Spivak’s argument rises out of a specific period of feminism that has certain concerns about the goals of feminism as a singular movement and its lack of inclusivity. Spivak, along with many feminist who identified with non-Western countries, began to feel that the idea of sisterhood among women, an idea that was prominent during the second wave, did not acknowledge the experiences of many non-Western women. Spivak’s argument that feminism and post-colonialism cannot exist together, then, stems from a very specific definition of feminism, that does not completely match feminism as it is understood today. The Transnational and then Third World feminist movements sought to account for this gap in the needs and experiences of the generally middle class, western, white women who dominated the feminist movement during the second wave and different needs and experiences of women of the global south. The popular feminism of today still struggles with issues of inclusivity, with the needs of non-white and non-western women often not being adequately or fairly represented. However, the problems that Spivak is acknowledging is one that is actively being tackled within feminism.
What does this mean, then, for Jane Eyre? I’m not entirely sure. Victorian women, in a way, were an origin point for the shoving aside the needs of non-white and non-western women for their own gain. During the period of British imperialism, particularly the colonization of India, Victorian women used the poor conditions and treatment of Indian women to advance their own conditions and treatment. If the uncivilized Indian women are subject to any variety of subjugating conditions, the argument went, civilized and sophisticated English women should clearly be above such savage treatment. Is this in a way what is going on in Jane Eyre? Is Jane’s feminist-ness being advanced in comparison to the savage-ness of Bertha? In a way, I guess so. But also, I feel like it’s still more complicated than that. But I think at its heart that is what Spivak was calling for. Post-colonialism and feminism are both incredibly complex areas of study that involve considering many different perspectives, while not valuing one perspective over another. Does Jane Eyre encourage us to value Jane’s perspective over Bertha’s? Perhaps. But, can we, in 2017, read Jane Eyre in a way that values Jane and Bertha’s perspectives equally? I think so. In fact, I think we are already trying to.
This reminds me of some of the issues currently going on in the feminist movement. In today’s society, especially, there seems to be a big divide between what feminism is, and who represents it. In the narration of Bertha’s story, we read a white woman’s narrative of how a woman of color is de-humanized and eventually commits suicide. Looking closer into the story, in order to more fully understand Bertha, we have to ask ourselves questions like “How are they related?” but also, “How are they different?”. I like how you ask if we can look equally at both Jane’s and Bertha’s perspective. Can we? If we do, how does the story change? I think that these all lead to understanding challenges that we encounter in our daily lives while trying to be women, united, supportive, and understanding.
I think you did a wonderful job of explaining why Spivak is so hostile to feminism in her piece. This is what I was trying to touch on, in a way, in my blog post. Us as twenty first century readers can understand Spivak’s argument and agree that, at that time, feminism did not work alongside post-colonialism. But now with the new wave of feminism, though, like you said, it is not perfect, is definitely more inclusive. Your point there led me to think more about the inclusivity in this third wave of feminism, and I’ve noticed even stretches, for some campaigns (for example the “He for She” campaign) to include supporting men against their constricting social box in our society. We, as twenty first century readers, could thus look at Mr. Rochester through this third wave of feminism lens and observe how the social restrictions on him, more specifically his level of “manliness”, constrict him as well.