Based on our readings for this week, as well as discussion we’ve had previously about feminism on the transnational level, I think transnationalism is more effective in particularizing feminist ideals than in universalizing them; in fact I think looking at feminism through a transnational lens is a good way of seeing that we perhaps shouldn’t universalize it.  In “Global Identities,” Grewal and Kaplan give explanations of varying uses of the word ‘transnational’, one of which involves what they call the “NGOization of social movements” which leads to U.N. and other conferences on “transnational women’s movements” (665-666).  The problem with this use of ‘transnational’ as a synonym for ‘global,’ Grewal and Kaplan suggest, is that it allows for critical studies of intersectionality within movements such as feminism to be neglected or ignored – differences based around race, socio-economics, immigration and other factors are largely glossed over in favor of discussing a “global” feminist vision, which typically ends up being centered around the West.

Aili Mari Tripp’s piece on the evolution of feminism through the transnational lens also problematizes the idea of there being a global feminism meant to cover everyone.  Tripp describes how Western feminism has come to see itself as the forebearer for feminism in the rest of the world, and in less developed parts of the world especially, when in fact “the current consensus is a product of parallel feminist movements globally that have learned from one another but have often had quite independent trajectories and sources of movement” (51-52).  She gives many examples supporting this, such as the fact that abortion rights were first put into international law in Africa, and that there are now several nations that have specified that women must take up a certain percentage of governing seats.  These things did not come about solely because of Western feminism, Tripp explains, because feminism has evolved parallel to that in the U.S. and the West in other parts of the world, and has not always had the same ideals at the same time.  As an example, while the West focused closely on suffrage at the turn of the century, other regions were focused more on social equality in general.  Today, she says, women in the U.S. are way behind other parts of the world, yet somehow (through lack of media coverage or other factors) the U.S. and other Western nations continue to be seen as the models for feminism.  “Winning the right to vote for women in Europe and North America had taken the momentum out of many women’s rights movements in these countries,” she writes (57).

While reading Tripp’s piece, particularly the part with that quote, I was reminded strongly of the current status of LGBT rights, and especially of a headline I saw a few weeks ago.  The Daily Beast ran an article about Mike Michaud, the openly gay Democrat who was running for governor in Maine, with the headline, “America’s First Post-Gay Governor.”  The article argued that most voters didn’t seem to care that he is gay “in an era when gay people come out of the closet at younger and younger ages” and in light of the growing number of states with marriage equality, which seems fair enough, but I couldn’t help but be irked by the use of the term “post-gay.”  Are we really “post-gay”?  What does that even mean?

Similar to what Tripp suggests about suffrage having been the biggest cause in Western feminism in the past, marriage has been by far the most discussed LGBT rights issue in the U.S. for years now, despite being far from the only or even – arguably – the most pressing issue.  I personally know several people who seem to view these issues purely from a U.S.-centric perspective and assume that since it’s such a big deal here, marriage must be the focus in most other nations as well.  However, as with feminism, the goals of rights movements in other parts of the world will likely be based more on multiple, intersectional factors as suits different cultures and peoples (for example, look at the movements around the Ugandan bill that originally proposed the death penalty for homosexual acts; marriage was certainly not the center of discussion there).  Taking a transnational approach to studies of these movements rather than a global one allows these differences to be seen, as opposed to gathering up similar movements from around the world and averaging them, or even summarizing them with the ideals of one particular region and assuming that all other movements have stemmed from there.

(Note: I tried to post this earlier, but when I just came to read everyone else’s posts it wasn’t here anymore.  I’m not sure if it ever actually posted the first time.  Apologies, therefore, for the late post, or if this results in a duplicate post!)