What do you think?
Rate this book
Thinking Gender
Dislocating Cultures
Dislocating Cultures takes aim at the related notions of nation, identity, and tradition to show how Western and Third World scholars have misrepresented Third World cultures and feminist agendas. Drawing attention to the political forces that have spawned, shaped, and perpetuated these misrepresentations since colonial times, Uma Narayan inspects the underlying problems which "culture" poses for the respect of difference and cross-cultural understanding.
Questioning the problematic roles assigned to Third World subjects within multiculturalism, Narayan examines ways in which the flow of information across national contexts affects our understanding of issues. Dislocating Cultures contributes a philosophical perspective on areas of ongoing interest such as nationalism, post-colonial studies, and the cultural politics of debates over tradition and "westernization" in Third World contexts.
Questioning the problematic roles assigned to Third World subjects within multiculturalism, Narayan examines ways in which the flow of information across national contexts affects our understanding of issues. Dislocating Cultures contributes a philosophical perspective on areas of ongoing interest such as nationalism, post-colonial studies, and the cultural politics of debates over tradition and "westernization" in Third World contexts.
240 pages, Hardcover
First published June 23, 1997
15 people are currently reading
534 people want to read
About the author
Uma Narayan
11 books18 followersUma Narayan (born 16 April 1958) is a feminist scholar, and a Professor of Philosophy at Vassar College.
(from Wikipedia)
(from Wikipedia)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
September 6, 2020
Fluidly written essays about cultivating dissent and critical thinking amidst intermingled identities and the complications of colonialism
February 24, 2019
In this book, the 5 essays discuss about the relations between postcolonialism, feminism, and culture. I highly relate with the first chapter when she talks about her relationship with her mom and her mom with her grandmother. In my own experience, my mother is more the agent of patriarchy since she enforces rules of being a “good girl” to me and treats me and my brother based on our sex and gender norms in the society. Narayan argues that our love-hate relationships with our mother is a reflection of our same love-hate relationships with our motherland. Many of her examples are really specific to the context of India, but they make me think about their counterparts in Indonesian context. The last chapter about Indian food is especially illuminating for me since I also think that Indonesian food abroad is appropriated for the Western tongues and the implication of “eating cultures” can impact the relationships among one and another “Others.”
February 15, 2019
Insightful Essays touching on Food, Culture, Traditions and the role of women in all of it in the post-colonial era. The Central theme is that the onus of preserving tradition and culture falls on women, rather then men.
March 26, 2018
Really interesting, Narayan does a great job of both complicating commonly held tenants in feminism and western scholarship while also explaining what she means.
January 1, 2024
so so important. every western feminist should read this book.
December 21, 2016
Some notes for critical perspectives on gender class:
The pursuit of knowledge, Narayan points out, is not by chance: It is socially constituted.
Post-colonial literature provides the space to re-consider the patronizing tendency of the West to consider itself superior to other cultures, and Narayan theorizes that there may indeed be discrepancy in the ways of feminism when considered from different contexts. In western mediums, issues related to women have a more “urgent” tone to them than in nonwestern contexts to begin with. The mainstream is more traditional in the nonwestern context and might numb down and disregard the voices of women that may be taking on western ideals.
Narayan questions the double-take that women from nonwestern countries face: having to deal with male oppression, but also with appreciating the traditions within those cultures, religious values and historical setting that had been colonized and seen another, seemingly broader, type of oppression.
Nayaran points out the lack of understanding of the situation and complexity of the oppressed. And this does not only apply on west/east relations but also between educated/working class or other categories wherein the more ‘empowered’ may seem to be more ‘aware’ of women’s rights and hence afford them.
“[Nonwestern feminists are especially aware of this] because they have a double struggle in trying to find their own voice: they have to learn to articulate their differences, not only from their own traditional contexts but also from western feminism” (Narayan, p. 219).
There is doubt, therefore, of the ideas that come from the “West,” and yet as women, the individual rights that are sought-after are seemingly the most important:
“Living in a state of siege also necessarily makes us suspicious of expressions of concern and support from those who do not live these oppressions. We are suspicious of the motives of our sympathizers or the extent of their sincerity, and we worry, often with good reason, that they may claim that their interest provides a warrant for them to speak for us, as dominant groups throughout history have spoken for the dominated” (Narayan, p. 219).
There is an approach to think of “epistemic advantage” of those who can shift back and forth between two worlds, but Narayan points to the confusion that derives from being unable to simultaneously inhabit different worlds. This creates much confusion in those of who who are rightfully not able to simultaneously inhabit different worlds, and who are exploring the space that would enable them to develop their own sense of self without having to pick one or pretend to be one while essentially being another (Narayan, 1997). Rather than picking one or pretending to be one while essentially being another, it may be worth considering how to critically take on the different ways of understanding, for one is an outsider to both.
Valid points that are helpful for the thesis.
The pursuit of knowledge, Narayan points out, is not by chance: It is socially constituted.
Post-colonial literature provides the space to re-consider the patronizing tendency of the West to consider itself superior to other cultures, and Narayan theorizes that there may indeed be discrepancy in the ways of feminism when considered from different contexts. In western mediums, issues related to women have a more “urgent” tone to them than in nonwestern contexts to begin with. The mainstream is more traditional in the nonwestern context and might numb down and disregard the voices of women that may be taking on western ideals.
Narayan questions the double-take that women from nonwestern countries face: having to deal with male oppression, but also with appreciating the traditions within those cultures, religious values and historical setting that had been colonized and seen another, seemingly broader, type of oppression.
Nayaran points out the lack of understanding of the situation and complexity of the oppressed. And this does not only apply on west/east relations but also between educated/working class or other categories wherein the more ‘empowered’ may seem to be more ‘aware’ of women’s rights and hence afford them.
“[Nonwestern feminists are especially aware of this] because they have a double struggle in trying to find their own voice: they have to learn to articulate their differences, not only from their own traditional contexts but also from western feminism” (Narayan, p. 219).
There is doubt, therefore, of the ideas that come from the “West,” and yet as women, the individual rights that are sought-after are seemingly the most important:
“Living in a state of siege also necessarily makes us suspicious of expressions of concern and support from those who do not live these oppressions. We are suspicious of the motives of our sympathizers or the extent of their sincerity, and we worry, often with good reason, that they may claim that their interest provides a warrant for them to speak for us, as dominant groups throughout history have spoken for the dominated” (Narayan, p. 219).
There is an approach to think of “epistemic advantage” of those who can shift back and forth between two worlds, but Narayan points to the confusion that derives from being unable to simultaneously inhabit different worlds. This creates much confusion in those of who who are rightfully not able to simultaneously inhabit different worlds, and who are exploring the space that would enable them to develop their own sense of self without having to pick one or pretend to be one while essentially being another (Narayan, 1997). Rather than picking one or pretending to be one while essentially being another, it may be worth considering how to critically take on the different ways of understanding, for one is an outsider to both.
Valid points that are helpful for the thesis.
April 22, 2010
LJ user rhapsodeeinblue :
Intersectionality ahoy! Fundamental read to understand our privilege as First World feminists. Narayan explicates that those in First World countries often fail to see the problems of Third World countries outside of a First World lens, which is problematic since information is thus decontextualized. She writes that a "shared and collaborative political understanding [...:] between Western and Third-World nations and communities [...:] requires, of course, willingness on the part of Western feminist to struggle for 'horizontal comradeship' and to let the 'Oppressed Third World Woman as Object of Rescue' yield to the Third World feminist as intellectual collaborator and political ally on a wide range of issues that mark our common and fractured world." A necessary piece that illuminates how First World feminists must recognize the effects of colonialism and imperialism, contextualize Third World problems, and work with Third World feminists as allies and equals rather than saviors.
Intersectionality ahoy! Fundamental read to understand our privilege as First World feminists. Narayan explicates that those in First World countries often fail to see the problems of Third World countries outside of a First World lens, which is problematic since information is thus decontextualized. She writes that a "shared and collaborative political understanding [...:] between Western and Third-World nations and communities [...:] requires, of course, willingness on the part of Western feminist to struggle for 'horizontal comradeship' and to let the 'Oppressed Third World Woman as Object of Rescue' yield to the Third World feminist as intellectual collaborator and political ally on a wide range of issues that mark our common and fractured world." A necessary piece that illuminates how First World feminists must recognize the effects of colonialism and imperialism, contextualize Third World problems, and work with Third World feminists as allies and equals rather than saviors.
Want to read
October 11, 2011Because it's all I have at the moment, I've only read Chapter 3, “Cross-Cultural Connections, Border Crossings, and ‘Death by Culture’” and was floored by its intelligence and wit. It's a straightforward look at feminism as it relates to the specific issue of domestic violence in India and America. Already it's clear that she embodies Mohanty's call to feminists to engage in feminism without borders, to provide sensitive, ethical and contextualized analyses of issues as they relate to women in all parts of the globe. Would love to read the rest of this book at some point...
Currently reading
September 28, 2007I love this book. I'm currently reading Chapter Five: Eating Cultures: Incorporation, Identity, and Indian Food. Narayan discusses how re-colonizing practices such as eating are. She talks about the inconsistencies of incorporation, how certain parts of what is India/n gets celebrated, while other parts of India, the "untouchables" for instance, are just so (dirty, by implication). Her discussion fits so nicely with experiences of being a culinary (spicy/exotica)metapor. A must read...
Read
July 22, 2010Narayan does a good job of helping the reader strip stereotypical perceptions of Third-World feminists. The language can be difficult to muddle through sometimes but on the whole it is a well-thought and well-argued text.
May 30, 2008
Some good ideas in here, but it's a little bit dry.
Want to read
May 31, 2012One of the best professors Vassar has, and one of these days I'll have time to read the full books rather than just chapters.
June 27, 2012
A philosophical, feminist analysis of global politics
January 29, 2016
All five essays are necessary reading.
April 3, 2017
Eye-opening, but incredibly verbose.
August 4, 2016
Brilliant!
March 26, 2016
There's a lot of good stuff in here, but I didn't find the text all that accessible. Also, I think each chapter/essay could have been better organized.
November 27, 2016
A little repetitive at times, but deliciously personal and insightful at other times as well! Really interesting insights on how Westerners think about, approach and present Indian women.
December 27, 2023
"Eating Cultures" is one of the best essays I've read in a while.
December 22, 2008
This book changed my life, especially the first essay.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews