14.07.2013 Views

Télécharger - Revue Palabres

Télécharger - Revue Palabres

Télécharger - Revue Palabres

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

48<br />

<strong>Palabres</strong>, <strong>Revue</strong> d’Etudes Africaines, Vol. III, n°1, 2000.<br />

(1) a self-namer and (2) a self-definer, (3) family-centered, (4) genuine in sisterhood,<br />

(5) strong, (6) in concert with male in struggle, (7) whole, (8) authentic, (9) a flexible<br />

role-player, (10) respected, (11) recognized, (12) spiritual, (13) male compatible, (14)<br />

respectful of elders, (15) adaptable, (16) ambitious, (17) mothering and (18) nurturing 64 .<br />

Although Hudson-Weems proceeds on the assumption that only women can be<br />

Africana womanists, she nevertheless proclaims the necessity of co-operation between<br />

men and women. This is another difference to Walker’s womanism.<br />

The Nigerian literary critic Mary E. Modupe Kolawole also holds that it is necessary<br />

to conceptualize a Black alternative to feminism. This is due to the cultural<br />

imperialism of many western feminists and feminisms, their west- and gendercenteredness,<br />

the fact that white women are privileged in many respects and the<br />

necessity of focusing on the peculiarities in the situation of African and African<br />

American women. 65 Equally decisive is the fact that «[s]elf-naming is very central to<br />

African world-view [...] This is at the heart of the search for new terminologies of selfdefinition»<br />

66 . When naming the alternative concept, however, her terminology is not<br />

clear. She speaks of womanism as well as of African womanism and Africana<br />

womanism - thus using three different concepts that already exist synonymously, thus<br />

neglecting the striking differences between them. In fact, when she discusses the<br />

concepts of Walker, Ogunyemi and Hudson-Weems, as well as Ogundipe-Leslie’s<br />

stiwanism, which will be dealt with here later, she fails to compare them and<br />

consequently does not mention differences in content. Thus, for example, nothing is<br />

said about the decisive fact that Ogunyemi's and Ogundipe-Leslie's concepts assume<br />

an alliance of African women, whereas Walker's and Hudson-Weems' concepts<br />

include all Black women. Interestingly enough, Kolawole herself is not very clear as<br />

far as this question is concerned. According to her definition of womanism «[a]ny<br />

woman who has the consciousness to situate the struggle within African cultural<br />

realities by working for a total and robust self-retrieval of the African woman is an<br />

African or Africana womanist» 67 , thus implying that to be a womanist means to be<br />

concerned with the situation of African women. In fact, this definition would even<br />

allow one to argue that her concept of womanism does not explicitly deny white<br />

women’s participation, but is in fact open to any woman who is committed to<br />

improving the situation of African women. Other remarks, however, make it clear that<br />

Kolawole - like Walker and Hudson-Weems - has a movement of Black women in<br />

mind, disassociated from white women. 68 Simultaneously, however, Kolawole argues<br />

that «womanism bears some resemblance to any theory about women», hence also to<br />

feminism. Whereas «some of the arguments in contemporary feminism are<br />

superfluous» in the African context and therefore can be neglected by womanism, it<br />

also «has very distinct characteristics emerging from African values» 69 . Here the<br />

example of lesbian love should be mentioned, which is, similarly to Ogunyemi,<br />

64<br />

Ibid: 143.<br />

65<br />

Kolawole 1997: 16 - 18, 34.<br />

66<br />

Ibid: 26 - 27.<br />

67<br />

Ibid: 34.<br />

68<br />

Cf.: ibid: 27.<br />

69<br />

Ibid. Also cf.: ibid: 202.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!