Feminists Working Transnationally, across Difference

April Caddell
Critical Response #1

     In the memoir A Small Place (1988), author Jamaica Kincaid gives a straightforward account of her experiences as a native of the island of Antigua both during and after colonization by the English. Kincaid starts off by showing Antigua from the eyes of the blissfully ignorant tourist - the white American or European traveler privileged enough to go on international vacations. A place such as Antigua, with its natural beauty and tropical location, is prime target for colonization and later economic exploitation by way of tourism. Like many places in the Caribbean, it is the destination of choice for American and European travelers who would prefer to remain ignorant of the devastating legacy of colonization and further economic exploitation of the island post-colonization, what has come to be known by some as neocolonization.
     Kincaid shows that even after formal occupation of a land, a people are still left with a deep sense of what is considered culture. In the case of Antigua, English customs are culture. And while a people such as the descendants of enslaved, displaced Africans are expected to try their best to embrace and assimilate into this culture, they are also never expected to be successful enough to be truly English. The otherization of them while the continued expectation of their western embrace is a psychological warfare that states simply, "You must try, while knowing you will never succeed. Although you will never succeed, you have to try."
     Kincaid's anger at the legacy of colonization is poignant and real. She shows how even after emancipation, even after the end of formal colonization of a land, this "small place" is still left with the inability to succeed economically because of a corrupt government. Although Kincaid speaks as a native Antiguan, the reality of English colonization of a vast part of the world -- parts of the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia -- makes her observations about post-colonial reality relevant to nearly every continent on the planet. Countries formerly colonized by European nations may be formally emancipated, but the legacy of the occupation still haunts the people and the place.
     The post-colonial reality is especially important to note, because Westerners, including enlightened Western activists and feminists, may be quick to judge the apparent inability of a "Third World" nation to prosper without recognizing the devastating effects of colonization. And although physical occupation may not be as relevant, we must not ignore the continued economic exploitation. The savior complex that some Western activists and feminists have is not unlike the very colonization that was forced on these peoples and places. After all, it was for their own good. They were given culture.
     One of the strengths of Third-Word feminism (spoken in the broader sense as defined by Narayan in "Contesting Cultures") is its ability and insistence on locating it's Subjects by admitting to our subjectivity, This admittance is especially refreshing in a world still plagued by the myth of Objectivity, usually given to white male dominant culture. Because as victims of otherization, white male domininant culture is seen as inherently objective while any perspective not of that norm is seen as deviant due to its subjectivity. Grewal and Kaplan would also have us question the idea of culture and the legacy of colonization and postmodernity. And although these are liberating ways of understanding the world, how do Western-based activists and feminists break off from the continued urge to save another nation's women from themselves? How do we also recognize the many realities of Western feminists (Mohanty) who come from various places and privileges and are therefore of different mindsets and locations?

The Structure of Colony Culture

The Colony

Being a former colony changes the culture of the colonized. They internalize the subservient role and even after being independent for a generation that pattern is reproduced. This lens impacts how the people will see themselves and is also related to the lens through which the former colonizers will view the people. 

Kincaid

In Kincaid's A Small Place, she demonstrates this internalization by bringing attention to how the people of Antigua view their lives as not their own but as an extension of British and American lives. Their education system is based upon the British system and so they only way to discuss their lives are in the language of the colonizer and with the view of the colony ever present.

This results in a cultural admiration of the colonizer and a discounting of any native traditions. The admiration for one that oppressed leads to reproduction of those patterns of oppression when liberated. This is often seen in corruption in the new government. The new government will turn upon their own people and continue the systems of oppression and looting the country to enrich themselves. 

Grewal and Kaplan

Grewal and Kaplan discuss the nationalism that is linked with feminism. This connection will also serve to maintain the oppressor and oppressed relationship.

This raises a question in my eyes in how does one approach the issue of addressing issues in developing economies. It is one thing to know that such a lens will color your perception but another to get past that while trying to find a way to move to a more inclusive world.

Colonial and Postcolonial Language

As part of her exploration of the issues prevalent in Antiguan society, Jamaica Kincaid discusses the way language is used.  The examples she gives, however, are used in two different ways. 

Her first discussion of language involves an exploration of the ways that language is used by the English people to exert control over the people of Antigua.  She refers to the people of Antigua as orphans and goes on to say that one of the key factors is the lack of their native language.  “For the language of the criminal can contain only the goodness of the criminal’s deed.  The language of the criminal can explain and express the deed only from the criminal’s point of view.”  I believe that what she is saying here is not that the English language somehow has inadequate expressive potential, but that the ties of the language with colonialism and control render it ineffective for her use.  The very fact that she is using the language that the colonial regime brought and enforced ties her in more firmly to the colonial paradigm.  While there is an argument to be made that certain key concepts may not be fully able to be expressed in English, her problem here is one of associations with the language rather than the language itself.   

Her second discussion involves the issue of how the young people of Antigua speak English.  She says that they speak very badly, talking about “how unable they were to answer in a straightforward way, and in their native tongue of English, simple questions about themselves.”  This seems to indicate a different kind of view towards the language than was expressed in her first discussion.  Far from believing that the young people cannot speak English because it is not suited to the context, she is instead saying that they cannot speak it because they are not well educated.  They seem stupid and illiterate because of the deplorable quality of their post-colonial education.  While she does not explicitly show the kinds of ways that colonialism has affected the quality of education in Antigua, the general idea is relatively easy to grasp.  Applying the same kinds of reasoning she uses in discussing why there is so much poverty and so much corruption in the Antiguan government, it is possible to discern some reasons. 

Uma Narayan’s discussion of Westernization and “Westernized” as a term of disparagement is particularly relevant here.  The enforced spread of English in areas colonized by the British Empire is one of the key factors in subordinating the peoples of said areas.  Through direct or indirect means, the English language is made to be the one that people need to learn to function under the colonial regime.  This devaluation of native languages can result in a lack of speakers of the languages and an anticolonial pushback once the enforcement of English is gone.  Use of English, while useful in certain contexts, can be seen as a way of betraying valuable traditions. 

I believe that Narayan’s critique of anticolonialist pushback and the selectiveness with which items and practices are deemed “Westernized” is relevant here as well.  How might Kincaid’s first discussion of language reflect this kind of pushback?  Is her criticism of English in this context valid? In her second discussion, what kinds of things is she saying about the young people? Are they the actual focus of her disparagement, or is the system that caused the educational issues the focus?

Response One

Unhinging Universalities

Feminisms’ transnational movements are hinged on careful, investigatory analyses.  Contemporary writers and theorists such as Chandra Mohanty, Uma Narayan, Inderpal Grewal, and Caren Kaplan offer congruous notions of deeply-involved transnational feminisms.  Their exceedingly insightful analyses highlight the problematic notions of “woman” as a universal category and state the necessity for examining the contradictions within existing hegemonic power structures.

            Chandra Mohanty’s “Under Western Eyes” investigates existing power structures and the related presuppositions within society that reify or deconstruct them.  To Mohanty, an assessment of conventional categorizations deserves expedience, writing; “The first analytical presupposition I focus on is…the strategic location or situation of the category of ‘women’” (Mohanty, 64).  Intersectionally created existences yield unstable foundations for overarching categorizations, especially those created through binary vision.  Gender, as a system of domination and oppression, is equally multitudinous in its composition, and it is the duty of transnational feminisms to investigate these multifarious parts.  Uma Narayan’s piece “Contesting Cultures” emboldens this view of intersectional gender categories.  Narayan writes, “Simultaneously, colonialism and nationalism played their own ideological parts in the construction of gender roles…” (Narayan, 19).  Created and powered by masculinist, hegemonic regimes, gender roles and the category of “women” only further allow “…state power and the power of fundamentalist groups to mobilize forces against all female persons” (Grewal and Kaplan, 28).  Acknowledging an overarching issue within overarching categories, feminisms’ lenses widen to a transnational scale in order to reveal innate contradictions within existing doxa.

            Transnational analyses are greatly needed when investigating unknown or preconceived discourses.  Globalized identities deserve further investigations, for ubiquitous notions of being are signs of presupposed, hegemonic narratives.  By unveiling paradoxes within conventionalized systems, progressions toward fluidity can flourish; Mohanty states, “…by understanding the contradictions inherent in women’s location within various structures that effective political action…can be devised” (Mohanty, 74). Transnational feminisms aim to seek and highlight conventional paradoxes within hierarchal powers and categories.  Coming from the “Third-World” angle, Uma Narayan investigates the intersectionalities of dominating categories, but also those within conventional postcolonial and postmodern terminology.  Seeking confirmation of inconsistencies within dominant hegemonies, Narayan notes, “I do not intend to provide an analysis of the term ‘Westernization’ but rather concretely to point to tensions and paradoxes in the use of the term…” (Narayan, 5).  The ideologies that constitute “Westernization” are just as intersectional as the cultures that spread or vilify it.  These discourses act as a call for rejuvenation within transnational feminisms by deconstructing the universal category of “woman” and revealing contradictions built into hegemonic systems of power.

Critical Analysis #1

What is a ‘woman’? How do you define what a ‘woman’ is? How about ‘women’?  What is ‘Westernization? Why is being considered ‘Westernized’ a frequent charge held against scholars who consider themselves Third World Feminists? These seemed to be some of the biggest questions that were asked and answered in the articles assigned. Mohanty, Naryan, Grewal, amd Kaplan analyze these topics from different angles to answer these particular questions.

In Mohanty’s ‘Under Western Eyes’, Mohanty directs her critiques at the homogenous perspectives and assumptions written in the Zed Press ‘Women in the Third World’ series. Mohanty points out that many western feminist writers have constructed a secular, ahistorical image of the poor, victimized ‘Third World Woman’. She also states that western feminists overlook the diversity in the ‘Third World’ by not considering the class, ethnic, and racial backgrounds in which they belong to thereby making their generalized writings considered ‘Westernized’. While reading this, I could not help but to be curious as to why these differences are not acknowledged in western feminism. Are the reasons good or bad? Would it cause misunderstanding of the role of a ‘woman’?  I personally believe it would be really hard to define this question if these generalizations are not made. There would be so much to try to understand and I don’t believe it would give us a clear definition of what exactly is a ‘woman’ or her role in society.

 In the article, ‘Contesting Cultures’ Uma Narayan presents a more engaging theory which she relates with usage of her own personal experiences. She begins the article on a personal note explaining how difficult it is to define herself as a Third World Feminist due to the context of what many others believe makes a Third World Feminist. Also at the beginning, and what I found really interesting in this article, is how she explains how it was her childhood experiences of listening in to her mother and the other Indian women that influenced her into becoming a feminist. Her opposition formed due to her understanding of right and wrong. Narayan’s mother however blamed this rebellion on ‘Westernized’ influences. Though it is not ‘Westernized’ influences that need to be blamed. It needs to be understood that women are evolving, and this is what her mother needed to understand.

In Grewal and Kaplan’s “Scattered Hegemonies”, they call for an acknowledgement of ‘transnational culture flows’ because without this the feminist movements around the world will fail to understand the conditions that structure women’s lives in different locations, whether that be the first or the third world. They consider how to go about creating these links without creating any type of cultural or even economic hegemony. Is this possible? I do not know. It appears to be but there are always other factors to consider. 

All three of these articles have showed me from different views of how Third World Feminism is perceived or should be perceived to the rest of the world. So now I wonder, from which angle do you approach something like this?    

Context is Everything.

            In Jamaica Kincaid’s A Small Place, she examines the façade of Antigua as seen by tourists, tourists who cannot understand or even identify Antigua’s cultural history because of the colonization of the island. Many of the post-colonial examples Kincaid talked about reminded me of my travels to Trinidad. I was one of the “disgusting tourists” about whom Kincaid writes, and the example she used of how the hotel closed off the Antiguan beach to Antiguans was something I also witnessed in Trinidad as a means of segregation. Government officials guarded the nice beaches’ entrance, requiring a payment to get in. No chairs were allowed, as those could be rented from the government as well. In Antigua, Kincaid notes, the government is constantly trying to exploit the country’s tourism value, rather than produce any real change for its citizens. This creates a major disconnect and even resentment between the tourists and the locals, making it difficult for any sort of transnational alliance, in any regard.

            Mohanty’s “Under Western Eyes” examines this disconnect between first- and third-world countries, especially as it pertains to feminism. She says American feminists cannot self examine unless it does so in a “global economic and political framework,” as the “complex interconnections between first- and third-world economies [have] a profound effect on the lives of women in all countries” (63). I’m curious about Mohanty’s end goal: Is she trying to get Eurocentric feminist thinkers to change their thought process? Is she calling these “third-world feminists” to action? Or is she simply trying to encourage a plurality, a transnational spirit? Personally, I think Mohanty is trying to redefine our concept of womanhood and feminism itself to become more inclusive and less reflective in their meanings.

            Becoming more inclusive and less reflective is something I think Uma Narayan fails to do at times in “Contesting Cultures.” By breaking down her experience as inherently Indian, she acknowledges the uniqueness of her experience; however she tries to ignore the context in order to create a universal feminist experience. I understand the importance of unifying the world’s feminists, but do we have to get rid of the context in order to find common ground? Can we not find the common ground and use the varying contexts to identify all the ways colonialism and patriarchal society has reared its ugly head? To me, acknowledging the hegemony of theory and feminism is the best way to create genuine transnational feminism. As Kaplan and Grewal say in their Introduction, “Very often, feminist poststructuralist or psychoanalytic theorists do not utilize a transnational frame or consider colonial discourse or discourses of race” (3).  It seems that fixing this could be best accomplished only with an acknowledgement and acceptance of the varying contexts.

Linking Global Feminisms

In Contesting Cultures, Uma Narayan explores the “problems and paradoxes” that accompany the choices and ideas of Third-World feminist being labeled as a product of “Westernization” (3).  Through an exploration of her own personal life, Narayan finds the catalyst for her feminist thoughts to be her childhood experiences at home, not “Westernization.”  This is especially interesting as the mother and “mother-cultures” have produced the very behaviors and thought processes they hate.  Narayan also explores how the “traditional” cultures are a product of colonial powers needing something to differentiate themselves and establish the colonized as the inferior “other.”  At their core, both of these arguments can apply to many minority or oppressed groups and the word “Westernization” could easily be replaced with “whitening.”  All of the above listed criticism serve to lessen the authenticity of a viewpoint that differs from what some consider as the norm.  This happens often as a way to create a distraction, as a result Third-World feminists can spend more time defending themselves against charges of “Westernization” than actually taking on the issues them feel so passionately about.

Throughout Scattered Hegemonies, Inderpal Grewal and Caren Kaplan seek to link global feminisms.  They show feminism must be linked with nationalism while remaining outside of patriarchal master narratives, but not all feminism is the same.  They state that until white, western ideas of feminism (the staple of modernity) make a genuine attempt to understand the goals of feminists around the globe, they cannot successfully mount a thorough defense against oppressors.  This essay particularly appeals to me, because it forces its reader to consider something other than race, sex, and class.  While not white, I am westerner, so I fall into the category of someone who always thinks in terms of race, sex, and class.

Under Western Eyes puts the spotlight on the practice of western feminists to group third-world women into one homogenous stereotype.  Chandra Mohanty asks western women, specifically US citizens, to realize they have a better economy but still suffer from the same subjugation as third-world women.  By continuing to categorize third-world women as all the same and all suffering from the same problems, western feminists devalue the experiences of these women.

All three essays examine the ideas of “Westernization,” western feminists, themes of colonization, and the lasting effects of western hegemonic influence on third-world feminism.  Narayan gives third-world feminists their own voice back by debunking the myth that their feminism is a product of “Westernization.”  Grewal, Kaplan, and Mohanty show that without the change from a long-established western lens, true transnational feminism may not be achieved.

Moral Relativism and the Feminist Movement

            There was an underlying theme of the dangers of universal definitions of women with emphasis on the dangers of a universal definition of the “third world woman”. This emphasis on the role of context and the dangers of assuming the presence of oppression upon women in developing countries ties well into the Abu-Lughod reading of last week. I took particular interest in the section of the text focusing on “the differential value placed on ‘men’s work’ versus ‘women’s work’.” The importance of contextualizing any analysis of a female population is seen not only in the importance of realizing whether or not oppression is actually present in an environment but in understanding whether or not the generalizations yielded in a study (for the means of developing a theory) are positive based on historical implications and societal norms that come with a given region’s culture. This attitude of the division of labor as a universal negative plays well into the moral relativism outlined in Abu-Lughod’s text of last week. While difficult because of our natural inclination to rely upon ethnocentrism as a way of understanding the female populations abroad, the idea that some completely liberated female body exists anywhere in the world is open to interpretation and not just in the realm of labor and women in the workforce but in every aspect of female societal interaction. Grewal and Kaplan echo the sentiment of the harm that a universal understanding of women can take in mobilizing the state and fundamental groups against the female populace (28). Not only does the practice of a universal understanding of women harbor an image of western imperialism and negatively impact the ultimate goal of the feminist movement, but it keeps the female populace from being able to consecrate any form of solidarity regardless of societal and historical positioning.

            In continuation with the idea of moral relativism as it applies to a given female population, there is the idea of “alternative empathies” as outlined in Pedwell’s text. The idea that social imagination creates an ability to understand “others” which in turn creates a moral understanding becomes exceedingly difficult. If there is no place for universality or broad generalizations without the inclusion of overwhelming contextual support for any given region, can there really be a “moral understanding”? Furthermore, in Kincaid’s text in as it is analyzed in Pedwell’s text, empathy for women is to be understood as inherently positive to a society and aids in combating “negative” feelings. However, how much empathy for women is too much? If feminists are constantly postulating the importance of excessive liberties for women to the purpose of creating “equality” then is it truly a benefit to the feminist movement to emphasize the role of women as the gender of weaknesses needing the most protection?

Critical Analysis #1-Woman

This weeks assigned articles focused on the ideologies and theories centered around the defining of "woman". In the article entitled, "Under Western Eyes" by Chandra Mohanty, the perspective was to focus on the re-presentation of "Woman" as an arbitrary relation set up in particular cultural and historical context; as stated in the text. This article was enticingly captivating to read from the author's perspective. Mohanty brought light to the situations and issues that are not often talked about when discussing woman and the unspoken "differences" that are upheld but often never spoken of. One passage in particular caught my attention, it spoke of the descriptive gender differences between women and men; stating that women are constituted as a group via dependency relationships whereas, the men are held responsible for the relationship. In this instance you have a victim and oppressor relationship giving the man the dominate position in the relationship, thus leaving the woman to be the submissive/subordinate. This is considered to be traditional or norm in most women and men relationships some with little or more extremities than others. However, Mohanty focuses on this briefly in an attempt to expand on the reference of all African women are politically and economically dependent. When she refers to the ways 'women of Africa' are oppressed, she finds this problematic because it presumes that men and women are already connected in a sexual-political way prior to their introduction to the social relation, but the crucial point that she states that is often forgotten is that women are produced through these relations and are implicated in forming these relations. This in my opinion goes to say that women although, not viewed as strong components in some realms of relationships, are the adhesive that not only helps to form it but keep it together as well.

            In Uma Narayan’s “Dislocating Cultures” I found the article to be exceptionally personable. The personal situations she used to correlate her argument to her personal experiences contributed greatly to the overall foundation of the article. This article shed some light on the lasting effect the home has on the woman based off of cultural norm. Narayan spoke of being a young girl and being “silenced” often in her home by her mother. The irony came when it was shared that the mother would speak of hating being “silenced” by her husband and mother-in-law, she said in the beginning she was so innocent she didn’t even know how to take up for herself when her mother-in-law would get orally combative with her. It is ironic in a sense that the mother would take it upon herself to be the one to “silence” her daughter when she knew how it had made her feel when it was done to her. I looked at this as form of the mother feeling, rather needing something to control or have power over. It is not totally unheard of for the one who is at most feeling powerless to find something to help then regain some sort of power. Narayan argued that her feminist contestations of her culture had a lot to do with the cultural dynamics of the family life that she was surrounded by, the “politics of home.” I would like to think that if more people would allow their horizons to be broaden and explore alternate ways would not majority of all traditional aspects be somewhat altered or completely abolished by some? Or are we to afraid to go against the grain and step out on our own personal optimism, why are we so afraid to change the norm especially if we see them as problematic?

“Scattered Hegemonies” by Inderpal Grewal and Caren Kaplan, continues to place focus on more of transnational feminism placing emphasis on the “postmodern” theory of woman.  The article brought about a very well thought out proposal trying to bring about transnational alliances the purpose would be to acknowledge the different forms that feminisms take and the different practices that can be seen as feminist movements, as stated in the text. There will always be a difference that makes one thing different or not exactly the same but that does not mean that the ultimate purpose is not the same. The same can be said with the various approaches to feminism, is it not the ultimate goal to gain equality? If women groups can form alliances, why shouldn’t the various forms of feminism?

These readings raised several questions for me to want to consider, as an African-American woman that was raised in a “traditional” American home, do I want that type of home for my children’s surroundings? Do I want their “politics of home” to be the “traditional” view that I was surrounded by? Why must it be that the male always, regardless of demographics have the dominating role in the relationship and the home? Is this something that will ever change or is this a norm that will always be upheld by generations to come?

        I do not believe that if Jamaica Kincaid wrote in a different style that it would have the same affect.  It was honest in a satirical way.  Indeed, there were points where I thought she had a rather masculine tone due to her sense of ownership and forthrightness.  For instance, her examination of the tourist was rather harsh I felt given that I have been one on multiple occasions, nevertheless, she boldly states that, "A tourist is an ugly human being."  She designated a fine line when she stated that the English were simple "ill-mannered" and not racist.  Is that how Western feminism is to the supposed Third World?  Are we simply ill-mannered for our lack of understanding of various cultures and their structural systems of daily life?  Can transnationalism produce nothing but "ill-manners?"  I was puzzled by her fixation on a delapidated library.  Is the earthquake that ruined the library a metaphor for the English and Europeans that came over and ruined Antigua?  However, I thought Kincaid made the point that Antiguans are self-colonizing if there car be such a thing.  That would account for the vast corruption with Antigua.  She does a wonderful job at belittling the problems of Antigua to further her point for she states that Antigua is "just a little island."  And while it may be just a little island, it is also the product of transnationalism, colonialization, and westernization.  In her very last sentence she make a point similar to Simone de Beauvoir wherein once one ceases to be a slave, in this case, they are just human beings.  And in women's case, Beauvoir states that "surely woman is, like man, a human being."
         In the mode of colonialism, Mohantly gives specific examples as to how "woman" as a category is used by Western feminists  to define "Third World women."  These include women as victims of male violence, women as universal dependents, and women as victims of a colonial process of marriage.  But I questioned these categories, these definitions because don't Western women face the same things?  Western women are not immune to male violence or from being dependent on another (man).  So does that make Western women the same as Third World women?  Then there should be no distinction between "Western" and "Third World" all that should remain is "women."  Grewals discussion on postmodernity was troubling me. I never felt like I had a good understanding of what postmodernity means, much less how it applied to transnationalism.  But I was more aware of Narayan's discussion. I like the point made that Third World feminists have similar critiques to Western feminism as nonfeminists have.  But again if we remember Mohantly, what Western feminists attribute to Third World women are exactly the same things that happen to Western women.  So can there be such a thing as a Third World feminist?  And in turn can there be any Western feminists?  Can there ever be feminists if Third World "feminists" has the same sentiments as non feminists?

WEEK #2- Paradigms of Study (blog #1-Aug.28th)

 In the articles assigned this week, they all promote challenge to the ideas, knowledge, and hegemony circulated around the “wo-man.” In the first article, “Under Western Eyes”, Mohanty approaches her agenda by relating to the idea of Third-World women and the forced agency upon them by Western and U.S. feminists in their writings and interests. She begins to identify the monolithic thought process conditioned about Third-World women. My interests in this article were of high demand in relation to the relationship among women in historical contexts. She quotes, “This connection between women as historical subjects and the re-presentation of Woman produced by hegemonic discourses is not a relation of direct identity, or a relation of correspondence or simple implication…” This quote brings an overarching investigation and question among feminist’s writers in Western thought, the singularity given to third-world women and their identity conditioned historically, and hopes of erasing Eurocentric knowledge and thought produced for and about ALL third-world women as a combined group.

            The idea of all of these readings I think, is to allow a sense of plurality among all women nationally and transnationally; however, the more focus seems to target third-world women and their particular culture, religion, de-colonialized way of thought, and present a voice for each of these women. Women in Saudi Arabia, India, Asia, Bombay, etc. have all been categorized as a group of women whose culture and creed are created by difference and unfamiliarity other than simply a way of life not experienced by some, when witnessed in writings by first-world women.

            In “Contesting Cultures”, Narayan gives the many different positionalities of herself in response to her piece. I like the way she expounds upon “her” history, her present location and space, and the dimensions to which how she has shaped her life. In this, the idea of culture and tradition among third-world women (Indian women) is emphasized authentically, and yet still questioned because of the Westernized way of knowledge gained later in life. Narayan gives culture true meaning and understanding in third-world realms and allows the development of a patriarchal society to be criticized and compared. It’s as if, she allows for a more political correctness among certain groups, class, and gender of Indian women from her background, but also proposes a response to the further difficulties women face in general in all different walks of life. The idea of “difference” is not difference in her piece. The reality of ignorance on certain third-world women and their culture is somehow erased, identified, and acknowledged. At first, this piece seemed like another identity formulation among a certain woman with many cultural beliefs, but later I began to ask the question based on Narayan background, “if this writing, her speaking from a particular class and group of Indian women, was ok to do? It reminded me of Linda Alcoff’s, “Speaking for Others.” Should she be able to speak on behalf of her mother and grandmother? Some would say yes, but how can other third-world women relate, take a standpoint, or question her presented invents with her living presently now in the U.S.? Are her thoughts biased or one of determination to NOT follow in the footsteps of her mother, cousin, and grandmother which in return questions whether she truly relates to an Indian culture and ALL of its traditions?

            In the last piece by Grewal and Kaplan, they also continue speech on feminists critiques transnationally. They speak on how some feminist’s writers continue to use the term “colonized” with “woman in response to post-modernity and modernity. Modernity presents a hybrid; however seems to flow in the direction of the West. This article questions the center and the peripheral of images, identities, and practices transnationally among women but in a world of the “rest.” The example given about the Cabbage Patch doll and Barbie in India, but wearing American clothes signifies the dominant ideas of modernity created world-wide. Limitations among certain cultures and traditions need to be erased and given new philosophies to which to expound; in other words, create a new form of modernity which exemplifies ALL cultures and traditions. Or is this possible?