POSTMODERNISM AND FEMINISM
The criticism of feminists from non-white women led a section of feminists to move in the direction of multiculturalism and postmodernism. Taking off from the existentialist writer Simone de Beauvoir that the woman is the ‘other,’ postmodernist feminists are glorifying the position of the Other because it is supposed to give insights into the dominant culture of which she is not a part. Women can therefore be critical of the norms, values and practices imposed on everyone by the dominant culture. They believe that studies should be oriented from the values of those who are being studied, the subalterns, who have been dominated. Postmodernism has been popular among academics. They believe that no fixed category exists, in this case, woman. The self is fragmented by various identities — by sex, class, caste, ethnic community and race. These various identities have a value in themselves. Thus, this becomes one form of cultural relativism.
The Postmodern concept of woman helped to bring women together and act collectively. But this kind of identity politics divides more than it unites. The unity is on the narrowest basis.
- Anuradha Gandhy
Hence, for example, in reality, no such category of ‘women’ exists. Woman can be one of the identities of the self, but there are others too. There will be a Dalit woman, a Dalit woman prostitute, an upper caste woman, and such like. Since each identity has a value in itself, no significance is given to values towards which all can strive. Looked at in this way there is no scope to find common ground for collective political activity. The concept of woman helped to bring women together and act collectively. But this kind of identity politics divides more than it unites. The unity is on the narrowest basis. Postmodernists celebrate difference and identity and they criticize Marxism for focusing on one ‘totality’ — class — and for being ‘essentialist.’ Further, postmodernism does not believe that language (western languages at least) reflects reality. They believe that identities are ‘constructed’ through ‘discourse.’ Thus, in their understanding, language constructs reality. Therefore, many of them have focused on ‘deconstruction’ of language. In effect, this leaves a person with nothing — there is no material reality about which we can be certain. This is a form of extreme subjectivism. Postmodernist feminists have focused on psychology and language. Postmodernism, in agreement with the famous French philosopher Foucault, is against what they call ‘relations of power.’ But this concept of power is diffused and not clearly defined.
THE DISCOURSE OF RESISTANCE
Who wields the power? According to Foucault it is only at the local level, so resistance to power can only be local. Is this not the basis of NGO functioning which unites people against some local corrupt power
and make adjustments with the power above, the central and state govts. In effect post-modernism is extremely divisive because it promotes fragmentation between people and gives relative importance to
identities without any theoretical framework to understand the historical reasons for identity formation and to link the various identities. So we can
have a gathering of NGOs like WSF where everyone celebrates their identity — women, prostitutes, gays, lesbians, tribals, dalits etc etc., but there is no theory bringing them under an overall understanding, a
common strategy. Each group will resist its own oppressors, as it perceives them. With such an argument, logically, there can be no organization, at
best it can be spontaneous organisation at the local level and temporary coalitions. To advocate organisation according to their understanding means to reproduce power — hierarchy, oppression. Essentially they leave the individual to resist for himself or herself, and are against consistent organized resistance and armed resistance.
AGENTS OF THE EXISTING SOCIAL ORDER
Carole Stabile, a Marxist feminist has put it well when she says,
“Anti-organizational bias is part and parcel of the post — modernist package. To organize any but the most provisional and spontaneous coalitions is, for post- modernist social theorists and feminists alike , to reproduce oppression, hierarchies , and forms of intractable dominance. The fact that capitalism is extremely organized makes little difference , because one resists against a multivalent diffuse form of power. Nor, as Joreen pointed out over two decades ago, does it seem to matter that structurelessness produces its own forms of tyranny. Thus, in place of any organized politics, postmodernist social theory offers us variations on pluralism , individualism , individualized agency, and ultimately individualized solutions that have never — and will never — be capable of resolving structural problems.” (1997)
It is not surprising that for the postmodernists, capitalism, imperialism etc do not mean anything more than one more form of power. While postmodernism in its developed form may not to be found in a
semi-colonial society like India, yet many bourgeois feminists have been influenced by it. Their vehement criticism of revolutionary and revisionist
organizations on grounds of bureaucracy and hierarchy also reflects the influence of postmodernism in recent times.
Postmodernism made its influence felt in the 1990s. Yet in the late 1990s Marxism is again becoming an important theory within feminist analysis. This critical overview of the way the feminist movement (particularly the radical feminist and socialist feminist trends) theoretically analysed women’s oppression, the solutions they have offered and strategies they evolved to take the movement forward we can say that flaws in their theory have led to advocating solutions which have taken the movement into a dead end. Inspite of the tremendous interest generated by the movement and wide support from women who were seeking to understand their own dissatisfactions and problems the movement could not develop into a consistent broad based movement including not only the middle classes but also women from the working class and ethnically oppressed sections. The main weaknesses in their theory and strategies were: Seeking roots of women’s oppression in her reproductive role. Since women’s role in reproduction is determined by biology, it is something that cannot be changed. Instead of determining the material, social causes for origin of women’s oppression they focused on a biologically given factor thereby falling into the trap of biological determinism.
“The system of patriarchy can function only with the cooperation of women. This cooperation is secured by a variety of means: gender indoctrination; educational deprivation; the denial of women of knowledge of their history; the dividing of women, on from another, by defining “respectability” and “deviance” according to women’s sexual activities; by restraints and outright coercion; by discrimination in access to economic resources and political power; and by awarding class privileges to conforming women.”
- Gerda Lerner, The Creation of Patriarchy
In relation with her biological role focusing on the patriarchal nuclear family as the basic structure in society in which her oppression is rooted. Thus their emphasis was on opposing the heterosexual family as the main basis of women’s oppression. As a result the wider socio-economic structure in which the family exists and which shapes the family was ignored.
Making the contradiction between men and women as the main contradiction. Concentrating their attention on changing the sex/gender system — the gender roles that men and women are trained to play. This meant concentrating on the cultural, psychological aspects of social life ignoring the wider political and economic forces that give rise to and defend patriarchal culture. Emphasising the psychological/personality differences between men and women as biological and advocating separatism for women. Overemphasis on sexual liberation for women Separate groups, separate live-in arrangements and lesbianism. Essentially this meant that this section of the women’s movement confined itself to small groups and could not appeal to or mobilize the mass of women. Falling into the trap of imperialism and its promotion of pornography, sex-tourism etc by emphasizing the need for liberating women from sexual repression. Or in the name of equal opportunities supporting women’s recruitment into the US Army before the Iraq War (2003). Organizational emphasis is needed on opposition to hierarchy and domination and focus on small consciousness raising groups and alternative activity, which is self-determined. Opposing the mobilization and organizing of large mass of oppressed women.
“To be without history is to be trapped in a present where oppressive social relations appear natural and inevitable”
― Gerda Lerner, The Creation of Patriarchy
How incorrect theoretical analysis and wrong strategies can affect a movement can be clearly seen in the case of the feminist movement. Not understanding women’s oppression as linked to the wider exploitative socio-economic and political structure, to imperialism, they have sought solutions within the imperialist system itself. These solutions have at best benefited a section of middle class women but left the vast mass of oppressed and exploited women far from liberation. The struggle for women’s liberation cannot be successful in isolation from the struggle to overthrow the imperialist system itself.
This is an extract from Philosophical Trends in the Feminist Movement, written by Anuradha Gandhy and published by The Foreign Languages Press . The extract has been condensed.
ஆதரம்:-https://medium.com/@panthershub767/postmordernism-feminism-anuradha-gandhy-c99742c96ca8
