I have to be honest, my entry this week is pretty self-involved, as some of the readings have me thinking about a research paper I'm writing for an Anthropology seminar on the feminization of madness and the discourse of hysteria in 19th-century Britain. Before getting into that though, I have to pedantically argue some of Ocampo's points. In her introductory section, Ocampo discusses the physiological differences between the upper and lower classes. I would just like to say, that from 1850 until WWII (when there was a major revolt against service as a form of unemployment), taller (and stronger) servants were very desirable for their improved reach. Also, the awareness of height differentials amongst the classes was present before Huxley et al, as achieving equal nutrition for all was a priority for the British government since the Crimean War. (Sorry, I had to get that out and I shall now leave my soapbox)
Castro-Klaren's examination of the "othering" of women (in various contexts) was particularly poignant for me. The establishment of the feminine psyche and physiology as abnormal (binarily opposed to the male normal) in the 19th-century still lingers with us to this day, as we see any sort of reproductive activity (from menses to pregnancy to labour to breastfeeding) as tainted and abnormal. Even though we may not consciously be aware of these biases, the implicit message is that these feminine activities need to be controlled and monitored through medicine and masculine modes of performance. Reproduction becomes unnatural and abnormal and therefore contested, both in feminine and masculine spaces.
As Castro-Klein states, "[a woman's body's] materiality is the source for a myriad of metaphors that try to stand for her subordination." (285) So much so, that colonized territories are conceived of as feminine, in which imperial powers justify Western domination in a masculine/feminine rhetoric, in which the latter must be controlled, submissive and constructed along the lines of the former's ideals. It is hardly surprising that subaltern theories can encapsulate both the experience of the colonization of a land and its peoples, as well as the colonization of women in both the West and the East. The subjugation of these things is justified through conceptualizations of a "natural" order that are reiterated through practice, habit, legislation and pedagogical tools that reaffirm extant power dichotomies.
I was also moved by some of Ocampo's discussion of oppressors and the oppressed. It made me think of how to reach "new" feminists. As we have heard many times over, many younger women feel the moment for feminism has "passed," because they don't "experience" misogyny or discrimination. I feel we (as feminists) need to adapt Ocampo's assertion, "We must not wait for the help of men. It cannot occur to them to recover from the rights of which they do not feel deprived." (234) We need not wait for the help of others, but realize where deprivation occurs and take it upon ourselves to help others recover. Yes, this sounds a lot like the imperialist and hegemonic discourse of colonialism, but it is motivated by a desire to "liberate" others, both within and without our culture. I find it hard to feel guilty about "imposing" equality for others, when they have been supressed. NO, I don't advocate forcing emancipation on other people (lest I start to sound like George Bush, bringing "freedom" and "democracy" to people whether they like it or not), but I believe in education people as to their options.
I thought Ocampo's piece was nice to finish the semester, as she echoed the sentiments of Mary Woolstonecraft from the beginning of term. Both see education as an emacipatory tool for women, Woolstonecraft writing from a position of privilege, where her only handicap is being a woman and Ocampo writing from various sites of oppression. The opportunities provided to any group determine their level of participation in society, politics and economics. Perhaps I should labour more for providing opportunities than for education in and of itself.