Feminist Dissent Editorial Collective Agenda Minutes 15th June 2015
Present: Rebecca (on skype), Rashmi, Gita, Sukhwant, Maureen, Alison, Roxanne,
Georgie, Rahul, Pragna
Apologies: Shakila, Chitra
1. Introduce Roxanne Bibizadeh
Roxanne was asked to decide upon a title for her role. She has put forward
Editorial Assistant, which was accepted by the group.
2. Finalise “About Us” Section
We began with the question – What are we dissenting against?
Are we narrowing it to fundamentalism or something much wider than this?
Rahul wanted to pick up on a question posed in the question and answer section
– in response to one of the questions Alison said that it was a misapplication and
misappropriation of postcolonialism, poststructionalism that you were critical of
rather than the theory itself, that is an important distinction, and Rahul is not
sure that the “About Us” currently reflects that, he feels that it currently suggests
that we are positioning ourselves against theories like postcolonialism and
poststructionalism.
All refer to final paragraph; the theories in brackets are there to suggest these
theories are bleeding into our discussions not being cast out. We are suggesting
that some strands of postcolonialism, like Homi Bhabha’s theory on hybridity has
become dominant, that is what students know, and so part of what we do is to
unpick that. The ways in which they become dominant has occluded the
challenges. Meredith doesn’t like the word occluded. Rahul feels we are naming
certain strands explicitly, they all have a problematic relationship to liberation,
so to name some and not others, gives the journal a colour, it positions itself,
which on the one hand is necessary because we can’t be all things. Rahul feels
uncomfortable with the journal becoming an attack on certain strands, which the
collective might not share. Rahul would be more comfortable if we did not name
these approaches and we left it open by replacing it with “the dominant
tendencies in feminist theory”, people might have arguments about what is
dominant? For example certain strands of postcolonialism and structuralism
isn’t dominant in the same way that certain strands of liberal feminism is, but
this opens a debate. Rahul feels we should use more ambiguous language, which
allows these critiques and doesn’t shut them down.
We are anti-racist and we are feminist, perhaps we could debate this in the
journal rather than expressly state the strands in the “About Us”. Then it was
suggested we add “certain applications/strands of”, but then this can be misused,
instrumentalised. We want to create a space to critique postcolonialism. For
example, if someone mentions Women Against Fundamentalism, then they are
labelled Islamophobic, racist, imperialist. We must make it clear that we are
writing from a postcolonial position. We should reclaim the people who want to
1
be reclaimed like Spivak. “Particular strands of feminist theory” was then put
forward as a suggestion. General consensus is there is a need to mention these
strands, because it is very difficult to have the space to express a view, which
doesn’t assume something from one of these perspectives, we are all shaped by
them, but making a statement is important, we want to situate ourselves in a
different space, we don’t want to leave these theories to our opponents, they do
not own them.
We concluded Rahul is to write something for the Journal in dissent of the
sentence or a response to, and we can continue to debate our thesis and include
more about nation, minority.
We decided we should add “strands” to the sentence, so we establish that we do
not stand against all these theories
Discussion moved on to which paragraph of “By fundamentalism” we should use
in the “About us”. We need to remove reference to the state in the first
paragraph. In the first paragraph we should include something about religious
texts controlling the minds and bodies of women, and something about
technologies and the state. There was an objection because we need to define
fundamentalism as concerned with state power.
Alison to attempt to redo the paragraph “By fundamentalism”, Maureen to go
over and shorten after, start with Gita’s first paragraph, and then making use of
the word state, and clarify what we mean by violence. The paragraph will be
completed by the end of the week.
Finally, do we need to change the world occluded because it alienates nonacademics and for those who speak English as a second or third language. We
want to get a balance of contributors so we agree to reconsider the word
occluded.
3. Update list of advisory board members
We need to look at who we have selected because they are all writing about
fundamentalism, and if we are looking for a wider vision, then that needs to be
reflected in the board. Maureen asks what other groups of scholarship we should
include. It was suggested that perhaps this is what we should start with, they are
broad enough, but if we are saying feminist dissent is something more, then
maybe this needs to be reflected in the board. Do we want to give the impression
that feminist dissent is about dissenting everything, or do we want it to be
focused on feminist dissent of fundamentalism, and also, within the context of…
Waiting for responses from/still to write to:
Aysegul Altimay, Nukhet Sirman, Saadia Abbas, Mab Segrest, Sylvia Claudio
Estrada
Refusal from:
Elizabeth Gross, Martha Nussbaum, Seyla Benhabib
2
To ask:
Names to be added by board members or chair please.
We particularly need to source people for Latin America or Africa.
Question then posed about whether we should ask Spivak to write for us?
We need to circulate biographies of current board members so we can check
where there are gaps.
We all need to send our biographies and photos and ask for this from advisory
boards.
4. Ideas for next few issues
First issue articles by Rahul, Rashmi, Gita, and Alison. Who should circulate their
articles for review by 1st September, the articles should be 5000-6000 words.
Smaller pieces 2000-3000 words– stories of dissent to be circulated by 30th
September. Sukhwant to contact Maryam Namazie, interview with Nawal El
Saadawi, Kareema’s piece on Sabeen Mahmud, Teesta Setalvad, Yemisi Ilesanmi
Mubarak’s piece to be included in this section. We need to contact all
contributors now, to give them ample time to meet the September deadline.
Send these articles to people within the advisory board for feedback by 1st
September. Feedback should be ready by October meeting. Rahul needs until 30th
September. Any work finished sooner, should be circulated earlier.
Roxanne will send all articles to reviewers, who will need to return within 6
weeks. Feedback from reviewers should be returned by 15 December,
contributors are then given 1 month to improve and resubmit by end of January.
Roxanne can do copy editing with others in February, and by 31st March the
articles are to be uploaded online.
It was then suggested that we should also solicit other contributions of artwork,
poetry, photographs, multi-media, book reviews, film review of Timbuktu – we
need to get volunteers to contribute, and perhaps to do a call for this.
The journal should come out, and we should get response pieces on a blog, this
can be ongoing, in between issues there can be contributors. Chitra wants to
tackle the blog.
Maureen asks us to look at Lacuna, and will approach contributor to Lacuna to
get involved. Maureen to go into translation networks and ask emerging
translators to submit translations for the journal.
We need someone to take hold of the review section of the journal. Roxanne to
meet with Maureen’s contact Rebecca from Lacuna to source a team for
reviewers. We need to find a reviewer for Arun Kundnani: The Muslim’s Are
Coming!: Islamophobia, Extremism, and The Domestic War on Terror.
3
Second Issue
It is suggested that we plan to run a comparative theme. The second issue might
focus on the relationship between fundamentalism and the state.
We need to ask Chetan to write on ISIL –Gita to ask
Rashmi to contact Dilip Simeon to write on BJP
Sukhwant to contact Deniz Kandiyoti to write on AKP
Gita to contact Karima to ask Amel Gram to write on Tunisia re approaching
someone from Argentina (?) – Gita to talk to Chitra.
Gita to talk to Chitra regarding identifying
We need to start approaching writers to submit for second version December.
We need to write a paragraph and question for what we are seeking to explore in
this issue.
Editors Gita and ?
Gita to write a blurb for issue 2 to use to approach writers. The blurb should
include gender angle and must include different fundamentalisms.
We will invite activists to write articles that relate to the above
contributions.They d not have to write under their own names.
Maureen to ask Hale Akay? (Turkey)
Pragna to ask Maryam Namazie (Iran)
Gita to ask a Sri Lankan contact
Pragna to ask someone who can write in relation to BJP
Georgie to ask Meghna/Sara re Burma
Book Reviews
In a conversationthat continued from the meeting Rebecca and Georgie agreed to
edit book reviews.
4