Week 3: Defining Feminism in a Global World

In their introduction to Women’s Activism and Globalization: Linking Local Struggles and Transnational Politics, Naples and Desai make an excellent point about the conundrum of feminism within the new age of globalization. On page 9 they write, “ironically, ‘the very processes that produce a racialized feminized proletariat ... displace traditional and national patriarchies,’ thus generating ‘new possibilities precisely because they have led to a breakdown and a reformulation of the categories of nation, race, class, and gender’” (161-162; also see Kelly, Bayes, Hawkesworth, and Young 2001). I believe that this is one of the most important points made in Naples’ and Desai’s introduction because it stresses the importance of widening one’s perspective and looking for feminist action and/or resistance in unexpected places. For instance, one may view globalization as solely harmful to women because of the way it keeps women stuck in a service-level class, but one who looks further can see that while this is problematic, it also, as the authors point out, allows for a restructuring of previously held social norms and ideas. This one example, I believe, serves as a metaphor for the larger action vital to the feminist movement. Rather than succumbing to the weight of globalization and expanding control of those already in power, we as feminists must try to find the positives in a changing world and put our efforts into making those areas stronger, such as the ability to smash existing norms and replace them with an equalized standard. In a world where globalization creates smaller divides among all countries, we must use this to our advantage and learn from each other. As Naples and Desai write on page 9, “the contradictory processes associated with globalization reshape the possibilities for political action to ‘the interstitial sites of the social formation in which the national intersects with the international’” (172). This passage inspires me to look beyond the downside of globalization (while not ignoring the problems it creates, however) and encourages me to find means of political action on both a national and international level.

Question: Do you believe that the “bad” in a situation can/should be overlooked for the “better good?” In the previously discussed case, for example, are the positives of globalization enough to outweigh its negatives? When would this not be acceptable? If, for example, one minority group’s rights were silenced for the sake of another’s, would this be ok? Why or why not?

--

Ferree and Tripp’s definition of feminism in Global Feminism: Transnational Women’s Activism, Organizing, and Human Rights was the most powerful passage to me. The authors describe feminism as “a goal, a target for social change, a purpose informing activism, not a constituency or a strategy” (6). They continue on to say that “feminist mobilizations are informed by feminist theory, beliefs, and practices, but they may take place in a variety of organizational contexts, from women’s movements to positions within governments. Feminism as a goal often informs all or part of the agenda of mixed-gender organizations such as socialist, pacifist, and democratization movements (Ferree and Tripp 9). I wish I had read this definition of feminism sooner in my academic career because I feel like it truly encapsulates and captures what feminism actually is. The questions of “what counts as feminism?” and “who can/not be a feminist?” have come up more times than I can count during my previous Women’s Studies classes, and I feel as if this definition puts an answer to them. As Ferree and Tripp write, “to have a feminist goal is in no way inconsistent with having other political and social goals as well. The question of where feminism stands on the list of priorities of any individual or group is an empirical one” (7). I like that this definition allows for freedom and individual autonomy. One is able to maintain their political/religious/personal beliefs while still working toward the goal of feminism. It is thus defined it as an end point and not an identity. By working with feminism under this definition, one can hope to change the stereotypes associated with the term and show others that it is a goal for everyone no matter how they identify. I am glad that Ferree and Tripp recognize the feminist potential in all organizations, be they elites in power or grassroots organizers, and I look forward to learning much more from their work.

Question: Would you consider “feminist” to be one of your main identifying features? Why/why not? Is it beneficial or problematic to define feminism in such broad terms so that people from all different organizations can be considered feminist? How will this aid/hurt the movement?