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? 

October 15 Discussion Post

Uma Narayan talks about 'methodological humility' and 'methodological action' on behalf of outsiders in better understanding the insider's experience. However, she also argues that "...the claim to epistemic privilege for the oppressed should not be identified with the claim that the oppressed should speak for themselves and represent their own interests. That the oppressed should speak for themselves may be a thesis to which we may have a moral and political commitment quite regardless of the view that the oppressed have epistemic privilege" (38). Do you agree with Narayan on this point? Can outsiders ever properly represent or speak on behalf of the insider experience, while keeping in mind both precautions mentioned above? Contrary to Narayan's argument, should the claim to epistemic privilege of the oppressed be the prerequisite to the authority to speak for themselves and represent their experiences?

Kimberle Crenshaw promoted the necessity of recognizing the 'intersectionality' of oppressed peoples with multiple political identities- using the example of battered women of color. These women neither gain a voice nor a presence when they are essentialized as either 'woman' or 'of color.'
I am interested in how Crenshaw's argument could benefit from Uma Nurayan's. Crenshaw says that "through an awareness of intersectionality, we can better acknowledge and ground the differences among us and negotiate the means by which these differences will find expression in constructing group politics." (193) Narayan takes us a step further, offering a more comprehensive solution. We must address such issues and questions "programmatically and not just act on the hope that goodwill on the part of its members will take care of all such problems." (47) How much further does Narayan want to take this? Does Crenshaw offer a comprehensive solution?

In her chapter, Women in Human Evolution, Alison Wylie argues that though science is gendered, feminists must use it as an essential means by which they may achieve their goals of equality. However, earlier in the article, she suggests that the scientific system, because it is rooted in the sexist values of the enlightenment, may in fact be to blame for the fact that gender-biased scientific findings have been accepted, until recently, as the norm. Will it ever be possible to have an un-biased science, in the areas of gender or anything else? How do we go about achieving that if the entire system is flawed in its design?

The articles by Kimberle Crenshaw and Audre Lorde, in particular, discuss the idea of differences within a particular social group. Crenshaw defines this as “intersectionality,” the notion that what may appear to be a homologous community of marginalized or minority groups, is not always the case. Lorde doesn’t just share this opinion, but speaks of these “differences” as being pivotal to making “genuine change” to the current social system. Lorde states that “difference is that raw and powerful connection from which our personal power is forged.” In respect to the “what is feminist politics now?” conference, these articles are incredibly relevant to the current issue of how feminists make the feminist movement a more global endeavor. Have Crenshaw and Lorde found the answer? Will acknowledging and learning from the differences within feminism precipitate a united movement? Basically, what I’m trying to get at is, what is a more tangible solution? How can we actively use this notion of difference and intersectionality to make real changes? Is it really as simple as that?

Embracing Our Differences

Audre Lorde's arguments always manage to truly strike a chord in me, and this time is no different. Lorde urges all women (and the whole of society) not to merely tolerate differences but embrace and appreciate differences as forms of empowerment. She mentions many types of differences such as class, sexual orientation, and age, but focuses mostly on race. In insisting that these differences not be obliterated, she draws upon a very delicate balance of creating a sense of community while still maintaining the things that make us unique. Have we accomplished this? Have we built this kind of community? American society and American feminism seem s to become increasingly more diverse with time, but are we truly embracing our differences or are we merely tolerating them? In politics, business, and general life transaction, could it be that we are all still trying to prove that we are "as good as" the prototypical white American male?

In "Worlding Women," it says that "the female and the domestic sphere in which she belongs 'naturally' is obscured, although the female labour and sexual services within it support and allow the male/public/political to function."  When I read that, I can't help but think about the quotation --as cliche and annoying as it can be-- "Behind every great man there is a great woman."  Women are constantly behind men, helping them succeed.   It just fascinates me that, "female labour and sexual services" back men and "allow" them to get anywhere at all.  By acquiescing to the situation of existing in an "obscured" sphere, are many women enabling men?  Are they allowing men to use them?  And in that sense, are they enabling themselves, avoiding a more difficult road of dissent?  Or is this simply a western feminist view that limits the definition of feminism?