Session 11

It's interesting that Saba Mahmood's book, at different points seems to speak directly to Spivak's. The oppression of "humanism" which Spivak* talks about in "French Feminism..." is precisely the argument that comes out in Saba Mahmood's piece- that of the oppression of these "humanist" ideas which enforce a particular worldview of what it means to be free and to exercise agency. She then argues how there is agency in actions women chose to take- how, in particular, they engaged in the Islamist revivalist movement.

My question, however, is about where you draw the distinction, and how you specify whether a choice was "free" or coerced. I felt this was, in some ways, missed out in Mahmood's formulation, but came out much clearer in Spivak's work.

Yes, to wear the veil may be a well thought out act, and it is dismissive, reductionist, and frankly- infuriating- of Western feminists ( I use the term broadly- this is to indicate the general trend, not everyone) to label this act as one of oppression and control. My problem comes in when this line of reasoning is taken too far- to it's other extreme, of complete "cultural relativity". So some acts are taken as political choices, when they may in fact, not have been. When some do, in fact, actively go against women's interests. And by women's interests I don't necessarily mean what parts of her body a woman may choose to display, but acts like circumcision which are relegated to the realm of culture and then not pursued as criminal. Since I sense an oncoming "No but that's CLEARLY wrong"- if the woman agrees that circumcision is what SHE wants to do, what then? Even in every day choices such as prioritizing marriage and the household over a professional career. The line between what is and isn't a "free" choice becomes blurry at best, and it becomes problematic to then figure out the way forward.

Can we perhaps say that it is the limitation of cutting off of certain choices that is oppressive then? That- to borrow from Kant- it is when a human being is treated as a tool, rather than an end in itself, when we have a problem? As to the women who may choose to "limit" their future choices- is a moralizing, superior attitude really fruitful?

Spivak, here, adds a lot more to our understanding. She rightly states that the question should not be "What can I do for them?" and this applies not only to our stereotypical white feminist, but to the third world feminist as well. It is not about correcting them, as Spivak points out, but about speaking to them. It is in conversation that you can come to a better, more fruitful understanding of the Subaltern women. Otherwise, the question of representation becomes less about who one is trying to represent, and more about who is the one doing the representing- the author/activist/feminist/thinker.

The former question is still self-centered, and once again, sidelines the woman by only viewing her through one lens. "...there has to be a simultaneous other focus: not merely who am I? but who is the other woman? How am I naming her? How does she name me? Is this part of the problematic I discuss?" 

Of course, whatever conversation or interaction takes place, happens within a power dynamic of class, perhaps race, religion and ethnicity as well, but it is still more useful than to once again limit who it is that one is writing about.

On a slightly different, but related note- Spivak also discusses the taking on by certain feminists of "masculine" values- of the argument that one needs to be tough, harsh and unrelenting to make it in fields outside of the household. This vein focuses on trying harder, adapting to the system as an individual instead of seriously rethinking its structural flaws. What is interesting is when we think about who it is that this mode of thinking benefits. The answer somehow leads back to the capitalist mode of production. It helps for women to adapt to the system, it helps to have them join the workfield (cheap labor!), it works to give statistics of how women employment has gone up. The picture falls apart when you ask- in what jobs? At what cost? What barriers did they have to face compared to their male counterparts?

So where this new woman seems free and independent to us- the question comes back to agency. Where do we draw the line between choice and coercion? Freedom and oppression? 

*: It is good to know Spivak can write normally as well. Which leads one to think she was deliberately obscure in "Can the Subaltern Speak?"