Tuesday, September 30, 2008
oct. 2 discussion post
While Nandita Sharma argues that nationalism is a dangerous ideology used to discriminate and further enforce an international hierarchy that she calls "global apartheid," Simona Sharoni argues that nationalism can empower feminism and fuel "accidental activism." Sharma devotes one paragraph (p.131)to the subject of women and men and their relationship to each other as well as races and nations. And instead, for the most part, Sharma mostly discusses the North/South, Western/non-Western relationship. Sharoni, on the other hand, discusses specific instances of an increasing role of female activists in Palestine and Northern Ireland during times of war. Are these two writers diametrically opposing each other on the basis of nationalism and providing yet another example as to how feminist discourse is divided? Is there a way for us readers to reconcile their different conclusions about nationalism, or are they making two arguments that may be incomparable and irrelevant to one another?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I find this question very interesting and would like to suggest a possible approach to the issue that Sujean raised. I think that while at first, the theories put forth by Sharma and Sharoni seem to contradict one another, they can actually be understood as two sides of the same coin. Sharma describes the "deadliness"of nationalism that excludes minority groups and immigrants, while idolizing the indigenous culture and society. Sharoni's paper does not negate this view, because she describes the positive effects that result from fighting AGAINST this ideology. She views the Irish struggle, for example, as a mission to end discrimination against minority groups, and relates that in this sort of struggle, the sense of nationalism that is exercised is not the exclusive or harmful type, but rather an ideology that seeks inclusiveness.
ReplyDelete