Martyrs & Victims

Chandra Mohanty outlines the problematic implications of Western feminism portraying third world women as a “singular monolithic subject.” Mohanty describes how this homogenization of third world women creates a stark distinction between them—the other—and the Western women who are significantly better off. Such feminist discourse is inherently colonial as it privileges one kind of woman while depicting the other as the victim of the colonized societies. The following analysis of Mohanty’s “Under Western Eyes” will focus on two main consequences of this kind of feminist discourse. First, it will discuss how otherization of third world women is instrumental in making the Western women look better and more advanced. And then, it will elaborate on how this view of third world women does a disservice to them and only helps perpetuate their positions as a victim.

Mohanty quotes multiple examples to show how Western feminist discourse groups women from postcolonial countries under the singular title of third world women. These groups of Muslim women or African women are attributed certain characteristics that define them. This reductionism and determinism reminds one of a similar process of categorization—the colonizing process. The colonizers, too, categorized the colonized people in one big group of backward and uncivil beings who needed to be guided and civilized by their superior masters. Such categorization only exists for the purpose of comparison. There needs to be the uncivil person for the existence and justification of the civilized person. Similarly, there need to be the third world women struggling in their backward societies for there to be first world women who also struggle but somehow struggle in more useful ways such that they are eventually able to break the chains that bind them. The other—the third world women—exist to provide a scale for comparison and to show to the Western feminists that they have come a long way. Time, again, plays an important role. Similar to the colonized who lived in the colonizer’s past, third world women lives in Western women’s past. This is not to say that they share same histories but that if they were to mark their progress, the latter would be much ahead of the former.

The otherization of third world women is thus important to show the differences between them and their Western counterparts. And the importance of these differences is to be able to make a claim of value between the two. Of course, feminist discourse does not claim to promote such competition. It is still implied that while one type of woman struggles in silence, the other fights for her rights and is on the path to success. Thus the latter is the type of woman that one should aspire to be. Given the notion of time discussed above and the idea of success mentioned here, it is obvious that Western feminism suggests that there’s one particular kind of freedom that all women should hope for. This is the Western kind of freedom that only takes into account the Western culture and context. Any other kind of freedom is not freedom at all. It is simply another form of oppression or some kind of compromise that the third world woman is expected to make. For example, the image of a free woman will have Western attire (pants, skirts, etc) but the image of an oppressed woman will have a veil. The signifiers of liberation have been decided according to Western scales. Western feminism is imperialist in that way. It exploits the oppression of third world women to make itself look better in comparison.

Mohanty also discusses how such discourse portrays third world women in only a few selected ways. They are universal dependents, and victims of male violence, the colonial process, familial systems and religious ideologies. In any narrative involving third world women, their only role is that of a victim or a passive receiver of abuse and oppression. What this discourse robs them of, more than their conditions themselves, is not simply a voice but also the possibility of being anything other than a victim. In fact, oppression in such narratives is so normalized that it is expected. What else could these women get? It is as if their culture is designed to victimize them. Such a lens provides a pitiful view of third world women. Since their conditions—the men in their society or their religious ideologies—cannot change, they too cannot experience any change. What makes this pity more profound is the hopelessness that accompanies it.

With such reduced possibilities, the third world woman does not stand a chance. She has no choice, no hope, and perhaps no desire to be free like the Western woman. She is stuck being sexually violated, restricted to the roles of mother and wife, hidden behind a veil. The Western women are martyrs who fight bravely for what they know they deserve, and the third world women are victims who take what they get in silence. There is a particular respect associated with the former which is absent and is replaced by pity and perhaps judgment for the latter. While Western feminists fight for the right to vote, the third world women are concerned with more basic problems: the right to their own body, fixed gender roles, etc. Again, the third world women are behind. The problem here is that unlike the colonized who had the colonizer to guide him to civilization, the third world woman has no one. She is left behind with the same uncivil man with no further promise of redemption. She is permanently stuck in her helpless state.