Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Department of Humanities and Social Sciences

Article Review
Individual Assignment

HS3024 - Research Methods & Programme Evaluation

Jan - May 2024

Article Review

Tejaswini Harshvardhan Jagtap

HS21H049
hs21h049@smail.iitm.ac.in
 1. Article Review - The Method Question by Sandra Harding

The article "The Method Question" by Sandra Harding examines how scientific procedures
contribute to knowledge creation and makes a case for the need to expand our conception of
what knowledge is actually valid. According to Harding, scientific methods have historically
been restricted by their reliance on a small number of epistemologies. To expand our
understanding of what comprises true knowledge, engaging with various viewpoints and
methodologies is necessary. Harding's article begins by criticizing established scientific
inquiry methods, which she calls "epistemic imperialism." Harding claims that this strategy
focuses on objectivity, universality, and reason while discounting alternative modes of
knowing as trivial. Harding argues that this limited perspective frequently results in the
marginalization of information created by women, people of colour, and other marginalized
groups.

Harding argues that recognizing the diversity of available epistemologies and methodologies
is crucial for adopting a more comprehensive approach to scientific research. To achieve this,
one must understand that knowledge is constantly placed within specific social and historical
contexts and that various groups may have distinct knowledge production objectives and
modes of knowing. Harding advocates that through interacting with other epistemologies and
research methodologies, we can expand our understanding of what constitutes reliable
knowledge and create inclusive and socially just forms of knowledge production.

Harding emphasizes the necessity of reflexivity in knowledge generation, which is one of her
major contributions. She asserts that awareness of one's own prejudices and views is
important for researchers to have, and that the research method should incorporate this
understanding. This entails engaging with many viewpoints and methodologies and actively
looking for methods to include various viewpoints in research. Harding offers a strong
critique of conventional scientific approaches and a compelling case for the need to expand
our conception of what is considered legitimate knowledge. Researchers can create more
inclusive and socially equitable forms of knowledge production by acknowledging the
multiplicity of available epistemologies and methodologies and by interacting with a range of
perspectives and techniques.

Methodology Review
Sandra Harding challenges the search for a distinctive feminist method in research, arguing that this
pursuit may obfuscate the more significant aspects of feminist inquiry. Instead of that Harding delves
into the intricate relationships between methods, methodologies, and epistemologies to explore what
truly powers feminist analyses. She suggests that the real concern underlying the method question is
identifying the elements that confer feminist research its potency and suggests alternate pathways to
pursue this investigation. Harding criticizes the focus on method as a simplification that potentially
masks the rich, complex processes behind feminist research. She proposes that the interest in a
feminist method often represents a deeper quest to understand the sources of feminist research's
influential nature. She distinguishes between methods (techniques for gathering evidence),
methodologies (theories analysing how theory applies in specific scientific disciplines), and
epistemologies (theories of knowledge concerning the nature, scope, and reliability of claims to
knowledge). She contends that feminist research's distinctiveness stems not from unique methods but
from its innovative methodologies, epistemologies, and the politicized nature of its inquiry. Harding
argues that the strength of feminist science and social science lies in its grounding in feminist politics
and morals, which challenge and extend beyond traditional scientific objectivity. This framing shifts
the focus from a futile search for a specific feminist method to a broader understanding of how
feminist perspectives fundamentally reshape research paradigms.

References:
1. Harding, S. (1993). The Method Question. Hypatia, 8(3), 6-21.
2. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. Routledge.
3. Lorde, A. (1984). Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. Crossing Press.
4. Tuana, N. (1993). The less noble sex: Scientific, religious, and philosophical conceptions
of women's nature. Indiana University Press.

2. Article Review - Can the Subaltern Speak? by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak explores the connection between colonial authority and representation in
her seminal work "Can the Subaltern Speak?" According to Spivak, the dominant discourse of
colonialism frequently envelopes and erases the voices and experiences of marginalized people, or the
"subaltern," making them invisible. She argues that the inability of the subaltern to speak results from
their ostracization from the institutions of power that govern and control speech.
In order to support her position, Spivak employs the Hindu rite of sati, in which widows are required
to commit suicide by setting themselves ablaze on their husband's funeral pyre. She argues that
Western feminist interventions in sati, which frequently relied on essentialist notions about the nature
of Indian culture, neglected to consider the complex historical and cultural circumstances in which
sati was placed. Furthermore, many times, these interventions muffled the voices of Indian women
who were actively involved in campaigns against sati and various other forms of gender inequality.

The central idea of Spivak's argument is "epistemic violence," which refers to the ways in which
dominant discourses of power can annihilate or silence the experiences and viewpoints of
marginalized groups. She contends that the colonial goal, which aims to "know" and "represent" the
subaltern in ways that serve the interests of the colonizer, is inherently violent. Spivak's work offers a
potent critique of how colonial contexts use power and representation. Her position has influenced
feminist theory, critical race theory, postcolonial studies, and other fields, and it has spurred
significant discussions on the interplay between language, power, and knowledge.

Methodology Review:
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s work is multifaceted. She incorporated a very well-articulated fusion of
philosophical inquiry, historical analysis, and literary criticism. Spivak’s interdisciplinary approach
draws from history, feminist theory, and deconstruction. She closely engages with a range of thinkers,
including Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, and Karl Marx, to explore the intersections of power,
knowledge, and representation. This interdisciplinary approach allows her to examine the subaltern’s
position from multiple perspectives, majorly underscoring the complexity of voice and silence in
colonial power dynamics. A significant part of Spivak’s methodology involves deconstructive
analysis, particularly of Western philosophical and theoretical frameworks. She questions the
assumptions underlying Western intellectual traditions, including the ideas of subjectivity,
representation, and the possibility of truly hearing the subaltern voices. Spivak takes a critical stance
that is not just theoretical, but it is aimed at deciphering the mechanisms through which the subaltern
is silenced or muffled within academic and political discourses.

Spivak thoroughly examines historical instances where dominant discourses have suppressed the
voices of subaltern women. She contends that the colonial narratives have shaped the representation
of the subaltern, questioning the possibility of recovering ‘pure’ subaltern voices that are untouched
by these dominant narratives. Spivak emphasizes the subaltern women as a figure doubly erased by
the colonial and patriarchal structures. By focusing on ‘gendered subalternity’. By this significantly
broadens the scope of postcolonial critique but also challenges the feminist discourse that fails to
account for the complexities of colonial histories and power relations. Spivak critically examines the
role of Western intellectuals in representing or speaking for subalterns. She problematizes the idea
that intellectuals can simply ‘give voice’ to the oppressed without perpetuating the same structures of
power and silencing they aim to critique. This self-reflexive aspect of her methodology underscores
the ethical and political challenges of postcolonial scholarship.

References:

1. Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.),
Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271-313). University of Illinois Press.

2. Chakrabarty, D. (1992). Postcoloniality and the artifice of history: Who speaks for
"Indian" pasts? Representations, (37), 1-26.

3. Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. Routledge. 4. Said, E. W. (1979).

Orientalism. Vintage

3. Article Review - Being ‘in translation’ in a post colony: Translating Feminism in Kerala State,
India by J. Devika

In her study "Being 'in Translation' in a Post Colony: Translating Feminism in Kerala State, India," J.
Devika examines the challenges and intricacies involved in adapting feminist ideas and practices
within the post-colonial environment of Kerala. Devika provides a detailed examination of the
numerous tactics and strategies that have been utilized to adapt feminist ideas and practices into the
local environment, drawing on extensive research and interviews with feminist activists and
academics in Kerala. Devika argues that while they negotiate the conflicts between long-standing
cultural norms and the demands of modernity, feminist movements in Kerala have frequently failed to
strike a balance between the local and the universal.

She investigates how language, culture, and politics influence the development of feminist
movements in Kerala, proposing that a deeper comprehension of translation is crucial for thoroughly
grasping the complexities of these movements. Devika emphasizes the importance of understanding
translation as a linguistic exercise and a broader cultural and political phenomenon. She argues that
feminist groups in Kerala have encountered several translational challenges, including issues related
to cultural authenticity, linguistic diversity, and the politics of representation, highlighting this as a
key contribution of her article. Devika offers a useful framework for comprehending the manner in
which feminist movements in post-colonial contexts have tried to balance their global and local
objectives by addressing these difficulties. Another pivotal aspect of Devika's article is her
examination of technology's impact on feminist translation efforts in Kerala. She highlights the
emergence of digital technology as a catalyst for new avenues in feminist activism and networking,
facilitating cross-border and intercultural collaborations among activists.

Nonetheless, she also cautions that, in leveraging technology for their goals, feminists should be
mindful of inherent risks, as digital platforms can perpetuate existing power dynamics and hierarchies.
By and large, Devika's article offers a meticulous and insightful study of the difficulties and
opportunities that postcolonial feminist groups must overcome. Her focus on understanding
translation as a cultural and political phenomenon is particularly insightful, and her exploration of
technology's role introduces an essential perspective on the evolution of feminist movements in the
digital age.

Methodology Review

Devika, employing her interdisciplinary approach, integrates perspectives from translation studies,
feminist theory, political science, and cultural studies. This methodology allows her to capture the
nuances of translating feminism in a post-colonial context, where language, culture, and politics
intertwine. The strength of Devika's methodology is her detailed historical analysis of Kerala's socio-
political landscape. She traces the roots of Malayalee modernity and the influence of various agents,
including colonial powers, missionaries, and local elites, in shaping gender norms and ideologies.
This historical backdrop is necessary for understanding the challenges and opportunities in translating
feminism in Kerala. She proposes an innovative framework for understanding the translation of
feminism into Malayalam, distinguishing between "faithful" and "grounded" modes of translation.
The "faithful" mode emphasizes creating stable terms and is associated with high intellectual activity
and pedagogy, while the "grounded" mode is more focused on the local political practice and creating
dramatic effects. This distinction highlights the complexity of translation work beyond mere linguistic
accuracy, emphasizing the need for sensitivity to local political and cultural contexts.

Moreover, her work is part of a broader effort to achieve self-reflexivity among feminists in Kerala
regarding their work in translating feminist concepts. She critically assesses both the achievements
and limitations of these efforts, acknowledging the ongoing nature of translation as a process that
requires continuous engagement with changing political, cultural, and linguistic landscapes. Through
a combination of theoretical discussion and empirical examples, Devika illustrates the practical
implications of different translation strategies. She uses examples of specific terms and concepts (such
as "patriarchal aesthetic standards" and "domestic labor") to show how translation can either reinforce
or challenge existing power structures and gender norms. She engages with the scholarship in
translation studies, drawing on the work of theorists like Tejaswini Niranjana and Gayatri Chakravorty
Spivak. This engagement enriches her analysis by situating the translation of feminism in Kerala
within broader debates on the politics of translation, especially in post-colonial contexts. Devika's
article serves as a call to action for feminists and translators in Kerala and elsewhere. She emphasizes
the need for creative and politically aware translation practices that can contribute to feminist activism
and the broader struggle for gender equality.

References:
1. Devika, J. (2012). Being 'in translation' in a post colony: Translating feminism in Kerala State,
India. Feminist Review, 102(1), 137-154.
2. Kabeer, N. (2005). Gender equality and women's empowerment: A critical analysis of the third-
millennium development goal. Gender & Development, 13(1), 13-24.
3. Mohanty, C. T. (1991). Under Western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. Feminist
Review, 30(1), 61-88.
4. Narayan, U. (1997). Dislocating cultures: Identities, Traditions, and Third-World feminism.
Routledge. 5. Spivak, G. C. (1993). Outside in the teaching machine. Routledge.

4. Article Review - Where is Anthropology Located in the Task of Putting People First by
Andrew Moutu

In his article "Where is Anthropology Located in the Task of Putting People First," Andrew Moutu
critically examines how anthropology contributes to promoting social justice and human rights in
contemporary society. Moutu argues for a significant shift in the focus and methods of anthropology
to achieve the objective of "putting people first." He believes that anthropology possesses a distinct
perspective that is invaluable for this purpose. Historically, the field has often concentrated on
exploring "other" or exotic cultures rather than investigating the societies to which anthropologists
belong, as Moutu highlights at the beginning of his article. Moutu argues that the traditional focus on
distant or "other" cultures has limited anthropology's effectiveness in tackling pressing social issues,
leading to its peripheral status in broader societal discussions.
He advocates for anthropologists to be more proactive in promoting social justice and human rights.
A key argument he presents is the shift needed within anthropology from a concentration on "culture"
to a focus on "people," emphasizing the importance of directly addressing human needs and
challenges. Moutu critiques anthropology's historical inclination to oversimplify and homogenize
culture, often at the expense of fully appreciating the diverse and complex nature of human
experiences. He argues for a paradigmatic shift towards foregrounding the agency and subjectivities
of individuals, positing that such an approach would enable anthropologists to more effectively
engage with and address the nuances of social injustice and inequality. Furthermore, Moutu
underscores the importance of participatory methodologies, advocating for a collaborative
engagement between anthropologists and their subjects of study as a crucial methodological
advancement within the discipline.

Moutu criticizes anthropology's traditional "extractive research" model, where data is gathered from
communities without meaningful interaction or engagement, advocating instead for a paradigm that
prioritizes collaborative efforts with communities to identify and tackle social issues. His paper serves
as a compelling call to action, urging the field of anthropology to reorient its focus toward the
promotion of social justice and human rights. By emphasizing the importance of prioritizing human
concerns and championing a participatory and cooperative research methodology, Moutu lays out a
valuable framework for anthropologists committed to positively impacting the world.

Methodology Review

Andrew Moutu's chapter, "Prologue: Where is Anthropology Located in the Task of Putting People
First?" presents a reflective examination of anthropology's role and responsibility towards social
justice and human rights within the context of Pacific Island societies. Through an intermix of
personal narrative, critical analysis, and theoretical inquiry, he critiques anthropology's historical
tendencies and proposes a reoriented approach that prioritizes meaningful engagement and
collaboration. He adopts a reflective narrative approach, intertwining personal experiences with
scholarly analysis. This allows him to draw upon his own encounters and observations as a Papua
New Guinean anthropologist to question and critique the discipline's practices and orientations. He
scrutinizes the conventional methods of anthropological research, particularly the "extractive"
nature of data collection that often fails to engage communities in a meaningful way.
By employing a critical framework, he assesses the limitations of traditional anthropology and calls
for a more engaged and collaborative approach. His central methodological contribution emphasizes
participatory and collaborative research methodologies that advocate for anthropology to transition
from an extractive model to one that emphasizes mutual engagement, where anthropologists and
community members work together to identify and address social concerns. Moutu's methodology
implicitly includes an advocacy component, where he challenges the discipline to demonstrate its
public value by actively contributing to social justice and human rights. He calls for anthropologists to
leverage their unique insights and skills to engage in public debates, influence policy, and foster
intercultural dialogue, thereby enhancing anthropology's relevance and impact in contemporary
society.

References:

1. Moutu, A. (2015). Where is Anthropology Located in the Task of Putting People First. In
Anthropologies of Value: Cultures of Accumulation and Dispersion (pp. 37-51). Routledge.

2. Abu-Lughod, L. (1991). Writing against culture. In Recapturing anthropology (pp. 137- 162).
School of American Research Press.

3. Dwyer, K. (2012). Anthropology and development: Challenges for the twenty-first century. Pluto
Press.

4. Escobar, A. (1994). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the Third World.
Princeton University Press.

5. Sahlins, M. (1999). Two or three things that I know about culture. The Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute, 5(3), 399-421.

5. Article Review - Presidential Address: Geography & Feminism: Worlds in Collusion?

In "Geography & Feminism: Worlds in Collusion," Susan Hanson explores the intersection of
geographic and feminist theories, arguing that feminist geography provides a unique lens through
which to view the geographical and social dimensions of gender disparities. This perspective, she
suggests, is instrumental in developing social policies that are fairer and more equitable. Hanson
opens her discussion by challenging traditional geographic approaches that often overlook the spatial
dimension of social dynamics. Hanson argues that feminist geography presents a refined approach for
understanding the interplay between gender, place, and power. By centering on the experiences and
perspectives of women and marginalized communities, feminist geography aims to illuminate how
social injustices are spatially manifested.

Hanson highlights that one of the key contributions of feminist geography is its focus on the
significance of location. She explains that locations are actively produced by social practices and
power relations rather than being passive or static. By examining the ways in which places are
constructed, feminist geographers gain a deeper understanding of the interconnections among gender,
space, and power. Hanson also emphasizes the importance of representation in feminist geography.
She argues that feminist geographers have been crucial in challenging conventional narratives of
space and place, advocating for more inclusive and equitable alternatives.

By crafting more nuanced and comprehensive representations of space and place, feminist
geographers are able to critique how gender and other inequalities are perpetuated through prevailing
discourses and representations. Hanson's work presents a compelling argument for the importance of
feminist geography in understanding the interplay between gender inequality and its social and
geographical dimensions. By underscoring the critical roles of location and representation, feminist
geography provides a unique perspective on how social dynamics are spatially structured and
intertwined with power dynamics. This perspective is instrumental in formulating social policies that
are more equitable and just, taking into account the spatial manifestation and perpetuation of gender
and other forms of inequality.

Methodology Review:

Susan Hanson explores the complex relationships and potential synergies between the disciplines of
geography and feminism. Her analysis is rooted in three core analytic traditions shared by both fields:
finding significance in everyday life, appreciating the importance of context, and focusing on
difference. She utilizes these shared perspectives as a framework to explore how the convergence of
geography and feminism can enrich the understanding of both disciplines and the complex social
realities they aim to explain. She underlines the critical role of context in both feminist and
geographic analyses. Both feminism and geography are concerned with exploring and understanding
differences, whether it be gender differences in feminism or spatial differences in geography. Hanson
highlights how both fields have evolved to question and deconstruct binary oppositions (e.g.,
male/female, home/work), advocating for a more nuanced understanding of difference that accounts
for the complexities and intersections of various identities and places.

Hanson applies these methodological insights to the study of local labor markets, illustrating how the
intersection of feminism and geography can illuminate the gendered dimensions of work and home
life. She discusses how traditional dichotomies between home and work have been deconstructed,
revealing the interconnectedness of these spheres and their embeddedness in specific geographic
contexts.

Hanson's article contributes significantly to methodological development by advocating for a cross-

disciplinary approach that leverages the strengths of both feminism and geography. She contends
that by embracing the shared methodological foundations of the two fields, researchers can develop
more nuanced analyses that are sensitive to the complexities of human lives and social relations. This
interdisciplinary approach represents a methodological advancement, suggesting new directions for
research that are informed by both spatial awareness and a critical understanding of gender.

References:
1. Hanson, S. (1989). Geography & Feminism: Worlds in Collision. Progress in Human Geography,
13(4), 503-516.
2. McDowell, L. (1983). Towards an understanding of the gender division of urban space.
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 1(1), 59-72.
3. Rose, G. (1993). Feminism & Geography: The Limits of Geographical Knowledge. University of
Minnesota Press.
4. Sparke, M. (1995). Displacing the map: Feminism and the politics of cartography. Guilford Press

6. Article Review - Contemporary Studies of Ritual in Anthropology and Related Disciplines by

Clinton N. Westman

In his analysis, "Contemporary Studies of Ritual in Anthropology and Related Disciplines," Clinton
N. Westman explores the diverse approaches scholars from multiple disciplines are adopting toward
ritual studies. Westman points out that the traditional focus on structural-functionalism in ritual
research has shifted towards an increased fascination with rituals' dynamic and transformative
qualities. He situates contemporary ritual studies within the broader context of literature in
anthropology and religious studies right from the start of his discussion.
Westman presents those traditional approaches to ritual studies often focused on their role within
social structures, typically portraying rituals as unchanging, predictable, and repetitive. However, he
argues, recent research challenges these older views, highlighting the role of rituals in shaping social
interactions, identities, and experiences. A key insight in contemporary ritual studies, as Westman
observes, is the conceptualization of rituals as processes of transformation. He points out a growing
scholarly interest in exploring how rituals impact individuals and communities on a personal and
social level, including their potential for subversion and resistance. Westman references the feminist
and LGBTQ+ communities as examples where ritual practices have been employed to challenge
dominant cultural norms and articulate distinct identities.

Westman's exploration of the impact of interdisciplinary collaboration on contemporary ritual studies

marks another vital aspect of his analysis. He notes that scholars from various fields, including
anthropology, religious studies, performance studies, and psychology, are increasingly integrating and
sharing ideas and methods. This cross-disciplinary engagement has led to fresh perspectives on the
functions and meanings of rituals, breaking down traditional academic boundaries. Westman's review
effectively encapsulates the current landscape of ritual studies, showcasing key developments and
challenges within this scholarly conversation. By emphasizing rituals' dynamic, transformative
aspects and the importance of interdisciplinary approaches, Westman provides a comprehensive guide
for researchers interested in this profound subject matter.

Methodology Review:

Clinton N. Westman provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of ritual studies across
various disciplines. His review methodically navigates through the contributions of different scholars
within the anthology, highlighting the diversity of approaches to understanding the multifaceted
nature of rituals. Westman displays the anthology's interdisciplinary approach by delving into works
from scholars in anthropology, archaeology, sociology, and religious studies. This broad perspective
underlines the complexity of ritual studies and the necessity of cross-disciplinary insights. He
critically engages with the theories presented in the anthology, comparing and contrasting the
perspectives of various scholars. For example, he discusses Randall Collins' sociological perspective
on rituals as mechanisms of social life and Don Handelman's ethnographic approach to understanding
rituals' internal logic. Westman is not just summarizing but critically engaging with the content,
questioning the extent to which rituals can be understood as autonomous from their social contexts.
Westman evaluates the methodological approaches used in the anthology, such as the focus on the
dynamic and transformative aspects of rituals, the exploration of rituals in specific cultural contexts,
and the shift from structural-functionalism to more nuanced understandings of ritual practices. He
pays special attention to how these approaches contribute to or challenge existing theories of ritual.
His review is organized thematically, allowing readers to grasp the central themes and debates within
ritual studies, such as the relationship between rituals and social structures, the role of rituals in
expressing and shaping identities, and the impact of technological and digital advancements on ritual
practices.

References:
1. Bell, C. (1997). Ritual theory, ritual practice. Oxford University Press.
2. Grimes, R. L. (Ed.). (2000). Rituals of the world: A guide to traditions and practices. Oxford
University Press.
3. Kapferer, B. (Ed.). (2005). Beyond rationalism: Rethinking magic, witchcraft and sorcery.
Berghahn Books.
4. Turner, V. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Aldine.
5. Westman, C. N. (2019). Contemporary Studies of Ritual in Anthropology and Related Disciplines.
Journal of Ritual Studies, 33(2), 1-12

7. Article Review - Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses by
Chandra Talpade Mohanty.

In her work "Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses," Chandra Talpade
Mohanty scrutinizes the tendency of Western feminist research to perpetuate colonial narratives and
overlook the experiences and perspectives of women from the Global South. Mohanty points out that
Western feminist writings often employ essentializing and homogenizing assumptions about Southern
women, failing to acknowledge the complex historical and cultural contexts that influence gender
dynamics. She critiques the portrayal by Western feminists of Global South women as passive
subjects awaiting rescue, arguing that this view stems from a reductive and essentialist conception of
gender that overlooks the active roles these women play in advocating for their social, political, and
economic rights. Mohanty highlights a significant flaw in Western feminist approaches: their reliance
on stereotypical depictions of women from the Global South, which ignore the rich cultural, historical,
and political landscapes that shape gender relationships.

The experiences and perspectives of women in the Global South have been flattened due to this
homogenization, which has also frequently concealed the diversity of women's experiences and
viewpoints within and among various regions. To deal with the diverse historical and cultural settings
in which gender relations are placed, according to Mohanty, feminist studies must take a more
nuanced and culturally particular approach. Instead of seeing women's experiences and viewpoints
through the prism of Western feminist theory, this strategy would involve connecting with them on
their own terms. Therefore, Mohanty's article critically assesses Western feminist study and its
connection to colonial narratives. Mohanty makes a strong argument for the value of interacting with
the nuanced historical and cultural settings in which gender relations are situated by addressing the
essentialist and homogenizing assumptions that frequently drive Western feminist studies. This
interaction necessitates a more nuanced and culturally specific feminist scholarly approach that
acknowledges the variety of women's experiences and viewpoints both within and beyond
geographical regions.

Methodology Review

Chandra Talpade Mohanty critiques the manner in which Western feminist scholarship has often
engaged with the lives of women in the Global South. Mohanty's multi-layered methodology
combines textual analysis, theoretical critique, and advocacy for a more nuanced, intersectional
approach to understanding women's experiences globally. He conducts a detailed examination of
Western feminist texts, identifying patterns in how these writings represent women from the Global
South. She critiques the tendency to homogenize these women into a singular category, stripping them
of their individuality, agency, and the diverse contexts of their lives.

A significant aspect of Mohanty's methodology involves engaging with and critiquing the theoretical
underpinnings of Western feminist scholarship. She challenges the frameworks that lead to the
homogenization of "Third World Women" and the implicit assumption of Western women as the
normative standard. Mohanty dissects how such scholarship often operates within a colonialist
discourse, perpetuating a power dynamic where the West assumes a superior position of knowledge
and authority over the Global South. Mohanty's approach anticipates key aspects of intersectional
analysis. She calls for an understanding of women's experiences that considers multiple, intersecting
identities and power structures, including colonialism, racism, and global capitalism. This anticipates
later developments in feminist theory that emphasize the importance of intersectionality as a
framework for analysis.

Mohanty advocates for Western feminists to critically reflect on their own positionality and the
implications of their research practices. She argues for a solidarity that respects the autonomy and
agency of women in the Global South, suggesting that feminist scholarship and activism must be
rooted in mutual respect, listening, and learning across differences. She argues for recognizing and
valuing the epistemologies and methodologies that emerge from the Global South. She suggests that
feminist scholarship should critique existing power structures and actively work to dismantle them by
elevating diverse voices and perspectives.

References:
1. Mohanty, C. T. (1984). Under Western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. Feminist
Review, 22(1), 61-88.
2. Enloe, C. (1990). Bananas, beaches, and bases: Making feminist sense of international politics.
University of California Press.
3. Grewal, I., & Kaplan, C. (Eds.). (1994). Scattered hegemonies: Postmodernity and transnational
feminist practices. University of Minnesota Press.
4. Mies, M. (1986). Patriarchy and accumulation on a world scale: Women in the international
division of labor. Zed Books.