Objects

In this piece, I will analyze the extent to which first world feminism can be seen as imperialism. My reflection will focus on the methodological universalisms section of Chandra Mohanty’s article. I will try to engage with Mohanty’s assessment of the methodological problem of ethnocentric universalism in cross-cultural work and how that correlates with third world women being reduced to object status.

Before delving into Mohanty’s critique, it is important to define imperialism as it can hold many connotations. My analysis will interpret imperium as the exercise of power. First world feminist discourse perhaps unintentionally reduces the agency of third world women by implying that they cannot represent themselves. In the context of first world feminism, ‘progress’ cannot be gauged without identifying third world subjects, and it is precisely this identification which results in third world women being viewed as depersonalized objects. What this ‘progress’ denotes is women gradually reclaiming their personhood, but the contradiction is that the first world feminist discourse can be seen as further marginalizing third world women. This can happen due to an imposition of Western standards which comes at the expense of third world women and their individuality.

The problem of ethnocentric universalism can be seen as a methodological issue that results in an uninformed intrusion by first world feminists into the contexts of third world women. Mohanty’s primary contention is predicated on the notion that such discourse is depersonalizing third world women. According to her, a critical assumption is that across classes and cultures, women are somehow socially constituted as a homogenous group. This results in the neglect of cultural or historical specificity which might be an integral component when it comes to understanding the power dynamics in a given society. An example which Mohanty gives to elucidate such generalizations is of Hosken equating the veil with rape, domestic violence, and forced prostitution as a form of sexual control. By reducing the veil to a mere symbol of oppression, a universal fact is constructed which does not take into account the opinion of the individual who might be wearing the veil and what it might mean to her. Not only does first world feminist discourse tend to neglect contextual nuances, but it also imposes a dominant episteme which does not account for the individuality of third world women. It is the process of such imposition which results in third women becoming objects of power. What the issue of ethnocentric universalism can be linked to is the rationale behind the mission civilastrice as it applies a similar temporality on the existence of third world women.

The intent of first world feminism is to expedite emancipation, but the result can be construed as the exacerbated marginalization of third world women.