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.
I couldn't agree more with your interpretation of the text. Just like it was stated in class the issue of utmost importance is for these different groups, culturally, socially, and economically, to develop and find meaning in their voice. This is akin to the insiders having a respected voice instead of the outsiders, Western Feminist, defining their voice for them.
ReplyDeleteAvery, I really enjoyed your detailed and in-depth analysis of Mohanty’s argument. You are very articulate in your description of both the binary of men vs. women and their statuses as oppressors and victims, as well as the categories in which Western feminist writers have placed women in developing countries. I really enjoyed your insights into the simplified categories that are assigned to third world women and exposing these labels’ underlying negative, and generally false, meanings. Through examining the specific labels and the arguments attached to them in her chosen articles, Mohanty systematically exposes how and where Western feminists’ arguments go wrong and what they need to do to present viable arguments that involve complex women. These simplifications are not only lazy on the part of the writer who obviously has not taken the time to research and understand the context in which these women live in, but promotes, as you mention, ethnocentrism and colonial feminism. Your writing was very clear and detailed, and I especially appreciated your citations, which made your argument much stronger. You provided both a comprehensive summary and eloquent interpretation of Mohanty’s argument.
ReplyDelete