Introduction
“While virtually all of the world’s cultures have distinctly patriarchal pasts, some – mostly, though by no means exclusively, Western liberal cultures – have departed far further from them than others. Western cultures, of course, still practice many forms of sex discrimination. (…) But women in more liberal cultures are, at the same time, legally guaranteed many of the same freedoms and opportunities as men. (…) This situation, as we have seen, is quite different from that of women in many of the world’s other cultures, including of those from which immigrants to Europe and North America come.” (Okin, 1999a, p 16-17)
Because most non-Western cultures are more patriarchal than Western ones, Okin argues, granting rights to minority groups will tend to harm the interests of women rather than promote them. In the previous chapter, I investigated the concept of multiculturalism and its possible interpretations; here I focus on feminism. If Okin argues that minority group rights might harm the interests of minority women, what then are these women’s interests? And what is the interpretation of feminism that lies beneath this statement? In Okin’s view, feminism refers to:
“the belief that women should not be disadvantaged by their sex, that they should be recognized as having human dignity equal to that of men, and that they should have the opportunity to live as fulfilling and as freely chosen lives as men can.” (Okin, 1999a, p 10)
Like multiculturalism, the meaning of feminism is anything but easy to define.
Feminism has meant, and still does mean, different things to different women throughout the world and over different periods of time. Generally, we could say that feminists give characteristic meaning to ‘sexual difference’. Often, the different responses of feminists to sexual difference have been divided into three categories:
‘equality’, ‘difference’ and ‘deconstructionist’ perspectives (Buikema and Smelik, 1993). The ‘equality approach’ aims to end all social and cultural inequality between
men and women and to have equal rights for men and women. The ‘difference approach’ on the other hand, focuses on the differences between men and women.
Feminists who think from this perspective do not want to make women equal to men by integrating them into a ‘man’s world’, but aim to make more space for women and female approaches. Hence, their struggle for equality is not centred on sameness, but on difference. If we compare these approaches in the discipline of history, we see the first approach focuses on ‘important women’ who may not have received the attention they would have if they were male. Through this approach a historian demonstrates that women have also played important roles in history, as, for instance, politicians or revolutionaries, and works to integrate them in historical descriptions. Through the
‘difference approach’ however, a historian would focus on other areas of life and, for example, emphasize the importance of taking into account the private sphere in analyzing history. The final approach in this categorization system is deconstruction.
This approach is related to poststructuralism and postmodernism and has two main starting points: that binary oppositions can be transcended and that the idea of the autonomous subject is an illusion (Buikema and Smelik, 1993). This approach would emphasise deconstructing the binary between men and women, and the meanings of the terms female and male.
Another way of categorizing different feminist approaches is by dividing them on the basis of the questions that are being asked. This also leads us to three categories.
The first group can be recognized by its reference to empirical questions: why/how are women oppressed? Criticism of dichotomous constructions of social spheres, such as the public/private domains, is central to these analyses (Yuval-Davis, 1997, p 5).
The second perspective focuses on the differences between women and men.
Research on this theme has usually been referred to as the ‘sex and gender debate’.
Authors in this field deal with questions around the ontological basis of differences between men and women; are these determined socially, biologically or are they a combination of the two? Within the third category that Yuval-Davis describes, the differences among women and men are investigated. Black and ethnic minority women have indicated that mainstream (white) feminist research has been
‘ethnocentric’ and ‘westocentric’ and that for example race and ethnicity should be included in feminist analyses.
Neither of these categorizations is fixed and/or exclusive, nor should they be regarded as progressive. But they can be useful instruments in the analysis of feminist
issues. When we compare the above categorizations of feminism, we can recognize at least one important difference between feminist approaches: those which aim to emancipate women through fighting for equal rights and hence focus on sameness, and those who focus on the differences between men and women, and between women, and want more space for these differences. If we want to make meaningful statements about the relationship between feminism and multiculturalism, we have to theorize the connections between sexual difference and other axes of difference further, addressing questions such as how gender and ethnicity are related, and how we can undertake an analysis that takes gender and ethnicity into account simultaneously. We also need to ask, what is whiteness and how does it relate to debates about multiculturalism and feminism?
Feminism and Difference
The debates about ‘difference’ among feminists have a very different history from those among multiculturalists. Where the latter always wanted to reach equality through recognition of differences, mainstream feminists first of all dismissed the differences between men and women in their struggle for equality (Chanter, 1998, p 267-268). In the 1980s however, more and more feminists criticised this approach, and argued that:
“by focusing on the fact that women can measure up to men, feminists conceded inadvertently that men’s traditional roles are more valuable than women’s traditional roles.” (Chanter, 1998, p 268)
These writers claimed that women differ from men and consequently require different treatment. Here we can recognise the multiculturalist approach as described by for instance Bhikhu Parekh: sometimes treating people equally, means treating them differently. But, as I discussed above, this ‘difference’ approach does not only take into account the differences between men and women, but also between women. And these differences between women are particularly at stake when we think about the relationship between multiculturalism and feminism. If we want women to be equal in the way Okin argues, we have to consider the question: equal to whom? It is not
always clear what a society, which puts an end to domination and androcentrism, should look like (Bock and James, 1992).
Flax has defined gender as a:
“historically variable and internally differentiated relation of domination.
Gender connotes and reflects the persistence of asymmetric power relations rather than ‘natural’ (biological/anatomical) differences.” (Flax, 1992, p 193)
This means that although there are power relations between men and women, there are no universally shared differences between men and women; these differences are always differentiated by factors such as class, sexuality, race, nationality and religion.
Or as Flax puts it: “No ‘women’ exist who have experiences of oppression (or dominance) unmarked by race and class” (Flax, 1995, p 436). Therefore, if we want to develop a better understanding of the relationship between feminism and multiculturalism, we need to theorize the differences between women, and the complicated constitution of gender.
Revisiting Difference
In 1851, Sojourner Truth delivered the groundbreaking speech ‘Ain’t I a Woman?’. In this talk she argues that people make statements that are supposedly about women in general, but are in fact only about a specific group of (white, middle class) women:
“That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place. And ain’t I a woman?” (Truth, 1851)9
According to many women of colour, mainstream (universalist) explanations of gender inequality simply weren’t adequate. Their lives and experiences, such as those
9 Truth, Sojourner, ‘Ain’t I a woman?’, speech delivered at the Women’s Convention in Akron, Ohio, 1851. See for example: http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/genwom/sojour.htm
described by Sojourner Truth, were not just determined by their sex or their skin colour, but by the connections between them. Sojourner truth was treated as a black woman.
In 1977, the Combahee River Collective from Boston published A Black Feminist Statement on this issue. Like Truth, the writers of this statement argue that different forms of oppression influence each other, and that the synthesis of sexism, classism and racism, is what creates the life circumstances of black women (Combahee River Collective, 1977, p 232). Because of this, black feminists often did not feel ‘at home’
in the traditional liberation movements. They realised that they needed to develop a politics that was “antiracist, unlike those of white women, and antisexist, unlike those of black and white men” (The Combahee River Collective, 1977, p 233).
The women of The Combahee River Collective first organised on the basis of their combined anti-racist and anti-sexist positions; later they also included heterosexism and economic oppression in their politics (The Combahee River Collective, 1977, p 234). Their most important point is that black women not only suffer from the sum of sexism and racism (and class oppression), but that these systems of oppression also influence each other. Furthermore, they explain why and how their political struggle differs from those of white women:
“Our situation as black people necessitates that we have solidarity around the fact of race, which white women of course do not need to have this with white men (...). We struggle together with black men against racism, while we also struggle with black men about sexism.” (The Combahee River Collective, 1977, p 235)
A Black Feminist Statement ends with another concern of the women involved: racism in the (white) women’s movement. They describe how little is done by white feminists to understand and fight their own racism. Even though the Combahee River Collective believes that this change should come from those women themselves, they (the Combahee River Collective) will continue to demand accountability.
Since the 1970s, the term ‘universal sisterhood’ has become more and more problematised by feminists. The apparent common identity of women was revealed as being based on white, middle-class women’s experiences (Ang, 2003, p 191). Maybe
all women suffered from sexism, but that does not mean that the sexism all women experience is the same. But what then does this mean for feminism and feminist solidarity? And are there other important factors to take into account besides class and race? If we want to understand how difference works in a European context, we have to take the specificity of European history into account. Critical race studies have done tremendously important work, but these need to be adapted to the specific European context in order to be useful in analysing European issues. This means we have to start taking into account the factors that have been important for the construction of European whiteness, for example the role of eugenics and anti-Semitism.
Griffin and Braidotti describe how, with the rise of European colonial empires, a
‘science’ developed that tried to justify the subjugation of other ‘races’ by ‘proving’
their inferiority. The concept of ‘biological inferiority’ was not only used to describe other racial groups, but also women or people from the lower classes. With the help of Eugenics a complex hierarchy of races was developed, with Aryans as the most superior. However, Griffin and Braidotti also claim that in order to get a better understanding of European racism and whiteness, it is important to go beyond the black-white (or race) dynamic. Or, to put it bluntly: biological racism alone does not explain why gypsies, communists, homosexuals and Jews were sent to the gas chambers (Griffin and Braidotti, 2002, p 226). Griffin and Braidotti argue that intra-group differences are at the heart of European racism: not just the relationship between ‘black’ and ‘white’, but the definition of white itself. These differences are not only based on colour, but also on culture or ethnicity, and should be the main focus of European research on racism and whiteness. However they warn us not to exclude race from our analyses completely, for even though much of European racism is based on ethnicity; biological arguments have been, and sometimes still are used to
‘racialise’ these cultural differences. If we relate this to the discussions about multiculturalism and feminism, we can see the importance of ethnicity in general, and religion specifically, as markers of difference in Europe. And it is currently Islam and Muslims who receive most attention. I will return to this in later chapters, but here I want to briefly demonstrate how religion and gender intersect, by focussing on Islam.
Unveiling the Oriental Woman
The image of the Orient is probably the deepest and most recurring image of the European Other: “European culture gained in strength and identity by setting itself off against the Orient as a sort of surrogate and even underground self” (Said, 2003, in:
Said, 1978, p 3). According to Said, the idea of the superiority of the West compared to non-Western cultures and peoples in general, and the Orient specifically, is perhaps one of the most important aspects of European culture. Generally, Orientalism can be described as a discourse based on a distinction between ‘the Orient’ and ‘the Occident’. Both images are constructions with a particular history, which have created traditions of thought and vocabularies:
“Under the general heading of knowledge of the Orient, (…) there emerged a complex Orient suitable for study in the academy, for display in the museum, for reconstruction in the colonial office, for theoretical illustration in anthropological, biological, linguistic, racial, and historical theses about mankind and the universe, for instances of economic and sociological theories of development, revolution, cultural personality, national or religious character.” (Said, 1978, p 7-8)
This way, an image is created of the world separated into two (unequal) halves: the Orient and the Occident.
Elaborating on Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism, Yeğenoğlu shows us how the image of the Oriental woman intrigues Westerners even more. The Muslim veil speaks especially to the imagination. The idea of modernity is a central concept in these discussions about the Middle East or Muslim women, and is often connected (positively) to the supposed Enlightenment in Western societies and (negatively) to the backwardness of Muslim countries. The assumption in such Oriental texts is that if backward Islamic countries want to modernise themselves and adopt liberal values such as freedom, then they have to break down their cultural, religious and political systems (Yeğenoğlu, 2002, p 82). Differences between the Middle East (or Muslim societies) and the West are presented as though they were on a time-line, in which the latter are supposed to be backward:
“their temporality and dynamism are not understood to be simply different.
This difference is negated, denied, pushed back in a temporality which is construed in linear and progressive terms.” (Yeğenoğlu, 2002, p 83)
In this way, the West is connected to modernity and the East to tradition and religion.
This is a persistent image in discussions about women or gender equality. Women have become a symbol for the ‘backwardness’ of Islam or the Orient.
The position of Muslim women in general, and veiling specifically, has also been important themes for Western feminists. The veil, Yeğenoğlu argues, is:
“taken as the sign of the inherently oppressive and unfree nature of the entire tradition of Islam and Oriental cultures and by extension it is used as a proof of oppression of women in these societies.” (Yeğenoğlu, 2002, p 8 4)
From this perspective, Western feminists who want to free Muslim women from their veils are attempting to force their own ideas about liberation on these women. This way, Western women seem to confirm their own identity as free women while presenting Muslim women as the oppressed Other. One of the consequences of this is that the agency of the Muslim women is ignored, or not recognised. Furthermore, no attention is given to the possible different meanings of traditions. Even though most outsiders see the veil as a sign of oppression, more and more Muslim women are now claiming that the veil can be empowering. They argue that veils can have many different meanings: they can be a woman’s own choice or forced upon her; they can liberate or imprison; mark piety or political statements; and reduce a woman’s space or facilitate her professional activities (Cooke, 2002, p 154).
Against the Production of a Singular Subject
In ‘Unbinding our feet: Saving Brown Women and Religious Discourse’, Kwok Pui-lan argues that the mission of ‘saving brown women’ is not only an important part of the colonialist ideology, but is also entrenched in white women’s consciousness, from where it returns in current Western feminist discourses on religion (Pui-lan, 2002, p 630). For example, in Antoinette Burton’s research we can clearly see how white
women used the supposedly ‘backward position of indigenous women’ to promote their own emancipation (Burton, 1994). One of the consequences of this approach to emancipation is the construction of women from the colonies as ‘victims of their brutal men’. Not only is their suffering under imperialism not taken into account, they are also presented as ignorant poor women who need help from Western saviours (Pui-lan, 2002, p 67). Referring to the work of Spivak, Pui-lan argues that brown women are not allowed to speak: “the subaltern woman has been written, represented, argued about, and even legislated for, but she is allowed no discursive position from which to speak” (Pui-lan, 2002, 67).
In her famous essay ‘Under Western Eyes’, Chandra Talpade Mohanty discusses the “production of the ‘Third World Woman’ as a singular monolithic subject”
(Mohanty, 1988, p 61). She argues that the relationship between the idea of Woman, as a “cultural and ideological composite Other constructed through diverse representational discourse” (Mohanty, 1988, p 62), and women as, “real material subjects” (Mohanty, 1988, p 62), is one of the central issues in feminist scholarship.
But even though many feminists claim that this is not a relationship of direct identity or correspondence, they do not seem to make this distinction for women in the ‘third world’ (Mohanty, 1988, p 62). According to Mohanty two things cause this:
“assumptions of privilege and ethnocentric universality on the one hand, and inadequate self-consciousness about the effects of western scholarship on the
‘third world’ in the context of world system dominated by the west on the other.” (Mohanty, 1988, p 63)
She argues that (overly simplistic) comparative analyses of ‘sexual difference’ not only create homogeneous descriptions of the lives of women in the third world, but also systematise their oppression (Mohanty, 1988, p 63).
According to Mohanty, Western feminists have to situate themselves more, and examine their role in the global economic and political framework. She focuses her criticism on three elements of (Western) feminist analyses: women as monolithic category of analysis; methodological universalism, and the construction of the ‘third world woman’. The first part of Mohanty’s criticism attacks the usage of the category
‘women’ as a homogeneous group for analysis:
“all of us with the same gender, across classes and cultures, are somehow
“all of us with the same gender, across classes and cultures, are somehow