Temples in India to the ‘Joy’ of success: Comparing paths to feminism

In the movie Joy, Jennifer Lawrence plays a single mother whose struggles are fueled by the non-recognition of creativity at home and the absence of economic opportunity outside, all subject to the undercurrents of neoliberal individualism that influence her decisions and help her define her road to success. Photo credit: Joy, the movie

There are numerous objectives or quests in life, from individual and societal to national and global, and correspondingly and arguably there are numerous ways of achieving them. With that in mind, this essay focuses on understanding the definition of feminism and the various approaches towards advancing or enforcing it.

The first month of the year highlighted two approaches to the cause of feminism. While one long unfolding incident in the Indian state of Maharashtra saw a group of women frame their argument around the “right to pray” (a socio-political rights approach) in their quest for practicing feminism, the other was a break from tradition in Hollywood to depict lone women in their fight for justice with the release of Joy, a film inspired by the life of Joy Mangano and her struggles as a single mother as she built her own business empire (an economic rights approach).

While it is imperative to underline that individual beliefs, life experiences, immediate needs and larger political social and economic environments prevalent and dominant in the surroundings have a lot to contribute towards their actions, it would be a mistake not to see how both these disparate approaches that sought to achieve different goals fall under the wider umbrella of realising feminism and advancing the cause of gender equality.

While as individuals, one may be subject to limitations in terms of what goal(s) among these (social, political or economic rights) we are able to focus on and correspondingly what road we take in our struggles to achieve them, as societies and larger communities it is essential for us to work towards protecting and ensuring an all-inclusive enforcement of feministic ideals and to perpetually interrogate and adjust the road we take to achieve those goals. Because to realise feminism in all it’s earnest, equality needs to be protected and ensured across all realms (social, political and economic among others). And what road we take to do that may well define how we look at feminism it self.

But who or what defines feminism?

For all further references, it is imperative to define the meaning of feminism as understood and studied by me. Feminism, as its name suggests, was born as the idea of advocacy of women’s rights. But it has grown into a bigger idea today. Today it stands for equal rights for all, across all realms. It’s an all-inclusive understanding and approach towards advocating equality.

However, as the definition of feminism has itself evolved and enlarged to encompass more than women’s rights, it will only be wise to recognise that this definition may further evolve over time. And what will affect this definition or the realisation of these values are not just other socio-political or economic factors, but also the approach we take towards practicing feminism. For the architecture we design, also designs our perspectives. Since the journey is part of the destination, it holds enough power to influence the ride and throw up its own set of challenges. In the words of Professor Nancy Fraser, our critique of sexism may “supply the justification for new forms of inequality and exploitation”.

This temple at Shani Shingnapur, Maharashtra, was the subject of a debate around the equality of rights for women when it comes to praying there. About 1,000 women had together to storm this temple to enforce their rights. Photo credit: The Indian Express

The two approaches

So in the two cases described above, while the parent idea is that of feminism, the goals and approaches to them are part of the subsets of socio-political and economic rights and opportunity respectively.

Social solidarity - The Shani Shingnapur temple issue: In brief, this one’s about a 1,000 women led by Trupti Desai gearing up to storm a temple in Shani Shingnapur, a village in western Maharashtra. At this temple, women were not allowed to set foot on the open platform where the idol is installed. Men, however, could do so, for a fee. Here’s the full story. Though this doesn’t directly concern the subject of this essay, here’s also a take on if we should even care about temple entry, and that even when we do, putting it all under the umbrella of the ‘right to pray’ is not the best thing to do.

So this quest for demanding equal rights stemmed from the discrimination at a place of worship and it took a socio-political approach to enforcing it. Social solidarity, something that has long been a characteristic of the feminism struggle, is what Desai sought in this path to tackle gender discrimination. The recent appointment of women qazis in Jaipur and their resolve to bring in a feminine perspective when it comes to pronouncing judgments is another example of social solidarity being the go to approach to advance feminism.

Neoliberal individualism – Joy, the movie: This one’s a story inspired by the life of Joy Mangano, a single mother entrepreneur whose home-made mop made her a fortune. Here’s more about the movie. So in this case, Joy’s story draws from her fight for freedom and opportunity while struggling with the disappointments of a life curtailed by her modest surroundings, and complicated by the responsibilities of being a single mother of three, a supporting child to her divorced parents and a lone bread-earner.

But this story chalks closer to the path of entrepreneurism, a spirit that’s fostered by the invisible hand, as Joy earnestly grabs or even creates economic opportunities that help her build a huge business and rewrite her circumstances. Her quest for feminism is fueled by the want and need of a better quality of life, and she sees economic equality and opportunity as the road to it and she fights for it. This story also goes a long way to show how the quest for feminism and the path we take to it is also a product of the times we live in. Joy, in the US, is subject to the undercurrents of neoliberal individualism that influence her decisions and actions, and while hers is a story of success, it must also be seen as a success story of capitalism feeding off the ambivalence of feminism.

What road to take: Solidarity or individualism?

On the onset it may not seem to matter, but while in the short-term capitalism demands equality in all respects so as to ensure that the invisible hand thrives, in the long-term unattended (read: unregulated) capitalism also does have a huge tendency to fall prey to corruption and thus advancing itself while reshaping what it feeds off, thereby, in this case perhaps, creating a form of neoliberal feminism.

And while social solidarity may have been the go to approach for feminists, in contemporary times, the lure of this form of solidarity has been dominated by the overarching attraction of individual success stories. It has also been diluted by ideas that exist at the very peripheries of capitalism and feminism and stand for gender equality but can be maneuvered to feed capitalism while advancing feminism in the short-term, and hurting the overall quest for it in the long-term. The “feminist critique of the family wage” and it’s implications is an example where this complexity can be further observed.

So while in Maharashtra socio-political rights and social solidary defined their path for gender equality, in the US that quest was defined by neoliberal individualism for Joy, with each quest being subject to its context.

Perhaps, another characteristic of feminism then, is that while it advocates equality, it recognises that there may not be a particular approach to enforce it and that the quest and the approach may themselves be defined by the times and the context. And while this definition evolves, it may not be in a strict solidarity or in naively taking neoliberal individualism as the approach that feminism may find its best friend, but perhaps in a new form of balance that may reside between these and perhaps others.

Talking tolerance

A sand sculpture in Odisha talks about the #AwardWapsi campaign and the debate around 'intolerance'.

A new Indian government was sworn-in last summer. It had a mammoth mandate. It promised reforms and began revitalising brand India across the world. While for some it has reimposed India’s position as a global player, to others it has only played on perceptions without adequately strengthening the pillars of the economy and society. Some laws have been passed, other major economic reforms are still stuck in logjam. While on a grade scale where green would stand for excellent and yellow for disastrous, the government’s performance is more like a lime green. Some of it’s said work shows, some doesn’t.

But evaluating the government’s first 18 months in office is not the aim of this essay. An 18-month evaluation could also be as misleading in hindsight in a few years as it may be detailed right now, if attempted. The use of the words tolerance and intolerance and actions that have invoked them is what this essay is about. It was also provoked by the notion of perceptions and how they affect states.

Tolerating tolerance

Tolerance by definition means “the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislike or disagrees with,” according to the Oxford dictionary. It goes on to say that it originates as late middle English word to denote the, “action of bearing hardship, or the ability to bear pain and hardship.” Tolerate is defined as, “Allowing the existence, occurrence, or practice of something one disagrees with without interference,” by the Oxford dictionary. While the word has now become part of common parlance, such an origin and current usage of the word should be questioned, especially when it is used in lines such as, “India is a tolerant society,” “India culture is all about tolerance,” among many such one-liners.

When used in such a way, the word by itself, tends to establish or promote a certain power relationship. Viewing the statements mentioned above, is India tolerant because it is more powerful and can allow it? Or is India tolerant because it is less powerful and does not have an option to argue against it? Does that ability or willingness to tolerate not draw from a power relationship again then? And should this act of accepting or rejecting other views be excused on the grounds that the other (again a form of a power relationship) is able to or willing to tolerate or not tolerate the opinions or actions? How does the ubiquitous usage of such a word then impact the freedom of expression or the freedom of choice then? Is it seen as something that is allowed (once again a word that establishes a power relationship) or as something that cannot be allowed or rejected, but just exists? Does it not just change the fundamental meaning of a fundamental right? How is it a right if there’s a power equations involved? The word intolerance uses the same premise, making a call for tolerance seem like a request at times, more than an appeal.

Here, India’s tolerance levels were subject of the questions and thereby the playing field would be international relations. Now, wouldn’t the usage of tolerance propagate a realist ontological view then and impact policy decisions? Change that subject to say the government’s actions or a religious body’s remarks, and they would again re-emphasis on a certain power relationship, where someone is understood to have taken the high horse. 

Where’s the room for a constructive approach then? Well, that’s where the constructivism’s inherent optimism comes out. It means that even while using the word tolerance, we can actually move towards a society, a region, religious factions or even states that are more tolerant, and may be while we are attempting to get there, we can think of a newer word, or an older one to describe this attribute as a given and not just something that presupposes the existence of a power relationship.

Now let’s get to the ongoing national discussion. Rising levels of intolerance as decried by some or bogus calls as argued by others. We’ve all got sides and arguments. Choosing a side is not the objective of this essay as that may put the other content of it under a certain bias again. While such discussions strengthen or theoretically should strengthen democracy, acts of ‘intolerance’ harm it, and with it the global flow of capital (or capitalism) which has come to be very closely associated or guided with the values of democracy, political and economic stability and infrastructure among others. That’s where perceptions come in, especially global perceptions about states, their politics and economics. And these influence business.

Playing on perceptions

Perception. It’s a strong word that can make or break relationships, of any kind - from emotional to commercial. It’s also a word that impacts the sway of democracy, capitalism and  corresponding debates. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word as “the way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted” and as “intuitive understanding and insight”. So, essentially, a perception is how a certain object, action or phenomenon is recognised, irrespective of the actuality of that object, action or phenomenon. 

A perception could therefore be correct, incorrect or in between the two at varying shades. What contributes to this possible change in the actual nature of the object, action or phenomenon and the perception of it could be a stubborn pre-established bias or ontological view, the complexities it exists in and an inability to sieve through them, an apparent attempt to paint it over for whatever reason, or a combination of both. And since a perception impacts the understanding and recognition of the object, action or phenomenon directly, it therefore also directly impacts any discussion on the object, action or phenomenon and the peripheries along which such a discussion is held. Thereafter, impacting any other discussion that it leads to or is invoked in.

In global politics today, perception holds great value, especially amid the changing nature of the perceived nature and discourse around capitalism, socialism and the likes. The way how a country is perceived, when it comes to political stability affects the inflow of investments, the perception about economic safety affects businesses too, and the perception about societal security affects tourism, among others. We all know the salience of brand value. It is also a great source and indicator of soft power.

In that respect, and in the current context on tolerance and intolerance, it is the perception about it that may finally seal the deal when it comes to how it affects the image or perception of India, globally, at varied levels - in academia and in regular conversations, in business and in schools as well. While the Indian Prime Minister with his numerous foreign trips is trying to build on positive perceptions of and about India, actions such as #AwardWapsi or a celebrity being vocal about insecurity about living in the country may have mixed impressions on it for different audiences. This is not to say that the former should be supported and the latter disgraced. Both have different objections and are not part of the same debate too. More importantly, both may only affect short-term perceptions, thereby having economic and cultural impact, only in the short-run. In the long run, those perceptions will only be shaped by the supporting policy measures or their absence that the government takes or does not take and the positive or negative discussions on measures like #AwardWapsi and the impacts of those discussions.

Meanwhile, let’s try and find a power-neutral word for intolerance and tolerance. Illiberality and liberality came to mind first, but  I suggest open and closed for now. Simple and direct. Won’t that work?