December 1, 2014 - 13:45
Even reading it for the second time, I've had a really difficult time following Nnaemeka's essay. She has so much content in each sentence, it's hard to move on to the next without feeling like you're missing something. This must be how it is to read my academic writing. A lot of her arguments are stated so poetically--reinforcing that we must take a more personal, creative, centered-in-the-now approach to feminism--including all sides of the story in one construction while also dissecting them. In an attempt to better understand her arguments, I have picked out some especially juicy passages that I think embody what she's trying to say and I will include my thoughts about them.
"A modulated shift in focus of the intersectionality of race, gender, class, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, cultural, national origin, and so forth from ontological considerations (being there) to functional imperatives (doing what there) and speak to the important issues of equality and reciprocity in the intersecting and border crossing" (Nnaemeka 361).
This quotation reminds me of Americanah. I was so enlighted by our discussions of Ifemelu's feminism and whether or not she qualified based on her activism or her active thought patterns. Adichie seemed to create and present a dynamic, realistic character that demonstrates many levels of intersectionality, and in doing so, showed that she doesn't need to spell out that border crossing. The book doesn't include theorizing, only the thoughts of several people, and puts the reader in a place that enables them to consider equality and intersectionality in the most accessible way. Adichi's writing absorbs the reader so that pronoun lives through these situations and experiences more understanding than any theoretical conversation could accomplish.
Nnaemeka's essay also reminds me of Mohanty's in its discussion of how we still lack precise language when referring to components of globalization. The language we currently use reflects colonialism and, further, is far from accurate; in Nnaemeka's critique of Okin's analysis, minority versus majority cultures, in Mohanty's, the Global North & South. I would love to see Nnaemeka's analysis of Mohanty's suggestion of one-third versus two-thirds.
I love her discussion of culture and who defines it--mainly Westerners, especially for other cultures. "Border crossing entails learning about the 'other,' but more importantly, it should also entail learning from the other. Learning about is a gesture that is often tinged with arrogance and an air of superiority; learning from requires a high dose of humility tinged with civility. Learning about often produces arrogant interrogators; learning from requires humble listeners" (Nnaemeka 374). As an international studies major who has learned mainly cynicism, disdain for Western and/or Realist states, and a special appreciation for Constructivism, which requires one to consider the socially constructed nature of each political perspective, I wish this quotation were printed everywhere that endeavors to accomplish "globalization" or "international development." I am glad the political perspective has shifted to need this, showing that the West has come a long way from anthropological gawking at foreign populations and the White Savior Industrial Complex that enables white people to feel as though they're really gaining from experiencing real poverty. Would it hurt for Western states to consider other states as just as important/insightful/developed/complex/culturally stimulating/unequal/suspect to change as they consider themselves?
In Nnaemeka's words, "Culture, as an arena of political and ideological struggle, needs constant and close scrutiny to separate reality from invention or trace invention's transformation into reality. Culture is dynamic in the sense that it derives its meanings, evolution, and reformulation from people's encounter with and negotiations in it in the context of historical imperatives" (Nnaemeka 374).