Kaint Blog

Hello. This blog is being created for the purposes of an assignment for my university. But, I hope that later, it can actually grow from this, and become a point for myself and others to engage in meaningful discourse outside the strict and formal confines of academia.

The first posts will be for my Module, "Global and Transnational Feminism". The assignment guidelines mean I will do 2 posts of 600 words, talking about 2 subjects of study from the second half of the term. Then I'll do a 300 word post on my reflective commentary on researching for this, AND at the end of both blog posts I will make a reading list (it won't all be things to read though, as I will try to make it multimedia, including podcasts and videos etc.)

First I will look at Uma Narayan and the challenges she finds that Western Feminism has to face.

(Essay written for a university assignment. This can also be found on my substack)

Introduction

My aim in this essay is to argue that Lars Von Trier is a strong poet in a 2-pronged argument. The first prong being his co-creation of Dogme 95, and how through the creation of the Dogme 95 movement he can be seen to be changing the traditions and vocabularies in the context of cinema, as his new methodology for filmmaking outlined in the Dogme 95 manifesto goes almost entirely against mainstream cinema and the current traditions of the time. The second prong, using The Idiots and Breaking the Waves as examples, he presents cruelty to the audience and makes them question themselves for it. Through these two prongs Von Trier can be interpreted as a strong poet, and if Lars Von trier can be a strong poet and can cultivate the morality of the audience, then film as an artform can definitely be used to cultivate morality in the way Rorty outlines.

Rorty’s Strong Poet:

Rorty outlines the strong poet in chapters two and three of Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, as someone that we should aspire to in an ideal liberal world. “Liberal” is defined by Shkalar as an adjective for “people who think that cruelty is the worst thing we (people) do”, (Rorty, XV) and so a liberal utopian world would aim to minimise cruelty. (Rorty, XVI)

Rorty talks about how vocabularies have changed, and shaped the ways we think and the debates we have. He references Nietzsche, Aristotle, Kant and Freud, and the various changes to the philosophical landscape that they brought with changes they made to the vocabularies of the time. (Rorty 3-23) He outlines how a strong poet is someone who changes the vocabularies and traditions, (Rorty, 28) shows the subjectivity of the human experience of the world, and can be used as a tool to help cultivate a culture of empathy and compassion in an ideal liberal world, and in this way reduce cruelty (Rorty, XVI). Rorty uses Orwell’s 1984 as an example which helps readers to see what is wrong with authoritarian forms of government (Rorty, 172). Toni Morrison can be another example, as her novels allow readers to understand the point of view and lived realities of marginalized people and understand their feelings. In this way literature and strong poets are better than philosophy. Instead of fighting cruelty using logical, moral arguments, they use poetry and expressions of lived realities to make us understand cruelty and fight it from a place of compassionate understanding.

In summary, a strong poet rethinks the vocabularies of the time, and helps us understand cruelty through human emotions expressed in their poetry or art, rather than through logical arguments about morality and cruelty in the way western philosophy does. From the understanding of cruelty provided by the strong poet, the audience will be moved to fight against cruelty in the world and to try to achieve a liberal utopia, in which all people try to mitigate cruelty as much as possible.

Lars Von Trier can be seen as an example of a contemporary strong poet as he can be seen to rethink and create new vocabularies and fight against the tradition in cinema (looking at his founding of the Dogme 95 movement specifically as one example). He can be seen to provide the audience with an understanding of cruelty and moralities of love, compassion and care through his films. Two examples being The Idiots and Breaking The Waves.

Dogme 95:

Lars Von Trier Co-founded the Dogme 95 movement with Thomas Vinterberg. (Hayward, 153) It was a film movement which, through its manifesto, was inextricably bound to its own particular philosophy which was anti-bourgeois, against hollywood’s commercialisation of film, instead being in favour of film as an accessible artform that should emphasise the creative vision of the entire filming crew, and not just the director. The Manifesto laid out specific rules, called the Vow of Chastity. From rejecting Genre films, to the strict rules on sound and special effects, the Vow of Chastity meant every single unspoken rule about making a mainstream film was to be rejected completely. As Susan Hayward writes, “this new manifesto was borne out of these filmmakers’ weariness with old formulas for film narrative and practice and a desire to hit out against the economies of production in the era of globalization” (Hayward, 153)

Lars, through the Dogme 95 movement can be seen to be changing the vocabularies as he co-creates new vocabularies, terms and rules within the Dogme 95 movement, and through Dogme 95 films creates a new subform of expression. With this specific form of expression highlighting the importance of expressing the artist's vision rather than the studio or producer’s vision for a film (one that should be exaggerated for drama and commercial appeal via commercial technology), he intrinsically links his philosophy (which stands against the commercialization of the artform of film) to the movement. Gaunt states, “The vow of chastity was presented as a list of ten commandments for filmmakers to follow which would strip their films of bourgeois illusion in an attempt to find an authenticity in their work.” (Guant, 82). The bourgeois illusion, being the “decadence of commercial cinema in terms of its corrupting illusionism, trickery and sentimentality.” (Roberts, 141) The Vows “intended to cleanse the artist of all commercial vices, leaving him purer and better” (Schepelern, 64). So through the Vows, Trier rejects the filmmaking traditions of mainstream commercial Hollywood.

Also with Dogme 95 and the nature of the handheld cameras of low resolution, it breaks the immersion of the audience in the film, and forces them to confront the film’s nature of provocation. As in, the Audience watches the film, and is provoked, but due to the barriers to complete immersion, must confront the films provocative nature, and question themselves as they are provoked. Von Trier is attributed to have said, “A film should be like a stone in your shoe”, meaning it should provoke and force you to ask yourself why?

But he does the above as he creates new vocabularies in the form of the Dogme 95 movement and new ways of filmmaking.

Breaking the Waves:

Breaking the Waves is a Von Trier film that looks at various forms of morality throughout.

One main moral question it looks at is Sexual morality and what forms of sexual activity can be morally permissible. The plot follows Bess, as she confronts the question of whether or not to engage in sexual relations outside of her marriage to Jan, at his own request. On one hand she is bound to her wedding vows to stay loyal to him, but at the same time, does loyalty to him mean accepting every request he has? If she doesn’t do as he requests is she now unloyal to him in a paradoxical way?

Mixed with this question, is religious morality, and questions of split duties. This can be seen as Bess is shown to be devout in her religion and faith in God, to the extent that when she is praying, she believes she is in direct conversation with God, and even plays the part of God answering and replying to her. So she has to juggle between the Vow she made to God to stay loyal to Jan, and Jan himself. And in this religious question is the question of which should she choose in a choice between the abstract God, and the concrete and tangible real world which includes Jan. In the end she does choose Jan, has sex with men as he requests and in her Church, states that you can only love a human being and not words, referring to the Bible, the word of God.

Bess also faces much cruelty from within her community in the film, as the population of her village are all shown to be deeply religious and the church elders are community leaders. As her church elders expel her from the Church for what they deem sinful behaviour, her community follows suit and children stone her. The audience is confronted with this great show of cruelty, and must ask to what extent is religion actually harmful and divisive in communities, rather than providing support and compassion? The audience must ask themselves about where the lines are drawn in sexual morality and religious morality and where is a healthy place for religion within communities, as we watch Bess face the cruelty of being rejected on religious grounds and how this leads to her almost total isolation from the rest of the community.

The Idiots:

The Idiots follows Karen, as she joins a small commune of nine: Axel, Susanne, Jeppe, Henrik, Stoffer, Nana, Katrine, Ped and Josephine. This commune has a shared aim to find their “inner idiot”, through acting as though they are mentally disabled.

The Idiots explores morality similarly to Breaking the Waves. It doesn’t provide the audience with a clear answer but showcases cruelty, forcing the audience to confront it and question it. It looks at the themes of community, bonds of care and moralities of compassion, much like Breaking the Waves explores.

However, The Idiots looks at these themes from a comparison of people we choose to be with compared to family and society at large. This can be seen as a comparison between Karen’s relationship with the Idiots, versus her relationship with her family.

Karen joins the idiot’s commune at the beginning of the film. They provide her with more support than she receives from her family and possibly more acceptance than she has ever received in her life prior. This can be seen with how Karen, in her monologue on her final day with them, states, “I just want to say how happy I have been here. Being an idiot with you is one of the best things I've ever done … I believe I love you all - more than I have ever loved anybody. Maybe with one exception.”

The last sentence alludes to her young son who recently died. Karen, between the two lines above, gives everyone a compliment, and even compares Jeppe to her son who never had the opportunity to grow up. It is a touching and deep scene where the depth of the bonds formed within the group are highlighted. The bond between Karen and Susanne are also seen throughout the film as deep and strong, as Susanne comforts Karen crying on the windowsill, and holds Karen as she “spazzes” for the first time in the pool.

The film also looks at ableism, and asks what behaviours we deem morally acceptable.  It forces us to ask whether or not the mere subject matter is morally acceptable for a film/ piece of art to explore. Is it right that Von Trier presents a film about people acting stereotypically like mentally disabled people? The behaviors of the characters themselves are in fact presented as unsound, as each time a character gives their reasoning behind their behaviour, they later contradict themselves through words and actions. As Jennie Haines states, “Von Trier's representation of the group and their way of life consistently undermines and exposes the participants and their flimsy, hypocritical, and contradictory justifications for acting the way they choose to.” (Haines).

So the point is not the spazzing. The spazzing behaviors are the means for the characters in the group to connect with one another. The point is the human connection in comparison to the lack of connection Karen shares with her family.

We see Karen’s lack of connection to her family when she returns home to spaz, and she is met with coldness from her entire family. Anders dismisses Karen’s attempt to apologise for missing the funeral of their son, saying she couldn’t have been that upset. He ignores her attempt to reconnect, then resorts to physical violence when she spazzes. The rest of her family remains unflinching, watching Anders slap Karen. The only person showing any care for Karen in the scene is Susanne. The cruelty showcased is staggering. The revelation about Karen’s son knocks you down and Anders knocks you out.

Conclusion

Von Trier is widely attributed to have said that “a film should be like a stone in your shoe”. It should make the audience uncomfortable. But I think that we can look past Von Trier as simply being a provocateur but also someone who wants the audience to ask themselves hard questions about morality, cruelty and compassion. And in this way he serves as being morally educative, though not in a straightforward way as he doesn’t tell you what’s right and wrong, and presents much cruelty. But this causes the natural reaction of questioning the cruelty; what is cruel, why it’s cruel, what’s the moral thing to do in the face of cruelty. He makes you question compassion and human connections. Taking the connections between the group in The Idiots, and the connections between Bess, Jan, and their community. How does the community and their varying degrees of compassion affect the human understanding for those suffering within the community? In this way I think that Von Trier can serve as a Rorty-ian strong poet, through provocation, forcing the audience to confront the cruelty in his films. And if Trier can morally educate through exposure to cruelty, then film can serve as a means of moral education.

Bibliography

Guant, Joshua T. J. Adaptation in a Post-Digital Age: Aesthetics and Methodological Approaches to Reviving Texts of the Past. a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Film by Practice. May 2011. ProQuest, University of Exeter, https://www.proquest.com/openview/b75ec263e9a724d02753333062678a5f/1.pdf?cbl=51922&diss=y&pq-origsite=gscholar.

Haines, Jennie. "The Idiots (Film Review)" FILMHOUNDS, August 2023 https://filmhounds.co.uk/2023/08/the-idiots-film-review/.

Hayward, Susan. Cinema Studies: The Key Concepts. 5th ed., Routledge, 2018.

Roberts, John. “Dogme 95.” New Left Review, vol. 1, no. 238, 1999, pp. 141-149. New Left Review, https://newleftreview-org.soas.idm.oclc.org/issues/i238/articles/john-roberts-dogme-95.

Rorty, Richard. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Schepelern, Peter. “‘“Kill Your Darlings”: Lars von Trier and the Origin of Dogma 95.’ Purity and Provocation: Dogma 95”, edited by Mette Hjort and Scott MacKenzie, British Film Institute, 2006, pp. 58-69.

Von Trier, Lars, Director. Breaking the Waves, Zentropa, 1996.

With this blog I set out three goals:

To discuss Narayan and Lugones and delve into what I thought about them, while rooting it in my own life experience, as I fundamentally believe that a philosopher's life experience shapes their outlooks on the world and impacts their thinking.

I also wanted the blog to be really accessible, and for anyone to be able to read it, understand, have learnt something new, and then be able to have discussion about the subject.

For the blog to be interactive. So someone could read the post then comment on it, discuss, and a dialogue could be fostered around the subject.

Because of point 3, I chose to use Tumblr, as I thought its reblog feature was perfect for fostering dialogue. I've seen it work before with posts that become like long threads made up of individuals tacking on their thoughts at the end. 

When I started writing I found it was really difficult to achieve point 1 and 2 at the same time, within the confines of the word count (600 words for each post). That isn't a lot to work with, and to try concisely explain subjects of great depth within 300 words, then explaining my own nuanced thoughts within another 300 words, almost impossible to do without becoming incredibly reductive.

Lugones, María. “Heterosexualism and the Colonial / Modern Gender System.” Hypatia, vol. 22, no. 1, 2007, pp. 186–209. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4640051. Accessed 6 Aug. 2025. - This is the text I am writing in reference to in my blog post on Maria Lugones

“María Lugones' "Heterosexualism and the Colonial / Modern Gender System" ” YouTube, uploaded by Theory & Philosophy, Oct 29, 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx1dVSVj_yU - A YouTube video that really nicely explains Lugones' theory.

Mendoza, Breny. ‘Coloniality of Gender and Power: From Postcoloniality to Decoloniality’. The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Theory, edited by Lisa Disch and Mary Hawkesworth, Oxford University Press, 2016, p. 0, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199328581.013.6. - Chapter of The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Theory. It's dives deeper into the subject and is a really interesting read.

QUIJANO, ANÍBAL. Aníbal Quijano: Foundational Essays on the Coloniality of Power. Edited by WALTER D. MIGNOLO et al., Duke University Press, 2024. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.12250639. Accessed 7 Aug. 2025. - This is a collection of Anibal Quijano's work on coloniality, the Coloniality of power and the Colonial Matrix of power. Provides a really in-depth understanding of all the above. Good further reading if the idea of the coloniality of power interests you.

Sabsay, Leticia. ‘Bodies as Territories: Revisiting the Coloniality of Gender’. European Journal of Women’s Studies, vol. 32, no. 2, 2025, pp. 130–44, https://doi.org/10.1177/13505068251326434. - A fairly recent article which looks at the coloniality of gender in the light of recent work in feminist theory done by Latin American thinkers. I thought it was really interesting how contemporary theory meets The Coloniality of Gender in the context of current affairs in Latin America.

O’Sullivan, Sandy. ‘The Colonial Project of Gender (and Everything Else)’. Genealogy, vol. 5, no. 3, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy5030067. - I think this is a really interesting and cool article because it talks about how colonisation affected the idea of gender, gender roles and various other systems of power in America with the First Nations' communities. But it doesn't reference Lugones or Quijano, and the subject is really similar to Lugones' Coloniality of gender theory.

(This glossary of terms is for those highlighted in yellow and used in my post about Maria Lugones' Coloniality of gender)

Metaphysics of Gender - Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy which traditionally is concerned with asking "what actually is XYZ/ what makes it up". For example, Metaphysics of the Mind would be the subbranch within metaphysics, which is concerned with asking what is a mind and what makes up the mind. So Metaphysics of Gender is the philosophical branch within Metaphysics concerned with understanding what Is Gender.

Euro-centric - In the context of decolonial theory you could understand it as meaning when a viewpoint prioritises Europe / The Western World, over the East/ Global South. The following definition is from the Berkshire Encyclopaedia of World History, "Eurocentrism, simplistically, puts Europe at the “centre of the universe.” It interprets the world through Western values but should more accurately be termed Western-centrism since it incorporates Europe as well as the cultures of North America and Australia."

Modernity - Modernity is used in a number of ways and has different meanings based on slightly different contexts. But in the context of my blog post, it can be understood to mean the idea that for a people to be considered modern and civilised, they must accept European thought/philosophy and European ways. The idea of modernity is very Eurocentric as it basically requires European culture and philosophy to be accepted as more "advanced" or "better" than indigenous cultures and philosophies. For example, when Japan tried to modernise and adopted a Western-style constitution, because of the whole notion of modernity (and the idea of being modern and civilised being so tied to Europe) Japan experienced many large social changes, for example Military dress uniforms were updated and styled after British and European Military dress. This example really shows how deeply tied European culture and philosophies are to the idea of a modern nation. Below I have added a link to a page with Kojima Shõgetsu's illustration of the ceremony promulgating the constitution, dated 1890. I saw this piece in an exhibition at the Ashmolean Museum some time ago and I think it really illustrates the idea of Modernity and how tied in Eurocentrism it is.

In 2007, Argentine philosopher Maria Lugones published "Heterosexualism and the Colonial/Modern Gender System" in the journal "Hypatia". This article outlines her argument that the modern idea of gender is a colonial construct, tied to capitalism and racism and various other colonial power systems. She uses Anibal Quijano's theory of the Coloniality of Power, and intersectional feminism as her foundational framework to develop essentially her own metaphysics of gender, in that she forms her own understanding of what it is to be gendered. But it's much more than simply a metaphysics of gender as inextricably tied into it is, politics, history, epistemology, and various other theories and ideas, using the coloniality of power to provide a rich and nuanced understanding of gender and how it's manifested in ex-colonies.

Let's break this down. The coloniality of power is a term coined by Quijano to describe an all-encompassing system of hierarchy and domination, put in place by colonial powers to exert control over "the four basic areas of human existence: sex, labour, collective authority and subjectivity/intersubjectivity, their resources and products". So the foundational things that make up a human being. The coloniality of power as outlined by Quijano exists in 3 forms: systems of hierarchy, knowledge and culture. This all resulting in white colonisers being at the top of the food chain, so to speak, dominating the colonised, and maintaining this domination through prioritising their own knowledge production, and prioritising and enforcing their own culture and the superiority of this culture.

In the modern day as we moved from colonial global systems of power, to Euro-centric and capitalist global systems of power, the coloniality of power was maintained as the capitalist system was built around it, and modernity (to be understood as the idea—emerging alongside colonialism—that for a people or nation to be considered modern and to progress, they must adopt European, post-Enlightenment thought and abandon their indigenous systems of knowledge and life.)

Now Lugones builds on from Quijano's theories to be "too narrow" in terms of giving an understanding of the oppressive systems that influenced gender. She uses Oyeronke Oyewumi's work as an example of how the gender system brought by colonisation, oppressed indigenous women to such a degree that it permeated every aspect of life.

Lugones brings together Kimberle Crenshaw, Oyeronke Oyewumi, Paula Gunn Allen, and others, to paint a picture of gender, gender roles, and how gender functioned in precolonial Yoruba and Native American societies. Then this is compared with the colonial/ modern gender system, to give an understanding of how starkly different it is from the indigenous ones, and to show the severity of its imposition. The introduction of these gender systems, packaged within a larger colonial system that ravaged through indigenous ways of life is essentially Lugones' argument. That the modern heteronormative gender system present in much of the world was brought by colonial powers, and remains because of how it was interwoven with every other colonial power system brought it. This can be seen with the way modernity supported the acceptance of these gender norms, along with everything else brought by the colonial powers. And this can also be seen with how the coloniality of power maintained the Euro-centric power structures, with capitalism and the various other systems of power put into place that maintained Europe's importance and interests.

And Lugones argues that the coloniality of gender strengthened the coloniality of power, as much as the coloniality of power strengthened the coloniality of gender. This being because of the ways all of these systems were interwoven, and imposed upon colonised peoples.

In this way, gender has been colonised, and does not exist in a vacuum, free of political or historical influence.

Here is a list of some terms I have used in my post on Narayan, and their definitions.

Feminism - Britannica defines Feminism as "the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes."

Patriarchy - The systems and/or structures of power that maintains the social, economic and political powers of a society, in the hands of men.

Epistemology - A branch of Philosophy. It is concerned with questions and discussions surrounding knowledge. Some examples of questions covered by Epistemology are: questions relating to what knowledge is, how we acquire knowledge, and what the limits to knowledge are.

Western Epistemology - What it says on the tin really, Epistemology that has been produced in the west. Western Epistemology includes the ideas on knowledge, developed by Socrates, Kant, Hume, Locke and many more.

Positivism - A philosophical system that argues knowledge can either be, derived from experience of the world, or can be proven to be the case using rational or logical methods. E.g. I can't say I know XYZ if I can't prove it using reason or the scientific method. So, Positivism would reject knowledge that is claimed to be derived from introspection, intuition or faith.

Epistemic Privilege - An idea derived from standpoint epistemology by Miranda Fricker. It's the idea that our social standings affects our knowledge acquisition but in that you acquire different knowledge of societal structures. For example a woman would have the epistemic advantage of knowing how patriarchy manifests in society. A man would not have this knowledge in the same way a woman does, and therefore the woman has an epistemic advantage over the man in that she can understand patriarchy better.

Epistemic Double Vision - A member of a minority in a society would have knowledge of the societal structures / culture / behaviours / lifeworlds / etc. of both the majority group in the society and their own minority group. For example: I am of a Pakistani background and live in England, and I know how to operate in both cultures and lifeworlds as I have knowledge of both That of the Minority Group (Pakistani) and the Majority Group (English).

Intersectional Feminism - The word intersectionality was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw in her 1989 paper, "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics". It was used to describe the way racism and sexism come together to oppress black American women. Intersectional Feminism is a branch of feminism that is concerned with how a number of systems of power can come together to oppress women in various different ways.

The above is a quote from Uma Narayan's "The Project of Western Feminist Epistemology: Perspectives from a Nonwestern Feminist".

Published in 1988, it's shockingly still relevant in feminist discussions and debates today.

The best way I can sum up what Narayan says in her essay, is through a story from year 11.

I'm the only South Asian in my, very white private girl's school, English class. We're reading and analysing the poem, "Muliebrity", by Sujata Bhatt.

Every student (white) spoke about how the girl must have been forced to do this awful, disgusting task, because she was a woman. They thought the poem was about the sexism of Indian Society.

They couldn't have been more off the mark. But as the only South Asian, the onus of correcting them fell more onto me, than the teacher. I'm not even Indian. I'm a Pakistani Punjabi.

Problem was that all of these girls were feminists, and didn't understand how their western form of feminism failed to understand this situation and even South Asian forms of patriarchy, and therefore failed to help the women they claimed to be fighting for.

This is the very thing that Narayan talks about.

I've broken down the main points in her essay below:

Western Epistemology can be incompatible with nonwestern politics and patriarchal structures. E.g. Indian cultures argue that women do have value but in specific conditions. Now, western epistemologists arguing for the value of women to be appreciated, can be misconstrued to be arguing for this, Indian, value system that Indian women are trapped in. This means that western feminist epistemology can lead Indian women to shooting themselves in the foot.

The differences in Western and Nonwestern forms of patriarchy can lead to western feminists arguing for the superiority of Western culture over Nonwestern cultures. (This very thing ended up happening in the class I had, in the above story)

Western and Nonwestern Feminist Epistemology do not share the same enemies. (in reference to positivism but this can be extended further too)

Oppressed people have to fight on two fronts: against those of a dominant group who are hostile to the oppressed group, and those of the dominant group that can appear sympathetic to the oppressed group. E.g. Indian women have to express themselves to both their oppressors in India, and to Western Feminists who may not fully understand their localised struggles. (I had to try very hard to express to my classmates how patriarchy and oppression in South Asia is structured, while expressing how it was distinctly different to the notions they had)

Non-rational forms of communication, like poetry and literature, may be better at communicating the experiences of oppressed groups to those that don't share those experiences.

Epistemic Privilege/ Double-Vision has many costs. These include how oppressed people fit into neither cultural categories of the dominant or the oppressed groups, though they may have understandings of both cultures.

The above may sound strikingly familiar to you, if you are familiar with intersectional feminism or if you are part of a minority group. I found it quite validating reading Narayan. It made me feel less alone with my struggles in identity, straddling between English and Punjabi. And provided a really helpful understanding of these odd occurrences any woman of colour finds themselves in while in feminist spaces, trying to tell the white majority that they aren't getting it right, that they misunderstand, and are reproducing oppression, but just in other forms.

Anyway, to wrap up, I think you should read Narayan whether or not you can actually relate to her. If we want the project of feminism to help all women, Western and Nonwestern, let's understand the way the traditional feminist theory falls short.

Narayan, Uma. “The Project of Feminist Epistemology: Perspectives from a Nonwestern Feminist.” The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies, edited by Sandra G. Harding, Routledge, 2004, pp. 213 - 224. - this is the original text that I'm writing in reference to.

Bhatt, Sujata. Brunizem. Carcanet, 2007. - Read poem 13, which is Muliebrity. It's the poem I refer to. I also think her wider work is fantastic. She's a great poet and really beautifully expresses herself and her experiences of being a brown woman

McIntosh, Zara. “We need to talk about white feminism: from social media ‘feminists’ to the Suffragettes”. Taboo on the Bus, 22nd May 2025, https://open.spotify.com/episode/52XsWx3Sk5gKGJjx6lpyQr?si=674a346577ef477a - A podcast episode on Spotify that I think sums up the history of White/Western Feminism quite nicely and also provides an overview of some problems with the way it can be exclusionary. In the Description of the Podcast is the host's own reading list which may be of use to those reading this.

“Uma Narayan: The Project of Feminist Epistemology” YouTube, uploaded by Tod Desmond, 25th of September 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx1dVSVj_yU - A YouTube Video that nicely sums up and explains Narayan

Fricker, Miranda. “Epistemic Oppression and Epistemic Privilege”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Supplementary Volume 25, 1999, 191-210. - This is Miranda Fricker's paper which builds on the foundations of standpoint epistemology, to talk about epistemic privilege

Toole, Briana. “Standpoint Epistemology and Epistemic Peerhood: A Defense of Epistemic Privilege.” Journal of the American Philosophical Association 10.3 (2024): 409–426 - I think this is a good read if you want to understand epistemic privilege. This article really helped my understanding.

Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. Feminism without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity. Duke University Press, 2003. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11smp7t. Accessed 6 Aug. 2025. - Written by Chandra Talpade Mohanty, in her own words it is "the product of almost two decades of engagement with feminist struggles.". I haven't read all of the book, truth be told, but the chapters I have read have been fantastic. She is another Indian Philosopher writing about decolonial and intersectional feminism and if you dig Narayan, I'm sure you will dig Mohanty.