“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.
