NON-WESTERN WOMEN AND THEIR REALITIES

Non-Western women and their realities

Introduction

In the early 21st century, debate has arisen concerning the scope of anthropology of religion. Do anthropologists of religion study religions only in tribal settings? Is it solely the study of non-Western religions? Is it to be restricted to the study of religion amidst demoralised and marginalized people? The aim of anthropological study has moved from the study of tribal to modern religions. A number of well-received studies have analyzed religion in developing societies, Europe, and in the United States. (King 2005)

Many of the leading contemporary exponents of anthropology of religion—John R. Bowen, Thomas J. Csordas, Tonya Luhrmann, Robert Hefner, Maurice Bloch, Jonathan Friedman, Vincent Crapanzano, Edith L. B. Turner, James W. Fernandez, Sherry B. Ortner, Mary Douglas, Jean Comaroff, Benson Saler, and Stanley J. Tambiah—have devoted the bulk of their attention to local variants of major world religions (Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and Christianity) and/or the impact of world religions in developing countries (Java, Indonesia, Morocco, Sri Lanka, South Africa, and Nepal) rather than the religions of isolated tribal groups. Contemporary ethnographers concentrate on examining religious diversity in complex societies instead of providing further documentation for uniformity in tribal religions. (King 2007)

Non-western women realities

Feminist considered has deconstructed the classic liberal human subject as white, European and male and opposed universal, disembodied assertions from nowhere. But in its stead, feminism has merely replaced the Universal male with a social building of its own - the universal feminine - and has therefore assembled a monolithic essential Woman that is just as incorrect and unresponsive to the huge most of women as the Universal man. This Universal woman at the center of feminist considered is really a white, middle-class, able-bodied, and heterosexual woman. She masquerades as agent of all women when she is really the embodiment of elite or privileged white women. (Furseth 2006)

It is racist and imperialist standards and norms which prompt mainstream feminism to location elite white women at the core of feminist idea, relegating non-mainstream women to the margins of feminist theory.

Because the unacknowledged referent or “poster progeny” for mainstream feminism is elite white women, feminists have a tough time recognizing issues that are not exclusively associated with them as “feminist” or “women's” issues. Feminism is defined as speaking to only those matters which reflect the familiarity of elite white women - gender matters wherein the complaint is the inequality of elite white women with elite white men. (Cooey 2007)Any mention of non-gender social forces, such as race, class, age, sexual orientation, ability, etc., is seen to introduce another “cause” into the mix and detract from the “women's” issue at stake. Feminism is seen to correlate only with gender unmodified by any other communal force or axis of power. The essence of womanhood is erroneously viewed as her gender which is assembled according to the familiarity of elite white women. Lesbians of color, for example, must “shed” their race and sexual orientation in order for us to get to the “woman” part ...