Scan barcode
A review by lupetuple
Feminism and Nationalism in the Third World by Kumari Jayawardena
4.0
The studies in this volume made a point to underscore the often subordinate status of feminism in relation to what was seen as the more pressing issue of rallying nationalist ideologies against imperialist threats. Often, there are calls to an idealized past, where women held higher positions and commanded more respect, commenting on the supposed misinterpretation of religious texts, and thus appeals to traditionalism, to return to glorious prosperity of egalitarianism—whether this was based in truth is dubious, of course, and the role of women was still to be framed as the anchor of the nuclear family and the nation’s moral values.
The accounts present the general, well-known trajectory of each country’s history for context and also to substantiate it with the feminist movement or consciousness in the background. Women did participate in the nationalist struggle, some more intensely than others; bourgeoisie concerns unfortunately took prominence the majority of the time, unsurprising as the most privileged women were likelier to be educated, married to influential political figures, and thus involved in the political sphere—their isolation from proletarian struggle is notable, but this is not characteristic of every such feminist described in this work.
It’s maddening how dogmatically the nuclear family is protected in many of these nationalist movements—women only exist to serve the family, and if they are to be educated, it is because they are the “first educators” of their children, who must grow up with proper values and be loyal to and serve the state, so that it may resist economic exploitation by Western powers and prosper.
Ideas of “purpose” and “duty” define a woman’s role, and she cannot exist outside of the confines of service to the family, or the state, which is patriarchal in essence. Few feminists in the volume realized this, and those that did, were tragically executed or died early deaths, such as Kanno Suga in Japan.
While feminist movements varied in their degree of radicalism, Jayawardena emphasizes the historical conditions which influenced each one’s development and dissolution, taking care to keep in mind artistic, political, and labor contributions of women across class lines and framing her analyses with mindful insight, while also acknowledging their shortcomings in achieving true revolutionary potential.
The contrast is so great, however, particularly between the comparably conservative ideologies of suffragists in Sri Lanka (a country in which foreign, Western feminists had a lot of prominence, as well, through that hokey theosophy movement) and the militant communists of China, who recognized succinctly that there is no socialist revolution without a feminist consciousness, that women comprise the majority of the exploited laborers and thus class issues are also feminist issues, and cannot be separated.
Reading all of these studies, it’s crucial to understand the complications to women’s movements, and social justice in general, which arise when there are both internal and external crises to contend with: and the external forces of imperialism often take centerstage, very understandably. Many women in these countries took the right stance of internationalism as a consequence.
Jayawardena herself acknowledges the incompleteness of the narrative, so to speak, when many accounts and literature, particularly those chronicling lower-class women, are lost or difficult to acquire. I do think structuring the chapters in a kind of back-and-forth dialogue between male reformers and political figures and female activists and writers illustrated well the antagonism between both, even as women demonstrated in support of nationalism and independence tirelessly alongside and often subordinate to men.
It’s balanced, acknowledging both conservative and radical strains of each country’s feminist movements. She does indicate an attitude of “what could have been” much of the time, but again, she is privy to historical and cultural context. First published in 1986, I do think it remains an interesting look into women’s lives in political struggle during eras in history that are typically focused on the acts and legacies of men in championing national independence—the compromises these women had to make to simply be heard—setting aside the outrageous notion of giving them their own platform—are unbelievable.
Another opinion: I think this study also demonstrates how nationalism easily leads into reactionary ideologies so as to force an illusory universality, the "model citizen" in service to the country, which further marginalizes certain oppressed groups which deviate from that image--prompting accusations of traitorous attitudes that only impede the fight for independence and resistance against imperial powers. Again, while such organization around a national identity had to be in place, the consequences are quite clear, and extend even after certain struggles are won.
The accounts present the general, well-known trajectory of each country’s history for context and also to substantiate it with the feminist movement or consciousness in the background. Women did participate in the nationalist struggle, some more intensely than others; bourgeoisie concerns unfortunately took prominence the majority of the time, unsurprising as the most privileged women were likelier to be educated, married to influential political figures, and thus involved in the political sphere—their isolation from proletarian struggle is notable, but this is not characteristic of every such feminist described in this work.
It’s maddening how dogmatically the nuclear family is protected in many of these nationalist movements—women only exist to serve the family, and if they are to be educated, it is because they are the “first educators” of their children, who must grow up with proper values and be loyal to and serve the state, so that it may resist economic exploitation by Western powers and prosper.
Ideas of “purpose” and “duty” define a woman’s role, and she cannot exist outside of the confines of service to the family, or the state, which is patriarchal in essence. Few feminists in the volume realized this, and those that did, were tragically executed or died early deaths, such as Kanno Suga in Japan.
While feminist movements varied in their degree of radicalism, Jayawardena emphasizes the historical conditions which influenced each one’s development and dissolution, taking care to keep in mind artistic, political, and labor contributions of women across class lines and framing her analyses with mindful insight, while also acknowledging their shortcomings in achieving true revolutionary potential.
The contrast is so great, however, particularly between the comparably conservative ideologies of suffragists in Sri Lanka (a country in which foreign, Western feminists had a lot of prominence, as well, through that hokey theosophy movement) and the militant communists of China, who recognized succinctly that there is no socialist revolution without a feminist consciousness, that women comprise the majority of the exploited laborers and thus class issues are also feminist issues, and cannot be separated.
Reading all of these studies, it’s crucial to understand the complications to women’s movements, and social justice in general, which arise when there are both internal and external crises to contend with: and the external forces of imperialism often take centerstage, very understandably. Many women in these countries took the right stance of internationalism as a consequence.
Jayawardena herself acknowledges the incompleteness of the narrative, so to speak, when many accounts and literature, particularly those chronicling lower-class women, are lost or difficult to acquire. I do think structuring the chapters in a kind of back-and-forth dialogue between male reformers and political figures and female activists and writers illustrated well the antagonism between both, even as women demonstrated in support of nationalism and independence tirelessly alongside and often subordinate to men.
It’s balanced, acknowledging both conservative and radical strains of each country’s feminist movements. She does indicate an attitude of “what could have been” much of the time, but again, she is privy to historical and cultural context. First published in 1986, I do think it remains an interesting look into women’s lives in political struggle during eras in history that are typically focused on the acts and legacies of men in championing national independence—the compromises these women had to make to simply be heard—setting aside the outrageous notion of giving them their own platform—are unbelievable.
Another opinion: I think this study also demonstrates how nationalism easily leads into reactionary ideologies so as to force an illusory universality, the "model citizen" in service to the country, which further marginalizes certain oppressed groups which deviate from that image--prompting accusations of traitorous attitudes that only impede the fight for independence and resistance against imperial powers. Again, while such organization around a national identity had to be in place, the consequences are quite clear, and extend even after certain struggles are won.