Campus Dokumentvorlage

Decolonizing Gender—Gendering Decolonial Theory: Crosscurrents and Archaeologies1 Gabriele Dietze

Decoloniality: Setting the Field Arturo Escobar, a contributor to the Modernity/Colonialism Research Group describes the program of Decolonial Theory as “another way of thinking that runs counter to the great modernist narratives (Christianity, Liberalism, Marxism); it locates its own inquiry in the very borders of systems of thought and reaches towards the possibility of non-Eurocentric modes of thinking” (2007, 180). From his point of view, a new understanding of modernity is needed, based on the premise that modernity is unconceivable without colonialism. Escobar maintains that Eurocentrism as a regime of knowledge is “a confusion between abstract universality and the concrete world hegemony derived from Europe’s position as center” (2007, 184). The underside of modernity is that it is convinced of a supposed European civilizational superiority, which must be established in other parts of the world, in their best interests, and by force if necessary. Ernesto Dussel calls this point of view a “developmentalist fallacy” (2000, 473). Theoreticians of decolonial thought such as Walter Mignolo, Anibal Quijano, and Ernesto Dussel declare that this orientation provides “another space for the production of knowledge […], the very possibility of talking about the ‘worlds of knowledges otherwise’” (Escobar 2007, 180). This is a very ambitious program, but it is also a convincing one, one that takes up the challenges of ‘Decentering Europe’ differently from philosophical methods such as deconstruction. The latter analyzes the production of hegemony (colonial, white, national, masculine, heteronormative), and its processes of self-affirmation. However, in this process, othered people become phantasms of discourses of power, who—thus consid-

—————— 1 I have to thank Julia Roth for helpful commentaries.

254

GABRIELE DIETZE

ered—cannot have their own knowledge. 2 Since decolonial theory claims being an agency-oriented paradigm, gender researchers also ask whether there are female decolonial theorists, and if use has been made of gender knowledge. Or, in other words, does decolonial theory, like many critical paradigms of the last decades, need to be retrospectively gendered, in order to subsequently produce another one of the many hyphenated feminisms? Indeed, there are decolonial theorists who, and this is, alas, not at all self-evident, put gender questions at the center of their work, as will be presented in the course of this essay, discussed especially through the work of the philosopher Maria Lugones. The question of representation is, however, far less decisive than the question of which kind of ‘knowledge’ is (or is not) incorporated into the paradigms being discussed. Does political feminism, do Gender Studies have a considerable impact on decolonial theory? Unexpectedly, this is indeed the case and we will come back to this question in the second half of this essay. The aim of this inquiry is thus twofold. On the one hand, a general archaeology of the intersections and conflicts between Gender Studies and different critiques of colonialism will be reconstructed. In doing so, the criticisms of white feminism expressed from those inhabiting racialized/ethnicized positions will be the prerequisite for this investigation. On the other hand, sources of friction between Gender Studies and Postcolonial Studies as an inroad to decolonial thinking will be discussed. And finally, the potential of the decolonial intervention in Gender Studies will be looked into, and suggestions will be made as to how decolonizing gender may be translated and put into use for European immigrant societies.

—————— 2 This deadlock between deconstruction and political agency has accompanied feminist theory from its early days (Benhabib et al. 1993). African American feminist Barbara Christian asks in her essay “The Race for Theory” (1987) why particularly in the nineteen eighties, in times of growing political awareness of discrimination, an academic flowering of High Theory (deconstruction and discourse analysis) gained ground that explicitly dismissed political theory from the point of view of those affected as identity politics or as essentialist.

DECOLONIZING GENDER—GENDERING DECOLONIAL THEORY

255

Political Genealogies 3 I will start out by juxtaposing Gender and Postcolonial Studies, two fields that developed from two different political movements. Gender Studies, via Women’s Studies, are academic children of Second Wave Feminism. And Postcolonial Theory consists of formations of knowledge, ensuing from the histories of resistance against colonialism, racism experienced by the diaspora of formerly colonized regions in the metropolises of the North-West, and the ordeals of the ‘postcolony,’ as Achille Mbembe, for instance, describes South Africa, as the successor state of a formerly colonized area (2001, 746). Although it seems obvious that both movements and spheres of knowledge ought to be entangled with each other, the interaction has been fraught with conflict and antagonism. Initially only implicit as such, conceptually ‘white’ feminism has only falteringly opened itself up to challenges from the Global South and has only hesitantly provincialized itself (Chakrabarty 2000). And Postcolonial Studies, often inspired by Marxist critiques of imperialism, have considered the question of women and the many interventions of Gender Studies as mere ‘side contradictions.’ Without wanting to characterize this development as causally determined or chronologically leading to a ‘better’ politics and awareness, several overlapping movements are easily identified: the precedent being set by critiques by women of color about whiteness not considered, heteronormativity, and hegemony. Subsequent feminist critiques addressed the androcentrism not considered by a large portion of postcolonial theory, postcolonial critiques confronted the geopolitical blindness of Gender Studies, and finally ‘decolonial’ criticism turned to gender itself as a problematic analytical category. On another level, the following investigation deals with what Marx calls the Die Kritik der kritischen Kritik (Critique of Critical Criticism). 4 He had refuted Bruno Bauer’s idealistic ‘pure criticism’ in the tradition of Hegel, its absent materialism and political inactivity. Applied to

—————— 3 The first part of the essay uses excerpts of two recent and comprehensive Germanlanguage publications of this author, namely an updated version of the essay “Postcolonial Studies und Gender, Geschichte einer problematischen Beziehung” (Dietze 2013b), and the introduction to the monograph Weiße Frauen in Bewegung. Genealogien und Konkurrenzen von Race und Genderpolitiken (Dietze 2013a). 4 “Critique of Critical Criticism” is the subtitle of Marx’s paper “The Holy Family” (Marx 1957).

256

GABRIELE DIETZE

the following inquiry, it is less the critiques of Gender and/or Postcolonialism that are in focus, but rather an analysis of deficiencies in both political bodies of knowledge. Important for this analysis will be the consideration of the particular historicity of the ‘critical criticisms’ and its meanderings between new horizons and the awareness that these will produce new exclusions, which will in turn be rectified by newer, more inclusive lines of theory and practice. The reconstruction of the histories of criticisms will serve as the basis for, as indicated by the title ‘Decolonizing Gender,’ the challenge of foundational claims of both knowledge formations, namely the understanding of gender as a “useful category” (Scott 1986) and the understanding of postcolonialism as an adequate description of an epoch after Colonialism.

A—Gender Studies Before Second Wave Feminism was so vigorously challenged by differences within, it was itself the challenger. It began with the critique of the dominance of men, or patriarchy. This took place in the political arena of the Second Wave Women’s Movement, demonstrations on the streets for the right to abortion, fights against sexism at home and in the workplace et cetera. In academia and universities, this meant a long march through the institutions and fights on many frontiers. On the one hand, these were about representation, how to increase the ludicrously low quotas for female professors. But it was (and still is) also about content: Where is the figure of the female in academic historical scholarship? Are the social and cultural sciences interested in female modes of existence, are they concerned about how masculinity is constructed, or how the default person remains male in most disciplines? And how could androcentrism be combatted politically and scientifically as false universalism? The diagnosis of a ‘false universalism’ quickly brought about an internal conflict lead by women of color and lesbian women, who highlighted whiteness and/or heteronormativity respectively as ‘tacit norms.’ The debates are familiar, and have been documented in critical synopses by now. 5

—————— 5 For a German language summary of the local and international challenges to white feminism see Walgenbach et al. (2010). See Wiegman (2012) for a current, English language discussion of different ‘identity knowledges’ and their conflicts.


257

Nevertheless, certain parts of the debate must be reconstructed, in order to illustrate the relationship of critical criticisms and the demand for a decolonization of gender. This subchapter begins with political conflicts within feminism along the intersections of race/ethnicity versus gender, as discussed by African American and Afro-German feminism. Secondly, (self-) criticisms of hegemony (Dietze 2008) such as Critical Whiteness Theory and critiques of Occidentalism will be sketched. Finally, the ellipsis of criticism of queer theory will be traced to the field of (hetero)normativity, and its possible connections to postcolonialism. The interventions of Black Feminist Theory and Lesbian and Queer Theory’s decentering of heteronormativity are very well known by know, but I will nonetheless trace a few lines of thinking in these fields to set the stage for the project of decolonizing gender. Intervention 1: Feminism of Color In the nineteen eighties, African American feminists in the U.S. criticized white feminists for raising the critique of patriarchy to a universal principle without considering their specific experiences of oppression, for example, being more impacted by white racism than by patriarchy. Additionally, black men were also impacted by racism, and black women saw themselves in solidarity with them, rather than seeing them as sexist patriarchs. Furthermore the most important point for white feminism, the entitlement to equal treatment in the workplace, was not their problem; they had always had to work, and very often for white women, looking after their households or their children. The claim of white women to speak for all women was accordingly seen as a hegemonic (as well as racist) self-deception (Davis 1981; hooks 1981; Giddings 1984). 6 This political criticism was complemented by Black Feminist Standpoint Theory, which developed a ‘matrix of domination’ (Collins 2004), namely that—based on the factors of poverty, profession, accommodation,

—————— 6 In Germany, this debate was raised much later by Afro-German women in the anthology Farbe bekennen. Afrodeutsche Frauen auf den Spuren ihrer Geschichte (Oguntoye et al. 1986); however, the anthology was largely ignored. It was only during the racism debates in the nineteen nineties, on the heels of German reunification around 2005 that it was discussed anew and first time more sustainably.

258

GABRIELE DIETZE

race, sexuality, gender (single motherhood)—people encounter different forms of discrimination: “Her gender may become more prominent when she is a mother, her race when she searches for housing, her social class when she applies for credit, her sexual orientation when she is walking with her lover, and her citizenship status when she is applying for a job.” (Collins 2000, 274)

Another important theoretical development emerging alongside Black Feminist Standpoint Theory was ‘intersectionality.’ It was clear that the racial emancipation struggles were conceived as black/male, and the women’s emancipation struggles as white/female. In the exceedingly ubiquitous rhetoric that women and blacks must be liberated, there was no mention of black women. Kimberlé Crenshaw calls this the intersectional position of black women, which makes it impossible in legal proceedings in work-related court cases to differentiate sexualized racism from racist sexism (Crenshaw 1991). The first important anthology of black feminism was thus called All Men are Black, All Women are White, Some of us are Brave (Hull et al. 1982). Theories of intersectionality articulate the insight that people in general and women in particular experience “manifold, simultaneous, and interlocking oppression” (Combahee 1981, 210). I speak here about ‘scenes of inequality,’ in order to emphasis the co-presence of different ‘intersectionalities’ in differently multiple and changing identities, on different temporal and/or topographic axes, similar to Ella Shohat’s formulation of the necessity of “investigating multichronotopic links” (Shohat 2006, 3). Intervention 2: Self-reflection—Whiteness—Occidentalism The paths and detours of Critical Whiteness Theory are of particular interest for the task set in this article, ‘Decolonizing Gender.’ Though Critical Whiteness Theory was initially seen as an adequate response to mainstream feminism’s “White Amnesia” (Broeck 1999), it was soon after criticized as a solipsistic mechanism for white self-mirroring (Wiegman 1999). For segments of feminism hitherto considered universal, the most important realization that came in the course of this critique was that whiteness could be perceived as an identity, membership to a group, and a particular interest group, and not as the ‘norm.’ And this whiteness as particular interest could then also be perceived as conferring privileges not just to white men


259

but to white women as well, when it came to the categories of class, job, accommodation, and credit. 7 Of course hegemonic (self-)critical white feminists were not the only and definitely not the first ones to develop this insight. It was developed by intellectuals of color who were affected themselves by white racism: W. E. B. Du Bois, Frantz Fanon, and Toni Morrison, who described the specificity of this apparently invisible, tacit norm. To the credit of early critics of whiteness, they attempted to bring these realizations to a feminist anti-racism. 8 It is no mere coincidence that I say “attempted to” because the Whiteness Paradigm also imposed limitations on their political agency. There was a tendency to set up this ‘specific feminist anti-racism’ for self-referred whiteness as “essential something” (Ahmed 2007, 149), from which all accusations of racism could be levied at the not-enlightened, perpetuating a kind of self-absorption, inescapable guilt of existence, which defined every type of white engagement with ‘Others’ as a violation. Especially problematic are the consequences of such self-positionings when it is a matter of political alliances. In an article called “Decolorise It,” a group of German migrant intellectuals criticized the Identitätsolympiade (Identity Olympics) (Karakayali et al. 2012, 1) of whiteness-awareness, where each person can only speak as an “expert on himself/herself” (5). 9 Whereas the authors of “Decolorise It” are concerned with a left-wing variant of the dangers of a “possessive investment” in whiteness (Lipsitz 1998), Robin Wiegman in “Whiteness Studies and the Paradox of Particularity” examines the dangers of a right-wing claim of ‘whiteness’ as a particular identity, among many other possible identities, using the example of a Ku Klux Klan Museum which successfully sued for the right to sell ‘White Pride’ T-Shirts: “The political project for the study of whiteness entails not simply rendering whiteness particular, but engaging with the ways of whiteness rendering particular will not divest whiteness of its uni-

—————— 7 The philosopher Marilyn Frye (1983) and the psychologist Ruth Frankenberg (1993) are examples of white U.S. American pioneers of a Critical Whiteness Perspective; German pioneers in this field were Wachendorfer (2001), Walgenbach (2002, 2003). For an overview, see Tißberger et al. (2006). 8 For a genealogical examination of the boundaries of understanding between Critical Whiteness Feminism and Feminism of Color, see Ortega (2006). 9 The ‘possessive investment in whiteness’ can go so far, that the subject ‘racism’ is monopolized by discourses of ‘white guilt,’ as illustrative during a protest conference in 2012 against racist migrant regimes, where those actually affected by racism were not represented in the panels about racism.

260

GABRIELE DIETZE

versalizing power” (Wiegman 1999, 159). Wiegman indicates the dangers that can arise when a hegemony and self-critical perspective morphs into a right wing, identity-based positionality. Since the U.S. American discussion of whiteness is only partially applicable to European and especially German resentment against immigration and to islamophobia, I have—as developed in detail elsewhere 10—suggested talking about anti-migrant racism that fixates on Muslim immigration as ‘occidentalism.’ In the tradition of feminist Critical Whiteness Theory, in an occidentalist feminist perspective the sexual-political dimensions of this pattern of cultural superiority are foregrounded, namely that of the characterization of ostensibly oppressed Muslim women and oriental patriarchs, the ‘ethnicizing of sexism,’ (Jäger 1996) paints a secular, sexually liberated Occident in contrast to a supposedly backward Orient. This intervention is also a part of the tradition of ‘critical criticism’ taking innerfeminist conflicts as starting points, as it attacks the islamophobic rhetoric of German origin mainstream feminists such as Alice Schwarzer (Marx, D. 2009). Intervention 3: Heteronormativity The second political and theoretical challenge for the women’s movement came from lesbian women, of whom some identified themselves as women of color, as the above-mentioned Combahee River Collective, Audre Lorde, or Cherríe Moraga (Moraga and Bambara 1983). They chastised the women’s movement for uncritically assuming the heterosexuality of its members. These challenges lead to the development of the term heteronormativity (heterosexuality as false universalism). Judith Butler pursued these thoughts further in the question she posed in Gender Trouble: “Who is the subject of feminism?” Her response was that what is understood by ‘woman’ needs to be reconsidered. So far ‘woman’ implied that body-shape (primary and secondary sexual attributes), the ability and desire to have children, and sexual attraction to the opposite sex (heterosexuality) were not to be considered separately.

—————— 10 See the anthology Kritik des Okzidentalismus. Transdisziplinäre Beiträge zu (Neo-) Orientalismus und Geschlecht (Dietze et al. 2009). For an English version of the research approach see (Dietze 2010).


261

Lesbian women are living contradictions of this triangular ‘heterosexual matrix’ (not attracted to the opposite sex, perhaps no children). Deconstructive feminism foregrounds a shift of emphasis that is connected with the term heteronormativity. The term has less to do with criticizing a devalued positionality or ‘identity’ such as ‘being black’ or ‘being lesbian’ and more to do with a criticism of the processes of normalization and binarizations such as male versus female, heterosexuality versus homosexuality, that reproduce hegemony via the production of ‘constitutive others.’ (Feminist) queer theory follows this route. Sara Ahmed writes: “The normalization of sexuality as an orientation toward ‘the other sex,’ can be redescribed in terms of the requirement to follow a straight line” (Ahmed 2006, 70). 11 Additionally Queer theory raises the question of whether ‘sexuality’ may be considered on the same level as race, class, gender, nation/locality. Sexuality does not describe positionality or identity, just as queer theory is not a theory of identity, as pointedly summarized in the foreword of a queer theory anthology: “It was a strategy, not an identity. Put differently, the message of queer activism was that politics could be queer, but folk could not.” (Morland and Willox 2005, 2). Queer activism deals, so to say, more with potentiality than with positionality. Despite this epistemological distinctiveness, queer theory has greatly enriched intersectional questions, for example Queering the Colorline (Somerville 2000), which considers race and the ‘discovery of homosexuality’ in terms such as miscegenation and mongrelization. New areas of research, such as Queer of Color Critique, draw explicitly from intersectionality. Aberrations in Black. Toward a Queer of Color Critic (Ferguson 2004) or Disidentifications. Queers of Color in the Performance of Politics (Muñoz 1997) are examples which aim more for a criticism of norms, rather than multiple positionalities. To this extent, one may speak of a critical subgenre called ‘Queer Intersectionality,’ in order to emphasize the epistemic exceptionality and the differently anchored perspectives of knowledge of queer points of view. Queer intersectionality contributes to the intersectionality model and ‘cuts across’ it at the same time, becoming a ‘corrective methodology’ (Haschemi et al. 2010). Both approaches could be thresholds for each other, in order to keep track of both normalization processes (queer) and the compoundedness of ‘identities’ (intersectionality). Queering and Passing

—————— 11 For an overview of the new developments in feminist queer theory, see the introduction of the special edition of feministische studien entitled “The Queerness of Things not Queer” (Michaelis et al. 2012).

262

GABRIELE DIETZE

refer to the imitative, quoting, parodistic or masking possibilities of action. Strategies of disidentification, resignification, and of re- and disarticulation destabilize and undermine labels. Here then, is an opportunity for connecting to the decolonial imperative of ‘knowledges otherwise.’ 12

B—Postcolonial Studies The term postcolonial has chronological as well as epistemological dimensions. Postcolonial refers to the period after the end of colonialism. It is defined by two epochal caesurae: the Enlightenment, and with it the assertion of universalist thinking, making a European term of progress a lens through which to view the world; and secondly, the industrial revolution, giving Europe a technological boost, and enabling it, during the ‘Age of Imperialism’ in the second half of the nineteenth century, to reach “a formal colonization of almost the entire surface of the globe” (Conrad and Randeria 2002, 24). On the epistemic level, the ‘post’ in postcolonial refers to a thinking beyond colonialism, beyond the scope of colonialism, but considers it nevertheless as a “Laboratory of the Modern” (Stoler 1997, 24). Postcolonialism describes colonial, postcolonial, and neocolonial linkages of colonizing societies with the economic, cultural, and territorial aspects of the formerly colonized populations. The United States of America as well, as a former colony of England, a community of settlers, a post-slavery society, and as an imperial power is associated with the term postcolonial (Singh and Schmidt 2000). For Gender Studies, the postcolonial challenge or the postcolonial turn, brought a new category in the list of intersectionalities, namely locality. The oppression based on race/ethnicity is intersectionally related to geopolitical positionings, and thus bound up with the history of colonialism, modern slavery and postcolonialism. In Anglo-American white feminism, an attempt was made to react to this criticism. The poet and essayist Adrienne Rich was one of the first white feminists to criticize the Eurocentrism of white feminism in 1984. Socio-historically diverse spaces could only be understood when one attempted a Politics of Location. Rich turned against every form of generalization of the position of women and prefaced all

—————— 12 Compare Escobar (2007, 195); for ‘Queering’ and ‘Passing’ see Butler (1983, 167–186); and for ‘Disidentification’ see Muñoz (1997).


263

deliberations with the opening question: “Where, when and under what conditions have women acted and been acted on as women?” (Rich 2003, 31). 13 Intersectional studies with a postcolonial perspective have shown that the structural oppression of white women by white men during colonialism—or, for that matter, in Western metropolitan cities when speaking about Muslim diasporas—is offset by their white privilege (McClintock 1995) 14 through what I call an okzidentalistische Dividende (‘occidental dividend’) (Dietze 2009, 35). The incorporation of postcolonial questions in Gender Studies gave feminist theorists hope to be able to disengage themselves from restrictive identity politics. In 1991, Teresa De Lauretis wrote optimistically: “Now I want to suggest, that feminist theory came to its own, or became possible as such […] in a postcolonial mode […] with the understanding of the interrelatedness of discourses and social practices, and of the multiplicity of positionalities concurrently available in a social field seen as field of forces: not a single system of power dominating the powerless but a tangle of distinct, variable relations of power and points of resistance.” (De Lauretis 2007, 157)

Thinking in terms of local postcolonialisms makes it possible to see how the same person might be considered ‘of color’ in one place and ‘white’ in another. For example, through the U.S. American ‘One-Drop-Rule,’ someone might have a ‘black’ status legally speaking, but might ‘pass’ (be considered white) as white in her surroundings. These observations were central to the argument for the concept of race as a social construction. Intervention 1: Postcolonial Feminist Criticism of Gender Studies The critical and self-critical approaches of white Gender Studies-informed perspectives do not, however, respond fundamentally to postcolonial interventions and their demand for decentering and the problematization of uncritical perspectives on ‘cultural difference.’ It was mainly feminists from the postcolonial spectrum who pointed out that despite the self-reflective gesture, a new ‘cultural essentialism’ (Narayan 2000) was being produced, one that in no way undercuts the colonial hierarchy, as the occidental pre-

—————— 13 See Kaplan (1997) for a more recent criticism of the feminist politics of location as reproducing the center-periphery model. 14 This phenomenon has been examined in the history of German colonialism by Walgenbach (2005) and Dietrich (2007).

264

GABRIELE DIETZE

sumption of superiority over the global South had not thoroughly been comprehended. Postcolonial criticism of so-called ‘hegemonic feminist theory’ began in 1984 with the objections raised by Valerie Amos and Pratibha Parmar. In their book Challenging Imperial Feminism (1984), they objected to the exclusive claim of white middle-class feminists to be the representatives of all women. In principle, postcolonial feminism carried the above outlined critique by women of color concerning white feminism to a different level. This time, it was less concerned with unauthorized universalizations (white feminists = black feminists), but about an unsolicited ‘vicarious speaking’ and a basic civilizing devaluation of women from the global South. Likewise, in her 1984 article “Under Western Eyes,” Chandra Talpade Mohanty, one of the most important postcolonial feminists, describes feminist ‘racism’ as a set of assumptions and prejudices about women from the third world. She shows how from the belief that ‘sexual difference’ and ‘patriarchy’ are transculturally transferable, a picture of ‘the normal woman from the third world’ emerged that does not consider the specificities of race, ethnicity, class, as well as the realities of specific local situations. Following the lines of postcolonial feminist criticism, what it means to be a woman is reduced by hegemonic feminism to sexual oppression and confined to the male-female binary (Chow 1991, 83). ‘Third world’ implies in this connection ignorant, poor, uneducated, bound to local traditions, family oriented, and victimized (Mohanty 2000, 305). This ‘ethnocentric universalism’ is based on Eurocentric assumptions of a ‘Global Sisterhood,’ as white feminist Robin Morgan declared (1984). Jacqui Alexander and Chandra Mohanty describe this manner of thinking as a center-periphery model (1997, 497). They stress that women from the third world do not want to embody the ‘burden of difference’ anymore. A ‘politics of difference’ reaches boundaries when it equates differences with a totalizing inclusion. The white feminist discourse should be refuted as a master discourse (Ang 2001), or as Ruth Frankenberg and Lata Mani formulate it, as a “mistress narrative of gender domination” (2001, 488). The falsities diagnosed here lead back to the injustice of the assumption that all women occupy the same sociohistorical space (Chow 1991, 93).


265

C—Decolonial Theory Considering the above-mentioned criticism of ‘hegemonic’ gender theory, one cannot really be surprised at the question of whether it is the right time to decolonize gender. In order to understand the radicalness of this project, one should be clear, however, that it is not about whether Gender Studies should incorporate new challenges productively, but rather about whether its subject, or more accurately, the relations which produce the subject matter gender are not in themselves a problem. To capture the scope of a project of ‘decolonizing gender,’ it is necessary and useful to briefly sketch some important points concerning the critical distance of the decolonial intervention towards postcolonial thought. Decolonial theory criticizes postcolonial theory as interwoven with European High Theory (postmodern deconstruction, the neo-marxist world-system analysis). Decolonial theory differentiates between a problematic Eurocentric critique of Eurocentrism (such as that by Derrida) from a critique of Eurocentrism that is rooted in “colonial difference,” which Mignolo calls “post-occidentalism” or “post-occidental reason” (2000, 37). Mignolo seeks to work against the “subalternization of knowledges” (2000, 11). Decolonial theory avoids Western points of reference in the manner in which it foregrounds the dual nature of modernity in its thought. Modernity has in one single movement created, on the one hand, Enlightenment, bringing with it human rights, freedom, private property, and, on the other hand, it has simultaneously subjected the ‘rest of the world’ 15 to colonialism and modern slavery. In the wake of ‘modernity’ humankind was distributed in “humanitas,” which was molded by these new values; while “anthropos,” non-‘human’ racialized and gendered subjects, were studied, enslaved, governed, and thought of in terms of nature/ childhood/animality. 16 During the late modern migration of formerly colonized people to Europe, the entities of humanitas and anthropos, namely the locals and those classified as ‘backward’ on the axis of time, came into contact with each other, previously having been separated. It became obvious that those considered to belong to Anthropos were also people, albeit

—————— 15 See Stuart Hall’s telling essay title “The West and the Rest” (Hall 1992). 16 For the influential juxtaposition of “anthropos” and “humanitas” see Mignolo (2011, 93). Hereby Mignolo refers to the Jamaican author and philosopher Sylvia Wynter.

266

GABRIELE DIETZE

not desired ones. 17 Walter Mignolo counters Enlightenment philosophy— which in its formulation of the Humanitas-Anthropos binary of the colonial project is tied up in its epistemic violence—with so-called epistemic disobedience (Mignolo 2009). He makes the case for searching for the alternative epistemologies that were silenced by colonialism and for reviving their relevance. Through this, a ‘border-thinking’ or a ‘borderknowledge’ will develop, allowing one to think beyond the ‘coloniality of power’ (Quijano 2000), and thus enable the recognition of new actors and forms of action.

D—Decolonizing Gender The Argentinian-American philosopher Maria Lugones situates her project “Decolonizing Gender” (Lugones 2010, 746)—or, the “coloniality of gender”—with reference to Quijones’s “coloniality of power” (2010, 745) in this framework. Her main thesis is that the concept of polarized gender identities—masculinity and femininity—were imported and forced on colonized peoples through colonialism. Analogous to the humanitas-anthropos hypothesis, she opens up for examination a colonialistic discourse along the lines of a man/beast divide, which considers the colonized as animals. Furthermore, the ‘savage’ was understood to be a sexless being. A development towards being a person was seen as dependent on how strongly developed a dimorphous gender system was. Thus the degree of ‘civilization’ was completely tied to the degree of gender dimorphism (Lugones 2010, 743). Lugones’s central point is that the structuring of indigenous societies as per gender binaries led to a new or first-time subjugation of peoples whose ‘sex’ was female, from which, in a manner complicit with colonizers, those people whose ‘sex’ was male profited (Lugones 2007, 197). Lugones’s premise is that in the (gender) dichotomized cosmology of Eurocentric modernity everyone is racialized and gendered, whereas in other parts of the world, race and gender are not the central axes through

—————— 17 Populist, right wing anti-black forms of racism question the humanity of immigrants from the global South. Most recently the neo-socialdarwinist Thilo Sarrazin was very successful with such a stance in Germany (Sarrazin 2010).


267

which dominance can be exerted. 18 Lugones supports her claims with studies by African and Latin American anthropologists, such as Oyéronké Oyewumi’s The Invention of Women (1997), which shows that before colonization, gender was not a principle of social organization, or Paula Allen Gunn who, in the reconstruction of different Native American cultures, shows that in the process of colonizing and ‘civilizing,’ ‘gynocratic egalitarianism’ was destroyed, through the implementation of gendered family hierarchies (1986). Lugones comes to the conclusion: “race is no more mythical and fictional than gender—both are powerful fictions” (2007, 202). In an initial consideration, this claim might merely seem to be the repetition of a widely established fact. After all, we have learned to assume the construction of femaleness from the outset (de Beauvoir, Irigaray, up until Butler’s negation of the woman as the subject of feminism). All these concepts were nevertheless about a denaturalization of femaleness. They focused on the epistemic function that the construction ‘woman’ has for the construction ‘man’ and on the performative character of femininity, that is, on a continuous subjectification via the interpellation of femininity as nonmasculinity. Lugones’s objection is that occidental gender-theorems might deconstruct gender, but have universalized the function of gender difference as a power structure, that is, they have assumed the same for all conceivable societies. In view of this, she identifies imperial gestures of ‘colonial feminism,’ as well as the facet that makes the colonized male complicit in the implementation of a till then unknown, imported European-style patriarchy. Like critics who take the perspective of ‘Decolonial Border Thinking,’ she pleads against an occidental universalism with reference to militant “pluriversalism” (Grossvoguel 2010, 36). Despite her fundamental critique of Western feminisms that in her view likewise deal with the (colonial) universalization of the gender dichotomy, she makes, with reference to womenof-color feminism and ‘feminist border-thinking,’ the case for a “Decolonial Feminism” (Lugones 2010, 746), in which she includes Gloria

—————— 18 This is not to say that these societies are free of hegemony, only that other defining differences have impacted the community structure much more. It is established, for instance, that in many African and Asian societies, seniority is the central feature of social structure, or that in occidental history, for example, in Greek antiquity, the binary of free versus unfree (Slave-Freeman) had a much deeper impact than the binary of female versus male.

268

GABRIELE DIETZE

Anzaldúa’s concept of a ‘New Mestiza.’ Decolonizing gender is hence “necessarily a praxical task. It is to enact a critique of racialized, colonial, and capitalist heterosexualist gender oppression as a lived transformation of the social” (Lugones 2010, 746). European Ramifications The above outline of a decolonial feminism introduces a decentering strategy of problematizing gender and coloniality on a global level. In the United States, which has a large Hispanic population, a significant diaspora of Central and South American intellectuals in the academy and beyond, a history of economic imperialism, and a current interest in Latin America, decolonial theory resonates quite well in local contexts. Decolonial Feminism can build on a local U.S. American tradition, such as ‘Chicana’ feminism. As mentioned above, theorist Gloria Anzaldùa, in her programmatic book Borderlands. La Frontera (1987), developed the figuration of the ‘New Mestiza,’ a pioneering idea in the theory of ‘Third Spaces’ and ‘Border Thinking,’ that was vigorously taken up by decolonial theory. 19 But does decolonial feminism travel well to North Western Europe, or as Mignolo would say, to our ‘local histories’? Certainly there are points of contact with the critiques of German/European politics concerning Africa, or possibilities for interventions in the impasses and deadlocks in NGOdiscourses. However, there are areas literally closer, where the assumption of ‘backward’ gender-binaries plays a decisive role for asymmetric power relations. This concerns, for instance, Eastern Europe as the ‘balkanized’ (Todorova 2009) border, which cannot be considered to belong to either the enlightened Occident or the Global South. Millions of (mostly) undocumented female migrants relieve Western Europeans of domestic work and care of the elderly. A supposedly female inclination to domestic work and care is presumed (also under the auspices of post-socialism), and for this work, cheap, ‘natural’ investment in emotional care of western Euro-

—————— 19 See the anthology This Bridge We Call Home (Anzaldùa and Keating 2002). See also the much discussed work of Cherie Moraga (1994), which examines the tensions between migrants’ often necessary orientation towards the family, Latino machismo, and heteronormativity. For important decolonial theory references to Chicana Feminism see Grossvoguel (2007, 213), Escobar (2007, 192) and Mignolo (2000, 84).


269

pean children and the elderly, is judged as cultural capital. 20 The thus achievable ‘emancipation’ of Western European women from the oppression of a gendered division of labor is directly connected with the gendering of ‘other women.’ In this process, a movement very similar in structure to the phenomenon that Lugones calls the ‘coloniality of gender’ can be observed. A connection to decolonial feminism can be productive for critiques of occidentalism as well. The functionalization of ‘women’s emancipation in the West’ (and presumed ‘enlightened’ tolerance of homosexuality) as an integration test especially against Muslim migrants, could also be understood in terms of a similar constitutional connection as the above described co-presence of Enlightenment (as hegemonic model) and colonization/dehumanization. 21 Two discourses intersect here. The ‘Orientals’ are accused of an enormous gender differentiation through the figures of the ‘veiled woman’ and the ‘orientalist patriarch,’ and Western female sexual agency and gender equality are posited as an ‘enlightened’ model against these. This implies that Muslim gender segregation and the practice of veiling are considered backward and Western mobility and transparency progressive. A project of decolonizing gender in occidental discourse would mean exposing the functionalization of the occidental, emancipated woman as an ideological weapon in islamophobic cultural wars. Thus ‘enlightened gender relationships’ come to be perceptible as occidental norms. However, the complicity between occidental and oriental masculinities which Lugones identifies in colonial models does not come to bear here. To the contrary, the characterization of male Muslim migrants as potential terrorists, preachers of hate, violent fathers, criminal and/or homophobic youth, abusers of social security, is an important element in the new construction of European occidentalism, especially after the old guiding difference of Western European superiority, namely freedom versus socialism,

—————— 20 For a discussion of capitalist exploitation of the allegedly affective quality of migrants’ domestic work, see Guitiérrez-Rodríguez (2010). 21 Saba Mahmood points to an epistemic weakness, which many deconstructive and decentralizing Western intellectuals fail to see, when the occasion of the cultural wars precipitated by the Mohammed-caricatures, posed the question “Is critique secular?,” and deconstructed the unquestioned connection between secularity and progress as occidental assumptions (2009).

270

GABRIELE DIETZE

was lost with the end of the cold war. 22 The anthropos-humanitas dichotomy, as a ‘hierarchy of civilizations,’ comes to be transcribed in terms of ‘cultural racism’ as a ‘hierarchy of cultures.’ * The shortcomings of theory and political practice discussed above create a need for a refined feminist perspective, which has been purged through the critique of critical criticism from women of color, whiteness awareness, postcolonial and decolonial interventions, in order to recognize (and fight) the production of cultural hierarchies, which both serves and coopts the figure of the ‘emancipated Western woman.’ Equally, there is a need for decolonial theory informed by feminist interventions. If decolonial theory does not break from the never-ending story of every progressive paradigm being first and foremost conceptualized for the male half of humanity (under the pretense of speaking for all). There is some hope for the latter. Some decolonial master texts reference Chicana feminism, women of color and feminist standpoint theory, transnational and postcolonial feminism as central sources of their theorizing. Arturo Escobar asks for “an engagement with the sophisticated and politically minded debates on feminist epistemology and positionality,” which is not just claimed, but actually celebrated (Escobar 2007, 194). In this line of political thinking the coloniality of power and the coloniality of gender could be confronted in the much sought after ‘integrated approach’ of race and gender discrimination paradigms. Yet it is a long shot still. Gendering decolonial theory nonetheless is one of the very few projects besides queer intersectionality in which feminist epistemology is not seen as a particularist perspective which has to be forced into progressive theory by battlesome women against defensive men. Regardless of locality and gender, ‘Border Thinking’ allows short or long-term participants in the decolonial project to act simultaneously inside and outside of identities and positionalities.

—————— 22 For a more exact explication of this displacement and the European claims of cultural superiority, see Schulze (2007), and Dietze (2009, 24) for the connection to occidentalism.

Works Cited

Ahmed, Sara (2006). Queer Phenomenology. Orientations, Objects, Others. Durham: Duke University Press. — (2007). “A Phenomenology of Whiteness.” Feminist Theory, 8.2: 149–168. Alcoff, Linda Martín (2000). “What Should White People Do?” In Uma Narayan and Sandra Harding (eds.). Decentering the Center. Philosophy for a Multicultural, Postcolonial, and Feminist World, 262–283. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Alexander, Jacqui, and Chandra Talpade Mohanty (eds.). (1997). Feminist Genealogies, Colonial Legacies, Democratic Futures. New York: Routledge. Allen, Paula Gunn (1986). The Sacred Hoop. Recovering the Feminine in American Indian Traditions. Boston: Beacon Press. Amos, Valerie, and Pratibha Parmar (1984). “Challenging Feminist Imperialism.” Feminist Review, 17: 3–19. Ang, Ian (2001). “I’m a Feminist but…‘Other’ Women and Postnational Feminism.” In Kum-Kum Bhavnani (ed.). Feminism & ‘Race, 394–410. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Anzaldúa, Gloria (1987). Borderlands/La Frontera. The New Mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Luke Books. Anzaldúa, Gloria, and Gloria Keating (eds.). (2001) This Bridge We Call Home. Radical Visions for Transformation. New York: Routledge. Bachmann-Medick, Doris (2010). Cultural Turns. Neuorientierung in den Kulturwissenschaften. Reinbek: Rowohlt. Benhabib, Sheila, Judith Butler, and Nancy Fraser (eds.). (1993). Der Streit um die Differenz. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer. Broeck, Sabine (1999). White Amnesia—Black Memory? American Women’s Writing and History. New York: Peter Lang. Butler, Judith (1991). Das Unbehagen der Geschlechter. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. — (1993). Bodies the Matter. On the Discursive Limits of Sex. New York: Routledge. Chakrabarty, Dipesh (2000). Provincializing Europe. Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Chow, Rey (1991). “Violence in the Other Country: China as Crisis, Spectacle, and Woman.” In Chandra Talpade Mohanty (ed.). Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism, 81–100. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

272

GABRIELE DIETZE

Christian, Barbara (1987). “The Race for Theory.” Cultural Critique, 6 (Spring): 51– 63. Collins, Patricia Hill (2000). “The Social Construction of Black Feminist Thought.” In Patricia Hill Collins (ed.). Black Feminist Thought. Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment, 1–44. New York: Routledge. Combahee, River Collective (1981). “A Black Feminist Statement.” 1977. In Cherríe Moraga and Gloria Anzaldua (eds.). This Bridge Called my Back. Writings by Radical Women of Color, 210–218. New York: Third Women Press. Conrad, Sebastian, and Shalini Randeria (eds.). (2002). Jenseits des Eurozentrismus. Postkoloniale Perspektiven in den Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften. Frankfurt/New York: Campus. Crenshaw, Kimberlé (1991). “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review, 43.6: 1241–1299. Davis, Angela Yvonne (1981). Women, Race, & Class. New York: Vintage. De Lauretis, Teresa (2007). “Eccentric Subjects.” In Teresa De Lauretis and Patricia White (eds.). Figures of Resistance. Essays in Feminist Theory, 151–183. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Dietrich, Anette (2007). Weiße Weiblichkeiten. Konstruktionen von „Rasse“ und Geschlecht im deutschen Kolonialismus. Bielefeld: transcript. Dietze, Gabriele, Elahe Haschemi Yekani, and Beatrice Michaelis (2007). “‘Checks and Balances.’ Zum Verhältnis von Intersektionalität und Queer Theory.” In Katharina Walgenbach, Gabriele Dietze, Antje Hornscheidt, and Kerstin Palm (eds.). Geschlecht als interdependente Kategorie, 107–141. Opladen: Budrich. Dietze, Gabriele (2008). “Intersektionalität und Hegemonie(selbst)kritik.” In Wolfgang Gippert (ed.). Transkulturalität. Gender und Bildungshistorische Perspektiven, 27– 45. Bielefeld: transcript. — (2009). “‘Okzidentalismuskritik.’ Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer Forschungsperspektivierung.” In Gabriele Dietze, Claudia Brunner, and Edith Wenzel (eds.). Kritik des Okzidentalismus. Transdisziplinäre Beiträge zu (Neo-) Orientalismus und Geschlecht, 23–55. Bielefeld: transcript. — (2010). “Occidentalism, European Identity, and Sexual Politics.” In Hauke Brunkhorst and Gerd Groezinger (eds.). The Study of Europe, 87–116. Baden Baden: Nomos. — (2013a). Weiße Frauen in Bewegung. Genealogien und Konkurrenzen von Race und Genderpolitiken. Bielefeld: transcript. — (2013b). “Postcolonial Studies und Gender. Genealogie einer problematischen Beziehung.” In Christina von Braun and Inge Stephan (eds.). Gender @ Wissen. Ein Handbuch der Gender-Theorien. 3rd rev. edition, forthcoming. Köln: Böhlau UTB. Dussel, Enrique (2000). “Europe, Modernity and Eurocentrism.” Nepantla: Views from the South, 1.3: 465–478.


273

Eng, David L. (2010). The Feeling of Kinship. Queer Liberalism and the Racialization of Intimacy. Durham: Duke University Press. Escobar, Arturo (2007). “Worlds of Knowledges Otherwise. The Latin American Modernity/Coloniality Research Program.” Cultural Studies, 21.2/3: 129–210. Fabian, Johannes (1983). Time and Other. New York: Columbia University Press. Ferguson, Roderick A. (2004). Aberrations in Black. Toward a Queer of Color Critique. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Frankenberg, Ruth (1993). White Women, Race Matters. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Frankenberg, Ruth, and Lata Mani (2001). “Crosscurrents, Crosstalk: Race, ‘Postcoloniality’ and the Politics of Location.” In Kum-Kum Bhavnani (ed.). Feminism & ‘Race, 479–491. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Frye, Marilyn (1983). “On Being White. Thinking Toward a Feminist Understanding of Race and Race Supremacy.” In Marilyn Frye (ed.). The Politics of Reality. Essays in Feminist Theory, 110–127. Freedom: Crossing Press. Giddings, Paula (1984). When and Where I Enter. The Impact of Black Women on Race and Sex in America. New York: Morrow. Grewal, Inderpal, and Caren Kaplan (eds.). (2002). Scattered Hegemonies. Postmodernity and Transnational Feminist Practices. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Grossvoguel, Ramón (2007). “The Epistemic Decolonial Turn. Beyond Political Economy Paradigms.” Cultural Studies, 21.2/3: 211–223. — (2010). “Epistemic Islamophobia and Colonial Social Science.” Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 7.2: 29–38. Guitiérrez-Rodríguez, Encarnación (2010). Migration, Domestic Work and Affect. A Decolonial Approach on Value and the Feminization of Labor. London: Routledge. Hall, Stuart (1992). “The West and the Rest. Discourse and Power.” In Stuart Hall and Bram Gieben (eds.). Formations of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Haschemi, Elahe, Beatrice Michelis, and Gabriele Dietze (2010). “‘Try Again. Fail Again. Fail Better.’ Queer Interdependencies as Corrective Methodologies.” In Yvette Taylor, Sally Hines, and Mark E. Casey (eds.). Theorizing Intersectionality and Sexuality, 78–98. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. hooks, bell (1981). Ain’t I a Woman. Boston: South End Press Hull, Gloria T., Patricia Bell Scott, and Barbara Smith (1982). All the Women Are White, All the Blacks Are Men, and Some of Us Are Brave. Old Westbury: Feminist Press. Ignatiev, Noel, and John Garvey (1996). “Abolish the White Race by any Means Necessary.” In Noel Ignatiev and John Garvey (eds.). Race Traitor, 9–14. New York: Routledge. Jäger, Margaret (1996). Fatale Effekte. Die Kritik am Patriarchat im Einwanderungsdiskurs. Duisburg: Duisburger Institut. Kaplan, Caren (1997). “The Politics of Location as Transnational Feminist Space.” In Inderpal Grewal and Caren Kaplan (eds.). Scattered Hegemonies. Postmodernity

274

GABRIELE DIETZE

and Transnational Feminist Practices, 137–153. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press. Kaplan, Caren, Norma Alarcon, and Minoo Moallem (eds.). (1999). Between Women and Nation: Nationalism, Transnational Feminisms, and the State. Durham: Duke University Press. Karakayali, Jule, Serhat Karakayali, Vassilis S. Tsianos, and Aida Ibrahim (2012). “Decolorise it!” akweb.de. Analyse und Kritik, 21 Sep. 2012 http:// www.akweb.de/ak_s/ak575/23.htm. 10 June 2014. Lugones, Maria (2007). “Heterosexualism and the Colonial/Modern Gender System.” Hypatia, 22.1: 186–209. — (2010). “Toward a Decolonial Feminism.” Hypatia, 25.4: 742–760. Mamood, Saba (2009). “Religious Reason and Secular Affect. An Incommensurable Divide.” In Talal Asad, Brown Wendy, Judith Butler, and Saba Mamood (eds.). Is Critique Secular? Blasphemy, Injury, and Free Speech, 64–101. Berkeley: University of California Press. Manalansan IV, Martin F. (2006). “Queer Intersections: Sexuality and Gender in Migration Studies.” International Migration Review, 40.1: 224–249. Marx, Karl (1957). Die Heilige Familie. Zur Kritik der Kritischen Kritik. 1845. In Karl Marx (ed.). MEW 2, 3–232. Berlin: Dietz. Marx, Daniela (2009). “Feministische Gegenstimmen? Aushandlung westlich abendländischer Identität in Auseinandersetzung mit dem ‘Islam.’” In Gabriele Dietze, Claudia Brunner, and Edith Wenzel (eds.). Kritik des Okzidentalismus. Transdisziplinäre Beiträge zu (Neo-)Orientalismus und Geschlecht, 101–117. Bielefeld: transcript. Mbembe, Achille (2001). On the Postcolony. Berkeley: University of California Press. McClintock, Anne (1995). Imperial Leather. Race, Gender and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest. New York: Routledge. McClintock, Anne, Aamir Mufti, and Ella Shohat (eds.). (1997). Dangerous Liaisons. Gender, Nation, and Postcolonial Perspectives. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Michaelis, Beatrice, Gabriele Dietze, and Elahe Haschemi-Yekani (2012). “The Queerness of Things not Queer. Entgrenzungen—Affekte und Materialitäten—Interventionen.” feministische studien, 30.2: 184–197. Mignolo, Walter (2000). Local Histories/Global Designs. Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking. Princeton: Princeton University Press. — (2009). “Epistemic Disobedience, Independent Thought and De-Colonial Freedom.” Theory, Culture & Society, 26.7/8: 1–23. — (2011). The Darker Side of Western Modernity. Global Futures and Decolonial Options. Durham: Duke University Press. Mohanty, Chandra Talpade (2000). “‘Under Western Eyes’: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses.” In Les Back and John Solomos (eds.). Theories of Race and Racism, 302–323. London: Routledge.


275

Moraga, Cherríe (1994). “From a Long Line of Vendidas. Chicanas and Feminism.” In Anne C. Herrmann and Abigail J. Stewart (eds.). Theorizing Feminism. Parallel Trends in the Humanities and Social Science, 34–48. Boulder: Westview Press. Moraga, Cherríe, and Toni Cade Bambara (eds.). (1983). This Bridge Called My Back. Writings by Radical Women of Color. New York: Kitchen Table. Morgan, Robin (ed.). (1984). Sisterhood is Global: The International Women’s Movement Anthology. New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday. Muñoz, Jose Esteban (1997). Disidentifications. Queers of Colors and the Performance of Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Narayan, Uma (2000). “Essence of Culture and a Sense of History: A Feminist Critique of Cultural Essentialism.” In Uma Narayan and Sandra Harding (eds.) Decentering the Center. Philosophy for a Multicultural, Postcolonial, and Feminist World, 80–101. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press. Oguntoye, Katharina, May Opitz [Ayim], Dagmar Schultz (eds.). (1986). Farbe Bekennen. Afrodeutsche Frauen auf den Spuren ihrer Geschichte. Berlin: Orlanda Frauenbuch Verlag. Ortega, Marina (2006). “Being Lovingly, Knowingly Ignorant: White Feminism and Woman of Color.” Hypatia, 21.3: 56–74. Oyewumi, Oyeronke (1997). The Invention of Women. Making an African Sense of Western Gender Discourses. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Quijano, Anibal (2000). “The Coloniality of Power, Ethnocentrism and Latin America.” Nepantla: Views from the South, 1.3: 533–580. Rich, Adrienne (1979). On Lies, Secrets, and Silences: Selected Prose 1966–1978. New York: Norton & Company. — (2003). “Notes Towards a Politics of Location.” In Reina Lewis and Sara Mills (eds.). Feminist Postcolonial Theory. A Reader, 29–43. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press. Sarrazin, Thilo (2010). Deutschland schafft sich ab. Wie wir unser Land aufs Spiel setzen. München: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt. Schulze, Reinhard (2007). “Orientalismus. Zum Diskurs zwischen Orient und Okzident.” In Iman Attia (ed.). Orient- und Islambilder Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zu Orientalismus und antimuslimischem Rassismus, 45–71. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot. Scott, Joan (1986). “Gender as a Useful Category in Historical Analysis.” American Historical Review, 91.5: 1053–1075. Shohat, Ella (2006). “Gendered Cartographies of Knowledge: Area Studies, Ethnic Studies, and Postcolonial Studies.” In Ella Shohat (ed.). Taboo Memories, Diasporic Voices, 1–16. Durham: Duke University Press. Singh, Amritjit, und Peter Schmidt (2002). Postcolonial Theory and the United States. Race, Ethnicity, and Literature. Jackson: University of Mississippi Press.

276

GABRIELE DIETZE

Somerville, Siobhan B. (2000). Queering the Color Line. Race and the Invention of Homosexuality in American Culture. Durham: Duke University Press. Stoler, Laura Ann, and Frederick Cooper (1997). “Between Metropole and Colony. Rethinking a Research Agenda.” In Laura Ann Stoler and Frederick Cooper (eds.). Tensions of Empire. Colonial Cultures in a Bourgeois World, 1–56. Berkeley: University of California Press. Tißberger, Martina, Gabriele Dietze, Daniela Hrzán, and Jana Husmann-Kastein (eds.). (2006). Weiß—Weissein—Whiteness. Kritische Studien zu Gender und Rassismus. Berlin: Peter Lang. Todorova, Maria (2009). Imagining the Balkans. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wachendorfer, Ursula (2001). “Weiß-Sein in Deutschland. Zur Unsichtbarkeit einer herrschenden Normalität.” In Susan Arndt (ed.). Afrikabilder. Studien zum Rassismus in Deutschland, 87–102. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot. Walgenbach, Katharina (2002). “Weiße Dominanz—Zwischen struktureller Unsichtbarkeit, Diskursiver Selbstaffirmation und Kollektivem Handeln.” In Sylke Bartman, Karin Gille, and Sebastian Haunss (eds.). Kollektives Handeln, Politische Mobilisierung zwischen Struktur und Identität, 123–137. Düsseldorf: Edition Böckler Stiftung. — (2005). „Die weiße Frau als Trägerin deutscher Kultur“. Koloniale Diskurse über Geschlecht, „Rasse“ und Klasse im Kaiserreich. Frankfurt/New York: Campus. Walgenbach, Katharina, Gabriele Dietze, Antje Hornscheidt, Daniela Hrzán, and Kerstin Palm (2010). Gender als interdependente Kategorie. Neue Perspektiven auf Intersektionalität, Diversität und Heterogenität. Opladen: Budrich. Wiegman, Robyn (1999). “Whiteness Studies and the Paradox of Particularity.” Boundary 2, 26.3: 115–150. — (2012). Object Lessons. Durham: Duke University Press.

Sabine Broeck, Carsten Junker (eds.)

Postcoloniality— Decoloniality— Black Critique Joints and Fissures

Campus Verlag Frankfurt/New York

Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de ISBN 978-3-593-50192-5 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Copyright © 2014 Campus Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt-on-Main Cover design: Campus Verlag, Frankfurt-on-Main Printing office and bookbinder: Beltz Bad Langensalza Printed on acid free paper. Printed in Germany This book is also available as an E-Book. www.campus.de www.press.uchicago.edu