Fernanda Bernaldo
Mohanty

            The main topic of conversation within the article centers around the idea of a Western Woman or more specifically, the type of feminism a woman from the Third World encounters compared to that of the Western Woman. Mohanty makes it clear that the “Western feminist” must ‘situate itself’ to examine its role in a “global economic and political framework,” so as to not intrude upon the Third World. The author is trying to avoid a pattern where older traditions and ideals are swallowed by new ones and made into the new modern, correct approach. Abdel-Malek describes it elegantly, stating how modern imperialism is now more an “attempt to control hearts and mind” than a physical domination, though violence remains, now “rationalized.”

Mohanty’s message through this article is simple. Simply because women in the Third World may have different approaches to feminism or may prioritize various values that conflict with those of a Western Woman does not mean they are beneath or less intelligent. All scholarships of western woman regarding the “third world must be considered in the context of the the global hegemony of Western scholarship.” As the perceived dominant power in economic, political, and scholastic endeavors, the West often enjoys the title of advanced and contemporary, leading to a “always correct” mind frame. While this usually means that work from the Third World is supposed to be viewed a primitive and outdated, Mohanty argues differently, stating how it is, by contrast, as important as any Western work or opinion.

Dramatically, this is a major change from how feminism has evolved in the West. The dramatic change of focus on civil society in the 90s and the topic of reason and individualism compared against emotion and nurturing put hierarchies and oppositions in direct conflict with each other. Women, she argues, should not be grouped within a category based on their perceived grievances of oppression, misrepresentation, and powerlessness. She point out how Western feminist writers use this course of analysis to paint the “Third World Woman” as a victim of her socio-economic system. In conclusion, the author is using an emotional piece where she claims that Western women disadvantage Third World women due to the latters passive role. She uses masculine and feminine genders to point out the association that arises from the grouping of “woman,” but then explains why such a grouping is flawed. 

Under Western Eyes

Lynette Dixon 

In Under the Western Eyes, Chandra Mohanty explores the Western feminist/Third World Feminist binary and the homogenizing effect this binary has on the supposed third world woman. She asserts that Western feminist discourse groups all non-Western women into a universal category which ignores the vast differences present in the (false) category. This grouping ignores class, ethnic, geographical, and religious contexts. Western feminists also tend to ignore the complexity of non-Western women and often simplify and reduce existence to that which is poor and uneducated. Mohanty argues that such over-generalization is the cause of the stratification of the two groups: The Western woman, who is liberated, educated, and active in the decisions that concern her life, body, and liberation and the “Third World woman” who is uneducated and a victim in need of salvation. This brings me to the next binary that Mohanty discusses, active/passive. Rooted in the culturally imperialist and colonializing nature of the West, the discourse on non-western women poses them as powerless victims in need of outside guidance. For example, African and Middle Eastern women are always portrayed as perpetual victims of patriarchy subject to dependence and subservience. This places them into a space that is powerless, passive, and unchanging. Such a limited view of the non-Western world only hurts any chances of unification amongst all women as the current discourse only serves to oppress. Mohanty proposes an alternate form of analysis wherein women are seen within their specific social, historical, and cultural contexts.  She asserts that non- western cultures are not static or simplistic and those within these cultures must be considered as active actors of their lives rather than passive subjects.  

Mohanty

Talia Gilbert

In her article, “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses,” Chandra Talpade Mohanty explicitly analyses the problematic use of binary oppositions in writings that define the “Third World Woman.” Mohanty focuses on the specific dichotomies of Western vs. Third World/developing and power vs. powerlessness. Mohanty cites writings that depict the “average third world woman,” and the implicit image that accompanies it – uneducated, poor, domestic, etc. She elaborates, “these distinctions are made on the basis of the privileging of a particular group as the norm or referent” (337). The binary opposition that poses Western v. Third World against one another carries with it the idea that “Western” is the standard. When Western feminists analyze the oppression of women in the Third World, using their self-presentation as a reference point, they may generalize women from the Third World in ways that are not contextualized or accurate, and can lead to stereotyping.

            Mohanty also touches on the binary of power vs. powerlessness in her analysis of many Western writings that simplify the patriarchy into a single problem that can be applied to many different situations. She claims that theorists who write about women as a coherent group in all contexts “structure the world in ultimately binary, dichotomous terms, where women are always seen in opposition to men, patriarchy is always necessarily male dominance” (350). Essentially, Mohanty uses the matter of binary oppositions to explain the ways in which complex relationships can be simplified and analyzed in a way that ignores the nuances of each situation. Ultimately, the use of these binary oppositions is of disservice to the marginalized groups who are being analyzed.

Mohanty's Discussion on the Categorization of Third World Women

Maria Weber

Chandra Mohanty uses binary oppositions both implicitly and explicitly throughout her article. Most explicitly is her analysis of Western feminist writings and their general discussion of women in a third world setting, noting the contrast between “Western” women and third world women. Mohanty points out that many Western feminist writers generalize women in the third world as being passive victims. Mohanty uses five examples of Western writings and their arguments to demonstrate how women in the third world are simplified and categorized without an understanding of the circumstances that surround their lives. Through the five cases chosen, Mohanty details how women are often characterized as victims whether of male violence, development, or religions, as well as provides counter arguments to both the specific examples she presents and to the general Western Feminist approach. While doing this she constantly reminds the reader that there is a perceived difference between women of the West and the third world. Feminist writings from the Western perspective present the third world woman outside the complex societies and cultures within which they live. The West and the East, more specifically the less developed areas, are pitted against one another as opposites with women in the West experiencing complex and different issues while women in the East are all similarly victims. Mohanty suggests that there is a trend where Western feminist writers promote themselves and their culture as sophisticated and complex by generalizing third world women and their experiences. By claiming that Western and third world women are opposites, Western writers can contrast the generalized experiences of third world women against their own complex and diverse circumstances, giving them the ability to further delve into Western issues. Mohanty rejects this opposition, as she argues women in third world countries are just as complex as Western women, as their circumstances are based on their histories, cultures, values, religions, and each town, city, and country has a unique society.

Response to Reason, Gender, and Morality in the History of Philosophy

Response  to Reason, Gender, and Morality in the History of Philosophy

Lloyd’s article is explicitly concerned with the matter of binary oppositions and she concentrates on the construction of gender difference, specifically reason versus emotion. She states that women are either regarded as less rational than men or as in having a distinctive style reasoning method which should be valued equally. She argues that the latter remark, the main objective of difference feminism, is a natural reaction to the development philosophical thought on Reason and is problematic. She elaborates on this by retelling the history of philosophical though on Reason and analyzing how women are positioned through it.

First, she concentrates on Philo, Augustine, Aquinas and states their opinions on binary oppositions. She states that Philo relates binary oppositions to the story of Genesis and associates reason with masculinity. Thus, argues that women can have access to reason if they lose their inferior traits that are ruled by emotions. Augustine opposes to this idea as a result of his belief in Christian spiritual equality. Thus he thinks women and men have equal access to Reason but does not challenge the structure because he thinks that women should follow the path of Reason with her subordination to men. For Aquinas intellectual nature is found both in men and women but women’s meaning is bound up with the reproduction of human nature which reinforces women’s exclusion from the actual manifestations of Reason. By retelling Philo, Augustine and Aquinas’s arguments on Reason she explains how women’s access to the realm of Reason is constructed through early philosophy. Afterwards she states that “male bias” in philosophical though goes deeper than Philo, Agustine and Aquinas’s arguments and she moves on to Descartes’ Method. She states that in seventeenth century Reason started to be considered as a skill rather than a distinctive feature of human nature. She proves this through analyzing Descartes’ Method. She stresses Descartes’ Method’s egalitarian aspects as it being written in vernacular and promising to make knowledge accessible to everyone. She argues that in practice his approach failed as a result of social constructs. She states that women couldn’t gain access to the collective endeavor of new science and were assigned responsibility of the sensuous world which reinforced the construction of feminine.

            Lloyd concludes her article by stating that binary oppositions are constructed and is a product of male bias in the history of philosophical thought. Thus she thinks that any affirmation of the strengths of female difference that lacks the knowledge of history is destined to repeat the pitfalls of Western though regarding women.

Mohanty's dicussion of Binary in "Under Western Eyes"

In “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses,” Mohanty critiques three analytic principles that have shaped Western feminism. While she credits the work of Western feminists as greatly contributing to the field of study, she argues that Western feminists have labeled women as the homogeneously “oppressed,” disregarding other influences such as social class and ethnic identity. However, the binary, one-dimensional concept of men (the “oppressors” and “powerful”) and women (the “oppressed” and “powerless”) continues to be the narrative of feminist study. Mohanty continues to portray binary oppositions, specifically through her discussion of first vs. third world countries. She argues that because Western feminists judge legal, economic and familial structures based on Western standards, there is a creation of “third world difference” in their feminist study (351). Rather than looking at specific religious, political and economic factors within a specific country, third world women have been automatically categorized as “religious (read ‘not progressive’), family-oriented (read ‘traditional’), legal minors (read ‘they-are-still-not-conscious-of-their rights’), illiterate (read ‘ignorant’), domestic (read ‘backward’) and sometimes revolutionary (read ‘their-country-is-in-a-state-of-war-they must-fight!’)” (351-352). Not only does this practice create a misunderstanding of women and culture in other countries, but also breeds ethnocentrism and the belief that Western women are “more free.” Furthermore, it justifies the practice of “colonial feminism,” the belief that Western women must save underdeveloped or non-Western women and children from their patriarchal and religious oppressors. Mohanty concludes her article by saying if this binary is to become more balanced, then women in third world countries must find their voice and speak on their experience for themselves.