Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses

In 1984, Chandra Talpade Mohanty published “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses,” which became a milestone in postcolonial feminist theory. As an Indian-American scholar, Mohanty sharply critiqued the hidden colonialist logic in Western feminist scholarship, demonstrating how knowledge production becomes a site of power operation. This article not only deconstructed hegemonic Western feminist discourse but also pointed the way toward building genuine transnational feminist solidarity.

Anatomy of Discursive Colonialism

The concept of “discursive colonialism” that Mohanty proposes is the core contribution of this article. The colonialism she refers to is predominantly discursive—the appropriation and codification of “scholarship” and “knowledge” about Third World women through specific analytical categories.

This discursive colonialism operates through seemingly neutral academic practices. Western feminist scholars use universalizing theoretical frameworks to incorporate women’s experiences from different geographical, historical, and cultural contexts into a single explanatory model. While this approach appears inclusive on the surface, it actually erases difference and imposes Western epistemological frameworks.

Mohanty identifies several discursive strategies: First, treating “women” as an already constituted, coherent group with identical interests and desires; second, uncritically using concepts like “patriarchy” and “sexual division of labor” as if they have the same meaning across all cultures; third, implying Western women’s “progress” and Third World women’s “backwardness” through comparative methods.

This discursive construction is not a harmless academic exercise. It produces real political effects, influencing development policies, international aid, and feminist movement strategies. When Third World women are constructed as eternal victims, their agency and resistance are erased, and Western intervention and “saving” are justified.

The Construction of “Third World Women”

Mohanty analyzes in detail how Western feminist texts construct the category of “Third World women.” This construction process involves several interrelated steps:

Homogenization: Extremely diverse women—from different countries, classes, races, religions, and cultural backgrounds—are categorized into a single group of “Third World women.” This homogenization ignores the vast differences among these women and the specificity of their experiences.

Victimization: Third World women are uniformly portrayed as traditional, poor, uneducated, domestic, family-oriented, and oppressed. They are defined by lack—lack of autonomy, lack of power, lack of choice.

Contrastive Construction: The construction of Third World women implicitly relies on contrast with Western women. If Third World women are traditional, Western women are modern; if the former are powerless, the latter are empowered. This binary opposition reinforces Western superiority.

Dehistoricization: Third World women are presented as existing in an eternal present, without history, without change. The impacts of colonialism, imperialism, and global capitalism are ignored, as if their conditions result from cultural essence.

Mohanty emphasizes that this construction not only distorts Third World women’s reality but also limits Western feminism’s theoretical vision. By positioning Third World women as “Other,” Western feminism fails to recognize how global power relations shape all women’s experiences.

Methodological Critique

Mohanty’s critique targets not only content but also method. She analyzes several problematic methodological tendencies in Western feminist research:

Universalist Assumptions: Assuming Western feminist theories and concepts can be universally applied. For example, assuming concepts like nuclear family, gender roles, and public/private sphere separation have the same meaning in all societies.

Additive Model: Understanding Third World women’s experiences as simple addition of “gender plus race plus class,” rather than understanding how these categories mutually constitute and transform each other.

Developmentalist Narrative: Assuming all societies follow a linear developmental path from “traditional” to “modern,” with the West representing the future and the Third World representing the past.

Cultural Essentialism: Attributing Third World women’s conditions to “culture” or “tradition,” as if culture is static and homogeneous, while ignoring political-economic factors.

Savior Mentality: Positioning Western feminism as liberator and Third World women as objects needing liberation, ignoring the latter’s own feminist traditions and struggles.

Mohanty calls for more rigorous methodology, demanding attention to specificity, historicity, and context. She emphasizes the need to understand how women are constructed as a category at particular historical moments under specific political-economic conditions.

Power and Knowledge Production

Mohanty’s analysis profoundly reveals the relationship between knowledge production and power. She shows that scholarship is not neutral but deeply embedded in global power relations.

The dominance of Western academic institutions makes Western feminist theory “Theory,” while Third World women’s thought is relegated to “experience” or “case studies.” This hierarchy is not just epistemological but material—it affects resource allocation, publication opportunities, and academic legitimacy.

Mohanty also analyzes the dual meaning of “representation”—as portrayal and as speaking for. Western feminism not only portrays Third World women but claims to speak for them, representing their interests in international forums. This appropriation of representational authority is an exercise of power.

The colonization of knowledge occurs not only in Western academic institutions. Through education systems, development agencies, and NGO networks, Western feminist frameworks are exported to the Global South, influencing how local women understand their own experiences and struggles.

Possibilities for Autonomous Feminisms

Mohanty not only critiques but also offers a constructive vision. She argues that Third World feminisms must simultaneously undertake two projects:

Internal Critique: Continue critiquing Western feminism’s hegemony, exposing its colonialist assumptions and practices. This critique is not about rejecting all Western theory but about creating space for equal dialogue.

Autonomous Construction: Develop feminist theories and strategies grounded in specific geographical, historical, and cultural contexts. This means learning from Third World women’s own struggles and theorizations, recognizing their agency and creativity.

Mohanty emphasizes that these two tasks must be undertaken simultaneously. Otherwise, Third World feminisms risk marginalization or ghettoization—either ignored by mainstream feminism or segregated into “special interest” categories.

Autonomy doesn’t mean isolation. What Mohanty envisions is solidarity based on common political projects rather than assumed common identity. This solidarity recognizes difference but finds grounds for alliance in struggles against common systems of oppression.

The Importance of Historical Context

Mohanty insists on understanding women’s experiences within specific historical contexts. She critiques how Western feminism often ignores legacies of colonialism and imperialism, as if Third World “backwardness” is natural or cultural rather than the result of historical processes.

Colonialism was not just political and economic domination but also epistemic violence. It destroyed indigenous knowledge systems and imposed Western classifications and values. Understanding contemporary Third World women’s conditions requires understanding how this colonial history continues to shape the present.

Equally important is understanding histories of resistance. Third World women are not passive victims but have always resisted multiple forms of oppression. They have developed their own feminist traditions, which may not use the word “feminism” but involve struggles for justice and equality.

Mohanty’s historical approach also means recognizing that “Third World” itself is a historically constructed category, emerging from Cold War geopolitics. Using this term requires critical consciousness, recognizing both its strategic value and its limitations.

The Intersection of Capitalism and Patriarchy

While this early article primarily focuses on discursive issues, Mohanty also points to the importance of material structures. She recognizes how capitalism and patriarchy interweave to create specific forms of exploitation and oppression.

Third World women face not only “traditional” patriarchy but also new forms of exploitation brought by global capitalism—as cheap labor in transnational corporations, as migrant domestic workers, as links in global care chains. These are not separate systems of oppression but mutually constitutive.

Mohanty critiques certain Western feminist analyses that understand capitalism’s impact as “liberating” traditional women, bringing them into the modern labor market. This narrative ignores how capitalism exploits and exacerbates gender inequalities, creating new forms of exploitation.

Understanding Third World women’s conditions requires analyzing global political economy, not just “culture” or “tradition.” This includes understanding how structural adjustment policies, debt crises, and trade liberalization particularly affect women.

The Complexity of Identity Politics

Mohanty offers a nuanced analysis of identity politics. She critiques solidarity based on assumed common identity (“global sisterhood”), arguing this obscures power differences among women.

At the same time, she recognizes the strategic importance of identity categories. “Third World women” can serve as a basis for political solidarity if grounded in common political positions rather than essentialized identity. The key is recognizing that identities are historically constructed, fluid, and contested.

Mohanty’s approach anticipates later intersectionality theory, though she doesn’t use that term. She shows how gender, race, class, and nation mutually constitute each other, creating complex experiences that cannot be reduced to single axes.

Vision for Transnational Solidarity

Despite sharp critique, Mohanty doesn’t reject the possibility of transnational feminist solidarity. Rather, she seeks to establish more solid foundations for such solidarity.

True solidarity is not based on abstract sisterhood but on concrete understanding of common struggles. It requires recognizing how different women are differentially positioned in global power relations but may still find common ground for resistance.

Mohanty later developed the concept of “common differences”—building alliances while recognizing differences. This requires careful political work, willingness to face uncomfortable truths, and taking responsibility for unequal privileges.

Transnational solidarity also needs material foundations—sharing resources, supporting each other’s struggles, amplifying marginalized voices in international forums. It cannot be merely a theoretical or rhetorical exercise.

Theoretical Legacy and Continuing Relevance

“Under Western Eyes” profoundly influenced the development of feminist theory. It laid foundations for postcolonial feminism, transnational feminism, and decolonial feminism. It influenced a generation of scholars to critically examine the politics of knowledge production.

In 2003, Mohanty published “‘Under Western Eyes’ Revisited,” reflecting on the original article’s impact and limitations. She reaffirmed the necessity of building feminist solidarity through anti-capitalist struggles, combining material and discursive analysis.

In the era of globalization, Mohanty’s critique remains urgent. New forms of colonial discourse continue to emerge—discourses about “saving” Muslim women, neoliberal discourses about “development” and “empowerment.” Her analytical tools help us identify and resist these discourses.

The global spread of movements like contemporary #MeToo shows both the possibilities of transnational solidarity and the dangers Mohanty warned about—Western frameworks and agendas dominating global dialogue while local experiences and struggles are marginalized.

Critical Reflections

Mohanty’s work has also generated critiques and debates:

Some argue that the “Third World” category itself is problematic, potentially reinforcing the homogenization it intends to critique. Mohanty acknowledges this paradox but argues that strategic use of this category still has value.

Others question whether it’s possible to completely avoid the problem of representation. All knowledge production involves some degree of generalization and abstraction. The key is how to do so responsibly and reflexively.

There are also discussions about Mohanty’s own position as a Third World scholar residing in Western academic institutions. How does this positionality affect her critique? Does her work itself participate in the knowledge hierarchies she critiques?

Conclusion: Toward Decolonized Feminism

The enduring contribution of “Under Western Eyes” lies in demonstrating how feminism can be colonialist, even with the best intentions. Mohanty’s critique is not a rejection of feminism but a call for better, more just feminism.

Her work reminds us that solidarity is not given but must be built through hard political and theoretical work. It requires facing our own complicity in unequal systems, being willing to be changed by Others’ knowledge.

In an increasingly interconnected yet increasingly unequal world, Mohanty’s insights remain crucial. She shows us how to critically examine our theories and practices, how to build alliances without erasing difference, how to move toward truly decolonized feminism.

Ultimately, “Under Western Eyes” is a call to take Third World women seriously as theorists, as agents, as subjects of their own liberation. In this recognition lies the possibility not just of more inclusive feminism but of more effective challenges to interlocking systems of oppression. Mohanty’s legacy lies in showing how critique can be the foundation for solidarity, how difference can be a source of strength.