I’m glad to be guest blogging for Feministe these next two weeks. A quick introduction: My name is Claire Cole; I am a Masters of Public Health candidate at the University of Washington in Seattle where I transplanted myself for love of quality community-based public health practice, and because I also couldn’t stomach the cost of Columbia. (Besides, we all have to leave New York at some point right? …Right?) My background is in grassroots activism for reproductive justice, and I’m writing to you right now from a café in India. I should also say that I haven’t figured out how to use this “more” tag yet, so apologies for the length of this first post. I will learn. I swear.
I’ve been based in New Delhi for the past 6 weeks working on a study on coercive population policy in India—specifically, the Two Child Norm policy in the Panchayat Raj Institutions (local level government, from village to towns) and elsewhere. A short explanation of the policy, which varies from state to state in India and is non-existent in others, is that when an elected representative at the local level of government has more than two children, he or she loses their right to contest election and is removed from office. There are a number of aspects to the policy that are incongruent/offensive/ blatantly discriminatory, like the fact that in most of the states in which the policy exists, for the most part it was only enacted after the implementation of a policy that reserved seats for women, Dalits (popularly known as “Untouchables” in the West), and adivasis (indigenous tribes people in India) in local Indian government. An offensive part of that fact is that the evident thinking by legislators who passed the law was that these people—who had just supposedly been recognized as having the wisdom and skill to lead their communities via elected office—did not deserve the same right to self-determination of their own reproduction and family size as the Ministers, members of parliament, or bureaucrats at higher levels of government in these states. That is because the policy does not apply to any elected official serving at levels higher than the village (Panchayat Raj) government— so even if you are the state Minister of Family Welfare, you can have as many children as you like, even as you enforce a two-child only policy on those “below” you. The hypocrisy is clear and without apology.
Another unfortunate aspect of the policy is that it is one of the only policies in India (can I venture in the world?) that does not go into effect until a formal accusation is made against a representative, at which time higher levels of government must accordingly deign to take action on the complaint. There are ample examples of accusations made against powerful village-level leaders who, because of contacts or general power in their area, are forewarned of the complaint and able to pay-off/ network those people positioned to bring about the ramifications of the policy, so that nothing happens to them. (I’m sure that we as faithful readers of Feministe can guess who has the power to pay off those people, and who doesn’t.) There are Panchayat Raj-level elected leaders who have well more than two children but who have never been approached to step down from their seat because they are connected enough to avoid the teeth of the policy. Meanwhile, the low caste and low income women, Dalits, and adivasis serving for the first time in government—and whose leadership is so badly needed to represent the needs of their communities– are almost exclusively the people who are removed from their hard-fought seats because of the policy. And then, just to back up the general poor logic of the policy, there are numerous cases of elected officials using the Two Child Norm policy as a means of threatening political opponents and exacting revenge against other representatives who disagree with their platforms and/or agendas.
At the first take, the policy is offensive because of its disempowerment of the very people who were supposed to be being empowered to lead. With one hand, the national government recognized years of discrimination and sought to right it by creating political leadership opportunity for these people. With the other hand, state governments took that power and opportunity away, reinstating the oppression, by creating the Two Child Norm policy. As I speak to average Indians on the street, I hear a range of opinions—some, as in the U.S., are in touch with the social justice implications of such a law and are duly offended by it. Others—and by no means a small number of them—believe firmly in the idea of a punitive two child norm, and argue that it is important for elected leaders at the local level to set a good example for their communities with regard to family size, because this is the only way that replacement-level fertility will be achieved in impoverished India. They argue that if these women, Dalits, and adivasis were actually worth their salt as leaders with integrity, then they would just adhere to the norm instead of insisting on having “sprawling” families. The Indians (and let’s not leave out our foreign donors of whom America is a leading player) who hold this opinion will not likely focus on what I find to be the most offensive part of the policy and it’s logic—that majority of the people who are cast out of office because of this policy had no chance of adhering to it, because they had no (or very little) access to education, to consistent or quality reproductive services, and (for women) they often had no ability to decide whether and when they would have sex in the first place. They were set up for failure from the beginning.
The intricacies of the policy and its impact on women, Dalits, and adivasis are vast. The larger significance of the policy, and what it means for human and reproductive rights, for social justice, and for equity in India for women and the poor, is what I’m only slowly beginning to see the extent of. Understanding how deep the fear of the “population bomb” runs in India, where that fear originated from (was it Indian-born or Western-made?) and what the belief in that “bomb” means for the poor here, is a long-term project. I feel at times like I’m standing in the dark with my hand on a whale. I keep inching my hand further to get a sense of what I’m grappling with, but there’s always just more and more flesh to handle. And in each new handful, I get new permutations of the classism, racism, colonialism, sexism, and global discrimination that feeds into this notion and fear of overpopulation. It redefines my whole notion of what my work for reproductive justice has been worth up to now, and at times I find myself feeling a deep sadness at how badly I, as a white Western feminist, have failed these women.
At any rate, that’s what I expect to ponder during my next two weeks with you. I trust that there’s a lot that the Feministe readership can teach me. I’m looking forward to it.
As I speak to average Indians on the street, I hear a range of opinions—some, as in the U.S., are in touch with the social justice implications of such a law and are duly offended by it. Others—and by no means a small number of them—believe firmly in the idea of a punitive two child norm, and argue that it is important for elected leaders at the local level to set a good example for their communities with regard to family size, because this is the only way that replacement-level fertility will be achieved in impoverished India.
And who are you as a white western feminist to impose your mores on another country? Seriously, have some humility — this is just cultural imperialism by another name. You think that India would be better off with another billion people? Or that you have any right to tell people in another country what laws they should or should not pass?
That’s a nasty policy.
Sometimes, the hypocrisy of something is so glaring it becomes harder to get at the base issue. The United States would never support anything that tried to push for smaller families here, because of a generalized and nonsensical terror about white people disappearing, but is there any possible law that encourages a smaller family size that doesn’t just punish poor families?
Your article is fascinating and I appreciate being able to read it. However, when I read “I find myself feeling a deep sadness at how badly I, as a white Western feminist, have failed these women.” and couldn’t help but wrinkle my nose.
India is home to one of the oldest civilizations on the planet. The oldest living language on the planet. They made the Kandariya Mahadeva while Bronze Age Europeans were building thatched roofed stick buildings. The idea that one person, a Western feminist student on a study abroad course – could fail an entire nation of people – is pretty overblown.
The policy sounds pretty outrageous to our ears but it’s sort of in line with what you might expect from a very class conscious society that has a huge population. If you start internalizing this very large, very historic, very cultural and very human-nature “whale” you’re grappling with I wouldn’t be surprised if you were on the road to some kind of breakdown. Don’t beat yourself up.
I think its really easy for you to drop in while studying abroad and feel like you’ve “failed” these people because you went in expecting to accomplish something big. Not to burst your bubble, but you simply aren’t that great, no one is. Thats not to say you can’t do good, valuable work, but tilting at windmills will just serve to limit what you actually do accomplish. Remember, India existed for thousands of years before you flew in and it will continue long after you’ve left. It’s people don’t need to be “saved” by you. They are intelligent, aware human beings who are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves and acting on their own. If you can help educate or organize, thats great, but when you start talking about you “failing” this society you begin to sound disturbingly paternalistic.
This is a policy that was developed because India faces serious struggles that you or I, as white westerners, simply cannot accurately grasp. The Two Child Norm is far less monstrous (and coercive) than China’s One Child policy, but I can see where its coming from. These are countries with population levels that are hard for those of us in the west to wrap our heads around, countries where things like starvation and sprawl are realities. The utter arrogance of your assumption that those Indians who have looked at the data in their society and come to a different conclusion than you are out of touch is shocking. Take a step back and think about how much your privilege is coloring this for you.
Sure, the policy makes me uncomfortable. Sure, its ugly and I’d fight against it if someone suggested it here, but thats my privilege talking. I’ve never walked past someone literally starving in the street. I’ve never lived in a country where food of some sort wasn’t plentiful. I’ve never had to worry about clean water or decent sanitation. I live in a place where, if I was desperate, I would have little trouble finding an affordable acre to myself. If a neighbor has a dozen kids its unlikely to be anything more than an annoyance, at worst. More importantly, as I wrestle with these (large theoretical) concerns I am not also recovering from the trauma of imperialism and a history of extreme social stratification. Sure, I can think of a dozen reasons why the Two Child Norm is offensive, but I don’t really know how many of those are coming out of my privilege.
Wasn’t the post criticizing the way the policy is applied more than the policy itself — the fact that the well-connected and well-to-do can make themselves exceptions to the rule while holding others to it?
Does privilege mean that one shouldn’t identify instances where other people are hurt by exercises of privilege? (Sure, dealing with one’s own privilege is job one, but does that really mean turning a blind eye to bad stuff happening because of inequality elsewhere?)
You’re right, Dr. Free-Ride. I was responding mostly to the last paragraph of the post and I should have made that more clear. I guess I felt that a lot of the equality issues were a little less important because the end of the post made it clear that Claire had a problem with the policy in general, above and beyond it’s application. Thats what I was responding to, but I didn’t signal that.
Just a quick clarification since I know Claire’s internet access is limited (and Claire, correct me if I get the details wrong here) — but she isn’t studying abroad. She’s a Master’s student in public health, and she’s doing research and working with local groups in India this summer specifically on this policy. This isn’t a side project that she’s doing for fun, and she didn’t create this organization herself — she’s doing research and groundwork with an established group, and looking at how they are dealing with this issue themselves. So, to the first comment, she isn’t imposing her mores on another country; she’s working with local people and observing how they accomplish their reproductive justice goals. They’re the ones who have decided that this policy is bad for their communities. She isn’t coming in to “save” anyone or to push some paternalistic response to a local policy.
I personally think it’s a bit arrogant to assume that Claire just showed up herself to oppose this policy, and that there weren’t already reproductive justice advocates on the ground fighting this thing in their own communities. It strikes me as the flip-side of the White Savior complex — i.e., it starts from the assumption that local people all agree with the dominant structure, and that ideas like reproductive justice and women’s rights are Western inventions. The difference is in the response — colonialists argue that we should go in and “fix” things, and liberals reliant on cultural relativism argue that we should just step off and let “those other cultures” do their thing, because we just don’t understand. That’s well-meaning, but it often ignores the political realities — that is, there are women’s rights and social justice advocates on the ground trying to change the status quo, and those things that we attribute to “culture” (especially various oppressions) are actually quite political. We recognize that in places like the U.S., the law and the leadership does not always reflect the will of the people; why is it so hard to recognize that the same might be true in other places?
In other words, I hate the assumption that because the most powerful and well-connected in a non-Western country make certain political choices — or that some random group does something ass-backwards that becomes well-publicized — that “the people of X country” believe a certain thing, and we should let them have “their culture.” Obviously outsiders shouldn’t step in and impose our culture; but culture is fluid, and it shifts and it changes and it’s diverse even within small communities. And what gets branded “culture” is often politics — something we recognize when dealing with the U.S., but somehow fail to grasp elsewhere. This is a good example. There are local repro justice groups, led by Indian people in their own communities, that are fighting these policies. Claire is there to research and observe and see how this all plays out, and help if she can. But somehow the work of those groups gets erased, because the dominant voices in the community believe something different. That is not a position we would ever take in discussing our own countries, and it seems to spring from an assumption that those backwards brown people all think the same way, and aren’t doing social justice work on their own. That’s bullshit.
As for the last line of the second-to-last paragraph, I can see how that’s sticking in peoples’ craw, so I’ll add a little more context since I know Claire fairly well in “real” life. Claire has pretty much spent her entire career advocating for reproductive justice and women’s rights. That’s why she’s now getting her Master’s in Public Health — to continue on that path. So (and Claire, correct me if I’m wrong here) I think what she’s saying is that her understanding of what reproductive justice means has just been exploded wide open; so it’s not that it’s her job to show up in India and save everyone, but that she’s been doing this work for years and has just realized that there’s a lot she didn’t know and a lot she hasn’t been doing (and perhaps some things she’s been doing wrong). That can feel like a failure — and when you’ve spent your life advocating for something and then you realize that your perspective and understanding has been horrendously narrow, you feel like you’ve failed the people who your viewpoint previously shut out or didn’t fully understand. It’s not that you were obligated or burdened with “saving” them — it’s that you have a deep commitment to working for the rights of all women, and when suddenly realize just how limited your perspective and understanding is, you feel like you’ve failed women in general, and especially the women who were left out of your analysis.
I’ll also just add that Claire is learning out loud here, and doing a pretty brave thing by processing-out-loud all the layers of what is undoubtedly an eye-opening and destabilizing experience. She isn’t a blogger, and while I know she is a tough broad, the anonymity of the internet and the strong feelings about topics like this can turn the conversation really ugly. So I ask that we please keep it as civil as possible. Obviously discuss these issues and challenge her (and each other), but laying your personal experiences and observations on the line like this isn’t easy. As someone who has made plenty of very public mistakes and mis-steps, I can understand that; so let’s please keep this constructive.
Jill FTW.
And seriously, what the fuck is with everyone lately just assuming the absolute worst? I swear that I remember a time when it was considered normal to ask for clarification when you disagree with someone who is more or less on your side, particularly when a statement can be reasonably taken in more than one way, rather than just attacking them outright. Even in the blogosphere! Did I dream it? And no, I’m not just comlaining about some of the comments on this post (I think it’s obvious which ones), but as Jill and others have repeatedly pointed out, this is a trend. And it’s making me cranky too.
[...] Claire Cole, who is working in India temporarily, blogs about the politics of the policies that restrict the legality of elections of representatives …. [...]
Going back to the post for a second, I hope that this article helps push the overton window away from the neo-Erlichers who believe that population is something we can or should control/be socially conscious about.
People are simply not built, as a whole, to be rational about procreation rights. Overpopulation, whether it is a problem or not, is a multigenerational task to solve. A focus on population issues will not solve our resource crisis, nor our environmental crisis, nor our social crisis before all of them turn immediately malignant. Moreover, overpopulation as an umbrella issue, is an easy club to use for repression, corruption, and ultimately genocidal activities.
Stories like Claire‘s above is why this is one of my rant button issues. We *should* care about reproductive rights, education for women, financial power to the powerless. However, like what we saw above, population coercion is quickly and readily used to defeat all of those purposes. Just empower people, and have equitable access to justice and resources, without worrying about whether that may mean women will turn out to be sluts and pop out baby after baby, and harm the planet, or something.
Jill: Duly noted. The extra context you’ve put out there does change a lot. I can dance around it all I want, but I was wrong. I admit it an apologize. Thanks for the kick in the ass, I need them every now and again.
Shah8,
Ok…corrected that for ya….and in so doing….strengthened your argument. ;)
One good question to be asked is how much of this concern about “overpopulation”/population control by governments and certain special interests/activist groups dominated by the socio-economically privileged is really about the issues of scarce resources….and how much of it is really about the desires and needs of the socio-economic elite to maintain and augment their already great privileges at the expense of everyone else?? From studying how this policy is actually practiced in China along with the insidious rhetoric I’ve heard from some activists…whether self-proclaimed as progressive or not…whether from non-Westerners or Westerners of both progressive and non-progressive stripes….it tends to lean far more toward the latter.
Agree with exholt: We know a lot of the rhetoric of “negative population growth is happening and terrible and must be stopped” is code for “white people are about to be taken over by ‘ethnics’, women must do their part for the fatherland”. Alas this is the harsh reality that lurks in the background of any population control discussion.
Dear all– It’s apparent that I should have explained a lot more than I did, and I apologize for asking you to make that leap of faith that I’m worth my salt as a public health practitioner/feminist/ generally well-intentioned person without having provided more context.
That said, here’s some more background. I am doing my MPH at the University of Washington in a program I specifically chose because of it’s community-oriented focus. Our theses, unlike majority of theses in this field, are all community-defined projects and the product of our work is left with the community. Which is to say, I’m not publishing anything. I am working with the Center for Health and Social Justice here, in New Delhi, which is an Indian founded and Indian-run organization, and the research I am doing is what they’ve asked me to undertake on their behalf.
With regard to my feeling as though I’ve failed women here– Ok, you’re right. That was pretty sappy and a bit much to ask you to swallow. Even if I do really feel it. To explain that a bit more, even though Jill did a good job of it herself in her above comment– the feeling of failure comes in the fact that I, admittedly, have spent my career and activist work up to now defending women’s reproductive rights *in America* believing at some level that my knowledge of the reproductive rights needs and experiences of women in America was enough to give me wisdom to understand, in some limited way, the experience and needs of women worldwide. Working here on this project, I am face to face with how totally wrong and imperialist that idea was. And I am not by any means saying that that means I have the right to say I know how all women in India are feeling now, because the range is unlimited– that much, I do know. But it does mean that I am understanding how much more there is to learn bit by bit, and the magnitude is humbling.
With regard to the first comment to my post though, I do need to disagree: I do not think, and I know this opinion is shared by many of the Indian-founded and led social justice organizations in India (should you worry I am again speaking from my imperialist side), that the possibility of “another billlion people” should ever mean the right of a government to violate human rights. Especially when we know from the field data that restrictive population control policies, at least in India, are not effective at curbing population growth. Whatever your position on population growth (is it a problem, isn’t it a problem), the data indicates that population control policies here do not stop population growth. If anything, they exacerbate it. Southern Indian states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and others have achieved the Indian Government’s goal of replacement-level total fertility before the government’s deadline of 2013. And none of them have the Two Child Norm policy. It’s reductionist to say that they achieved their replacement level TFR by any one measure, but I find it interesting that Kerala was the state asked first to try out the Two Child Norm. At the end of the trial period, Kerala announced they would not implement the policy and would instead invest in education and health and social services. Meanwhile, states that continue to introduce population control policies at the local level have been experiencing continued growth, not to mention spikes in maternal mortality, unsafe abortions, sex selective abortions (for those who can afford it), and female infanticide (for those who cannot afford an abortion). The sex ratios in Northern India particularly, where the population control policies are most abundant at the state level, are so skewed that in some villages it is difficult to find a girl child. So, again, whatever your position on the “population bomb” issue, I think there are viable and persuasive arguments for why punitive population control policies like the Two Child Norm policy at the Panchayat Raj level are just bad policy. And then there is my personal belief that much of the eagerness to implement and defend policies of this sort is rooted in racism, be it from within India or from the West imposed upon India.
I will do my best to write more carefully next time I post. I won’t have regular access to internet in the next week, and apologize if my number of posts or response to comments is limited. But thanks for all of your comments already. I appreciate constructive dialogue and am genuinely grateful for the chance to get it from you while I’m here doing this work.
Claire, It sounds like you’re doing wonderful work out there. I think some of the commenters were a little rough on you. It’s funny how so often a strong critic seems to be guilty of the very thing they’re accusing you of.
I didn’t think she meant “failed” as in “failed to solve this problem by waving a wand and shouting kazam!” I think she meant failure to truly grasp the problem. The failure she’s talking about is the failure to see beyond her privilege/culture/ethnicity in this case, not her failure to swoop in and save the subcontinent. At least, that’s how I read it.
And Raja, the problem is not necessarily reproductive limits but the fact that they exist only for the underprivileged and that they are used to explicitly keep them underprivileged. The whole point of the post is that the reproductive law is much, much more than that. In a sense, that again is what is meant by failure–the failure to grasp the extent of those ramifications.
interesting discourse here – it’s hard for me as a teacher of world history and someone who self-identifies as “open-minded” to argue against a policy that, on the surface, can seem to alleviate the obvious burdens caused by excessive population growth. but understanding more about claire’s work helps to shine the light not so much on the result (number of births) and instead on the causes (access to education, health care, lowering infant mortality) as ways to stem both the accidental/unwanted pregnancies and to curb the need for poorer, rural families to have multiple children as a safeguard against losing their kids early to disease or malnutrition. like the other side of the “war on drugs” argument, claire’s work seems to be laying some groundwork for making a case to indian officials that they take steps to address the root causes rather than simply swoop in and punish the unwanted results.
thanks to jill and then claire for clarifying some of the details and for contextualizing the couple of instances of hyperbole. and as for the itchy trigger fingers in the early replies (raja, liz), i can only say that maybe you need to take a deep breath and recognize that a lot of us also took classes in postcolonial theory and some of us also got good grades! in other words, read the post a bit more carefully rather than using this anonymous venue as a platform to try to recycle what you’ve heard/learned about how westerners should think/act. it’s tired stuff – i remember thinking so about my self-righteous/guilt ridden classmates back in college (i did it too – managed to grow out of it), and i encourage you too to grow out of the self-aggrandizing act of ripping down others, and instead produce something of value yourself, like claire and others have here. it just takes more courage to do so; go on and try it, it actually feels better than knee-jerk crapping on other people’s ideas. sorry if this is belligerent – it’s just that i spend time trying to teach 15 year olds that, rather than just looking for weakness in an opponent to expose, that they can exert energy to find points of critical intellectual convergence, to help grow each other’s ideas. now that takes intellectual strength and conviction!
Claire,
I’m really proud of the work you are doing in India and applaud your patience, your sincerity, and your diplomatic response to your feisty critics. As a “western” feminist who happens to be one of six children (my mom stopped taking birth control pills when she was converted to a fundamentalist branch of Catholicism known as “Opus Dei”) I see many sides to this issue. I can’t imagine life without any one of my 5 siblings and at the same time I see the need to limit our population growth for the sake of both the planet and women’s sanity. Ever hear of the old woman who lived in a shoe, had so many children she didn’t know what to do? Yes, she went crazy. As did my mother by child #4. Thought I’d try to lighten the tension with some humor there. :)
I have participated in many discussions both within and outside of academe regarding population issues, environmental issues, colonialism/imperialism, and feminism on a global scale and while I understand where Raja is coming from with the warning about imposing our “western” ideas I wholeheartedly disagree. The flaw in that argument is that we are comparing one patriarchal culture to another and saying, “Oh we shouldn’t impose our values on another country. It’s not our place.” However, it ignores the fact that women in BOTH the western/wealthy countries such as the U.S. and women in developing countries such as India are living under governments that continue to be predominantly run by men who know little (or care little even if they do know) about the real issues in women’s lives impacting their reproductive health and freedom. That is true in the U.S. (even Obama has not yet come out to strongly support women’s reproductive rights) and it is true in India.
Regardless of the history of colonialism (one thing we have in common is that both India and the U.S. began under British rule and we both kicked them out!) or the complicated puzzle of how to solve the environmental crisis we’re in, we need to remember that the ONLY way to address women’s fertility is to SERVE WOMEN no matter what country we’re talking about. When women are treated with respect, dignity, and compassion by their government and by the international community (I believe that Claire is just such an ambassador) the population problem will solve itself. By no means do I think this is easy to do or that it can be done by white western feminists such as myself imposing our ways on other cultures. Rather, it is being done by NGOs, Peace Corps volunteers, and non-profits such as Women for Women International. In other words, the work gets done when local women have voice and agency and when women work together across cultures for the empowerment of all women. Yes, there will be cultural differences but that is true even in the U.S. Western feminists still struggle to bridge the divides within the women’s movement across race, class, sexual orientation, age, etc. We just need to find better and more creative ways to communicate with each other.
When women in all countries are free from sexual assault, have the right to chose their own spouses, have the right to decide when to have sex with their husbands, have knowledge and access to contraception (not to mention safe and legal abortion) – only then will we begin to solve the population crisis. I do not believe that creating universal policies to tell people how many children to have (while in some contexts well-intended) is the smartest course of action. It is as flawed as the death penalty as an approach to stopping murder in the U.S. but that’s a whole different can of worms. Keep up the good work, Claire! I look forward to reading your future posts.
If one wants to oversimplify the historical consequences and context, then your comparison may hold.
Unfortunately, comparing the US experience under British rule with India’s colonization is comparing apples to oranges.
The American revolution was really a war between the British government and the elite landowning stratum of the Anglo-Americans who were British descendants themselves. The only way the American Revolution can be remotely analogous to India’s anti-colonialism is if the American Revolution was instigated and dominated by Native Americans. Unfortunately, that’s not how US history actually transpired.
I am also troubled by your seeming assertion that the history of colonialism is of little importance in the part where you said “Regardless of colonialism”. I’m sorry, but the history of colonialism in non-Western societies is something all Westerners….especially those who are ostensibly progressive need to be mindful of in light of what transpired in history. To do otherwise would not show historical ignorance and falling into the trap of White privilege, but further risk antagonizing those who have already had to suffer being under the colonialist yoke for decades or even centuries.
If this is the way you want to bridge the “divide”, as someone who is a POC and who has studied the effects of colonialism in non-Western societies for years……I’m telling you all you’ll end up doing is to alienate the very non-Western women and progressive men you are ostensibly trying to help.
I’ve witnessed this very conflict play out acrimoniously at my undergrad college where non-western feminists at my college were completely alienated from their American counterparts over this very issue because of the privileged White upper/middle-class patronizing attitudes and assumptions towards the non-Western feminists. A conflict which could have been avoided if those American feminists had taken the time to listen to listen and consider what those non-Western feminists had to say about their experiences and activism rather than presumptuously assuming their own inherent “superiority” along with their disgusting and ignorant orientalist attitudes and assumptions. :(
I’ve known many upper/middle class White classmates who received good and even excellent grades in classes on post-colonial theory and yet, were still so wrapped up in their socio-economic and racial privilege that it was as if those theories went in one ear and out the other…especially when their attitudes, statements, and actions were such that they ended up acting in ways not too different from the stereotype of the overbearing European colonialist assured in his/her own inherent superiority in the understanding of all things….including understanding non-Western cultures better than the very “natives” who created, sustained, and have been socialized in those very cultures from birth.
Just because one receives good/excellent grades in a given course does not necessarily mean s(he) has a decent understanding of the material….much less a degree of mastery of a tiny portion of it.
(A) “exholt”
A conflict which could have been avoided if those American feminists had taken the time to listen to listen and consider what those non-Western feminists had to say about their experiences and activism rather than presumptuously assuming their own inherent “superiority” along with their disgusting and ignorant orientalist attitudes and assumptions. :(
Dear Exholt,
In response to (A) -
First off, I totally agree with most of what you’re saying. Secondly, you are misreading my tone and missing my point. I was neither dismissing our own shameful history of exterminating the indigenous people of North American, enslaving Africans, and treating all women as chattel, etc. nor oversimplifying U.S. history/history of feminism. I guess like Claire, I should give you a little more background. I am a social worker with a joint master’s in sociology and women’s studies (currently a Ph.D. candidate in sociology) and the grandchild or Irish immigrants (also colonized and impoverished by the Brits, albeit a different history than India). I was not disregarding the history of colonialism. Rather I was shifting the focus of the conversation to women and what women can do to make themselves heard amidst all this tired bickering about western/non-western and environmental policy. I was pointing out some common ground and making a joke about the Brits. I am fully aware of what the American Revolution was really about. I think one of the problems with blogging and email is that tone and facial expressions are missing, so people often misunderstand each other’s points. I recognize the weight of our different histories but there are also important similarities. I certainly don’t believe we should ignore our differences but I DO think that we often allow those differences to paralyze us and keep us from making progress.
Like Dan said earlier, many of has have taken college & grad courses in postcolonial theory and are very much aware of this issues that you bring up. The question now is what TO DO about them and how to move forward. I have written more papers than I can count and had many, many discussions with professors (both western and non-western) on the complexities and the history of colonialism in relation to feminism. My thesis advisors were feminists from Grenada and India actually, which does not mean I think I somehow deserve a medal or a cookie, but rather that I do listen and I’m pretty aware of the issues you address.
YES, the first wave of the women’s movement in the U.S. with its focus on suffrage and the 2nd wave of American feminism with its focus on abortion rights are sadly tarnished and complicated by racism, classism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination and at times tunnel vision. However, there were also black feminists in the suffrage movement like Soujourner Truth & Maria Stewart as well as partnerships in the 2nd wave such as that between Alice Walker & Gloria Steinem that I think are good examples of how feminism/womanism need not be elitist. There are plenty of feminists who hail from developing countries (like my profs Dessima Williams from Grenada and Harleen Singh from India) and Indian feminists are in no short supply (e.g. Gayatri Spivak, Jaya Arunachalam, and Medha Patkar). I also admire Indian-American filmmaker Mira Nair’s work. Based on their own words, I think they’d all agree that the way to move forward (as I said in my initial posting) is to meet women where their at with cultural sensitivity, treat them with dignity and respect, and give them voice.
It is also critical that we recognize feminism is NOT a western idea or construction. That is a very dangerous and frustratingly wide-spread misconception. If you have not yet had the chance to look into this topic, there’s a great book called “Feminism and Nationalism in the Third World” written by Kumari Jayawardena. In fact, there have been more female heads of states in the so-called “third world” countries than in many “developed” countries including the U.S. (e.g. the late Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan, Corazon Aquino of the Philippines, Sirimavo Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka, and Mary Eugenia Charles of Dominica). Another good read is “Women as National Leaders” by Michael A. Genovese.
(B)”exholt”:
# 1: I’m telling you all you’ll end up doing is to alienate the very non-Western women and progressive men you are ostensibly trying to help.
#2: I’ve witnessed this very conflict play out acrimoniously at my undergrad college where non-western feminists at my college were completely alienated from their American counterparts over this very issue because of the privileged White upper/middle-class patronizing attitudes and assumptions towards the non-Western feminists.
In response to (B)
#1: I understand where you’re coming from and am always looking for ways to move the conversation beyond what serves privileged white professional-class women. I come from a working-class family, worked my butt of to pay my own way through school, and my prof background is in social work – where I’ve def seen a lot more of the issues that affect ALL women (esp when I worked in the jails in CA) than many of my peers.
#2: I couldn’t agree with you more on this point! I think the only way to get beyond that is to have these kinds of honest dialogues. Thanks for taking the time to respond.