The Dialectics of Praxis (original) (raw)
Related papers
In contemporary Western feminist intellectual production, it has become so commonplace as to border on cliché to, at the least, acknowledge differences among women, if not to place these at the centre of analysis. Indeed, both the very idea of “woman” and any singular really-existing entity of “women” have been subject to rigorous interrogation and at times dismissed altogether (e.g. Riley 1988; Butler 1990). The high-profile spokeswomen of Western second wave feminist theory and practice more often than not based a universalising analysis of women’s gendered oppression on their particular experience as white, heterosexual insiders-to-The-Nation. These analyses have been subject to a range of critiques by women differently socially, historically, and geographically positioned, which in turn have provided some of the impetus for the new celebration of plurality (e.g. Spelman 1988; Mohanty 1988). In this paper I argue that the “differences” we are talking about matter, and are too often represented as an interesting list of equivalent individual attributes wherein combinations thereof produce unique and idiosyncratic women, whose very uniqueness make it methodologically untenable to make generalisations about “women”. A second contextual reading of the ‘difference turn’ places it in a larger intellectual programme of postmodernism and poststructuralism, a programme that is critical of, among others, essentialism generally, singular fixed identity, and the possibility of collective political agency. The following paper will draw on two testimonial texts by Latin American women activists to .... . In a longer version of this paper...? offer a critique of hegemonic poststructural / postmodernist contemporary Western feminist theory, a critique that draws on the experience and analysis of very ‘differently’ located women. I argue that despite Western feminism’s so-called difference turn, in fact what these differences mean and their implications for any kind of feminist praxis is not only largely unexplored but problematically theorised. While my focus will be the ‘differences’ of ‘class’ and ‘nation’, this is not to suggest that other ‘differences’, including race / ethnicity, ability, and sexuality, could not form the starting point for similar critiques. However, as I will demonstrate below ‘class’ and ‘nation’ are both very salient concepts in thinking about the particular writings that will be highlighted here. Moreover, as the predominant model under which feminist praxis is envisioned, and as a particularly important concept to think about when discussing the relationships between feminist theory and women’s activism, ‘solidarity’ will form the focus of my final section. I further argue that the lenses of ‘class’, ‘nation’, and ‘solidarity’ through which I will analyse the writings that will be presented here, are best understood from an anti-racist Marxist , rather than a poststructural, feminist perspective. My aim is not simply to compare the uses of these concepts in poststructural feminist theory and the writings of Latin American women activists; rather, I aim to challenge the peripheralisation of anti-racist Marxist thought within contemporary Western feminist theory by not only demonstrating its salience for this particular analytical project but also for thinking through women’s “differences” and their implications. As Teresa Ebert argues, ‘As long as… [postmodern] feminism…follows the feminist imperative of praxis … [it] is pulled into debates over the actual conditions of the lives of women’ (1995: 116). My motivation for this paper lies in a desire to see changes in feminist pedagogy in order that it not only re-engages with women’s activism, but addresses the challenges posed to its epistemologies by the ‘differences’ that motivate that activism.
Hypatia, 2014
In this article, the authors set forth an articulation of women of color feminisms through a multidimensional conceptual lens comprised of three interconnected components: processes of identity-formation, assertion of intellectual political projects, and creating alternative method- ological practices. The thinking together of these components offers a critique of Western, male-centered, and heteronormative dominant forms of philosophical knowledge that restrict scholarly interventions by women, people of color, and queers. The authors, through their collective, creative, and collaborative writing process, build on Marıa Lugones’s work to argue that early women of color feminist formations offer foundational elements of decolonial forms of feminism (Lugones 2010). Implicit within this article is a recognition and tracing of intergenerational relations of “women of color” feminists and philosophers who have histori- cally critiqued normative, colonial, and modern understandings of knowledge while construct- ing interdisciplinary and alternative spaces for theorizing and sustaining communities of resistance across constructed borders. Central goals of this article are to: 1. emphasize the complexities and contradictions of women of color feminisms; 2. highlight the three compo- nents of women of color feminisms along with their productive tensions; and 3. document the importance of creative collectivity in theorizing, building solidarity, and working toward sustaining struggles of radical transformation.
Building on “the Edge of Each Other’s Battles”: A Feminist of Color Multidimensional Lens
Hypatia, 2014
In this article, the authors set forth an articulation of women of color feminisms through a multidimensional conceptual lens comprised of three interconnected components: processes of identity-formation, assertion of intellectual political projects, and creating alternative methodological practices. The thinking together of these components offers a critique of Western, male-centered, and heteronormative dominant forms of philosophical knowledge that restrict scholarly interventions by women, people of color, and queers. The authors, through their collective, creative, and collaborative writing process, build on Mar ıa Lugones's work to argue that early women of color feminist formations offer foundational elements of decolonial forms of feminism (Lugones 2010). Implicit within this article is a recognition and tracing of intergenerational relations of "women of color" feminists and philosophers who have historically critiqued normative, colonial, and modern understandings of knowledge while constructing interdisciplinary and alternative spaces for theorizing and sustaining communities of resistance across constructed borders. Central goals of this article are to: 1. emphasize the complexities and contradictions of women of color feminisms; 2. highlight the three components of women of color feminisms along with their productive tensions; and 3. document the importance of creative collectivity in theorizing, building solidarity, and working toward sustaining struggles of radical transformation.
Gender & Development, 2020
El presente artículo parte del conocimiento adquirido durante más de dos décadas de formas de trabajo establecidas en Imkaan, una organización feminista negra con sede en Londres, cuyo objetivo es poner fin a la violencia contra las mujeres y las niñas. Al momento de escribir este artículo, ambas autoras eran empleadas de Imkaan. El trabajo y la existencia de Imkaan se sustentan claramente en "las que nos precedieron": en relatos formulados por mujeres, en luchas de activistas y de movimientos de resistencia de las feministas negras en todo el mundo. Nuestros argumentos y nuestro entendimiento en ese sentido surgen de discusiones y experiencias de feministas que trabajan para Imkaan y, más ampliamente, de movimientos feministas del Reino Unido y otros países y regiones. Apoyándonos en ello, extraemos lecciones que constituyen aportes valiosos para las discusiones actuales relacionadas con reimaginar el desarrollo. Criticamos la noción de "desarrollo" en sí, preguntándonos quién y qué se está "desarrollando" y por quién. Argumentamos que una comprensión transversal del desarrollo se basa en "decir la verdad". Esto implica involucrarse con la incomodidad, ser honestas respecto de nuestras historias, comprender nuestra posición y el poder que esta conlleva y pensar por qué hacemos el trabajo que hacemos.
In Dialogue: Postcolonial Theory and Intersectionality
Momentum Quarterly, 2015
Postcolonial theory and intersectionality are the most prominent approaches in current critical social sciences. Surprisingly, both approaches have hardly talked to each other. Influenced by the German academic debate on these, I illustrate the (disconnecting g relations of both approaches and initiate a dialogue. In a first step, I focus on the work of Chandra T. Mohanty and of Kimberlé Crenshaw. While Mohanty bases her criticism on a discourse analysis of writings about 'Third-World-Women' and develops a postcolonial feminist approach, Crenshaw analyzes the intersection of gender and 'race' and criticizes the blindness of the interconnection in court decisions in the US. I demonstrate the differences and resemblances of both approaches and argue in particular that both approaches follow a constructivist methodology which creates four nodal points for the fruitful dialogue. I illustrate this by analyzing the works of Sojourner Truth and Clara Zetkin. Both feminists focus on different categories in the triangle of 'race', class and gender. Through a close reading of crucial selected works, I show that Truth perceives gender and 'race' as equivalent forms of subordination. Zetkin, however, emphasizes the hierarchical subordination by the specific class position of women. I conclude that a closer dialogue between both theoretical perspectives can help to sharpen the view on multiple discrimination and injustice in times of neoliberal capitalist hegemony.
Theorizing Transnational Feminist Praxis
2010
Richa Nagar and Amanda Lock Swarr that is premised on a denial and dismissal of the collaborative basis of all intellectual work produced within the institution. This general tendency in the U.S. academy is made more pronounced by a celebrity culture where an internalized need to present oneself as an individual academic star often translates into a drive to abstract and generalize, frequently in opposition to those who are seen as immersed in "grounded struggles." The assumptions and fallacies of a model based on the notion of an individual knowledge producer in academia (feminist studies included) are useful starting points for an interrogation of three sets of dichotomies critical to rethinking the meanings and possibilities of feminist praxis: individually/collaboratively produced knowledges, academia/activism, and theory/method. Such interrogation can also serve as a meaningful entry point from which to consider the relationships between local and global as well as to revisit the politics of authenticity, translation, and mediation with an explicit aim of extending ongoing conversations about the meanings and possibilities of transnational feminist engagements. This volume is an initial step in what we see as our long-term collaborative journey with one another and with collaborators in other academic and nonacademic locations (e.g., Swarr and Nagar 2004; Nagar and Swarr 2004; Bullington and Swarr 2007; Sangtin Writers [and Nagar] 2006) to refl ect on the meanings and implications of these three dichotomies in relation to transnational feminist praxis. We note two phenomena that have been in mutual tension. On the one hand, growing interests in questions of globalization, neo-liberalism, and social justice have fuelled the emergence and growth of transnational feminisms in interdisciplinary feminist studies. On the other hand, ongoing debates since the 980s over questions of voice, authority, representation, and identity have often produced a gap between the efforts of feminists engaged in theorizing the complexities of knowledge production across borders and those concerned with imagining concrete ways to enact solidarities across nations, institutions, sociopolitical identifi cations, and economic categories and materialities. We reconceptualize collaboration as an intellectual and political tool to bridge this gap, with possibilities that exceed its potential as a methodological intervention. We suggest that interweaving theories and practices of knowledge production through collaborative dialogues provides a way to radically rethink existing approaches to subalternity, voice, authorship, and representation. Although such concepts as transnational feminist studies are sometimes invoked as if a subfi eld with shared meanings and assumptions exists, we suggest that the two phenomena noted here have constituted transnational feminisms as a diverse and diffuse fi eld where hierarchies and the consciousness of one's womanhood coincides with the realization that it has already been appropriated in one form or another by outsiders, women as well as men, experts in things Middle Eastern. In this sense, the feminist project is warped and rarely brings with it the potential for personal liberation that it does in this country [U.S.] or in Europe.