POLC94H3 Lecture Notes - Ecofeminism, Sexual Politics, International Development
This preview shows half of the first page. to view the full 2 pages of the document.
Critical Feminism ( week 9) : Seeks to disrupt the power to name, represent, and theorize by challenging western
feminism and development discourses arrogance and ethnocentrism and incorporate the voice of marginalized
people. McEwan states that since the 1980s, black feminists in particular have explored the ways in which feminism
is historically located in the dominant discourses of the west, a product of western cultural politics and therefore
reflecting western understandings of sexual politics and gender relations. Western feminists have been criticized for
universalizing their own particular perspectives as normative, essentializing women in south as tradition bound
victims of timeless, patriarchal cultures, and reproducing the colonial discourses of mainstream, male stream
- Western feminism is a form of cultural imperialism
- Gender oppression is linked to other form of oppression ( e.g. : multiple form of oppression)
Prescription for change
- Reject universal generalizations about women in favor of politically focused, local analysis.
- Position the researcher in relationship to power
- MULTIPLE FORMS OF OPPRESION FACED BY WOMEN.
- ALLOWS FOR COMPETING VOICES AMONG WOMEN
- EMPHASIZES AGENCY OF WOMEN
- TRAVELS WELL
- SEEMS MORE CONCERNED WITH FEMINISM THAN DEVELOPMENT
- CREATES DIVISIONS BETWEEN WOMEN AND UNDERMINES THE POTENTIAL FOR
Questions that may come on the exam relating to Critical Feminism :
- What the central contributions and criticism of critical feminism are for understanding under development?
2. Market Environmentalism ( week 10) : suggest that the free market property rights and the rule of law provide
the best tools to preserve the health and sustainability of the environment.
According to Mcmichael „market environmentalism‟, this project has so far had the effect of generating further
greenhouse gases (GHG), which, given naturalistic conceptions of the
market, legitimises new cycles of green accumulation. The consequences are a rise in carbon emissions and a
deepening of human displacement, which, in turn, renews the legitimacy of the project of global development and its
market crusade at the expense of alternative pathways to sustainability.4 In short, the recycling of the neoliberal
market truth, as a convenience for the development establishment and its corporate partners, represents a deeply
inconvenient truth for humankind and its ecological foundations.
„market environmentalism‟ is seen as the solution, rather than the problem, turning agrofuels,
like food, into a global commodity, rather than encouraging local biofuels for local energy sovereignty (on the
model of „food sovereignty‟). The problem with the global ecology regime is that it fractures the relationship
between social and ecological sustainability.
You're Reading a Preview
Unlock to view full version