouttheov­ arestereotypicalbutantitheticallyevaluated"(1983,23).

4.A numberofdocumentsandreportsontheUN InternationalConferences erdetermineddiscoursethatcreatesthethirdworld,therewouldbeno onWomen,MexicoCity,1975,andCopenhagen,1980,aswellasthe1976Welles­ (singularandprivileged)firstworld.Withoutthe"thirdworldwoman," leyConferenceonWomenandDevelopment,attesttothis.NawalelSaadawi, theparticularself-presentationofWesternwomen mentionedabove FatimaMernissi,andMallicaVajarathon(1978)characterizethisconferenceas

wouldbeproblematical.Iam suggesting,then,thattheoneenablesand "American-plannedandorganized,"situatingthirdworldparticipantsaspassive

sustainstheother.ThisisnottosaythatthesignatureofWesternfeminist audiences.Theyfocusespeciallyonthelackofself-consciousnessofWestern

women'simplicationintheeffectsofimperialismandracismintheirassumption writingsonthethirdworldhasthesameauthorityastheprojectof ofan"internationalsisterhood."A recentessaybyValerieAmosandPratibha Westernhumanism.However,inthecontextofthehegemonyofthe Parmar(1984)characterizesas"imperial"Euro-Americanfeminismwhichseeks Westernscholarlyestablishmentintheproductionanddisseminationof toestablishitselfastheonlylegitimatefeminism.

texts,andinthecontextofthelegitimatingimperativeofhumanisticand 5.The ZedPressWomenintheThirdWorldseriesisuniqueinitsconcep­

tion.IchoosetofocusonitbecauseitistheonlycontemporaryseriesIhave IIIII1scientificdiscourse,thedefinitionof"thethirdworldwoman"asamon­

foundwhichassumesthat"womeninthethirdworld"area legitimateand olithmightwelltieintothelargereconomicandideologicalpraxisof separatesubjectofstudyandresearch.Since1985,whenthisessaywasfirst "disinterested"scientificinquiryandpluralismwhicharethesurfaceman­ written,numerousnewtitleshaveappearedintheWomenintheThirdWorld

11 ifestationsoflatent a economicandculturalcolonizationofthe"non­ series.Thus,IsuspectthatZedhascometooccupyaratherprivileged position

Western"world.ItistimetomovebeyondtheMarxwhofounditpossible inthedisseminationandconstructionofdiscoursesbyandaboutthirdworld

I1 women.A numberofthebooksinthisseriesareexcellent,especiallythosewhich to say:Theycannotrepresentthemselves;theymustberepresented. dealdirectlywithwomen'sresistancestruggles.Inaddition,ZedPressconsistently

publishesprogressivefeminist,antiracist,andantiimperialisttexts.However,a

II1 numberof thetextswrittenbyfeministsociologists,anthropologists,andjour­

nalistsaresymptomaticofthekindofWesternfeministworkonwomeninthe

thirdworldthatconcernsme.Thus,ananalysisofafewoftheseparticularworks

NOTES inthisseriescanserveasarepresentativepointof entryintothediscourseIam

attemptingtolocateanddefine.My focusonthesetextsisthereforeanattempt ThisessaywouldnothavebeenpossiblewithoutS.P.Mohanty'schallenging ataninternalcritique:Isimplyexpectanddemandmorefromthisseries.Needless

andcarefulreading.IwouldalsoliketothankBiddyMartinforournumerous to say,progressivepublishinghousesalsocarrytheirownauthorizingsignatures. discussionsaboutfeministtheoryandpolitics.Theybothhelpedmethinkthrough 6.ElsewhereIhavediscussedthisparticularpointindetailinacritiqueof someoftheargumentsherein. RobinMorgan'sconstructionof"women'sherstory"inherintroductiontoSis­ 1.Termssuchasthirdandfirstworldareveryproblematicalbothinsug­ terhoodIsGlobal:TheInternationalWomen'sMovementAnthology(NewYork:An­ gestingoversimplifiedsimilaritiesbetweenandamongcountrieslabeledthus,and chorPressfDoubleday,1984).Seemy "FeministEncounters:LocatingthePolitics in implicitlyreinforcingexistingeconomic,cultural,andideologicalhierarchies ofExperience,"Copyright1,"FindeSiecle2000,"30-44,especially35-37.

11

!

I1 ; . 76 Power,Representation,andFeministCritique UNDERWESTERNEYES 77

7.AnotherexampleofthiskindofanalysisisMaryDaly's (1978)Gyn/ ofObedience:WomeninArabSociety(1980);BobbySiu,WomenofChina: Imperialism

Ecology.Daly'sassumptioninthistext,thatwomenasagrouparesexuallyvic­ andWomen'sResistance,1900-1949(1981);IngelaBendtandJamesDowning,We

timized,leadstoherveryproblematiccomparisonbetweentheattitudestoward ShallReturn:WomeninPalestine(1982);MariaRosaCutrufelli,WomenofAfrica:

womenwitchesandhealersintheWest,Chinesefootbinding,andthegenital RootsofOppression(1983);MariaMies,TheLaceMakersofNarsapur:IndianHouse­

wivesProducefor theWorldMarket(1982);MirandaDavis,ed.,ThirdWorld/Second mutilationofwomeninAfrica.AccordingtoDaly,womeninEurope,China,and

Sex:Women'sStrugglesandNationalLiberation(1983). Africaconstituteahomogeneousgroupasvictimsofmalepower.Notonlydoes

13.ForsuccinctdiscussionsofWesternradicalandliberalfeminisms,see thislabel(sexualvictims)eradicatethespecifichistoricalandmaterialrealities HesterEisenstein,ContemporaryFeministThought(Boston:G.K.Hall& Co.,1983), andcontradictionswhichleadtoandperpetuatepracticessuchaswitchhunting andZillahEisenstein,TheRadicalFutureofLiberalFeminism(NewYork:Longman, andgenitalmutilation,butitalsoobliteratesthedifferences,complexities,and 1981). heterogeneitiesofthelivesof,forexample,womenofdifferentclasses,religions, 14.AmosandParmardescribetheculturalstereotypespresentinEuro-Amer­ andnationsinAfrica.AsAudreLorde(1983)pointedout,womeninAfricashare

icanfeministthought:"Theimageisof thepassiveAsianwomansubjectto alongtraditionofhealersandgoddessesthatperhapsbindsthemtogethermore oppressivepracticeswithintheAsianfamilywithanemphasisonwantingto appropriatelythantheirvictimstatus.However,bothDalyandLordefallprey

'help'Asianwomenliberatethemselvesfromtheirrole.Orthereisthestrong, touniversalisticassumptionsabout"Africanwomen"(bothnegativeandpositive). dominantAfro-Caribbeanwoman,whodespiteher'strength'isexploitedbythe Whatmattersisthecomplex,historicalrangeofpowerdifferences,commonalities, 'sexism'whichisseenasbeinga strongfeatureinrelationshipsbetweenAfro­ andresistancesthatexistamongwomeninAfricawhichconstructAfricanwomen Caribbeanmen andwomen"(9).Theseimagesillustratetheextenttowhich as"subjects"oftheirownpolitics. paternalismisanessentialelementoffeministthinkingwhichincorporatesthe 8.SeeEldhom,Harris,andYoung(1977)foragooddiscussionofthe ne­ abovestereotypes,apaternalismwhichcanleadtothedefinitionofprioritiesfor cessitytotheorizemaleviolencewithinspecificsocietalframeworks,ratherthan womenofcolorbyEuro-Americanfeminists.

assumeitasauniversalfact. 15.Idiscussthequestionoftheorizingexperienceinmy "FeministEncoun­ 9.Theseviewscanalsobefoundindifferingdegreesincollectionssuchas ters"(1987)andinanessaycoauthoredBiddy withMartin,"FeministPolitics: WellesleyEditorialCommittee,ed.,WomenandNationalDevelopment:TheCom­ What'sHomeGottoDo withIt?"inTeresadeLauretis,ed.,FeministStudies/ plexitiesofChange(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1977),andSigns,Special CriticalStudies(Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1986),191-212.

Issue,"DevelopmentandtheSexualDivisionofLabor,"7,no.2(Winter1981). 16.ThisisoneofM.Foucault's(1978,1980)centralpointsinhisreconcep­ ForanexcellentintroductionofWIDissues,seeISIS,WomeninDevelopment:A tualizationofthestrategiesandworkingsofpowernetworks. ResourceGuideforOrganizationandAction(Philadelphia:NewSocietyPublishers, 17.Foranargumentwhichdemandsanewconceptionofhumanisminwork 1984).Forapoliticallyfocuseddiscussionoffeminismanddevelopmentandthe onthirdworldwomen,seeMarniaLazreg(1988).WhileLazreg'spositionmight stakesforpoorthirdworldwomen,seeGitaSenandCarenGrown,Development appeartobediametricallyopposedtomine,Iseeitasaprovocativeandpotentially CrisesandAlternativeVisions:ThirdWorldWomen'sPerspectives(NewYork: positiveextensionofsomeoftheimplicationsthatfollowfrommy arguments.

MonthlyReviewPress,1987). Incriticizingthefeministrejectionofhumanisminthenameof"essentialMan,"

10.SeeessaysbyVanessaMaher,DianeElsonandRuthPearson,andMaila Lazregpointstowhatshecallsan"essentialismofdifference"withinthesevery I

StevensinKateYoung,CarolWalkowitz,andRoslynMcCullagh,eds.,OfMarriage feministprojects.Sheasks:"TowhatextentcanWesternfeminismdispensewith

IIII andtheMarket:Women'sSubordinationinInternationalPerspective(London:CSE anethicsofresponsibilitywhenwritingaboutdifferentwomen?Thepointis

Books,1981);andessaysbyVivianMotaandMichelleMattelartinJuneNash neithertosubsumeotherwomenunderone'sown experiencenortoupholda

andHelenI.Safa,eds.,SexandClassinLatinAmerica:Women'sPerspectiveson separatetruthforthem.Rather,itistoallowthemtobewhilerecognizingthat

Politics,EconomicsandtheFamilyintheThirdWorld(SouthHadley,Mass.:Bergin. whattheyareisjustasmeaningful,valid,andcomprehensibleaswhatweare....

andGarvey,1980).Forexamplesofexcellent,self-consciousworkbyfeminists Indeed,whenfeministsessentiallydenyotherwomenthehumanitytheyclaim

writingaboutwomenintheirownhistoricalandgeographicallocations,seeMar­ forthemselves,theydispensewithanyethicalconstraint.Theyengageintheact

niaLazreg(1988)onAlgerianwomen,GayatriChakravortySpivak's"ALiterary ofsplittingthesocialuniverseintousandthem,subjectandobjects"(99-100).

RepresentationoftheSubaltern:A Woman'sTextfromtheThirdWorld,"inher ThisessaybyLazregandanessaybyS.P.Mohanty(1989)entitled"Usand

InOtherWorlds:EssaysinCulturalPolitics(NewYork:Methuen,1987),241-68, Them:On thePhilosophicalBasesofPoliticalCriticism"suggestpositivedirec­

andLataMani'sessay"ContentiousTraditions:TheDebateonSATIinColonial tionsforself-consciouscross-culturalanalyses,analyseswhichmovebeyondthe

India,"CulturalCritique7(Fall1987),119-56. deconstructivetoa fundamentallyproductivemodeindesignatingoverlapping

11.OliviaHarris,"LatinAmericanWomen-AnOverview,"inHarris,ed., areasforcross-culturalcomparison.Thelatteressaycallsnotfora "humanism"

LatinAmericanWomen(London:MinorityRightsGroupReportno.57,1983),4­ butforareconsiderationofthequestionofthe"human"inaposthumanistcon­

7.OtherMRG ReportsincludeAnnDeardon(1975)andRounaqJahan(1980). text.Itarguesthat(1)thereisnonecessary"incompatibilitybetweenthedecon­

12. ListofZedPresspublications:PatriciaJeffery,Frogsina Well:Indian structionofWesternhumanism"andsuch"apositiveelaboration"ofthehuman,

WomeninPurdah(1979);LatinAmericanandCaribbeanWomen'sCollective, andmoreoverthat(2)suchanelaborationisessentialifcontemporarypolitical­

SlavesofSlaves:TheChallengeofLatinAmericanWomen(1980);GallOmvedt,We criticaldiscourseistoavoidtheincoherencesandweaknessesofarelativistpo­

ShallSmashThisPrison:IndianWomeninStruggle(1980);JulietteMinces,TheHouse sition.

I

I

I:(j\.

jl'";:'l'\',,

'I ----.---.....-----­

"1"

I' 78 Power,Representation,andFeministCritique UNDERWESTERNEYES 79

Hosken,Fran.1981."FemaleGenitalMutilationandHumanRights."Feminist REFERENCESUST

Issues1,no.3.

Abdel-Malek,Anouar.1981.SocialDialectics:NationandRevolution.Albany:State Huston,Perdita.1979. ThirdWorldWomenSpeakOut.New York:Praeger.

UniversityofNew YorkPress. Irigaray,Luce.1981."ThisSexWhichIsNotOne"and"WhentheGoodsGet Amin,Samir.1977.ImperialismandUnequalDevelopment.NewYork:Monthly Together."InMarksandDe Courtivron(1981).

ReviewPress. Jahan,Rounaq,ed.1980.WomeninAsia.London:MinorityRightsGroupReport

Amos,Valerie,andPratibhaParmar.1984"ChallengingImperialFeminism." no.45. FeministReview17:3-19. Jeffery,Patricia.1979.FrogsinaWell:IndianWomeninPurdah.London:ZedPress.

Baran,PaulA.1962.ThePoliticalEconomyofGrowth.NewYork:MonthlyReview Joseph,Gloria,andJillLewis.1981.CommonDifferences:ConflictsinBlackand

Press. WhiteFeministPerspectives.Boston:BeaconPress. Berg,Elizabeth.1982."TheThirdWoman."Diacritics(Summer):11-20. Kishwar,Madhu,andRuthVanita.1984.InSearchofAnswers:IndianWomen's Bhabha,Homi.1983."TheOtherQuestion-TheStereotypeandColonialDis­ VoicesfromManushi.London:ZedPress. course."Screen24/no.6:23. Kristeva,Julia.1980.DesireinLanguage.New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress.

Boserup,Ester.1970.Women/sRoleinEconomicDevelopment.NewYork:St.Mar­ Lazreg,Mamia.1988."FeminismandDifference:ThePerilsofWritingasa

tin'sPress;London:AlIenandUnwin. WomanonWomeninAlgeria."FeministIssues14/no.1(Spring):81-107. Brown,Beverly.1983."DisplacingtheDifference-Review,Nature,Cultureand Undsay,Beverley,ed.1983.ComparativePerspectivesofThirdWorldWomen:The Gender."m/f8:79-89. ImpactofRace,SexandClass.New York:Praeger. Cixous,Helene.1981."TheLaughoftheMedusa."InMarksandDeCourtivron Lorde,Audre.1983."AnOpenLettertoMaryDaly."InMoragaandAnzaldua (1981). (1983)/94-97. Cowie,Elizabeth.1978."WomanasSign."m/f1:49-63. Marks,Elaine,andIsabelDeCourtivron.1981.NewFrenchFeminisms.NewYork: Cutrufelli,MariaRosa.1983.Womenof Africa:RootsofOppression.London:Zed SchockenBooks. Press. Mies,Maria.1982.TheLaceMakersofNarsapur:IndianHousewivesProducefor the

Daly/Mary.1978.Gyn/Ecology:TheMetaethicsofRadicalFeminism.Boston:Beacon WorldMarket.London:ZedPress. Press. Minces,Juliette.1980.TheHouseofObedience:WomeninArabSociety.London: Deardon,Ann,ed.1975.ArabWomen.London:MinorityRightsGroupReportno. ZedPress. 27. Modares,Mina.1981."WomenandShi'isminIran."m/f5 and6:61-82. deLauretis,Teresa.1984.AliceDoesn't:Feminism,Semiotics,Cinema.Bloomington: Mohanty,ChandraTalpade.1987."FeministEncounters:LocatingthePoliticsof IndianaUniversityPress. Experience."Copyright1/"FindeSiecle2000/"30-44. --. 1986.FeministStudies/CriticalStudies.Bloomington:IndianaUniversity Mohanty,ChandraTalpade,andBiddyMartin."Feminist 1986. Politics:What's Press. HomeGottoDo withIt?"IndeLauretis(1986). Deleuze,Giles,andFelixGuattari.1977.Anti-Oedipus:CapitalismandSchizo­ I Mohanty,S.P.1989."UsandThem:On thePhilosophicalBasesofPolitical phrenia.New York:Viking. Criticism."YaleJournalofCriticism2 (March):1-31.

11111111;1Derrida,Jacques.1974.OfGrammatology.Baltimore.JohnsHopkinsUniversity Moraga,Cherrie.1984.LovingintheWarYears.Boston:SouthEndPress. Press. Moraga,Cherrie,andGloriaAnzaldua,eds.1983.ThisBridge CalledMy Back: Eisenstein,Hester.1983.ContemporaryFeministThought.Boston:G.K.Halland III WritingsbyRadicalWomenofColor.New York:KitchenTablePress. 1 Co. Morgan,Robin,ed.1984.SisterhoodIsGlobal:TheInternationalWomen/sMovement Eisenstein,Zillah.1981.TheRadicalFutureofLiberalFeminism.NewYork:Long­ Anthology.New York:AnchorPress/Doubleday;Harmondsworth:Penguin. I man.

Nash,June,andHelenI.Safa,eds.1980.and SexClassinLatinAmerica:Women/s Eldhom,Felicity,OliviaHarris,andKateYoung.1977."ConceptualisingWomen." PerspectivesonPolitics,EconomicsandtheFamilyintheThird World.South CritiqueofAnthropology"Women'sIssue",no.3. I II!III Hadley,Mass.:BerginandGarvey. elSaadawi,Nawal,Fatima Memissi,andMallicaVajarathon.1978."ACritical Rosaldo,M.A.1980."TheUse andAbuseofAnthropology:ReflectionsonFem­ LookattheWellesleyConference."Quest4/no.2 (Winter):101-107. inismandCross-CulturalUnderstanding."Signs53:389-417. Foucault,Michel.1978.HistoryofSexuality:VolumeOne.NewYork:Random Said,Edward.1978.Orientalism.New York:RandomHouse. House. Sen,Gita,andCarenGrown.1987.DevelopmentCrisesandAlternativeVisions: --.1980. Power/Knowledge.New York:Pantheon. ThirdWorldWomen'sPerspectives.New York:MonthlyReviewPress. Gunder-Frank,Audre.1967.CapitalismandUnderdevelopmentinLatinAmerica.

Smith,Barbara,ed.1983.HomeGirls:A BlackFeministAnthology.New York: New York:MonthlyReviewPress.

Haraway,Donna.1985."AManifestoforCyborgs:Science,TechnologyandSo­ KitchenTablePress.

cialistFeminisminthe1980s."SocialistReview80(March/April):65-108. Spanos,WilliamV. 1984."Boundary2andthePolityofInterest:Humanism,the

Harris,Olivia.1983a."LatinAmericanWomen-AnOverview."InHarris(1983b). 'CenterElsewhere'andPower."Boundary212/no.3/13/no.1(Spring/Fall).

--. 1983b.LatinAmericanWomen.London:MinorityRightsGroupReportno. Spivak,GayatriChakravorty.1987.InOtherWorlds:EssaysinCulturalPolitics.

57. LondonandNew York:Methuen. 80 Power, Representation, and Feminist Critique

Strathem, Marilyn, and Carol McCormack, eds. 1980. Nature, Culture and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tabari, Azar. 1980. "The Enigma of the Veiled Iranian Women." Feminist Review 5:19-32. Tinker, Irene, and Michelle Bo Bramsen, eds. 1972. Women and World Development. Washington, D.e.: Overseas Development Council. Young, Kate, Carol Walkowitz, and Roslyn McCullagh, eds. 1981. Of Marriage and the Market: Women's Subordination in International Perspective. London: CSE Books.