6 Olivia Ivan – Coloniality of Knowledge and Gender: Global South Women and College

The Coloniality of Knowledge and Gender: Global South Women and College

Introduction

According to the European Journal of Politics and Gender, “Scholars at Southern institutions authored less than 3% of 947 articles in four leading European and North American journals between 2008 and 2017.”[1] In other words, production of knowledge is heavily skewed towards global north researchers who only produce work in English. This creates an incredible gap of lost knowledge from the global south due to lack of prestige, respect, and resources. Moreover, Debjani Chakravarty in her article On Being and Providing ‘Data’: Politics of Transnational Feminist Collaboration and Academic Division of Labor, points out the sometimes exploitative conditions of academic research conducted by global north scholars in India. In her interview with an archivist in a women’s resource center, she poses the question about collaboration with Americans in transnational research. The archivist responds:

‘“[c]ollaboration? With Americans? It’s a dangerous proposition, if you ask me!’ This was a quick, almost knee- jerk response from r11, a feminist archivist working in southern India.[2]…The archivist went on: ‘Transnational research collaborations are dangerous. It’ll be like that James Lain, or the Sarah Harris case.’ The James Lain and Sarah Harris cases are familiar and important to some of my interviewees, and they present very real and recent examples of what can happen with collaboration”’. [3]

The James Lain and Sarah Harris cases were ones of sensationalizing and exotifying Indian kings and gods in Lain’s case and Indian sex workers in Harris’. In both cases, there was a mishandling of research. More importantly, a complete abandonment of ethics when working alongside Indian scholars and women. James Lain and Sarah Harris’ actions resulted in complete transnational research mistrust when it comes to America and India. Therefore, there is a historical exploitation of global south individuals, viewing them as “subjects” in academic research or journalism. The othering of global south individuals, especially women, has been perpetuated by white, northern scholars for the sake of “knowledge”[4]. This consequently, creates a coloniality of knowledge. This is especially true when viewing higher education across the globe. The severe silencing of global south female scholars under this current flow of knowledge ought to be seen and remedied.

The coloniality of knowledge, however, is not the only force working against global south women. The coloniality of gender, on the other hand furthers the ostracization of global south women by denying them their femininity. Maria Lugones in The Coloniality of Gender describes the experience of non-white women as such: “They were…understood to be animals in a sense that went further than the identification of white women with nature, infants, and small animals. They were understood as animals in the deep sense of ‘without gender,’ sexually marked as female, but without the characteristics of femininity”[5]. Therefore, the intersection of knowledge and gender clashes and creates a hostile environment for non-white women and especially non-white global south women. This is important because the combination of colonialism and sexism are depriving the world of global south women’s talents and knowledge. With this presented research evidence, I will argue that global south women in the academic field must be heard. There ought to be changes in academic spheres to not just accommodate male global north scholars. There also must be a disruption of the current flow of knowledge that creates a massive gap of lost knowledge from the global south. I will be using cases such as Dr. Akanksha Mehta, a professor in London who still feels the effects of colonialism in teaching, and an interview with Padma Parthasarathy, who speaks about her experience in higher education in India and America.

Literature Review

Colonization and its lasting effects have stayed in academic and gendered spaces, creating the coloniality of both knowledge and gender. Sarah Lucia Hoagland, in Aspects of the Coloniality of Knowledge, states there are three aspects of the theory. She describes them as being:

“Anglo-Eurocentered practices, whereby the only discourse for articulating Third World women’s lives is a norming and normative Anglo-European one…That is, the subject is approached only in terms of the concept of rationality put in place by modern epistemology…Western scientific practice thus positions the researcher as a judge of credibility and gatekeeper for its authority”[6].

One can clearly see the colonization of knowledge especially as it pertains to the global south. In other words, Anglo-Eurocentric researchers produce knowledge in the north, about the south. This denies occupants, doubly, women, of the south a voice in academia. The northern researcher/southern subject relationship in studies that are later produced in English silences global south women and may even create a false narrative. The research is solely for the northerner and views global south women’s lives from a “norming” point of view, as Hoagland would articulate. I will use this framework to look at the coloniality of production of knowledge when viewing possible practices to decolonize higher academia.

Chandra Talpade Mohanty builds upon this false narrative of global south women told by northern researchers, more specifically, “Western feminists”. She revisits her academic article, “Under Western Eyes” (1986) in lieu of decolonizing feminist theory developments.

“I wrote ‘Under Western Eyes’ to discover and articulate a critique of ‘Western feminist’ scholarship on Third World women via the discursive colonization of Third World women’s lives and struggles. I also wanted to expose the power-knowledge nexus of feminist cross-cultural scholarship expressed through Eurocentric, falsely universalizing methodologies that serve the narrow self-interest of Western feminism”[7].

Echoing Hoagland’s point, Mohanty states western feminists view and analyze global south women through Eurocentric lenses. Using global south women as accessories to their “global” feminism, Western feminism scholarship furthers false knowledge collection and discussion surrounding southern women.

Finally, Dr. Mary John from New Delhi, India, introduces the idea of the flow of knowledge and migration to the north for a better education. Her emphasis is on postcolonial India, which is recovering from British systems that left academics needing the approval of the global north: “Let me begin, then, with a sketch of an Indian intellectual’s formation and her choice to go westward, to make the West her site of enunciation. Such a decision is, without a doubt, overdetermined by class aspirations”[8]. She attributes this decision to move to motives of economic success only found westward. Currently, scholars in the global south are given little to no platform to work with, so the notion that there is a chance for a better life in America or in the United Kingdom is a popular one. This notion also furthers the argument later developed in the cases presented. In other words, both women in the cases I analyze moved to the global north from the global south for academics.

Positionality Statement

These topics being said, it is important to understand my own positionality as a white, global north student. In this research paper, I plan to gain more knowledge and present my understanding of transnational women’s experience in academia when dealing with the intersection of westernized and male scholarly spaces. My research about the experiences of Indian scholars is not new in any way, but I am simply presenting them in this paper as a collection of cases and analysis. My racial and economic privilege alongside the great benefits of the academic accessibility I have shape and form the information I am presenting and how I am viewing the experiences. This paper is not meant to further the problem I seek to give light to, but to expand mine and others knowledge upon the subject.

Dr. Akansha Mehta and Mrs. Padma Parthasarathy Experiences

The colonial intersection of knowledge and gender is one felt by countless global south women. This topic is one not existing in a theoretical space, but experienced and ought to be heard. Living with the effects of colonialism and sexism in the academic field has posed immense challenges for women in college in the global north. In detail below, are the experiences of a professor grappling with coloniality in teaching reflected in an academic article, and an interview I conducted with my partner’s mother who has experienced both American and Indian higher-level education.

Dr. Akanksha Mehta, a professor and lecturer in gender, race and cultural studies at the University of Sussex, struggles with the “correct” way of teaching students or helping students unlearn colonialism thought. As she reflects on her experiences in the classroom she states, “As an anti-racist, anti-capitalist, anti-caste brown woman of colour feminist from the ‘Global South’ teaching in a university in London, I grapple with versions of [the question]: What does it mean to be a feminist teacher and engage in feminist pedagogical practices?”[9]. Teaching these subjects in higher education within the United Kingdom is a process she calls, “decolonising the university”. From the inside perspective of working in secondary schooling in the global north, Dr. Mehta does not understate this process of “decolonising knowledge”. In particular experiences, she describes the trials of white students in seminar: “Nuanced discussions from the “Middle East” and “South Asia” give way to the projects of listening to and managing white feelings, of educating whiteness, of countering white liberal and Eurocentric ideas, of challenging white assumptions, and of explaining racism to those who perpetuate it.”[10] The continuation of imperialist thought, even in younger generations, is terribly alive and well. Whether the reason be old systems put on a pedestal, religious ideological influence, or lack of knowledge about perspectives other than the colonizers, the ghost of colonial history haunts, and the most activity is found in academic spaces.

My partner’s mother went to the Indian Institute of Technology, to study engineering until later moving to the United States, where she attended Stanford University for graduate school. I am eternally grateful for her honest and open interview. To gain a better understanding of the differences and challenges global south women face in higher education, I asked: Coming from the global south, how did you feel the difference between the higher-level academic space in India versus the United States, especially as a woman? Her response was more than I could have asked:

“Women in Engineering was quite rare both in India and in U.S. in [the] late 80s and early 90s. From an academic rigor point of view: I felt higher education in [the] U.S. demands more commitment and self-efforts than what I experienced in India. I felt expectations in terms of projects/research/problem solving techniques were a lot more compared to what I had to do in India. I also felt quarter-based colleges are fast pacing and more stressful than the semester system I was used to in India. Approachability to professors/TA/RA point of view: I felt that the professors in [the] U.S. expected a lot more of prep work before approaching them, sometimes I felt that I came from a spoon-feeding environment in India and found it difficult to get used to the expectations, it took me some time to get tuned and adjust[ed].

From a friendly environment/culture/help from classmates’ point of view: In India, even though the number of women were much less in the classes I took, I felt there was a lot more openness and easy acceptance right from day one. It was much easier to make friends and do group projects and studies. In [the] U.S. I felt it took much longer to get that kind of trust. I felt students tend to stick to their smaller circles and people they knew from their own country, undergrad class etc. I ended up going to a place where I did not know anyone, and it was very painful for me to go through the phases of making friendships and developing trust. It could also be because I lacked the ability to initiate conversations and make friends that easily. It could have also been because of my nature of being very stressed about studies in general.”[11]

The environment/culture point of view is incredibly important and telling for Mrs. Parthasarathy’s college experience. Students sticking their smaller circles and people from their own country, undergrad class etc. may well have been the continuation of othering. This phase of friendships was “very painful” for Mrs. Parthasarathy to go through. Furthermore, the female solidarity found in Indian engineering courses was severely lacking when compared to American courses. Trust, female solidarity, and sisterhood are repeat topics of question when thinking about transnational feminism. Female solidarity in the academic field also plays major role in combatting the historical biases towards women in colleges. Therefore, it is not just the academic difference between India and America that is the intersectional experience of female Indian scholars. It is also the social, even racial hierarchies and relationships that complicate and make up college experiences.

Connections between Dr. Mehta and Mrs. Parthasarathy can be seen by not only their identity but more importantly the move from the global south to the global north for academics and the hope for success. Migration from the global south is often times motivated by academic respect and economic gain that cannot be achieved in home countries. Becoming the first in a subject – Dr. Mehta “decolonising the university”, and Mrs. Parthasarathy pursing engineering as a woman – are the success stories within a system that prioritizes white, male, global north scholars.

Putting Theory to Practice

Though this is a subject that will not be solved easily, Dr. Mehta and other professors in the global north teaching and taking the time to educate white global north students helps chip away at the system not made for anyone except the historical scholars. To alleviate this massive gap in research, decolonizing higher education is one answer.

The production of knowledge currently moves from the North to the South and if any piece from the South is “worthy” (who defines this word?) then it is translated into English and presented in the North. There ought to be a remedying of the production of knowledge since this mode currently furthers the coloniality of knowledge. Gurminder Bhambra, a professor of postcolonial and decolonial studies in the department of international relations in the School of Global Studies, University of Sussex, provides a sociological view on this remedy. She describes the current mode of knowledge production as limited to address issues of power, race, and coloniality in the study of modernity[12]. Moreover, she states there must be a pursuit of ‘global sociology’ to help alleviate the disbalance of academic work produced in the North. Though Bhambra may just be talking about the lack of global diversity in the sociology field and discourse, the claims are applicable to far more than just sociology producers of knowledge.

Figure 1. Map representing the flow of knowledge from the north to the south

Decolonial feminist theory is an expanding field and must be practiced. One way the perspective of global south women could be presented is described by Jennifer Manning, a professor at the Technological University Dublin.  Manning describes postcolonial feminist framework eloquently, stating:

“As analyzed by Őzkazanҫ‐Pan(2019), postcolonial feminist lenses highlight issues of representation, knowledge production, power relations and Global South women’s lived experiences. This framework provides insight as to how people from the Global South are spoken about and for in Western texts, demonstrating the epistemic violence experienced by those in the Global South whereby their voice and agency are ignored (Spivak,1988).”[13]

Calling upon an important voice in the conversation of global south women’s voice in academia: Spivak, Manning summarizes the need for transnational feminism to utilize a postcolonial lens. The dismissal of scholars or dismissal until produced in English must end. Scholars working in the global south or from the global south are worthy of respect.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the intersectional experience of global south women in the academic field must be understood, and elevated. To reiterate, the combination of colonialism and sexism are depriving the world of global south women’s talents and knowledge. Changes in colleges and academic areas must happen to allow a more fair and diverse discussion of thought. This goes alongside the need to alter the production of knowledge to represent a highway that goes both ways. To use Chakravarty words a final time, “It is equally important to understand epistemic agency: who creates knowledge, which scholars wield authority, what kind of networks promote visibility, what circulates and is read, and all the modes of sharing and negotiating power that remain forever latent in knowledge enterprises.”[14]