UNA PROPUESTA DECOLONIAL: PROVINCIALIZAR AL FEMINISMO
The present work tries to deepen the criticism towards the processes of invisibility of the feminisms of the borders. These feminisms are the counterpart ofhegemonic feminism since they embody the community and solidarity. Understanding the fact of provincializing as local, diverse and incarnate in...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo revista |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Cátedra B de Problemas Epistemológicos de la Psicolog´ía de la Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba
2019
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/heterocronias/article/view/27067 |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | The present work tries to deepen the criticism towards the processes of invisibility of the feminisms of the borders. These feminisms are the counterpart ofhegemonic feminism since they embody the community and solidarity. Understanding the fact of provincializing as local, diverse and incarnate in opposition to the story of modernity originally Euro-centered, the need to provincialize feminism is a horizon of the feminist movement. We consider that collectivity and sorority are the preferred modes of organization to carry out provincialization. With this purpose we seek, on the one hand, to elucidate modern tendencies towards the coloniality of knowledge and, on the other, to visualize the hegemonization of feminism vis-à-vis other frontier feminisms.We asked the question repeated numerous times: What is knowledge? Who makes the knowledge? Who destined it? What answers these questions, even partially, is the fact that knowledge is colonized. Interests of class, gender, race and sexual orientation colonize the feminism. In the same way, the West has a model that embodies colonization -a white, European, scientific, heterosexual man - there is in the feminist movement a model of a woman to defend -white, heterosexual, high class-. It became invisible from these forms not only the multiple realities of women who leave these hegemonic parameters, but also consciously ignores the struggles they embody: black women, poor women, trans women, women not considered women, united all in the subalternization of feminist modernity. The mechanism of operation of colonial modernity is, then, to maintain that all that -from knowledge to women- that does not coincide with what is proposed by the dominant powers is considered alternate, traditional, not deserving of a space in the globalized world that gives us the modernity. Although oppression does not give rise to concessions, it should be noted that with the contributions of feminism of the third wave and feminist and southern epistemologies, the invisible begins to gain relevance. Mainly, border feminisms acquire a stronger tone of voice, although this does not mean that they do not continue to be under the networks of colonial power, we can argue that their defenders now exist and denounce invisibility. The third wave of feminism, through situated knowledge, seeks to get feminism out of this monopolizing situation in which it finds itself. The local, provincialized feminisms allow escape from the colonializing of European dominance and interests. It is in the light of all the above that, the question arises: Can we provincialize the feminism? To elucidate some possible response, we compare the postulates of feminist epistemology on situated knowledge with the proposal to Provincialize Europe taken up by Eduardo Restrepo. We also analyze the criticisms made by non-hegemonic feminisms towards these tendencies that try to make invisible the differences. |
|---|