Language: Empowering or Power over
Though both Kartini and Cote were interesting, I'm questioning the idea of language, translation and colonalism. One of the first quotes from Kartini that jumped out at me was the line "It's true, isn't it, that no matter how good a translation is, it can never be compared with the original" (28). I wonder, like Naomi, if Kartini would have though about her letter's being published, and then translated. The idea behind language becomes so strong, because Kartini seems to be so frusterated with the Java way of fomality, both within language and in action. She seems to find strength and connection in other languages. Cote discusses Kartini in that "recovering the feminist agenda for a maternalist politics buried in colonial progressive and feminist discourse provided a means of conceptualizing the position of traditional Javanese women in ways which empowered her" (477). Yet that feminist agenda was not created in her language. Cote states that "indigenous women found a language to define their own needs" (477), but what does it mean when your needs are not found within your own language? What atmosphere does this create to expressing you needs to others who share that language? What does it mean to give someone else words? When is it empowering? When is it power over (purposeful or not)?
The Cote article was very dense and I would appriciate any background information available so I can place the reading within its time and history. In particular, what was the interesection of movements between class and race? I know that Cote covered this, yet I felt lost in the discription. Sometimes it was a complete seperation, and yet other times it seemed that the feminist movement would move the working class forward.