![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The musings of a feminist outsider...
Mar. 8th, 2011 06:00 pmIn honour of Women's Day, here is my final short essay for the 3rd year Feminist Political Theory course I took last term. We were given four possible topics and had to pick one. While there were easier ones to tackle than the one I chose, I thought this was an important one for me to answer because it in some ways deals with the fact that I am male and am coming to the feminist project as an honourary "outsider". Regardless of my thinking on and participation in the subject, I have not lived the life and therefore cannot speak to it from the inside (nor would I try to). Therefore, the question of how to have a meaningful dialogue as an outsider (in the case of the essay question, as an outsider to a culture), is a very important one for me to come to grips with. The actual question was:
Towards A Feminist Framework Of Interpretation:
The Quandary Of Analysis In A Multicultural Context
In her essay, “Multicultural Education and Feminist Ethics”, Marilyn Freeman writes “There is a kind of emancipationist imperialism involved in freeing someone from conditions which she herself does not regard as seriously oppressive and would not, on her own, challenge” (Friedman 1995). As history has shown, for example in the deeply controversial matter of cliterectomies, no matter how unambiguous the situation may seem from an external perspective – for example, that of a white, middle-class, heterosexual US woman (Friedman 1995) – the situation is considerably more complex and profoundly personal and ambiguous for those living the supposed issue. If feminist writers wish to avoid imposing their particular flavour of oppression on those they are purportedly trying to liberate, it is imperative that they take this into account in their writings – otherwise they are just trading one tyranny for another that may have unexpected and insidious, if less overt, consequences of its own. The problem occurs that in attempting to avoid any possible generalizations or universalizations, a writer of even the slightest conscience would be irrevocably paralysed for fear of transgressing their desire to “do no harm”. When it is acknowledged that no two individuals have ever shared the same epistemology, it becomes obvious that the solution is more subtle, requiring effort on the part of both the writer and the reader to understand the context of any such dialogue. While there is no “how” to this – to attempt to find a universalization for avoiding universalizations is an fool’s quest – there are disclosure guidelines that can be instituted by those who are concerned about the interpretation of their ideas in a diverse multicultural environment, and a discipline required by those analyzing the works of others to ensure that the writer’s intellectual and ideological location is well understood. Sadly, mainstream feminist scholars and activist writers have not done a stellar job of making their standpoints clear – often deliberately as part of an effort to promote a particular strategic or tactical agenda – so, ironically, it may be the wisest course to turn to feminist critics of feminist ideology to find a viable framework to apply to the problem. One such promising framework with applicability to this challenge is the emerging interdisciplinary field of “feminist disability studies”.
( The rest of the essay is here... )
What is problematic for those with a Western attitude is there is no answer to this Gordian Knot of a problem. By its nature, there is no way for it to be a destination, but rather it is a process in a journey that will never end. This sort of open-ended dilemma tends to be profoundly disturbing or even disheartening to members our Western culture that teaches that any problem can be solved if sufficient resources are thrown at it, and that the challenge is simply to get those resources to throw. But this is a drama that isn’t going to be resolved at the end of the one-hour episode as we have been pop-culture imbued to believe. To apply the tools offered by the emerging field of feminist disability studies requires an unprecedented level of diligence and effort on the part of both those speaking and those listening. While there is much to recommend it, this path does not come without risk. Of particular concern is the danger of placing such excessive burden on any attempt at communication, that it will render it impossible for all but the most elite and accomplished of feminist scholars to have a conversation that meets the standards of avoiding any form of imperialism or false universalization. It is also the case that a profoundly post-modernist ideological construct is not going to find traction with a general public where an understanding of the issues is, to put it politely, far from ubiquitous. As St. Bernard of Clairvaux wrote in the 17th century, “ L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés ou désirs”, or the more modern aphorism “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. In trying to avoid “emancipationist imperialism” and the misinterpretation of the nature of cultural oppression in cultures that are not one’s own – for instance, not everyone with a “disability” considers their impairment as something they would ever want to be freed from – feminist disability studies provides valuable analysis tools and standards of terminological rigour that can be applied in a broad range of situations, and particularly to that of creating feminist works in the profoundly multicultural environment we exist in.
( And the bibliography is here... )
In her essay, “Multicultural Education and Feminist Ethics,” Marilyn Friedman identifies a dilemma involved in undertaking multicultural projects. She writes that “There is a kind of emancipationist imperialism involved in freeing someone from conditions which she herself does not regard as seriously oppressive and would not, on her own, challenge.” (p. 64). Should feminist writers take account of this in their writings? If so, how? If not, why not?The writing of the essay was particularly challenging in that it posed an unanswerable question (well, presuming one answered "yes" to "should"... the "how" has no direct answer). It also needed to be between 6 and 8 pages double spaced, and it was challenging to tackle such a broad topic in a relatively short space. To that end, and for what it's worth, here is my essay:
The Quandary Of Analysis In A Multicultural Context
In her essay, “Multicultural Education and Feminist Ethics”, Marilyn Freeman writes “There is a kind of emancipationist imperialism involved in freeing someone from conditions which she herself does not regard as seriously oppressive and would not, on her own, challenge” (Friedman 1995). As history has shown, for example in the deeply controversial matter of cliterectomies, no matter how unambiguous the situation may seem from an external perspective – for example, that of a white, middle-class, heterosexual US woman (Friedman 1995) – the situation is considerably more complex and profoundly personal and ambiguous for those living the supposed issue. If feminist writers wish to avoid imposing their particular flavour of oppression on those they are purportedly trying to liberate, it is imperative that they take this into account in their writings – otherwise they are just trading one tyranny for another that may have unexpected and insidious, if less overt, consequences of its own. The problem occurs that in attempting to avoid any possible generalizations or universalizations, a writer of even the slightest conscience would be irrevocably paralysed for fear of transgressing their desire to “do no harm”. When it is acknowledged that no two individuals have ever shared the same epistemology, it becomes obvious that the solution is more subtle, requiring effort on the part of both the writer and the reader to understand the context of any such dialogue. While there is no “how” to this – to attempt to find a universalization for avoiding universalizations is an fool’s quest – there are disclosure guidelines that can be instituted by those who are concerned about the interpretation of their ideas in a diverse multicultural environment, and a discipline required by those analyzing the works of others to ensure that the writer’s intellectual and ideological location is well understood. Sadly, mainstream feminist scholars and activist writers have not done a stellar job of making their standpoints clear – often deliberately as part of an effort to promote a particular strategic or tactical agenda – so, ironically, it may be the wisest course to turn to feminist critics of feminist ideology to find a viable framework to apply to the problem. One such promising framework with applicability to this challenge is the emerging interdisciplinary field of “feminist disability studies”.
( The rest of the essay is here... )
What is problematic for those with a Western attitude is there is no answer to this Gordian Knot of a problem. By its nature, there is no way for it to be a destination, but rather it is a process in a journey that will never end. This sort of open-ended dilemma tends to be profoundly disturbing or even disheartening to members our Western culture that teaches that any problem can be solved if sufficient resources are thrown at it, and that the challenge is simply to get those resources to throw. But this is a drama that isn’t going to be resolved at the end of the one-hour episode as we have been pop-culture imbued to believe. To apply the tools offered by the emerging field of feminist disability studies requires an unprecedented level of diligence and effort on the part of both those speaking and those listening. While there is much to recommend it, this path does not come without risk. Of particular concern is the danger of placing such excessive burden on any attempt at communication, that it will render it impossible for all but the most elite and accomplished of feminist scholars to have a conversation that meets the standards of avoiding any form of imperialism or false universalization. It is also the case that a profoundly post-modernist ideological construct is not going to find traction with a general public where an understanding of the issues is, to put it politely, far from ubiquitous. As St. Bernard of Clairvaux wrote in the 17th century, “ L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés ou désirs”, or the more modern aphorism “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. In trying to avoid “emancipationist imperialism” and the misinterpretation of the nature of cultural oppression in cultures that are not one’s own – for instance, not everyone with a “disability” considers their impairment as something they would ever want to be freed from – feminist disability studies provides valuable analysis tools and standards of terminological rigour that can be applied in a broad range of situations, and particularly to that of creating feminist works in the profoundly multicultural environment we exist in.
( And the bibliography is here... )
