Sameness

A sameness feminist argument can be distilled to a formula where X and Y are two groups that are the same in all relevant ways in that they share the same characteristic C. Y gets some treatment T in virtue of C; therefore, X should get T, too (Hackett). Within this approach, feminists utilize different shared characteristics and/or different, but equal, treatments in virtue of C.

For example, Sojourner Truth utilizes a sameness argument where men are X and women are Y. She claims their shared characteristic, C, is that men and women are equal in strength since she is as “strong as any man” (113). Men, in virtue of C, are able to vote. Truth argues, as a result, that since men and women are equally strong, women should be able to vote as men are. On the other hand, Susan Schechter uses a sameness argument based on the shared characteristic, C, being victims of violence. X, in this case, is victims of domestic violence and Y is victims of other crimes. Y’s perpetrators receive punishment while X’s do not. Schechter utilizes this argument to promote equal punishment for perpetrators of domestic violence against women. Additionally, Kimberlé Crenshaw uses a sameness argument where X is white women who are victims of violence and Y is women of color who are victims of domestic violence. As both are victims of violence, Crenshaw argues that victims of color should also receive access to resources, including multiple language options and shelters near them, that help them just as white victims. However, Crenshaw differs from previous utilizations of sameness as she advocates that the treatment victims of color receive should not be identical to the treatment white victims receive. She argues that the treatment they receive should be specific to their needs as people of color, just as the treatment white victims receive is specific to their needs.

While sameness arguments fit into a formula, the shared characteristic C can be anything as long as one group is receiving treatment T because of that characteristic and the other group is not; Truth uses strength as the shared characteristic, while Crenshaw uses being victims of crime. Furthermore, sameness arguments do not always argue for identical treatment such as Schecter does, but can advocate for different but equal treatment that is attentive to specific needs of a community as presented by Crenshaw. This acknowledges the need for equal treatment of groups X and Y, yet it also acknowledges that equal treatment for X and Y may be administered differently to address the different social locations of those groups. A strength of this approach is  it both addresses individuals and systems in that groups, and X and Y can be two people or dominant and subordinate groups. However, a weakness lies in valuing the dominant group’s associated qualities, such as women being measured according to their “correspondence with man” and their “equality judged by our (women’s) proximity to his measure” (Mackinnon qtd. in Hackett, 245).

Difference

Feminist difference arguments address valuing women’s proximity to men, and argue that the “solution to ending sex oppression is to revalue the feminine” (Hackett, 95). Difference feminists believe that sex oppression is a result of society failing to value femininity (Hackett, 95). Within this approach, authors such as Vandana Shiva utilize a difference argument. Shiva stresses that women are different from men as women are conservationists of biodiversity. Men, on the other hand, promote “monocultures, uniformity and homogeneity” through capitalism. Since women’s work typically falls “invisible” in a world defined by men’s ideas of production and consumption, Shiva revalues how women’s work is centralized in the completion of multiple tasks, their contributions to conserving biodiversity, and subsequently, “balance and harmony” (238). Despite this difference between men and women’s views of agriculture, Shiva clarifies that this difference is not due to sex. Shiva steers away from essentialism, or the assignment of a trait to one’s sex for the sole fact that one is that sex. She acknowledges that this difference is a result of how “labour and expertise has been defined in nature” despite this difference being grounded in influences of “culture and scientific practises” (240).

However, other types of different arguments equate difference not to social construction but essentialism. This gynocentric argument “argues for the superiority of the values embodied in traditionally female experience and rejects the values it finds in traditionally male dominated institutions” (Young qtd. in Hackett 174). Chittister presents this kind of difference argument in “Calling the Power of Women.” In light of the war in Iraq, Chittister argues that women are invisible victims of war where they must take their place at the negotiating table and assume roles that allow them to forge peace due to their inherent spiritual responsibilities of life-giving (36-37, 75). She makes this claim based on the belief that womanhood inherently entails having a connection to faith which allows women to best promote and maintaining peace (37). As a result, she is revaluing peace and its connection to divinity for women, which is associated as lesser than, to be a source of power for women in anti-war activism.

These types of arguments tend to promote collectivity and pride, but when people expect a sameness argument, people can be put off when they expect an argument based on a shared quality as opposed to acknowledging differences. Additionally, difference arguments such as Shiva’s are critiqued for accepting differences constructed by patriarchy to be revalued which do not address the subordination of women. The argument simply values what “women are or have been allowed to become” (MacKinnon qtd. in Hackett 245).

Dominance

In response to sameness and difference arguments, dominance feminist arguments believe that how men and women are the same or different is irrelevant (Hackett, 96). Rather, they diagnose and critique the systemic relations of dominance and subordination. It does not ask how differences arise, but identifies the solution to sex oppression as the eradication of subordination. Dominance arguments address the root of the issue and what is enabling and upholding subordination. Sandra Lee Bartkey diagnoses the root of sex oppression residing within the construction of femininity. For Bartkey, disciplinary practices, or the ways we police ourselves and others to conform to certain practices, through which the “feminine body-subject” is constructed are a result of femininity (Bartky qtd. in Hackett 283). Due to femininity, women’s physical bodies are shaped by ideas of size, posture, movement, and gestures which labels them as women and therefore subordinate. bell hooks, on the other hand, sees sexuality as the root of sex oppression. Since heterosexual women have not unlearned the eroticism “that constructs desire in such a way that many of us can only respond erotically to male behavior that has already been coded as masculine within the sexist framework” they are upholding sexism (hooks qtd. in Hackett 335). hooks sees sexuality and desire as a key component to upholding sex oppression.

These two authors demonstrate a key variation in a dominance approach, what is viewed as the key component to sex oppression that needs to end. A strength in this approach is that it focuses on the material impacts on people’s lives as it seeks to diagnose the very root of an issue. However, in comparison to sameness, which offers a very specific solution of changing language or equal rights, dominance does not tend to offer a solution. It simply states to stop doing the very thing that is upholding sex oppression.

Postmodernism

Contrary to the previous argumentative styles, postmodernists do not believe there is a “single, universal analysis of what sex oppression consists of” and that sex oppression must be examined in context historically, socially, and culturally (Hackett 338). In practice, this means that “unitary notions of woman” are replaced with “plural and complexly constructed conceptions of social identity ” (Fraser qtd. in Hackett 351). To do this, postmodernists analyze discourse, or the “ideas, images and practices” that are associated with a “particular topic, social activity, or institutional site in society,” to discern how “power operates through ideas and representations” (Stuart Hall qtd. in Hesse-Biber 265).

This deconstruction of language complicates the notion of woman and its usefulness while acknowledging how power resides within that category. Judith Butler applies postmodernism to sex/gender in her essay “Gender Trouble.” Butler begins with exploring the category “women” as the subject of feminism, questioning “what it is that constitutes, or ought to constitute, the category of women” (353). The categorization of “women,” for Butler, raises political concerns of who is included in the category if the goal is liberatory. This seems contradictory to Butler, as inclusion and exclusion are imperialist and anti-liberatory practices. Consequently, this argument centers discourse as it explores the link between language and power.

Other authors see postmodernism beyond a philosophical standpoint and view it as a way to engage in political change. Stuart Hall uses parody to exaggerate racist stereotypes to note how these stereotypes are made up. This can be tricky, however, if people fail to understand the satire because it can end up reinforcing the stereotypes. Sharon Marcus, on the other hand, uses postmodernism to intervene in the language of rape. She analyzes the discourse of rape laws to point out the language used itself frames women as inherently rapable (Marcus qtd. in Hackett 371). She seeks to flip the script of rape by rewriting rape through “displacing the emphasis on what the script promotes-male violence against women- and putting into place what the rape script stultifies and excludes-women’s will, agency, and capacity for violence” (Marcus qtd. in Hackett 375). Here, Marcus provides a way to deconstruct language that oppresses women.

Overall, a strength of postmodernism is the goal of their movement. They seek to shift their “foundations from identity to one of functions of oppression” that allows coalitions to form and dissolve around issues. This allows identity to be a result of “contesting those oppressions, rather than a precondition for involvement”. In other words, identity becomes an effect of political activism instead of a cause that is “fluid, rather than fixed” able to change with time (Wilchens 86).

As a result, postmodernists are critical of gatekeeping, or defining who is part of an identity group and who is not, which has undermined activism in the past. However, postmodernism is critiqued by politics of identity for undermining feminist goals as it tends to remove a sense of community within feminism because it deconstructs identity groups (Frost qtd. in Hesse-Biber 51). Without a sense of what is a collective experience, feminists struggle to grasp how to move toward collective social and cultural change. Women of color are especially critical of this as it is easy to reject identity when one has always had one (Shantelle Donelly). bell hooks explores this in “Postmodern Blackness” where she states that “any critic exploring the radical potential of postmodernism as it relates to racial difference and racial domination would need to consider the implications of a critique of identity for oppressed groups” (365). Yet, hooks sees a powerful connection between others and Black folk who would now share “a sense of deep alienation, despair, uncertainty, loss of a sense of grounding even if it is not informed by shared circumstance” where they is space for “new and varied forms of bonding” (368).

Politics of Identity

Another approach skeptical of a universal understanding of sex oppression is politics of identity. Rooted in activism, politics of identity feminists generate their arguments from shared social identities opposed to shared values or party affiliations. They argue that “members of subordinated groups have a distinctive experience of injustice that is a valuable resource for challenging their marginalization and for establishing greater self-determination” (Hackett, 339). The Combahee River Collective sees identity politics as a site of “potentially the most radical politics” formed from “a healthy love” for themselves. This is a direct result of the collective seeing politics formed from one’s own identity opposed to “working to end somebody else’s oppression” as the best approach to tackling specific issues of their community as no other movement has considered their “specific oppression as a priority” (Combahee River Collective Hackett 414). Additionally, Chandra Mohanty can be read as defending identity politics for claiming that the most “disenfranchised communities of women” are more likely to envision justice as they have the “most inclusive viewing of systemic power” (Mohanty 232). It is in this identity that Mohanty sees a potential in “demystifying capitalism and for envisioning transborder” justice (Mohanty 250).

Mohanty’s understanding of identity politics is similar to the Combahee River Collective’s as both see value in the perspective that results from a particular social location. While Mohanty describes this as the standpoint of  “poor indigenous and Third World/South women,” the Collective sees this position as Black, lesbian women (Mohanty 232, Combahee 414). Mohanty argues the epistemic privilege of Third World women serves as a framework for coalitional work that reads “up the ladder of privilege,” while the Collective argues that if Black women were free then everyone would be free (Mohanty 231, Combahee 415). In other words, the Collective believes that not everyone should utilize identity politics whereas Mohanty believes that thinking from the space of marginalized groups provides us with an understanding of how to advocate for a more just and fair world (Mohanty 231).

A strength in this approach is the solidarity that can emerge from identity politics of shared experiences, but when identity politics are implemented, the boundaries of the identity being mobilized are inevitably policed. Postmodernists push back on the gatekeeping that occurs in politics of identity. Furthermore, who is allowed to be a part of an identity can be limiting such as who is “Black enough”, or “woman enough”, or “lesbian enough” to join the Combahee River Collective.

Moving Forward: The Most Compelling Approach

In looking at all five of these approaches, to pick one as the best approach would fail to capture the potential of the rest of the approaches for being the most compelling in a particular social, cultural, and historical context. To analyze how these arguments hold potential in different contexts, I will examine two examples where they could be implemented.

First, in the case of a woman being fired for taking too much time off work after the birth of her child and suing her company, the most compelling argumentative approach would be sameness and difference. In a court of law, equality is a “matter of treating likes alike and unlikes unlike” (MacKinnon qtd. in Hackett 244). Thus, a sameness approach is needed to gain legal protection. In this case, X are men and Y are women, where they share the same characteristic of humanity, C. Men in virtue of C get subtreament, T, of being able to take off work when a medical procedure or event occurs and women do not. Since women and men both share humanity, women should be able to take off work for a medical procedure or event, in this case birthing a child. However, sameness, in this case, is not enough. A difference argument could provide a revaluing of women’s reproductive capability, which has been considered subordinate, to promote pride in motherhood and a culture that allows women to take off work for delivery. The other approaches, in this case, are not as compelling. Dominance, in this case, does not help this woman in a legal context as she is not trying to end sex oppression overall. A postmodern approach would not be as compelling because she is not seeking to change the script around pregnancy or the stereotypes. Finally, politics of identity is not particularly compelling because she is seeking individual repercussions; however, if this was a class action lawsuit mobilizing from motherhood would be a strong approach.

For my next example of when Donald Trump banned the word “transgender” from CDC’s communications, a postmodernist and dominance approach would prove most compelling. In this case, instead of trying to be successfully persuasive in an argument, an analysis of the discourse would be most useful. Analyzing the images, ideas, and practices around trans people in the specific institution of the CDC is a particularly postmodern task where rewriting how we discuss trans patients is crucial in providing adequate and quality care. This approach would lend itself well with a dominance approach as well as it looks at how power operates through the representations of trans people. Diagnosing transphobia in the federal government would serve as a foundation for future activism work in mobilizing trans rights and justice. The other approaches, in this case, are not as compelling due to the context of this issue. Sameness would prove useful in a court case or legal argument if one was trying to show the shared humanity of trans folk with cisgender folk. A difference approach would be useful in trying to curate pride of trans folk who had been psychologically disenfranchised by the Trump administration’s decision. Finally, an identity politics approach could be implemented if trans folk wanted to act collectively in response, but they would have to define if this included not only trans men and women but also non-binary, gender non-conforming, agender, and genderqueer folk. This could become troublesome as trans folk would have to define who is “trans enough.”

In conclusion, the approaches taken need be attentive to their audience if they are trying to have a convincing argument or analysis. The audience will shape the method of approach alongside the end goal. Advocacy work entails different goals than analysis. Providing support for victims of trauma and uplifting them would not be achieved by analyzing the language in legislation. In all, every approach proves compelling depending on the historical, social, and cultural context.

Works Cited

Hackett, Elizabeth, and Sally Haslanger. Theorizing Feminisms. Oxford University Press, 2006.

(May 2018)

Postmodernists do not believe there is a “single, universal analysis of what sex oppression consists of” and that sex oppression must be examined in context historically, socially, and culturally (Hackett 338)*. In practice, this means that unitary notions of identity are replaced with “plural and complexly constructed conceptions of social identity ” (Fraser qtd. in Hackett 351). To do this, postmodernists analyze discourse, or the “ideas, images and practices” that are associated with a “particular topic, social activity, or institutional site in society,” to discern how “power operates through ideas and representations” (Stuart Hall qtd. in Hesse-Biber 265). This deconstruction of language complicates the notion of identity and its usefulness while acknowledging how power resides within those categories. Overall, a strength of postmodernism is its overall goal. They seek to shift their “foundations from identity to one of the functions of oppression” that allows coalitions to form and dissolve around issues. This allows identity to be a result of “contesting those oppressions, rather than a precondition for involvement”. In other words, identity becomes an effect of political activism instead of a cause that is “fluid, rather than fixed” able to change with time (Wilchens 86).

Outside of language, in a world where our identities have physical and material implications, identities are often a source for mobilizing against oppression. Rooted in activism, politics of identity feminists generate their arguments from shared social identities opposed to shared values or party affiliations. They argue that “members of subordinated groups have a distinctive experience of injustice that is a valuable resource for challenging their marginalization and for establishing greater self-determination” (Hackett, 339). A strength in this approach is the solidarity that can emerge from the identity politics of shared experiences.

As a result of their opposing approaches, postmodernism and identity politics are often seen opposition to one another. For postmodernists gatekeeping, or defining who is part of an identity group and who is not, is contradictory to liberation movements. Instead of liberating the identity one is fighting for, identity politics are “ fixing and stabilizing” identity “more firmly than before” (Wilchens 83). In turn, this creates normativities. Normatives are statements that “make claims about how things ought to be, or how they in general are” (Shotwell 141). However, postmodernism is critiqued by politics of identity for undermining feminist goals as it tends to remove a sense of community within feminism because it deconstructs identity groups (Frost qtd. in Hesse-Biber 51). Without a sense of what is a collective experience, feminists struggle to grasp how to move toward collective social and cultural change. As a result, envisioning unity across difference is often a speculative project for feminists; yet, authors like Alexis Shotwell, Sara Ahmed, and Chandra Mohanty, theorize open normativities of ethics, feminism, and Third World women to offer visions solidarity.

In this paper, I will explore Shotwell’s concept of open normativities as a form of postmodern identity politics. Next, I will analyze how Shotwell’s uses open normativies in her book Against Purity (2016) to advocate for an ethics that uses “practices of open normativies to pursue visions and practices hospitable for worlds to come, to determine what deserves a future” (Shotwell 163). I will then apply the concept of open normativities to Sara Ahmed’s understanding of feminism and womanhood in Living a Feminist Life (2017) and to Chandra Talpade Mohanty’s conception of Third World women in Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity (2003). Then, I will analyze how viewing ethics, womanhood and feminism, and Third World women through the lens of open normativities enables us to think through a postmodern identity politic providing a roadmap for collective action and solidarity.

Alexis Shotwell, advocates for an ethical and political response that refutes purity politics which believes that a return to before harm is possible in her book, Against Purity: Living Ethically in Compromised Times. While Shotwell does not explicitly identify as a postmodern feminist, her critique of normativities lends itself well to the ideas of postmodernism. Shotwell addresses norms as “constrictive and restrictive” forces that limit “the range of subjectivities one might inhabit of sexuality and gender” (Shotwell 142). This postmodern critique of the gatekeeping that occurs when boundaries of normal and not normal are defined is important for Shotwell; however, Shotwell is careful to not throw away normativies completely (Shotwell 144). Attentive to how normativities, in the context of oppression, force people to conform to whiteness, able-bodiedness, wealth, and/or straightness Shotwell concurs with the claims queer and postmodern theorists that normativities tend to be harmful. However, she is critical of how queer and postmodern theorists have predominantly made normativity “synonymous with ‘bad,’” and argues we need normanitivies. If we toss normativities completely, how do queers and feminists talk about the norms they want to make (Shotwell 143)? Conceptually, normativies are “the process by which people claim that a given way of being is good or beautiful, or to be endorsed,” where there can be any number of ways of being (Shotwell 143). Shotwell sees a clear distinction between supporting a way of being and forcing people to live that way as conceptually normativies are nonrestrictive. In turn, Shotwell advocates for open normativities in order “for finding our bearings even in the process of working to change the world” (Shotwell 154).  

Open normativities offer an alternative to how we understand normativities now. Simply, open normativities name “those normativities that prioritize flourishing and tend toward proliferation, not merely replacing one norm with another” (Shotwell 155). Flourishing, in this sense, is the goal of open normativities. In the context of oppression, normativities contribute to death and degradation when people fall outside of the current norms, but open normativies recognize and push limits that broaden participation in a normative resulting in liberation and flourishing. As lives become welcomed into normativies they move closer to the norm and consequently farther from death. Here, Shotwell offers a code of ethics in an attempt to address how to resist oppression by promoting flourishing. Acting morally, in her definition, is “holding in view how one’s actions open or close down the possibilities for others to unfurl their possibilities…” because our freedom is entangled and created in conjunction with other’s freedom (Shotwell 131). This code of ethics, as a result, is only successful in collaboration, as our freedom and, in turn, our flourishing- is dependent on other’s ability to be free and flourish.

Additionally, she is also is critical of the boundaries set within norms she calls for in her ethics. How we define groups, in this case, and who is allowed to flourish and have a future, must be critically examined. This code of ethics through the lens of open normativities, for Shotwell, does not have to mean completely new ways of being for flourishing to occur. Recognizing that we exist in a world with material implications, open normativities allows for ways of being, identities that have been suppressed, to exist as a way to promote flourishing. Our ways of being can reference marginalized traditions that are subordinate to current dominant and oppressive norms making room for them to exist and thrive (Shotwell 160). As a result, mobilizing around marginalized identities is still an option within open normativities as long as it is attentive to gatekeeping.

Beyond ethics, Shotwell’s claims that within almost any writing on sex and/or gender-based oppression and resistance will tend to be references to normativities (Shotwell 143). “To be queer and feminist,” to Shotwell, “is to resist norms” that are oppressive (Shotwell 143). Sara Ahmed, feminist scholar and activist, offers a look into this feminist resistance against norms in her book Living a Feminist Life. In her text, Ahmed views feminism as a work in progress where becoming “a feminist is to stay a student” (Ahmed 11). Part of feminism being a work in progress has been defining the normativity of women that feminism advocates for. Ahmed argues against the current normativity of women included within feminism. In order to do this, Ahmed acknowledges that throughout the history of feminism, Black and lesbian women had to “insist on being women before they became part of the feminist conversation” (Ahmed 234). Ahmed uses this example of how feminism historically was extremely white and heterosexual to propel her next argument for the inclusion of trans women. She claims, “Trans women have to insist on being women” so often in the face of violence, that for her, an anti-trans stance is to be anti-feminist (Ahmed 234). Ahmed supports her claim by stating it a “feminist project” to create worlds that dismantle the worlds that support “gender fatalism (boys will be boys, girls with be girls)” (Ahmed 234). Worlds of gender fatalism are deadly, not only in determining how cisgender women are supposed to be, but also for how trans women are supposed to exist or not exist.

Ahmed’s concept of women included in feminism presented is a form of an open normativity. Reflecting on how feminism has opened or closed down possibilities, Ahmed advocates for trans womanhood to be a valid way of being included in feminism (Shotwell 131). Noting the violence trans women face, Ahmed brings them into the conversation to promote their survival and flourishing. Importantly, she does not advocate that everyone has to live their life as trans, but simply notes it is a supported way of being. Here, Ahmed has made the space of womanhood in feminist more open and inclusive while also still working from a place of identity politics. Ahmed’s identity politics acknowledges that “if gender norms operate to create a narrow idea of how” women should be-white, small, not labored, delicate- then those who “who understand themselves as women, who sign up to being women, will be deemed not women” (Ahmed 234). For Ahmed, if feminism is not open to multiple ways of being a woman then women cannot mobilize.

However, Sara Ahmed is not the only feminist using forms of open normativities in her feminism. Chandra Mohanty in her book, Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity, argues for a decolonization of the construction of Third World women by Western feminists to promote for “women of different communities and identities to build coalitions and solidarity across borders” (Mohanty 226). According to Mohanty, the term “Third World” refers not only to “geographical location and sociohistorical conjunctures” but also includes “minority peoples or people of color in the United States” (Mohanty 44). Establishing this identity group is crucial for Mohanty’s claims about who holds epistemic privilege for visions of justice and decolonization. In this sense, Mohanty can be read as arguing for identity politics due to her defending that the most “disenfranchised communities of women” are more likely to envision justice as they have the “most inclusive viewing of systemic power” (Mohanty 232). It is in this identity that Mohanty sees a potential in “demystifying capitalism and for envisioning transborder” justice (Mohanty 250). This social positionality serves as a resource for these women to mobilize against the experiences of injustice. By including women of color from affluent and/or Western nations in her definition of Third World women, Mohanty is opening space to recognize the difference of inequality that exists within this identity (Mohanty 116).

As a result, while Mohanty does not use the term open normativities, she is engaging in this concept by making room for women who often are lumped into the category of Western women who have their struggles erased in a global context. Hesitant to make her language static, Mohanty is critical of her own language choices in advocating for this identity. For her, our language is still imprecise and inadequate where she can only use what best captures what she is trying to say (Mohanty 225). Mohanty demonstrates this by revisiting her language choice of Third World versus First World women from her first chapter, to looking at using words such as One-Third and Two-Thirds World or North/South in her last chapter. This hesitancy shows that this category is fluid and able to change to make room for others as open normativities do. Notedly, Mohanty notes this should not be confused with “universal sisterhood” which “erases material and ideological power differences within and among groups of women” (Mohanty 116). In this identity, attentiveness to difference is key for Mohanty as she is concerned with the material, historical, and political power with this group.

By seeing Mohanty’s definition of Third World women, Ahmed’s visions of womanhood in feminism, and Shotwell’s code of ethics through the lens of open normativities it enables us to think through a postmodern identity politic providing us roadmap for collective action and solidarity in today’s world. Fluid and ever-changing, Mohanty’s identity of Third world women through the lens of open normativities creates room for marginalized identities from around the globe to unite. Aware of shifting language and understanding, but also to material implications, Mohanty draws on both postmodernism and identity politics to advocate for her goals. Her postmodern identity politics guides us to understand the collectivity of a group while also noticing the differences of power, history, and politics that exist simultaneously.  

In Ahmed’s visions of womanhood in feminism, she too is attentive to language and how it has been a barrier for those who are included in feminism. Who has been considered “woman enough” has been a defining factor in the subject of feminist advocacy and for Ahmed we cannot stop at including Black and lesbian women. She insists on the inclusion of trans womanhood as a womanhood that should be valued in feminism. This attentiveness to the gatekeeping that has occurred lends itself to postmodern identity politics as Ahmed acknowledges how if we define woman narrowly then people who identify or are deemed women will not be considered women. For Ahmed, this is crucial in the future of mobilizing for feminists causes collectively.

Ethically, Shotwell addresses how gatekeeping can act as a way to push people into the margins, to mark their way of life as non-normative and thus closer to death. This postmodern critique of identity politics, however, does not cause Shotwell to completely reject identity. Identity itself is entangled for Shotwell with others’ identities which are situated in a world of normativities. By “finding our bearings” in identity, particularly open normative identities, Shotwell believes we can engage in the “process of working to change the world” (Shotwell 154). Inspired by Robert McRuer, Shotwell calls for a politic that “acknowledges the complex and contradictory histories of our various movements, drawing on and learning from those histories rather than transcending them” (McRuer qtd. in Shotwell 171). Rather than foregoing identity completely, her attentiveness to material implications of oppression allows for mobilization around identity as a way to promote flourishing while also being attentive to how language shapes that flourishing in this postmodern identity politics.  

In retrospect, while all three authors’ different arguments can be seen through the lens of open normativities they all are promoting visions of solidarity. Mohanty gives us transnational solidarity based on the “recognition of common interests” of decolonizing work where we can aim to move from “essentialist notions of Third World feminists struggles” (Mohanty 7). Ahmed’s call for feminist solidarity where “we keep each other up” and “loosen the requirements to be in a world” makes “room for others to be” (Ahmed 232). Additionally, Shotwell offers us a praxis that is situated in the present, but is working toward speculative futures of recognizing and mobilizing around our own interdependence-socially, materially, and biologically- which co-constitutes our freedoms (Shotwell 172). In turn, these authors give us roadmaps of how to manifest unification in a world that has become divided by race, political parties, borders, gender, and class. Perhaps it is here, in the open normativies of identity that political action will unite those who often are seen in opposition.

Notes

*Note, postmodernism does not apply solely to ending sex oppression, it can be any type of oppression. This quote just happened to use the example of sex oppression.

(May 2018)

Works Cited

Ahmed, Sara. Living a Feminist Life. Duke University Press, 2017.

Hackett, Elizabeth, and Sally Haslanger. Theorizing Feminisms. Oxford University Press, 2006.

Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. Feminism Without Borders Decolonizing Theory, Practicing

     Solidarity. Duke University Press, 2003.

Shotwell, Alexis. Against Purity: Living Ethically in Compromised Times. University of

    Minnesota Press, 2016.

Wilchins, Riki Anne. Read My Lips: Sexual Subversion and the End of Gender. Firebrand Books,

    1997.

The World Food Programme reports that one in nine people will go to bed hungry every night (Zero Hunger). Out of this population, undernutrition will affect some of their lives greatly. Usually, more often times than not, we imagine this does not affect Americans, but in all actuality incidence rates, undernutrition is still too high on U.S. soil. Feeding America reports that “13.1 million children lived in food-insecure households in 2015” and over twenty percent of the population of children affected by food insecurity lived in Mississippi and New Mexico (Child Hunger Facts). Interestingly, New Mexico has a large number of Native American reservations with living conditions “‘comparable to Third World” where they are “23 percent more likely to be food insecure” compared to the rest of the United States’ fifteen percent (Native American Living Conditions on Reservations – Native American Aid; Gordan, Odde; Map of Indian Reservations in the Continental US). While food insecurity does not always equate to undernutrition, the lack of access to food is a sufficient cause of undernutrition.

So what exactly is undernutrition? Undernutrition is the result of a lack of food intake which leads to being underweight relative to age, stunting, or being wasted. The immediate cause of undernutrition is the lack of food, but prior disease such as parasites or HIV can augment the speed of undernutrition. The effect of being deprived of nutrients weakens linings of the stomach and respiratory systems and development of the fetus if pregnant. Consequently, this results in a lack of ability to fight infections, mental development, and lactation. In turn, children or women who are pregnant or may become pregnant are impacted the most (Burgess, Louis; What is Undernutrition?).

1. Economic, Social, and Psychological Burdens

What are the costs of undernutrition and why should we care? Undernutrition plays a within social and psychological interactions. At an early age, nutrition is a vital aspect of growth and development and as they develop, if they lack nutrients it can, in turn, affect how they are viewed socially in life. The top micronutrients for development and growth are “iron, vitamin A, iodine, and folate” which leads to the development of the immune system, thyroid gland, and hemoglobin. An absence of vitamin A can lead to blindness or susceptibility to measles or malaria. Lack of iron or iodine can lead to the thyroid, which controls growth and metabolism, and the red blood cells to improperly function leading to developmental delays. For example, if a child survives into adulthood their lack of nutrients will affect their ability to perform as those “who are deficient in iodine and essential micronutrients have on average 13 fewer IQ points than those who are iodine-sufficient” (What is the role of nutrition; Nutrition Overview).

While this may not equate to every case of undernutrition leading to mental retardation or learning disabilities, it is shown that “bullying persists in our schools today especially for students with disabilities” which leads one to conclude that undernutrition effects start long before one reaches adulthood socially and psychologically (U.S. Department of Education). Consequently, students who do make it to school that are affected by undernutrition typically start later, perform poorly, or drop out of school. Clearly, this presents a problem when America’s workforce is taking a direction toward higher education when more than “30 percent of  U.S. adults 25 and older had at least a bachelor’s degree” which has increased by 4.2 percent from 1998 to 2011 (United States Census Bureau). This is even more troubling when looking at Native American populations were “among those 25 and older, 23 percent have less than a high school diploma” and only “46 percent have some postsecondary education” the overall in the U.S only “14 percent” have less than a high school diploma and “57 percent” have some postsecondary education (Gordon, Oddo).

Education, in turn, plays a vital role in the economic sanctions of undernutrition. The World Bank asserts that “schooling is associated with higher individual earnings” which “for an economy, education can increase the human capital in the labor force, which increases labor productivity and thus leads to a higher equilibrium level of output” resulting in more technological advances for an economy (Hanuskek, Wößmann). All in all, undernutrition not only affects an individual’s development it affects their future household income and their input to their local economy. Through impacting local economies those affected by undernutrition are in turn also affecting national and global economies.

III. Epidemiological Profile

Morbidity

1. 1. Number of Cases Before 2008 (Black)
      1. “More than a third of child deaths and more than 10% of total global disease to maternal and child undernutrition”
      2. “relative risk for morbidity associated with zinc deficiency is 1·09 (95% CI 1·01–1·18) for diarrhea, 1·25 (1·09–1·43) for pneumonia, and 1·56 (1·29–1·89) for malaria” after being diagnosed with undernutrition or malnutrition.
      3. Ages “1–59 months the relative risk is estimated to be 1·27 (0·96–1·63) for diarrhea, 1·18 (0·90–1·54) for pneumonia, and 1·11 (0·94–1·30) for malaria” after being diagnosed with undernutrition or malnutrition.
      4. DALYs (Black)
         1. While I could not find a specific value for the US population or Native American populations it is argued that “stunting, severe wasting, and intrauterine growth restriction together were responsible for 2.2 million deaths and 21% of global childhood DALYs” while 0.2% resulted from iron and iodine and “44 million DALYs (10% of DALYs in children younger than 5)”

Mortality (Black)

1. Number of deaths from Undernutrition Complications

1. 1. 1. Iron and Iodine Deficiencies-115,000 deaths globally  
      2. Suboptimal breastfeeding- 1.4 million child deaths globally
   2. Case fatality rates
      1. Estimated 449,000 deaths in children attributed to severe wasting and the implied case fatality is 2%, but actual numbers are unknown and are assumed to be decreasing.

Person Trends (Black; CDC; Gordon, Oddo; The Characteristics of Native American WIC Participants, On and Off Reservations )

1. Note that while there are no specific studies to be found on direct rates of undernutrition in America or specifically Native American populations, there were studies on rates of education and location of populations along with deficiencies in nutrients for the following graphs.

1. Place Trends (Black; Key Statistics & Graphics.)

Those with children are more affected by food insecurity and access to food as seen in the graphs below

1. Time Trends (CDC; Key Statistics & Graphics.)

(Spring 2017)

Works Cited

Black, Robert E., Lindsay H. Allen, Zulfiqar A. Bhutta, Laura E. Caulfield, Mercedes De Onis,

    Majid Ezzati, Colin Mathers, and Juan Rivera. Maternal and child undernutrition: global and

    regional exposures and health consequences. Rep. no. 1. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg

    School of Public Health, 17 Jan. 2008. Web. 17 Feb. 2017.

Burgess, Ann, and Danga, Louis. “Undernutrition in Adults and Children: causes, consequences

     and what we can do.” SSMJ. South Sudan Medical Journal, 2010. Web. 17 Feb. 2017.

CDC’s Second Nutrition Report: A comprehensive biochemical assessment of the

     nutrition status of the U.S. population. Rep. no. 2. CDC, 27 Mar. 2012. Web. 17 Feb.

     2017.

“Child Hunger Facts.” Feeding America. Feeding America, n.d. Web. 17 Feb. 2017.

Gordon, Anne, and Oddo, Vanessa. “Addressing Child Hunger and Obesity in Indian Country:

     Report to Congress .” Indian Country. USDA, 12 Jan. 2012. Web. 17 Feb. 2017.

     <https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/IndianCountry.pdf >.

Hanuskek, Eric A., and Wößmann,  Ludger. Education Quality and Economic Growth.

     Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, 2007. Education               Quality and Economic Growth. The World Bank, 2007. Web. 17 Feb. 2017.

“Key Statistics & Graphics.” USDA ERS – Key Statistics & Graphics. USDA, 11 Oct. 2016. Web.

     01 Mar. 2017.

“Map of Indian Reservations in the Continental US.” National Parks Service. U.S. Department of

     the Interior, n.d. Web. 17 Feb. 2017.

“Native American Living Conditions on Reservations – Native American Aid.” Native American

     Living Conditions on Reservations – Native American Aid. Partnership With Native

     Americans, 2015. Web. 17 Feb. 2017.

Roser, Max. “Hunger and Undernourishment.” Our World In Data. Our World In Data, 2016.

     Web. 17 Feb. 2017.

“The Characteristics of Native American WIC Participants, On and Off Reservations.” Nutrition

     Assistance Program Report Series The Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation. USDA, May 2002. Web. 1 Mar.             2017.

United States of America. United States Census Bureau. Public Information. Bachelor’s Degree

     Attainment Tops 30 Percent for the First Time, Census Bureau Reports. By Robert

Bernstein. United States Census Bureau, 23 Feb. 2012. Web. 17 Feb. 2017.

United States of America. U.S. Department of Education. Press. Bullying of Students with

     Disabilities Addressed in Guidance to America’s Schools. U.S. Department of Education, 21 Oct. 2014. Web. 17 Feb.         2017.

“Nutrition Overview.” Nutrition Overview. The World Bank, 31 Mar. 2016. Web. 17 Feb. 2017.

“What is the role of nutrition?” UNICEF. Https://www.unicef.org/nutrition/index_role.html, 26

     May 2012. Web. 17 Feb. 2017.

“What is Undernutrition?” UNICEF – Progress for Children – What is undernutrition?UNICEF, 4

     May 2006. Web. 17 Feb. 2017.

“Zero Hunger.” World Food Programme. World Food Programme, 2017. Web. 17 Feb. 2017.

Critiques

     If such a coalition is to be formed it must be careful to avoid the tenets of ecofeminism that ultimately led to its demise: universalism and essentialism. To understand these tenets one must first understand the primary types of ecofeminism: socialist and cultural. Notably, both of these facets of ecofeminism address the means of enacting social change, yet their means of doing so differ. Socialist ecofeminists use the destruction of nature as a result of capitalism to show how economic systems are environmentally destructive (Carlassare 92). Socialist ecofeminists argue that materialism is the force behind positive change within society (Carlassare 93). On the other hand, cultural ecofeminism focuses on manifesting change through “changes in culture and consciousness” which can be attributed to the creation of myths and language to reclaim women’s history and spirituality (Carlassare 95).

     As a result of the core values of ecofeminism, it has been critiqued for culturally appropriating indigenous cultures, essentializing and universalizing womanhood. By “reclaiming” indigenous people’s cultures through faith, myths and language, the homogeneous, white ecofeminist movement further suppressed and erased native cultures. Thus, by associating people of color with nature ecofeminism essentialized race. This “racial essentialism” romanticizes brown skin by associating it with “‘indigenous’ spiritualities” (Sturgeon 264). Consequently, ecofeminists utilized the parts of others’ cultures without including them into the conservation eliminating the voices of those of color and generalizing people of color’s opinions.

     Outside of race, cultural ecofeminists have been heavily critiqued for their use of essentialism where they embrace stereotypes associated with women through biological determinism. These stereotypes perpetuate that women are inherently intuitive, caring, nurturing, and emotional (Carlassare 95). Socialist ecofeminism contributes to this as well as it values “reproduction over production, both as a category of analysis and as a social and economic goal” (Carlassare 93). As a result, these stereotypes have alienated a wide variety of people including those who are not cisgendered women, those who fall outside the gender binary, women who do not hold these personality traits, and those whose anatomy is incapable of reproduction.

     Furthermore, those who do not fit neatly into the gender binary’s normative behaviors or expressions of gender are further excluded from the reclamation of women’s spirituality as their foundations are built on interconnectedness. Restoration of their spirituality, to ecofeminists, is “listening to the natural rhythms”, the worship of nature and fertility, and their inherent ability to menstruate. Consequently, ecofeminists see their reconnection with nature as connecting back to the “nurturing” and the internal way of being (Goddess Remembered 1989). Universalizing women to being nurturing, fertile, and connected to the Earth and each other erases the rich diversity of what womanhood is. Additionally, this is limiting to their own practice by reducing it to women who fit this particular mold. Interestingly enough, these self-proclaimed feminists further ideas of biological determinism through their essentialization of themselves to be inherently nurturing.

Attention to Faith

     These pitfalls ultimately led ecofeminism to decline in popularity after the 1970’s; however, before one can explore how the ecofeminist model provides a means to revolutionize current movements, one must understand another aspect which pushed ecofeminism away from mainstream feminism: faith. Often, ecofeminism is associated with earth-based spirituality as it seeks change through “personal transformation and changes in consciousness” (Carlassare 90). This association has been primary evidence by feminist academics of how essentializing and apolitical ecofeminism was, but this critique fails to address how faith informs individuals’ political actions (Gaard 39). Starhawk, a major contributor to the cultural ecofeminist movement, argues in her essay, “Feminists, Earth-based Spirituality and Ecofeminism” that “Earth-based spirituality influences ecofeminism by informing its values” (Starhawk 175). She presents three aspects of Earth-based spiritual practices that “can resurge in new cycles of political momentum” which includes immanence, interconnection, and compassion. These values “shift our definition of power,” “furnish the basis for our political understandings,” and help us “develop alliances with those whose interests and issues parallel ours” (Starhawk 177-181). Starhawk calls for coalition politics to not only complete “short-term bandages” but to also “support long-term recovery” so that there can be a political agenda enlightened by all issues (Starhawk 181). Through Starhawk’s work it is evident that faith plays a major role in why people take political action.  

     Understanding how exactly earth-based spirituality influences individuals provides the model that will change mainstream movements today. Paganism, a collection of non-Christian faiths that are collectively unified through their connection to the Earth and values for balance, reverence for life, and interconnectedness, was a major faith followed by ecofeminists. Centered around a goddess, many used their beliefs to support their activism. In a 2012 study, completed by Gwendolyn Reece, out of three thousand three hundred eighteen self-identified pagan respondents, fifty-five percent claimed that social justice work was a part of their spiritual practice. On the same note, forty-seven percent identified that political activism was a part of their faith (Reece 45-46). More important to note is the fact that each individual that responded manifests their political action in a different way, but they do it as a result of similarly held beliefs.

    The rich history of Paganism has led to multiple divisions among practitioners. Major sects of Paganism today include Wicca, Druidry, and Hellenism which inherently hold similar morals, but uphold them in various ways. Similarly, Ecofeminism contains a vast array of different influences due to the variety of earth-based practices that influence its means to best effect social change; however, ecofeminists are innately striving to dismantle oppression and end environmental destruction (Carlassare 89, 95). Reece’s data demonstrates this connection between paganism and political actions, more importantly, it demonstrates empirically that even among groups of extreme diversity within their own faiths that they are unified overall in their core beliefs. This attention to faith brought forth by ecofeminism provides a model for current environmental efforts to acknowledge that individuals have different motivations and beliefs, but collectively are fighting for the same goal.

Interconnectedness

Additionally, ecofeminism’s values of interconnectedness provides a means for the longevity of a movement by providing a form of analysis that is attentive to the interrelationships of oppression. Stemming from paganism, interconnectedness is the “ability to feel with and identify with others-human beings, natural cycles and processes, animals, and plants” (Starhawk 178). Interconnectedness, presented by Starhawk, a major cultural ecofeminist, is the foundation which fuels political understanding, but those who are in power seek to prevent us from seeing these connections (179-180). Once one sees the interconnectedness of the world one can see that political issues are not insuperable but are actually a connected in a web (Starhawk 179). This value of ecofeminism provides a lense for us to see our focuses may divide us “from those who might be our allies” if we “other” those who are different from us (Starhawk 180).

Understanding that we are all connected, through means of oppression or culture, presents us with an approach that can seek to tackle the interlocking web of domination. Consequently, interconnectedness can bring forth compassion. Once one understands our inherent connectedness through mutual oppression, we can begin to see the “multifaceted views of the world” and see problems “in their true complexity” (Starhawk 180). The awareness created by understanding the relationship between people, plants, animals, and nature contributes to our understanding of our individual actions affect those not directly in front of us. This model allows for collaboration that expands past individuals and allows them to form relationships that are stronger on a local, national, and global level. If we can understand how individual actions, in turn, affect those beyond us and can mobilize around this concept, the current environmental movement will be able to communicate its demands of protecting those disproportionately impacted who have the least say more effectively to elicit change.

Agential Earth and Nondualism

     This mobilization must also be attentive to the idea that the Earth has agency to fully understand that if we continue to disregard this idea, we further the logic of domination. Ecofeminists hold a nondualistic worldview which is the way “of conceptually organizing the world in binary, disjunctive terms, wherein each side of the dualism is “seen as exclusive (rather than inclusive) and oppositional (rather than complimentary), and where higher value or superiority is attributed to one disjunct (or, side of the dualism) than the other” (Gaard 115-116). Ecofeminists understand this notion and believe that the superiority of self is a result of viewing the differences between the self and others (Gaard 116). Consequently, due to seeing oneself as intertwined with the Earth, Ecofeminists believe that if one believes that they are “at odds” with nature or if one is trying to exploit it for its resources then they see only the differences with nature and not their shared connections furthering the domination over the natural world (Starhawk 178).

     Seeing the Earth with agency acknowledges our “ability to create dysfunctional relationships with the earth, with our ecological community, and with each other” by acknowledging that the earth continues on with or without humans (Ruether 147). If we continue to ignore this facet then the current environmental movement continues to use its privilege of intelligence. This privilege is one that allows humans to “alienate and dominate the world without concern for the welfare of all other forms of life” (Ruether 147-148). To begin to understand this privilege however we must first address how we subject other humans as lesser before we can restore value to nature. We equate marginalized people with nature such as people of color, women, and people of developing countries through dualistic thinking. While the environmental justice movement seeks to dismantle the oppression affecting marginalized people it fails to acknowledge the earth as one of those subjects. We must acknowledge the earth as an oppressed figure or we do nothing to acknowledge our dualistic thinking as we then choose a living being to be lesser.

Conclusion

     Overall, the falling out of ecofeminism due to essentialism, universalism, and appropriation have been justly critiqued; however, revisiting ecofeminism to understand how nondualism, interconnectedness, and the incorporation of faith within a movement can enhance the current environmental justice movement to aid in its longevity, inclusion, and effectiveness. Moving forward, current environmental groups must incorporate an ecofeminist line of thinking to bring forth change. The environmental justice movement must go beyond seeking justice just for human beings, but for the earth as well or it is hypocritical to say it is working to support the “social needs of human populations” (Pellow and Brulle 3). Humans are inherently tied to the ecological systems and processes of the earth.

     To help further understanding of an agential earth, the environmental justice movement must see our lives interconnected within and outside our species. Our actions affect more than just the human race. This value will protect the longevity of the movement as it allows us to understand who our allies are and that political issues are not separate from each other. This allows for collective organizing and support at the local, national, and global levels.

     In turn, however, while a national platform is a powerful unifier, it does not change the lives of those affected directly at an individual level. By creating a movement with a uniform identity that allows for the expression of individual’s beliefs and practices manifests a truly intersectional approach as it provides a platform for those from all intersections of identity to participate in whatever means they are capable. Acknowledging the different motivations such as faith within the environmental movement consequently will allow for a larger understanding that faith is not apolitical. Faith informs the thoughts and actions of many individuals and as environmental activists acknowledge this they can rally people from what motivates them best. This is not to say the environmental activism movement must be religious, but it must acknowledge that faith as a motivation to be attentive to individual communities.

     Ecofeminism, a model of the past, ultimately demonstrates key values that the environmental justice movement needs to take on to progress with support effectively over time. Climate change is not going to reverse itself or be fixed; yet, we must come together to combat the social stratifications that will occur as a result. Social, economic, and policy changes cannot occur without an overwhelming congregation of people tackling the issue of the future of the environment. Revisiting and applying parts ecofeminism to today holds the key to the future of activism.

(Spring 2017)

Works Cited

@realDonaldTrump. “I am committed to keeping our air and water clean but always remember that

economic growth enhances environmental protection. Jobs matter!.” Twitter, 22 April 2017, 5:49 p.m.,  https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/855901315305795584.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/climate/trump-epa-budget-cuts.html

https://www.marchforscience.com/mission-and-vision

BabyradfemTV. “NFB Women and Spirituality series Part 1: Goddess Remembered.” Online video

clip. Youtube. Youtube. 9 June 2016. Web. 6 April 2017.

Bullard, Robert D. The Quest for Environmental Justice Human Rights and the Politics of

Pollution. 1st ed. San Francisco: Sierra Club, 2005. Print.

Carlassare, Elizabeth. “Socialist and Cultural Ecofeminism: Allies in Resistance.” Ethics and the

Environment 5.1 (2000): 89-106. JSTOR. Web. 22 Mar. 2017.

Gaard, Greta. “Ecofeminism Revisited: Rejecting Essentialism and Re-Placing Species in a

Material Feminist Environmentalism.” Feminist Formations 23.2 (2011): 26-53. Web. 26 Apr. 2017.

Gaard, Greta. “Toward a Queer Ecofeminism.” Hypatia 12.1 (1997): 114-37. Web. 10 May 2017.

Mock, Brenti. “Mainstream Green Is Still Too White.” Color Lines. Color Lines, 2 Apr. 2013.

Web. 26 Apr. 2017.

Monroe, Douglas. The 21 lessons of Merlyn: A Study in Druid Magic and Lore. St. Paul, MN.:

Llewellyn Publications, 2004. Print.

Pellow, David N., and Robert J. Brulle. Power, Justice, and the Environment A Critical Appraisal

of the Environmental Justice Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2005. Print.

Reece, Gwendolyn. “Prevalence and Importance of Contemporary Pagan Practices.” The

Pomegranate, vol. 16, no. 1, 2014, pp. 35-54. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1558/pome.v16i1.20231.

Starhawk. “Feminists, Earth-based Spirituality and Ecofeminism .” Healing the Wounds: The

Promise of Ecofeminism . Ed. Judith Plant. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers , 1989. 174-85. Print.

Sturgeon, Noël. “Ecofeminist Appropriations and Transnational Environmentalism.”

Identities 6.2-3 (1999): 255-79. Web. 10 May 2017.

Tabuchi, Hiroko. “What’s at Stake in Trump’s Proposed E.P.A. Cuts.” The New York Times. The

New York Times, 10 Apr. 2017. Web. 26 Apr. 2017.

Warren, Karen J. The Power and the Promise of Ecological Feminism. 3rd ed. Vol. 12. N.p.: n.p.,

1990. Print. Environmental Ethics.