Familial Influence in the Autobiographies of Black South African and African American Women Activists

M. White
{"title":"Familial Influence in the Autobiographies of Black South African and African American Women Activists","authors":"M. White","doi":"10.3998/MFR.4919087.0010.103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Feminist scholars have criticized social movement theory for its male bias in explaining and understanding resistance. This male bias leads theorists to focus on constructs such as organizational structure and networks, thereby ignoring women's methods of resistance and their participation in liberation struggles. As Kuumba (2001, p. 107) noted, \"some resistance strategies engaged in by women as an outgrowth of their productive and reproductive labor are the very ones that are submerged and hidden,\" (see also Taylor, 1995; Foweraker, 1995; Aulette & Mills, 1988; Baver, 1989; Bookman & Morgen, 1988; Beuchler, 1993; Cohen, 1985). Such analyses challenge the false dichotomy between political and personal spheres of resistance, in which the male sphere of resistance is seen as the political structure and women are conceptualized less as activists because their sphere is seen to be the home. Women's resistance, critics have argued, is \"masked by traditional categories used to assess political action\" (Naples, 1991, p. 478). A feminist analysis of movement theory suggests that the focus on the public sphere, in which men are seen to exert power and efficacy, should be accompanied by complementary analyses of resistance and activism as they take place in the private realm.The family is a major private site in which activism occurs. Although the relationship between the family and activism has not been the subject of extensive research, two distinct literatures deal with the topic. One focuses on the nature of the family as a microcosm of the intersection of race, class, and gender that characterizes the public world; activism is seen to develop in response to this microcosm. Not only is the impact of these systems of oppression experienced at the level of the family but \"ideas about the family also operate as a cognitive scaffold used to construct intersecting systems of oppression\" (Hill Collins, 2000, p. 48). The family illuminates the convergence of social and gendered hierarchies in its struggle to access prestige, economic, social, and political power and serves as an important place for understanding the development of resistance strategies against intersecting systems of oppression.While some scholars view the family as a microcosm of oppression, others argue that the effects of imperialism and colonialism on the family structure can perpetuate progressive changes in male/female relationships and therefore challenge the assumptions of traditional gender role socialization. Caulfield (1974), for example, explored the non-Western family structure as it is impacted by imperialism. The family, she argued, is the most basic of institutions \"involved in the culture of resistance\" (p. 73). Through their \"creativity and resourcefulness\" (p. 69), families develop survival strategies that serve as \"the cultural response to imperialism\" (p. 69). She posited that families, \"generally under the leadership of women, have fought back, defending subsistence production . . . cementing family bonds and building new networks of mutual support . . consolidating and developing cultures of resistance--cultures of resistance which, like the role of women and family life itself, have been devalued under imperialist ideology\" (p. 74).Similarly, Baca Zinn (1975), focusing on Chicano families, examined political familism, defined as \"the process of cultural and political activism which involves the participation of total family units in the movement for liberation\" (p. 16). She argued that the Chicano family is the organizing structure for social justice. In addition to their efforts to end social and political oppression in the external society, Chicano families apply the demands and expectations of their liberation struggle to gender-role expectations internally. As a result, women's involvement in movement activities \"transform[s] patterns of male exclusiveness\" (p. 20).A second body of literature concerning the family and activism addresses another aspect of the relationship between the family and activism--the functions of roles as resistance. …","PeriodicalId":32430,"journal":{"name":"Michigan Family Review","volume":"27 1","pages":"27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Michigan Family Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3998/MFR.4919087.0010.103","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Feminist scholars have criticized social movement theory for its male bias in explaining and understanding resistance. This male bias leads theorists to focus on constructs such as organizational structure and networks, thereby ignoring women's methods of resistance and their participation in liberation struggles. As Kuumba (2001, p. 107) noted, "some resistance strategies engaged in by women as an outgrowth of their productive and reproductive labor are the very ones that are submerged and hidden," (see also Taylor, 1995; Foweraker, 1995; Aulette & Mills, 1988; Baver, 1989; Bookman & Morgen, 1988; Beuchler, 1993; Cohen, 1985). Such analyses challenge the false dichotomy between political and personal spheres of resistance, in which the male sphere of resistance is seen as the political structure and women are conceptualized less as activists because their sphere is seen to be the home. Women's resistance, critics have argued, is "masked by traditional categories used to assess political action" (Naples, 1991, p. 478). A feminist analysis of movement theory suggests that the focus on the public sphere, in which men are seen to exert power and efficacy, should be accompanied by complementary analyses of resistance and activism as they take place in the private realm.The family is a major private site in which activism occurs. Although the relationship between the family and activism has not been the subject of extensive research, two distinct literatures deal with the topic. One focuses on the nature of the family as a microcosm of the intersection of race, class, and gender that characterizes the public world; activism is seen to develop in response to this microcosm. Not only is the impact of these systems of oppression experienced at the level of the family but "ideas about the family also operate as a cognitive scaffold used to construct intersecting systems of oppression" (Hill Collins, 2000, p. 48). The family illuminates the convergence of social and gendered hierarchies in its struggle to access prestige, economic, social, and political power and serves as an important place for understanding the development of resistance strategies against intersecting systems of oppression.While some scholars view the family as a microcosm of oppression, others argue that the effects of imperialism and colonialism on the family structure can perpetuate progressive changes in male/female relationships and therefore challenge the assumptions of traditional gender role socialization. Caulfield (1974), for example, explored the non-Western family structure as it is impacted by imperialism. The family, she argued, is the most basic of institutions "involved in the culture of resistance" (p. 73). Through their "creativity and resourcefulness" (p. 69), families develop survival strategies that serve as "the cultural response to imperialism" (p. 69). She posited that families, "generally under the leadership of women, have fought back, defending subsistence production . . . cementing family bonds and building new networks of mutual support . . consolidating and developing cultures of resistance--cultures of resistance which, like the role of women and family life itself, have been devalued under imperialist ideology" (p. 74).Similarly, Baca Zinn (1975), focusing on Chicano families, examined political familism, defined as "the process of cultural and political activism which involves the participation of total family units in the movement for liberation" (p. 16). She argued that the Chicano family is the organizing structure for social justice. In addition to their efforts to end social and political oppression in the external society, Chicano families apply the demands and expectations of their liberation struggle to gender-role expectations internally. As a result, women's involvement in movement activities "transform[s] patterns of male exclusiveness" (p. 20).A second body of literature concerning the family and activism addresses another aspect of the relationship between the family and activism--the functions of roles as resistance. …
南非黑人和非裔美国妇女活动家自传中的家庭影响
女权主义学者批评社会运动理论在解释和理解抵抗时带有男性偏见。这种男性偏见导致理论家将注意力集中在组织结构和网络等结构上,从而忽视了女性的抵抗方法和她们在解放斗争中的参与。正如Kuumba(2001,第107页)所指出的,“女性作为其生产和生殖劳动的产物而参与的一些抵抗策略正是那些被淹没和隐藏的策略,”(另见Taylor, 1995;Foweraker, 1995;Aulette & Mills, 1988;茧丝,1989;布克曼和摩根,1988;Beuchler, 1993;科恩,1985)。这样的分析挑战了政治和个人抵抗领域之间的错误二分法,其中男性抵抗领域被视为政治结构,而女性较少被概念化为活动家,因为她们的领域被视为家庭。评论家认为,妇女的抵抗“被用来评估政治行动的传统类别所掩盖”(那不勒斯,1991年,第478页)。女权主义对运动理论的分析表明,对公共领域的关注,即男性被视为发挥权力和效力的领域,应该伴随着对私人领域中发生的抵抗和行动主义的补充分析。家庭是行动主义发生的主要私人场所。虽然家庭与行动主义之间的关系并不是广泛研究的主题,但有两篇不同的文献涉及这个主题。一个集中在家庭的本质上,它是公共世界中种族、阶级和性别交集的缩影;人们认为,行动主义就是针对这个微观世界而发展起来的。这些压迫系统的影响不仅在家庭层面上经历,而且“关于家庭的观念也作为一种认知支架,用于构建交叉的压迫系统”(Hill Collins, 2000,第48页)。家庭阐明了在争取声望、经济、社会和政治权力的斗争中,社会和性别等级的融合,并作为理解对抗交叉压迫系统的抵抗策略发展的重要场所。虽然一些学者认为家庭是压迫的缩影,但其他人认为帝国主义和殖民主义对家庭结构的影响可以使男女关系的渐进变化永久化,从而挑战传统性别角色社会化的假设。例如,Caulfield(1974)探讨了非西方的家庭结构受到帝国主义的影响。她认为,家庭是“参与抵抗文化”的最基本机构(第73页)。通过他们的“创造力和足智多谋”(第69页),家庭制定了生存策略,作为“对帝国主义的文化反应”(第69页)。她认为,家庭“通常在妇女的领导下,进行了反击,捍卫了维持生计的生产……巩固家庭纽带,建立相互支持的新网络。巩固和发展抵抗文化——抵抗文化,就像妇女和家庭生活本身的作用一样,在帝国主义意识形态下被贬低了”(第74页)。同样,Baca Zinn(1975)关注墨西哥裔美国家庭,研究了政治家庭主义,将其定义为“涉及整个家庭单位参与解放运动的文化和政治行动主义过程”(第16页)。她认为,奇卡诺家庭是社会正义的组织结构。除了努力结束外部社会的社会和政治压迫外,奇卡诺家庭还将其解放斗争的要求和期望应用于内部对性别角色的期望。结果,妇女参与运动活动“改变了男性排他性的模式”(第20页)。关于家庭和行动主义的第二部分文献论述了家庭和行动主义之间关系的另一个方面——作为抵抗的角色的功能。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
36 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书