I really appreciated this work by Chandra Mohanty, in part because she revisited a piece of work in a way that made me think of the ethics of writing. In what I umbrella as q/woc feminist text, text is not "dead" in the sense that is published, and then considered finished or complete. I think of text as an active process, so that text is alive and can be revisited, or can change meaning. Partially, I think this of this evolutionary reading of text comes from woc feminisms because so often woc feminist text emerges from a point of experience, or embodied knowledge. These sorts of embodied epistemologies are always in flux because the body, too, is always a site which is in flux and relational to its environment. For this reason, I see so much of Audre Lorde's poetic as theory, and as text that is "alive", fluid and changing with multiple expressions of meaning or significance. So as Mohanty begins her work speaking from a place of individual and personal experience within a larger academic and public politic, she revisits her text in a way that embodies a feminist praxis and a feminist epistemology about our "work" or "text".
In decolonizing feminist scholarship, she critiqued universalizing methodologies, referencing Mie's study of lacemakers in Narsapur as an example of a multilayered analysis to reveal how a feminist work can be particular and universally significant. Also, as Mohanty reiterates, it's important that Mie's work also had a materialist analysis, which connected it to circuits of capital and different vulnerabilities to life/death circumstances (Ruth Wilson Gilmore).
This connects to my current project because I was struggling with defining an indigenous model of Kashmir as particular to its historical context and material occupation, but also universally significant to various decolonizing projects. I think Mohanty's work gives me a vocabulary and reference point to bring up this point within my research (under "ethical considerations").
Mohanty also explained how the politics of capitalism and globalization have become the more urgent focus point of a feminist struggle. I think this is particularly important when writing on "decolonizing" feminist methodologies. It's important and necessary to question what "decolonizing" means within the academic setting, especially within the privatizing public space of the university -- how it is ironic / but also crucial to teach a decolonial syllabi but also being transparent about how the university is a locust of privatizing capitalist power.
In decolonizing feminist scholarship, she critiqued universalizing methodologies, referencing Mie's study of lacemakers in Narsapur as an example of a multilayered analysis to reveal how a feminist work can be particular and universally significant. Also, as Mohanty reiterates, it's important that Mie's work also had a materialist analysis, which connected it to circuits of capital and different vulnerabilities to life/death circumstances (Ruth Wilson Gilmore).
This connects to my current project because I was struggling with defining an indigenous model of Kashmir as particular to its historical context and material occupation, but also universally significant to various decolonizing projects. I think Mohanty's work gives me a vocabulary and reference point to bring up this point within my research (under "ethical considerations").
Mohanty also explained how the politics of capitalism and globalization have become the more urgent focus point of a feminist struggle. I think this is particularly important when writing on "decolonizing" feminist methodologies. It's important and necessary to question what "decolonizing" means within the academic setting, especially within the privatizing public space of the university -- how it is ironic / but also crucial to teach a decolonial syllabi but also being transparent about how the university is a locust of privatizing capitalist power.
No comments:
Post a Comment