You are on page 1of 7

Chrystal Henke

IR / PSI 312
Professor A. Yansane
March 20, 2008

A Book Review:
Against Empire: Feminisms, Racism, and the West.
Written by Zillah Eisenstein
Published by Zed Books, London & New York, 2004

INTRODUCTION
Humanity is an inclusive yet abstract term that on one hand cohesively places the human

experience into one plane where it can be seen and heard as well as interpreted and adjusted. On

another hand though, humanity instantly lumps every experience of each person of each place

and of each mind into an abstract group that instantly disallows discussions about those

differences. In Zillah Eisenstein’s book Against Empire, she seeks to speak about the human

experience and more broadly the female experience, in both ways; as a collection of unified

needs as well as a term too broad to truly describe the methods and patterns of individuals

everywhere. The main point then is that people are as similar as they are different, and that the

way to approach both of those truths is simply to accept them as both true. She admits

throughout the book the difficulty in accepting this plurality, and yet she demands we realize it,

as to her there is no other truth. In order to help the reader realize the main point of diversity in

individuals and therefore in the global struggles of all people, Eisenstein speaks of many

personal experiences rich with lesson and introspection. She also offers stories of people and

groups similar to her only in their diversity of influence and their desire for a better

understanding of self and society. She speaks of them in order to make the point that activism

persists for all voices even if they seem to be giving separate messages on the surface. In a book

that is almost as autobiographical as it is a call to activism, Eisenstein thoroughly and empirically

shows that the system of politics and ideas today is inherently and unmistakably linked to race

1 of 7
and gender, often doing so through her own experience. Reading precise wording all the while

investigating with Eisenstein the meanings behind those words we begin to understand that

humanity is much more then just one group, it is a collection of multifaceted, “polyversal”

individuals with one common goal: equality in context of all possible assorted differences.

SUMMARY
The most pervasive theme throughout Against Empire and I think the most difficult to

truly grasp is the idea that race, gender, class, and all social struggles are completely intertwined

yet must, in order to face them, be recognized and understood for their differences. Eisenstein

mentions a lesson from her father that one must embrace difference despite their potential

conflicts. It is through conflict that one is forced to create a relationship and thus come to

understand that difference (p. 28). Therefore it is better to understand each individual’s story and

how similarities bind and also how the differences allow you to learn from each other to gain

further ground in a more global push towards equality. Social struggles are completely

intertwined and all peoples are more then just one of these categories and almost always more

then one group in each. Diversity should not be lumped into an easy to digest group. It should be

approached and appreciated for the differences within in order that the details of the variances

are seen for what they can offer. Through noticing the differences, change can occur in

relationship to and from within those aspects. At the same time, we should allow the

conversation to speak about people in broad groupings. For example, it is generally a women’s

burden to care for family issues and thus is a global responsibility for the group. Yet every voice

matters and must be heard, “We, the big ‘we’ – feminists and women activists across the globe –

must carefully listen to each other and learn new ways of seeing and hearing silences and

2 of 7
whisperings (p. 196).” Each person brings to the communal table their own voice and in order to

have a common discussion we must be able to hear each of those voices.

Similar to the concept that the individual matters as much if not more then the whole is

that dualities in a person or group need not exist and that someone or group can be both a single

category or concept and yet made of many. Eisenstein stresses throughout her work that there is

not exclusivity in individuality so that one can be part of many and yet many in all. “Singularity

and plurality are not positioned against each other (p. 98),” Eisenstein emphasizes. Gandhi’s

struggles were towards a cohesive Indian population made up of massively diverse groups only

winning against the colonial powers if they both embraced each other as national siblings but

also for each of their many faces (p. 101). Enslaved Black women in the 19th century United

States were more then just slaves, they were women, and so they became less powerful then their

black brothers. They came from vastly different cultures originally in Africa and beyond and

eventually grew into mulattos and sometimes mistresses and yet through all the identities had no

voice (p. 69). Focusing on these women’s struggles Eisenstein points out that it was they that

first began overt opposition to the repression of slavery and of the inherent sexism against them

as women in slavery (p. 91). These women used voices from many identities to speak of the

oppression they felt as a universal whole. Again the idea of “polyversal” humanity is both

difficult to conceptualize and yet intrinsically easy to understand because we each know our own

experiences are not of one group and yet part of a whole with the same prides and struggles.

Through her own experience as a Jewish American communist civil rights activist with feminist

leanings Eisenstein tells of her identification as being all that and yet also as being just seen as

simply a white American woman. Her story, any one black enslaved person’s story, an Indian in

the lower rungs of caste, they all have “polycentric multiculturalism” which gives their one voice

many tones, not one versus the other nor one deafening the other.

3 of 7
The real difficulty with these concepts is to listen and understand from where they

derive. The struggles of today existed before today. The reason we generalize in a certain fashion

about some group or another is due to a history that we cannot fully be aware of Eisenstein

believes (p. 24). History is no more then a collection of recounted ideas and concepts orated by

select groups, usually who were the dominate voice of the time. Yet we still must realize that a

“before” existed and with it a set of interpretations and standards that have built onto our societal

understand of the world of today. For example, a modern western view commonly not seen by

the perpetrators is that Muslims of the Middle East are backwards, inadequate, and barbaric.

Women in these areas are nothing but helpless and selfless beings needed to be escorted through

life from one safe point to another. Yet, this couldn’t be further from the truth. What western eyes

are usually ignorant of is that, for example, women had made major strides towards equality with

men in society before the West embraced this idea. Another example is in Western Africa where

it was precisely the colonial powers that often claim to have started the feminist movement that

actually brought gender divisions to the area (p. 207). Knowing the “before” of a conflict,

resolution, term, or concept one can know to where that thing can go. But also knowing the

“before” has been constructed for us can we look analytically at those constructs and decipher

what we can honestly believe is the closest to where and how certain issues came to be.

CRITIQUE
To have a valid discussion about solutions to major global social issues, wording on the

issues must be used purposely and empirically. Participants must at once be conscience of

overgeneralization as they are of being too self-centered or localized. Eisenstein constantly is

analyzing each argument she presents, both those made by others and those from her own voice.

By choosing words and terms carefully and consciously, Eisenstein gives validity to her ideas.

4 of 7
We as the reader learn to trust her voice and at the same time learn to analyze our own reactions

to the presented concepts. Part of this is admitting the inadequacy of language to describe the full

range of emotions that exist within these social struggles (p. 25). Being aware of the history of

the author as well as being conscious of the reality that we the reader come from a particular

place, time, and family, we are allowed to walk with the author through all of her concepts in

order to understand their weakness before embracing their strength. For example, feminism as a

Western term is loaded and bloated with middle class white women’s voices about their own

struggle. Its roots are ignored and yet are undeniably in the enslaved black woman’s struggle the

decades before. But beyond the US’s borders feminism as a movement has meant at times

contradictory things and yet has always been about the need for women as humanity to find

balance against burdensome and oppressive forces. The concept of feminism can be used to

describe the struggle of all women everywhere who want further equality, but one must be honest

that it is more often associated with white western middle class women who place their ideas of

freedom and equality above others. Feminism in this context certainly didn’t apply to the black

slave women of the time and place who were struggling to assert their own version of feminism,

one that was absolutely called something different if called anything at all (p. 186). Similarly

speaking, in the United States the veil or hijab worn by Muslim women is seen as both

oppressive and backwards and yet feminist from Iran, Afghanistan, and Turkey, for example,

have expressed support of being allowed and accepting wearing this piece of cloth. We must

understand as mentioned previously where these concepts come from, and how they may mean

something completely different to someone else or even from the different facets of one person.

The term hijab to progressive women in Iran may not carry the same tone as the term in the

United States and so when discussing these concepts one must constantly analyze from where

and with what validity they speak.

5 of 7
As a general overview Eisenstein speaks of what I would consider grounded, thorough,

and realistic terms and she demands no less of the reader, but to face the complex and diverse

issues of a fast moving global economy I think we need something more then that. We need to

mobilize people with a call to action and give guidance with a method from which we can

recognize each other’s struggles in terms of our own. With almost every example give in the

book, Eisenstein points out its affects, inclusions and admissions to women’s needs and

struggles. She claims the struggles are pervasive and need a more focal voice, but it appears to be

a call with out girth and with out a cohesive or even recognizable plan to bring discussion to the

table. What this book does call for though is a change in thought. This fundamental alteration of

just the language we use could be the beginning of the universal change needed in action. It is

understandable though that this is the most difficult aspect of people to change; their concepts of

the world and people around them. Eisenstein asks us to look at history with a skeptical eye, to

look at each other through rainbow lenses, and to not place dualities on each situation but to

understand there are many truths, untruths and variations that all exist equally together. But

Eisenstein at time borders on too broadly calling every one sexist and racist with out taking into

her account her own concepts, mostly that we all have numerous facets that more often then not

do not coincide. She goes as far as calling out various women’s rights activists on their language

and stance, both challenging the status quo and yet also taking away from a movement that needs

the voices she’s derailing (p. 199). As much as Eisenstein says we need to rethink the way we

look at social issues and that the only way to move forward is through drastic change, she

doesn’t show how that change is possible. The reader is left with a way in which to begin to look

at others similar and dissimilar to themselves, but no way to utilize those views to affect the

change that is needed. Really, to speak of these ideas versus using them in daily situations, in

6 of 7
conversations, and in thought in context of social justice is where the divide and difficulty

occurs.

CONCLUSION
Language must be used consciously and honestly in order to communicate one’s ideas as

thoroughly as possible. Through analyzing the words and terms used in conversation about social

issues and beliefs we can begin to see differences within and outside of ourselves eventually

learning how to grow from the challenges between them. At the same time we cannot forget each

person with their individual ideas, history, and makeup cannot neatly be placed in one grouping.

They are as much one person in many groupings as they are many categories in one person.

Their language about those experiences in a world today where western individuality dominates

the market of ideas and policy needs to be heard in all its tones. Women more broadly have

struggled to be heard as not just their race or religion or economic role, but as people who have

weakness and strength, ideas and beliefs. They have fought in recent human history to be more

then a face without a voice to be carried by the men writing their stories. They have fought to be

as complex as they need to be to voice their individual needs from the context of their unified

gender. Once humanity on a whole recognizes that the people who appear different should be

allowed to be different and yet should also be allowed to speak for a group, it can grow into a

more cohesive and agreeable yet distinct place. Western individuality, especially pushed by

current powerful political leaders, need not define how we each relate. Moving beyond this by

reevaluating the very definitions we place on each other’s faces and experiences is the only way

the current global empirical economy can grow into a viable and amicable environment for all

types.

7 of 7

You might also like