Why I am not Jessa Crispin’s Feminist

Screen Shot 2017-08-18 at 12.51.19 AM

Before I start, for those who are not familiar, this isn’t an anti-feminist book. It’s a feminist manifesto. The title is purposefully incendiary.

I really wanted to like this book. I guess that’s partly my fault, like why did I expect so much? I think because one of the people I admired seemed to like the book a lot, and the people the book largely pissed off were people I didn’t mind pissing off. I’m being snide but actually the book’s topic is really important and not one something that typically hits mainstream discourse. So for someone who has voice and reach, she has a unique chance to be able to articulate it, and she didn’t do it very well. I would have given it 2 stars on goodreads if I didn’t still feel that there are still things in the book that she at least still managed to say right and were important.

The book starts out relatively fine, even if we set aside how polemical it is, which I could tolerate because I was familiar with the message she was trying to put across. It is right to point out the main problems with contemporary liberal feminism today — that its aims are shallow and centred around the ‘lean in’ approach focused on the ambitions of a narrow elite of women. This is not a feminism for all women and it certainly does not question the fundamentally unjust, capitalist, neoliberal structure we are functioning in. I get it. We want better than buzzfeed, taylor swift feminism. Disney princesses are tired of being re-conceptualised. I too can’t stand the over-emphasis on female CEOs, lawyers, bankers, politicians; the power-feminism that utterly disregards the working-class. I too can’t stand how it has been co-opted by corporations once it’s fashionable. I rolled my eyes at a “feminist” sweatshirt in H&M. Sure you’re feminists now! Cause it’ll make you money! She’s right to point out that a feminism that is watered-down to be made palatable and unthreatening is not something that can serve everyone.

“This is part of the problem of creating a unified front for feminism: the median feminist is generally going to be a middle-class, educated white woman. Her desires and needs cannot stand in for the needs of all women. And yet we’ve focused on facilitating her dreams for much of recent feminist history. Our goals have been things that would make her life easier, like equal pay, removing barriers to higher education, delaying childbearing through birth control and fertility treatment developments. “

It doesn’t really get better from here on though. Setting her arguments aside for a moment, the writing itself was quite erratic and unclear. She tends to use terms that are quite general without specifying what exactly she’s referring to, so it’s confusing at times to figure out who she’s exactly addressing, or what she’s precisely talking about. At times I had to keep reminding myself that this really strong line I’m reading is probably directed at the liberal white feminists she is criticising, otherwise it’s seriously uncalled for. She simply says “feminist”, so I am not sure. There are plenty of straw-women in this book she knocks down, a lot of blanket statements. She tends to also over-simplify phenomenons when she describes them, especially when talking about the current tensions that exist in feminist circles, which to be honest is only going to make tensions worst lol. Despite being a more ‘radical’ feminist, her rhetoric sometimes sounded eeriely like conservatives who make generalising statements. Take this specimen, for example:

“This is the way dissent is handled in feminist realms: a contrary opinion or argument is actually an attack. This stems from the belief that your truth is the only truth, that your sense of trauma and oppression does not need to be examined or questioned.”

This sounds like some anti-feminist fuckboy’s 3dgy comment on a facebook meme. She goes ahead and defines for us how dissent is handled in feminist realms, she then goes on to define for us the belief underlying it. I mean… like, how did she arrive at these conclusions, or is this mere conjecture? How am I supposed to take these lines seriously? Even as a radical feminist I feel like this drastically oversimplifies the tensions present in feminists circles. It’s so inadequate, and so confident at the same time. I’m taken aback someone can just… say this.. in a published book.

She also tends to do the things that she tells people not to do, which adds to my confusion. Glaringly for me was her position re: identity politics. Her critique of it seems to be of the more radical vein instead of the rather annoying liberal one:

“What was once collective action and a shared vision for how women might work and live in the world has become identity politics, a focus on individual history and achievement, and an unwillingness to share space with people with different opinions, worldviews, and histories. It has separated us out into smaller and smaller groups until we are left all by ourselves, with out concern and our energy directed inward instead of outward”

Ok writing that out I realise her critique starts out radical, then goes on to the liberal critique before returning back. It’s confusing. Yes there has been a focus on the individual, and the ‘self-empowerment’ narrative kind of isolates people instead of building community, and detracts us from seeing systemic injustice and tend to seek individual instead of systematic solutions. But how in the world!!!! is that related to people being unwilling to share space with people with different opinions/worldviews??? It’s like she was driving fine along the road of trying to critique identity pols, did a little detour to take a dump/throw some shade, and drove back. At this point I’m looking at who published this & wanting to ask them why they didn’t edit her book better.

Also despite her valid (but still shallow) critique of identity politics, she doesn’t utilise it herself a lot of times. She tends to devolve into focusing on individual errors of women, in the realm of personal choices, instead of taking the more systemic, structural understanding of why they make such decisions or were coerced into such decisions.

Another example of how she doesn’t seem to follow her own demands that she quite polemically scolds into people. These two quotes are from the same book ya’ll:

[1] “We do not like to pay attention to how the casual demonization of white straight men follows the same pattern of bias and hatred that fuels misogyny, racism, and homophobia. . . What does outrage actually accomplish? There was probably a moment when calling out the actions of some guy opened up a conversation, something along the lines of: How can we be more supportive of women in science? But that moment has passed.”

[2] “Take that shit somewhere else. I am not interested. You as a man are not my problem. It is not my job to make feminism easy or understandable to you . . . I just want to be clear that I don’t give a fuck about your response to this book. Do not email me, do not get in touch. Deal with your own shit for once.”

She spends quite a while bashing what she calls ‘outrage culture’ of feminists where they are apparently unable to handle any kind of criticism and are obsessed with revenge, without being able to tolerate dissent. They demonise according to identity (the first quote) and disregard context. She takes examples from actual events. Yes, some moments can spiral into vindicative outrage, but to say that these are merely product of wanting ‘revenge’ and an inability to handle criticism is incredibly simplistic! And despite the always-present group of people who might seem too ‘outrageous’ there are many others who actually use such moments as opportunities to open up a conversation!

And re: that first quote, I really could not stand it when she said that bias and hatred against white straight men follows the same pattern of hate that fuels misogyny and racism. Are you kidding me? Even if she acknowledges one has institutional power, that is still not enough to warrant such an idea! Why do people get to a point where they hate straight white men? Because they view this demographic as representative of oppression, oppression that they have faced that is actually structural, and perpetuated by individuals. But hatred that fuels misogyny and racism and sexism — that is not borne out of oppression! That is borne out of hatred for people/demographics that are not as powerful as you and most probably did you no harm! You just hate them because of your prejudice! It’s incomparable.

Later on, she also ties outrage culture to a chapter where she spends time talking about self-victimisation and how we need to move beyond that. But what I didn’t appreciate about this chapter was that she spent time talking about false rape accusations, saying that feminists should take it seriously. Are you kidding me? Why wouldn’t people know that? In a world where less than ~1% (or even less) of rape accusations are made up, why is this something that pages of a book is dedicated to, what is the net benefit of saying this? Even if she were to say yes women suffered, even if she were to acknowledge the failure of the justice system to mete out justice for rape victims, it just doesn’t make up for it. In my view.

Anyway moving on. She also really loves Andrea Dworkin, a person whom she says modern feminists hate and are ready to disavow. Unlike Jessa Crispin I won’t try to speak for all feminists so I will say that I do think Dworkin is a formidable person but that the criticisms that people had of her were more than just the fact that she was unabashed and fierce and ‘unlikeable’. It was more than just the fact that she was radical. A lot of feminists couldn’t really wholeheartedly agree with 2nd wavers because there were serious disagreements. I think it’s really glaring that Jessa Crispin never mentioned the trans-exclusionary aspect of feminism, especially in radical feminist circles. Even I as someone who leans more towards rad-fem am aware and know that it is something that is just unacceptable. I can only think that Jessa Crispin knows, but did not include this in the book, or she doesn’t. I’m sure she knows. It’s a very glaring omission.

Trying not to end on too depressing a note, here’s a nice-ish quote:

“Much of contemporary feminism uses the language of power. Girls needs to be “empowered,” women need to fight for “self-empowerment,” “girl power,” etc. There is little conversation about what that power is to be used for, because that is supposed to be obvious: whatever the girl wants.

But growing up in a system that measures success by money, that values consumerism and competition, that devalues compassion and community, these girls and women have already been indoctrinated into what to want. Without close examination, without conversation into a different way of thinking and acting, what that girl wants is going to be money, power, and possibly her continued subjugation, because a feminism that does not provide an alternative to the system will still have the system’s values.”

Anyway!! Feminists of color have said what she’s trying to say and said it much better. I appreciate what she’s trying to say though, my heart is with her. But damn..

Read bell hooks, audre lorde, and sara ahmed my friends. As for a white women who does it well, Nancy Fraser does.


The Hidden Face of Eve. Nawal El Saadawi

Screen Shot 2017-08-10 at 3.05.41 PM

Despite the orientalist book cover of a veiled woman and the fact that the original title was “The naked face of the Arab woman” and not the submissive “hidden face of eve” I would still recommend this dense and intense read. As a doctor and psychiatrist, Nawal el-saadawi has seen and heard many women pass through her clinic doors for issues related to gendered violence. Whether it’s circumcisions and general mutilations gone wrong, or bleeding out and infected from the cultural practice of a woman puncturing through the hymen with a finger to draw blood, or men coming over to demand to know whether their new wives were really virgins, she was in direct contact with the culture and women she’s writing about. A generational epidemic where girls are sexually assaulted by older male relatives, girls who are killed for the sake of honour even if they are innocent, women who resort to dangerous home abortions so they can continue working at their exploitative jobs where they are paid less than men for more hours.She also makes the huge but important effort to point out the structural factors, fearlessly implicating religious culture and tradition as well, that continues to be used to justify horrific, systematic abuse against women. If you want to know of a struggle beyond what we usually hear about, I highly recommend this read. Nawal el-saadawi holds no punches.

This was such an intense read. It is quite canonical reading for those interested in feminism, and especially women’s oppression and issues in the Arab world (which is very diverse). But of course, this can bring issues of orientalisation or condescension from liberal feminists so in this edition Saadawi wrote a preface to counter that possibility by pointing out that feminism that isn’t what we today call ‘intersectional’ or sensitive or informed of the culture it’s addressing, will lead to further oppression of the women it’s supposedly directed at.

Criticism is fine, in this case if we want to criticise Islam/Islamic societies, that certainly can be done in a constructive way (which Saadawi does in the book fearlessly, and which she has been punished for), but done badly, it can be used to subject people to further geo-political violence (just like how Afghanistan women were bombed along with their country folk by American forces with one of the reasons justifying invasion was that they needed to be rescued from their ‘barbaric’ society that was oppressing them).

The first 60 pages of this was incredibly difficult, almost distressing to read. Nawal El-Saadawi is a doctor and psychiatrist, so she has had many people come through the doors of clinic seeking for her help and advice and she would share the horrific cases she has seen time and again, connecting it with the larger issues plaguing women in the Arab world when it comes to the obsession with virginity, controlling female sexuality, and how violent that becomes when honour is physicallly located in the hymen.

She starts out by describing how as a child she was taken from her bed by 4 adults (one of whom was her mother), and experienced her circumcision traumatically. Unlike in Singapore where it’s done as type one (and commonly known as ‘circumcision’) the FGM performed in the Arab world can be more severe with some places even subjecting girls to type 4 FGM (look it up, I don’t want to describe it). She has seen many women go through her clinic for excessive bleeding from circumcision, or infections. Some girls even die from severe circumcisions.

Apart from FGM, she described how the prevailing myths and lack of understanding of female anatomy and sexuality has horrifically painful consequences in the experiences women go through. For example, because people expect that a virgin must bleed the first time she has sex, some women are actually hired by families to stick their finger into the married woman’s/girl’s vagina to draw blood so that it can stain the sheet & then be shown as proof of the girl’s virginity. Saadawi recounted at one point how she saw one of these old women had fingers with long nails, and dirt under them. Needless to say, women can get infections from this practice. Women have also been through ‘honour-killing’ because they were accused of being promiscuous or of having sex before marriage, even if some of them were actually innocent.

She explained how such singular, downright ignorant lack of understanding render women subject to fate. Some women are born with hymens that are thin, or too thick, if the proof of virginity lies on a broken hymen, those who have broken their hymens as young girls while playing or stretching or whatever, find themselves in a difficult situation. For women who are rich enogh to afford it, they can get hymen reconstruction surgery. A poor, rural woman will not, however, get this option. I am describing this in detail because she did, and I think, for her, explaining these practices openly is really brings home the fact of how material and physical the suffering of women are.

Further on she explains how the repression of healthy sexuality in societies that have punished it have resulted in women being subjected to the lust of men in twisted ways. The vulnerable ones tend to be younger girls, who are often sexually assaulted by older male relatives since they are easy prey & the power dynamic protects the man from being punished.

I think what’s good about Saadawi is that she gets very specific, but also links these issues to larger structural problems. I think everyone tries that of course, but she does it quite well. Although admittedly I am not well-versed in the problems of Arab women beyond what I’ve read so I might miss out some issues. But for example, to point out that that rich women and poor, rural women face very different pains, is very important. Poor women can’t buy their way out of many problems, the way the rich can, and at the same time, they are subjected to harsher working conditions. They have to work out of economic necessity, and when a community is poor, it will be willing to change or overlook certain ideas about women participating in the workplace. However, these women often have to work excruciatingly long hours for very little pay, and often work through being pregnant or give themselves abortions just to keep their jobs.

Re: abortions. Saadawi shows how policies that affect reproductive rights for women can be arbitrary and contingent ultimately not on the moral debates surrounding it, but on the needs of the population. States would either allow or disallow abortion (and find religious justification later on to suit their position) based on their population problems, whether they need more people or not. It really brings home the point how women’s bodies and women’s autonomy are subject to power dynamics or people in power (mostly men) who decide the course of action.

I also enjoyed her detailing how the accumulation of wealth and property was what allowed hierarchy to develop, the split between those who own & accumulate property and those who don’t (essentially the rich-poor divide), and subsequently, the subjugation of women would follow up. In this sense, I really started to understand how feminism is very much a class issue, even though personally I have always in my rhetoric said that “women as a class suffer under patriarchy”, Saadawi’s explanations have really driven that home for me and explained it clearly. I wish I could reproduce it here! But I already returned the book to my friend Fadiah.

These were the important bits I remembered or stuck with me! I would recommend it, but just note that it is quite a heavy and dense read.

Between The World And Me, Ta-Nehisi Coates

Screen Shot 2017-05-17 at 1.38.40 PM

I read this months ago! But I have not gotten around to reviewing it because it is so good (and you always want to do justice to something great). (I mean. Listen, Toni Morrison saying it’s required reading is enough incentive for you to run & read it.)

After the publication of this book people were calling Ta-Nehisi Coates the new James Baldwin. I have not read enough Baldwin but I can understand why people express that similarity. Both these writers express the pain of being Black in America with such tenderness and such pain. Their anger is not blind fury. The pain of their personal written excavations are not without incredible insight. This last part is important because a superficial, obvious rendering of systemic racism is pretty easy to learn and then regurgitate.

But what Coates does is to reveal how anti-Blackness is an inevitability in a country where its dominating systems have from the beginning been one that proceeded from the violent oppression of Others. And more importantly, he includes the violence of the state into the equation, which not enough people do in their current critiques. (Criticisms of the state is often something that is mostly done by people further left.. communists, socialists, anarchists, & is therefore for most liberal-centrists a little too ‘radical’). But it’s important if we want to understand the ‘systemic’ in ‘systemic racism’. Anti-blackness is not a failure or a glitch in the system, it is the system in operation.:

“It is not necessary that you believe that the officer who choked Eric Garner set out that day to destroy a body. All you need to understand is that the officer carries with him the power of the American state and the weight of an American legacy, and they necessitate that of the bodies destroyed every year, some wild and disproportionate number of them will be black.”

But to problematise the state is not to treat the state as a detached entity separated from its people. Coates also points out that the system is a product of democratic will. Which means it is a system that is continuously voted into continuation, a system that continuously propped up by an affirmation of its values by its citizens, etc.

You may have heard the talk of diversity, sensitivity training, and body cameras. These are all fine and applicable, but they understate the task and allow the citizens of this country to pretend that there is real distance between their own attitudes and those of the ones appointed to protect them. The truth is that the police reflect America in all of its will and fear, and whatever we might make of this country’s criminal justice policy, it cannot be said that it was imposed by a repressive minority. The abuses that have followed from these policies—the sprawling carceral state, the random detention of black people, the torture of suspects—are the product of democratic will. And so to challenge the police is to challenge the American people who send them into the ghettos armed with the same self-generated fears that compelled the people who think they are white to flee the cities and into the Dream.

Yes, and a further point, he refers to White people as ‘people who think they are White’. He doesn’t really explain this but I think it’s a short and amazing way to show how Whiteness is an identity that was something that one has to, in a way, claim, re-affirm, aspire to. To be ‘White’ is to believe in the ideal of this identity that the nation had fabricated. Of course there is a material basis/reality to this identity, where you will be conferred with privilege regardless of whether you choose to relinquish your allegiance to such an ideal. Still, the idea of Whites being superior, as if it is an a priori fact, is a fabrication, is a lie that has been sustained.

Another thing I wanted to mention was the stylistic choice. The book is essentially a letter that Ta-Nehisi Coates is writing to his young son who is realising the extent of anti-Blackness in America. The reality of racism, its intricacies, the question of responsibility, is one that is often subjected to fierce debate. It is often contended, in serious terms, with serious intellectual rigour (though the common invalidations that Black people face are often unintellectual). But the truths that were spoken in this book is not up for debate because it was not constructed within the paradigm of debate. It is a personal letter. Part of the power of this book was its uninhibitedness, its clear declaration of the fact without having to subject itself to the respectability politics that is often demanded of the marginalised in order to be taken seriously by their oppressors. And part of the power of this book is also its tenderness. Like I said earlier, it is not merely blind fury.

In talking to his son, the book others those who are not part of part of the intended audience, in a way. This book is primarily, for his son, and for other Black people who have had to deal with the trauma of being Black in America. He is talking to his son, and this mode allows him to be completely honest, completely open, and without a need to be defensive. It’s not up for debate.

To situate the conversation on anti-Blackness in the realm of the personal is to humanise suffering. A lot of times, the discourse around social issues that is grounded in the very real, material, tangible fact of human suffering, can get lost in abstraction. One of the biggest pains I have with the current mode of discourse is that it can get lost in abstraction. Yes, intellectual rigour is important, but often times I have seen how intellectualisation of suffering has utterly left behind its subjects, de-personalised them, and talked about them as a mass to be debated about. This review is running a little long but I’d like to end with my favourite part from the book, which is also an articulation of the kind of politics I always want to have (one that is grounded in lived, material reality):

“But all our phrasing—race relations, racial chasm, racial justice, racial profiling, white privilege, even white supremacy—serves to obscure that racism is a visceral experience, that it dislodges brains, blocks airways, rips muscle, extracts organs, cracks bones, breaks teeth. You must never look away from this. You must always remember that the sociology, the history, the economics, the graphs, the charts, the regressions all land, with great violence, upon the body.


You must resist the common urge toward the comforting narrative of divine law, toward fairy tales that imply some irrepressible justice. The enslaved were not bricks in your road, and their lives were not chapters in your redemptive history. They were people turned to fuel for the American machine. Enslavement was not destined to end, and it is wrong to claim our present circumstance—no matter how improved—as the redemption for the lives of people who never asked for the posthumous, untouchable glory of dying for their children. Our triumphs can never compensate for this.”

Read this book please. 6/5.

And The Walls Come Crumbling Down, Tania De Rozario


[an edited version of this review was published in the latest issue of Quarterly Literary Review Singapore. The original intended title was “Written on The Body: The centrality of the material in Tania De Rozario’s latest title.]

Written on The Body:
The centrality of the material in Tania De Rozario’s latest title.

by Diana Rahim

Tania De Rozario’s “And The Walls Come Crumbling Down,” is an exploration on home, love, family and loss. These concepts are familiar to us, but often in parochial terms shaped by dominant narratives or conditioned by arbiters of power like the state or religious authorities. We are told what home is supposed to look like (a happy state-approved, heteronormative nuclear family) and what love and family is supposed to be like (heteronormative too, amongst other things), and many a wordsmith have given words that help tide us through our experiences of loss and grief.

But what if the dominant understanding and narratives around family, love, and home are ones that exclude you? What if the world has failed to write you into its history and stories? At the heart of “And The Walls Come Crumbling Down”, I believe, is the act of writing one’s self into a world that has failed to include you in its writing.

While all the aforementioned terms are conceptually and personally explored, we can look into detail perhaps into how De Rozario deals with the notion of history. De Rozario encapsulates the experience of exclusion when she says:

“You never realise how personal notions of history are until yours has been erased.” (p 57)

If the conceptual understanding of history, home, family and love are those that one can never identify with, then you have to create your own and insist against its disappearance. When the girl De Rozario loved banished their romantic history to non-existence when she re-wrote her first love to be her husband, De Rozario is the one left to remember and sustain the truth:

“I still keep her letters in a box, in the bottom drawer, much like the way I kept that tabloid article about convent school lesbians. I keep them to remind myself how important it is that I write my own history.” (p. 57-58)

As constructed narratives, notions like history are shaped by the institutions and people that hold the power to speak it on their terms. If they are ideologically motivated, then history is bent to the shape of their ideology, though it purports to be an objective re-telling. To tell her own history then is to insist against its exclusion in the dominant shaping of history. It is to insist that one’s personal history is as much a part of the larger history that is shaped to be told to all. The personal is political.

At this point allow me a moment of important digression. In the chapter “Blueprints”, we are introduced to the inner world of a South Asian migrant worker, Bhavan, and this section reads as somewhat out of place in a book that has largely focused on De Rozario’s personal history. One can’t help but feel this section introduces a break from the narrative up till then. But if this section seems out of place, it is not thematically so. In the chapter’s attempt to understand the effects of the state’s organisation of space, homes, and therefore its citizens, one cannot exclude the migrants who have directly built the very spaces we inhabit when we work, play and rest.

In including the personal history and experience of Bhavan, De Rozario is implicitly insisting that the personal histories of all are intertwined, even those that are relegated to the margins. Bhavan’s experience and history are as important to her history, even if indirectly, and as part of it as all that has directly happened to her. Bhavan, like so many migrant workers in Singapore, are excluded in the dominant narratives of the state, their history and experience sanitised while their material conditions speak a dismal reality.

Bhavan was someone who had believed in the state’s story of itself:

“When he first landed, Bhavan had been full of hope. He had heard many things about Singapore — clean streets, fair government, lots of opportunity.”

But this is quickly dispelled by the material reality that he is confronted with when he arrives, the small dorms that allows little to no private space and the reality of having to work in the conditions that have been given to him in order to be clear of debt being amongst them. The truth of the concept then cannot be divorced from the material reality.

Going back to the discussion of history, it is thus more than just a mere narrative or concept to De Rozario. To her, history is also physically and materially experienced and expressed:

“I don’t want the kind of history taught for the purpose of propaganda and patriotism; the kind of past created to secure a safe future.

I want history. The moss that grows on walls, words that scar the skin, wrong turns, cracks in the stone, archaeologies of desire dug up like dirty laundry and flapping like wings in every back yard.” (p.110)

There is a shift here from the conventional ‘great-men’ or essentially a ‘top-down’ understanding of history to one that moves the reader’s gaze to the banality and minutiae of everyday life. History is thus not just a detached, intellectual concept to be conceived of in the mind, but something that is materially created and sustained and personal. She keeps the letters. She wants the moss that grows on walls. Even words, immaterial as they seem, are things that scar the skin. Elsewhere, she writes:

“Who knew the act of speaking could hurt so much? Could hold in its mouth that one concrete thing which gives weight to questions you never thought to ask ..” (p. 58)

This attention to the material is something that is present not just throughout this book, but also throughout her writing. I had noted even from her first book “Tender Delirium,” that De Rozario’s words are raw, visceral, vulnerable and achingly rooted in lived, material reality.

Even in describing her lover’s lie, she gives it a material presence:

“The lie got bigger as the day passed, expanding like some strange balloon animal out of control. It mutated, grew limbs, sprouted strange appendages, got so large that it blocked your eyes out.” p (33)

In making her case for her mother to choose her, the living, breathing person that is her daughter, over immaterial religious dogma, she says:

“Choose me. I belong to you. I am more than the myth of some made-up story. I am flesh. I am blood. I am yours. Choose me” p. 87

“And The Walls Come Crumbling Down,” then, is a book of the flesh and blood. The body. The material. It is no surprise that in exploring the concept of home, we are brought to focus on the material aspects (the door, drawers, bed, etc). The body of her lover is often the site of rumination. The body — whether the physical human body or the body of the home — is where rumination begins.

De Rozario’s attention to the material is thus an understandable extension of writing that focuses on the body. Exclusion is something material. We have seen this through how she understands history, but we also see it through the way she understands the concept of home. De Rozario’s understanding of home cannot be divorced from her personal experience of having had to leave her family home and moving from place to place while struggling to make ends meet. The physical experience of home informs the conceptual, personal understanding of home for her. In the end, home is located in her lover.

Yes, there can be something political about loving another person. There is politics behind leaving home. Making love. Losing your family. And the body is often lies at the focus of these contestations. The body is often the site of visible difference, it experiences direct violence and trauma. For many, the first line of exclusion and oppression is premised on presentation of their body, or their refusal to regulate their body according to accepted (and often repressive) sexual and social norms, and the pain that they will feel for their disobedience is often felt with their bodies as they are felt by the mind.

During the panel ‘Politics of The Body’ in the recent Singapore Writers Festival with panellists Tania de Rozario, Cyril Wong and A Mangai and chaired by Ng Yi-Sheng the centrality of the physical body was discussed in relation to the writing produced by the artists. The body is not just an apolitical space, but one where meanings are ascribed with or without the consent of the bearer. This is especially true when we talk about gender and sexuality. De Rozario had brought up early during the session that if her work was read as political, it is not because she intended to be political, but because society has rendered her existence and therefore her work, as political. Hearing her say that circled back to a moment years back when in a heated moment I had said something similar. A professor had found a certain Malay writer to be ‘too political’ for his taste, and I had retorted that said Malay writer was often times only writing about his reality and the realities of others as he observed. If this was found political it is not his fault, nor the fault of those who hold identities that render them political just by virtue of their existence in society and/or the world. Such a castigation reveals more about the speaker’s naivety or ignorance of the way the individual is politicised by forces outside of themselves, by power dynamics they are born into, than it does about the subject.

Occupy, Noam Chomsky


This penguin edition of Occupy is actually a reprint of a pamphlet of the same name, which makes me feel quite hopeful because a pamphlet seems like quite a fringe, guerilla publication & then it is picked up by a major publisher. But then again, of course, this is Noam Chomsky.

This is not a book per se. It’s not a collection of essays but rather some collected transcripts from interviews and notably a speech given about the Occupy Movement in Boston. Despite it being transcripts Chomsky is able to answer questions in the interviews in such a substantial way that it almost doesn’t matter. It only seems to be an issue when parts of his answers are repeated at certain points and you end up reading the same passages again later on.

He praises the success of the the Occupy Wall Street movement in terms of its ability to organise the masses, organise themselves as a leaderless movement. The movement is an example of how mass-based organising and civil disobedience can be successful in enacting real change. The Occupy movement also caused major shifts in the public imagination and discourse around the topic of severe class inequality in the States, where most of the wealth in concentrated not just in the 1%, but the 0.1%. The richest of the rich, the 1% of the 1%.

“For the past generation, policies have been initiated that have led to an extremely sharp concentration of wealth in a tiny sector of the population. In fact, the wealth distribution is very heavily weighted by, literally, the top tenth of one percent of the population, a fraction so small that they’re not even picked up on the census. You have to do statistical analysis just to detect them. And they have benefited enormously. This is mostly from the financial sector—hedge fund managers, CEOs of financial corporations, and so on.”

He also outlines how and why the severe income inequality is sustained, showing how concentration of wealth is linked to a concentration of political power and how these two factors feed into corporate governance that prioritises the needs of the 1% through legislation, tax breaks for the rich, etc at the expense of majority of citizens.

“For the majority, real incomes have pretty much stagnated, sometimes declined. Benefits have also declined and work hours have gone up, and so on. It’s not Third World misery, but it’s not what it ought to be in a rich society, the richest in the world, in fact, with plenty of wealth around, which people can see, just not in their pockets.”

(Unrelated to the book, but I learned today that Goldman Sachs was bailed out by $80 billion worth of taxpayers money. That is downright vile [mix the words around and you get ‘evil’], that the government can oversee the bailing out of banks with the use of public monies, not prosecute guilty bankers, and then at the same time at this current moment refuse to provide affordable health care, housing and safe abortions for its people.)

Anyway a passage I found most telling in the book was the following:

“Over the following years, the concept of “person” was changed by the courts in two ways. One way was to broaden it to include corporations, legal fictions established and sustained by the state. In fact, these “persons” later became the management of corporations, according to the court decisions. So the management of corporations became “persons.” It was also narrowed to exclude undocumented immigrants. They had to be excluded from the category of “persons.” And that’s happening right now. So the legislations that you’re talking about, they go two ways. They broaden the category of persons to include corporate entities, which now have rights way beyond human beings, given by the trade agreements and others, and they exclude the people who flee from Central America where the U.S. devastated their homelands, and flee from Mexico because they can’t compete with the highly-subsidized U.S. agribusiness.”

This is significant because the concept of a ‘person’ is often a contested and loaded category. Just by being human, it is not enough to be considered a person, even. In the context of the US (and really, the history of every state), there has always been actual human beings who were dehumanised and not considered humans. Slaves were considered, in the US constitution as 3/5th humans, women were not considered fully human too. Now these things might have been changed on paper, but of course in reality, policy, and especially the enactment of violence by the state against the bodies of Blacks and the controlling of bodies with uteruses, these two groups of people are not treated or regarded as fully human.

The fact that corporations, entities that are actively responsible for the destruction of the environment, what little is left of social welfare and benefits of the state, the pilfering of public taxpayer monies — the fact that they are considered a ‘person’ is something that says everything about how and why severe income inequality can continue not just to persist, but severely worsen. In fact I would say that considering the trajectory, it is not surprising that you would get an exploitative businessman who profits from the current neoliberal, capitalist order as the current president of the states. While most people might have been shocked, I had thought that it was a matter of eventuality. He is truly representative of what the state is like, without any mask or political speak.

The Reluctant Fundamentalist, Mohsin Hamid.


The Reluctant Fundamentalist is written in that engaging monologue style that immediately reminded me of Albert Camus’s The Fall. Like in The Fall, Changez, the main protaganist in The Reluctant Fundamentalist strikes a conversation with a stranger in some kind of establishment. In this case, they are both in a restaurant and the stranger is an american man, presumably someone whose vocation deployed him to Pakistan (or at least that’s what it sounded like to me).

I picked up this book perhaps with my expectations already too high. I heard so much about it, most of it good. It had glowing reviews and was shortlisted for the Man Booker Prize. Proper scholarly work has been written on it. Admittedly I am late to the party, writing this review 10 years on. I learned that part of its popularity was due to a movie adaptation.

Of the people who criticised it or gave it low ratings I noticed that they tend to be white folks who were aghast at the audacity of the protagonist to be so ungrateful to the wonderful benefits that the wonderful country, The US, had given to him. How could he! One comment mentioned that this is a privileged guy who went to an Ivy League, making it harder to citizens to enter the school. Some even went so far as to insinuate that he should be grateful he got the opportunity to be in the US instead of the obviously inferior and less developed Pakistan. Someone mentioned that they didn’t understand why the protagonist hated the US since the only incidents of racism he faced were negligible. Because criticism of the book is dominantly in this vein (basically ad hominem attacks against the protagonist which largely accuse him of ingratitude) to criticise this book might risk being seen as someone who endorses the messages these ‘critics’ or to invalidate the pain of the character or the issues the book tries to raise.

But my issue with this book is that its criticisms are too superficial, and does not engage with the issues raised with the critical depth necessary. Liberals would love it, I am sure, because the message you get is basically the rather trite one that tells you not to be prejudicial and to question the first impression that you have of someone. This bearded guy is not a terrorist just because he’s brown, muslim, and has facial hair. The American is not necessarily a bigot who hates Muslims and people of colour.

“It seems an obvious thing to say, but you should not imagine that we Pakistanis are all potential terrorists, just as we should not imagine that you Americans are all undercover assassins.”

Of course, judging from the nature of comments that criticise the book, I guess this kind of basic message is sadly still necessary, in which case I will have to concede that the book is important and it does the job. And of course I expect there’s always that contention that the writer doesn’t have to write the book with the kind of critical depth that some readers might want, I guess (I’m not convinced with this reasoning when it’s dealing with a political topic as heavy as this though..).

The book is undisputedly engaging, due in part to its stylistic choice. But it falls short on other fronts. The characters are flat, and almost verge on caricature. It is as if these characters have to be a certain way in order to induce the stereotypical/prejudicial reaction from the reader. The word ‘fundamentalist’ being used is at least a little smart though, if only because it does not end up being a story about a guy becoming a Muslim fundamentalist nor does a hint of something concerning ‘political Islam’ or extremism really come up in relation to Changez. The fact that I sort of expected at least a mention of that at least reveals my own instinctive expectations just because of this word. The word in itself provokes reaction. But other than that the characters and their reactions were almost cheesy.

Perhaps Changez himself understands it too simplistically. Perhaps he was protected for the most part of it because he was privileged enough to study in Princeton and did not live in the US for most of his life. But prejudicial attitudes against Muslims, specifically Muslims who are people of colour, did not start from 9-11 though it did worsened after that.

The book does make an effort to point out American exceptionalism through engaging with the theme of nostalgia. In the one quote that I like from the whole book, it manages the critical depth that is at least necessary:

“As a society, you were unwilling to reflect upon the shared pain that united you with those who attacked you. You retreated into myths of your own difference, assumptions of your own superiority. And you acted out these beliefs on the stage of the world, so that the entire planet was rocked by the repercussions of your tantrums, not least my family, now facing war thousands of miles away.”

The fact is, however, that the reality of America’s (the state) treatment of those deemed Other and different and therefore suspicious is located not within the individual attitudes of prejudice. Neither is it located just within American exceptionalism which is presented in the book, like in the quote above, to be something that is perpetuated by an arrogant populace. The truth is that this arrogance has been manufactured and then perpetuated through sheer belief. American exceptionalism is only a vehicle/an instrument utilised by the state to continue its long drawn history of how it has always established itself in violent terms against Others, first through genocide of native Americans, then the slavery of black people, the violent annexation of a part of Mexico, placing Japanese people in internment camps, etc. The list goes on.

The issue that is being raised in this book is far more complex and nuanced than can be portrayed with the flat characters. I wish I could find better words to explain why I didn’t enjoy this book in the end & found it disappointing. But mainly it was due to the way it poorly handled the political discussion surrounding the book & how simplistically I felt it was done. It felt good to read if you wanted to virtue-signal & say hey, I read this, I agree that we shouldn’t be prejudicial. I felt that there were so many gaping voids, including the fact that Changez seems to be the only Muslim in the US we engage with in the book. All the others he engages with seem to be basically white America.

Of course maybe I am being demanding to expect the political sophistication 10 years ago when 9-11 was still fresh in the psyche & discussions were still fresh too about Muslims, islamophobia & American foreign policy. Perhaps I am even being too much to expect political sophistication in a literary work. But I don’t think it is unfair to demand that if a work wishes to invoke a political issue, then it has to be properly engaged with so that this issue, a material, violent reality that affects others, isn’t just treated like an empty fodder than ends up making a work of art more interesting. Of course I’m not saying that this is what he does. I am merely trying to explain why I had expected so much from this book. It did not deliver in my opinion, but I am willing to concede that most well-intentioned liberals would love it.