Feminist
Research
Education
Development
and
Action Centre
The FREDA Centre
for Research on Violence
against Women and Children
for Research on Violence
against Women and Children
Culture, Violence, and Inequality
Yasmin Jiwani, Ph.D.
Keynote Speech at the March 1997 Workshop:
Violence against Women: Meeting the Cross-Cultural Challenge
I would like to begin my extending my deepest thanks and appreciation
to my Aboriginal sisters and brothers for the hospitality extended
to me. My sincere thanks also to the organizers of this workshop
for giving me the honour and privilege to address you all today.
They have done a tremendous amount of work and I applaud their
efforts. And I would also like to thank all of you for being
here, because the one thing that a speaker needs is an attentive
audience. From what I can see, you are a really good audience.
My presentation today deals with the issues of culture, violence,
and inequality as they pertain to the title of the workshop: Meeting
the Cross-Cultural Challenge. My question to you and one that
I hope you'll carry away with you is whether we are ready, committed,
and willing to meet the challenges I will endeavour to identify.
Before I begin, I want to first acknowledge the many experts in
the room today. You are the experts-as frontline workers, cultural
workers, advocates, and settlement workers. You have intimate
knowledge about the issues that I hope to touch on. So much of
what I will be saying will be familiar to you, although it may
be articulated differently. Moreover, this is an extensive topic
and I am constrained by a time limit. Hence, I will focus on
presenting a broad overview, the substance of which will be elaborated
upon in the various panel discussions that follow.
I would like to begin this presentation with an analysis of culture-what
culture means and how it has assumed visibility in recent times.
We have many cultures in this land-and historically we are a
multicultural society consisting of many aboriginal nations.
These nations were systematically destroyed in the process of
colonization by the colonizing culture. That culture subsequently
brought in other groups of people from other cultures to settle
the land-some as forced labour in the form of slaves and indentured
workers, and others as cheap labour to be used and sent back when
the work was completed. Others were brought to populate the land
and create a nation. Since that time, we have had a hierarchy
of cultures-with the indigenous cultures at the bottom, overlaid
by immigrant cultures consisting of those brought over as slaves,
indentured labourers, homesteaders, and others, followed by the
dominant colonizing cultures at the top. This was, and continues
to be, the vertical cultural mosaic that characterizes contemporary
Canadian society (Armour, 1984; Bolaria and Li, 1988).
It is a mosaic that is structured on the premises of racism and
inequality. It is a mosaic that is grounded in the violence of
colonization and perpetuated by the ideologies of racism, sexism,
and classism. This, then, is the culture in which we live. The
legacy of colonialism is apparent today in terms of how society
is structured, with different groups wedged between the truly
dominant and the truly subjugated. These different groups have
access to varying degrees of power and privilege. The fundamental
inequality of differential access to power and resources is justified
through the normative and enshrined ideological beliefs/myths
about individual will, inherent tendencies (which can be read
as cultural proclivities), and equal access. Recognition that
these inequalities are structured is not a part of this ideological
common-sense knowledge. Rather, the tendency is to think that
one can override all structured inequalities through sheer will
and perseverance.
Yet, when we think about culture today we do not think of this
dominant cultural background. In fact, we don't even see it.
Its very invisibility is a telling sign of how much it is simply
taken for granted. Instead, when we think about culture today,
we think of visibility. We think of the signs that signify culture
in terms of its most overt expressions-dress, dance, diet, or
what has been referred to as ethnic exotica (Moodley, 1983; Peter,
1981). But culture is more than this-it is a totality of values,
norms, attitudes, beliefs, gender relations, child-rearing practices,
governance, etc. It is the economic, political, social, and spiritual
organization of a people's existence. However, the cultural lens
we have today negates all of this. Instead, the concept of culture
has become divorced from its moorings and invested with meanings
which are problematic at the very least.
In public thought and talk, there are only some groups who have
"culture" today. And these "cultures" are
framed as being traditional, backward, and oppressive, but yet
colourful and exotic. Against the backdrop of the invisible,
dominant culture, these cultures appear highly visible and deviant.
They are deviant in the sense that they seem to exemplify traits
which are supposedly absent from the dominant culture (Indra,
1979). At the same time, their very visibility is heightened
also by their "exotic" features. We then have cultures
with the following positive and negative traits:
The interesting aspect of this classification is that it highlights
the implicit criteria used to allocate traits to the different
categories. What is deemed "positive" is based on what
is regarded as being acceptable. Food, clothing, music, dance,
and literature are "positive" because they are considered
to be non-threatening to the dominant culture. In small doses,
they can be appreciated and controlled. In large doses, these
traits shift to the "negative" and are taken as signs
of the lack of assimilation and integration into the dominant
mainstream.
Negative perceptions of culture are most readily seen in the media
with their pervasive focus on the lack of assimilation of immigrant
cultural groups. These groups are also defined by their marked
physical features-differentiating them once again from the dominant
mainstream society. Cultural visibility then becomes a marker
for those groups who are also racially visible as people of colour.
This is the language of cultural
racism - where instead
of inferiorizing "race" (as was the case in the more
old-fashioned form of racism), the tendency is to inferiorize
cultures, or to make certain cultures appear to be inferior, deviant,
and inherently inassimilable (Essed, 1990; Razack, 1994; van Dijk,
1993). By inferiorizing certain cultural groups, the dominant
mainstream, invisible group, is able to reinforce its sense of
superiority and maintain its normative power.
The dominant media provide one avenue by which to assess how different
groups are defined through the use of cultural racism. In media
reports, the invisible dominant group becomes the implicit and
explicit audience to whom the media tell stories about "others"
who cannot, or refuse to, fit in. Here is how most media messages
structure stories about these cultural "others:"
versus
These binary oppositions are most apparent in news coverage about
the Third World (Hackett, 1989). Third World countries are seen
as oppressive in terms of being dictatorships or having totalitarian
governments. In contrast, "we" (the First World) are
represented as having democratic governments. Third World countries
are seen as being regressive and traditionbound. In contrast,
"we" or the First World countries are seen as being
progressive. The list goes on. But the major point is that this
binary is effective because it resonates with our common-sense
knowledge. And our common-sense knowledge is structured on what
it has been systematically fed-pictures of corrupt Third World
governments, war, famine, poverty, over-population, oppressive
cultural traditions, and so forth. These cultures are thus seen
as "not being like us"-as different and as inferior.
However, their positioning as inferior, backward, and oppressive
cultures serves to reinforce notions of western superiority (Dahlgren
with Chakrapani, 1982).
We can take this one step further in our examination of how those
cultural groups are seen in the dominant media. The research
to date suggests the same kind of binary oppositional structure
at play: "We" are seen as law-abiding, hard-working,
honest citizens. They are seen as "law breaking, lazy, and
dishonest" immigrants and refugees who are only here because
of "our" goodwill (Indra, 1979; Jiwani, 1993; van Dijk,
1993). From a cultural standpoint, these groups are seen as not
assimilating, holding onto repressive cultural traditions, and
exporting these traditions to "our" land. Interestingly,
the problems which are endemic to our society are often relegated
to these "others"-they are held responsible for crime,
for diluting "our" progressive traditions; they are
opportunists-"we" are not.
One can see then how easy it is to blame cultural groups for every
ill in society, and how widespread problems like violence become
culturalized because of the
attribution of the problem
to cultural groups. The invisibility of the dominant culture-a
culture based on violence through conquest and colonization-is
maintained. Thus, in the case of the Vernon "massacre,"
it is easier to place the blame on a specific cultural group and
its practices, than to deal with the issue of male violence, which
is a pervasive problem.
The tendency to focus on culture rather than violence or the
power
which allows the violence to be enacted, works to the advantage
of the dominant, colonially-entrenched culture. Their position
at the pinnacle of the hierarchy of this vertical mosaic, and
by corollary, their access to power and resources, is rendered
completely invisible. Rather, a cultural focus strategically
shifts the attention away from the violence endemic in the dominant
culture thus making it seem that it is a problem inherent in certain
cultural communities. In addition, the attribution and location
of violence to cultural sources by necessity results in cultural
prescriptions such as the need for cultural sensitivity training,
or the acquisition of cultural competence in the cultures of these
"others" (Razack, 1994). The dangers inherent in utilizing
such an approach are that they result in itemized accounts of
stereotypical traits which then reinforce racially inscribed representations
of these "other" groups and underscore their difference.
Hence, rather than "meeting the cross-cultural challenge,"
we simply devise an antidote which highlights difference, stereotypes
groups, and retrenches their racialization as cultural "others."
By buying into this approach, we also fail to take into consideration
the reality of colonialism. That historic reality indicates that
up to eighty-five percent of the world was colonized by European
powers (Said, 1979). In effect, colonization entailed the destruction
of indigenous economies, the indigenous knowledge base, the transmission
of knowledge over time, spiritual beliefs, and political forms
of governance. Colonization then transformed the world as it
existed. It drastically altered cultures, if we take culture
to mean forms of organization. In most areas of the world which
were colonized, European educational systems, European languages,
and European forms of social, political and economic systems were
imposed. This means that the kind of cultural prescriptions that
are being generated in the name of cultural sensitivity, are based
on stereotypical and static caricatures of cultures, rather than
on the complexity, diversity, and dynamic cultural traditions
which have emerged out of necessity from the cauldron of conquest
and colonization. Furthermore, many of these cultures have a
history of migration and adaptation. And many, are diasporic
cultures spread across the world as a result of forced migration
through slavery and indentured labour. My point here is to highlight
this complexity and to suggest that the antidote augured by the
invention of these cultural inventories is simplistic and dangerous.
We need to build bridges if we are to "meet the cross-cultural
challenge."
Violence
Let me shift now to yet another challenge-understanding violence
in a broader context. Once again, the tendency has been to locate
and define violence in a very narrow manner, usually in terms
of physical violence. However, violence is a lot more than that.
It can take different expressions, ranging from emotional and
verbal abuse, to financial, spiritual, and racial abuse. Violence
occurs when people are dispossessed of their lands, disbarred
from practicing their traditions, forced into contained areas,
divested of their property, treated in a discriminatory fashion,
and deported against their will. Violence occurs when people are
captured and forced into slavery, or forced into situations where
they have little choice but to be exploited if they are to survive.
These are all forms of violence that mark the historical record
of this country.
Violence is about power-the power to control, subjugate and dominate
others, and to violate their dignity, integrity, and sovereignty.
It is the power to deny a people or a group the right to exist
as they wish and to oppress them. This is the same violence that
we see enacted within the context of gender relations, intra-nation
relations (between groups within a nation), and international
relations between countries. What signifies violence in these
contexts is the power of one party over another. That power can
take a discursive form (through the use of verbal threats, sanctions)
or it can manifest in armed conflict and war. Those who are most
vulnerable to violence are groups, individuals, and countries
which have less power, low status, and limited access to resources
or recourse.
Gender-based violence is made possible by the ideology of sexism
which argues that women are worth less than men in the sense of
having less power, status, privilege, and access to resources.
Sexism is a system of beliefs and attitudes based on the alleged
inferiority of women; an inferiority which translates into attitudes
that hold that women cannot be believed, that women are inferior,
and that women are inherently subordinate to men (Browne, 1997).
Thus, within the institutional framework, sexism translates into
policies and practices which deter women's advancement, justify
inequality in wages, and which make women vulnerable to violence
such as sexual harassment. Within the context of the criminal
justice system, sexism is evident in the ways in which women are
disbelieved, have their concerns trivialized and/or dismissed,
and are revictimized. Gender-based violence is sexist violence
(DeKeseredy and MacLeod, 1997).
Cultural racism is also a form of violence, albeit different in
that it is based on a system of beliefs and attitudes which hold
that some cultures are inferior and therefore, less deserving.
Members of racialized cultural groups are seen as being less
competent, less able, and as having inferiority rooted in their
specific cultures. Thus, members of these groups are seen as
having an inherent tendency toward criminal behaviour and dishonesty,
and as being violence prone (Indra, 1979; van Dijk, 1993).
Both racism and sexism intersect in the lives of women of colour,
as well as immigrant, and refugee women from racialized communities
(Bannerji, 1987; Ng, 1994). And this intersection is most apparent
in the inequalities that women
of colour experience when
dealing with violence in their communities and outside in the
mainstream, dominant society. Not only do these women face sexism
within their communities and in the dominant society, but they
also have to contend with racism as it is directed at their communities
and at themselves. Both racism and sexism are forms of violence.
The critical point is to recognize that sexism and racism are
endemic. They are part of the larger, dominant culture that we
live in, as well as being internalized by our communities. They
are not inherent to certain cultural groups, but rather are structural
forces of domination which pervade society as a whole and which
were historically instrumental in the creation of this nation-state
that we call Canada. We have to recall the history of colonialism
and how this country was formed. We have to realize that we live
in a culture of violence which has been perpetuated by racism,
sexism, and classism.
Nevertheless, within this gendered and cultured hierarchy that
we call the mosaic, some groups are more vulnerable to violence
than others. Thus, rather than locate the vulnerability of these
groups within the groups themselves, or within the cultural framework
they uphold, the task should be one of locating the impact of
structured inequalities on these groups by deciphering how they
are rendered more vulnerable, and how these structured inequalities
can be dismantled.
The Challenge of Inequality
My argument thus far has been that we have to refocus our attention
away from cultural prescriptions and from cultural blaming to
understanding the real impact of inequalities for women of colour,
and immigrant and refugee women from racialized communities.
Many of these inequalities are gender-based. As with most women
who are attempting to leave violent relationships, the paramount
concerns for women of colour and for immigrant and refugee women
are safety, economic security, custody of children, and access
to resources (Jiwani and Buhagiar, 1997).
However, these basic concerns are heightened by other structural
elements, for example, lack of accreditation, language skills,
fear of deportation, child apprehension, the threat of continued
harassment, and the racism women
encounter when they approach
different systems and service agencies for aid. These reasons
have been extensively documented in the existing research (e.g.,
Dosanjh, et al., 1994; MacLeod, et al., 1993; Martin and Mosher,
1995).
The questions that need to be asked are: How do we deal with these inequalities, and what kinds of suggestions and improvements can we make in order to dismantle these barriers? These are the questions that I hope you will pursue in your different discussions today. As a starting point, I would recommend that we begin by employing an anti-racist and anti-sexist framework within our own agencies, and that we become aware of the inherently discriminatory nature of the invisible yet dominant culture in which we live. Further, that we become cognizant of how access is mediated and impeded for women who are differently situated, whether they be Aboriginal women, women with disabilities, lesbians, women of colour, or immigrant and refugee women.
Armour, Monica. "The Historical Context of Racism in Canada."
Currents, 2:1, (Spring 1984).
Bannerji, Himani. "Now You See Us/Now You Don't."
Video Guide, 8(1986): 40:5.
________. "Introducing Racism: Towards an Anti-Racist Feminism."
Resources for Feminist Research, (May 1987).
Bolaria, Singh B. and Peter S. Li. Racial Oppression in Canada.
Toronto, ON: Garamond, 1988.
Buchignani, Norman and Doreen Indra, with Ram Srivastava. Continuous
Journey, Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1985.
Browne, Angela. "Violence in Marriage: Until Death Do Us
Part?" In Violence Between Intimate Partners, Patterns,
Causes and Effects, ed. Albert P. Cardarelli. Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1997.
Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women. Changing the Landscape:
Ending Violence-Achieving Equality. Final Report. Ottawa,
ON: Ministry of Supply and Services, 1993.
Dahlgren, Peter with Sumitra Chakrapani. "The Third World
on TV News: Western Ways of Seeing the 'Other.'" In Television
Coverage of International Affairs, ed. William C. Adams.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1982.
DeKeseredy, Walter S. and Linda MacLeod. Woman Abuse, A Sociological
Story. Toronto, ON: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1997.
Dosanjh, Raminder, Surinder Deo, and Surjeet Sidhu. Spousal
Abuse: Experiences of 15 South Asian Canadian Women. Vancouver,
BC: FREDA, 1994.
Ducharme, Michele. "The Coverage of Canadian Immigration
Policy in The Globe and Mail (1980-1985)." Currents,
3:3 (1986).
Essed, Philomena. Everyday Racism: Reports from Women of Two
Cultures. Translated by Cynthia Jaffe. Claremont, CA: Hunter
House, 1990.
Hackett, Robert A. "Coups, Earthquakes and Hostages? Foreign
News on Canadian Television." Canadian Journal of Political
Science, 22:4 (1989).
Hall, Stuart. "The Whites of their Eyes." In The
Media Reader, ed. Manuel Alvarado and John O. Thompson. London:
British Film Institute, 1990.
________. "Race, Articulation and Societies Structured in
Dominance." Sociological Theories: Race and Colonialism.
Paris: Unesco, 1980.
Indra, M. Doreen. "South Asian Stereotypes in the Vancouver
Press." Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2:2 (1979).
Jiwani, Yasmin. "To Be and Not To Be: South Asians as Victims
and Oppressors in The Vancouver Sun." Sanvad,
5:45, (1992).
________. "By Omission and Commision: 'Race' and Representation
in Canadian Television News." Ph.D. Thesis, Simon Fraser
University, 1993.
________. "Violence against Women is Bigger than…"
The Vancouver Sun, April 13, 1996.
Jiwani, Yasmin and L. Buhagiar. Policing Violence against Women
in Relationships: An Examination of Police Response to Violence
against Women in British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: FREDA, 1997.
MacLeod, Linda and Maria Shin, in collaboration with Queenie Hum,
Jagrup Samra-Jawanda, with Shalen Rai, Maria Minna, and Eva Wasilwska.
Like a Wingless Bird: A Tribute to the Survival and Courage
of Women Who are Abused and Who Speak neither English nor French.
Ottawa, ON: Department of Canadian Heritage, 1993.
Martin, Diane L. and Janet E. Mosher. "Unkept Promises:
Experiences of Immigrant Women with the Neo-Criminalization of
Wife Abuse." Canadian Journal of Women and the Law.
8 (1995), 3-44.
McIntosh, Peggy. "White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal
Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women's
Studies." In Race, Class, and Gender, Second Edition,
ed. Margaret L. Andersen and Patricia Hill Collins, 76-87. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1995.
Moodley, Kogila Adam. "Canadian Multiculturalism as Ideology."
Ethnic and Racial Studies, 6:3 (July 1983).
Ng, Roxana. "Sexism and Racism in the University: Analyzing
Personal Experience," Canadian Woman Studies, 14:2
(1994).
Peter, Karl. "The Myth of Multiculturalism and Other Political
Fables." In Ethnicity, Power, and Politics, ed. Jorgen
Dahlie and Tissa Fernando. Toronto: Methuen, 1981.
Razack, Sherene. "What is to be Gained by Looking White
People in the Eye?: Culture, Race, and Gender in Cases of Sexual
Violence." Signs, (Summer 1994).
Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York, NY: Random House,
1979.
van Dijk, Teun A. Elite Discourse and Racism. Sage Series
on Race and Ethnic Relations, 6. New York, NY: Sage, 1993.