From this week’s readings, I have a better understanding of the term ‘transnational’ than I did before.  After ten weeks, we’ve struggled to pinpoint the denotation of the elusive term (especially compared to international, global, cosmopolitan, etc, like we discussed in our first weeks).  Grewal and Kanplan provided a handful of worthwhile uses of the term (664-665), but they were able to relay a particularly clear definition of the term in their article: “such usage relied on a universal subject of feminism, while transnational could signal cultural and national difference” (666).  This idea, to me, demonstrates the inability to use ‘transnational’ and ‘global’ as synonyms, because it emphasizes the difference between universal and particular conceptualizations.  Rather, ‘transnational’ finds itself safely between the two extremes.

The idea of transnational (rather than global/universal or local/particular) feminism is helpful for incorporating specific issues from different nations or cultures to create a strong, unifying activist force.  Ferree and Tripp delineate the history of modern feminism, particularly the conflicts and disagreements confronted between separate states.  For instance, when feminism is portrayed as a global issue, confusion arises.  This is because feminism is such a vague umbrella term under which so many diverse issues reside, that global agreement does not exist.  Cultural nuances in different areas of the world place greater importance on political representation than a woman’s right to her own body, for instance.  Recall Shu-Mei Shih’s article in Minor Transnationalisms, where she referenced a woman who “disagreed strongly with the assumptions of Western feminism […] and has since publicly repudiated Western feminism” (73).  Ferree and Tripp pointed out that this feeling is not uncommon among feminists outside of the United States, especially.  For instance, the global South has complained about the “limited and singular vision of feminism” presented by the North (61), and they have made strides to alter the transnational feminist lens to make these issues more relevant for them as well.

Ferree and Tripp reveal a spectrum of conceptualization from universal agreement regarding feminist issues across the globe, to particular cases based on state or culture.  Generally, global agreement exists regarding women’s suffrage and violence against women, as the article points out (56, 63).  However, some cultural practices, such as foot binding in China, bride wealth in Uganda, and genital cutting in Kenya and other parts of the world, are more specific and ambiguous (58).  While some could argue that cultural relativism must be accounted here, others proclaim the gendered injustice of these practices; “the global feminist is one who has free choice over her body and a complete and intact […], while the traditional female subject of patriarchy is forcibly altered, fragmented alienated from her innate sexuality, and deprived of choices or agency” (Grewal, Kaplan 669-70).

All in all, despite the wide spectrum regarding the scope of feminist (or anti-feminist) customs, transnational feminism stands apart from global or local feminism in that it is able to encapsulate and give credit to nuances between nation-states, without overgeneralizing goals in a manner that may be interpreted as a “subtle form of cultural imperialism” (Ferree, Tripp 61).