#feminism, black feminism, black feminist history, feminism, feminist agendas of the 1970s, feminist studies, feminist theory, lgbtq, politics, Uncategorized, women, women and gender studies

Article Review: Combahee River Collective, “A Black Feminist Statement” (1977)

combahee .jpg

(Photo Credits: https://combaheerivercollective.weebly.com/)

This article is produced by a group of black feminist  in the mid-70s. They outline four major topics that they provide as their mission statement. These topics included: “the genesis of contemporary black feminism,”“ specific province of our politics,” organization and unity problems and a “brief herstory of our collective,” and  “Black feminist issues and practice” (271-280). These topics provided a framework for this group ,of black feminist, to articulate their feminist agenda. The Combahee River Collective highlighted their aims in hopes of creating a strong group and powerful objectives that would translate to society at large. If you are interested in feminism, women, and black feminist power you need to check this article out!


feminist studies, feminist theory, history, history of sexuality, lgbtq, philosophy, political theory, queer history, queer studies, science and technology, Uncategorized, women and gender studies

Book Review: Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality: An Introduction, Volume 1 (New York, Vintage Books, 1990), Pp.169.


One of the most influential scholars in gender theory and history is Micheal Foucault. Not only does Foucault speak to ideas of resistant but also to the making of nation-states regimes. In this way, Foucault is interested in documenting legacy of medical body politics, knowledge-production, and discourse of the bodies and their taxonomy in history. Foucault thesis states, “I would like to…search instead for instances of discursive production,” “of the production of power,” “of the propagation of knowledge…I would like to write the history of these instances and their transformations” (12). Individuals become tied to discourse. Discourse then is the main taproot of how bodies and their identities get created for Foucault. Thus, the nation uses these discourses to produce a norm and to create its subjects.

Foucault specifically speaks to sex and sexuality in this narrative; addressing power through tracing the chronicling of  sex throughout the emersion and aggrandizement of societies. Foucault’s literary project in this book is to discuss the arenas of power and not only how power is used but also where it is coming from. For Foucault, power is not a repressed or muted entity. Power for Foucault is through the vocal and expressive. Foucault states, “the central issue, then…is not to determine whether one says yes or no to sex…but to account for the fact that it is spoken about” (11). This is fundamental to Foucault’s argument on power and thus sex. The importance of this, is in refuting the repressive hypothesis by Freud, and then moving forward looking/locating power from a different axis point. Foucault goes on to say, “to discover who does the speaking, the position and viewpoints from which they speak, the institutions which prompt people to speak about it and which store and distribute the things that are said” (11).  Again the significance placed not only on what is being, how its being said, but also on what come of it—ideology. This ideology begins to differentiate category and hierarchy.

Ideology, producing power, is the main theoretical investigation Foucault sets out to discover. Foucault clearly explains the realms in which power is mediated in, then what and how power is mobilized. Foucault states, “a transformation into discourse, a technology of power, and a will to knowledge…” (12). This explanation Foucault gives is insightful and pushes the critique of power further. Foucault uses a specific example of a “technology of power” which he arraigns as the confession. Foucault addresses this “technology of power” by stating, “for telling the truth of sex which are geared to a form of knowledge-power strictly opposed to the art of initiations and the masterful secret: I have in mind the confession” (58). This being another central idea that Foucault presents is knows as the “knowledge-power” ideology. This “knowledge-power”  idea questions the ways power works to control through individuals through spoken words, categorization, and then the production of knowledge that is derived from linguistic expressions. Foucault uses sexuality to present a critical analysis of power, as well as a historical reverberation, that can be woven in and out of time and spaces to demonstrate the power of construction of bodies.

It is imperative to rely heavily on the text in understanding the articulation of “knowledge-power” given by Foucault. Foucault elucidates his prime example, the confession, and how power is dispersed through the immersion of terminology, that gets spoken and then transformed. Foucault states, “the confession is a ritual of discourse in which the speaking subject is also the subject of the statement; it is also a ritual that unfolds within a power relationship…the authority who requires the confession, prescribes and appreciates it, and intervenes in order to judge, punish, forgive, console and reconcile…” (61-62). Foucault highlights how power relations are not only determined but then reappear.  Foucault states, “power is everywhere; not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere” (93). Within this sphere, the confession serves as a space where the speaking and the spoken swirl into a production of power through the construction and manufacturing of “truths.” This objectification, categorization, and simplification of bodies and their experience through articulation is the very point Foucault points out in moving into the calling into consciousness—sexuality.  

Foucault also proposes an unveiling into the acknowledgment of power through sexuality by stating, “the history of sexuality—that is, the history of what functioned in the nineteenth century as a s specific field of truth—must first be written from the viewpoint of a history of discourses” (69). Keeping this in mind one can now consider why and how Foucault uses sexuality to bring a rich and robust analysis of power to the forefront.

Turning back the hand of time, Foucault looks into the past for evidence of power stating, “power mechanisms are, at least in part, those that, beginning in the eighteenth century, took charge of men’s existence, men as living bodies…methods of power whose operations is not ensured by right but by technique, not by law but by normalization” (89). A direct linkage to forms of power and domination is in the normalization of bodies and interpretations of acts. Again pointing out and falling back to the example Foucault uses, the confession, to really showcase that operation. Before one looks to the counterattack or if there is any agency in these matters it is important to point out once more, to make sure there is a clear understudying, of why again Foucault calls upon sex in the analysis of power. Foucault states, “sexuality…it appears rather as an especially dense transfer point for relations of power” (103). Again, Foucault allows for an opening of understanding into a form of power. Foucault points out the apertures in these power relations stating,“where there is power there is resistance” (95). It is paramount to point out Foucault’s statement about just how one can resist and recognize resistance.

In conclusion Foucault distinctly leaves the reader with a few answers on  general question about resistance. Foucault answers questions about resistance drawing on the importance of social construction and historical underpinnings. Foucault states: “sexuality is a very real historical formation, it is what gave rise to the notion of sex…The rallying point for the counterattack against the deployment of sexuality ought not to be sex-desire, but bodies and pleasure (157).” This important articulations offer a new way at looking at the history of sex, deconstruction of bodies and their domination through sex and sexuality history. In conclusion,  Foucault touches upon the history of control, in critiquing  bodies politics, through gaining knowledge of acts that people do and the categorization of these acts. Foucault’s  history of sexuality becomes a road map in discussing not only how sex is used for building of empires but how race and gender get deployed as well in the making of the nation-state. I would most definitely recommend this monograph to academics, philosophers, and historians!


american feminist literature, american literature, feminism, feminist studies, feminist theory, herstory, history, humanism, lgbtq, philosophy, politics, science and technology, sex reassignment, Uncategorized, women and gender studies

Judith Butler, “Doing Justice to Someone: Sex Reassignment and Allegories of Transsexuality,” in GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 7.4 (North Carolina: Duke University Press, 2001), 621-636.


(photo credits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Butler)

Bodies and their artistic nature of gender, sex identity and expression is a complicated notion. In the essay entitled “Doing Justice to Someone: Sex Reassignment and Allegories of Transsexuality,” Judith Butler discusses these complications in discussing the social construction of bodies, sex, and gender. Butler uses a Foucauldian framework to talk about body politics and the “regulatory regime” of medicine on bodies (621). Butler does this by specifically focusing on one individual in particular identified as “the case of Joan/John” (625).

The case of Joan/John is not a uncommon story but is an example of the ways in which the medical establishment constructs bodies that are “viable” and are coherent for the nation-state. In short the case of Joan/Joan is a story of an infant that goes through a botched circumcision, in which the doctor convinces the parents it will be better for the child to grow up with no penis and assume the identity of a female then to grow up with a deformed penis (622). The narrative gets more complicated as Joan/John grows up and ends up identifying more as a male than his produced female more identity (623). Through this case study, Butler identifies the debate between social and biological arguments for sex/gender (623) More important, this essay offers a theoretical framework for discussing the forced construction of gender on individuals and their bodies. Butler’s thesis states, “in recounting this story and its appropriation for the purposes of gender theory.…I hope to underscore here is the disciplinary framework in which Joan/ John develops a discourse of self-reporting and self-understanding…by which his own humanness is both questioned and asserted” (628-629).

Lasting thoughts from this piece are productive invitations to discuss the body and nation. Asking academics and intellects alike the question of what ultimately constitutes humanness?  Butler asserts there is  major “limits to the discourse of intelligibility [coherent/identification/taxonomy]” (635). If that is so, Butler’s contributions challenge the constructed categories of the nation-state and binary body politics. This essay highlights the nation-states perceived need for these categories to propel nationalism and its citizenship. I would recommend this essay to academics, intellectuals, and social activists. This is a perfect essay to sit down and discuss with like-minded thinkers. I guarantee you will engage in an exciting and stimulating conversation reading this and discuss it with peers or colleagues! 


feminist studies, feminist theory, philosophy, political theory

Essay Review: Louis Althusser, “Ideology and The Ideological State Apparatus,” in Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1971) 127-186.

How a nation-state is formed, sustains and then is able to acquires a legacy of nationalism is the driving question of theorist Lois Althusser. The author discusses in the selected pages entitled, “Ideology and The Ideological State Apparatus,” inner workings of institutions that manifest nationalism. This mode of thought engenders a Marxist theoretical lens, which produces an inquiry of nationalism, bodies, and production. Althusser is trying to explain the power of  idealogical forces in the history of capitalism, the infrastructure and superstructure; which he discusses through the notion of ideology and its apparatuses. Thus, Althusser’s “basic thesis” states, that in order to discuss the intricacies of power and production we must start “from the point of view of reproduction” (138). Although Althusser goes on to have a series of thesis[ “thesis 1: ideology” is an “illusion/allusion”…. “thesis 2: “ideoldogy has a material existence” ] the “basic thesis” and his central thesis will be discussed here (162 &165). The main entry points into his discussion of ideology is within the state. Althusser asserts, “the definition of the State as a class State, existing in the repressive State apparatus [such as: legal practice, police, courts, prisons, army, and gov.] casts a brilliant light on all the facts observable in the various orders of repression” (137 &139).

The major offering Althusser provides academics is his theoretical framework in identifying as two major societal systems. The first is the Ideological State Apparatus [ISA] such as: church, school, family, legal, political, trade union, press/radio/T.V., arts and sports (143). The second apparatus is defined as the Repressive State Apparatus [RSA] such as: police, jail, prisons, doctors, and politics— “which function by violence” (143).

Moreover, Althusser is quite helpful in understudying the inner or subversive vs. overt workings of state making and nationalism. Althusser offers an explanation in how an “independent” subjects become a subject of the state. Although the theoretical offing is dense, it is useful in the history of the state and understanding where ideas come from that promote radical and passive notions of sacrifice to the state. It is also important in theorizing  reproduction and the meaning making of citizenship, gender, race, and class. An essential read for theorists, feminists, and the like.

feminist studies, feminist theory, herstory, postcolonial theory, subaltern studies

Essay Review: Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, “Can the Subaltern Speak?” in Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory: A Reader (London: Routledge, 1993), Pp. 66-111.



       (photo credits to link provided: Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak [ India, USA ] Biography. Accessed August 31, 2018)

Historical narratives try to give agency and articulate the subjects in colonial contexts, but have they done justice to these subjects (as Judith Butler would say)? For Gayatri Spivak this has been an unsuccessful project of theoretical and historical narratives. In Spivak’s essay entitled, “Can the Subaltern Speak?” the provocative argument of injustice and reproductions of imperialism have been suggested to some of the most influential theorists and historians of our time. Spivak critiques ideology and the intellectuals obsession to categorize categories. In this sense the author is claiming that those who have tried to use deconstruction, post-modern, and intervening language have actually in turn reproduced imperial narratives. This critique the author gives critiques, as well as gives credence to, names such as Foucault, Deleuze and Guattarie etc. The author critiques the ways in which theorists and historians have reproduced terms of subject and citizen ultimately creating a type of violence in the form of narrative presence. Spivak’s thesis states, “I have argued that, in the Foucault-Deluze conversation, a postrepresentationlist vocabulary hides an essentialist agenda. In subaltern studies, because of the violence of imperialist epistemic, social and disciplinary inscription, a project understood in essentialist terms must traffic in a radical textual practice of difference” (80). This critique searches to illuminate if the subject of the state, nation, and empire is adequately represented. Spivak’s continual question, “can the subaltern speak,” is complicated by what the author demonstrates as absences in historical narratives of those termed as oppressed or subjugated bodies. Power is thus driven out of knowledge and the ways in which reproduction rears its ugly head is through historical and theoretical narratives about binary othering (82). Spivak notes, “Deleuze and Foucault ignore both the epistemic violence of imperialism…”(84). By discussing the gaps of theory and history Spivak is able to point to types of personage that is not intelligible or is rendered in a  “blind-spot” to the “privileging of the intellectual” discourse (86-87). For example Spivak spends time teasing out how sati, which is a cultural death of husband and female sacrifice to honor and loyalty aka “good wife” ritual, is read outside of the flattened imperial discourse (101). What Spivak calls attention to is that intellectual discourse does a disservice or does not give justice to the whole story go culture, race, context, and letting one speak from their own experience.

Spivak states, “the broader question of the constitution of the sexed subject is hidden by foregrounding the visible violence of sati…when the status of the legal subject as property-holder could be temperately bestowed on the female relict, the self-immolation of widows was stringently enforced” (99). What the author highlights is the deeper projects of reproducing racialize gendered subject bodies as victims for saving rather than free agent respectable of self-reporting. Spivak states, “between patriarchy and imperialism, subject-constitution and object-formation, the figure of the woman disappears, not into a pristine nothingness, but into a violent shuttling which is the displaced figuration of the ‘third-world woman’ caught between tradition and modernization” (102). Reified bodies and histories is the crux of Spivak’s critique of historical and theoretical narration of bodies and the nation vis versa. In the end of this powerful essay Spivak answers her question, “can the subaltern speak?” with the answer— “the subaltern cannot speak” (104). Spivak calls for a more nuanced and self-reporting narration of history for those who are spoken for and spoken about. Wonderful read to expand your mind and theoretically challenge static historical narratives. 



feminism, feminist studies, feminist theory, postcolonial theory, science and technology

Article Review: Donna Haraway, “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective,” in Feminist Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Feminist Inc., 1988), 575-599.


(photo credits to link provided: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Haraway)

From one of my all time favorite feminist theorists, Donna Haraway, discusses how the idea of the objective/subject is nothing more than an illusion. Donna Haraway discusses in her essay entitled, “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspectives,” the ability to be completely biased and unattached from the subject is much more complicated than that. Haraway’s thesis states, “I want to argue for a doctrine and practice of objectivity that privileges contestation, deconstruction, passionate construction, webbed connections, and hope for transformation of systems of knowledge and ways of seeing” (584-585). Haraway’s thesis is defended by the use of re-defining individuals and their position. She goes on further to state, “where partiality and not universality is the condition of being heard rational knowledge claims…the view from a body, always a complex, contradictory, structuring and structured body” (589). In other words, Haraway is arguing that the partial is more credible than the unattainable totalized explanation.

For example, Haraway calls attention to what she defines as “feminist objectivity…[which is] about limited location and situated knowledge, not about transcendence and splitting subject and object” (583). This way of viewing narratives, especially historical narratives, suggests a new way of interacting with colonizer/colonized, slave/master, citizen/state, power/powerless etc . This way of reading or analysis blurs binaries and may suggest agency to subjects that changes the position of these actors.

The term situated knowledge is crucial in understanding what Haraway’s article. Situated knowledge can be understood as a relationship between the binary of colonized/colonizer, not as a top down dynamic (592). Instead it is a blurred, symbiotic, and complicated relationship.

This type of analysis adds to a new way in seeing object and subject relation; in the case of nation and its citizens complicates the historical narratives. It also pushes back at scientific and historical ways of othering and objectifying subjects. This is a helpful theoretical underpinning in academic discussions on how history is told as well as how the nation interacts with its citizens and vice versa. Haraway’s essay is also helpful in grappling with academic discussions on nation building, legacy of empire, and the paradox of contradiction in colonial histories. A new way of looking at the world and a new way at re-imagining the story– a must read!



feminism, feminist studies, feminist theory, postcolonial theory, world history

Book Review: Inderpal Grewal, Transnational America: Feminisms, Diasporas, Neolieralisms (North Carolina: Duke University Press, 2005), Pp.281.



Ways in which we perceive  nationalism, citizenship and consumerism can be understood through many different lenses. Those lenses mold our ideas and set standards in our day to day lives. Investigating what or where the lens is coming from can reveal  a great deal on the nation states’ intentions and motives. Inderpal Grewal calls these types of ideas into question by exploring transnationalism through a specific icon in a her text entitled, Transnational America. Grewal’s objective states, “this book is about the 1990s, when a new phase of neoliberalism brought together market logics with concerns for reducing welfare and poverty, and in the process rearticulated feminist and postcolonial subjects out of longer colonial histories and epistemologies” (15).

Grewal analyses specifically focuses on the methods of production, consumption and the process in which transnationalism takes place. The author notes the specific manifestations in American national ideals. Grewal states, “the American dream was a discourse of both whiteness and racism, in which a white identity coexisted in an unstable and changing relationship with heterogeneous notions of being American, within as well as being outside the United States” (7). Grewal brings up an important term that can be derived out of this understanding of American nationalism and its discourse— transnationalism.  Grewal articulates further on this term stating, “transnational practices incorporated struggles for liberal democratic rights as they inserted themselves into consumer culture” (9). This crucial point that Grewal discusses in the monograph becomes a signifier to the consumer culture as a thriving vehicle of nationalism. Grewal speaks to this important feature of nationalism and its ability to shift for more power stating, “nationalism’s ability to move, change, spread across different kinds of boundaries suggests that it remained a powerful imaginary which developed in tandem with changing modes of citizenship and consumer culture” (13). The significance of consumer culture and nationalism go hand in hand, creating power, and act as a power tool to implement more ideology that circulates national discourse.

Grewal discusses this further by looking at the Barbie doll. Grewal acknowledges why she uses Barbie and why it was essential to her text. Grewal states, “I use Barbie as the entry point into understanding the transnationalization of gender through consumer culture and thus to the ways in which multinational corporations participated in altering culture in India through the 1990s” (84). These processes of investigation on how Barbie not only signifies gender but simultaneously is a tool to propel American nationalist regimes. Barbie is used as an icon of the political economy and culture producing notions of citizenship, beauty, gender, and race. These notions of citizenship, in particular, can be traced to nation state values and how transnationsalism has used its ideology to produce commodified emblem of the citizen and consumer. The citizen and consumer become synonymous. Accordingly, Barbie then becomes a symbolic icon of citizenship and political economic function. As Grewal states, “I analyze how a multinational corporation was able to sell an American product and icon in a very different cultural context” (85). Through transnationalism and production, American values were able to be written on to the body of Barbie and on to the body of the consumer.

Barbie then had to attract a certain kind of audience— Barbie had to become transnational.  Hence, Barbie became a symbol of a specific ideology of citizenship and nationalism. Grewal goes on to state, “Barbie’s global marketing practices were linked to America as a symbol of freedom and rights, especially for women. The marketing strategies linked the product to discourses of powerful “Americanness” associated with race, class, and gender hierarchies. Relying on discourses of American nationalism that linked “choice” to “freedom,” Matel used race, gender, and nationalist discourse to sell its product” (98). This imperative statement by Grewal addresses the dangerous realities of these types of cultural appropriation and  production.

In closing, what can be clearly deduced about transnationalism, by Grewal, is the reality of America’s oppressive nationalist discourse. The use of intersection by looking at barbie, gender, nation, and the like places the iconic Barbie in a new light. Grewal closes her text with a invitation for the reader to re-conceptualize the global markets stating, “if we are to rethink consumer citizenship and multiculturalism through dynamic and changing racial and gendered formations we cannot assume that civil society and the state can be seen as separate from each other” (219). Rethinking of these discussions, in particular American discourse, is paramount in deconstruction and illumination of domination. The icon is exposed as something that  is not isolated from the style of nationalist ambition. Accordingly, the critique that America becomes an icon that can use instruments such as consumerism as a vehicle to transport ideology is the main argument of this monograph. This book would be of interest to a wide variety of publics including those who are interested in subjects such as the global economy to women’s studies. Fascinating read!