A reflection on the article “Whose Counting” by Sara Ahmed done for my Feminist Theories class.
I recently had a discussion like this one about queer theory. A prof here believes that difficult problems need difficult language and thus his class is reading the more complex, abstract and at times confusing theorists. It is my personal belief that though this kind of theory should exist and that at times new language, not necessarily difficult language, is needed as this type of theorizing encounters new problems not previously address. I do not believe however that this should be the only type of theorizing that is privileged as such. I think that because feminism (and queer theory for that matter) deal with issues that affect the general population it should be accessible to everyone regardless of literacy of education. Granted not all theorizing can be accessible to everyone everywhere, but as Ahmed points out, things like poetry and children’s stories could be, and in my opinion should be, included in the umbrella of theory.
I also think that critical theory should be taken into account when studying the criticized theory. For example, Ahmed sites that black feminists have criticized white feminism. I believe it is important when studying white feminism one must understand the criticisms of that approach. I believe that because the lives and experiences of women are fluid so too must be the theory that attempts to explain it, hence my agreement with Ahmed’s term ‘theorizing’ as opposed to ‘theory’. To truly understand a theory I think that one must understand the difficulties with that theory as well.
Is it possible that what is considered feminist theory differs from place to place, or even person to person? For me I feel that what some may call ‘queer theory’ could fit under the umbrella of feminist theory because queer theorizing has a direct effect on my life. Though I could understand how some women could see that post-colonial theorizing or theorizing on race could also be put under the umbrella of feminist theorizing, who actually gets to say what belongs there?
I think one of the things that Ahmed only briefly mentions is a discussion of the politics of publishing, especially in the academy. One possible reason for the privileging of complex theory maybe that those in the academy, especially those who give tenure and are in administrative positions, feel that anything that is not complex do not belong in the academy. Considering that many administrators in the academy are male is it possible that feminist with in the academy are being guided into only producing those theories which will be acceptable to the university administrators?
Also third wave feminism has seen much more self publishing, especially via the internet. Should these blogs and zines be considered important to feminist theory? Also these could be an example about how feminism is fluid as even 15 years ago we didn’t have the resources we do now to self publish and communicate our personal ideas to so many people around the world. As well there are many movements which do not have formal academic theory behind them. Some of these movements, especially grass-root movements have many people taking part. Aren’t these movements producing theory? Shouldn’t everyone be able to take part in a movement whether or not they are formally educated?
Also should theorizing be called feminist if the theorizer does not identify his/herself as feminist? Also if a theorizer calls his/herself a feminist does that automatically mean that all of his/her theorizing is feminist?
*Sigh*
So many questions and not so many answers…..
