3.1 Theoretical Position

This study is being conducted from a post-colonial/post-structural feminist perspective within the critical theory paradigm, seeking to investigate the phenomenon by means of a symbolic interactionist/ethnographic methodology using a case-study as the method. Although feminist perspectives can be grouped within the critical theory paradigm (Sarantakos, 1998 in Jennings, 2001), the different feminist perspectives can also be seen as separate paradigms (Neuman, 2000 in Jennings, 2001). In this study I look at feminisms as paradigms which “cross-cut the ‘master’ paradigms of post-positivism, critical theory, and constructivism” (Ateljevic & Swain, 2006).

Thus, in this study the post-colonial/post-structural feminist paradigms are cross-cutting the critical theory paradigm. Both paradigms have, generally seen, similar ontological, epistemological and methodological viewpoints (Jennings, 2001), although more specifically looked at, the separate feminisms differ among each other in their ways of perceiving the world. The critical theory paradigm is based on the need to do research that will liberate oppressed groups from oppression so that their social circumstances and conditions change (Jennings, 2001). Jennings (2001) argues the critical theory paradigm is distinct from the positivist paradigm, because critical theory is based in real-world settings and sees people as acting and thinking persons in contrast to positivism which sees people as following fixed procedures and rules.

Although closer to the interpretive paradigm the critical theory paradigm also criticizes this paradigm, for valuing all points of view as being the same instead of using research to support the cause of minority groups. Ontologically seen “critical theory portrays the world as being complex and organized by both overt and hidden power structures” (Jennings, 2001: 41). Epistemologically seen “the critical paradigm adopts a position between subjectivism and objectivism” (Jennings, 2001: 42). Hemingway (1999) argues the following:

“Ontologically, critical theory accepts the existence of an external social reality, but does not regard it as immutably given. Instead, critical theory understands this reality to be the product of human interactions under historically specific material and social conditions. Critical theory therefore introduces a temporal dimension reflected in its epistemology. The knower and the known are joined together by their historical specificity and the results of social inquiry are not universalizable”.

The critical theory paradigm stresses the need to search below the surface to get to the real meaning of social interactions and the power plays that are inherent in social interactions. In order to do this, Jennings (2001) argues, the critical theorist researcher will mainly work with a qualitative methodology. Ateljevic (2005A) mentions the following 11 criteria of the critical theory:

• Critical enlightenment.
• Critical emancipation.
• Rejection of economic determinism.
• Critique of technical rationality.
• To understand ‘the impact of desire’ [and] ‘rethink the interplay among the various axes of power, identity, libido, rationality and emotion’.
• To understand the subtlety of power.
• To understand that ‘dominant ideological practices and discourses shape our vision of reality’.
• To understand that ‘language is not a neutral and objective conduit of description of the “real world” [and that] linguistic descriptions are not simply about the world but serve to construct it’.
• Culture, power and domination-mass culture function as a mechanism of control.
• To understand ‘the ways particular cultural agents produce particular hegemonic ways of seeing… [and] the corporate-dominated pedagogical process’.
• Vision of utopia – to move towards greater freedom, democracy and equality.

In the critical theory paradigm, self-reflexivity plays a very important role (Ateljevic et al., 2005). In the next paragraph, “The Self of the Researcher”, I will elaborate on this reflexivity issue. As argued by Ateljevic et al. (2005) concerns and ideas about reflexivity originated from feminist theory. Also Aitchison (2003: 23) comments on this reflexivity within feminist research, arguing: “Feminist research therefore acknowledges the significance of the Researcher or writer in shaping the research process and written outcomes”. According to Aitchison (2003: 23) there is an ethical dimension in the very intention of feminist research itself, as “feminist research is a political project undertaken in order to highlight, and subsequently improve, conditions for women within society”.

In my study I would argue this does not mean an improvement of conditions for only women, but for all people in society as the kind of relationships between men, women and children hopefully will change and improve. Aitchison continues arguing that an explicit political intention can be seen in feminist research. The different streams within feminism have considered different power relations that are seen to subordinate women as politically significant. Given the various standpoints within feminism it is necessary to clearly state my feminist stance within this research. This study is being conducted within a combination of the post-colonial and the post-structural feminist paradigm, two related feminist paradigms. Aitchison (2001) argues postcolonial feminism as well as post structural feminism underline the performative, discursive and textual construction of the Other in the ‘reinscription’ of power-gender relations.

According to Aitchison (2003) post structural feminism is concerned with the way in which cultural relations act to form gender relations. It attempts to reveal the very cultural codes by which a gender order is legitimated, constructed and reproduced (Weedon, 1997 in Aitchison, 2003). Aitchison (2000) also points out that one of the main concerns of post structural feminism is to argue against the idea of one single truth or theory being able to explain the position of women across space and throughout time. Aitchison (2003) argues one of the impacts of postcolonial feminism is the focus on the global instead of the western narrow-minded, challenging the representativeness and authority of white feminist debate. Postcolonial feminism has questioned the masculinity of postcolonial theory and its deficiency in engaging with the dynamics of gendered power in imperial and colonial contexts.