Blogging the Theoretical

Entries Tagged as 'Brooke'

Butler Quote 2 Group Two

November 5th, 2011 · 6 Comments

The terms by which we are recognized as human are socially articulated and changeable.  And sometimes the very terms that confer “humanness” on some individuals are those that deprive certain other individuals of the possibility of achieving that status, producing a differential between the human and the less than human. These norms have far-reaching consequences for how we understand the model of the human entitled to rights or included in the participatory sphere of political deliberation (Butler 2004, 2).

Tags: Brooke · Erika · Group Two · Jennifer R · Kate · Olivia · Troli

Butler Quote for Group Two

November 2nd, 2011 · 6 Comments

The body implies mortality, vulnerability, agency: skin and the flesh expose us to the gaze of others but also to touch and to violence. The body can be the agency and the instrument of all these as well, or the site where “doing” and “being done to” be equivocal. Although we struggle for rights over our own bodies, the very bodies for which we struggle are never quite our own. The body has its invariably public dimension; constituted as a social phenomenon in the public sphere, my body is and is not mine (Butler 2004, 21).

Tags: Brooke · Erika · Group Two · Jennifer R · Kate · Olivia · Troli

Mohanty: The Solution (Final Draft)

October 12th, 2011 · No Comments

By Brooke Hessney

Chandra Talpade Mohanty poses a unique outlook on the oppression Third World women in her book, Feminism Without Boarders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity. It is evident that Third World women face adversity in all parts of the world but she sheds light on innovative strategies towards a common solution to the oppression of Third World women by, “…[generating new] ways to think about mobilization, organizing, and conscientization transnationally” (Mohanty 140). She argues that Third World women must make colonization and domination pedagogically transparent by learning the ways in which these ideologies function within a capitalist society as modes towards practicing solidarity. Mohanty further examines these concepts through a lens of the working-class, targeting the exploitation of Third World women. Essentially, these ideologies operate under the notion of difference based on the hegemony of the dominant culture.

Mohanty respects difference among Third World women but encourages the understanding of commonalities as a basis of solidarity. From Mohanty’s viewpoint, there is no singular woman, regardless of location, and it is a collective endeavor for women to create a mutual solidarity within a historically capitalist society or else there is little hope for future change. It is imperative to acknowledge a woman as part of a whole, despite geographic barriers, which is the foundation of transnational feminism, which seeks to promote the deconstruction of these established boarders. Mohanty herself recognizes the challenges that Third world women face through her own genealogical experiences and urges an emancipatory discourse to be instituted. This will in turn evoke the mobilization of Third world women. According to Mohanty, mobilization can be achieved by, “emancipatory action on the basis of the reconceptualization of Third World women as agents rather than victims (143). Ultimately, Mohanty seeks the reformation and reclamation of the historically capitalist normative discourses surrounding Third World women as a means to promote autonomous thinking. By this she explains that, “Capitalist patriarchies and racialized, class/caste-specific hierarchies are a key part of the long history of domination and exploitation of women, but struggles against these practices and vibrant, creative, collective forms of mobilization and organizing have also always been a part of our histories” (Mohanty 147-148). This further illustrates the strain that influence how capitalism positions the mobilization and conscientization of Third World women.

She indicates that Western hegemonic social ideologies serve as the basis for oppression of Third World women workers. Mohanty notes, “Patriarchal ideologies, which sometimes pit women against men within and outside the home, infuse the material realities of the lives of Third World women workers, making it imperative to conceptualize the way we think about working-class interests and strategies for organizing” (143). Thus, she encourages the deconstruction of the historically Westernized social institutions that strain the emancipation of Third World women within the work force by examining other marginalized women workers around the world that have been incorporated into the global economy. This is exemplified through her case studies on the women of Narsapur and Silicon Valley in which she states, “While in Narsapur, it is purdah and caste/class mobility that provides the necessary self-definition requires to anchor women’s work in the home as leisure activity, in Silicon valley, it is a specifically North American notion of individual ambition and entrepreneurship that provides the necessary ideological anchor for the Third World women” (155) Therefore, these two instances demonstrate the contradictory position of women in the working-class in context to their social identity which further exhibits Mohanty’s resolution for mobilization, organization, and a transnational feminist perspective.

Overall, Mohanty’s conception of the solution incorporates the reclamation of mobilization, organization, and transnational feminism and is by no means a static endeavor. It is essential to generate new ways of thinking about these ideologies saturated in Western culture in order for Third World women to collectively engage in reformation. She urges an emancipatory discourse to encourage change in the praxis of mobilization and organization among Third World women. Also, promoting transnational feminism recognized the intersectionality of race, gender, and sexuality in the context of developing global capitalism. In turn, this advocates for the title of Mohanty’s novel that suggests feminism needs to occur transnationally as a means to decolonize historically capitalist theory by practicing solidarity.

Reference:

Mohanty, Chandra Talapade. Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory,      Practicing Solidarity. Durham: Duke University Press, 2003. Print.

 

Tags: Brooke · Group Two

Mohanty: The Solution

October 7th, 2011 · 4 Comments

By Brooke Hessney

Chandra Talpade Mohanty poses a unique outlook on the oppression Third World women in her book, Feminism Without Boarders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity. It is evident that Third World women face adversity in all parts of the world but she sheds light on innovative strategies towards a common solution to the oppression of Third World women by, “…[generating new] ways to think about mobilization, organizing, and conscientization transnationally” (Mohanty 140). She argues that Third World women must make colonization and domination pedagogically transparent by learning the ways in which these ideologies function as modes towards practicing solidarity. Mohanty further examines these concepts through a lens of the working-class, targeting the exploitation of Third World women. Essentially, these ideologies operate under the notion of difference based on the hegemony of the dominant culture.

Mohanty respects difference among Third World women but encourages the understanding of commonalities as a basis of solidarity. She herself recognizes the challenges that Third world women face through her own experiences and urges an emancipatory discourse to be established. This will in turn evoke the mobilization of Third world women. According to Mohanty, mobilization can be achieved by, “emancipatory action on the basis of the reconceptualization of Third World women as agents rather than victims (143). Ultimately, Mohanty seeks the reformation and reclamation of the historical normative discourses surrounding Third World women as a means to promote autonomous thinking. By this she explains that, “Capitalist patriarchies and racialized, class/caste-specific hierarchies are a key part of the long history of domination and exploitation of women, but struggles against these practices and vibrant, creative, collective forms of mobilization and organizing have also always been a part of our histories” (Mohanty 147-148).

She indicates that hegemonic social ideologies serve as the basis for oppression of Third World women workers. Mohanty notes, “Patriarchal ideologies, which sometimes pit women against men within and outside the home, infuse the material realities of the lives of Third World women workers, making it imperative to conceptualize the way we think about working-class interests and strategies for organizing” (143). Thus, she encourages the deconstruction of the historically Westernized social institutions that strain the emancipation of Third World women within the work force by examining other marginalized women workers around the world that have been incorporated into the global economy. This is exemplified through her case studies on the women of Narsapur and Silicon Valley in which she states, “While in Narsapur, it is purdah and caste/class mobility that provides the necessary self-definition requires to anchor women’s work in the home as leisure activity, in Silicon valley, it is a specifically North American notion of individual ambition and entrepreneurship that provides the necessary ideological anchor for the Third World women” (155) Thus, these two instances demonstrate the contradictory position of women in the working-class in context to their social identity which further exhibits Mohanty’s resolution for mobilization, organization, and a transnational feminist perspective.

Overall, Mohanty’s conception of the solution incorporates the reclamation of mobilization, organization, and transnational feminism and is by no means a static endeavor. It is imperative to generate new ways of thinking of these ideologies in order for Third World women to collectively engage in reformation. She urges an emancipatory discourse to encourage change in the praxis of mobilization and organization among Third World women. Also, promoting transnational feminism recognized the intersectionality of race, gender, and sexuality in the context global of developing global capitalism. In turn, this advocates for the title of Mohanty’s novel that suggests feminism needs to occur transnationally as a means to decolonize historical theory by practicing solidarity.

 

Mohanty, Chandra Talapade. Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity.Durham: Duke University Press, 2003. Print.

 

Tags: Brooke · Group Two

Final: The Solution by Brooke Hessney

September 23rd, 2011 · No Comments

In Black Feminist Thought, Patricia Hill Collins promotes a heavy emphasis on gaining empowerment through the power of knowledge in order to evoke systemic change. She asserts that there is no concrete answer to the core issues associated with the oppression of black women but there are ways to engage in the praxis of change. The fact of the matter is that our society has created a perpetuating problem and a collective intervention is imperative to gain understanding of why things are this way. We must note that this understanding stems from the contributions of intersectional paradigms, which ultimately shape the epistemic communities of Black women. This means that the ways in which knowledge circulates within a community directly influence social discourse. The epistemic communities of Black women ought to be defined by this intersectionality in that there are new interpretations of Black women’s experiences and a better understanding of how domination is structured. Collins explains, “The term matrix of domination describes this overall social organization within which intersecting oppressions originate, develop, and are contained” (Collins, 246). Therefore, Black women will gain knowledge of how oppression is organized and seek to alter their epistemic communities that influences cultural ideologies.

Although this process may seem counter-intuitive, it will break down existing normative discourses and influence change among social institutions. According to Collins, “…[forming new epistemological positions] provide alternatives to the way things are supposed to be” (Collins, 305). In turn, this will form a new dialogical relationship in which a reclaimed collective identity may be established. Collins also voices the issues surrounding the continual dialectic of oppression and activism. This dialectical relationship is not a single entity but rather, a coexistence of deeply intertwined and interdependent frameworks. Collins has thus drawn out a search for ways in which Black women can reclaim the dynamic of this relationship on a micro-level of the individual to a new collective identity. She stresses the notion of an evolving dynamic when she notes, “Neither Black feminist thought as a critical social theory nor Black feminist practice can be static; as social conditions change, so much the knowledge and practices designed to resist them” (Collins, 43).

Collins feels as though Black women must understand how to utilize knowledge in various matrices of power in order to be successful to change systems of oppression. This demonstrates her keen insight regarding the power of knowledge and that empowerment directly results from this dichotomy; however, she also poses that, “Historically, U.S. Black women’s activism demonstrates that becoming empowered requires more than changing the consciousness of individual Black women via Black community development strategies ” (Collins, 291). Although knowledge is seen as a vital aspect towards empowerment it is not enough to change systems of oppression. Collins claims that, “Empowerment also requires transforming unjust social institutions that African-Americans encounter from one generation to the next” (Collins, 291). Due to this, Black women must consider regenerating the formation of their standpoint positionalities. This is because all humans are deeply entrenched within multiple social locations whose normative conventions have outlined their ways of life. It is then crucial to develop a self-representation as an additional alternative standpoint that challenges the existence of unjust social institutions.

Collins also speaks favorably of autonomy used as a means and modality for empowerment. She denotes that, “rather than seeing social change or lack of it as preordained and outside the realm of human action, the notion of a dialectical relationship suggests that change results from human agency” (Collins, 292). It means that in order for Black women to progress within the social justice project they must each modify the ways in which they think and act within the world. Thus, the solution itself is contingent upon agency and it is noteworthy that she indicates there is no singular way to approach the normative issues regarding black female oppression as long as it is a collective endeavor. Collins affirms this notion when she states, “As each individual African-American woman changes her ideas and actions, so does the overall shape of power itself change. In the absence of Black feminist thought and other comparable oppositional knowledges, these micro-changes may remain invisible to individual women. Yet collectively, they can have a profound impact” (Collins, 293). By this she means Black women can have an immense influence on a social revolution if they start at the basis of individual knowledge as power and culminate a unified praxis towards systemic change.  Ultimately, Collins suggests that this notion of empowerment through knowledge serves as a conceptual tool that ought to be utilized in order to change systems of oppression towards Black women.

Reference:

Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought. New York: Routledge Classics, 2009.

 

Tags: Brooke · Group Two

The Solution: By Brooke Hessney

September 21st, 2011 · No Comments

In Black Feminist Thought, Patricia Hill Collins promotes a heavy emphasis on gaining empowerment through the power of knowledge in order to evoke systemic change. She brings to attention that there is no concrete answer to the core issues associated with oppression of black women but there are ways to engage in the praxis of change. The fact of the matter is that our society has created a perpetuating problem and a collective intervention is imperative to gain understanding of why things are this way. She notes that by forming new epistemic communities there is hope for change. Although this process may seem counter-intuitive, it will break down existing normative discourses and influence change among social institutions. According to Collins, “…[forming new epistemological positions] provide alternatives to the way things are supposed to be” (Collins, 305). Collins has thus drawn out a search for ways in which we can move this ongoing process forward. She feels as though Black women must understand how to utilize knowledge in various matrices of power in order to be successful to change systems of oppression. This demonstrates her keen insight regarding the power of knowledge and that empowerment directly results from this dichotomy; however, she also poses that, “ Historically, U.S. Black women’s activism demonstrates that becoming empowered requires more than changing the consciousness of individual Black women via Black community development strategies ” (Collins, 291). Although knowledge is seen as a vital aspect towards empowerment it is not enough to change systems of oppression. Collins claims that, “Empowerment also requires transforming unjust social institutions that African-Americans encounter from one generation to the next” (Collins, 291). Due to this, Black women must not only consider their epistemological tenet but rather their standpoint positionalities within the United States. This is because all humans are deeply entrenched within multiple social locations whose normative conventions have outlines their ways of life. It is then crucial to develop a self-representation as an additional alternative standpoint that challenges the existence of unjust social institutions.

Collins also speaks favorably of autonomy used as a means and modality for empowerment. She denotes that, “rather than seeing social change or lack of it as preordained and outside the realm of human action, the notion of a dialectical relationship suggests that change results from human agency” (Collins, 292). This concept of a dialectical relationship indicates that oppression and activism coincide; therefore, Black women must alter the power of the oppressors on an individualistic level. It means that in order for Black women to progress within the social justice project they must each modify the ways in which they think and act within the world. Thus, the solution itself is contingent upon agency and it is noteworthy that she indicates there is no singular way to approach the normative issues regarding black female oppression as long as it is a collective endeavor as she states, “As each individual African-American woman changes her ideas and actions, so does the overall shape of power itself change. In the absence of Black feminist thought and other comparable oppositional knowledges, these micro-changes may remain invisible to individual women. Yet collectively, they can have a profound impact” (Collins, 293). By this she means Black women can have an immense influence on a social revolution if they start at the basis of individual knowledge as power and culminate a unified praxis towards systemic change.  Ultimately, Collins suggests that this notion of empowerment through knowledge serves as the conceptual tool that ought to be utilized in order to change systems of oppression towards Black women.

Reference:

Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought. New York: Routledge Classics, 2009.

 

Tags: Brooke · Group Two

Social Change and the Solution

September 7th, 2011 · No Comments

Tags: Brooke · Group Two