on readings
First of all I would like to disagree with Sarah's statement that Chicana women are most oppressed by postmodernists. What i think author tries to say is that postmodernists are not attentive to details and particular histories theorizing experiences which are not part of their own lives. We can talk about discursive power imbalances, but i think oppression has little to do with the barely read obscure language academic texts, rather with persistent racism and the US political economic system (among other things).
I also feel that while Moya is making certain points and addressing important issues, wholesale dismissal and mystification of "postmodernism" as one clear-cut theory is somewhat unfair. If I read it attentively, postmodernism in this case represented by only two authors - Butler and Haraway. I found the critique of "postmodernism" insufficient.
The theme of appropriating "oppression" I think is important one to discuss, but I don't think that postmodernists are the only ones "guilty." Rather, the whole academic establishment is thriving on such exercises. Is there way out of it? Well, there are various more or less ethical methodologies, admitting and dealing with your own positionally, and so on, but i think it is largely unavoidable, since one is always talking about someone else, not themselves, therefore there is a room of misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and getting credit using other peoples lives (often the more miserable the bigger the credit - sorry if i sound too cynical here, but i often find academic texts focusing on "bad news" just like mainstream media.)
While Satya Mohanty's theory of "Realism" seems convincing, in the end it remains abstract (just like Moya's dismissal that if everyone can be cyborg, than it is useless) - "Identities are neither self-evident, unchanging, and uncontestable, nor are they absolutely fragmented, contradictory, and unstable"(139) (would Butler and Haraway disagree?). And "experience is epistemically indispensable but never epistemically sufficient" (148). While I agree with this, I wonder where do we go from here? It is important to situate the particular experience, and understand that some people gain particular knowledge because of their position which is unavailable to others, but if we (who?) agree that no knowledge can be trusted completely and speak total "truth" how do we acknowledge that and work towards best possible compromise or solution employing such knowledges?
I found it useful Moya's explanation of Moraga's that "it was through her struggles - to deny chicanidad and then to reclaim it; to repress her lesbianism and then to express it; to escape sexism and heterosexism within Chicano/a cultural context and then to combat racism and sexism within Anglo-American feminist movement - that she comes to understanding and necessity for a nonessentialist feminist theory that can explain the political and theoretical salience of social location" (144). It illustrates that simply being part of certain community or claiming particular identity doesn't provide one with critical voice and knowledge. While Moraga largely demonstrates resistance and critical engagement within various communities she was part of exposing that identity based groups, oppressed by the dominant system, can be oppressive inside their group.
Similarly, although very briefly Panjabi discusses solidarity of imprisoned movement, but acknowledging class conflicts between individual women, showing that gender identity under oppression of the dehumanizing institution is a factor not large enough to bridge other differences. This theme is also persistent in Wekker's essay, showing the importance of class in Suriname society.