Ishita Roy Probably you may be better able to appreciate the
point of my critique once you engage with the issues more deeply. I would just
respond to a couple of points as an illustration:-
1."All men are mortal" has a definite information.
"If one is not mortal, then one is not a man" doesn't contain any
information. Information by definition is supposed to reduce uncertainty
regarding an issue, whereas, this transposition essentially leaves you in a
lurch regarding who you may be.
2.Let us apply this to "if you are not a legal person,
then you are not a natural person" transposition. It straightaway implies
in succession that
a) personhood is not inherent in humans; it is to be
bestowed by the State
b) Humans cannot be persons in communist states or
despot-ruled states
c) No State can be held accountable for violating the
personhood (by implication human rights) if it doesn't recognize its people as
legal persons
d) Rights of person can be protected only if there is a universal
state
e) Children, mentally ill, unborn etc. are not person because they are
not legal persons
f) Society dehumanizes children and mentally ill by NOT
conferring legal personhood on them.
You may see that these implications are
undesirable and even reflective of cold war agenda of capitalists. If you find
these implications desirable, then you must admit of hidden agenda of feminism
beyond the stated aim of gender equality.
3.Positivism, logical positivism, and constructivism may be
called as philosophy because at least the first two also make ontological
assumptions and have metaphysical claims when it comes to determination of
truth. However, they are primarily used in the sense of epistemology, which, by
the way, is one of the five elements of philosophy. Constructivism is purely an
epistemology because it doesn't make any ontological claims. I may share my
published article if you would like to understand constructivism and its
limitations.
4.Is every talk of gender equality feminist? The definition
clearly shows that it is NOT. Rights based approach and pro-woman stance are
distinctive features of feminism. Ancient texts such as Rig-Veda and Manu
Smriti declare women as equal to men and it were such scriptural support that
led visionaries such as Swami Dayananda Saraswati to work for woman
empowerment. Feminism cannot appropriate such textual claims as its own because
it is distinctly western in origin. Besides, such texts take a duty-based
approach to life for everyone. Rights are to be taken from "the
other", whereas, duty is to be performed without waiting for what anyone
else does. This stand better supports the theory of Karma. Such texts place
heavy emphasis on character and a sense of right and wrong to qualify one as a
human being. It is clearly at variance with what feminism does. Besides, such
texts do not consider a person as an independent individual. They consider
person as interdependent. Near about every value that feminism cherishes are
distinctly grounded in the assumption of an "independent individual".
Clearly, there is little for collectivists societies there as of now. There are
many more foundational differences that preclude any legitimate claim that such
visionaries were feminist in working for women empowerment. Hope this
encourages you to read the biography of Swami Dayananda written by Lala Lajpat
Raya, the great freedom fighter. You are certainly capable of evaluating
evidences for yourself.
At this point, the reply I wrote grew too big for a Facebook comment, and consequently I posted it here.
No comments:
Post a Comment