Ways of Thinking

Audre Lorde writes that "It is a particular academic arrogance to assume any discussion of feminist theory without examining our many differences," and of course, I completely agree. I also agree that "Only within that interdependency of different strengths, acknowledged and equal, can the power to seek new ways of being in the world generate." I thought about how this idea, of embracing and trying to understand differences, was connected to Uma Narayan's argument, that outsiders should be more perceptive of the consequences of their actions, even though they are done with good intentions, and also that insiders should gently--not defensively--"point out why the outsider's remarks or perceptions were experienced as hurtful or offensive." I really liked these two ideas and I began to wish that everyone could read these two articles and reevaluate his/her daily interactions with each other.

However, as I continued along Lorde's article, I felt increasingly uncomfortable with her tone, especially in these three excerpts from "The Master's Tools":

• "If white American feminist theory need not deal with the differences between us, and the resulting difference in our oppressions, then how do you deal with the fact that the women who clean your houses and tend your children while you attend conferences on feminist theory are, for the most part, poor women and women of color?"
• "Why weren't other women of color found to participate in this conference? ...Am I the only possible source of names of Black feminists?" ...In academic feminist circles, the answer to these questions is often 'We did not know who to ask.' But that is the same evasion of responsibility, the same cop-out, that keeps Black women's art out of women's exhibitions, Black women's work out of most feminist publications except for the occasional 'Special Third World Women's Issue' and Black women's texts off your readings lists."
• "Now we hear that it is the task of women of color to educate white women--in the face of tremendous resistance--as to our existence, our differences, our relative roles in our joint survival. This is a diversion of energies and a tragic repetition of racist patriarchal thought."

Her snide negativity, especially in the first excerpt, really left a bad taste in my mouth. It now seemed to clash with Narayan's idea and hope for people to be more understanding, despite my previous assumption that both arguments coalesce with and echo each other. It seems to me that Lorde's point of view is that of an insider who, as Narayan stated, may react "with understandable anger" because he/she may not realize that "outsiders do not have the subtle understanding of oppression that insiders have." Would Lorde then say that Narayan's argument is "a diversion of energies," that efforts to teach--by which I mean each side should try to understand the other--detract from long term goals? I agree that we should embrace differences, but to highlight it to the point of creating divisiveness (by which I mean assuming that outsiders have no valuable input, no possible way of understanding, and must therefore keep to their own problems and not learn of different ones) within a movement seems to be the real "diversion of energies." Where then, and when, does embracing differences become exclusion?