Ophelia Benson has the worst job in the blogosphere. She reads the papers of cultural studies and post-colonial academics – and given their obscurantism she often must be their only reader – and explains how intellectuals who affect a liberal style, are imbued with reactionary ideas. The regurgitators of received wisdom hate her for it. As I mentioned in an earlier piece in Standpoint, she was on the receiving end of the fullest stomach load of bile literary London puked up last year.
Undaunted, she carries on.
Here she is on a disgraceful effort by the Cambridge Review of International Affairs to turn a defence of the men who abuse women into a left-wing cause, by denigrating the efforts of Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan, a feminist group which tries to give Afghan girls education, healthcare and the right not to be forced into “marriage” before they are 16 (as half Afghan girls are).
“I’ve been reading an article called ‘Canadian Women and the (Re)Production of Women in Afghanistan,’ she says and quotes the abstract.
Focusing on the prominent group Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan (CW4WAfghan), this paper looks at the role its advocacy assumes in the context of the “War on Terror”. In Canada as in the United States, government agencies have justified the military invasion of Afghanistan by revitalizing the oppressed Muslim woman as a medium through which narratives of East versus West are performed. While CW4WAfghan attempt to challenge dominant narratives of Afghan women, they ultimately reinforce and naturalize the Orientalist logic on which the War on Terror operates, even helping to disseminate it through the Canadian school system. Drawing on post-colonial feminist theory, this paper highlights the implications of CW4WAfghan’s Orientalist discourse on women’s rights, and tackles the difficult question of how feminists can show solidarity with Afghan women without adhering to the oppressive narratives that permeate today’s political climate.
Then, and I don’t know how she has the patience, she goes to the body of the text to gives us an example of the professor in action
By deliberately attempting to mask the problems that are always associated with representation, and the inconsistencies that inevitably arise within categories of experience, CW4WAfghan’s use of personal anecdotes both confirms and conceals their own ideology. Reproducing the oppressive gesture of imperialist feminism, their homogenous image of Afghan women reduces them to the role of “generalized native informants”, who Spivak asserts, “sometimes appear in the Sunday supplements of national journals, mouthing for us the answers that we want to hear as our confirmation of the world.”
‘Tell that to the little girls in Ethiopia who don’t want to be raped into marriage at age eight, Ophelia concludes, ‘and the women who used to be little girls and remember what happened to them. Tell them they are ‘mouthing for us.’
She’s right to be furious, and I think I can guess, and I can guess the response which will hit her as I have experienced it many times myself. “But this post-modern academic/ leader of the anti-war movement/ guilt-ridden, violence-loving white apologist for clerical fascism, does not represent the liberal mainstream,” right-thinking, left-leaning people say. “How dare you? How dare you pick on him/her and imply that there is something sick in liberal England (or liberal Canada for that matter)?” In the past, I have countered with Keynes’s assertion that ideas from obscure corners diffuse through society so that, “Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”
Now I am not so sure Keynes’ was right because his causation can be reversed. The readers of Cambridge academic journals, like much of the rest of the liberal middle class do not want to make a stand against violent misogyny because that would force them to confront violent men closer to Cambridge than the Taliban. They want the easy life and to avoid taking responsibility. On this anti-Keynesian reading, far from being forerunners of a coming intellectual trend, the Cambridge Review of International Affairs is a follower, which takes existing deformities in the thinking of comfortable people in rich countries to their logical conclusion. I shouldn’t have to add that in doing so intellectuals provide an essential service to the wealthy. By dressing up selfishness in left-wing party clothes, they allow the smug to assert that it is not only convenient but also politically reputable to ignore the suffering of others.