Towards an Understanding of Third World Feminism
News
Feminist criticism that made its presence in some European countries and in America in the 60s and 70s of the previous century based itself on the principle of ‘Sisterhood’. ‘Sisterhood’ follows the logic of sameness and identification, hence ignores the historical and cultural specificity of colored women and Third World women. Such a convergence of women’s identities and experiences would make it possible to speak about women’s struggle against oppression in isolation from race or nation. But is it possible? ‘Sisterhood’ made gender in feminist criticism the only paradigm of analysis. Colored women and Third World women were provoked by the notion of ‘Sisterhood’ to defy its process of homogenizing women. As a result they stress the specificity of their experiences. In the following lines there are three examples of third world and colored women who underscore the specificity of their cultures. These examples are: Chandra Talpade Mohanty (Indian), Trinh T. Minh-ha (Chinese), and bell hooks (Afro-American) Starting with Mohanty, Mohanty draws the example of Latin American women writers who write ‘testimonials’. In testimonials the subject is related to its socio-historical context and the self is a collective Self. That is to say, in testimonials an emphasis is laid on exploring the social and cultural roots of the subject and on remembering and documenting popular struggles. These features stand in stark contrast to autobiographies of Western feminism that vow the Subject who is in conflict with her society. In testimonials, the Self is a collective self with multiple consciousness.  Moving to Minhha, like Mohanty Minh-ha emphasizes reviving her culture’s roots. As a result she calls for (re)membering her Grandma stories. These stories stand for the counter-memory developed by women. This counter-memory works to defy Western hegemony that relegated stories to the realm of the ‘imaginary’ and patriarchy that followed this Western logic and inferiorise stories according to the story/history dichotomy. Minh-ha casts doubt on this dichotomy arguing that it came to existence when historicists (usually men) claimed that they are writing ‘real’ incidents in books of history. Minh-ha illustrates that by means of (re)telling Grandma stories what has been concealed will be brought to light and what has been unheard of will be given a voice. Coming to hooks, like Minh-ha she believes in resurrecting colored women’s oral history to challenge western legacy and patriarchal hegemony. hooks is also concerned with defying the negative representation of black women in American cinema. In this respect, hooks suggests constituting an oppositional black female gaze; its goal is not only to reconstruct subjects but rather resisting subjects. An oppositional black female will refuse to identify with either poles of the Self/Other binary opposition. Thus, the colored woman will not identify with the male gazer (self) that subjects her (other) to his looks. Besides, a black female will also refuse to identify with the ultra-white female who is made to be thought of as the idealistic beloved.
Mohanty, Minh-ha, and hooks, ignited a number of attacks by which they helped subvert western hegemony and patriarchy. Among these attacks are the ones raised by Sara Suleri. First, Suleri believes that such insistence on cultural differences works to essentialise Third World and colored women’s identities. That is to say, Mohanty, Minhha, and hooks by means of emphasizing the difference of their experiences will follow the western monologic line of thought which they want to dismantle. Besides, by means of adopting Derridean , Lecanian and Poststructuralist ideas feminist criticism underscores that a subject is not an essence but a construct. Therefore, any of these notions such as an essential Third World or colored identity will be regressive rather than progressive. Second, such an interest in Grandma stories and women’s oral legacy
(Minh-ha and hooks) will not add a great deal to the feminist academic arena, as Suleri believes. Third, Suleri sees that race and gender/nation and gender are incongruent. What is the priority to a Third World feminist, race or gender, nation or gender? If Suleri perceives Third World feminism negatively, Ella Shohat has a different perspective. Ella Shohat adds a new dimension to feminist criticism by the term which she suggests. This term is ‘multicultural feminism’ which deploys a multi-axis analysis. Thus, feminism would avoid being finalized and would surpass homogenizing women. Multiplicity in ‘multicultural feminism’, as Shohat explains, goes back to the fact that any subject is defined by the hierarchies of power. Therefore, what an oppositional subject should aim at is to investigate the subject’s position in relation to these hierarchies. Applying this on women’s cause, ‘multicultural feminism’ suggests that women would share the critique of hegemony. Nevertheless, it does not suggest that women’s positioning are harmoniously identical. In other words, since ‘multicultural feminism’ follows a dialogic line of thought it will not repress conflictual histories. This highlights points of how various oppositional strategies could be developed and how resisting voices would interweave. The resultant alliance is necessarily a dialogical alliance. At this point of dialogical alliance it is worthy to recall hooks’ strategy of constituting a black female oppositional gaze. hooks’ oppositional gaze would bring to one’s mind Luce Irigaray’s oppositional gaze. Irigaray’s oppositional gaze is directed against Freud who adopted the secular logic to inferiorise women. Irigaray uses the same logic of Freud: gazing. Irigaray via her gaze turns the tables round and parodies Freud. It is clear, therefore, that Irigaray’s strategy emerges from the dominant western epistemologies exemplified by Freud and his followers. hook’s gaze, although like Irigaray’s - in the sense that it is oppositional, critiquing hegemony – is different due to the historical roots of gazing in the lives of the black. Historically, during slavery the blacks were denied the right to look directly to their masters. This white control of the black gaze aims at lessening the threat of the black and hence their subjectivity. Therefore, developing an oppositional gaze is a direct defiance to and subversion of white hegemony. It is logical then to conclude that oppositional strategies should be conceptualized and that diverse voices in feminism should be concert-like in the sense that they intersect and dovetail each other.
 
 
Dalia Azmi*
* Ph.D. Student at the Department of English Language and Literature – Cairo University.

Latest News