“Western feminists, despite their critical understanding of their own culture, often tend to be more a part of it than they realize. If they fail to see the contexts of their theories and assume that their perspective has universal validity for all feminists, they tend to participate in the dominance that western culture has exercised over nonwestern cultures.”
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.
