school stuff
I finished my big Activism and Social Change essay. It's 10 pages. It only had to be 5-7. I just got really involved. Writing it was fun. I think it's pretty good. I'm totally dorking out and enjoying writing essays in a way that I never really thought I would.
I also figured out which topics I'm writing about for my Contemporary Gender Theory final and wrote the first paragraph for the first topic I'm covering. I succinctly defined the binary gender system. Next I'm supposed to succinctly critique it. How am I supposed to critique that succinctly? It sucks? That probably won't fly.
Here's my definition of the binary gender system:
The binary gender system is a social construct that demands that every person fall within one of two distinct and opposite categories: male masculine men, or female feminine women. Which category a person adheres to is not to be self-determined, rather it is assigned at birth on the basis of genitalia. The binary gender system not only demands that all people conform to these two narrow identities, but also posits the gender binary as a natural biological occurrence that cannot and should not be questioned, evaded, or rebelled against. These two genders are defined as the only valid and real genders, and anything that falls outside of them is considered an aberration. The system infuses almost everything with a gendered value, from bodies to colors, clothes to emotions.
I have so much work left to do. It's pretty crazy. I have to write another 2-4 page essay for Activism and Social Change, four 2 page essay responses for Contemporary Gender Theory, and whatever my independent study supervisor thinks I need to do, which will likely be a 6-8 page essay (which I already know my thesis for, and it's brilliant and original, half the battle) in addition to editing my 39 pages of other writing on the topic. Write write write write write. Good think I like writing.
Yalith Fonfa
12/04
Compare and Contrast Essay
The three readings I have selected are “Revolutionary Feminism: an Anti-Racist Agenda” by bell hooks, “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses” by Chandra Tapalde Mohanty, and “Theorizing and Fighting Gender-Based Oppressions” from “Ideas for Action: Relevant Theory for Radical Change” by Cynthia Kaufman. These three texts explore feminist theory. Kaufman shows a broad range of feminist perspectives, as well as discussing the formation of gender roles in the U.S. and different ways that activists have organized to fight gender-based oppressions. Mohanty offers an in-depth critique of imperialist Western feminist texts on third world women. Hooks critiques feminists who are interested in maintaining privilege for those who already have it, and advocates an alternative model of anti-racist revolutionary feminist theory. I will focus on the ways that each author addresses issues of racism in the context of feminist theory and organizing, comparing and contrasting each author with the others.
The first reading I will examine is “Revolutionary Feminism: an Anti-Racist Agenda” by bell hooks. In this essay hooks distinguishes between revolutionary feminism and the type of mainstream liberal feminism espoused by popular culture, called white power-feminism by some. On the surface, both kinds of feminism are interested in securing equality for women. However, white power-feminism has as its goal the social and economic equality of middle and upper class white women with middle and upper class white men. In contrast, revolutionary feminism concerns itself with a holistic analysis of oppression, with equal emphasis on anti-racist and anti-capitalist struggles, in order to end sexism for everyone and encourage revolutionary interdependency.
Once she establishes the difference between the two types of feminisms, hooks goes on to call for black women to embrace revolutionary feminism. She argues that some black men discouraging feminism on the grounds that feminism is inherently in opposition to black liberation, and the insistence of some mainstream white feminists that race issues are irrelevant to feminism, are really based on both groups attempting to hold onto the relative privilege they have within the current system, and therefore black women must educate black communities about feminism, and challenge white-power feminism with an anti-racist revolutionary feminist agenda. The work of building a revolutionary anti-racist feminist movement must be done through solidarity and coalition between women and men of all races, through critical engagement and mutual commitment to ending white male supremacy.
“Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses” by Chandra Talpade Mohanty focuses on Western feminist texts on women in the third world. Mohanty critiques the hegemonic view of women in the third world as being a group of powerless victims and the subsequent assumption that “women” are a homogenous group that exists across race, class, and culture boundaries and exist outside of and before a discourse concerning them. This process of erasing the complexities of and the distinctions between the lives of women of different races, classes, and cultural statuses in different third world countries is a way that Western feminists colonize the third world women that they are often trying to help. This analysis of women as an ahistorical and apolitical category is dangerous because when a privileged and ethnocentric Western feminist writes about third world women, she is self-referencing herself as “woman”, and then expects all women to organize around the issues that are relevant for Western feminists. The self-determined needs of third world women are ignored, and this reinforces their oppression. Power is exerted in feminist discourse through the positioning of the Western feminist as the implied referent, casting the people she is writing about as the other.
Mohanty disputes the idea of a monolithic universally applicable model of gender and patriarchy. She shows that this analytical model employed by many Western feminists in writing about third world women is often working with the image of an “average third world woman” who is different than the self-representation of the author, and by extension all Western women. The Western feminist sets out to prove the universality of patriarchy and the validity of “women” as an analytic category by showing how women in the third world are ignorant powerless victims. They are implicitly set in contrast to the author and all Western women who imagine themselves as comparatively educated, modern, and in control of their own lives. Mohanty outlines eight categories within which Western feminists attempt to universalize the experience of women and paint third world women solely as dependent, victimized, poor, ignorant, exploited, and oppressed, regardless of socio-cultural location. This perpetuates their oppression by creating them as a singular entity within Western feminist imagination and then projecting the needs and struggles of Western feminists onto all women.
The last reading I will engage with is “Theorizing and Fighting Gender-Based Oppressions” by Cynthia Kaufman, which addresses some gender based oppressions, specifically sexism and homophobia. Kaufman begins by exploring the history of feminist struggle, charting the demands, critiques, and advances of the feminist movement from the early 1800’s to the present, also acknowledging backlash, challenges to obliterating sexism, and the work left to be done. In the section called “Nature and nurture, sex and gender” she addresses the argument that gender systems including the oppression of women and compulsory heterosexuality are natural and therefore cannot and should not be changed. In response, she presents a feminist challenge to this argument that gender is socially constructed and oppression is not biologically mandated. In the next section, “Gender formation in the United States”, Kaufman shows how male domination and rigid gender roles have developed through history under the influence of capitalism, racism, and imperialism, to become ubiquitous and to apply differently to people of different races and classes, in ways that uphold the power structure of society, privileging upper class white men.
In the next five sections, she elucidates on the development of different feminist theories. Each school of feminist thought addresses the problem of sexism from a different viewpoint and set of priorities. Liberal feminists works to gain equality for women by giving them access to the public sphere and the same economic, social, and political advantages afforded to men, including the right to vote, the right to engage in equally compensated wage labor, and the right to make decisions about their own body. Radical feminists argue that it is necessary to overthrow the patriarchy in order to obliterate oppression. Some radical feminists are essentialists, believing that men are biologically programmed for aggression and competition, while women are more nurturing and cooperative, and therefore women must be in power. Socialist feminists question the institutions of work and home, and their role in the oppression of women. They are interested in a radical restructuring of society, but they believe that masculinity and femininity are socially determined, so once the structures that support these roles are dismantled, sexism can be overcome. Children’s rights advocates address the needs of children, and this movement is partially in response to the charge that liberal feminism encourages neglect and abandonment of children. An emphasis on children’s rights is not necessarily a feminist standpoint, but it does intersect with other types of feminist movements. Multisystems feminism analyzes the sexist structures of society from a political and historical standpoint with an emphasis on the experiences of women of color, who have often been absent from the analysis provided by white liberal, radical, and socialist feminists.
The next section shows how sexuality can be used as a point of analysis of sexism, looking specifically at queer politics as an indicator of sex and gender norms. Finally, Kaufman ties together all the feminist theories, showing how they intertwine and how movements based out of each theory have been effective in different ways at different times, especially through work done in the personal and cultural spheres.
Kaufman and hooks have similar views on the power system currently in place in this culture, and how it privileges upper class white men. They both analyze the role that racism plays in perpetuating sexism. Hooks explores the intersectionality of the oppression faced by women of color. She states,
There will be no feminist revolution without an end to racism
and white supremacy. When all women and men engaged in
feminist struggle understand the interlocking nature of systems
of domination, of white supremacist capitalist patriarchy,
feminist movement will regain its revolutionary progressive
momentum. (hooks, 107)
Quite similarly, Kaufman explains, “Multisystems theory argues that it is impossible to understand sexism as a system on its own, without understanding how it is interrelated with racism, classism, and homophobia.” (Kaufman, 175) They also produce parallel definitions of different types of feminism. What hooks calls revolutionary feminism is referred to as multisystems feminism by Kaufman. They are both feminist analyses that take into account all aspects of oppression, especially race and class, in the rethinking of feminist struggle.
Kaufman and Mohanty both write about concerns of women of color, with Kaufman focusing on women of color in the U.S. while Mohanty’s essay is focused on women in the third world. Kaufman does provide one example of Western feminists with a poor understanding of the issues of third world women unintentionally worsening their situation.
The claim that a society needs to be destroyed in order to help women
is a surprisingly persistent idea. In recent times, feminism has been
mobilized to support assaults on non-western societies . . . While
anti-sexist rhetoric is often used to support such crusades it is
fundamentally sexist to say that ‘our’ men need to be brought in to
save ‘their’ women.” (Kaufman, 162)
This is similar to Mohanty’s overall critique of Western feminists’ projection of their needs and problems onto third world women, and subsequent actions they take that may be detrimental to the women they are supposed to be trying to help.
Mohanty and hooks both show that what hooks calls white power-feminism and what Mohanty calls Western feminism are both used to further the goals of those already coming from a place of privilege. While hooks examines the way that mainstream white U.S. feminists evade the issue of race in the interest of maintaining what privilege they can within the current system of white supremacy, Mohanty delineates the ways in which Western feminists maintain themselves as the self-referential norm, through the casting of the third world woman as a victimized other. Both authors call for the self-representation of women of color. Hooks says, “Revolutionary feminist thinkers must consistently challenge white power-feminism so that our radical agendas are not completely erased by those white women who continue to support racism and white supremacy.” (hooks, 102) In the same vein, Mohanty states, “It is time to move beyond the Marx who found it possible to say: They cannot represent themselves; they must be represented.” (Mohanty, 192)
In contrast to Mohanty’s call for self-representation, hooks asks white women to speak for women of color if necessary; “While white women can and must assume a major voice speaking to and about anti-racist struggle to other white women, it is equally important that they learn to speak with and, if need be, make it necessary to speak for women of color in ways that do not reinscribe and perpetuate white supremacy.” (hooks, 105) While in one sentence hooks expresses a challenge to white women who support racism, in another, she asks anti-racist white women to speak up. This is not contradictory, because she is asking “revolutionary feminist thinkers”, not just women of color, to challenge white women who support racism. She is asking different things of different people in the pursuance of the same goal.
Kaufman and hooks have analogous definitions of the types of feminist theories that they both describe. However, hooks places clear value judgments on these theories, strongly favoring revolutionary feminism over white power-feminism. Kaufman simply describes five different feminist theories, with an air of objectivity. Kaufman implies that multisystems feminism is best by offering it as a critique of the theories that have come before it. She provides a critique of liberal feminism, radical feminism, and socialist feminism from the point of view of multisystems feminism, but does not critique multisystems feminism. In so doing, she makes clear what her point of view is without disclosing it outright. There is also a stylistic difference in the way the two authors motivate the reader towards activism. Kaufman explains how different theories have been applied and how they can make an impact. In contrast, hooks makes specific requests of the reader to embrace revolutionary feminism and challenge racism and sexism in their communities.
Kaufman focuses on gendered experiences and feminist theories in the U.S., while Mohanty focuses on the impact of Western feminists on women in the third world. While discussing different groups of people, they have a similar interpretation of the creation of an other. Mohanty frames this difference in terms of Western feminists who may be of any race creating the “average third world woman” (Mohanty, 176) as other by representing her as “ignorant, poor, uneducated, tradition-bound, domestic, family-oriented, victimized, etc.” (Mohanty, 176) in contrast to the discursive self-representation of Western women as “educated, as modern, as having control over their own bodies and sexualities, and the freedom to make their own decisions.” She attributes the creation of this split to this idea:
In other words, it is only in so far as ‘Woman/Women’ and ‘the East’
are defined as Others, or as peripheral, that (Western)
Man/Humanism can represent him/itself as the center. It is not the
center that determines the periphery, but the periphery that, in its
boundedness, determines the center. (Mohanty, 191)
Similarly, Kaufman explains this creation of other in terms of white Americans projection onto African Americans as “highly sexual, physical, and expressive” in contrast to their preferred image of themselves as “pure and rational”. In contrast, Kaufman posits that this othering is a result of white people’s insecurity about their own repressed human characteristics, which she does not specifically interpret as being an attempt at locating themselves as the center.
The three authors whose writings I have compared and contrasted all share an anti-racist perspective from which they approach their explanations and critiques of different feminist theories and texts. They all include an analysis of the ways that race, class, and gender oppressions intersect and can be resisted in ways that do not leave anyone behind. I noticed that the texts by hooks and Mohanty focus first on problematizing the ways white women have addressed or not addressed race in the context of feminist theory, and then offer an alternative mode of feminist anti-racist thought; a model of feminism available to and useful for women of color as well as white women who recognize the need for a truly liberatory feminism.
In contrast, Kaufman doesn’t even mention the differences in sexism and gender role expectations experienced by people of color until eight pages into the chapter. In the brief history of feminist advances she provides on page 152, she gives examples of gains made largely by liberal and radical feminists, groups which she later shows have largely ignored the needs and voices of women of color. By leaving out the accomplishments made by feminist people of color, she inadvertently upholds the convention that feminism is a white phenomenon, both historically and potentially. In the list of current feminist struggles, she mentions, “they have fought for access to birth control and abortion and against forced sterilization.” (Kaufman, 152) While the struggle against forced sterilization is one that primarily effects women of color, by including it in the same breath as the fight for access to birth control and abortion, she implies that it was part of the same struggle, when in reality, white feminists have focused almost exclusively on access to birth control and abortion, while struggles against forced sterilization have been largely composed of women of color. By doing this, she glosses over the fact that most white feminists who have concerned themselves with reproductive rights have done so without a sufficient anti-racist analysis, leaving women of color to fend for themselves.
I found “Revolutionary Feminism” quite inspiring. In the past five years I have committed myself to gaining an understanding of racism in order to combat it. In my process of developing a feminist anti-racist consciousness, I have relied on the idea of revolutionary interdependency. I am grateful to hooks for defining this necessary vision and laying out an analysis of how feminism and anti-racism must go hand in hand in order to truly liberate everyone from the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. Hooks says,
It is a utopian dream to imagine that white women will divest of
white supremacist thinking in isolation without critical engagement
with non-white peers. It is concrete interaction between groups
that is the proving ground, where our commitments to anti-racist
behavior are tested and realized. (hooks, 104-105)
I agree with this idea of how white people can divest of white supremacist thinking in order to challenge racism everywhere that it manifests. I also agree with the analysis Mohanty gives of Western feminist writing on third world women. Writing about third world women can be done respectfully and in a way that does not imply that they are inferior by letting them speak for themselves as much as possible, recognizing their agency, choices, and self-identified needs, and paying attention to culturally specific circumstances in the formation of customs and gender roles.
Bibliography/ Works Cited
hooks, bell. killing rage: Ending Racism. “Revolutionary Feminism: An Anti-Racist Agenda”. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1995, pp. 98-107
Kaufman, Cynthia. Ideas For Action: Relevant Theory for Radical Change. “Fighting Gender-Based Oppressions”. Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2003, pp. 151-183
Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses. 1994.
I also figured out which topics I'm writing about for my Contemporary Gender Theory final and wrote the first paragraph for the first topic I'm covering. I succinctly defined the binary gender system. Next I'm supposed to succinctly critique it. How am I supposed to critique that succinctly? It sucks? That probably won't fly.
Here's my definition of the binary gender system:
The binary gender system is a social construct that demands that every person fall within one of two distinct and opposite categories: male masculine men, or female feminine women. Which category a person adheres to is not to be self-determined, rather it is assigned at birth on the basis of genitalia. The binary gender system not only demands that all people conform to these two narrow identities, but also posits the gender binary as a natural biological occurrence that cannot and should not be questioned, evaded, or rebelled against. These two genders are defined as the only valid and real genders, and anything that falls outside of them is considered an aberration. The system infuses almost everything with a gendered value, from bodies to colors, clothes to emotions.
I have so much work left to do. It's pretty crazy. I have to write another 2-4 page essay for Activism and Social Change, four 2 page essay responses for Contemporary Gender Theory, and whatever my independent study supervisor thinks I need to do, which will likely be a 6-8 page essay (which I already know my thesis for, and it's brilliant and original, half the battle) in addition to editing my 39 pages of other writing on the topic. Write write write write write. Good think I like writing.
Yalith Fonfa
12/04
Compare and Contrast Essay
The three readings I have selected are “Revolutionary Feminism: an Anti-Racist Agenda” by bell hooks, “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses” by Chandra Tapalde Mohanty, and “Theorizing and Fighting Gender-Based Oppressions” from “Ideas for Action: Relevant Theory for Radical Change” by Cynthia Kaufman. These three texts explore feminist theory. Kaufman shows a broad range of feminist perspectives, as well as discussing the formation of gender roles in the U.S. and different ways that activists have organized to fight gender-based oppressions. Mohanty offers an in-depth critique of imperialist Western feminist texts on third world women. Hooks critiques feminists who are interested in maintaining privilege for those who already have it, and advocates an alternative model of anti-racist revolutionary feminist theory. I will focus on the ways that each author addresses issues of racism in the context of feminist theory and organizing, comparing and contrasting each author with the others.
The first reading I will examine is “Revolutionary Feminism: an Anti-Racist Agenda” by bell hooks. In this essay hooks distinguishes between revolutionary feminism and the type of mainstream liberal feminism espoused by popular culture, called white power-feminism by some. On the surface, both kinds of feminism are interested in securing equality for women. However, white power-feminism has as its goal the social and economic equality of middle and upper class white women with middle and upper class white men. In contrast, revolutionary feminism concerns itself with a holistic analysis of oppression, with equal emphasis on anti-racist and anti-capitalist struggles, in order to end sexism for everyone and encourage revolutionary interdependency.
Once she establishes the difference between the two types of feminisms, hooks goes on to call for black women to embrace revolutionary feminism. She argues that some black men discouraging feminism on the grounds that feminism is inherently in opposition to black liberation, and the insistence of some mainstream white feminists that race issues are irrelevant to feminism, are really based on both groups attempting to hold onto the relative privilege they have within the current system, and therefore black women must educate black communities about feminism, and challenge white-power feminism with an anti-racist revolutionary feminist agenda. The work of building a revolutionary anti-racist feminist movement must be done through solidarity and coalition between women and men of all races, through critical engagement and mutual commitment to ending white male supremacy.
“Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses” by Chandra Talpade Mohanty focuses on Western feminist texts on women in the third world. Mohanty critiques the hegemonic view of women in the third world as being a group of powerless victims and the subsequent assumption that “women” are a homogenous group that exists across race, class, and culture boundaries and exist outside of and before a discourse concerning them. This process of erasing the complexities of and the distinctions between the lives of women of different races, classes, and cultural statuses in different third world countries is a way that Western feminists colonize the third world women that they are often trying to help. This analysis of women as an ahistorical and apolitical category is dangerous because when a privileged and ethnocentric Western feminist writes about third world women, she is self-referencing herself as “woman”, and then expects all women to organize around the issues that are relevant for Western feminists. The self-determined needs of third world women are ignored, and this reinforces their oppression. Power is exerted in feminist discourse through the positioning of the Western feminist as the implied referent, casting the people she is writing about as the other.
Mohanty disputes the idea of a monolithic universally applicable model of gender and patriarchy. She shows that this analytical model employed by many Western feminists in writing about third world women is often working with the image of an “average third world woman” who is different than the self-representation of the author, and by extension all Western women. The Western feminist sets out to prove the universality of patriarchy and the validity of “women” as an analytic category by showing how women in the third world are ignorant powerless victims. They are implicitly set in contrast to the author and all Western women who imagine themselves as comparatively educated, modern, and in control of their own lives. Mohanty outlines eight categories within which Western feminists attempt to universalize the experience of women and paint third world women solely as dependent, victimized, poor, ignorant, exploited, and oppressed, regardless of socio-cultural location. This perpetuates their oppression by creating them as a singular entity within Western feminist imagination and then projecting the needs and struggles of Western feminists onto all women.
The last reading I will engage with is “Theorizing and Fighting Gender-Based Oppressions” by Cynthia Kaufman, which addresses some gender based oppressions, specifically sexism and homophobia. Kaufman begins by exploring the history of feminist struggle, charting the demands, critiques, and advances of the feminist movement from the early 1800’s to the present, also acknowledging backlash, challenges to obliterating sexism, and the work left to be done. In the section called “Nature and nurture, sex and gender” she addresses the argument that gender systems including the oppression of women and compulsory heterosexuality are natural and therefore cannot and should not be changed. In response, she presents a feminist challenge to this argument that gender is socially constructed and oppression is not biologically mandated. In the next section, “Gender formation in the United States”, Kaufman shows how male domination and rigid gender roles have developed through history under the influence of capitalism, racism, and imperialism, to become ubiquitous and to apply differently to people of different races and classes, in ways that uphold the power structure of society, privileging upper class white men.
In the next five sections, she elucidates on the development of different feminist theories. Each school of feminist thought addresses the problem of sexism from a different viewpoint and set of priorities. Liberal feminists works to gain equality for women by giving them access to the public sphere and the same economic, social, and political advantages afforded to men, including the right to vote, the right to engage in equally compensated wage labor, and the right to make decisions about their own body. Radical feminists argue that it is necessary to overthrow the patriarchy in order to obliterate oppression. Some radical feminists are essentialists, believing that men are biologically programmed for aggression and competition, while women are more nurturing and cooperative, and therefore women must be in power. Socialist feminists question the institutions of work and home, and their role in the oppression of women. They are interested in a radical restructuring of society, but they believe that masculinity and femininity are socially determined, so once the structures that support these roles are dismantled, sexism can be overcome. Children’s rights advocates address the needs of children, and this movement is partially in response to the charge that liberal feminism encourages neglect and abandonment of children. An emphasis on children’s rights is not necessarily a feminist standpoint, but it does intersect with other types of feminist movements. Multisystems feminism analyzes the sexist structures of society from a political and historical standpoint with an emphasis on the experiences of women of color, who have often been absent from the analysis provided by white liberal, radical, and socialist feminists.
The next section shows how sexuality can be used as a point of analysis of sexism, looking specifically at queer politics as an indicator of sex and gender norms. Finally, Kaufman ties together all the feminist theories, showing how they intertwine and how movements based out of each theory have been effective in different ways at different times, especially through work done in the personal and cultural spheres.
Kaufman and hooks have similar views on the power system currently in place in this culture, and how it privileges upper class white men. They both analyze the role that racism plays in perpetuating sexism. Hooks explores the intersectionality of the oppression faced by women of color. She states,
There will be no feminist revolution without an end to racism
and white supremacy. When all women and men engaged in
feminist struggle understand the interlocking nature of systems
of domination, of white supremacist capitalist patriarchy,
feminist movement will regain its revolutionary progressive
momentum. (hooks, 107)
Quite similarly, Kaufman explains, “Multisystems theory argues that it is impossible to understand sexism as a system on its own, without understanding how it is interrelated with racism, classism, and homophobia.” (Kaufman, 175) They also produce parallel definitions of different types of feminism. What hooks calls revolutionary feminism is referred to as multisystems feminism by Kaufman. They are both feminist analyses that take into account all aspects of oppression, especially race and class, in the rethinking of feminist struggle.
Kaufman and Mohanty both write about concerns of women of color, with Kaufman focusing on women of color in the U.S. while Mohanty’s essay is focused on women in the third world. Kaufman does provide one example of Western feminists with a poor understanding of the issues of third world women unintentionally worsening their situation.
The claim that a society needs to be destroyed in order to help women
is a surprisingly persistent idea. In recent times, feminism has been
mobilized to support assaults on non-western societies . . . While
anti-sexist rhetoric is often used to support such crusades it is
fundamentally sexist to say that ‘our’ men need to be brought in to
save ‘their’ women.” (Kaufman, 162)
This is similar to Mohanty’s overall critique of Western feminists’ projection of their needs and problems onto third world women, and subsequent actions they take that may be detrimental to the women they are supposed to be trying to help.
Mohanty and hooks both show that what hooks calls white power-feminism and what Mohanty calls Western feminism are both used to further the goals of those already coming from a place of privilege. While hooks examines the way that mainstream white U.S. feminists evade the issue of race in the interest of maintaining what privilege they can within the current system of white supremacy, Mohanty delineates the ways in which Western feminists maintain themselves as the self-referential norm, through the casting of the third world woman as a victimized other. Both authors call for the self-representation of women of color. Hooks says, “Revolutionary feminist thinkers must consistently challenge white power-feminism so that our radical agendas are not completely erased by those white women who continue to support racism and white supremacy.” (hooks, 102) In the same vein, Mohanty states, “It is time to move beyond the Marx who found it possible to say: They cannot represent themselves; they must be represented.” (Mohanty, 192)
In contrast to Mohanty’s call for self-representation, hooks asks white women to speak for women of color if necessary; “While white women can and must assume a major voice speaking to and about anti-racist struggle to other white women, it is equally important that they learn to speak with and, if need be, make it necessary to speak for women of color in ways that do not reinscribe and perpetuate white supremacy.” (hooks, 105) While in one sentence hooks expresses a challenge to white women who support racism, in another, she asks anti-racist white women to speak up. This is not contradictory, because she is asking “revolutionary feminist thinkers”, not just women of color, to challenge white women who support racism. She is asking different things of different people in the pursuance of the same goal.
Kaufman and hooks have analogous definitions of the types of feminist theories that they both describe. However, hooks places clear value judgments on these theories, strongly favoring revolutionary feminism over white power-feminism. Kaufman simply describes five different feminist theories, with an air of objectivity. Kaufman implies that multisystems feminism is best by offering it as a critique of the theories that have come before it. She provides a critique of liberal feminism, radical feminism, and socialist feminism from the point of view of multisystems feminism, but does not critique multisystems feminism. In so doing, she makes clear what her point of view is without disclosing it outright. There is also a stylistic difference in the way the two authors motivate the reader towards activism. Kaufman explains how different theories have been applied and how they can make an impact. In contrast, hooks makes specific requests of the reader to embrace revolutionary feminism and challenge racism and sexism in their communities.
Kaufman focuses on gendered experiences and feminist theories in the U.S., while Mohanty focuses on the impact of Western feminists on women in the third world. While discussing different groups of people, they have a similar interpretation of the creation of an other. Mohanty frames this difference in terms of Western feminists who may be of any race creating the “average third world woman” (Mohanty, 176) as other by representing her as “ignorant, poor, uneducated, tradition-bound, domestic, family-oriented, victimized, etc.” (Mohanty, 176) in contrast to the discursive self-representation of Western women as “educated, as modern, as having control over their own bodies and sexualities, and the freedom to make their own decisions.” She attributes the creation of this split to this idea:
In other words, it is only in so far as ‘Woman/Women’ and ‘the East’
are defined as Others, or as peripheral, that (Western)
Man/Humanism can represent him/itself as the center. It is not the
center that determines the periphery, but the periphery that, in its
boundedness, determines the center. (Mohanty, 191)
Similarly, Kaufman explains this creation of other in terms of white Americans projection onto African Americans as “highly sexual, physical, and expressive” in contrast to their preferred image of themselves as “pure and rational”. In contrast, Kaufman posits that this othering is a result of white people’s insecurity about their own repressed human characteristics, which she does not specifically interpret as being an attempt at locating themselves as the center.
The three authors whose writings I have compared and contrasted all share an anti-racist perspective from which they approach their explanations and critiques of different feminist theories and texts. They all include an analysis of the ways that race, class, and gender oppressions intersect and can be resisted in ways that do not leave anyone behind. I noticed that the texts by hooks and Mohanty focus first on problematizing the ways white women have addressed or not addressed race in the context of feminist theory, and then offer an alternative mode of feminist anti-racist thought; a model of feminism available to and useful for women of color as well as white women who recognize the need for a truly liberatory feminism.
In contrast, Kaufman doesn’t even mention the differences in sexism and gender role expectations experienced by people of color until eight pages into the chapter. In the brief history of feminist advances she provides on page 152, she gives examples of gains made largely by liberal and radical feminists, groups which she later shows have largely ignored the needs and voices of women of color. By leaving out the accomplishments made by feminist people of color, she inadvertently upholds the convention that feminism is a white phenomenon, both historically and potentially. In the list of current feminist struggles, she mentions, “they have fought for access to birth control and abortion and against forced sterilization.” (Kaufman, 152) While the struggle against forced sterilization is one that primarily effects women of color, by including it in the same breath as the fight for access to birth control and abortion, she implies that it was part of the same struggle, when in reality, white feminists have focused almost exclusively on access to birth control and abortion, while struggles against forced sterilization have been largely composed of women of color. By doing this, she glosses over the fact that most white feminists who have concerned themselves with reproductive rights have done so without a sufficient anti-racist analysis, leaving women of color to fend for themselves.
I found “Revolutionary Feminism” quite inspiring. In the past five years I have committed myself to gaining an understanding of racism in order to combat it. In my process of developing a feminist anti-racist consciousness, I have relied on the idea of revolutionary interdependency. I am grateful to hooks for defining this necessary vision and laying out an analysis of how feminism and anti-racism must go hand in hand in order to truly liberate everyone from the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. Hooks says,
It is a utopian dream to imagine that white women will divest of
white supremacist thinking in isolation without critical engagement
with non-white peers. It is concrete interaction between groups
that is the proving ground, where our commitments to anti-racist
behavior are tested and realized. (hooks, 104-105)
I agree with this idea of how white people can divest of white supremacist thinking in order to challenge racism everywhere that it manifests. I also agree with the analysis Mohanty gives of Western feminist writing on third world women. Writing about third world women can be done respectfully and in a way that does not imply that they are inferior by letting them speak for themselves as much as possible, recognizing their agency, choices, and self-identified needs, and paying attention to culturally specific circumstances in the formation of customs and gender roles.
Bibliography/ Works Cited
hooks, bell. killing rage: Ending Racism. “Revolutionary Feminism: An Anti-Racist Agenda”. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1995, pp. 98-107
Kaufman, Cynthia. Ideas For Action: Relevant Theory for Radical Change. “Fighting Gender-Based Oppressions”. Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2003, pp. 151-183
Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses. 1994.