When I was reading Reclaiming Third World Feminism: or Why Transnational Feminism Needs Third World Feminism by Ranjoo Seodu Herr, I could not help but think of Bocas: A Daughter’s Geography by Ntozake Shange. Herr’s assertion that Transnational Feminism has gained more popularity than Third World Feminism is true, as I had not heard of Third World Feminism until I joined this class.
Herr says that there are similarities between Transnational Feminism and Third World feminism, but what separates them is that Transnational feminists “consider nation-states and nationalism as detrimental to feminist causes, whereas Third World feminists are relatively neutral to, and at times even approving of, nation-states and nationalism” (Herr 2). Third World Feminism rejects white global feminism, which is the idea that women across the globe suffer from universal patriarchy.
Shange’s work in Bocas: A Daughter’s Geography reminds me of third world feminism, as it rejects the idea of a narrow understanding of gender oppression and it acknowledges nation-states. Shange writes:
“but i have a daughter/ la habana
i have a son/ guyana
our twins
santiago & brixton/ cannot speak
the same language
yet we fight the same old men”
In this quote, Shange mentions Cuba (la habana), Guyana, Chile (Santiago), and England (Brixton). In the entirety of the poem, she not only talk about South America and Europe but also Africa. Shange’s poem has a global context and she writes about nation-states, which is different from how Transnational feminists would write because they would have a global context without mentioning nation states. When Shange writes “yet we fight the same fight,” she is referring to imperialism, an important tool used to analyze the oppression of third world women.
One reason that Third World feminists don’t reject nation-states and nationalism in their analysis of their oppression is that nationalism has been an important tool to reject imperialism. Shange seems to work in this context because her poem is about imperialism (“the same old men”) and nation states/nationalism. Another reason Third World feminists don’t outright reject nation-states and nationalism is that relinquishing “the national political arena to patriarchal feminists [who identify as nationalists] . . . would be tantamount to authorizing them to continue with impunity and the subjugation of women’” (Herr 8). Male Third World nationalists have ascribed masculinity to nationalism, and by not associating with nationalism, Third World feminists don’t get to voice their objection to the association of masculinity with nationalism. Shange’s poem rejects the idea of nationalism as a masculine conception, as she says “but i have a daughter” and “i have a son.”
Shange’s poem pairs well with Herr’s essay because the definitions that Herr provides for Third World feminism are reflected in Shange’s poem.
In her essay, Herr cites Third World feminist Chandra Mohanty. I included a picture of a book Mohanty wrote because I thought the cover was beautiful. The dove and sun that the woman in the middle is holding stood out to me. It reminded me of the last line in Shange’s poem, “we are feeding our children the sun.”
