I love how strong and thought out this proposal is, especially with the mapping of the historiography before moving into your own intervention. The explanation describing the shift from nationally bounded studies of second wave feminism to more transnational approaches is super effective! I like how “Third World feminism’s” role is highlighted in recentering Western narratives. That alone already shows a clear awareness of how the field might’ve changed, which also makes the project feel very well grounded.
I believe one of the biggest strengths of the proposal is the focus on circulation, and especially the absence of it. This is a really productive angle and one that connects well to everything we’ve been discussing and learning in class about transnational history—not just about connections, but also about the limits, barriers, and uneven exchanges. This also carries into this week’s readings and how they’re pushing us to think about hidden or somewhat uneven networks, where ideas and influence don’t have as much freedom to travel as we might assume. This project is positioned in a way that gives it the ability to explore those kinds of tensions within feminist movements.
The incorporation of intersectionality is additionally a major strength. The point about how some feminist movements reproduced other forms of exclusion is incredibly important and something that adds a crucial layer within the project that prevents it from becoming too celebratory or overly unified. This fits nicely with the broader argument that there wasn’t a single second wave, but rather sometimes conflicting “mini” waves.
In terms of additional development to think about, one thing could be the scope and specificity. Currently, the project is very ambitious in terms of geography (Western and non-Western contexts) and themes (circulation, absence, intersectionality, etc.). It could help to consider narrowing to a few case studies, networks, or specific exchanges that could be analyzed more in depth. This would, in turn, make the primary sources, such as journals and conference papers, even more focused and effective for the project.
Related to that, it could be useful to clarify what “absence of circulation” means in this context. Is it more about political barriers, language differences, or unequal power dynamics? I think defining this more clearly will help even further strengthen the core argument.
Overall, this is a very compelling proposal that I believe holds much importance! It’s historiographically aware, methodologically ambitious, and very obviously engaged meaningfully with the transnational approaches we have discussed. Awesome job! Super excited to read the finished project 🙂