(trouble with e-mail, so cannot see what others may have posted on this before I
send it)
re: "third worldism"
Let me preface my remarks that the term "third worldism" as a pejorative is a
little problematic. What is the difference between that and using "feminist" as
a pejorative, to indicate work that "idealizes" a feminist perspective?
First, for those who are interested in the articulation of class exploitation
and gender domination, Mies' _Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale_, is
certainly worth examining. (not to say I have no differences with Mies, for
example on gender in non-capitalist social formations). My impression (having
read some but not all of it) is that her later work may have less emphasis on
class?
Second, critiques of analyses for privileging non-European modes of production
and/or thought that do not recognize the implicit privileging of European modes
of production and thought in most "universalist" frameworks are "ideological" in
a pejorative sense (presenting the particular as universal). Not to mention
those that don't even pretend to be universalist -- "first worldism" I guess.
Similarly, I think the presentation of "women" as undifferentiated is first and
foremost a characteristic of feminist discourse coming out of the white,
middle-class feminism of industrialized nations. Much work by and about women
of color in industrialized nations and women of Africa, Asia, and Latin America
(and Caribbean, etc.) was/is important in the move toward recognizing
differentiation. That doesn't mean that work along these lines is not open to
any criticism, but promoting solidarity among working class and poor women
across nations is not the same as homogenizing women.
In Harding's (1986) discussion in _The Science Question in Feminism_ (mentioned
in my post yesterday) of the "curious coincidence" between feminist and "African
centered" critiques and alternatives, she writes that:
"Once we recognize that gender differences are socially created, we notice that
only within the cultural projects of masculine-dominated societies does it
become important...to insist on the fundamental sameness of women in every
culture...to focus on women's world view or the feminine world-view,
paradoxically supports a masculinist conceptual scheme." (p. 173)
The underemphasizing of intra-group differences is a problem common to much work
in both feminist and "African centered" frameworks:
"Where the Africanists [sic] find important differences between the world views
of peoples of African and European descent, and feminists find important
differences between the world views of women and men within Western cultures,
neither acknowledges the other's dichotomy within its own conceptual scheme."
(p. 177)
Commenting on Harding's discussion, Rhonda M. Williams writes that some African
centered work "suppresses differences in self-understanding between women and
men in the African diaspora while those who speak of a feminine standpoint
presume a shared world view among women of varying nationalities, sexualities,
race-ethnicities, and cultures" and warns of the "dangers of false
universalizations." (1993, p. 148). (Rhonda M. Williams, "Race, Deconstruction,
and the Emergent Agenda of Feminist Economic Theory" in M. Ferber and J. Nelson
(eds.): BEYOND ECONOMIC MAN, 1993, U. of Chicago Press.)
Likewise, underemphasis of intra-class differentiation (and competition) means
some Marxist analyses remain "woefully incomplete" (Williams, 1993, p. 148).
By the way, Nancy Fraser, in a fascinating discussion of Alain Locke's
rediscovered early lectures on "Race Contacts and Interracial Relations" (1992,
Howard U. Press), argues for strategic use of a "strategic essentialism" --a
term perhaps borrowed from Spivak but used in a different theoretical context.
See her "Another Pragmatism" in M. Dickstein (ed.): THE REVIVAL OF PRAGMATISM,
1998, Duke U.. Press.
Mat
