Strategic essentialism

{{Short description|Concept in postcolonial theory}}

__NOTOC__

Strategic essentialism, a major concept in postcolonial theory, was introduced in the 1980s by the Indian literary critic and theorist Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak.{{cite book |editor=G. Ritze and J.M. Ryan |title=The Concise Encyclopedia of Sociology |date=2010 |page=193}} It refers to a political tactic in which minority groups, or ethnic groups mobilize on the basis of shared identity attributes to represent themselves.

These identity attributes commonly include:

{{div col}}

• Gender – see postcolonial feminism
• Race – see critical race theory
• Gender identity — see queer theory
• Language and ethnicity – see linguistic anthropology
• Some other cultural grouping

{{div col end}}

While strong differences may exist between members of these groups, and amongst themselves, they engage in continuous debates. Proponents of Strategic essentialism argue it is sometimes advantageous for them to temporarily "essentialize" themselves, despite it being based on erroneous logic,{{cite journal|last=Kurzwelly|first=J.|author2=Rapport, N.|author3=Spiegel, A. D.|title=Encountering, explaining and refuting essentialism|journal=Anthropology Southern Africa|year=2020|volume=43|issue=2|pages=65–81|doi=10.1080/23323256.2020.1780141|hdl=10023/24669 |s2cid=221063562|hdl-access=free}} and to bring forward their group identity in a simplified way to achieve certain goals, such as equal rights or antiglobalization.{{cite book |author=B. Ashcroft |display-authors=etal |title=Key Concepts in Post-colonial Studies |url=https://archive.org/details/keyconceptsinpos0000ashc |url-access=registration |date=1998 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/keyconceptsinpos0000ashc/page/159 159–60]|isbn=978-0-415-15304-1 }}

Spivak's understanding of the term was first introduced in the context of cultural negotiations, never as an anthropological category.{{cite journal |author=Susan Abraham |year=2009 |title=Strategic Essentialism in Nationalist Discourses: Sketching a Feminist Agenda in the Study of Religion |url=https://muse.jhu.edu/article/266799 |journal=Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion|volume=25| issue = 1|pages=156–161 |doi=10.2979/fsr.2009.25.1.156 |s2cid=143105193 |via=Project Muse|url-access=subscription }} In her 2008 book Other Asias,{{cite book |title=Other Asias |author=Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak |author-link=Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak |publisher=Blackwell Publishing |year=2008 |isbn=978-1405102070 |location=Malden, MA |page=260}} Spivak disavowed the term, indicating her dissatisfaction with how the term has been deployed in nationalist enterprises to promote (non-strategic) essentialism.{{cite book |editor=G. Ritze and J.M. Ryan |title=The Concise Encyclopedia of Sociology |date=2010 |page=619}}

The concept also comes up regularly in queer theory, feminist theory, deaf studies,{{cite book |author=Paddy Ladd |title=Understanding Deaf Culture: In Search of Deafhood |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Pr649oNCaSMC&pg=PA81 |date=2003 |publisher=Multilingual Matters Ltd. |isbn=1-85359-546-2 |page=81}} and specifically in the work of Luce Irigaray, who refers to it as mimesis.{{cite book |author=Virpi Lehtinen |title=Luce Irigaray's phenomenology of feminine being |publisher=State University of New York Press |date=2014 |page=39}}