Rupsha on Lugones & Spelman

The reading by Lugones and Spelman, which addresses the subject of cultural imperialism
 in the context of creating spaces for women to have a voice, primarily uses the perspective of Hispanic women to illustrate the ways in which race, class, and other identities are marginalized in nascent feminist theory.

The paper does both implicitly and explicitly use the binary of masculine/feminine to
 illustrate the historical marginalization of women’s voice. In this case, Lugones and Spelman have utilized this binary to reinforce their argument, as they have framed the “feminine” voice as distinct from a “masculine” one. Classical feminist theory significantly
 increased the volume of female voices, but as Lugones and Spelman point out, ones that were white, middle class, and usually Christian. The reason a re-imagining of feminist theory is necessary is because the voices that are heard are so homogenous. Classical
 feminist theory fails because it does not expose the experiences of all women, but instead, those of “certain women” (Lugones 502). I agree with the authors’ position that feminist theory needs to be reframed to include more voices, however, I believe their
 use of the masculine/feminine binary is dangerous because it has the potential of excluding sexual and gender minorities. For example, it is necessary to have women’s voices, but it is also necessary to have the voices of trans-men in feminist spaces.

While the paper does not discuss the subject of intersectionality explicitly, its discussion
 of cultural imperialism and the white-washed nature of classical feminist theory illustrates a binary opposition between mainstream feminism (or white feminism) and intersectional feminism. Lugones and Spelman implicitly argue that these two ideas as mutually
 exclusive. The explanation is very simple and encompasses the contradictory nature of universal citizenship discussed in class: the attempt to be inclusive of women’s voices leads to the marginalization of women who inhabit other identities (race, class, sexuality).
 A mutual consideration of experiences is virtually impossible when the very framework under which these matters are discussed is a white feminist framework. In this case, the binary oppositions of rationality and emotionality become evident. The intent to
 be rational in doling out spaces for women to speak becomes oppressive because it forces non-white women to inhabit white spaces. As Lugones and Spelman point out, even engaging a Spanish-speaking woman in a conversation in English is a form of cultural imperialism.

Furthermore, Lugones and Spelman discuss the idea that a critical theory can be “true”
 or “false” based on how accurately it speaks to lived experience and whether it reinforces existing power structures. While I agree that we ought to be critical of existing theories, the absolutist labels of “true” and “false” can also be problematic. To date
 there has been no widespread feminist movement that is entirely inclusive of all identities. This means nothing can truly be classified as “true.”

Finally, Lugones and Spelman conclude with a solution to imperialistic and ethnocentric
 feminist theories: openness, sensitivity, concentration, self-questioning, and circumspection (Lugones 507). They use the binary opposition of active/passive to advance their viewpoint. In other words, they reject a framework that passively engages women and
 encourages active self-criticism and productive dialogue.
​
-Rupsha Basu