c

(I) Journal Title: Feminist philosophy in Latin Call#: HQ 1460.5 .F4596 2007

-
·->
Q
(I)

;;;;;;;;;;;
America and Spain

Volume:
Issue:
Location: LL

=
-+-,,l
!!!!!!!!!!
(1)
;;;;;;;;;;; Month/Year: 2007
s;:j
!!!!!!!!!!
;;;;;;;;;;;
;;;;;;;;;;;
;;;;;;;;;;;
Pages: 127-135

u ;;;;;;;;;;; Article Author: Maria Luisa Femenias

0
;;;;;;;;;;;
Q !!!!!!!!!!
(1)== ;;;;;;;;;;;
Article Title: THE CHALLENGE OF CUSTOMER HAS REQUESTED:

Q
§ == -
;;;;;;;;;;;
;;;;;;;;;;;
DIFFERENCES IN
LATIN AMERICAN FEMINISM

Imprint:
Maria Rosa Olivera-Williams (molivera)
(I)
;....
!!!!!!!!!! Romance Lang. & Lit.
http://onesearch. library. nd.edu. proxy. library. nd. 265 Decio Hall
z ....
-+-,,l
0 edu/NDU:malc_blended:ndu_aleph002320044
~ University of Notre Dame
~ Notre Dame, IN 46556
(..,... (0
0

-
00
N
>-.
·-
-+-,,l

U)
;..., zI-
(I)
>
·-= "C
c,s

;::J :J
..J
 FEMINIST PHILOSOPHY IN
LATIN AMERICA AND SPAIN

Edited by
Maria Luisa Femenias
and
Amy A. Oliver

Amsterdam - New York, NY 2007

Cover Photo: © Jack Child

Cover Design: Studio Pollmann

The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements

of "ISO 9706:1994, Information and documentation - Paper for
documents-
Requirements for permanence".

ISBN-13: 978-90-420-2207-2
CEditions Rodopi B.V.,Amsterdam - New York, NY 2007
Printed in the Netherlands
 CONTENTS
Editorial Foreword ix

Introduction Xl

Acknowledgments xiii

ONE Feminist Movements in Mexico:

From Consciousness-Raising Groups to
Transnational Networks
MARTHA ZAPATA GALINDO
1. Historical Context and Development: From
Consciousness-Raising Groups to National Coalitions 1
2. Between Popular Feminism and Autonomous
Feminism 4
3. From Grass Roots Movements to Political
Activism 6
4. Institutionalization, Professionalization, and
Transnationalization 8
5. About Feminism, Grass Roots Movements, Politics,
and Academics 11
6. Perspectives 14

TWO An Approach to Cuban Feminist Ideas and Objectives:

Echoes from the Past, Voices from the Present
NORMA VASALLO BARRUETA 21

THREE Latin American Feminist Philosophy:

Early Twentieth-Century Uruguay
AMY A. OLIVER 31
1. The Latin American Context 31
2. The Feminist Climate in Batllist Uruguay 32
3. Carlos Vaz Ferreira 33
4. Post-Batllist Developments 39

FOUR Equal Opportunities, Unfair Rewards:

Social Constructions and Gender Strategies
in Uruguayan High School Students
ADRIANA MARRERO 43
1. Uruguay in the World and Women in Uruguay 43
2. Education, Income, and Gender in Uruguay Today 45
VI CONTENTS

3. Women and Men at the Doorway of the Adult

World: What Numbers Conceal and Reveal 47
4. Different Perceptions of Themselves, Different
Perceptions of the World: Terms of Discrepancy
Between Women and Men 52
5. The Future: Certainties, Uncertainties, and Strategies
to Face It 59

FIVE Multiple Feminisms: Feminist Ideas and Practices

in Latin America
FRANCESCA GARGALLO 73

SIX On the Trail of Gender

MARIA ESTHER POZO 87

SEVEN A Cri~icalExamination of Women's History

MARIA JULIA PALACIOS 95
1. What is the Origin of Women's History? 96
2. What is Women's History? 97
3. New Subjects 98
4. New Problems 98
5. New Focusing 99
6. New Methods? 101
7. Which Historiographic Renovation? 103
8. What is the Fate of Women's History? 105

EIGHT Thinking Patriarchy

CELIA AMOROS 109
1. Patriarchy, Racism, and Sexism 109
2. Serial Pacts and Topos of Misogyny 114
3. Pledged Pacts and Feminine Figures 119
4. Excursus 121
NINE The Challenge of Differences in
Latin American Feminism
MARIALUISA FEMENIAS 127
1. Equality
127
2. Difference
128
3. Universal
129
4. Postcolonial Feminism
5- Critically Retaining the Universal 131
132
6. Balance
133
 Contents Vll

TEN Postmodernity and Utopia: Reclaiming Feminist

Grounds on New Terrains
OFELIA SCHUTTE 137
1. Utopian Desire 138
2. The Resistance to the Postmodern Turn
in Latin American Leftist Philosophy 140
3. Postmodernity in Latin America 141
4. The Visibility of Different Economic and Social
Conditions and the Demand for Alternatives:
Feminist Utopian Horizons 145
5. Conclusions 147

ELEVEN Feminist Philosophy and Utopia: A Powerful Alliance

ANA MARIA BACH, MARGARITA ROULET, AND
MARIA ISABEL SANTA CRUZ 149
1. Conceptual Arguments 150
2. Ideology and Utopia 157
3. Utopianism, Feminism, and Philosophy 160

TWELVE Unthinking Gender: The Traffic in Theory

in the Americas
CLAUDIA DE LIMA COSTA 167
1. Introduction 167
2. The Traffic in Theories 168
3. Translation as Discursive Migration 169
4. Translation Practices and the Traffic in Gender 170
5. Gender( ed) Readings/ Feminist Readings:
The Brazilian Context of Reception 175
6. Beyond Gender? 181

THIRTEEN Philosophy, Politics, and Sexuality

ALICIA H. PULEO 187
1. Philosophizing About Sexuality: A Form of
Politics 187
2. The Reaction to Enlightened Feminism and
to Suffrage 187
3. Revolution and Transgression 191
4. Final Considerations 194
vm CONTENTS

FOURTEEN The Ethics of Pleasure

GRACIELA HIERRO 197
1. Introduction 197
2. The Gender Perspective 197
3. Ethics 198
4. Good and Evil 198
5. Morals 199
6. Religion and Morals 199
7. Sexual Morality 200
8. Double Sexual Morality: A Mexican
Interpretation 200
9. A Look at What is Considered "Normal" 201
10. The Sexualization of Morality 202
11. A Criticism of Gender 203
12. The Hedonistic Sexual Ethic 203
13. What is Considered Good, and Hedonism 204
14. Sexuality, Eroticism, and Love 205
15. Eroticism 205
16. Love 206
17. Conclusions 206

About the Contributors 209

Index 213
 Nine

THE CHALLENGEOF DIFFERENCESIN

LATIN AMERICANFEMINISM
Maria Luisa Femenias

Translated from Spanish by Amy A. Oliver

Latin America does not constitute a homogeneous totality without

distinctions (as thought by some who tend to see it as "the exotic other").
The region manifests many and profound differences. Its geography, ethnic
make-up, and economy differ significantly although the region does retain
some common points: language, a primary religion, its situation relative to
the ~~rth-south axis, and the real and symbolic space inhabited by women. In
addit10n to the inherent instability of its institutional and economic
ca~abilities, a formal, egalitarian model exists that Latin America can never
quite put into practice. 1 Such problems encourage a critical potential
~chored, in general, in the concept of "difference." Analyzing equality-
difference dichotomies and contrasting them with other concepts held by
feminist theorists is therefore useful.

1. Equality

At_its base, feminism links to the notion of equality. That equality is not a
umvocal concept is a well known idea: "Equality of what?" asks Amartya
Se~. The idea of equality confronts two challenges: on the one hand, the
basic heterogeneity of human beings, where equality is the end goal, and, on
the other, the multiplicity of variables used to judge equality.2In the second
case, the material notion of equality differs greatly from the formal
definitions of it established before the law, which links them to
universalism. 3 The universalization of the notion of equality basically
implies that, on some level, we worry for all other persons, and this d?es not
~ppear to be an unnecessary or hypocritical quality, though, by defendm_gthe
1m~ortance of formal equality, we accept hidden and unwanted matenal or
peripheral inequalities.
Be that as it may, we cannot deny the real div~rsity?f~omen and me:-
~esearch based on the supposition of causal un1forn11ty~gnor_es, _as Se
mdicates, a fundamental aspect of the problem: human d1vers1ty1s no~ a
secondary complication, but a fundamental aspect of the concern with
128 MARiA LUISA FEMENiAS

equality.4 Understood as such, equality occasions the contrastive criterion

that permits us to identify differences, inequities, and deficiencies, making
clear the need for compensatory politics. This solution, unsatisfactory to
some critics, defines itself in terms of "difference through equality," like an
updated version of the fate of Kantian cosmopolitanism, where equality is a
necessary though not a sufficient condition to achieve equity and
recognition.5

2. Difference

Since approximately the 1970s, a good part of feminist production has

advocated a radical critique of the egalitarianist paradigm, replacing it with
"difference." The notion of "difference" is not univocal and it takes on a
unique character in this context.6 Historically, it has connoted inferiority (in
its different forms) as much for women as for Blacks, indigenous peoples, or
other non-Western peoples. The white male, self-instituted as the norm, has
understood all deviation as "abnormal," "inferior," or "negative," and has
displaced the inferiorized "other" to the dark and unfathomable abyss of
overflowing emotionality and irrationality. More recently, the defenders of
"difference" have defined it as reciprocal and spread throughout the nexus
formed by the categories of sex, gender, religion, and class, rescuing it as
"positively other" and insisting upon its self-affirming character without
intending to approve of it.
In this way, the notion of "difference" evokes more than sexual
difference. The category of sex-gender remains permeated by ethnic and
cultural variables, whose immediate demand is not equality but recognition.
The majority of feminists of "difference" develop their theories in countries
where a modem legal order and a high degree of equality prevail. In many
cases, these feminists implicitly presuppose formal equality. Perhaps for that
reason, not without a certain naivete, they consider all differences
necessarily positive, meaningful, and deserving of equal recognition. The
nega:ive view of difference, they believe, obeys colonialist preconceptions
sustamed by centuries of Western domination.7
In the L~tin ~merican setting that has never attempted equality, since
the 1990s unIVersity researchers have systematically used the concepts of
gender_~ndethni~ity~ter-relatedly, in search of parameters for identity a~d
recogmtion. Studies m the field reveal that the absolute priority of ethnicity
over gend~r, which contributed to fragmenting this conceptual weapon from
a substantive as well as formal point of view resolved the well-known
conflicts of !o~alty and double belonging.8 '

In Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, and other countries with significant

perc~ntages of their native population multi or interethnic, public policy
applied a large part of the results of the research. Their universal non-
 The Challenge of Differences in Latin American Feminism 129

Western symbols had clashed many times with the programs endorsed by
European non-governmental organizations or the United Nations, and a vast
number of beneficiaries experienced these clearly Western assumptionsmore
as an extension of the Conquest than as assistance. Yet the diagnostic studies
allowed detection, based on parameters of the specific cultures, problems of
inequity, violence, and invisibility, among others. A wide variety of more or
less spontaneous associations of women served as strong centers of identity
and resistance. As recent indigenous movements show, without modifying
their essential structure, these associations generated major bases of
sensitization with respect to what the West recognizes as rights. Led by
women, a slower but more fruitful process began that integrated gender-sex
and ethnicity into a comprehensive identity model.
Whereas hegemonic discourses on equality consider women
monolithically in the abstract, constructs of "difference," tied to traditions,
recognize them materially. If the Enlightenment initiated the constructionof
women's rights with the "Preciosas" (aristocratic French women who
organized literary salons to disseminate the ideas of the Enlightenment) and
the "notebooks of complaint," groups such as the "Preciosas" reclaim their
place in the social structure of the community to which they belong. In this
way, they attempt to affirm themselves in the presence of men, but also in
the presence of Western white feminists, whom they view as hegemonic
bearers of a discourse based on a folkloric identity projected onto native
Third World women, residual proof of the universality of patriarchy and the
traditional subjugation of women. . . .
Constructed as much by male narratives of their own thetr own 1dent1ty
groups as by First World feminists who undervalue their experiences and
view them as "the exotic other," native women inchoately sense that such
discourses address them as "the Third World woman" (in the ontologized
singular). The distortions made by men and First World feminists generate a
visceral sensation among native women of double subaltern status.
Paradoxically, the exaltation of autochthonytends to ob~curethe fact
that the logic of power also ruled, and rules, interethnic r~latrons.Th_ere~ore,
only by carefully examining the logic of power can we articulate the_mtn~ate
links among difference, hierarchy, the self-other ~i_alectic,no~, rdentr~,
and exclusion. Only then will we be in a pos1t1?n t~ consider which
differences we should retain, which are significant to 1dent1ty(whether or not
they collide with rights), and which are not.

3. Universal

Contemporary criticism of the limits of universa!ist formalism is something

like a "chronicle of a criticism foretold," and rt refers to ~n o~dr;blem
linked to the paradoxes of universality that have come to hght m I erent
130 MARiA LUISA FEMENiAS

ways. From denouncing women's position as "the excluded other," to

sounding the alarm about the "slanders" of universality9, the nature of
11
"substitute universality" 10, or the "fissure" of the universal , many women
have developed theories and practices that have revealed contradictions. The
tensions between the enunciative and practical levels began to become
explicit when enlightened women attempted to include themselves in the
emancipatory virtualities of universal equality.
The continual revision and manufacture of historic patterns of
universality permitted Western women to attain present-day legal and social
recognition. In that regard, Latin American women seek their own paths.
This does not imply ignorance, rejection, or unfamiliarity with the
experience of other women's movements, whether historic or present-day.
Their critical starting point is different as are their methods of orchestration.
The tolerance of gender inequality relates closely with issues of
legitimacy and recognition. People frequently accept gender inequality as
"natural" and do not discuss it. Indeed, often women themselves make
operative decisions that harm them because the apparent natural, cultural and
identity-related justice of these inequalities, together with the absence of any
sense of injustice, play a key role in the function and survival of the same
structures that make allies of those who have most to lose. In a declaration
referring to Chicanas, Gloria Anzaldua affirms, "men make the rules and
women transmit them: mothers and mothers-in-law teach youth to obey, to
be silent, to accept male and church culture submissively." 12
In these cases, the equality-difference debate reflects the recovery of
gender-ethnic-cultural identity tension and in less Westernized communities
it reaches levels of conflict that are very costly for women. In practice,
opting to pursue "equality" implies significant emancipatory and legal
virtualities, though they are abstract. On the other hand the choice of
"difference" affirms women's self-identity, recognition, belonging, and
autochthony, but it leaves them without clear parameters to examine,
compare, and translate inequities and injustices and with a sense of
discomfort, rarely put into words and even less conceptualized.
If they opt for equality, in many cases the community cuts them off from
their family and group identities, especially from their mothers and
grandmothers. Repudiated by their communities these women lack "decent"
life choices within their own groups. The usual ,:choice" is then to migrate to
more Westernized cities only to join the ranks of domestic workers and
si_nglemothers without welfare. Often these women have marginal and
highly unstable partners, jobs, or associations with loosely formed groups.
These exclude_dwo1:1enshape the contingent boundary of the fictional
construct ofumversahty at the same time as they define it.
The explicit recognition by philosophers such as Judith Butler and
Chantal Mouffe that universalist claims include a certain degree of
 The Challenge of Differences in Latin American Feminism 131

materially inevitable exclusion requires a reformulation of the topic of

universality and the related debate of recent years. 13 To contribute to the
conceptualization of such problems so that the social stratagem delimits
more equitable spaces for all, mobilizing the level of practice and that of
theoretical conceptualizations is necessary. Only after examination and
discussion of these positions will we better understand the tensions between
customs and laws, or in Fraset's terms, between identity and recognition, on
the one hand, and distributive justice and equity on the other.
This is because, given the impact of examining the connection between
theoretical analysis, social sensitization, and practical politics, ignoring the
importance for long-term social change of a clearer understanding of gender
equity and inequity is a mistake. If "equality" is a hypercodified concept that
legitimates modem political institutions, even those biased against it or those
which exclude on the basis of gender, examining and being vigilant about
the real mechanisms of recognition and of inclusion-exclusion of women
situated in communities in which the formal universal denies them a place is
essential.

4. Postcolonial Feminism

Postcolonial feminism, so much in fashion, attempts to subvert the historical

devaluation of women as inferiorized difference, appealing to the standard
measure of ethnic difference. However, given that its representatives are
primarily English speaking, they are not exempt from the general critique of
Anglocentrism as a hegemonic discourse. Similarly, they prefer to overlook
that the postcolonial situation varies greatly among the former English,
French, Dutch, and Spanish colonies. For that reason, a word as broad as
"postcolonial" homogenizes basic differences among such cultural h~ri~ges,
obscuring ethnic, religious, esthetic, and hierarchical differences withm the
multiple cultural and ethnic communities that comprise Latin Am~rica. .
In the same way, what white members of the metropohs consi_der
postcolonial continues to be colonial for the native communities that reJect
how the "W estem feminist community" absorbs difference in terms of its
own parameters such as difference in equality, without questioning t~e
legitimacy of its' self-appropriation of the representation of "Women:''.This
critique is common in Latin America in large indigenous cm~urmmtiesor
those with little ethnic mixing, with a strong sense of belongm~. I~ m~re
Westemized urban areas, the tension between recognition and distnbut!ve
justice tends to be less and even tilts toward the second, though the tenswn
of the north-south axis is always present. . .
Although indigenous countries have formed mdependent states _smce_ the
nineteenth century, they continue to view "W~ite" _culture as_mvasive,
thereby complicating the idealized vision of multiple differences m order to
132 MARJA LUISA FEMENiAS

draw attention to the real and often wide gap that divides women. Therefore,
distinguishing between "difference" as benign diversity and desirable
plurality, and "difference" as conflict, rupture, or disagreement is necessary.
While the appeal to a confirmed feminine identity becomes more untenable
every day within and outside feminism, adopting an uncritical politics is an
inadequate if not dangerous alternative. In effect, the guise of "non-Western
identity logic," an argument that we must disarticulate as fallacious and
untenable, protects particular exclusionary systems. The argument is
untenable because it legitimates discrimination, rape, and gender
subordination merely by affirming that we should not utilize the concept of
equality because this concept is a subsidiary of Western modernity.
In the same way, certain authors' emphasis on the specific and local, as
opposed to the homogeneous and the global, appears to respond to a certain
Manichean skepticism. They insist upon the value of intercultural analysis,
as a systematic, socioeconomic, and ideological process, while at the same
time they retain, as political strategies, the comprehensive categories of
"Third World woman" and "Latin America" as historical-economic
constructs of identity with their own characteristics.14
This tends to give credence to the political action of women who,
positioned in different ways, achieve unity by creating what Mohanty calls
"imagined communities" and Butler calls "fictional constructs." An attempt
to maintain equilibrium, though a complex and unstable one, between
particularity and universality also exists. Nevertheless, the intersection of the
local, national, global, or communitarian tends to erase boundaries and
traditional borders, in which transnational forces of de-territorialization and
re-territorializationtrample these spaces more each day.

5. Critically Retaining the Universal

Are Western emancipatory universals from the start bound by an irrevocable

monocultural and monosexual clause? Do they eliminate the gap between
what ~s and w~at might be? Does ignoring them solve the problem of
matenal exclusion? Do these fictional constructs provide a necessary
comparative criterion? These questions bring under discussion different
~halle~ges_-One of them involves imagining whether, if people demand their
m~lusion ~n a ~ertain universal, they correspond to the type of subject the
um~ersal imagmes. If "universal" is a category without meaning outside a
pa~icu~arWestern cultural language (as some defenders of multiculturalism
mam~m), then any attempt to rescue it would be fruitless. If it lacks
~ean~ng in n~n-~estern cultures, except as a bearer of colonial reason, the
issue 1sreductiomst and exclusionary.
Pos~colonial ~roposals w?rk as means of national and political self-
affirmation, appeahng to the tnck of the incommensurability of difference to
 The Challenge of Differences in Latin American Feminism 133

describe the relationships among women and ethnic groups. This

incommensurability impedes comparison, agreement, persuasion, and mutual
enrichment of concepts. It does not permit terms or common criteria that
could allow one argument to prevail over another. In this way, postcolonial
proposals only legitimize community-identity interests are while at that same
time they believe for women of other ethnic groups and cultures to denounce
a situation of unlawful inequity against the rights of all to be impossible.
When two situations are incommensurate with each other, freedom from
commitment, responsibility, and political action, implicitly promoting
demobilization and selflessness exists. This also undermines any
legitimization of political actions that promote transnational, interethnic,
inter-class, and inter-gender solidarities by, for instance, covering up human
rights violations of such women with the rhetoric of "cultural identity." For
that reason, far from conceptualizing differences as "the mark of others" and
self-instituting the norm that ignores mutual differences, examiningwhat this
rhetoric projects onto the other as a strange and unknown outsider is
necessary.

6. Balance

Although a syncretic culture of considerable weight already exists, gender

and interethnic problems inside the borders of a single state are, at times,
more complex than relations between the states. Because of this, the
rejection of universal parameters makes an attempt against the defense of the
rights of the majority of women and it tends to paralyze any stake in public
politics critically oriented toward removing conditions of dependency and
submission by women. 15 As Nancy Fraser indicates, recognition and
distributive justice are two variables that we should maintain in equilibrium,
16
without ignoring or nullifying one over the other. .
Those of us who have lived on the border of the State of Law (Latin
America has a great deal of experience with this) know that recognition of
gender-ethnic identity differences should not obscure t~e im~o~nce ~f legal
equality or material equality. If formal recognition of nghts 1smsuffic~e_nt,at
least establish criteria that allow us to overcome the incommensurabihty_of
infinitely multiplied differences. The law is an instrument_that r~a~pts its
nd
forms and contents to the interests and necessities of social, p~h_tica_l, a
economic reality. How it does this depends greatly o~ th~ participation of
women in the construction of their own interests and ob3ectives•.
Given that no formulas or favored solutions exist, what 1s co~only
called "cooperative conflicts" frames the immed_iat~ ~k- These conflicts are
largely an extension of "problems of negotiation : Clear and d~fi~ed
interests and general objectives exist, but to reach them, ach1evmg
134 MARiA LUISA FEMENiAS

agreements that are only possible if all parties give up something is

necessary.17
Two strategies appear to contribute in an interesting way to the goals of
the formation of the network and basis for gender negotiation. On the one
18
hand, Sen defends the notion of "positional objectivity." On the other,
Alicia Gianella advocates the notion of "reflexive equilibrium." 19 In the first
case, a tacit appeal to the idea of equality exists that is universal in a certain
way, in which the idea of "equivalence" presses us to pay as much attention
to irreducible particularity as to the normative level. In the second case,
reflexive equilibrium permits connection of the normative aspects with
concrete situations and experiences. For Gianella, reflexive equilibrium is a
way of recognizing the existing disequilibrium. Women who wish to
contribute to social change to their benefit must defend two fronts at the
same time: generate new norms on the political level and produce
substantive changes in practice. Recognition of constant instability and the
need for negotiation contribute to reflexive equilibrium understood as a goal.
Both strategies allow us to conceptualize more clearly and design
alternative strategies to narrow the gap between the formal and material
levels. The material demarcation of the border of exclusion favors the
development of an "eman(anti)cipatory imagination" which provides the
anticipated means for a universality that still has not come and which we
cannot impose. Doing so generates a broad, forcible rejection. Because of
this, the creation of consensus, consciousness-raising, or sensitivity training
regarding inequity are irremovable challenges and tasks found in differeing
degrees throughout Latin America.
If inequality is not difference, and equality is not identity, a feminism
based on equality has no reason to clear away differences. To make invisible
the tens~onbetween the two is to hide the challenge of forming an argument
that articulates inequities and conflicts, and designs useful bridges of
translation, for which we must find the political will to achieve.

NOTES

1. A version of this arti?le appears in Spanish in Revista Debats, 76, (2002), pp.
?.6-64 • For a _more ~xtens1ve analysis of this issue, see Maria Luisa Femenias,
Igual~ad Y d1ferenc1aen democracia: una sintesis posible " Anales de la Catedra
Francisc_oSu4rez, 33 Cl!niv;_rsid~_deGr_anada,1999), pp. 109-132; Ofelia Schutte
fd_Mana ~msa Fememas, Femim_stPhilosophy in Latin America," Philosophy in
P~!~~,1~{ta, ed. Eduardo Mendieta (Bloomington, Ind.: University of Indiana
2
(Madri·.dAma:1Ya Sen , Nuevo examen de la desigualdad [Inequality Reexamined]
: Ahanza, 1995), pp. 7, 13.
M . 3·[fee,~.g., Angeles Jimenez Perona, "Igualdad," JOpalabras claves sabre
u;er en ey Words About Woman], ed. Celia Amoros (Navarra: Editorial Verbo
 The Challenge of Differences in Latin American Feminism i 35

D~-:ino, ~ 995); ~na R~bio Cast~o, Feminismo y ciudadania [Feminism and

C1t1zensh1p](Sev1,~la-Malaga,Institnto ~ndaluz de la Mujer, 1997), ch. 2; Maria
Isabel Santa C~ Sohre el concepto de 1gualdad:algunas observaciones "Jseaoria
0
6 (1992). ' '

4. Sen, p. 9.
5. Chandra Mohanty, "Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial
Discourse," Boundary, 2.12: No. 3.13 (Spring/Fall 1984).
. 6. Mari~ Luisa Perez Ca-yan~,"Diferenci~,"-IOpalabras claves sabre Mujer, ed.
C~ha Amoros (Navarra: Ed1tonal Verbo D1vmo, 1995); Rosi Braidotti, "Sexual
D1fferen?e Theory," A Companion to Feminist Philosophy, eds. Alison Jaggar and
Ins Manon Young (London: Blackwell, 1998), chap. 30; Genoveve Fraisse, La
diferencia de los sexos [The Difference Between the Sexes] (Buenos Aires:
Manantial, 1996).
7. Cf. Gaytri Spivak , A Critique of Postcolonial Reason (London: Harvard
University Press, 1999).
8. Schutte and Femenias, "Feminist Philosophy in Latin America."
9. Celia Amoros , Hacia una critica de la raz6n patriarcal (Barcelona:
Anthropos, 1985), p. 113.
10. Cf. Seyla Benhabib , "El otro concreto y el otro generalizado," Drucilla
Cornell, Teoria critica/Teoria feminista [Critical Text/Feminist Text] (Valencia,
Spain: Alfons el Magnanim).
11. Concepcion Roldan, "El reino de los fines y su gineceo. Las limitacionesde!
universalismo kantiano a la luz de sus concepciones antropologicas," El individuo y
su historia. Herencia de las antinomias modernas [The Individual and His or Her
History. The Heritage of Modem Antinomies] (Barcelona, Spain: Paidos, 1995) p.
171.
12. Gloria Anzaldua, Borderlands/Lafrontera (San Francisco, Calif.: Aunt Lute
Books, 1987), p. 16.
13. Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe , Hegemony and Socialist Strategy
(London: Verso, 1986); Judith Butler, Ernesto Laclau, Slavoj Zizek, Contingency,
Hegemony, Universality (London: Verso, 2000).
14. Schutte, "Latin America," A Companion to Feminist Philosophy, Jaggar and
Young (London: Blackwell, 1998). .
15. Maria Julia Palacios, Defender las Derechos Humanos [DefendmgHuman
~ights] (Salta, Argentina: Universidad Naciona~ de -~alta, ,1_999);Nancy Frase:,
Reconsiderando la esfera publica: una contnbuc10n cntica a la democracia
existente," Entrepasados, 7, 1994, pp. 87-114.. ,. . .
16. Nancy Fraser, Justitia Jnterrupta [Justice Interrupted] (Bogota. Umversidad
de los Andes, 1997). • • · ,,
17.Amartya Sen, "Desigualdad de genero y teorias de la JUstic1a, Mora, 6,
(2000), pp. 4-15. . . .
18. Sen, "Positional Objectivity," Philosophy and Public Affazrs , 22.2 (1993),
pp. 126-145. .. . I A«." " w:-
19. Alicia Gianella, "The Reflective Eqmhbnum and Womens ~iairs, issen
Macht Geschlecht/Knowledge Power Gender-Philosophie "undd~i_eZfi~u'!ft. de;,
"condition feminine"/Philosophy and the Future of th~ con llfnK emmz?t
(Zii.rich,Chronos 2001); also, A. Baum, S. Blattler, B. Christensen,, . •. usser; • •
Marti, and B. W~isshaupt (eds.),Niveles epistemol6gicos en las anallSls de genera,
eds. ( Coloquio Bariloche, Argentina, 1996).