Transnationalism as an analytical frame supports both universalizing and particularizing visions of feminism.
As a transnational process feminism possesses a global constitution and at the same time it is composed and influenced by the particularities that characterize feminism in different regions of the globe. By analyzing feminism from a transnational approach it is presupposed that the struggle for equality is happening at a global scale and that it is a process determined by the interrelatedness between feminist movements from different parts of the world. Feminist movements benefit from both visions. The universalizing vision creates more opportunities for NGOs and international organizations, such as the UN, to pay attention to feminist movement’s concerns and demands, which can lead to financial support and policy changes that procure equality.
A particularizing vision of feminism, on the other hand, favors the perception of peculiarities in feminist movements around the world and how they influence each other. In addition a particularizing vision acknowledges that feminist movements are determined by varying factors, such as religion, policial and economic systems, depending on where they originate. Likewise this vision ratifies variations in feminist movements. The primary focus of some feminist organizations shifts according to the relevance of certain issues. For example, female circumcision in Africa or feminicide in Guatemala and Mexico, may not be the central concern in the agenda of a feminist group in Argentina. In the same way, video game feminism might not be the center of attention of a feminist movement from a country under an extreme religious regime.
Aili Mari Tripp provides particularizing and universalizing visions of feminism that are similar to what I have exposed above. Tripp states that the feminist movement’s influence and agenda have been multidirectional and that there are remaining issues around the world. Thus, feminism is still a universal matter. Indeed, after one and a half centuries of feminist movement’s efforts, inequality issues have not been resolved. Furthermore, misconceptions, misunderstanding, and plain ignorance plague the public’s general knowledge about feminism (social networks and Internet memes are a good example of this). A few weeks ago, Mariluz included in her post a speech given by Emma Watson at a HeForShe event in New York City, in which she called for men involvement and participation in obtaining equality for men and women. In addition, Watson reminds us that women rights activism is not equivalent to a man-hating movement, rather a movement that seeks mutual understanding, which is achieved through communication.
In response to Watson’s speech, Andrea Peyser, a columnist from the New York Post accused Watson of asking for equal rights, but avoiding equal responsibility among men and women. Peyser considers that there is no inequality in the industrialized world and that the notion of women being victims of the patriarchy is rubbish. This is a clear example of the complacent attitudes that Tripp mentions in her article. Additionally, Peyser’s remarks constitute irrevocable proof that a particularizing view of feminism is essential, since she suggests that after achieving equality in the industrialized world, the matter is resolved and there is no need of speeches, such as Watson’s. Moreover, a particularizing view of feminism keeps us from generalizing women’s situation in industrialized nations. Women in these countries have different unresolved matters, which Peyser fails to notice. For example, in today’s elections there are proposals restricting a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy. According to Grewald and Kaplan, transnationalism is an approach that allows getting to the specifics. They refer to sexualities in postmodernity, nonetheless, as we have seen, the same can be said about feminism. Grewald and Kaplan call for an interdisciplinary approach to understand a global phenomenon. This approach, I think, would enable the study of specific groups. In this sense transnationalism supports universalizing and particularizing visions of feminism, since they complement each other.
I’m curious about what your assessment is of this discussion; you managed to keep your voice quite objective! I found your summary helpful, either way. A transnationalism approach to feminism, according to the assigned readings, requires simultaneously motions: universalizing and particularizing. And as Tripp contributes, feminist influences/movements must be considered multi-directional. The possibilities and challenges raised by this conversation are invigorating and even a little scary.
I’ll admit, I found the criticism of ‘Western Feminism’ difficult to swallow. I think my knee-jerk response comes from a disbelief (denial) that a ‘Western Feminism’ even exists, and if ever it did, it was brief–a false-perception in order to create solidarity before it was overridden (with great embarrassment). But then again, I am in an awkward in-between position. Educated, but not yet academically productive. I don’t know what’s on the syllabus under “Feminism” for US undergraduates, and I am not yet constructing one or attending all the big conferences. I feel out of touch with both the US-‘household’ understanding of feminism as the ‘ivory tower,’ if such a thing still stands.
I *do* know, however, that I support whatever it takes to raise awareness that the United States have not ‘arrived.’ It was an absolute SHOCK to me, as a Canadian, when I moved to the US in 2007. I couldn’t gain access to birth control without getting a pap smear and breast exam, that cost a copay (despite having documentation that I had one, only 3 months prior, in Canada). I admit to crying after my first trip to a US pharmacy, because my birth control pills–on an insurance plan I could barely afford–cost me $25/month. Two years later, when I gave birth to my son, I had no paid maternity leave, my husband was given two unpaid days, and the ‘procedure’ cost $7k. Furthermore, living in North Carolina, home births are illegal (though I have since learned the loopholes). I found it very difficult to keep the peace with US family and friends by keeping my mouth shut whenever comments about Canada’s “archaic” socialized healthcare were made.
I like how you tied Emma Watson’s speech into your post, as it seems more relevant than ever to our discussion this week! The accusation made by Andrea Peyser highlights the problems that do still persist in regards to women’s rights. As you say, Peyser accused Watson of asking for equal rights, but avoiding equal responsibility among men and women. I agree that this is a highly controversial accusation, and find it appropriate to quote Raval’s quoting of Arendt: “..participation in democracies hinge on the idea of having a right to rights.” While Raval focuses specifically on Wikipedia, where “9 out of 10 editors are male”, this is a valid point that applies to the political aspect of women’s rights everywhere. Women in many countries are still underrepresented in positions of power, and thus do not have the access needed to affect significant policy change. As Ferree and Tripp mention, countries like Rwanda have 49% representation, women only make up 18.5% of the U.S. Congress as of 2014. Peyser also illustrates this idea that the west, particularly the United States, is “unaware of how far behind they have fallen when it comes to women’s rights”. So I agree that access and representation is a huge problem here, but the biggest problem of all may be the wide-spread assumption that there is nothing left to be done or improved.
I completely agree with you and I really like how you approach the complexity of transnational feminism as something universal and particular according to the readings of this week.
I would like to add the duality of the meaning of “transnational” in relation to “feminism” or, in other words: “transnational feminism”. These two concepts present a paradigm themselves, even if we pay attention either to the adjective or the noun. If we think about “feminism”, it is a global term nowadays, a doctrine or movement recognized worldwide. On the other hand, if we pay attention to “transnational”, the meaning is dual: as it could be “crossing national borders” or “through the nations”. Therefore, “transnational feminism” implies both global and universal but it also implies being seen attending to the particular needs: “through the nations”, “through the cultures”, “through politics”…
We, as middle class citizens, university students, and European or American women are not asking for the same recognitions, equality or rights as Indian or Moroccan women. First world feminism is not like Third world feminism. This is also a social and a political matter. First world feminism is what is considered as “universal feminism” but Third world feminism needs to be seen in a specific way because their claims are different. As you says: “female circumcision in Africa or feminicide in Guatemala and Mexico, may not be the central concern in the agenda of a feminist group in Argentina.” Or what about women’s rights in an Iranian society for example? We also saw it some weeks ago in Persepolis. There are different needs regarding the cultures, identities, race, sexuality and experiences. The Western feminist perspective that seems to be “universal” does not cover all the cultures. The word “feminism” is addressed to all women and it should be addressed to all of them equally but black -feminism is still nowadays different to white -feminism.