Womanist is to Feminist as Purple is to Lavender: a story of resistance

Dealing with Third World feminism implies facing an immediate problem of definition: the never ending
dilemma of talking about someone else. Third World, or developing countries, as well as Third World women are labels which speak for themselves – as soon as they are pronounced –, revealing points of view, geographic, economic and gender identities of those who have made them up. Following the classical route of inverse identification – which closely reminds the colonial period – and thus defining as others the two categories of “women” and “East”,

“(Western)/Man Humanism can represent him/itself as the center. It is not the center that determines the periphery, but the periphery that, in its boundedness, determine the center. […] The definition of “the Third world woman” as a monolith might well tie into the larger economic and ideological praxis of “disinterested” scientific inquiry and pluralism which are the surface manifestations of a latent economic and cultural colonization of the “non-Western” world. It is time to move beyond the Marx who found it possible to say: They cannot represent themselves, they must be represented.”¹

Above Photo: www.fromthevaultradio.org

The trend to accept monolithic and “from-outside” definitions usually provokes inaccuracies and
generalizations, if not gross mistakes. Thus, as soon as these commonly accepted definitions are
pronounced, a characteristic emerges, typical of those studies whose subject are Others: in this
specific case, women and non-European, non-North American countries. We immediately
recognize the smell of eurocentrism, of the indelible habit of colonialism (and androcentrism, as
one of its forms): customs which lead to observing the world from inside to outside and to ignoring
the point of view of those who, being “outside”, look “inside”.

The criteria which decide who/what is “the center” and who/what is the periphery are clearly not
based on numbers: the majority of world population, in fact, is non-Western and the world’s largest
cities have one thing in common, that is, none of them is in Europe, nor in the United States.
So, the problem of definition recalls colonialism and colonialism always brings about a form of
deeply rooted sexism.

The British colonial system in India, for instance, was masculine in its interference, in its bureaucratization of gender and race, in asserting itself as an indispensable civilizer, in its officers’ faultless neatness, in pursuing rationality and using it as an arm against local people: the borders it erected between itself and “native people” make the latter a group of childish beings, passive people who need to be guided by someone else, stronger than them, even morally. In short, feminine beings.

Even after they reach Independence and after colonial regimes have apparently lost their power over them, the so-called “developing countries” have the legacy of practices carried on by European empires. These countries are no longer labelled “colonies”: their name is different, but the substance is not; they keep swelling the ranks of a Third World which is still the victim of those ancient dynamics, that guarantee to the First World to keep its status of empire.

If we look at it from this point of view, we find that the term feminism does not exhaustively describe all nuances, which complete it, according to the different parts of the world where the word is used; once again, we are facing an approximation, which undervalues the plurality of the phenomenon. The type of feminism this label refers to is that of European or North American white bourgeoisie; it is the movement begun in the second half of 20th century, struggling to reach equality between men and women, and to guarantee to women the same opportunities of men, in the fields of occupation, economics, social position. For this type of feminism, gender is the focal point, and it confines itself to a struggle against gender discrimination.

Above Photo: www.moca.org

On the other hand, Third World feminism consider gender discrimination as one of the issues they have to face; one problem among others, certainly not the only one. In these different feminism, for the historical reasons already mentioned, other types of oppression are to be defeated: racism, for instance, and economic exploitation; gender discrimination is neither the sole nor perhaps the primary locus of the oppression of Third World women. The perspective in which these feminism act and fight is thus wider than the context of Western feminism.

“In ‘underdeveloped’ societies it is not just a question of internal redistribution of resources, but of their generation and control; not just equal opportunity between men and women, but the creation of opportunity itself; not only the position of women in society, but the position of societies in which Third World women find themselves.”²

The oppression Third World women have to deal with does not concern gender discrimination only; western interference in these countries has brought about and exacerbated the issues of racial discrimination and exploitation, plus the patriarchy which colonizing countries as well were imbued
with.

This makes non-Western feminisms facing problems and pursuing aims of great importance, concerning not only women but also the entire societies in which they live. To these societies, as we have seen, could be assigned – inside the global system – the feminine gender; so, to apply feminist instances to a global scale, we could say that a Western white woman is to a Western white man as Third World societies are to First World societies.

This is why Afro-American writer Alice Walker suggested to use the word womanism, instead of feminism, to describe these movements spreading through Third World. A womanist, according to Alice Walker, is a “feminist of colour”, who “is committed to survival and wholeness of entire people, male and female.”³

In the field of gender studies, the existence of this wider type of feminism – different from Western feminism because of the context where it’s rooted, more than because of its aims – has given birth to interesting debates about global cooperation and consciousness of diversity. Marie Angelique Savane, first President of the Association of African Women Organized for Research, writes:

“In Third World, women’s demands have been explicitly political, with work, education and health as major issues per se and not so linked to their specific impact on women. In addition, women of the Third World perceive imperialism as the main enemy of their continents and especially of women. […] Feminism is international in defining as its aim the liberation of women from all types of oppression and in providing solidarity among women of all countries; it is national in stating its priorities and strategies in accordance with particular cultural and socioeconomic conditions.”⁴

The diversity of contexts, in which different types of feminism emerge, requires that, when we look at the rest of the world, our eyes be free from colonialist heritages, and feminism be explicitly anti- imperialist, and fight against structural elements of First World which cause the oppression of women in Third World. Western feminism, in short, should make the effort of widening its horizons, to deal also with issues of class, imperialism and exploitation, to cooperate with other feminisms in lightening the burden carried by the women of the world.

Above Photo: www.womeninworldhistory.com

Indian Chipko movement can be considered, from the European point of view of someone who, like me, lives and was brought up in Italy, a clear example of feminist action, born in a context extremely different from those we usually associate with the term “feminism”. Chipko movement started in the mid 1970s in Uttaranchal state, with the aim of protecting local forests from the exploitation by colonial forces and, later on, by big industries of North Indian planes. Known as an ecologist movement, Chipko has been – in my opinion – an experience with wider borders, as it has intervened against imperialism, economic exploitation and British racism, and has thus become a field of action of women living in Uttaranchal villages, thanks to whose participation the movement has been successful.

“A WISE person once said that forestry is not about trees. It is about people.No one has realised this more than the women of the Uttarakhand region. Everyone by now knows about the Chipko Movement. But not many know about the women of the Uttarakhand region who have made it their lifetime mission to leave undestroyed forests for their children and grandchildren…One woman whom future generations in Uttarakhand are not likely to forget is Gaura Devi who has mobilised the women of this region to protect their natural heritage.”⁵

I will here try to demonstrate the neo-imperialist and patriarchal basis of Western idea of “development”; to make clear the links between Woman and Nature, and their importance in this context; to explicit the ideological and practical levels, within whose borders Uttaranchal women have moved and acted; to explain the type of agency they have put on place.

The myth of development is considered a post-colonial project, which can be utilized anywhere in the world, within any culture and any economic system. But in former colonies, adopting this economic model of development will mean nothing but perpetuating that ancient foreign occupation.

Left Photo: Gaura Devi - Photo: Mark Shepard

Besides remaining the target of neo-imperialism, more or less masked by the same colonizing nations, these countries make up the so-called “domestic colonies”, as it has been the case between India and Uttaranchal; these internal dominions become for new national elites what the entire country had earlier been for foreign powers. The same mechanisms of exploitation thus recur, though on a reduced scale: for these minorities, colonies of modern times, the so-called development is rather a calamity, synonymous for destruction, more than for progress. In Uttaranchal, women were the first victims of “progress”, which in this case wore the clothes of English (and later, Indian) timber entrepreneurs, and of the “scientific” exploitation of Garhwal and Kumaon forests. Heedless of Himalayan forests’ ecological heritage, this process – from 19th century to present days – has been destroying local wood supplies, deforesting and replacing old trees with monocultures, which are commercially more useful, can be used for the railroad and paper factories, or sold to Western countries, always in need of wood.

Left Photo : anshulg.files.wordpress.com

This has altered these areas’ ecological equilibrium, paving the way for landslides and floods, interchanged with periods of severe dryness. Also, it has economically destroyed mountain communities, who have been inhabiting the area for centuries and found their survival upon a strict relationship with forests, respecting their rhythms and equilibrium, and making their living out of woods products. Women mostly experience the after-effects of this exploitation of forests, since it denies them their traditional role of picking up firewood, fodder and food for the family, thus making them a burden for society.

“Development” shows its patriarchal foundation when it supposes nature is unproductive and needs human intervention to become prolific enough; and this clashes with Hindu idea of nature, considered to be the expression of power and venerated as a source of abundance. So, Western and Eastern points of view concerning the productive capacity of nature are poles apart: the first refers to labour productivity, whose aim is to increase capital, while the latter situates the concept within the boundaries of survival, given the existence in these areas of a subsistence economy. The first is masculine, the latter is feminine; the first acts magniloquently and noisily, the latter moves silently, patiently, slowly. The first uses the principle of exclusivity, separating the elements of an ecosystem in order to develop them as much as possible, and thus breaking an equilibrium; the latter acts according to inclusiveness, moving within a whole and respecting its rhythms and needs.

We can now again utilize the comparison already formulated, and add new terms; colonizer is to native as progress is to unproductiveness as science is to nature as man is to woman. The relationship between woman and nature thus becomes very clear; it is a both biological and social correspondence, since they both generate life and are the guarantees of preserving life and providing subsistence: woman as a harvester, and nature as a force that endlessly recreates itself to provide nourishment.

In a more or less implicit way, the assertion of unproductiveness of nature is extended to women as
well; so this “bad development”, besides being an ecological menace, is also one more form of inequality between men and women. It implies a devaluation of labour, of natural systems’ productiveness, of women and of societies based upon subsistence economies, making all these useless and backward.

The action of Chipko movement, starting from 1973, opposed these forms of patriarchy and imperialism. It was inspired by Amrita Devi, a Bishnoi young woman from Rajasthan, an ecologist and feminist ante litteram, who in 18th century gave her life to save from eradication the trees surrounding her village.

Two centuries later, the women from Garhwal and Kumaon regions decided to oppose to the continual exploitation of their land, to the increasing impoverishment of their communities and to the devaluation of their socio-economic positions within society.

The first obstacle they had to face was at home, where their husbands – who kept being bought with
some liquor by foreign traders and worked for them as wood-cutters, destroying their forests with their own hands – did not agree with their actions. Heedless of them, women joined forces against “scientific sylviculture”, elegant terms masking the disastrous economic exploitation of this woodland.

The reason why they decided to take action is significant of the context where they lived, and recalls the distinction between feminism and womanism: they rose against gender discrimination, but considered it to be the product of a wider racial discrimination and imperialist economic exploitation.

“Chipko” means “hug!”, and this is what those women, girls and children actually used to do, facing wood-cutters in British raj’s pay or Indian planes contractors; disarmed, they hugged the trunks, declaring they would fall with the trees under the axes, rather than letting them be chopped down.

The choice of this method recalls non-violent resistance used by Gandhiji who, among other things, was particularly fond of these lands. But it also situates Chipko movement within the context not of a militant, screaming, Western-style feminism, but within that of a quiet, delicate, enduring action.Because it apparently seems to be submissive, this type of feminism is often misunderstood, while in most countries of the South of the world it keeps struggling for justice, opposing to a Western intervention which – while saying to be bringing “development” – too often brings nothing but impoverishment, discrimination, wild exploitation.

Citations : 

1. C.T.Mohanty, Under Western Eyes – Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discorse, p. 73-74, in C.T.Mohanty, A.Russo, L.Torres (eds), Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism, Indiana University Press, Bloomington 1991.
2. 2 C. Johnson-Odin, Common Themes, Different Contexts – Third World Women and Feminism, p.
   320, in C.T. Mohanty, A.Russo, L.Torres (eds), Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism, Indiana University Press, Bloomington 1991.
3. Ibid., p. 315.
4. Ibid., p. 320, 325.
5. Excerpt from C.S. Lakhmi, Lessons from the Mountains: the Story of Gaura Devi, The Hindu, May 21, 2000, www.hinduonnet.com

Comments

Hello to all!
Sorry for my English:)

Feminism. XM! This is a very complex topic. And (I think), feminism is perceived as an aggressive action on the part of women. Especially third world countries. In particular, in Russia where I live. I know little about Indian women's feminism. Once I had the honor to meet with women feminists from India. In 90 of the 20 century. These women were so strong. The inner strength of women in India I was fascinated.
But in general, feminism is only protecting her honor and dostointsva. As a woman who wants to be free as a man. Just to live free of invented plant society.
And let there be all as before. Both husband and children. But in this family, a woman wants to be herself. That's probably all.
Violence breeds violence ..
And feminism that occurred because of any violence has crashed ...
No need to wage war against one or the other.
Feminism is the right to life for women around the world ...
And any aggression. Not a war. Only goodness and beauty can destroy the aggressive views on feminism ...

I do not know.
But I think so. I feel so.

I am a Christian. And my faith in God helps me. I understand that the time will come when all people will understand that peaceful relations better than the quarrels and disputes.

Positive above negative.
And all we need is love.

Again, sorry for my English.

Thank you and very good and good for all people.

Mila Ugolkova