Emma's Theory Journal

BWriting this journal has evoked several conflicted emotions from within me.  At first, I found the journal writing to be a bit tedious.  But then as the course went on, I became more passionate about expressing myself.  I was about to situate the theories I learned each week in the context of my Persian and History courses.  Because of this, I had a totally different, more knowledgeable perspective about the world.  More specifically, feminist theory allowed me to understand the many economic, political, and social systems that dictate the writing and events of history, as well as the current international interactions for which I am interested.  This class gave me ideas to which I would not have other been exposed.  So, as you can see by reading my journal, I become more and more passionate as the semester drew to and end because I was finally able to somewhat piece together the complex interactions of the theory and the physical world itself.

Julie's Comments

Dear Emma,

First of all, what a great format to do the theory journal! This is exactly what blogging seems to do well, I think. And it presents it in an orderly and interesting fashion. I love that you are doing the journal this way! I especially love how classmates have responded by posting comments when we do the journal exchange. Very cool.

The challenge to the format though may be the time and space to think and develop thoughts more. Think about that as you are writing the blog posts - and think about coming back to them if necessary. For instance, one of the things that I think happens is some “space” gets filled virtually - the space on your laptop, or the “box” for the blog and we have the sense of being done, when in fact we may not have gone deep enough.

In this entry, for instance, http://emmastheoryjournal.blogspot.com/2015/02/sex.html

I think that you do go into enough depth on the articles. Where as this one, http://emmastheoryjournal.blogspot.com/2015/02/standpoint-epistemologies.html, seems to not have enough depth to it. They may in fact be the same length (you can look at that), but the one on Standpoint Epistemology, doesn’t seem to dive in as deeply to the material, which is dense and difficult to sort through.

I’m interested in seeing a bit more struggle in the journal. A bit more of YOUR active thinking about the process.

And some entries seem to be missing - Remember to go back and do them all! (And some sort of index may help me with the final submission).

Hope you are learning a lot from doing it!

Warmly,

Julie

Intersectionality-April 28

The Bridge Poem

I understood the narrator of this poem to be someone who feels conflicted by her intersecting identities.  She constantly feels like the mediator between different spheres of people.  And because people constantly rely on her to understand people different than themselves, she forgets to focus on who she is a person.  I believe that when she says "I must be the bridge to nowhere--but my true self--and then--I will be useful," she is trying to say that she can longer waste her time and energy on making sense of communities to others.  She does not identify with one single group, and she certainly does not believe that any group dominates over the other.  People that ask her to explain other groups of people are foolish because it perpetuates the polarization and power dynamics of communities.  The "bridge to power" is discovered when she focuses on her uniqueness and individuality, like everyone else should too.

Why do you think Donna Kate Rushin has an issue with translating between different communities?

Do you think that if people identify with communities instead of embracing their intersecting identities, they are losing power?

La conciencia de la mestiza: Towards a New Consciousness

the duel of the oppressor and the oppressed are in mortal combat; reduced to common denominator of violence --- what does this have to do with translation?  Is violence the only common language of humans?  How do groups of people overcome the barriers that language and violence create?

rigidity means death -- patterns and behaviors become the enemy within

"This step is a conscious rupture with all oppressive tradition of all cultures and religions.  She communicates that rupture, documents the struggle. She reinterprets history and, using new symbols, she shapes new myths..."
How does the history of the borderlands and the people who have dominated it affect the mestiza?


How does culture contribute the struggles of the mestiza?
Machoness enforced by Anglo culture creates an insecurity in men that they deal with by abusing their female counterparts
dichotomies of gender are polarized
polarization leads to violence
gay men have the courage to be in touch with their feminine sides and break the bondage of gender norms


"I will not be shamed again, nor will I shame myself." 
In what spaces does shame occur, and where is it most damaging and restricting?



What can people who are burdened by intersecting identities gain from acknowledging and embracing the queer within their community?
Queer fight the dualistic nature of white supremecy
step outside of gender norms
unite all over the world, much more knowledgeable
have the confidence to contribute politically and artistically

Lesbian-April 23

What do you have to say about the class and/or feminist theory?

I think that the economic theory in relation to women should be updated.  I do believe it is important to study Marxist theory, however, I do not believe the feminist theory derived from Marxism is relevant today.

The readings set forward the significance of lesbians in politics.  Audre Lorde defines herself as a Black lesbian feminist.  She contends that the three factors of her identification silence her.  The problem she addresses in "I am you Sister: Black Women Organizing across Sexualities" is that black women fail to organize due to differences in their sexualities, and thus, can never value and benefit from each others' strengths.  According to Lorde, homophobia and heterosexism are rooted in the black community that women become immobilized and silent when they are accused of being lesbian.  This silencing effect allows men to use homophobia as a powerful weapon in order to make women submissive.  Why does homophobia jeopardize the ability for different members of the black community to unite and mobilize?  I believe this is deeply related to Gayle Rubin's discussion of the shame of abnormal sex practices.  Rubin organizes a sexual hierarchy in which married, procreative heterosexual couples are at the top because they are normalized by society, continue the human race, and do not threaten the many systems under the control of men.  Homosexual individuals compose the lower rungs of hierarchy, and intersections of race, class, and gender even further lower a person's status.  In Lorde's case, black lesbians are marginalized along those same lines.  They are viewed a threats to the continuation of the black race, the black family, and just plain abnormal.  This marginalization has no grounds, as Lorde testifies that she has raised children in a stable home, thinks about sex just as much as any heterosexual woman, and is equally as significant in politics as anyone else.  Lorde urges black women to eliminate their biases so they can fight together against the common issues they face.  Being a black lesbian cannot erase them from political relevance, as throughout US history, they have fought against injustices.  Lorde concludes her thoughts by demanding that the black community, and the world, recognize their political significance, and stop just "tolerating" them.  A similar tone of lesbian political mobilization is echoed in Bunch's essay titled "Lesbians in Revolt."  The climate of Lorde's essay is much more realistic and, I think, effective.  Lorde is asking for people to unite across barriers of sexuality and race, so that the political system can be more accommodating for all members of society.  On the other hand, Bunch situates lesbians at the center of political mobilization.  I agree with Bunch in that lesbians play a critical role in rejecting and undermine male dominance.  However, I found her argument to be so malicious towards heterosexual women, that it weakens the ability for feminists to gain political voice.  She relies too heavily on assumptions about the man-woman relationship, putting all heterosexual women in a category of privileged and blind to oppression.  Heterosexual women have stakes in the feminist movement as well, and she is just weakening feminist power by dismissing heterosexual women.  In this light, Lorde's writing is much more powerful because she demands us to use each others strengths to end oppression.  Moreover, Lorde offers historical contextualization to show how homosexual groups have mobilized separately and in unity with more broadly defined groups.  There is little contextualization for Bunch's argument, aside from a series of assumptions and stereotypes.

Lesbian-April 21

In "Compulsory Heterosexuality," Adrienne Rich describes two conflicting narratives about women's sexualities.  First, women are naturally oriented to men and their offspring.  Second, the lesbian "choice" stems from a rejection of and bitterness toward men.  Rich debunks these narratives by asserting that no true depiction of lesbian thought exists in either narrative.  The narratives perpetuate the notion of masculine-based control over women's sexualities.  Moreover, feminist theory has neglected the identity of lesbians throughout history, which furthers the masculine discourse surrounding lesbians.  Rich urges feminists to incorporate historical analysis in their dialogues about compulsory heterosexuality.  It is crucial for men to maintain control over women's sexualities because women are responsible for the economy and social order.  According to Rich, heterosexuality is an institution in which women are forced into the roles of heterosexual performance.  The economic pressures that dictate gender roles put power in the hands of men to control expression of sexuality.  As the economic climate changes, women become more or less free to reject heterosexuality.  The works that Rich discusses attempt to discover the cause of heterosexual rejection as well as compulsory heterosexuality.  In one analysis, a female Oedipus complex is suggested to be the root of lesbian relationships.  She explains that women long to replicate the mother-daughter relationship that comforted them in their childhoods.  These explanations, like the two narratives, look for a cause or a root to lesbian choice.  Rich clarifies that there is no choice, except for when one rebells against the authority forcing them into heterosexual behavior.  The authority, patriarchy, does many things to secure women's important position as mothers.  They do this by restricting the minds and bodies of women.  An example of female restriction that struck me the most was the prevention of women's movements, enforced by mandated clothing, rape, and full-time mothering.  This ties in well with my final project about the veil in Iran and how it makes women immobile by dictating the activities they can perform, the people they are permitted to socialize with, and the places they can go.  Women are veiled to protect their sexualities, and to make sure that they do not engage in unlawful sexual acts, even though men are encouraged to have polygamous marriages.  Interestingly, the veil is mandated to assert men's control over the female body, and yet this manifestation of sex segregation creates a platform for illicit homosexuality.  In other words, because women are permitted to only socialize with male relatives and other women, a homosocial space can become a homoerotic space.  Rubin's contribution to the discussion about the social factors involved in homosexuality furthers my point about the veiled body.  She expresses that sexual acts that deviate from what is deemed acceptable by society are cruelly punished, and the punishment reflects the state of the society itself.  Studying sexual politics in Iran has allowed me to construct political, economic, and social timelines around sexual history.  The Islamists contempt over women's unveiled bodies derived from fear that the youth would engage in unlawful sexual acts and jeopardize the continuation of the human race.  Similarly, homosexual behavior is shamed because it not associated with reproduction.  Rubin clarifies this phenomenon by describing the hierarchy of sexuality in which married, reproductive heterosexual couples are at the top, and "abnormal" homosexuality is at the bottom.  She wants radical policies that keep up with the ever-transforming institution of homosexuality.  While her writing and historical references are compelling, I find her radical approaches ignore viable understandings of sexual history on a global scale.  She argues that sex workers would be better off if sex was accessible in the free market economy.  However, there have been times in history where prostitution was legal, and women in these places still faced violent oppression.  For example, Islamists in pre-revolutionary Iran permitted prostitution in the Red Light District of Tehran.  Even though prostitution was legal in the confines of the district, women were still horribly abused.  Often, men sold them to brothels, and the women had no escape.  If Rubin is going to argue that capitalism would benefit sex workers, she must take into account that capitalism creates and conveniently turns a blind eye to oppression of the working class.

Queer-April 16

From reading the two articles, I gather that queer theory is an attempt to undermine the categories that create oppression of sex, gender, and sexuality.  Theory writers are forced to overcome long histories of colonization and gender appropriating verbiage in order to welcome a new age in theoretical discourse, an age that unifies all humans on the continuum of sexuality.  I found the writing in both articles to be rather personal and casual.  I assume this trend fed the theory articulated, especially in that language needs to be more accessible and inclusive if it will be used to describe and understand each other, hence the word "queer."  In addition, the style of writing allows the writers to insert their pronal interventions and stories within their theories, demonstratiing the living embodiment and commonality of queer individuals.  In the critique of boundaries and systems of oppression created by language, Feinberg urges readers to defy the "man-made boundaries of gender"and create a unifying language that empowers the oppressed.  Furthermore, queer theory confirms that time does not always signify social progression.  For example, Feinberg outlines how transgendered individuals were praised as powerful figures before the advent of capitalism.  An immense and complicated history of persecuting and shaming transgendered communities has created a norm of violence toward and oppression of queer individuals.  This shows the queer community is in an even lower position than they were in ancient history.

Notes from discussion:
clothing limits mobility
capitalism has stakes in clothing

Sexuality-April 13

The purpose of theoretical writing on sexuality is to explore women's rights and access to sexual health and freedom.  The feminist theory lens allows us to look at women's corporeal health in a social and global context.  In the article, "Reproductive and Sexual Rights: A Feminist Perspective," Correa and Petchesky lay out a model for establishing and protecting women's reproductive rights.  The authors argue that although the concept of human rights derives from Western theory, reproductive rights transcend historical and geographical scales.  The central issue of reproductive rights concerns a woman's ability to decide when and whether to have children.  However, many other issues are at hand when dealing with this issue.  Corporeal rights for women both drive and are driven by social change.  In other words, women's control over their bodies is largely encouraged on a government scale, and yet women gain political status when they are able to control their reproduction.  More importantly, the state of the economy determines women's reproductive matters.  For example, women of lower economic status do not have the means of transportation necessary to access contraceptives and gynecological treatments.  The economic inequity of women facilitates the consciousness of social needs greater than women's bodies.  To accommodate the social needs of all women and strengthen the foundation upon which women's reproductive rights are constructed, Correa and Petchesky urge feminists to uphold bodily integrity, personhood, equality, and diversity.  Because women's bodies around the world, and especially in patriarchal locations, are integral to social traditions, the pillars of the social model must remain respected.  In the case of Saudi Arabian women, we have to wonder if the patriarchal mandate to completely cover their bodies rejects the pillars.  To some extent, Saudi Arabian women lack agency in bodily matters.  It is believed that women whose bodies are not completely veiled will draw men into sin, which would jeopardize the pure, Islamic state.  The mandate for women to veil their bodies creates an environment in which women's bodies are concealed from the male gaze, yet they lack freedom in the decision to be veiled.  Furthermore, the veil and its social implications prevents women from exploring their sexuality outside of the Islamic law.  In the analysis of Saudi Arabian women, however, it is important for a "western" feminist like myself to remember diversity.  The veiling of women and maintenance of purity is essential to their religious tradition.  The veil also benefits women by concealing their sex, avoiding sexual assault (somewhat), and preventing themselves from getting distracted by fashion frivolity.  What remains important here is that women do not have the choice to be unveiled.  In the minds of Correa and Petchesky, forcing women to be veiled by a patriarchal and theocratic regime would diminish the freedoms of the other three pillars.

Transnational-April 9

Changing times poses an issue within theoretical writing, as we have seen throughout this course.  Because theory changes with time, theory writers are tempted and sometimes obliged to revisit their former publications.  Transnationalism theory is especially subject to this phenomenon, which is why Mohanty revisited her past work, "Under Western Eyes."  Mohanty has added a new layer to the discourse about transnational feminism.  She strives to defend her vocabulary and push away misleading terms such as "Western" and "non Western".  This change is significant for me because my Persian studies professor feels crushed when we use that terminology.  As students entering the world of academic writing, it i critical for us, and Mohanty, to use the most accurate wording.  Another change in Mohanty;s writing is her emphasis o the global economy, specifically capitalism, as a modern legacy of colonialism.  Capitalism, according to Mohanty, forces a polarization of the One-Third and the Two-Thirds World as well as between individuals within a single community.  She argues that the First and Third World dichotomy contributes to biases, especially in the case of feminist mobilization.  Privilege, as characteristic of the Two-Thirds World, creates blindness to the needs of the local.  This is similar to the argument of Berkeley Brown, who stated that social stratification inherently obstructs our view of the reality people on different rungs face.  The Eurocentric feminism that Mohanty critics attempts to theorize the universal and thus, issues of the One-Thirds World are not considered in the "universal" theory of the "Two-Thirds" World.

Transnational-April 7

I would like to focus on one of the readings today, the essay by Amrita Basu, in order to put the idea of transnational feminism into the contect of my undergraduate tuies.  basu analyzses the processes and the outcomes of the 1995 Beijing Women's Conference as it relateds to local and global feminist issues.  In 1985 omen in the "South" were linked to the concept of the local, as their issues seemed to be involve more basic needs.  The definition of local and global were disputed because it led to the polarization of the North and South.  The North financially upports the South; however, this underscores a legacy of colonialism and the third world dependence on the North.  Furthermore, the two way flow of ideas becomes restricuted.  Globalism ofers some leverage to alleviate the tensions of Northern dominance by emphasizing women's issues as human rights issues.  Campaigns on this global platform have been successful, specifically in protest of the Taleban's treatment of Afghan women.  Although, the North's perception of the Middle Eastern  local and feminist issues continue to be biased and dangerously limiting.  The focus on sexual victimization in the Middle East is exacerbated by U.S.-Arab tensions.  The North views the Middle East as backwards.  Moreover, the women are considered to completely voiceless beings in an oppressive theocratic state.  Little good can be done in the world if our strongest mobilizing force is formed upon historical and political resentments.  This is why I think it is so important to study diffferent cultures and remove regional biases.  Women become equally as oppressed by ignorant feminist discourse as they do by patriarchal legacies.  For example, Iranian women in 1937 were forced to unveil by King Reza Shah, who wanted to modernize the country and maintain close economic and political ties with Europe.  Forced unveiling created great insecurity within Iranian women who found the veil to be integral to the expression and concealment of their femininity and religion.  Feminist discourse mostly takes global and historical phenomenons into context in order to become more conscious of human rights matters.