Makini Boothe,
"A Reunion of "Sisters": Personal Reflections on Diaspora and Women in Activist Discourse"
(page 4 of 6)
"Women" as Homogenized Discourse
Throughout the month, I noticed time and again that the term "women"
was used as a homogenized identity, without specification of any kind.
Assigning assumptions and characteristics to a group—an essential part
of human nature—failed to touch upon the complexities of such a
constructed category. Similar to my previous observations about the
diaspora, I came to notice that referring to women in discourse without
interrogating specific realties has a major impact on our future
activist and mobilization efforts.
Chandra T. Mohanty, a prominent postcolonial and transnational
feminist theorist, has discussed the problematic nature of women as a
lump category of analysis in her article "Under Western Eyes: Feminist
Scholarship and Colonial Discourse," (1991):
By women as a category of analysis, I am referring to the
critical assumption that all of us of the same gender, across classes
and cultures, are somehow socially constituted as a homogeneous group
identified prior to the process of analysis . . . [W]omen are characterized as
a singular group on the basis of a shared oppression. What binds women
together is a sociological notion of the "sameness" of their oppression . . ..
This results in an assumption of women as an always already
constituted group, one which has been labeled "powerless," "exploited,"
"sexually harassed," etc., by feminist scientific, economic, legal and
sociological discourses . . .. The focus is not on uncovering the material and
ideological specificities that constitute a particular group of women as
"powerless" in a particular context. It is rather on finding a variety
of cases of "powerless" groups of women to prove the general point that
women as a group are powerless (81).
Here, Mohanty argues the limitations of defining women as a group
united by shared experiences of oppression.
During our group discussions, the term "women" was employed
frequently without proper analysis, resulting in a homogenized image of
women on both the continent and throughout the diaspora—a not surprising
reality, considering that the same use of women infiltrates our everyday
life and is often used by powerful funding sources worldwide. For
example, the Nike
Foundation funds international projects that conform
to its concept of the "girl effect": the belief that investing in the
girl child is the "unexpected answer" to alleviating the world's poverty.
Although Nike's goal of enabling adolescent girls to become agents
of change is commendable, the danger of such a discourse is it
encourages the application of these same terms ("powerless,"
"exploited," "sexually harassed") to all women, regardless of their life
circumstances. This failure to differentiate directly impacts the
world's view of women, even leading activists to become complicit in
their homogenization.
In one workshop, for instance, participants voiced the opinion that
polygamy represents a violation of women's human rights. One of the
facilitators even urged us to "use our brains" when considering whether
or not polygamy makes sense. Although some people readily agreed with
the assessment of polygamy as a wrongdoing—these people were the most
vocal—no chance was given to find out if anyone among us was raised in a
polygamous household. Consequently, those whose life experiences spoke
directly to the topic were silenced from contributing.
Of course, not every discussion held during the course of the
training institute contributed to the image of the "powerless,"
"exploited," and "sexually harassed" woman. Despite such homogenized
discourse, many instances occurred that subverted this image. Such a
subversion was best demonstrated by a participant who was very open
about her seropositive status (a status that indicates the presence of
antibodies linked with HIV infection). In fact, she stood up one day and
shared her life story, revealing the unfortunate circumstances of how
she contracted the virus. Her story started with a line characteristic
of her dynamic personality: "Some of you are HIV-negative, and I
say some of you because I don't assume your negative HIV status
[because] I haven't tested you!" Back home, this woman serves as a
community organizer, traveling throughout her country and speaking out
against the stigma of HIV. Her goal is to personalize the HIV epidemic
and to demonstrate that one's seropositive status does not define the
value and limits of life. She further surprised participants when she
explained that she has a seronegative partner and child, thus
demonstrating her conviction that the virus does not have to interfere
with her life accomplishments. Her testimony disrupted the monolithic
image of the "powerless" woman, and it forced us to contemplate the
diverse realties of women too often defined as victims.
No doubt, this subverted use of "women" as a monolithic category of
analysis has profound implications on our work as activists. As Mohanty
says, "it is only by understanding the contradictions inherent in
women's location within various structures that effective political
action and challenges can be devised" (85). Activists must continually
investigate the contradictions present in women's lives. This is
especially important when we consider that most of us at the training
institute were educated, upwardly-mobile professionals, and some were
even professional activists. Nevertheless, the institute, as a whole,
fell prey to further homogenization. With this in mind, activists have
an added responsibility of thinking critically about the localized
experiences of those on whose behalf we work.
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
Next page
|