Leah Feutz Blog Post

Feminism, Activism and Globalization Blog Post- Leah Feutz

            All of the readings for this week helped to illuminate some of the complications of activism and enacting change, particularly in the context of feminist causes and women’s rights. One theme that I saw among all these readings, as well as in most of our discussions in general, was the idea that generalizations, misrepresentations, and skewed understandings can be problematic to how we see ourselves, view others, and make connections between these networks in the globalizing world.

        Professor Jafar’s piece “Engaging Fundamentalism” discusses the “ground reality” of Islamic fundamentalism within which women’s NGOs in Pakistan are operating (256). As she notes, a lot of the literature and debates on NGOs take “either/or” approaches to characterizing these groups, and thus are “unable to capture the context within which NGOs make their decisions…these NGOs have to consider the political and religious sensibilities of the communities that they work within as they develop their agendas and organize their activities” (257). I think this central point of the piece is especially interesting. A lot of times, we discuss misconceptions in how we view other cultures and many of the ways in which our vision of other realities is flawed, but we don’t always take the step to say that this is dangerous for other purposes beyond our own perceptions. We often fail to see the consequences of our unexamined visions of the world. It is not just about educating our views of others’ realities, but also how more accurate understanding leads to more appropriate (and respectful) action. In this particular case, Professor Jafar emphasizes that “NGOs do not operate in a political and cultural vacuum where they are free to choose their causes and implement their visions without any practical implications” (270). It is essential to also consider the relationship between NGOs and religion, and how there are multiple dynamics at play in determining how NGOs are active as well as how their work and “the NGO community are viewed by the larger population” (270).

            Lila Abu-Lughod’s article also reiterates this theme of not addressing complexity, as when the author was reviewing questions for a panel on Women and Islam. She writes that “the questions were hopelessly general. Do Muslim women believe ‘x’? Are Muslim women ‘y’?...I asked her: If you were to substitute Christian or Jewish wherever you have Muslim, would these questions make sense?” (784). She explains how a “cultural framing” of the discussions was preventing any serious historical or political examination. I was especially struck when Abu-Lughod wrote further, “instead of questions that might lead to the exploration of global interconnections, we were offered ones that worked to artificially divide the world into separate spheres-recreating an imaginative geography of West versus East”, with what she calls “female symbols being mobilized” to characterize the broader sense of the issue (784). Okin, too, discusses this issue when she writes that liberal states “tend to treat cultural grous as monoliths-to pay more attention to differences between and among groups than to differences within them” (3). I find that this is a common occurrence in many different instances. Perhaps generalizing and using cultural explanations is easier for the “common person” to grasp, but we tend to create representations of the different groups we are trying to analyze and thus force attached meanings in often inappropriate situations. Through this, we also put a responsibility on individuals of these particular groups to speak for the whole, instead of affording them the respect to speak for themselves (something we would not do to certain more privileged groups). Also, without the willingness to look more closely, we fail to see the power structures that create these pictures and also the dynamics of privilege (such as gendered aspects, etc) within groups. I hope that as I continue to study different issues in our course and just in encountering them in general, I can be critical of how I conceive of these kinds of relationships and remember to extend the same respect of individuality to explaining experience that I would want to have myself. Furthermore, as Okin states, this will help to “look at within-group inequalities” such as gendered inequalities that “are likely to be less public, and less easily discernible. Responsible action to protect minority rights and further well-being should recognize the pervasiveness of power dynamics in many situations.

             In Professor Jafar’s guest post “the Burden of Representation”, this concept is further discussed. She writes about the “stereotypical and one-dimensional image of the Muslim woman as oppressed, unaware of her rights, and really no more than a shadowy figure gazing out from behind the veil” (1). The question is asked, “exactly whose rights, and which systems of privilege and oppression, are we upholding when we honor the rights of a culture over those of its individuals?” (2). Again, I am reminded of the importance of challenging our traditional social and cultural critiques, for moral reasons and also for the purposes of deepening our understanding beyond trying to paint some broader “big picture” of situations.

            Finally, the World Health Organization web page on female genital mutilation presented many of the key facts, issues, cultural, religious, and social causes, as well as responses taken to end this practice. I didn’t know too much about the particularities of this issue before doing these readings, and I am not going to pretend like I am an expert now, but I had heard some of the “broader conversations” surrounding FGM. Last class, we were discussing respecting other cultures, and Jane was bringing up the question of who gets to judge other cultures and what that means for responsibility to critique our own practices and tendencies. I had heard some of the same ideas applied to FGM in past discussions of this issue, and while I try to be conscious of reserving judgment before I am more educated on a subject, I have a problem with blocking a more universal sense of morality in these types of situations. Especially as exhibited by many of our readings for this week, when we try to “respect cultures” and leave practices unchallenged and unexamined, we ignore the ways that these are the product of power dynamics and systemic advantage/disadvantage within groups. As the fact sheet states, the procedure of female genital mutilation has no health benefits for girls and women, and in this way has gendered consequences (which Okin also discusses). Maybe as a woman it is easier for me to feel some solidarity or a more instant sense of “wrongness” with practices such as this, and with other issues it might be more complicated to figure out where I identify cultural practices that are not to be respected. But regardless, it is definitely important to further education on these various subjects to have more “educated judgment” in a more fair and responsible way. I just wonder how policy and law, both of which require some measure of generalization, can also do justice to the complicated dynamics of these issues. While examining the intricacies of the issues is important, there is also something to be said for enacting change quickly, especially given that our system of government, global governing bodies, and many political systems in general are slow and complicated processes already. I am definitely confused about where the balance lies between meeting the individual and unique needs of different groups and sub-groups, and trying to create policy expediently to help people as soon as possible.