Feminist politics and gender(interview from The Hindu)
Srikanth Bandi (srik@lig.di.epfl.ch)
Fri, 4 Jul 1997 16:50:41 -0600
This is an old article - an interview - from 'The Hindu' found on the SAWNET.
Apart from being interesting, a reason for posting it here is
to make an enquiry about a book in the followup.
Warning: the questions and answers are not differently formatted
Thanks
-srikanth
----------------------------------------------------------------
Feminist politics and gender
Date: 03-11-1996 :: Pg: 41 :: Col: a
The two volumes of "Women Writing in India" edited by
Susie Tharu and K. Lalitha grew out of issues raised by
the women's movement in the Seventies and Eighties.
During this period, questions like domestic violence,
rape and health care required redressal. This project
provided an ideal platform. AZHAGARSAN, who spoke to
Susie Tharu recently in Chennai, presents part of a full
length interview he did for a Tamil journal
"Nirapirikai."
Azhagu: Can you say something about the `context' in
which you produced the two volumes of Women Writing in
India?.
Susie: Well, there are two kinds of `context' for WWI:
The theoretical (which is both political and conceptual)
and the circumstantial _ how we began working, what
actually happened and so on.
Politically and conceptually the project grew out of
issues raised by the women's movement. The late
Seventies and early Eighties were explosive times for
the women's movement. Both Lalitha and I were deeply
involved in the activities of Stree Shakti Sanghatana,
an autonomous women's group that emerged in Hyderabad in
1978. It addressed a series of issues both at the
national and local levels: domestic violence,
rape-especially custodial rape, labour, wages,
housework, health care and contraception.
Feminists also asked questions about political movements
and academic disciplines. For example, why were women
invisible, not only in mainstream history but also in
socialist histories? Why did political theory show so
little interest in the questions of patriarchy and of
women's subjugation/ oppression/ exploitation?
Besides this political context, where and how did you
conceive the theoretical space for the collections?
When we began work on this book we had just completed an
oral history book, ``Manaku Teleyani Mana Charitra.'' We
interviewed women who had participated in the famous
communist-led Telengana people's struggle of the 1940's.
We used their life-stories and their autobiographical
recollections to write a history of women in this
peasant struggle.
But more important than that, we tried to re-think that
movement and the writing of its history in the light of
the questions raised by the women's movement.
Let me turn to what I called the circumstantial context
of these volumes. Around 1984, we began working on a
project on the history of gender in India. We wanted to
shift feminism away from thinking about women to
thinking about gender.
We were hoping that as a result we would be able to
introduce the idea that the women's question is
structurally integral to our society and polity and that
the question has a specific and changing historical life
in this country.
The literature books actually grew out of that project.
What happened was that as we read through the historical
documents we came across many names of women writers,
reports of controversies and debates, accounts of books
that were banned and so on. It struck me that it would
be a good idea to keep a record of this. Soon there was
evidence of a substantial body of women's writing dating
as far back as 600 B.C. that had been ignored by
literary history and had therefore been ``forgotten'' or
``lost''.....
And we learned that if the canon is so limited to the
literary production of the dominant group, the scope of
literary theory and criticism will also be inevitably
limited and biased. So will the feelings, thoughts,
aspirations _ in brief, the life worlds _ that provide
the ground for a canonical aesthetic shape the ``ideal''
reader...
The socio-political and theoretical context of WWI, as
you have explained, seem to have a Marxist orientation.
Here I would like to know the the role of Marxism in the
growing theoretical developments. It seems, scholars,
who began by questioning Marxism have ended up in
post-structuralism. But in our context, most of the
scholars prefer to give exclusive emphasis to the
``freeplay'' of ``language'' and refuse to acknowledge
the role of Marxism and Marxist theories.... How do you
like to respond to this issue?
Let me begin by speaking autobiographically. Stree
Shakti Sanghatana was a socialist feminist group. Nearly
all of us had some connection or the other with Marxism.
We had worked in Marxist student organisations, or were
actually members of a party or were sympathisers in one
form or another. We certainly did not consider our
activity as anti-Marxist (though in the early days some
party leaders did describe us that way).
Personally I regard feminism as having expanded the
scope of Marxist theory, widened the reach of its
politics, included the aspirations of women in its
utopian enterprise and so on.
It is not at all surprising that the new movements began
by criticising Marxism. That is inevitable, and indeed
that is how it should be. Marxism radicalises questions
of egalitarianism, justice and democracy. It is the
Marxists who understand the broad scope of these
questions. Marxists who are in a position to appreciate
the real value of feminist and Dalit critiques. That
they do not always do so is another matter.
I do not think feminism in India has been anti-Marxist
at all. In fact Indian feminism is primarily a socialist
feminism. Indeed it is one of the most important
socialist feminist movements in the world today.
Having said that, I should also in all fairness say that
not all poststructualists are Marxists. There are also
non-Marxists and anti-Marxists among them....
In their personal talks and interviews, thinkers like
Derrida and Foucault found it necessary to clarify that
their critiques on Marxism need not be considered as
``anti-Marxist.'' Will you please comment on this
situation and the Indian response to their writing?
Well, the Foucaultian position has been considered
anti-Marxist. But that is not true. His influence on
Marxist thinking in India is enormous. It will, I
believe, continue to be very important in the coming
years as we struggle with questions of citizenship in
relation to caste, gender and community, as we try and
work with the very complex, ground-level problems of
conflict and alliance, say between gender and caste
movements.....
A number of feminists are critical of the Foucaultian
position. In this context, could you please relate your
response to ``Women Writing in India?''
The commonest criticism of Foucault, of course is that
his disciplinary apparatus is so total and overwhelming
that there seems to be no way of changing or
transforming them. To put it another way, there is no
space in his theory for individual agency. Authorship in
the classical sense of the term becomes a particularly
contentious issue.
It seems to me that this question becomes especially
interesting in relation to women's writing. Here
authorship or agency in the romantic mode _ the free and
absolutely original expression of the creative self or
the autonomous, agentive individual makes little sense.
When a woman or indeed any subaltern writes, this
illusion of autonomy is impossible. To write as a woman
is a struggle, from a location in history with
ideologically-located materials, to try and make sense
of them and often work these very materials against
their grain. It is this struggle that is the very stuff
of women's writing. To read women's writing, as we have
traditionally read the writing of men from dominant
groups, is to miss out their saturation with the
historical and the worldly.
As the introduction to the volumes will clearly show,
``WWI'' is strongly influenced by Foucault. We are able
to demonstrate in Volume I that the ``national'' past
and the national literary tradition systematically
excluded the work and the lives of its women and its
working castes.
The introduction to Volume II is actually called ``Women
Writing the Nation.'' However we also try and keep alive
the idea that there could be other, a more egalitarian,
less exclusive India. If I were to summarise, I would
say that the books stage a context for India.
Tell us something about how you relate yourself with the
caste question?
As one who is born a Christian, I am an outcaste, an
untouchable in Hindu India and am therefore also
personally affected by the issue.
So, that's the way you relate to the caste question?
At one level, yes! It is also true, however, that you
can call me a pseudo-brahmin because of the privileges I
do enjoy. Privileges that are rarely, or never available
to a dalit. I am very conscious of this ambiguity.
At another level, I relate to the caste question,
because as a feminist I understand quite intimately what
subjugation and delegitimation means. Feminism has
equipped me to better appreciate what might be the scope
of brahminism and of brahminical power. I think that
brahminism has some parallel with patriarchy.....
Now the caste question has erupted everywhere....We are
living through a very important time politically,
theoretically and artistically. It is also a very
challenging time in terms of democratic relations. For
instance very deep and difficult questions are coming up
about the relationship between the gender question and
the caste question...
The realtion between the caste question and gender
question seems to be so complex that quite often they
are set in opposition. Is it not necessary in our
context to identify their complementarity?
Let me put it this way: A woman is not simply a woman.
She is also working-class or bourgeois, dalit or
upper-class, Hindu or Muslim and so on. As a person she
is a complex and polyphonous composition.
Since brahminism is the named ideology in this country,
a feminist who is not consciously struggling with the
question of caste and community will be brahminical.
Similarly, a dalit who is not struggling with the
question of gender and male domination will be, by
default as it were, partriarchal and even anti- Muslim!
So in both cases it seems necessary to be self-critical?
Yes. But self-criticism by itself is not enough. These
are not just issues of personal ethics, they are
extremely knotted issues and major tasks for both the
dalit and the feminist movement. One thing we should not
forget is that after all many women are dalits and that
many dalits are women, even in terms of the people
involved, these movements overlap....
What is more important is that I can see that the dalit
movement is stretching out its hand towards the women's
movement. Actually, if you ask me, there is no other
movement that has taken feminism so seriously as the
dalit movement had done.
I think that in Tamil Nadu the theoretical and
conceptual basis for dalit politics is an extension of
feminism and feminist politics.
To an extent that is true also in Andhra Pradesh...
Recently I saw a photograph in the Deccan Chronicle of a
demonstration in Delhi by Dalit Christians. Leading it
was a Dalit woman in a sari, wearing a crown of thorns
and shouldering a cross. A woman as Jesus Christ! Would
uppercaste Christians ever have thought of such a thing?
However, there are also conflicts that demand serious
attention. Put very simply, these relate the brahminical
mode in which the women's question has often been
articulated and the partriarchal assumptions of the
dalit movement. It is easy to state that in theory. On
the ground, in real life, in terms of ways of thinking,
feeling, living and so on, things are far more complex.
The actual victims of all this are dalit women. They are
caught in a kind of pincer movement. They are now
articulating their criticism and demands _ both in
relation to the ``mainstream'' feminist movement and in
relation to the dalit bahujan movement.
By relating these issues to the contemporary theoretical
context, I would like to know how gender and caste
questions have made possible a ``dialogue'' with
postmodernism and poststructuralism....
As far as I am concerned, the real value of the critical
trends that announce themselves ``post'' is that they
have helped us understand how culture and
representation, in brief, how signification organiser
power relations. As a result there has been a huge
expansion of the territories in which political contests
can consciously take place.
Earlier issues such as gender, caste, race, community
were kept under leash, by designating them as social and
ethical questions, which could be addressed either
through top-down ``reform'' or by ``attitude-change''.
Today we are able to show the working of these
exclusions, repressions, subjugations, delegitimations,
expropriations in a myriad, everyday situations.
At what point does our interaction with the Western
theories become a new kind of ``cultural imperialism''?
Is it another form of colonial consciousness? Where do
the borderlines lie?
Since these questions came up so often, let me try and
answer, though I find them irrelevant and tiresome.
There are some people who think that opposing
colonialism can only happen if purely indigenous; they
actually speak as if it is possible to keep entirely on
the right side of the borderline that you mention.
I find it difficult to understand how that is possible,
or even why that is necessary. I do not think that the
dalit today has a culture that is untainted by
brahminism, that women have a femininity that can simply
ignore patriarchy and so on.
The problem is not ``taintedness'' or somehow preserving
our native purity and pride. The problem is to fight
colonialism with whatever tools and weapons are
available and useful. But do not forget that when
Western tools land in our hands the crisis has to be
identified as a change has taken place.
As far as I am concerned, the most important thing is
that questions of power, history, representation,
signification, have been raised in the context of
post-structuralism. And they have been found most
significant in the postcolonial world and outside the
bourgeois _ brahminical academy...
One major challenge that is coming up relates to
intellectuals. There are people in the academy as well
as outside who try to substitute the words ``India'' and
``Indian'' with ``spiritual''. They do not consider
Ambedkar or Periyar as Indian intellectuals. How would
you react to this?
It's laughable. Their time of such ideas is truly over.
Why should you even bother to argue with them?
I think they are important and that the tendency must be
fought. What they are doing, it seems to me, is
substituting post- structuralism with a sort of
metaphysical essentialism. They equate Derrida's
thinking with Nagarjuna and Sanskrit poetics, they drain
Derrida's work of its political tone.
I can see, that that would happen. It is very annoying.
All the same I am not really interested in addressing
them. There is so much to do.
--