Within U.S. women’s studies, the turn to internationalize knowledge production has instituted an intellectual pathway to certain locations in the world. This essay asks what the historical and intellectual processes are that generated the most common internationalizing formula as global woman = third-world woman → global South = location of transnational feminist analysis. The lack of focus on the former second world obscures the fact that it has always been a part of the global. Thus, what would it mean to include the second world? I argue that the concept of Eurasia provides an epistemological framework for including and exceeding the second world in transnational feminist thinking. Furthermore, Eurasia challenges the three-worlds metageography that limits our understanding of power and alterity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jennifer Suchland (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: