“Third World” Women & Politics (8 of 11)

It would make sense the society of the newly established nation-state would incorporate both its previous, ‘historical memory’ based power within itself, whether theoretical, religious, or physical, and that the struggle for power should occur between the varying discourses presented by each of these types of power. Also, by their very nature within the society and their linkage to pre-colonial “authenticating historical memory,” each of these forms of power would be considered eminently logical and correct — a hegemonic expression of the new dominant paradigm working within each of the societies, justified by selective recollection and re-presentation of their pre-colonial pasts.

This would also explain the situation in the United States, where current fundamentalist (and sometimes also hegemonic) thought wishes to remove both agency and power from women and minorities, and blames the lack of strong social boundaries for the loss of some idyllic, selectively remembered fictional historical golden age. And yet the very vehemence and pervasiveness of these repressions, across a wide variety of cultures and societies, must give pause. Can only one simple answer possibly be correct?

Some of the oppositional nature of language can be seen in the readings, just as can be seen some of the discourse of power. It would seem therefore a combination or pastiche of explanations, much as with the previous exploration of both fundamentalism and nationalism, might most adequately explain the repression and oppression seen within the readings.

In his article “Culture of Terror — Space of Death” Taussig writes of torture. This is an extreme example of human behavior, but it fascinatingly presents both expressions of power as well as oppositional creation of categories and boundaries. As Taussig notes,

It is also clear that the victimizer needs the victim for the purpose of making truth, objectifying the victimizer’s fantasies in the discourse of the other. To be sure, the torturer’s desire is also prosaic: to acquire information, to act in concert with large-scale economic strategies elaborated by the masters and exigencies of production. Yet equally, if not more, important is the need to control massive populations through the cultural elaboration of fear (1992:138).

While it is an uncomfortable thought indeed, perhaps it is within yet another post-modern pastiche of Foucauldian creation and application of power, and Saussurian oppositional categorization via language and classification that the discourse of repression can most effectively be situated. If this is indeed the case, examples within the readings to support this postulation should be discernible. And indeed, this is the case. In the reading on Singapore the authors noted “controversy of a sort arose around the issue” of the Prime Minister’s attempt to assert “mastery” over female reproduction, social formations, and bodies, an issue

…whose political volatility was at once and slyly undercut, however, by its characterization in the [governmentally controlled] national press and electronic media … as a ‘Great Marriage Debate.’ Its reduction to merely a ‘debate,’ and over merely an old, respectable, and comfortably familiar institution, marriage, strategically moved the issue away from any explicit recognition of or engagement with its deeply political, and politically extreme, content (1997:347).

Thus we see deliberate use of language to form and inform society. Furthermore, Foucauldian creation and use of power is demonstrated via its application to

…successfully define and superintend a crisis, furnishing its lexicon and discursive parameters, successfully confirm[ing] themselves the owners of power, the administration of crisis operating to revitalize ownership of the instruments of power even as it vindicates the necessity of their use.

Thus the ‘fathers’ of the state confirm their hegemonic and self-created and -awarded power by containing the emergencies they themselves ‘discover’ or manufacture.

More violently we see this disturbing concept of hegemonic use of power coupled with oppositional definition of the nation-state’s preferred citizenry within the essay by Rouse:

All court language, justifications for convictions, and linguistic currency regarding sexual violence, especially rape, reveal the deeply rooted culturally subservient standing of women. Thus, terms such as ‘easy virtue,’ ‘loose woman,’ and ‘unchaste character’ are encountered repeatedly in the cases.

The Federal Shariat Court has the power to interpret what constitutes immoral conduct. If Zina [laws promulgated as “part of the Islamic-defined reform system of the legal and social structures”] is not established, it can transform the language of accusation and charge the accused with, say, ‘bad character’ and ‘obscenity.’ This language is invoked not only in Zina and rape cases but cases having to do with the murder of women (1998:64).

As she notes above, the state reserves for itself the power and ability to define “good” women, and the court justifies violence against women through selective application of language and definitions.