This article was downloaded by: [University of Guelph]On: 11 June 2012, At: 01:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Gender, Place & Culture:A Journal of FeministGeographyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cgpc20

We are Different, but Can WeTalk?Saraswati Raju

Available online: 14 Jul 2010

To cite this article: Saraswati Raju (2002): We are Different, but Can We Talk?,Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 9:2, 173-177

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09663960220139680

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall notbe liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs ordamages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Gender, Place and Culture, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 173–177, 2002

VIEWPOINT

We are Different, but Can We Talk?

SARASWATI RAJU, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India

I have attended several conferences across the world on gender and geography, andthere are times when I do not really understand the heightened concern for ‘hermeneu-tical’ and ‘particularized’ notions such as ‘body as space.’ Nor do I understand thearticulation of differences that arise from culture, as well as ‘contextual speci� cities’ and‘situated representations’ that makes working across commonalities almost impossible. Tobe fair to myself, maybe I do understand, but cannot completely relate to these concerns.I remember distinctly, in one of the international seminars somewhere in the UK, aninternational group of scholars–mostly from ‘developed’ countries–were frantically debat-ing the issues of individualism, representational inadequacy, re� exivity and the role ofresearchers therein. They were articulate and proli� c, but I must admit candidly thatsomewhere along the line I lost the � ne thread of their discussion. The message thatcame through had to do with engagement with self as an isolated construct in thecelebration of differences, with little or no acknowledgment of hegemonic structures andconnectivities. When my turn to comment came, all I remember saying is, ‘This is anacademic luxury that we from the “Third World” cannot afford.’ These were strongwords that were painful (and problematic in the present context: who am I to talk as ‘we’for the ‘Third World’?) But the words were amply compensated by small slips of paperpassed to me by participants from Africa, Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan, who expresseddelight and congratulated me for the ‘courage’ I had shown in saying what I said.

I do not intend to engage in a simplistic dismissal of postmodernist feminist discoursesthat question universalizing theories and meta-narratives. To me, they are extremelyimportant in rejecting priorities built around � awed conceptual categories and politics ofrepresentation. They have also generated critical debates about norms that constitutereferential universes. De� nitely, all human phenomena cannot and should not bereduced to essentialist monolithic categories, and we have to be constantly vigilant andself-critical so that in the ultimate equi� nal avatar, all ‘Third World’ women would notemerge as underprivileged and/or oppressed, with the West being the primary referentin theory and praxis. Similarly, all women qua men would not be caring, nurturing etc.,as some eco-feminists would like us to believe. And of course, yes, hegemonic appropri-ations invariably imply suppression of heterogeneous groups by dominant discourses.

I want to make it clear that my purpose here is not to present the ‘First World’ andthe ‘Third World’ as monolithic and homogeneous oppositional categories. Such domi-nation can occur and does occur within these worlds by more powerful elites over lessfortunate ones. Middle-class, urban, and educated African/Indian women can construct

Correspondence: Saraswati Raju, Centre for Study of Regional Development, Jawaharlal Nehru University, NewDelhi 110067 , India; e-mail: saras@mail.jnu.ac.in

ISSN 0966-369 X print/ISSN 1360-052 4 online/02/020173-05 Ó 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd

DOI 10.1080/0966396022013968 0

173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 01:

59 1

1 Ju

ne 2

012

174 S. Raju

working-class, rural and uneducated African/Indian women as ‘others’ and prioritizecertain types of knowledge that such appropriation entails as ‘legitimate and scienti� c’(Mohanty, 1988). The point is, this mutation can be an endless and politically emptyprocess. Let me explain.

The genre of postmodernist writings on issues of representation is very articulate andpowerful in in� uencing scholarship. Of late, it has also become a referent to which othersconform. It has even created an occasional ‘apology’ by researchers for being ‘the other’!Alternatively, as Richa Nagar (2002) mentions, such pressures and fears have led to animpasse, which is increasingly re� ected in avoidance of � eldwork by researchers becausethey cannot be ‘authentic’ voices, or in accusations by reviewers and readers thatself-re� exive exercises amount to mere ‘navel gazing’ intended to gain legitimacy as‘authentic researchers’.

As they deal with the question of representing voices, particularly marginal andsubaltern voices, serious researchers have become painfully aware that true or authenticvoices cannot be retrieved, primarily on two accounts. First, experiences of the re-searched at an existential level are mostly private vis-a-vis researchers’ theoreticalframeworks, methods, and even concepts that are oriented to the public domain. Second,the multiple and ever-shifting identities of researchers intersect with and shape theknowledge produced for public consumption, the original narrative thus being trans-formed and � tted into the researchers’ overarching agenda (Niranjana, 1999). But, animportant question remains: Is the positionality of a researcher so irreconcilably privileged that therecan be no bond of commonality between the researcher and the researched?

The points that speaking for others is often value-laden and amounts to epistemolog-ical violence, and that speaking for those who are less privileged may be a way to get outof guilt are well-taken. But then what? Consider the following example and ask: whosevoice is authentic; who should/would speak for whom? A British scholar who lived in thejungles of Bihar for years with the Adivasis (tribal communities) and wrote about them,or an Adivasi from Bihar who had absolutely no contact with her/his counterparts? Evenif there were two researchers with identical lived-in experiences/positionalities with theAdivasis, would their representations necessarily be the same?

Ideally, the researched should speak for themselves, but what if they cannot? Notbecause they do not have knowledge, but because they are not equipped with thelanguage that can be heard and responded to by those who make the decisions. Do theprivileged remain silent even if their speaking, however tinted and biased their voicesmight be (assuming that they would be), makes a difference? One example comes tomind. In India, the invisibility of women workers in the National Data System has beena matter of concern, and there has been � erce lobbying through informed writing by‘privileged’ scholars/observers in reputed academic journals. Another issue is that of theincreasing masculinity of the Indian population. Once again, the media, the intelli-gentsia, and the non-governmental organization sectors collectively came to the forefrontto highlight these issues so that they could grab the attention of National Data Systemdecision-makers. One can argue perhaps that despite this, realities have not changed. Buthow is one to say that these issues are personalized, and that the viewpoints presentedare produced by positionalities, and therefore, problematic?

Schutte (2000, p. 51) argues that even in a pluralistic system, only those differences arelikely to attain notice that can ‘� t within the overall rationality that approves and controlsthe many as one.’ Examples are many, but the latest in India is political appropriationof localized traditional Hindu rituals by right-wing leaders to create a wider ‘Hinduunity,’ without disturbing the internal divisions of caste, class and organizationalfactionalism (Fuller, 2001).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 01:

59 1

1 Ju

ne 2

012

Viewpoint 175

Identities and positionalities are articulations of embedded experiences and socialrelations that a given spatiality entails. At one level, therefore, it is permissible to speakof Indian women in relation to African women as much as it is acceptable to speak ofwomen of the ‘developing’ world vis-a-vis women of the ‘developed’ world, or of womenof northern Uttar Pradesh and women lace-makers of a south Indian village. Thissmall-village woman does not cease to be a south Indian woman, and the south Indianwoman does not cease to be an Indian woman. Thus, identities can be plural andhomogeneous at the same time, depending upon the scale and the immediate referencepoint. A rider follows, though. None of these identities is to be constituted as ‘the other,’in the sense of being marginal to the text of dominant discourses or researchers’privileged gaze. Also, it is important to keep in mind that there is no � xed rule as towhich of the identities–that of a south Indian village woman or that of an Indianwoman–would take priority. Rather, it is a matter of constant interplay and contestation.

Although ideally individuals may have multiple identities, in hierarchical and exploita-tive structures that may completely abnegate ‘free will’ and ‘agency’, such contextualizedidentities can be a subtext to the most powerful and pervasive discourses (Chaudhuri,2000, p. 14). Let me elaborate and, while doing so, draw heavily from Susan Friedman(1998, 1999).

Without rejecting foundational differences among women that stem from othersystems of strati� cation such as race, class, or sexuality, Friedman argues for a historicallyand geographically shaped feminism that she calls ‘locational feminism.’ This feminismis simultaneously situated in a speci� c locale, is global in scope, and is constantly inmotion through space and time. She recognizes that although the feminism thatmandates a quota of representation by lower caste women in village councils of ruralIndia is not the same as that of demonstrators for reproductive choice outside abeleaguered abortion clinic in the USA, the same theories of gender and social justicethat are part of a singular strand of ‘feminism’ underline both ‘feminisms.’ To quote her:

both participate in the notion that the given social order privileges themasculine and distributes power inequitably according to gender (in whateverways, for whatever reasons, and however differently interactive with otherissues of power). Both advocate [for] a form of gender equity (however ‘equity’is conceived or to be achieved). (Friedman, 1998, p. 2)

Friedman calls her attempt to put these two locationally different political practices underthe same categorical umbrella ‘idiomatic speci� city,’ as does Spivak (1999).

Whether we talk about female infanticide in India or China, in a small village in TamilNadu in South India, or in a Rajasthani village in the North, the cultural context withinwhich it takes place is once again a subtext to overarching patriarchal discourse whereingirls are devalued, although different groups may follow different ways to eliminate girls.In India, women from historically underprivileged scheduled castes have lower levels ofliteracy as compared to women of higher castes, but in a given locale, the two move inthe same direction, suggesting their locational embeddedness, irrespective of beingwomen belonging to two different social, caste and class categories.

There is absolutely no denial for a need, even in a politicized struggle, to questionuniversalizing theories and meta-narratives and to engage in intense debates aboutdifferences among women and about listening to multiple voices. These interrogationsare essential in determining whether problems are tackled top—down or bottom—up.But what these examples show is that even as deconstructed speci� cities remain in focus,we need not lose perspective of structures such as colonial history, neoclassical economic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 01:

59 1

1 Ju

ne 2

012

176 S. Raju

and political frameworks, and patriarchy. And if this is true, theories will have to moveconstantly between the ‘micro’ and the ‘macro,’ and attend to how ideas originate andtravel across space to assume speci� cities, and yet retain some similarities.

Let me now turn to a rather separate, yet related issue: how much of what we say ordo is our academic compulsion rather than conviction? Perhaps I am lucky because I donot have to counter the dilemma that some of my friends in the USA and UK do. Letme elaborate. In one of those unending discussions on a summer afternoon, a whitegeographer friend said how much he wants to go out and work with real people and realissues, but how he cannot do it because to be academically accepted, he has to engagewith postmodern debates and the rest of the academic jargon! In my mind, this is thecrux of the matter. The context and the issues must inform the research agenda and theresearch tools of the researcher, rather than the ‘� avors of the month,’ so to speak. Forexample, I am a professor in a center that was established essentially to look at theproblems of regional development arising out of a long history of colonialism, and alsodue to misplaced conceptualizations and priorities in independent India. Very often, mycolleagues are engaged in applied aspects of their research in terms of transferringresearch into policy implications and so on. And when we are dealing with issues likehunger, poverty, inequality, population ‘overload’ and the like, there are collective issuesat a primal, sensory level that necessitate alliance for collective bargaining across theboard despite the involvement of actors polarized along caste, class, gender, linguistic,ethnic and regional lines.

On the question of representation, I think one needs to really see how scholarship hasemerged, how knowledge is produced, and the interface between activism and scholar-ship. In my view, feminist scholarship in India is not drastically divorced from activism.This is even more true in certain situations where funding for ‘pure’ research is dryingup, and where there is more and more implicit and explicit demand for researchers’‘accountability’ and research’s ‘relevance.’ At the other end of the spectrum, grass-rootsorganizations, which are perhaps better situated with respect to the issue of representa-tion, realize that despite their best intentions, their understandings of problems are verylocalized. Thus, there is a constant clamor for upscaling or replicability of their ‘models’,and therefore, a clearly expressed need to join hands with academics and others who canhelp situate the particular within the general sociocultural and economic realms.

At the end, let me be rather provocative, and at the risk of being repetitive, poseseveral questions. What is happening in India in a globalized economy and era ofstructural change? We have multinational corporations coming in. We have removed allthe barriers on imports and now one can buy products ranging from Kentucky FriedChicken to ‘I am worth it–L’Oreal’ coloring gel. In fact, it is increasingly dif� cult to shopfor gifts on return from abroad, as there is nothing you cannot get in India nowadays.

In the new economic regime of the World Trade Organization, basmati rice, neemand turmeric (haldi) have been patented. At the same time, there is systemic negation ofindigenous knowledge. This primarily affects poor, marginal, oppressed and underprivi-leged communities that may or may not be in a position to speak for themselves. Whatdo we do? Do we raise the issue of representation as crucial and question the ‘audacity’of articulate and sensitive ‘outsiders’ who are in a position to highlight critical common-alities across several locations and are able to forge collective organization/alliances andwhose pleas are not to surrender too readily to apolitical, non-essential, individualizedrepresentation? Is it not possible to see an almost sinister conspiracy in propagatingagainst the so-called ‘privileged gaze’ of those mobilizing collectives to strengthen the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 01:

59 1

1 Ju

ne 2

012

Viewpoint 177

bargaining position of all these individuals from poor, marginal, oppressed and under-privileged communities?

Granted, differences exist, and individuals cannot be bounded by universal categories.But how about recognizing that individually positioned women can still belong to anoverarching context, and that despite their differences, there may exist a commonbond/alliance amongst women because the processes of social positioning of men putwomen in a disadvantaged position? As indicated earlier, there can be other forms ofsocial differentiation–caste, class, ethnicity, and age (possibilities are endless and cate-gories do intersect). What this means is that any group of women will have somethingin common–but they may also differ in other ways (Institute of Devlopment Studies, n.d.)–perhaps still maintaining internal cohesion. Which of the two is preferred over theother depends upon the context in which the researcher and the researched are located.

Instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I would submit, there is a needfor critical overhauling of our research tools, for caution, and for a healthy skepticismabout issues related to representation. This seems to be happening as qualitative researchmethods that are more sensitive to contextual speci� cities in foregrounding day-to-dayliving experiences of social actors gain currency as legitimate sources of knowledgeagainst/along with quantitative and ‘scienti� c’ research that reduces innumerable hetero-geneous locations to a few monoliths. At the same time, as already indicated, if theprocesses of economic restructuring that affect individuals are global in origin, and if theyneed to be rethought or remodeled, strategic alliances between stakeholders are a must,despite differences that might exist therein. Taking into account shifting contexts ofscales–from local to global and/or from speci� c to general and vice versa–and reorient-ing our theoretical musings accordingly is, therefore, unavoidable.

REFERENCES

CHAUDHURI, M. (2000) Analysing gender and societal patterns, The Book Review, September, pp. 13–16.FRIEDMAN, SUSAN S. (1998) Mappings: feminism and the cultural geographies of encounter (Princeton, NJ, Princeton

University Press).FRIEDMAN, SUSAN S. (1999) Spatial rhetorics of feminism in the age of globalization, address delivered at the

Symposium of Emerging Rhetorics at Texas Women’s University, April 30.FULLER, C. J. (2001) The ‘Vinayaka Chaturthi’ festival and hindutva in Tamil Nadu, Economic and Political

Weekly, May 12–18, pp. 1607–1616.INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES (n.d.) Why focus on ‘gender’? Gender and Third World Development, Module

7, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK.MOHANTY, CHANDRA T. (1999) Under Western eyes: feminist scholarship and colonial discourses, in: CHANDRA

TALPADE MOHANTY, ANN RUSSO, & LOURDES TORRES (Eds) Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism(Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press).

NAGAR, RICHA (200x) Footloose researchers, ‘travelling’ theories, and the politics of transnational feministpraxis, Gender, Place and Culture, 9, pp. 179–186.

NIRANJANA, S. (1999) Public and private spaces, The Book Review, January—February, p. 31.SCHUTTE, O. (2000) Cultural alterity: cross-cultural communication and feminist theory in North—South

contexts, in: UMA NARAYAN & SANDRA HARDING (Eds) Decentering the Center: philosophy for a multicultural,postcolonial and feminist world (Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press).

SPIVAK, GAYATRI C. (1999) Plenary Address, Conference on ‘Comparative Literacy’ in a Global Age: the question of thecomparative , University of Wisconsin-Madison, 25–28 March.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 01:

59 1

1 Ju

ne 2

012