Issues of Multicultural and
Global Feminism
through Uma Narayan's "Contesting Cultures"
Uma Narayan, a self-described Third
World Feminist (a feminist concerned with third world issues), defends
Third World Feminism against the charge that such feminist ideals are
anti-national. Charges of 'Westernization', Narayan claims, are
intended to criticize Third World Feminism as blatantly rejecting third
world values and cultural traditions. After all, how can a feminist not be rejecting certain cultural
traditions when integral to these traditions are sexist and oppressive
social structures and customs?
Narayan first explains that the feminist ideals that Third World
Feminists endorse are not necessarily adopted from Western cultures.
Indeed, she thinks that it is more likely that the feminist ideals were
the result of the very culture that Third World Feminists are charged
with rejecting. She supports this claim with a bit of autobiography:
when she was young, she learned from her mother and the unhappy
dynamics of her home life just what oppression was and why it was
harmful. She claims, "How could my loyalty and respect for 'my culture'
fail to be tainted by the clear fact that there was little justice or
happiness for my mother in our house?" (398) What Narayan is suggesting
is that many Third World Feminists got their feminist ideals not by adopting some Western
ideology, but by seeing that the home life was a small microcosm of
society as a whole; seeing injustice in the home will allow one to
extrapolate and see injustice in the cultural society in general.
Moreover, Narayan claims, the ideals that were instilled in her were
contradictory: on the one hand she was encouraged to get an education,
be somewhat financially savvy, and have other occupational skills
(other than home-making). Yet on the other hand, they were still
expected to uphold traditional womens roles, and be subservient to men.
This contradictory message, however, naturally resulted in the young
women overthrowing one of the expectations for the other. And since
they had been exposed to education and had become intelligent,
independent thinkers, it is no surprise they opted to reject the
traditional womens roles that denied them intellectual and financial
freedom. However, Narayan argues, all this goes show that it was the
values originally instilled in them by their mothers--contradictory
though they may be--that was ultimately responsible for their feminist
ideals. This means that these ideals were not 'western' at all. They
were merely the natural result of generations of women gaining more and
more access to education and freedom--an evolution that was based in
the Third World culture already.
Next, Narayan criticizes the notion of "Westernization", and questions
whether it reflects any univocal and helpful concept. She begins by
explaining that the notion of 'cultural identity' was first utilized as
a reaction to colonization. It was necessary for the infringing,
colonial culture to distinguish itself from the native culture that was
being overrun, and vice-versa. Embracing a particular nationalism, in
other words, where each culture had distinct and significant traditions
allowed each culture to appeal certain customs, which apparently showed
who was superior. Narayan not
only criticizes the arbitrariness of have cultural identity created in
this way, but also because many of the customs that were labeled as
'traditional, national values' were customs which only occurred in a
small minority of the entire country, and had only been occurring for a
short period of time. Narayan suggests that this adherence to
nationalism and traditional culture continues to this day because of
the "economic and exploitation and political manipulation" of Third
World countries "by Western powers." (404) Yet Narayan points out that
this phenomenon is not limited to Third World culture alone: in the US,
it is often argued that the truly national and cultural values in place
are the "Christian values." Thus, any feminist ideals that may
contradict these sorts of values, will be seen as unpatriotic or
"unAmerican." (406)
Finally, Narayan address the assumption underlying all appeals to
traditional, national culture: that the only thing that makes a
societal practice valuable is it's longevity. This in turn implies that
there can be nothing valuable in a culture that undergoes change--that
all valuable customs must be stagnant. She also points out the
arbitrariness of which changes in a society get labeled
"Westernization" (e.g., feminist ideals) and which ones don't (e.g.,
televisions).
In these ways, then, Narayan thinks she has shown that charging the
Third World Feminists with "Westernization"--of rejecting their own
culture and heritage by adopting purportedly 'western' ideals--is
completely ineffective. It also grossly misunderstands the motives
behind promoting feminist ideals in Third World countries and how
traditional culture and values are constituted.
Page Last Updated: Oct. 26, 2006