Its interesting that you mention communication and the problems that arise in relation to classes taught in colleges and universities--the problem is similar in what you mentioned later about the judges viewpoint about Chicanos being "emotional" and therefore nonscientific in a trial. I think a judge and a professor coming from a predominately white male upperclass background and teaching and judging with those perspectives in mind is exactly what is wrong with the whole educational and judicial processes that are going on right now,i.e., the problems arise when the system in place cannot fully comprehend an international or ethnic problem and certainly couldnt define it or solve it in anyway that would help. The judge implying that scientific proof is what is needed to decide the validity of the problem and emotional people voicing their opinions would be distracting is exactly a case in point. Since scientific analysis can be easily interpretive and inconclusive in many cases, therefore, I think judges by disallowing protests are losing a valuable aspect to the whole picture. The quote about the opponants not having enough money to "make (the trial) more interesting" is another case in point to the problems between one culture clashing with another. International studies is an important tool for anyone in contact with other cultures but clearly it is not required for sensitivity and cultural diversity and cultural relativism training that these professionals need. Bertina [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, 29 Nov 1998, Devon Pena wrote: > Estimadas colegas, > > Over the past decade or so, one of the issues that I have learned about -- > by reading feminist literature, teaching women studies courses, and engaging > in collaborative action research and community-based struggles -- relates > to the problem of how we communicate. This is an obvious problem and Ecofem > members have raised it frequently with wonderful results. > > Here at Colorado College, the faculty and students have long debated issues > related to communication, language, knowledge, and -- of course -- power. > For example, the College's current core curriculum (the so-called > Alternative Perspectives "A" and "B") divides the general education > requirements into the "A" and "B" alternative perspectives. The "AP: A" > area involves courses about the western tradition i.e., western > civilization, Renaissance culture, western political tradition, etc. > > The "AP:B" requirements involves courses about "non-western cultures" -- > which is a problematic way of defining this area of the curriculum -- since > the "Other" is defined a priori as the absence of something (i.e., > non-"whatever" as in non-white, non-western, etc.). This definition implies > a hierarchy of power through the privileging of that which is posited as > "western" knowledge. The AP: B area of our curriculum is further subdivided > into "international" studies, "women" studies, and "American ethnic" > studies. It is thus possible for our students to take, say, a course on > Buddhism and another course on Japanese aesthetics to fulfill the two unit > AP: B requirement. > > This is not problematic in itself, since presumably studies of Buddhism and > far eastern aesthetics are important and interesting aspects of knowledge > and culture. However, it also means that many of our students study > "exotic" cultures -- presumably "faraway" peoples and cultures -- without > ever being exposed to courses that deal with women studies or the > contradictions and difficulties in U.S. "race" and ethnic relations. Many > ethnic minority and women students are thus justifiably upset that the > "core" curriculum does not allow for equity in the opportunities for > experience with women and ethnic studies as distinct domains of knowledge. > Our curricular structure thus marginalizes certain voices. > > There is another related issue -- one which I believe also strikes deep at > the heart of the epistemology of ecofeminism as a political philosophy and > social theory aiming to transform the world (i.e., systems, structures, and > processes of domination and resistance). This has to do, in the context of > the Colleges AP:B curriculum, with the inclusion/exclusion of diiverse > voices in the courses designated as international, women, or American ethnic > studies. For example, some faculty (white males) teach courses on India, > Japan, China, Mexico, Russia, etc. and yet principally rely on books within > the dominant canon -- i..e., written by white male European or American > authors. Books about Mexico by Anglo-American authors are used without > regard to the existence of "native" voices. > > In my own courses, I make every effort to juxtapose these "colonial" and > "post-colonial" (native voices), all the while recognizing that this does > not resolve the problem of a dualistic (or dialectical) structure of > thinking on my part. However, the inclusion or exclusion of certain voices > does pose the problem (not so much of essentialism as) of positionality. I > do not take the essentialist position of advocating that only people of > color should teach ethnic studies or that only women (and feminists at that) > should teach women studies courses. However, to give one example, when a > male professor ventures into the terrain of women, international, or ethnic > studies and does so without regard for the voices of women, people of color, > or other marginal groups, then the issue of power and ethics must be > invoked! I wonder hos this discussion group views these issues -- not just > in the context of the classroom but of this group as well? When we position > ourselves in this discourse about ecofeminism, and we do so in an endlessly > strident, disrespectful, or domineering manner, we betray some of the > epistemological principles that -- at least for some ecofeminists -- remain > invioable sign posts for a more subversive, and loving, discourse. > > On another note: > > I agree with Bertina that "societal structure" and "economics" defintely > plays a role in all aspects of life and the environment. I also agree that a > "Marxian" revolution has never been witnessed. There is an intense > discourse about the issues of feminism, Marxism, postcolonialism, and the > environment that we might wish to address in this discussion group. > > For example, consider the following statements -- both made by a water court > judge in Colorado during a trial that posed a transnational gold mining > corporation against Chicana/o farmers who were struggling to protect the > watershed: > > "I don't want the opponents parading a bunch of emotional people in front of > this bench. Water court is a very strict scientific and legal matter and I > don't want the opponents to get all emotional." > > "This would have been much more interesting, if the opponents had more money > to hire better experts." > > The fact that Battle Mountain Gold had money to "hire better experts" > privileged its position in the water court battle against the local and > quite ancient irrigation community of the acequias in San Luis, Colorado. > The tyranny of the cult of scientific expertise was claerly embraced by a > legal system that considered BMG's right to mine gold on private property > sacrosanct and the irrigation rights of the indigenous community to be less > than worthy of sacrifice at the altar of capitalist exploitation and > maldevelopment. > > The lead "environmental engineer" for BMG was a woman who spoke > disparagingly of the locals as superstitious and alarmist dupes of outsider > enviro-agitators. The way in which class, race, and gender intersect in a > case like this challenges us to develop a more nuance approach to the > problem of positionality. How might an ecofeminist deal with this example? > The example would seem to undermine any essentialist notions about women by > nature (or culture) being brought up to be closer to nature than men. In > this case, the female engineer bought into the cult of scientific expertise > and was trapped into her role as a "servant of power," while the Chicano > acequias farmers -- mainly male and quite "traditionally" so -- were the > ones leading the struggle against the destruction of the earth. > > Gwyn Kirk, in her article dealing with Chicanas/os and ecofeminism > (Subversive Kin book), makes the following observation: > > Gender....is highly significant in Chicano environmentalism but this is not > a concept of gender separated from race and class perspectives. Chicana > activists see their identity as women integrated with their ethnic identity. > Race is equally, if not more, a place of empowerment for them compared to > gender....Malia Davis's respondents (in another chapter of the book) > struggle with the difficulties of being strong women in a male-dominated > culture and sometimes find themselves in conflict with their culture's > traditional gender roles. But such activists are not interested in > separating thmselves from the men of their community [nor priviliging their > relationship to nature as distinctly more harmonious compared to men] and > frame their activisim, as women, in class and race conscious ways. > > More on these issues, later.....I look forward to your responses, > > Respectfully, and Belatedly, Happy Thanksgiving to all, > > Devon
