Gender, 'Race' and Patriarchy

A Study of South Asian Women

Kalwant Bhopal

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780429851322
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Gender Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

The book offers one of the first detailed studies of South Asian women, it provides new empirical data on the issues apparent in South Asian women's lives by 'giving voice' to a group of women who would otherwise remain silent. It is based upon an ethnographic study of a small South Asian community in an inner city. The book offers a new and compelling account of South Asian women, as well as focussing on the ways in which gender and 'race' interact in women's lives. The book offers an important theoretical contribution to the area of feminist theory. The concept of patriarchy is contested and reworked and applied to the study of South Asian women and their cultural experiences. In this sense, practices such as arranged marriages, dowries, domestic labour and domestic finance are analyzed as different influences of patriarchy inside the household, as well as education and the labour market as influences of patriarchy outside the household.

1 Introduction

Feminism and ‘race’

Gender and feminism have emerged as important areas of study which have attempted to explain the position of women in society; the limited access of women to economic, social and political power, the nature of the sexual division of labour and those social expectations about the behaviour of women which limit and inhibit their achievements. This has raised the problem of how equality for women is to be achieved, or in feminist terms how the subordination of women is to be ended. Many feminists have attempted to understand, analyse and explain the subordination of women (Barrett 1980, Millett 1977, Mitchell 1971). These feminists have attacked traditional social theory for excluding and marginalising women and have specifically investigated women in order to include their experiences and render them legitimate. There is a growing body of literature on gender which examines women's position within households and families (Finch 1983, 1989, Oakley 1974) women and education (Deem 1978), women's exclusion and segregation from the labour market (Hakim 1979, Walby 1986), women and politics (Currell 1974, Kirkpatrick 1974), sexuality (Dworkin 1981, Mackinnon 1979) and violence (Brownmiller 1976, Pizzey 1974).

However, feminism has always been vulnerable to the accusation that its concerns and priorities reflect those of white, middle class women and conceal the variety and diversity of human experience and subjectivity. Some black¹ feminists (Collins 1990, Davis 1990), are now demanding that the experiences of women who have hitherto been marginalised become a central starting point rather than an optional extra for feminist theory and practice.

Some writers are also beginning to acknowledge their own limitations (Barret and Macintosh 1985). Ramazanoglu (1986) argues that the problem is not simply one of acknowledging that differences exist between black, third world and white women, but challenging the underlying assumptions that white women are the norm and that the experiences of black and third world women are some kind of 'alien' problem. This assumption not only denies the validity and primacy of these 'other' experiences, but can often lead to simplistic generalisations with regard to all women. It can also deny the pain of racism in which white feminists can be the beneficiaries and perpetuators of the racism that many black women see as the primary experience of their lives.

For other writers, the solution is to develop a specifically black feminist approach based on black women's own experiences which sees racism as the central issue (Joseph 1981). However, the problem remains, just as the term 'man' marginalised women and the term 'women' marginalised 'non-white' women, so too the term 'black women' can marginalise some groups and ignore the vast economic and cultural differences amongst those the term supposedly encompasses. It can also ignore the class divisions and racism that may exist within and between 'black groups'. Nevertheless, the whole feminist project does insist that the category 'woman' is a meaningful one and a critical awareness of the problems involved in the use of such terms as 'white women' or 'black women' need not invalidate a use of the terms themselves or a political action based upon them. On a global scale, this means that the differences between women cannot be understood outside the context of colonialism, imperialism and nationalistic struggles for independence.

Other feminists (Davis 1990, King 1988) insist, not only that issues of class, sex and 'race' are inherently connected, but that a black feminist perspective is the most truly radical because:

...the necessity of addressing all forms of oppression is one of the hallmarks of black feminist thought (King 1988:43).

The idea of sisterhood which implies an oppression shared by all women, gives way to that of solidarity which is based upon an understanding that the struggles of all women are different, but interconnected. Gender divisions are not the only source of social inequality, for many women 'race' or class may be more important. This means simplistic assertions of the universality of women's experience are incorrect. These may deny the very real differences that exist amongst women and, by invoking a spurious sisterhood that takes white middle class women as the norm, can constitute a form of racism and elitism.

Rather than engaging in a sterile debate as to which is the most important, feminism can develop an analysis that recognises the interaction of different forms of oppression and does not treat women as a unitary category that can be abstracted from all other social relationships. Such an approach allows scope for solidarity to encourage a worldwide feminism based on the understanding that on a global scale, there are both underlying patterns of gender inequality and an enormous diversity of needs and experiences that divide as well as unite women. It is not simply a case of 'adding on' the perspectives of black women, but may involve a reassessment of understanding as a basis of that which feminism demands of male-stream theory

The black female constituency as an object of political analysis is demarcated by the experience of 'race' and gender oppression. The response of feminists such as Bhavnani and Coulson (1986), Carby (1982) and Parmar (1982), has been to establish the specificity of black women and their experiences. A black female constituency is further demarcated in many black feminist accounts by the experience of oppression (Carby 1982, Parmar 1982). It is this, which it is suggested, unites black women and places them in opposition to white women. The experiences of which black women speak, arise from being both black and female in a white society which may be racist. Oppression is organised around 'race' and gender divisions, with racial divisions being accorded a primacy in the establishment of political priorities. Racial oppression is presented as the result of forms of interaction between black women and black men, British society and a range of British social institutions in particular. Racial oppression is something which black women share with black men. Racial disadvantage and racism can be viewed in terms of practices, procedures and actions which have the effect of excluding, providing unequal access, or in some way disadvantaging black people.

Many accounts of 'race' and gender present oppression as an experience (see Feminist Review 1984) in which white women as well as black women experience sexism, but black women will aiso experience racism. One of the most challenging issues raised has been the need to recognise, debate and explain the extent to which there are differences between women. The recognition of difference and diversity, that women are a heterogenous group divided by class, 'race' and ethnicity, by nationality and religion, by age and sexual preference has slowly gained recognition in feminist analysis. Feminists (James and Busia 1993) are now constructing a greater understanding of the differences and diversities between women's lives, in different places and at different times. The term 'woman' is defined and used in various ways in different circumstances and the historical context of gender relations is specified.

In this sense, feminists (Knowles and Mercer 1992) have attempted to include the multiple 'others'. At the political level, the notion of a 'politics of identity', rather than politics based upon gender and class has gained credence. The idea that there is a clear homogeneity of (class and gender) interests is challenged and difference rather than commonality is placed at the centre. Such a politics of difference, also assists in the rejection of a hierarchy of oppressions, that certain oppressions are more salient than others. Rather than the abstract ranking of relations of power inherent in class, 'race', gender and sexual orientation, the focus has shifted to the ways in which each of these relations intertwine, reinforce and contradict each other in historically specific contexts. Thus, a complex view of feminist politics arose in which women from different class positions and ethnic backgrounds may unite on specific issues, but divide on others. It is important to insist continually on differences, as women cannot develop common political strategies while they have contradictory interests in class, 'race' and culture. The development of feminism has shown that the term 'woman' cannot be treated as a unitary category and interrelations of the sources of divisions between women must be identified. The idea of difference posed new problems for feminism, how to analyse theoretically and recognise politically both power between women and the way in which all women, albeit differently, were implicated in dominant power structures. This provided the impetus to understand and work with commonalities as well as heterogeneity of experience and sensitivity to one another's cultural specificites, whilst at the same time construct common political strategies to confront sexism, racism and class inequality.

Culture itself is a complex term, frequently important to people's sense and identity of self. It is diverse. Communities have different values and ways of life. The definition of culture is not necessarily limited to religious beliefs, communal rituals or shared traditions. These interactions provide a way of life which define a social collectivity. Culture is not necessarily understood as what expresses the identity of a community, but may refer to the processes and categories by which communities are defined as such, how they are specific and different. The diverse bases of cultural differentiation include ethnicity, class, gender, religion, language and dress. Culture and ethnicity are defining and determining features of women's lives. Shared experience reveals diversity, as much as diversity reveals shared experience. There will be certain commonalities of perception shared by black women as a group such as 'race', culture and language but there will also be a variety of differences such as age, sexuality and experience.

The family and households

Feminists (Barrett 1980, Finch 1983, Oakley 1974) have argued that the family is the key site of oppression for women and we need to abolish the family in its existing form to achieve equality. Some black feminists however (Carby 1982, hooks 1984, Spellman 1990) maintain that the black family is a qualitatively different proposition from the family structure in which white women are involved. White feminists have responded to this, by acknowledging that black women in Britain live in different family arrangements. Barrett and Mackintosh (1985) regard this admission as an attempt to deal with what they consider the 'narrow ethnocentrism' of the women's movement. They maintain that the family is still a site for the perpetuation of gender inequalities which many black women may wish to escape.

I would argue that forms of households in contemporary Britain vary between different ethnic groups, not only between white and black, but within ethnic groups themselves. The family may be a source of oppression for black women. Some South Asian women may be oppressed in the family, by the form of marriage they participate in, the giving of dowries, participating in domestic labour and the degree of control they have in domestic finance. The specific cultural norms and standards of South Asian families may be reinforced through different forms of patriarchy experienced by women. Although black feminists (hooks 1984) have argued that the family is less a source of oppression for 'women of colour', this idea has focused specifically on Afro-Caribbean and African-American families. However, the family may be a source of oppression for some South Asian, Afro-Caribbean and African-American women.

The term 'family' lends itself to infinite variation, which contains within it choice and flexibility for negotiation between its members over the conditions in which they inhabit a common living space. The position of black women in families is infinitely varied. The family cannot just be divided into black and white. The black family, like the white family, does not take a particular form. There are significant differences in family forms between ethnic groups and the household may have a different place in the experience of women in a racially divided society (Saradamoni 1992).

Patriarchy

In contemporary feminism the concept of patriarchy has received considerable attention and has been analysed as a system which oppresses women. There have been problems with the definition of patriarchy (Barrett 1980) and differences within feminism as to the causes of patriarchy. Some feminists see domestic labour as the main cause of patriarchy (Delphy 1980), others sexuality (Firestone 1974) or violence (Dworkin 1981). Theories of patriarchy have universalised women's experience which may conceal other forms of oppression based upon 'race' and class. Concepts such as patriarchy can conceal divisions in society in much the same way as male perspectives have concealed the oppression of women (Collins 1990, Ramazanoglu 1986). Furthermore, the term 'patriarchy' has been criticised by black feminists (Carby 1982, Spellman 1990) who suggest that because of racism, black men do not benefit from patriarchal social structures in the same way as white men and that benefit from patriarchy does not distinguish black men from black women:

Black men have been dominated 'patriarchally' in different ways by men of different 'colours' (Carby 1982:80).

This has encouraged white feminists (Barrett and Mackintosh 1985) to be more cautious of their use of the term. However, other feminists (Mies 1986, Walby 1990) argue that patriarchy ultimately unites all women in a common sisterhood as differentially oppressed subjects, all of whom have in common a disadvantaged relation to men and it is precisely this unity which provides the force for resistance. Barrett and Macintosh (1985) see the concept of patriarchy as one with a valuable, but specific purpose, which is descriptive of certain types of social relations:

... characterised by the personal, often physical exploitation of a servility whose causes are usually economic and always strictly regulated through a hierarchical order (1985:37).

Barrett and Macintosh (1985) do not examine how and why the concept of the 'patriarchal' helps us to engage with interconnections between gender, class and racism. The substitution of the concept 'patriarchy' by 'patriarchal relations' will not by itself deal with the charges of ahistoricism, universalism or essentialism that have been levelled at patriarchy

Racial divisions are relegated to secondary importance as the notion of 'race' and ethnicity have been 'added on' to some existing theories of patriarchy. This is highly problematic and in order to examine the situation for South Asian women, we may ask; what are the forms of patriarchy experienced by South Asian women and how are these different to those experienced by white women? I intend to develop the theory of patriarchy (Walby 1990) which argues that there is a continuum between two forms of patriarchy (private and public). I would argue that patriarchy is a concept which can be used to explain women's position within society. However, different ethnic groups may experience different forms of patriarchy. What are the different forms of patriarchy experienced by South Asian women? Do existing theories of patriarchy apply to South Asian communities in Britain? Do private and public forms of patriarchy exist for South Asian women?

South Asian family

Migration has always been a popular feature of human society. People have migrated to seek opportunities, to improve their economic and cultural levels or to escape persecution. In the post-colonial period (1947 onwards), the size and scope of migration increased to unprecedented levels. The study of ethnic minorities and experiences of migration have been well documented (Anwar 1979, Ballard and Ballard 1977), as well as the characteristics of the South Asian family (Ballard 1994a, Gardner and Shukur 1994, Ghuman 1994, Shaw 1988, 1994, Stopes-Roe and Cochrane 1988, 1990, Visram 1986). Economic migration from India and Pakistan to Britain is characterised by young men and subsequently their spouses and possibly children, leaving their home, friends and extended family in order to benefit from higher wages in another country (Anwar 1985, Ballard 1990, Jeffrey 1976).

The causes of immigration for people from one country to another are manifold, but some scholars (Anwar 1979, Watson 1977) have tended to explain them under the categories of 'pull and push factors'. The major 'pull' factor is improvement of the family's financial and social position. Another 'pull' factor is the active encouragement given by the receiving society to the citizens of other countries through the prospect of better jobs, housing and recreational facilities (Bhachu 1988, Green 1990, Khan 1979). The major 'push' factors may include massive upheavals of population through persecution and famine.

Primary immigration to the UK virtually ceased with the passing of the 1971 Immigration Act. This act restricted the entry of dependents and allowed new entrants only to take up specific jobs for a limited period of time (Fryer 1984). Some research examined the spatial patterns of settlement of Punjabis (Ballard and Ballard 1977, Helweg 1979, Kalra 1980) and Pakistanis (Khan 1979, Shaw 1988, 1994, Werbner 1979, 1988) and found that patterns recreated in the UK were very similar to those based on village and kinship networks back home. Others have investigated the 'myth of return' and what it means for immigrant families (Anwar 1979, Robinson 1981, Taylor 1976).

South Asian communities are composed of people from different religions, castes, regional and language groups with a variety of social and cultural characteristics. There are however, certain factors which characterise South Asians as a distinctive group from westerners. First there is the primacy of family over the individual, it is the family rather than the individual which is the basis of social structure (Ghuman 1994). To ensure the continuous, smooth running of a unit including several adults, a hierarchical and authoritarian structure often evolves (Pillai 1976). This in turn produces certain goals and emphasises in child rearing and family interaction patterns for both males and females (Robinson 1986). Family values for women become pronounced (Shan 1985). Important decisions are made by, and for the group, not by the individual (Brah 1978). Familialistic orientation centres around the fulfilment of role obligations and expectations towards kin members. Furthermore, it is women who are entrusted with the burden of carrying the family honour (Wilson 1978).

Secondly the custom of arranged marriages is very much part and parcel of the South Asian social structure. Marriages are supposed to be primarily for the union of families, to promote mutual financial and social interests (Wilson 1978). Thirdly the majority of first generation immigrants were from a rural background (Dahya 1972). A significant number had only attended primary schools and were completely unaware of the language problems they were going to face in Britain. This is also connected to the poorer positions faced by minorities in terms of housing, education and employment (Rex and Tomlinson 1979). Whatever their economic and social position, the first generation were, and are, firmly rooted in their religion and culture and are sure of their personal identities. Their 'belongingness' is not in doubt, they are Sikhs or Muslims, Indians or Pakistanis (Stopes-Roe and Cochrane 1990). However, the children of these immigrants are less sure of their personal and social identities (Ghuman 1994). They have been described as a 'half-way generation' (Taylor 1976), a generation suffering from a 'culture clash' (Khan 1979, Watson 1977) or youngsters who have the best or worst of two worlds (Ghuman 1991, 1994). Rex and Tomlinson (1979) have described the situation as 'from immigrants to ethnies'.

Much discussion has centred around the extent to which, and the means by which newcomers into any society may, or should be incorporated into the host society (Price 1982, Yinger 1985). Various terms are used to refer to this process; adaption, integration, acculturation or assimilation. They are describing a situation in which newcomers change their habits, ways of life, social groups and personal attitudes and identify in response to the patterns they encounter in the host society. The norms of behaviour of the indigenous population may appear to newcomers as being advantageous (Dahya 1974, Robinson 1986). Discussions of adaption a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Dedication
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Figures and tables
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction
• 2 The study of gender and 'race'
• 3 Gender and patriarchy
• 4 Arranged marriages
• 5 Dowries
• 6 Domestic labour
• 7 Domestic finance
• 8 Education, employment and marital status
• 9 Conclusions
• Appendix 1
• Appendix 2
• Appendix 3
• Bibliography