Transnationalism and Diaspora - Jozi Chaet

Relevance to the Text Generally

Over the course the readings for this week, the information presented throughout the articles is largely focused on the general association between scholarship and activism, and the way in which feminism engages with that relationship. Additionally, the articles discuss the notion that gender, sexuality, class, race, and nation do not exist as separate or distinct categories, but rather, are each part of a connected and interwoven relationality. In doing so, the texts explore the ways in which it is possible to undertake transnational feminist studies across the borders of academia and activism, multicultural feminism, and metanarratives of liberation and political/national engagement, knowledge making, and the way in which scholars speak with research subjects (Nagar 2014; Shohat 1998). While the following post cannot successful engage with the specificities of all of those complex discussion, this post attempts to think through one of the primary concepts embedded within the work presented by Shohat over the course of the introduction to Talking Visions: Multicultural Feminism in a Transnational Age – namely, the way in which women’s movements in non-western countries have related to and intersected with western assumptions of feminism and nationalist movements, and the extent to which that engagement has influenced or guided the objectives of particular women’s movements. In turn, this post aims to explore the implications of that analysis, with a particular focus on the conversation concerning multicultural feminism, and endeavors to address the potential way in which that work relates to my own emerging research.

Over the course of her discussions concerning multicultural feminism, Shohat suggests that “in many national and international fora, ‘Third World’ feminists and/or womanists have criticized the facile harmony of a [w]estern-based global sisterhood” (Shohat 1998, 11) for its lack of acknowledgement or understanding of the privilege that it assumes because of its association with countries that assume a particular position on the “neo-imperial pyramid” (Shohat 1998, 11). In turn, Shohat states that “multicultural feminism has had to address...both the Eurocentric assumptions of [w]estern feminism and the (herto)masculine culture of nationalist movements” (Shohat 1998, 11). As a result, Shohat reflects upon the oft overlooked fact that “the long history of colonized [and] racialized women’s commitment to gender equality has been practiced largely within the context of national [and] racial liberation” (Shohat 1998, 12), and asserts that it is important to examine the evolution of the women’s movement in non-western countries through a lens that acknowledges the work that women have accomplished within an environment dominated by western imperialism and nationalist movements (Shahot 1998, 12-13). In doing so, Shahot suggests that it is possible to understand not only the role of colonialism and imperialism, but additionally recognize the role of the nation itself, within the development of the women’s movement within the context of particular countries. Consequently, that analysis provides a space for a “dismantling of patriarchal nationalist (even anticolonial) historiography while also challenging the Eurocentric contours of ‘gender’ and ‘sexuality’ within feminist historiography” (Shahot 1998, 12), which ultimately allows for an awareness of the fact that multicultural feminists in non-western countries are not “‘traitors of the nation’…[or] [w]estern-style feminists” (Shahot 1998, 12), but are working to create a space that has contributed to “a fresh sense of community answerability” (Shahot 1998, 12).

Application to Real or Imagined Project(s)

The discussion presented by Shahot, as well as Nagar’s analysis, concerning the work accomplished by women in non-western contexts and the way in which researchers can be accountable when engaging in work that is at once socially and politically charged, activist-oriented, and conducted with ‘the academy’, are useful in relation to my own developing project. In the blog post for last week, I stated that my emergent research is focused on female activist organizations in Jordan, and the relationship between the development of the modern Jordanian state since the mid-twentieth century and both the historical and contemporary capacity for female advocacy organizations throughout the country, through the lens of extant legal provisions in the Jordanian Penal Code (Articles 98, 340) that allow perpetrators of so-called honor crimes to receive mitigated sentences. As a result, my work takes an interdisciplinary approach that is at once grounded in historical narratives concerning both the development of the state and the establishment of civil society writ large (and the women’s movement specifically) and focused on the contemporary work of extant feminist/female advocacy organizations throughout Jordan. Consequently, the framework provided by Shohat, discussed briefly above, is quite useful for considering the way in which the independence of Jordan following the Second World War and the subsequent establishment and development of the modern Jordanian state impacted/contributed to/influenced the women’s movement that emerged simultaneously.

Additionally, over the course of this semester, many of my discussion questions have focused on the way in which one can effectively do research that is accountable and conscious; the discussion presented over the course of Nagar’s article provides a possible answer to those questions, and offers a potential way in which to move forward with my work this summer in a way that will be meaningful and responsible. For that, I will quote the passage in its entirety, in order to refer back to it in a streamlined manner –

“Feminist social scientists have often sought a speaking with model of engagement between researcher and researched – an approach that involves talking and listening carefully, and openness to influences of people from varied sociocultural locations….theses insights often remain vague, however, requiring extension of reflexivity from an identity-based focus to a more material and institutional focus…rather than privileging a reflexivity that emphasizes researcher’s identity, we must discuss more explicitly the economic, political, and institutional processes and structures that provide the context fo the fieldwork ecounter and shape its effects – an aspect that has often taken a backseat in reflexive exersices…exploring the overlaps and disjunctures between these two kinds of reflexivities is essential for grappling with the theory [and] praxis divide, engaging in feminist knowledge production across multiple borders, and moving beyond the impasse” (Nagar 2014, 85)

While I am still unsure if the suggests Nagar offers in that passage offer a complete solution to the questions that I have posed to myself over the course of the past ten or so weeks, I do think that it provides a helpful place to start in considering the workings of power in fieldwork relations, and the extent to which it is both possible and necessary to examine the operation of power at a number of interwoven levels.

Discussion Question(s)

To what extent do the methodologies offered by Shahot and Nagar offer ways to work through the questions that we have been dealing with/mulling over as a class throughout the semester (re: accountability and responsibility as a researcher, how to approach language, etc.)? With the chapters from Clarno’s book and in relation to the readings from last week, in what ways do the discussions presented by Shahot and Nagar intersect with and expand upon/push forward questions regarding the intersection between imperialism, colonialism, nationalism, and feminism, broadly writ?

Building upon all three texts for this week – how can we move forward as researchers with this information? Can/should research be activist-oriented or based in activism – what is gained, what is lost, does such a focus or foundation really get at questions of solidarity and responsibility?