#highlighting different ways of being in the form of sexuality and its general fluidity is ofc good but its not enough.

[fightersforpeace]

A critique of the WPS agenda … from a postcolonial perspective

𝑨𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒍𝒆 𝒘𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒏 𝒃𝒚 𝑯𝒂𝒍𝒂 𝑨𝒃𝒊 𝑺𝒂𝒍𝒆𝒉

Women, Peace and Security (WPS) is now considered a global “norm,” deriving legitimacy from the Beijing declaration, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1325, and nine subsequent resolutions. Taken together, these instruments and the norms that underpin them are referred to as the WPS agenda. Nevertheless, after the adoption of these resolutions, several debates broke out on a global level about whether the WPS agenda and the concepts and practices it inspires have any purchase in the Global South, and how the postcolonial feminist perspective might have extended the scrutiny and critique.

One of the main critics of the WPS agenda is that the latter is inattentive to gender relations, masculinities, and gender hierarchies in the Global South. It assumes that peace is the natural outcome of women’s involvement in post-conflict processes.

Moreover, other critics were discussed and debated between postcolonial feminists and mainstream feminists such as the global South is accountable to western concepts and practices used in case studies in all over the world and where specificity and singularity are put aside. Plus, the discourse, used by feminists from the global North towards women of the global south, contains a lot of empowerment and protection as if the southern women are only victims and not a main player in the society. In the end, most feminists forgot that women coming from formerly colonized countries face two levels of oppression: one related to its own culture and the other is a residue from the colonization period.

All these criticisms can be related to two fundamental actions happening within the UN: the first one is that the Global North has access to funds and resources and, barring China and Russia, constitutes the three main actors within the UN Security Council, entrusted with passing critical resolutions that form the core of WPS. And the other is that large scale military interventions to restore peace are adopted by the UN Security Council is reviving colonial “rescue narratives” in sites of conflict in the Global South.

Women from the Global South are made accountable to western concepts and practices

When the 1325 Resolution was adopted by the Security Council (UNSC), most of the feminist activists and scholars were happy by the result and thought that the global road to gender equality and security have begun. Nevertheless, the incoming years revealed many loops in this resolution and agenda such as the internalization of western concepts and practices, if not domination, in the WPS agenda.

The WPS agenda is associated with successful advocacy efforts of non-governmental organizations, gender activists and feminist’s scholars with offices in New York, London and Geneva and mostly with the western members of the UNSC. Also, efforts to push the agenda forward are identified with governments, NGOs, and international organizations that are based primarily in the Global North. This has resulted to push an agenda with concepts culturally related to these countries values, which contributed to the widely shared assumptions about the Global North as the “conceptual, material and institutional home” of UN Security Council Resolutions related to the gender and security agenda. Thus, this situation can be translated into that Global South states and non-state actors are being accountable to Western concepts and practices and undermining local concepts and values.

The problem of case studies and best practices

One of the other criticism of the WPS agenda is regarding the case studies and best practices, where studies are done all the time to give a discursive meaning and universal character to this agenda. In this case, the Global South must perform the site of innumerable case studies, where people and societies are framed in a perpetual state of conflict and violence, and where local values and culture are forgotten.

The problem by deploying the concept of best practices in the implementation of the WPS agenda is that from one conflict region to another context, local values, culture differ. Even two situations of conflict in the same temporal and spatial geographies can demonstrate completely different gender norms, before, during, and after the conflict. “Best practices” thus, may be a useful policy term, but it does not capture the complexity of the situation on the ground. It, also, fails to highlight the complexities of these conflicts in which states are parties waging wars against their citizens or inter-state conflicts with foreign intervention or even separatist groups or terrorist groups.

Furthermore, case studies are carefully selected to suit the Western governments’ strategic priorities, intervention goals, and funding rationale; some areas are over-researched (like sexual violence in wars), while others are marginalized (such as state violence against indigenous people and gender minorities). How this is happening? For some, the weak states and civil society agendas of the Global South are controlled and influenced by donor grants, research funding, and support for outreach activities who mostly comes from Western agencies and Governments.

Therefore, based on these ideas discussed above, for some postcolonial feminists, the WPS discourse endorses a particular liberal vision of equality and peace that does not appear to be inclusive of all interests and experiences. Besides, state-led National Action Plans (NAP) which are emphasized as part of the WPS agenda, end up endorsing the state’s narrative of the conflict and its marginalization and discrimination plus these “Western” concept of peace, security and gender. This lead to some feminists to shed the light on the dual oppression that women are facing in the Global South in general.

Dual oppression of women in postcolonial states

For many feminists in the Global South and postcolonial theorists, women in general, are facing dual oppression in postcolonial states based on the residue of oppression from the colonial area, the native oppression, and the fluidity of gender norms that were challenged under colonial masculinity.

Many feminists and postcolonial theorists pointed out that “anti-colonial resistance” was not “anti-colonial critique,” and that the chauvinism and authoritarianism of colonial states had to be challenged, and there were many struggles within the larger anti-colonial movements, such as women’s movements against patriarchal traditions and violence. The priority is for what independence or changing society?

The debates around the situation of women particularly and gender, in general, have addressed the issue of the dual colonization of women, oppressed by both native and foreign patriarchies. As well these debates highlighted the lack of acknowledgement of differences in feminist understandings of women’s global oppression, where the difference is not just between the West and the other areas of the world but even within these areas or even in the same country. Furthermore, these debates highlighted the problematic history of feminism as imperialism, where feminists have been complicit in both the production and the marginalization of the gendered subaltern.

Other criticism towards the WPS agenda explained that most literature and debates perceive women in the Global South as victims.

Improve the woman “out there”

Throughout the discourse towards gender issues in the Global South, many terms have used that lead to “Empowerment” and “save the women” in this region, which continues to be co-opted and invoked by many. This discourse leads many scholars to point out that this scenario of “saving women” is part of the colonial/imperial literature.

Let’s take for example the references to 1325 (UNSC Resolution) in the preamble of Security Council Resolution 1483 on Iraq. These references could be seen as a positive case if we take into consideration that it gives legitimacy to women’s role and inclusion in the reconstruction and nation-building process in Iraq. Nevertheless, we could also analyse it another way: 1325 is being used as a tool to justify military occupation on behalf of “liberating” women. Furthermore, “The Global War on Terror” is another appropriate example of Western efforts aimed to rescue Afghan women from the Taliban. The problem is that feminists were complicit in supporting that effort of “saving and liberating women” in both cases as if they are providing a moral compass to governments and the people. And nobody asked the “women” in these countries what do they want? Maybe for them, they are other ways to ameliorate their situation outside of the discourse and practices of “gender equality”. In fact, in specific contexts, women may value gender complementarity rather than gender equality. In such situations, “gender equality” and “empowerment,” as defined can be unproductive and even potentially damaging concepts.

As discussed above, the discourse aimed at issues of the Global South is focused on the “protection” of women in this area and not an actor with its tools and values. And for some scholars, this can be seen as a considerable pressure to improve a lot of the women “out there,” from state agencies, neoliberal global institutions and even corporate interests, who fund both WPS research and practical initiatives.

References:

Aoláin, F. N. “Situating Women in Counterterrorism Discourses: Undulating Masculinities and Luminal Femininities.” Boston University Law Review 93, no. 3 (2013): 1085–1122.

D’Costa, B. “Learning to Be a Compassionate Academic.” Australian Journal of International Affairs 71, no. 1 (2016): 3–7.

Grewal, I., and C. Kaplan. “Postcolonial Studies and Transnational Feminist Practices.” Jouvert: A Journal of Postcolonial Studies 5, no. 1 (2000), http://english.chass.ncsu.edu/ jouvert/v5i1/grewal.htm.

Otto, D. “Women, Peace, and Security: A Critical Analysis of the Security Council’s Vision.” London: LSE Women, Peace and Security Working Paper Series, 2016.

Parpart, J. L. “Imagined Peace, Gender Relations, and Post-Conflict Transformation: Anti- Colonial and Post-Cold War Conflicts.” In Women, Gender Equality, and Post-Conflict Transformation: Lessons Learned, Implications for the Future, edited by J. P. Kaufman and K. P. Williams, 51–71. New York: Routledge, 2016.

Article supported by IFA-ZIVIK

[moodyvisualart]

FMP Evaluation

Julia Kristeva's theory of Abjection has been the core idea from the start to the end of my Final Major Project. I wanted to explore the very fragile line between our natural desire, intrigue and sexual response to the human body contrasted with our fear and disgust of it. To do this I have investigated different routes of enquiry throughout my FMP: the deconstruction of the human figure, weight and form, movement, liquids and body processes. The first key outcome of my project was the structure I made from tights, sand and condoms. I wanted to use manufactured products   like the tights and condoms but use natural and uncontrollable materials like sand to contrast and contradict this. The deconstruction of the body is something I felt successful in doing. The two versions I made both had a ghostly, intriguing  presence but also a juvenile humour, like Sarah Lucas’ work which defiantly inspired me during the early stages of the project. These outcomes definitely impacted the direction of my work and made me contemplate the humour, transgression and unease attached to sexual imagery and its place in my own work.  

The physical and visual weight that the sand created is something that I carried forward. I explored the bulging, obtrusive shapes in both 3D and 2D formats, with the later helping me to connect my work to the human body more. Francis Bacon’s paintings really inspired me to think about body processes, raw flesh, mutilation and decay. It made me want my work to have more of a physical presence, a real sense of morality. I did this using dry oil paint, focusing on texture, highlights and shadows. This was my most successful painting as it was the best developed and balanced interestingly between being very abstracted and confusing with something very human and skin like. It pushed me to go back to basics, to start with some very detailed and some basic life drawing to really focus on the human form. From this, I felt more confident when moving back into more abstracted 3D sculpture but with a new focus on keeping it connected to the human experience. Looking at Bellmer’s ‘La Poupée’ heavily inspired my paintings and lead me into  thinking about fluidity in my own work.  

I therefore started to work with liquid materials. I created a PVA, muslin cloth and cotton wool mix that I could stretch and let gravity manipulate. I then documented how it transformed into a solid. This technique was really successful and helped the direction of my Final Major Project. I had found something that had both manufactured and natural elements. I loved the heavy visual link to flesh and blood yet it was something still aesthetically beautiful. It’s hard not to connect this work to blood, something that hits a primitive fear of our mortality. The theory of the Abject talks about how blood can remind us traumatically of our fragile and ultimately meaningless materiality. While I didn’t want my work to focus primarily on these dark themes, I wanted it to be an underlining uneasiness behind it.

I then started to venture into planning my final exhibition. I wanted to include juvenile humour, a strong connection to the body and also it’s natural functions. I wanted something that would have life and  movement. I designed a fabric sculpture that would inflate and deflate throughout the exhibition, referencing the role of the lungs in the body. However, I also wanted something with more concrete visual links to humanity. I decided that the second part of my exhibition would be a podium displaying a plaster cast of my face. Once I completed this, I tied the two visually together using the red cotton wool mix. I wanted it to look very heavy, intriguing and obscure but with a definite connection to our bodies. I am so happy with my podium and face casts as I feel successful in portraying my own experience with hypochondriasis. I have always had a strange fear of inheriting rheumatoid arthritis, something I have watched my Grandma badly struggle with. I also have a bad habit of constantly thinking the worst when it comes to my physical health, to the point where it does start to effect my day to day life. It was important to me to create something with a seemly tranquil and pleasant front but spoiled and contaminated with something messy and inexplainable. To me, this captures how I personally perceive ‘The Abject’, the sickly feeling when we are reminded of our inevitable ageing and suffering. However, the condoms and girly pink colours helped to lighten the overall atmosphere of the exhibition as well as inject it with humour, something I felt was important. I hope that other people enjoy the immature spin on my work as I know I’ve had fun making it. I was very controlled with my colour scheme. I wanted my exhibition to be pure white with pops of bright pinks, reds and yellows. This helps with the contradiction between the beautiful aesthetics and darker core ideas. My biggest fear was my inflatable sculpture not working, yet it came together in the end and I feel it encapsulates how the body is not a stationary thing. It breaths life into my exhibition, nearly literally and brings together my interests in liquid, movement, manufacturing and internal functions. 

My Final Major Project allowed me more time to develop ideas into something that is complete and well informed. I ensured this by researching and analysing both historical and contemporary artists such as Rembrandt and Giuseppe Pennone. However, I also kept a journal that I used for reflection, planning and documentation of my mental train of thought.

I wish that throughout my project I had played with more digital methods of creating artwork. After looking at my peer, Karolina Sungalite’s work, I was really interested in her video pieces. I feel that exploring The Abject and our desire vs our disgust of the human body through video and photography would have been really interesting. There is less restrictions when creating digitally and I think my project would have been improved by this exploration. Furthermore, I think spending more time drawing in the early stages of my FMP would have helped me to generate more ideas and ways to work sculpturally earlier. However, overall I am really satisfied with my Final Major Project and I know that my exhibition displays my most developed and best executed work from my year at Art foundation. 

#fmp #written work

[onereallygoodlambonastick]

tired of marriage being the only lens or state pairings can achieve at the height of their relationships

#like. its so ingrained with heteronormativity and thus racial normativity #its a site of domination for women #and its a piece of shit in disqualifying ppl from benefits. the whole medical industrial complex #queer struggles in the past have been centered around achieving equal legal rights and gaining the same platforms as cishets and their oppre #ssors but. thats superficial. its symptomatic work. its only a single-oppression framework #that fails to integrate race and class and gender #highlighting different ways of being in the form of sexuality and its general fluidity is ofc good but its not enough. #being effective requires an dynamic intersectional approach #so one must study heteronormativity as key constructs in informing gender normativity and class normativity and race normativity #gender is p obvious. for class consider how propertyless women often only accrue social class when they marry a guy and just as easily lose #property when widowed or divorced #social class is not the same as socioeconomic status btw #the strong man/weak woman is key for white racial constructs. which ofc gets imposed on bipoc folx and falls terribly flat #and results in cultural genocide/forceful assimilation/demonization & dehumanization/and the general colonial/imperial repertoire #soy talks shit

[ftkrotec]

Millennial Entitlement

Preface:  I apologize that it has been so long since my last post.  However, I want to make sure that my posts are well thought out and are important, at least to me.  I could easily pump out one post per month or probably even post biweekly.  However, I know that those posts will either consist of irrelevant nonsense or be rushed and underdeveloped, which would just add to the ignorant noise with which we are already overly saturated and contributing to the ignorance problem I highlighted in my first post.  Assuming somebody actually reads these posts.  For those who actually do (if you exist), thank you for your patience.

Given the buzz around the term "Millennial" and noise circulating about their hypersensitivity and entitlement, I wanted to provide some thoughts that would hopefully cut through the noise and help illuminate the realities of Millennials.  Before I start, I will provide a disclaimer.  Being born in the late 1980s, I am a Millennial.  I do not take any particular pride or shame in claiming that title.  It is a title that has been ascribed to my generation, and I accept that.  Although being a member of this group certainly presents the potential for bias, it also provides me with a particular insight to provide my thoughts below.

As a scientist, I know that defining terms and base assumptions is vital to understanding analysis.  So, I am starting with some definitions.  Before talking of Millennials, one must, first, know what a Millennial is.  When it comes to labeling generations, there is always a bit of fluidity when it comes to declaring specific start and end dates.  However, the most common model of generational cohorts divides all currently living peoples into six generations, stemming back to the turn of the 20th century.  These generations are typically characterized by the combined experiences common to the formative years of that generation.  The oldest generation, often called the Greatest Generation, is those who came to age during the Great Depression.  Then, there is the silent generation, who spent their formative years in the context of WWII.  Growing up in the aftermath of WWII, we, then have the Baby Boomers, aptly named to the spike in birth rates following the War.  The next three generations were assigned letter designations.  Generation X's childhood was defined by the end of the traditional family dynamic, as divorce rates increased and the number of women in the workplace also increased.  Next, there is Generation Y.  Generation Y, aptly named the Millennial generation, had their childhood defined by the start of the new millennium, and the technological revolution that coincided with it.  Finally, Generation Z are those born in the new millennium having their childhood defined by a post-9-11 America and the vast interconnectivity afforded to us by the prevalence if the internet and social media. With these definitions in mind, let me clarify something.  This means that in 2019, contrary to some indications, Millennials are schoolchildren or teenagers.  Rather, Millennials are, for the most part, adults in their 20's and early 30's.

Now that I have defined what a Millennial is, I can now focus on the "buzz."  Over the past few years, the term "Millennial" has become synonymous with entitlement and hypersensitivity.  Terms like “snowflake” and “the Me Me Me Generation,” complaints about their lack of work ethic, and other similar disparagements of Millennials are now commonplace among the conversations.  So much so, that many people, my generation included, assume it to be true.  

As a Millennial, one would assume that I would come to my generation’s defense and explicate on all the reasons those labels are untrue and unfounded.  (Millennials are more inclusive, diverse, and educated).  Perhaps, I would shift the blame on the issues being attributed to my generation to the problems created by previous generations.  (Millennials reached adulthood in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and the Great Recession).  Maybe, I would even explain that every generation had opinions and disparaging remarks about their successors.  (Gen X’ers were lazy, directionless slackers; Baby Boomers were pampered, godless, drugged-out, long-haired hippies; the Silent Generation was rude and undisciplined; and the Greatest Generation was selfish and indulgent).

However, I have decided to not take that approach.  Instead, much like my acceptance of the label of Millennial, I will admit that we, Millennials, are entitled and hypersensitive.  Further, I assert below why my generation’s entitlement and hypersensitivity is both an appropriate and necessary response to our circumstances.  My claim of appropriateness and necessity stems from three bases.

My first basis is based on Human nature.  An often referenced theory in human developmental psychology is the hierarchy of needs.  Without going into a lengthy lecture, this theory can be summarized such that human needs can be divided into 5 categories and are interconnected, in that motivation to pursue the “higher needs” is dependent on the satisfaction of “lower needs.”  Admittedly, there are many criticisms of this theory, including and not limited to the lack of empirical evidence and the variance of how needs are categorized.  This theory and model are still often used and relied upon in various areas of study and training.   Following that lead, I assert that this model can be applied to human society and its development over time.  Specific to the topic at hand, I see many of the generational differences in recent American history relate to the generations’ differing needs.

Unlike the previous generations, Millennials, for the most part, are not plagued with the “lower” need deficiencies, with which the previous generations struggled.  That is, the Greatest Generation was not guaranteed base needs like food and shelter, due to the Great Depression.  World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and the Cold War, called into question the physical safety and security for the Silent Generation and the Boomers.  With much of the threat of war behind them, the Gen X’ers were able to focus on the social needs, like connectedness and acceptance.  With these lower needs satisfied, Millennials, following the hierarchy theory, should be motivated by the self-esteem needs, the psychological needs for respect, recognition, and the like.  So, this entitlement and emotional neediness are simply the manifestation human needs for recognition and respect.  So, if the hierarchy of needs is to be believed, then Millennials are simply following the natural progression of the satisfaction of needs.

The second basis refers to the fact that our entitlement and hypersensitivity were instilled in us as children.  Please do not construe this as me blaming our parent’s generations for our problems.  In fact, previous generations raising us Millennials with these expectations are precisely what they, as ancestors, are supposed to do.  It is said that each generation works to make the world better for those who come after.  That is precisely what they did.  They grew up in a world with less safety, security, opportunity, etc.  So, they instilled in us a desire for better things.  How did they instill this?  They did so in many ways.  My generation was promised, for lack of a better term, that financial success and security would come to us by simply obtaining higher education.  My generation was counseled to consider personal feelings when interacting with others.  My generation was asked to focus on what makes us similar, instead of what makes us different.  My generation was told to true to ourselves.  My generation was if you know what you're worth, then go out and get what you're worth.  Being raised on these tenets, is it really surprising that, now as adults, we expect and are demanding things like a living wage, acceptance of the world's diverse cultures, respect for one's own life decisions and personal identities, and continuing to make the world better?  What many see as hypersensitivity is merely hyperawareness of these cultural and personal issues.  What is seen as entitlement is merely expecting the opportunities and togetherness for which previous generations fought and died.   What some suggest as taking our freedoms for granted is actually the realization that, though things are better than they have been, there is still more to achieve.

Despite all the differences stated above, Millennials are not that different than the generation that came before.  This brings me to my third and final basis.  Since the turn of the 20th century, America has made many strides when it comes to social justice.  In fact the past century and or so, we have seen women and racial minorities given the right to vote.  We have seen affirmative action and desegregation assist in lessening the racial and gender disparities in opportunity.  We have even seen the right to marry extend beyond racial and sexuality constraints.  Whether championed by the Greatest Generation or most recently by Generation X, the past century or so has seen virtually every generation push social norms and expectations to create meaningful and, with the benefit of hindsight, deserving change to the sociopolitical landscape of America.  Now, Millennials have taken up the fight, furthered by the generations before them, to demand the correction of certain social injustices and societal norms.  What is being seen as hypersensitivity and entitlement is just the Millennials highlighted and demanding the changes that see are necessary for a better future.  The same desire the led the Greatest Generation to strike and demand safe and fair working conditions.  The same desire that led Baby Boomers to walk on Washington and demand the freedoms and rights of all people regardless of race or gender.  Decades from now, I am certain that some of these causes being championed by Millennials now, will be looked at as the triumphs of social justice just as those successful causes championed by previous generations have been, therefore, justifying much if not all of this entitlement and hypersensitivity for which Millennials have been criticized.

So, Millennials are entitled and hypersensitive.  As you can see, this entitlement and hypersensitivity are both natural and inevitable.  Further, if the entitlement and hypersensitivity leads us to a better world in the future, then is that really a bad thing?  I do not think so. At least, that is the way I see it.