Imperial feminism, also known asimperialist feminism,colonial feminism, orintersectional imperialism, refers to instances where critics argue thatfeminist rhetoric is used to justify empire-building orimperialism.[1][2] The term has gained prominence in the 20th and 21st centuries, with one scholar asserting that it "privileges inequality through gender bending that masquerades as gendered equality... Imperial feminism privileges empire building through war."[3] The related termintersectional imperialism refers to theforeign policy ofWestern nations that are perceived as engaging in or supporting imperialistic policies while promoting inclusive and progressive rhetoric at home.[4]
In academia andwomen's studies discourse,imperial feminism and its related terms critiqueWestern feminism's attitudes toward non-white and non-Western countries. Critics argue that it perpetuates inaccurate and demeaning stereotypes about the status of women in the Global South. Western feminism has been critiqued for creating an image of non-white and non-Western women as being in a lower socioeconomic position than they actually are. Additionally, "imperial feminism" is used to describe instances where racist viewpoints are displayed toward marginalized ethnic groups not part ofmainstream feminism. Some scholars suggest thatpostcolonial feminism developed partly in response to these attitudes from their Western counterparts.[2]
The term "imperial feminism" has its roots in the expansion of Europeancolonial empires in the 18th and 19th centuries. As Europeans came to rule large populations of non-white and non-Western people, they justified the so-called "civilizing mission" by arguing that women in these nations were oppressed by the male population due tosexist ideologies. Colonial rule, they claimed, would liberate these women from the oppression of their male counterparts.[2]
Palestinian-American historianEdward Said characterizes this phenomenon as part of "Orientalism" and claims that European scholarship, culture, and society perpetuated stereotypes about non-Western civilizations to justify control over them.[5] Among these practices, the subjugation of women was heavily criticized and used by colonial powers as a justification for their continued rule. Cultural practices such assati,child marriage, andpardah were pointed to as evidence of the "backwardness" ofOriental nations.[6] In Southwest Asia and North Africa, colonial powers fixated on theIslamic veil as a symbol of oppression.Evelyn Baring, a colonial administrator in Egypt, was known for his campaigns against the veil, which he claimed oppressed Egyptian women.[7] In thecolonial Philippines, Westerners were horrified by the social acceptance of women's exposed breasts in public, perceiving this as an obscenity that required intervention.[8] Europeans viewed these practices as evidence of the need for European rule, providing an ideological justification for colonialism.[2]
After theSeptember 11 terrorist attacks, theUnited States and its allies launchedan invasion ofAfghanistan. Among the rhetoric used to justify the war, some arguments focused on the plight of women under the Taliban.First LadyLaura Bush made several radio speeches claiming that the American invasion would help liberate Afghan women from Taliban oppression. In one speech, she stated, "Civilized people throughout the world are speaking out in horror – not only because our hearts break for the women and children in Afghanistan, but also because in Afghanistan, we see the world the terrorists would like to impose on the rest of us."[9] Bush made similar arguments throughout her husband's presidency, promptingMother Jones to write in 2007 that Laura Bush had taken the lead in pushing "a tidy moral justification for [the U.S.] invasion of Afghanistan."[10]
A few months after the invasion, Bush celebrated the U.S.'s apparent progress toward emancipating Afghan women:
Because of our recent military gains, in much of Afghanistan women are no longer imprisoned in their homes. They can listen to music and teach their daughters without fear of punishment. Yet, the terrorists who helped rule that country now plot and plan in many countries, and they must be stopped. The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women.[11]
These arguments have been criticized by some, including American writer Akbar Shahid Ahmed, who argues that while Bush's rhetoric appears beneficial on the surface, it may undermine America's goals in Afghanistan by allowing the Taliban to frame women's empowerment as a form of American control. Additionally, Ahmed raises the question of whether "critical efforts to help women secure the status of full citizens... really need to be tied to U.S.militarism."[9]
.svg)
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link)| History |
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Movements and ideologies |
| ||||||
| Concepts |
| ||||||
| Theory |
| ||||||
| By country |
| ||||||
| Lists |
| ||||||
