Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In this essay, I consider the relationship between transnational feminism and area studies. I suggest that transnational feminism’s long engagement with the difference offers a way in which to address the critiques of area studies which has tended to identify places with particular “traits”. I examine how particular strands of western feminism intertwined with the project of area studies by seeking to define, reform, and consolidate places and people within their ambit of power. If we consider area studies to be organized in a horizontal scale focused on large regional spaces defined by “traits”, then transnational feminism adds a vertical dimension to the study of area studies with its focus on the intimate spaces of power.

Keywords

Differences third world transnational feminisms

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abu-Lughod

(2013) Do Muslim Women Need Saving?, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Appadurai

(2000) Grassroots globalization and the research imagination. Public Culture 12(1): 1–19.

Blunt

(1999) Imperial geographies of home: British domesticity in India 1886–1925. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 24(4): 421–440.

Doezema

(2001) Ouch! Western feminist’s ‘wounded attachment’ to the ‘Third World prostitute. Feminist Review 67(Spring): 16–38.

Duffield

(2001) Global Governance and the New Wars: The Merging of Development and Security, London, New York: Zed Books.

Duffield

(2015) From immersion to simulation: Remote methodologies and the decline of area studies. Review of African Political Economy 41(1): S75–S94.

Jackson

(2003a) Space, theory, and hegemony: The dual crisis of Asian studies and cultural studies. Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia 18(1): 1–41.

Jackson

(2003b) Mapping poststructuralism’s borders: The case for poststructuralist area studies. Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia 18(1): 42–88.

Kaplan

(2001) Hillary Rodham Clinton’s orient: Cosmopolitan travel and the global feminist subjects. Meridians 2(1): 219–240.

10.

Kapur

(2002) The tragedy of victimization rhetoric: Resurrecting the ‘native’ subject in international/post-colonial feminist legal politics. Harvard Human Rights Law Journal 15: 1–38.

11.

Kristof ND and Sheryl W (2010) Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for women worldwide. Vintage.

12.

Moghadam

(2000) Transnational feminist networks: Collective action in an era of globalization. International Sociology 15(1): 57–85.

13.

Mohanty

(2006) US Empire and the project of women’s studies: Stories of citizenship, complicity and dissent. Gender, Place and Culture 13(1): 7–20.

14.

Nair

(2000) Uncovering the Zenana: Visions of Indian womanhood in Englishwomen’s writings. In: Hall

(ed.) Cultures of Empire: A Reader, New York: Routledge.

15.

Shih

(2002) Towards an ethics of transnational encounters, or ‘when’ does a ‘Chinese’ woman become a ‘feminist’? Difference 13(2): 90–126.

16.

Sidaway

(2013) Geography, globalization and the problematic of area studies. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103(4): 984–1002.

17.

Shohat

(2001) Area studies, transnationalism, and the feminist production of knowledge. Signs 26(4): 1269–1272.

18.

Toor

(2012) Imperialist feminism redux. Dialectical Anthropology 36(3/4): 147–160.

19.

Wesley-Smith

Goss

(2010) Remaking Area Studies: Teaching and LearningCacross Asia and the Pacific, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

The entanglements of transnational feminism and area studies

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References