The Role of Transnational Feminism in Psychology

Abstract

>> Denmark and Segovich’s (2012), Hyde’s (2012), and Marecek’s (2012) reflections on our article (Else-Quest & Grabe, 2012) further bolster the need for feminist psychology to investigate gender disparities in power. We offer a rejoinder that draws together the commonalities in our various perspectives by putting the study of structural power in a larger context. Echoing our call that ‘‘the political is personal,’’ Denmark and Segovich suggest that it is critical to ‘‘reduce upward’’ and consider the importance of country and culture in the psychology of women. Collaborative relationships with the United Nations can be effective in this process. Like Hyde, we share a concern that analyses using macro-level gender equity indicators in psychology be planned and interpreted carefully; indeed, this concern motivated our writing. Moreover, we maintain that the investigation of macro-level inequities (i.e., broad structural factors) as critical to the understanding of women’s psychological functioning is just one of many approaches that feminist researchers might employ. However, as with any approach, the research question should determine the method used. The question, in the example we put forth, is about identifying how structural patterns of domination and subjugation can impact women’s well-being. This approach should not substitute for a culturally sensitive investigation or means by which a researcher might generate knowledge about any given culture. We are well advised by Marecek that if our aims as researchers are to generate a richer understanding of gender subjectivities and gender relations, we should design approaches that are culturally appropriate and conducted in partnership with the women for whom the work most readily applies. Nevertheless, because of the inherent risks involved in using Western scholarship to influence women’s lives on a global scale, we offer three primary considerations that may help guard against the potential for Western psychology to further legitimize structures of domination. The first consideration involves an analysis of the tensions between universal and culturally relativistic human rights, as a parallel to understanding the role of ‘‘universal’’ (i.e., Western) theories and scholarship. Many feminists argue, for example, that universal norms surrounding women’s human rights, rather than culturally specific norms, can provide the theoretical