Through the Looking Class Darkly by Uma

Through the Looking Class Darkly by Uma Narayan

"Through The Looking Class Darkly" by Uma Narayan describes the challenges of creating a truly multicultural conception of feminist without objectifying members of non-white cultures as 'other.' Narayan uses the term 'Third World' to refer not only to inhabitants of the developing world, but also to all Third World-dwellers in Western contexts, from temporary inhabitants to individuals raised in the West with a strong sense of identification to the Third World. Narayan writes that in the eyes of Westerners and also through the prism of multicultural studies, Third World inhabitants -- particularly women -- are often seen to function in three basic roles, as emissaries, mirrors, and also as so-called authentic insiders. All of these roles are intensely problematic in their presentation of those deemed to be 'other' and are insufficient for feminists of all nations wishing to conceptualize how to liberate women.

The cultural emissaries view tends to present First and Third World cultures as wholly incompatible. The non-white person is postured as possessing ways of knowing that cannot be understood at a glance. The 'emissary' of the culture has specialized knowledge that must be interpreted. However, although this might deceptively seem to be respectful, even admiring of the Third World, it in fact positions the Westerner as the needed interpreter of the 'other' culture who unveils and reveals the hidden treasures of the non-white culture to the west. The emissary ostensibly attempts to 'enlighten' Westerners about their cultural vantage-point. But because the culture is translated through Western eyes, it is always once removed and often is tainted with Western assumptions.

The emissary perspective is likewise problematic. First of all, it tends to essentialize the non-Western culture. Making generalizations about the 'Buddhist worldview' or 'Chinese worldview' presumes there is a unified, homogeneous perspective that is true for all members of a culture, but it would be equally specious to state that there is an 'American' or 'Western' worldview. Secondly, by creating such a static and unchanging cultural portrait, it does not allow for evolution over time. It does not allow for the possibility of unique brands of Third World feminism and critiques of native culture from within -- to accept the emissary posture means that feminism can only function as an exterior, Western, and ultimately complicit ideology with colonizers.

Westerners have tended to see the oppression of Third World women (such as in India) as proof of the inferiority of savage, primitive culture. In the eyes of some native men who criticize feminism, women are seen as oppressed by the colonizers and traditional gender imbalances are thus 'authentic.' In both readings, native women are not allowed to speak for themselves, but merely exist as symbols and battlegrounds of an ideological war. Feminists have instead suggested that Third World nations are merely mirror images of oppression endemic to the entire world, as merely yet another symptom of patriarchy. Narayan is highly critical of this feminist approach, stating that it removes the non-Western subject from her particular world context. For example dowry murders in India are used as evidence for the superiority of Western feminist culture and feminists are placed in the position of 'liberators' of all women without understanding how particular abuses arose within the context of India.

The 'authentic insider' approach Narayan is more sympathetic to, because it suggests that one must be fully 'situated' within a culture to speak for that culture. However, there are immediate, obvious problems with this approach as well. First of all, who is 'authentic' -- someone currently living in the culture, an expatriate, a third generation Third World resident? What about the differences in perspective between women and men? Taken to an extreme, the authentic insider approach suggests that only Indian women can speak for Indian women; that only Indian men can speak for Indian men and so forth. There are many 'authentic' selves and many identities, so many that the term can become virtually meaningless. Furthermore, this view prohibits criticism from outside of the culture, or even, for example, by culture insiders as when Third World feminists critique their own culture. They are demonized as being westernized if they, for example, criticize the inferior roles of women in their society, and thus change even from within becomes impossible, because anyone who advocates change is revealed to be 'not one of us.' Seeing Third World women merely as essentialized authentic insiders entails studying Third World cultures, communities, and beliefs in a non-critical fashion "without subjecting the Other to negative criticism" (Narayan 136).