Week 10: The Neoliberal Nation-State and its Continued Power

       In Transnational America, Inderpal Grewal discusses how "gender, ethnicity, and consumer identity became entangled within both national and transnational formations" (1).  One of the main lenses she uses to examine transnational subjects in relation of the American consumer culture is feminism.  This is evident in Grewal's discussion of Barbie in India and in the construction of the female refugee.  In regards to Barbie, Grewal stated that, "I examine some of these changes, looking at how Mattel's goods and practices were altered in India and how the company participated in new versions of consumer feminism that took root in India" (81).  Yet, does such a thing as consumer feminism even exist?  What is it that feminists consume that makes them any different from other consumers?  Does Barbie dressed in a sari represent transnational feminism because she is dressed in foreign garb?  Indeed, "As a white female tourist in an India opening itself to investment from abroad, Barbie, an icon of white, heterosexual American femininity, was able to put on the sari, a signifier of Indianness, and be 'at home'" (82).  How does this white foreign tourist Barbie find herself at home in a foreign land on the basis of being a tourist?  Barbie seems to contradict Kincaid's "ugly tourist" for Barbie in a sari is welcomed in India.  Indeed, "It was only when Barbie appeared in a sari and advertising practices utilized and participated in creating a transnational consumer culture within India that sales improved.  Thus the 'Americanness' of Barbie, the 'standardness' of its white femininity, had to be mediated by various other factors that were localized, and national as well as transnational" (93).  Mattel's main connection to American liberal feminism was its discourse around "choice" wherein it "was understood by Mattel as a universal value that could be transmitted across the transnational connectivities and bring new consumers to buy the product in different parts of the world" (100).  As such, consumer feminism, if it is to exist, is founded on the principle of choice.
       In regards to refugees, it is assumed that the refugee subject is male, yet feminists argued against this representation and produced alternative representations in the form of the female refugee.  But what does the category of "refugee" entail?  And what constitutes being a refugee?  Some could see the refugee as being inherently female because the refugee represents someone who needs protection and the people who are assumed to be in the need of protection are women and children.  Despite this interpretation, the U.S. "used these [feminist] critiques [of the refugee] to select out appropriately deserving female refugees who were allowed to settle within their borders" (159).  Thus, not every woman was considered to be worthy of protection.  Indeed, it was placed on the refugee to provide credibility to asylum officers.  "A woman's credibility thus have often depended on her ability to convey the threat of rape or the experience or trauma of rape to the hearing officer" (184).  As such, a woman's fate is based on her sexuality.