September 21 - Fighting Words. [Commentary] September 28 - Conquest. [Commentary] October 5 - Closet Land . [Commentary] October 12 - Woman, Native, Other. [Commentary] October 19 - Taboo Memories, Diasporic Voices. [Commentary] October 26 - Kandahar. [Commentary] November 2 - Free Enterprise . [Commentary] November 9 - White Women's Rights. [ Commentary] November 16 - Pedagogies of Crossing. [Commentary] Please visit again in the Fall 2006 semester for updates. Back to Course Syllabus. Commentary by leigh vandebogart In critically looking at Audre Lorde's “Age, Race, Class & Sex: Women Redefining Difference,” alongside Iris Marion Young's Justice and the Politics of Difference , presenter Tori Russo began the class by positing the main theme between the two texts: that of the importance of recognizing difference and using the similarities between groups and using difference as a starting place for seeing similarities and enacting change. Through focusing on Lorde and Young's exploration of difference and how difference can and should be understood as positive and socially mobilizing, the discussion turned toward the ideas of justice, privilege, and the distributive paradigm. The class began analyzing the citizen and the idea of citizenship, whether or not individualism and citizenship are mutually exclusive, and who, if anyone, can be a citizen or claim their role as a citizen. Looking through the lens of the framers of the Constitution, the class constructed the notion of who represents a citizen and what that meant at the time the Constitution was written, and what that means today. The idea of the citizen as a blank slate, as a public persona versus a private identity again brought up the idea of difference, especially as a constructed binary of “norm/other” that excluded some people (those seen as the “Other”) to the realm of “outside,” opposed to those regarded as the “Norm” who are “inside.” This then led to a discussion of the distributive justice paradigm and whether or not justice could be achieved through the distribution of material goods, or if this approach fails to redress the issue of justice and equality at all. Connecting this issue of distributive justice to the documentary Hell to Pay, many people concluded that there needs to be some type of (re)distributive justice, because there are so many people that depend on material goods for their very survival. Addressing issues of justice systematically and institutionally is also critical, and should be simultaneous, but does not need to exclude the global (re)distribution of goods. One of the most interesting aspects of Young's text that was not touched on in class, for me, was the idea of how the body is politicized and the politics of identity, and how that relates to the politics of difference and justice. Young deconstructs the idea of an “ugly” body, how bodies are read and interpreted in society today, and how bodies are often divided into dichotomies of good/bad, other/norm, a/not-a according to difference. This also ties into the idea of community, and how communities and groups are formed. Young discusses the formation of affinities among people, the idea that “you are like me, so we must stick together,” and how forging such affinities often erases differences and assimilates people to a standard norm. But Young also stresses that such groups and communities are not beneficial, and only continues to oppress people in three major ways (p. 164-165): • Ignoring difference disadvantages people whose experiences and culture differ from that of the “norm.” • The ideal of a universal humanity without differences erases the need for groups to look at their own diversity. • Stigmatizing groups that deviate from the “norm” creates internalized oppression within one's own group and expectation of total assimilation. These three main points promoting the recognition, acceptance, and working with difference rather than focusing on community and homogenization lead to social equality and the undermining of cultural imperialism (p. 191). This, in turn, creates the foundation for a type of justice that is not based on distribution, but instead incorporates a large scope of people and their differences into a heterogeneous population, promoting cultural pluralism and a realized democracy. [Return] In beginning our discussion on Fighting Words by Patricia Hill Collins, "Womanist" by Alice Walker, and "Anger in Isolation: A Black Feminist's Search for Sisterhood" by Michele Wallace, Janine Hanna presented the major connections between the texts. Both Wallace and Collins discussed black women's role in feminism. Wallace spoke of her experiences as a black activist, where she felt subordinate to men. Collins states that the role of the black woman is perceived to be someone who puts the needs of the community above her own, as Wallace's fellow activists expected her to do. Each of these three authors discusses the distinction between feminism and black feminism. Walker writes about black feminism, which she calls womanism. Collins believes that Walker is stating that womanism is superior to (white) feminism, but Walker could also be claiming that feminism is indigenous to black women. Wallace is more skeptical and does not believe that a black women's movement is on the horizon. The class analyzed the difference between Wallace's pessimism and Collins' experience with "visionary pragmatism," where black mothers prepared their children for a better future, balancing the ideal with reality. The next topic of discussion was Collins' idea of containment and how black women are marginalized even if they are included. Containment is an issue of accommodation, where there is a need to control difference. Black women cannot be too radical or they will not be accepted, as is the case with Condoleezza Rice. The positive images of black women on television, such as Claire Huxtable from "The Cosby Show," are in direct contrast with the images of the "welfare queen" and are comfortable to the public. These positive images erase the notion of the "black bottom." These women are tokenized and lead society to believe that they are a realistic image of success. Just as media is an institution, so is academia. Collins discusses Audre Lorde's notion that "the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house." Seeing academia as a tool of the master, Collins believes that these tools can be used to dismantle the system until we can create our own tools. However, the difference between "buying in" and "selling out" must be noted. The tools of the master can be used to learn and gain access to the system (buying in). Selling out would be assimilating. You can buy in without selling out by infiltrating the system and subverting it from the inside. One aspect of Collins' text that I thought was interesting was her discussion on language. The class discussed how academic language is a tool of the master, and how we need to use those tools without selling out to get our foot in the door and be heard. Collins also discusses the accessibility of academic language and how it is often exclusionary. In her criticism of postmodernism she states: "by performing a powerful gatekeeping function for those who lack access to the exclusionary language of postmodernism, the rhetoric of deconstruction can be used to maintain the status quo" (142). Collins criticizes exclusionary nature of theory and how it creates boundaries between those who do not have access to the language. I agree with Collins' criticism, but I believe she needs to self-reflect on her own writing. Is her language accessible to the working-class families in her Philadelphia neighborhood without college educations? It seems as though she is speaking about the people, rather than speaking to them. Collins' text fits into the academic sphere, but is not within reach of the marginalized public about which she theorizes.[Return] In, Claiming Truganini, Perera writes that colonialism presupposes one true voice and history and the “other” voice and history. This constructs the other as both invisible and hypervisible. This hypervisibility is evident in the politicizing of bodies as the bodies of others are easily, marked, contained, objectified and sexualized. Much of Andrea Smith's work echoes these same themes as she points out the ways in which medical institutions control and objectify the bodies of Native Americans in terms of living sites of experiment for testing vaccinations, or even forced sterilization as a systematic process of genocide. Similarly, Perera problematizes the ways the indigenous have been colonized in Australia as the body of Truganini, an indigenous 16-year-old was considered a trophy, put on display and used in experiments. Perera also discusses the commodification of multiculturalism in the tourist trade, and the ways that has sensationalized the colonization of indigenous bodies. Furthermore, the ways in which appropriation of native culture is tied to sexual violence and genocide, and how these function as a metaphorical rape as a systematic tactic of colonization. This ties in to the ways in which the indigenous body is contained, marked and made accessible, which constructs them universally as vulnerable which further takes away autonomy and contributes to the othering process. Smith discusses cultural appropriation in Conquest as another form of metaphorical rape in, “this practice of taking without asking, and the assumption that the needs of the taker are paramount and the needs of others are irrelevant, mirrors the rape culture of the dominant society” (126). This calls in to question the role academics play in cultural appropriation. How can we participate in the process of obtaining knowledge while maintaining both respect for and understanding of native culture? These are the responsibilities of students and other academics to transcend appropriation. The question was raised in class, how do we counter ignorance? and to what extent do we have a “right” to know? The song we listened to at the beginning of class, Mother by Ulali is an example of these issues we address in being careful not to fall in to the trap of studying culture from an outside perspective while not really knowing or understanding it. However because we could not understand the words sung in the song, that does not automatically imply that we (coming from an outside perspective) cannot understand it. We can contextualize the song in many ways, one of which placing significance in the fact that the women singing have a voice, but perhaps because it is largely not understood that it is an ineffective voice. However, it can also signify that despite the mass appropriation of culture that Native Americans have endured, Native American tradition, culture and cultural expression is still strong and does not need to conform to the use of language understood by the dominant culture. We also contextualized the song as cultural expression that creates a space for people who are inside to experience what it feels like to be outside, and therefore appreciate the space “others” are forced to occupy. The issues raised by Perera and Smith, leave us with questions over what to do from here, or where to begin to include native experience in postcolonial feminism which has largely, left native experience out. Society's lack of lip service to the history of Native American experience is extremely problematic and only adds to the phenomenon of erasing Native Americans both literally and figuratively (historically). Perhaps the answer is not to rely on funding for the revolution, but to recognize the urgency of thinking outside of the box, both through and around the state. If we could begin thinking this way, while simultaneously decolonizing with feminist theory that acts intersectionally, we can incorporate an anti-colonial framework to address violence and reproductive rights, while not being too special issues oriented, thereby inviting the experience of those who have been left out, both of the quest for revolution and society at large. [Return] Commentary by Jeanine Hanna In one sense, this practice places American culture higher on the cultural hierarchy and firmly establishes these women and their culture as “the other.” “The other” is seen as unidimensional and often misunderstood. There is a fascination with their ideas and symbols and they are often described as exotic. Yet at the same time “the other” can be passed over, isolated, alienated and on the margins. Interestingly, in her study Oxford did not find any heterosexual men seeking asylum as a result of gender-based persecution. In this respect, gender is equated with women. Furthermore, Oxford 's study illustrated cultural essentialism in which ethnocentric forms of harm were subordinate to exotic forms of harm. For instance, one woman was granted asylum based on her experience of female genitalia mutilation (as the judge phrased it) but the real purpose for which she was seeking asylum was the treatment or the abuse sustained by her ethnic/racial group. In essence, this woman was given asylum for the wrong reasons. This practice creates a narrative of victimization based on gender which is not what these women are claiming. Another example, involves a woman seeking political asylum for freedom of speech, but instead she was forced to and was granted asylum based on female oppression in her country of origin. This situation illustrates the power possessed by people granting asylum. In essence, this woman was granted gender-based political asylum for the wrong reasons. It is doubtful that men seeking asylum would be re-victimized in this way. Closet Land depicts how state violence and interpersonal violence are mutually reinforcing. In the film, the woman (main character) is detained and interrogated by a government official who suspects that her children's book is an attack on the state. The closet is a metaphor for both the interrogation room and the closet where she sustained sexual abuse as a child. Initially, the woman is in denial about her detainment. She is granted permission to leave but chooses to stay, awaiting a formal written apology from the government. This action taken on her part also illustrates the level of suppression and denial that can sometimes accompany childhood sexual abuse. The government official's presence in the closet with the woman also represents the extent to which the government permeates and invades our private homes—always a watchful eye. In addition, the woman initially thought of the government official as her protector from the potentially more abusive government officials who interrogated her. In this instance she seriously miscalculated the government's role. More accurately the government official (government at large) was the perpetrator of her torture. Is this perhaps a larger social commentary on the current government? The psychological abuse the woman sustains as a result of her torture and confinement by the government official can be related to the psychological ramifications of childhood sexual abuse. In essence, the director is illustrating the common feminist thesis “the personal is political.” Closet Land also illustrates how people understand gender-based persecution in a very specific way. In the film, in a sense, the woman seeks asylum based on childhood abuse and not the current persecution, torture, imprisonment she was currently experiencing. Also, the way the film was presented, the audience wonders whether childhood abuse was the main theme with state level violence as peripheral element or metaphor; or if the underlying theme was state level violence supported by metaphor of childhood abuse.[Return] We started the class with the song “Motorcar” by the a cappella group Zap Mama , a song that depicts a car ride and subsequent crash with no language. The women of the group use their voices to depict the story in sounds. We discussed possible reasons for not using words, including sounds that tell a story might be more accessible than words, which can only be in one language, and that language is a tool of the oppressor – silencing yourself of the oppressor's language without silencing yourself from communicating is a powerful means of resistance. We mentioned that they were deconstructing and reconstructing sounds, by deconstructing the idea of telling a story with the sounds made by words, and reconstructing the story in a new way with the women's collective voices. We also listened to the song “Pygmy Chant” and discussed the notion of the “other.” We talked about how this music could be “othered” or exoticized because it does not use the convention means of telling a story (no language, no instruments). There is a fine line between cultural appropriation and exploring the “mother tongue” and celebrating that culture. We then moved on to leigh's presentation of Mohanty's “Under Western Eyes” in relation to Woman Native Other . Trinh and Mohanty both bring up themes of authenticity, native, containment, and feminism. Mohanty's main idea is about the “Third World Woman,” a singular, monolithic subject constructed by western feminism which homogenizes and erases differences among third world women. Mohanty challenges the ways that western feminism fights for ideals that western feminists presume that all women share simply because they are women. This is a way of colonizing third world women and essentializing women. Western feminism “otherizes” and oppresses women of color and third world women by robbing them of their agency. Trin explores this idea also, when she writes about having to choose between identifying as a woman or a person of color. Trin and Mohanty both deconstruct the essentialist “woman” through a lens of colonialism and power. The class discussed the questions that Trin forces us to consider in Woman Native Other . Can or should we separate literature from anthropology? They are both about telling stories. If you are seen as telling stories for a living (being a writer), is this problematic? Is writing a luxury? We discussed the anxiety Trin feels about whether writing is work, and what constitutes work. Why is there guilt over writing instead of doing hard labor? Audre Lorde says that “poetry is not a luxury,” but Trin feels anxiety over writing academic texts that will never be read by the members of her community she wants to reach most. We discussed whether there is an unbridgeable divide between “frivolous” writing that will only be read by academics and being active in the community. Even if you are part of a marginalized group, by writing academically you are reconstructing privilege: only the privileged will be able to read and understand your work. Trin uses standpoint feminist theory to call attention to her position as a writer, and who she is writing for. We questioned what writing is for. Is there a difference between art for the masses and “high culture”? We closed by discussing how we understand difference. We construct our self to be very important by labeling ourselves “I” instead of “i”. Trin complicates how we see identities by using I/i and Not-I. She critiques identity politics and calls attention to the “infinite layers” in every I. With I/Not-I, two Is can never truly connect and know each other. This makes the constant search for “truth” problematic. What is truth if each I interprets events differently from every other I? We need to integrate the idea of differences into I to dismantle the binary or I/Not-I. [Return] Commentary by leigh vandebogart Class began with watching a video titled “Mann ke Maneere,” by the activist group Breakthrough, which told the story of a woman in India who left an abusive marriage and created a sustainable living for herself and her child through providing transportation to people (in the music video, mainly women) . This video is based on the true story of one woman, Shameem Pathan, who left her marriage with her 3 year old son to make her own way of life. Breakthrough's website writes: “She went through a series of businesses, milk vending, kite-making and doing any job available to make ends meet. Finally, she learned how to drive, an unheard of occupation for a woman in her society. She now drives her own matador van in Ahmedabad, ferrying passengers. Shameem encourages other women to transform their false notions of their own limitations and to reach for their dreams” (Source). The last sentence in the quote from the website illustrates how this video related to our continuing discussion of colonization and our discussion of Ella Shohat's work Taboo Memories, Diasporic Voices. Breakthrough's video very much related to, as Professor Hobson suggested, the “post third-worldist culture” Shohat discusses, in that a new vision is created and represented. This video recreates a vision of a woman-affirming space through the illustration of women finding their inner strength – through themselves as individuals and collectively. Like Pathan, the lyrics as well as the dancing, as Stacie pointed out, reflect self-affirmation and finding one's own inner strength. Tori also questioned the lyrics represented in the video, using Shohat's critical thinking of what actually gets portrayed in translation, and what gets lost. Discussion then turned to the recommended reading and how that piece, a roundtable discussion titled “Feminism in Religious Studies and the The*logy In-Between Nationalism and Globalization” by E.S. Fiorenza, S.D. Welch, and M.P. Acquino, connected to Shohat's work. The class began discussion with a brief introduction on feminist theology, and the use of the term “the*logy” by Professor Hobson. Many feminists within religious studies have critiqued the use of the male universal when discussing religion, and in particular God, and so use different forms and spellings of “theology” to convey the ideology that God is not strictly male or female. Stacie discussed the article in terms of how religion is often used as a normalizing force within Western society, and often furthers the goals of the conservative and right-wing agenda in terms of nationalistic discourse, globalization and the capitalist domination of the United States . She also brought up Welch's discussion of pedagogy, in that one should emphasize people coming to their own conclusions, rather than refuting what people have learned in the past and trying to move forward from that negative place. Welch's piece focused largely on spirituality and an appreciation of one's environment and its inherent beauty, as well as the need for basing group identity on the recognition of responsibilities. This ties in to Pilar-Akino's section of the roundtable discussion, for she advocated contextualizing one's own privilege within the larger realm of privilege, and how this contextualization forms our own personal identities and how others recognize our identities. While it was challenging to relate the recommended reading to Shohat's Taboo Memories, Diasporic Voices , the discussion did move forward. One of the reasons why connections were so challenging is due to the fact that religious discourse and feminism are rarely intertwined within feminist classrooms, and often not talked about or silenced elsewhere. This is extremely problematic in many ways, however, because the lack of inclusion of religion is so alienating to many women and feminists who do see religion as integral parts of their lives. One of the main things discussed within class was one of the points Fiorenza brought up: that religion is not explicitly used within the language of nationalism, though it is so often used implicitly, because the West pretends to be secular, though so much of the discourse and policy in the United States is based within the Judeo-Christian faith and ideology. The use of language and rhetoric was one of the most interesting aspects of the discussion for me, as well as the reading. In her essay titled “Sacred Word, Profane Image: Theories of Adaptation,” Shohat discusses the idea of Cartesian spheres of belonging. She writes, “The novel's veristic procedures, one might argue, came into existence in an era pressured by two related and diacritical forces: on one hand, the grounding of modern science in visuality, in objective gaze – for example, in a Cartesian perspectivalism that supposes an observing standpoint “outside,” and on the other, the growing philosophical importance of a certain aniconism culminating in the twentieth-century privileging of “language” and linguistics,” (pg. 71). Her use of Cartesian spheres denoting “inside” and “outside” spaces was one of the most thought-provoking for me, and made me think of how inside/outside status relates to religion and colonialism. As we discussed in class, Judeo-Christian belief grounds much of the discourse in the United States , whether that discourse is in the form of policy, television, literature, or learning. Like Professor Hobson alluded to, pretty much everyone is expected to know the Garden of Eden myth, and what the bible says about Adam and Eve. It's a fairly common story, referenced in paintings, music, stories, etc. Which made me think of how it is largely expected for someone living in the United States to know, at the very least, the “popular” or “common” stories of the bible. Like my AP English teacher exhorted all of us in her class, “Read the bible. It's the single most cited work you'll find in any piece of literature.” She told us that if we did not read the bible or at least familiarize ourselves with its mythology, so much of literature's nuances and allusions (not to mention the larger societal connections) would pass unnoticed by us. In this way, Shohat's mention of Cartesian spheres of knowing and inside versus outside struck a chord within me. Not only does it place those who are not familiar with the bible or Judeo-Christian teachings (myself, among many others) outside of the realm of what is understood and accepted to be “truth” within many places, it continues the act and process of colonization and imperialism. Not only are people who do not identify or believe in Christianity expected to know such references, they are largely expected to conform – as many people were (and are) forced to conform to Christian beliefs in years past. As Professor Hobson illustrated in the concluding section of the class, in which she presented her powerpoint presentation on “Spectacles of Difference,” even the Western calendar is Eurocentric and based within the Christian faith, fully illustrating how colonization is a perpetual, daily process.[Return] Kandahar, a film by Mohsen Makhmalbaf (2001) chronicles a journalist's (Nafas) journey to Kandahar, Afghanistan to save a friend from committing suicide. The setting is Taliban controlled Afghanistan , and Nafas' friend has just written her a letter professing her future suicide on the last eclipse of century. The friend was physically injured by a land mine resulting in the loss of her leg. At the same time she is suffering emotionally and mentally under the oppression of the Taliban. Spivak's “Can the Subaltern Speak?” asks whether the oppressed can have a voice. The author concludes that the West cannot give voice to the postcolonial subject or the Other because if the Other is being spoken for, it is not really speaking and it is still the voice of the West that is being heard. Interestingly, Spivak's work represents high theory, she is in fact writing for academia where the subaltern is not present. Her language seems alienating. But isn't that the point? Isn't it a performance on Spivak's part? Through her murky language she is professing: Can you hear me? Do you understand me? Our class discussion started with the black American doctor. Who is he? What is he doing in Afghanistan ? We concluded that he is probably a member of the Black Panthers seeking exile in Afghanistan from the FBI. This is speculation on our part but seems likely. A poignant scene with the doctor was when he was treating the Afghan woman behind the curtain. With only a small hole from which to examine her, he played his role under the watchful eye of the Taliban regime and adhered to the law regarding the medical treatment of women. Militarization is an apparent theme within the film. The young boys learning about semi automatic weapons in school as well as other scenes illustrated the statement that weapons were the only modern thing in Afghanistan . Polluted water, famine, poverty, were all apparent, but there certainly was no lack of weaponry. In addition, the oppression of the burka is another element central to the film. Women's and girls' level of resistance is apparent in their desire to beautify themselves using makeup and nail polish despite the fact that it would not be visible to anyone. Furthermore, Nafas ability to speak English and lift her veil at will was representative of her relative freedom [of movement] compared to the other Afghan women. As westerners what should we take away from this film? Later in our discussion we agreed that the film was more than a commentary on patriarchy and oppression. Its narratives included issues such as war and the culture of violence and devastation of the environment depicted by poor drinking water, famine, land mines, etc. Although one of the focuses of the film is restrictions on the body—the burka—the problems that devastate Afghanistan go beyond the oppression of women and their need liberation. And this film moves beyond that, but does not abandon it. The timing of Kandahar 's release—just before September 11 th —warranted some discussion. It was used to support the United States ' cause for the war in Afghanistan , whether that was the director's intention or not. And most likely that was not the director's intention. It is apparent that the film definitely has an antiwar agenda, but in the United States it was representative of the Taliban's oppression and the dire need for the United States to intrude on behalf of Afghan women (and the people of Afghanistan in general). In fact the reception of the film (in the United States ) reinforces the colonial gaze. It may in fact be extremely difficult to subvert the colonial/western gaze completely. [Return] Commentary by Victoria Russo We discussed the master narrative of the John Brown story, juxtaposed with the versions in Free Enterprise . With the help of Prof. Hobson's slide show, we compared that juxtaposition with the “official” story of American Blacks after the Civil War in the film Birth of a Nation and Oscar Micheaux's response Within Our Gates . The way that Cliff uses multiple voices to tell the untold story of Mary Ellen Pleasant and John Brown is mirrored in the multiple meanings of “free enterprise” and the multiple meanings of the bottle tree. Jeanine presented Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham's “African-American Women's History and the Metalanguage of Race.” Higginbotham discusses how recent feminist theory addresses issues of power but does not really address race. According to Higginbotham, we need to define race. The class mentioned that the construction of race is dependent on geographical location; it is a relational concept. Higginbotham notes that gender and class are linked to and created by race identity. Race can also influence constructions of sexuality. The metalanguage of race gives racial meaning to things that do not actually have anything to do with race, like what “good” hair is, what “proper” English is. Race can preclude gender unity within a group, and can mask class and other social status differences within a racial group. Mary Ellen Pleasant's class was often misperceived because she was Black, but she used this to her advantage. “Mammy Pleasant” is a racial construction of class, which Mary Ellen Pleasant played into so that other (White) people would not realize her power. She did her real work in disguise, both class disguise and sometimes gender disguise. Annie Christmas also used gender disguise as a way to subvert her expected role. The class discussed the idea of passing, and how Mary Ellen Pleasant and Annie Christmas both passed in many different ways, including with regards to class status, gender, and sexuality. Free Enterprise is also about reclaiming HERstory. For example, there is an anecdote on pages 101-102 about reclaiming the stories of “the women who serviced the men who opened the frontier.” Cliff does not say how horrible it is that people call Mary Ellen Pleasant and other women 'whores'; she says that the whores deserve a monument. The retelling of stories and reclaiming of HERstory is reminiscent of Trinh T. Minh-ha's ideas of storytelling. On page 59, the stories that Annie and the lepers tell float away into the ether. Trinh says that stories never end. The spirit of resistance is ongoing. Why do we read Free Enterprise, a work of fiction, as theory? The act of retelling and reclaiming history is doing theory. Cliff makes strategic use of fiction to theorize – more people will read a novel than a work of theory. In this way, the novel “passes.” As a class, we decided that it is not problematic to use fiction to address history. The line between fiction and history is arbitrary. They are both stories. It is best to hear as many tellings as we can. [Return] Class began with a presentation and discussion of Adrienne Rich's “Disloyal to Civilization.” Rich discusses the history of the feminist movement and how it became a movement for white social justice with a narrow focus on gender rather than the intersections of race, class, and gender. It is important to understand women's positions on all hierarchies—race, class, gender—to get an accurate depiction of their oppression. Ultimately, the women's movement split into factions with white women focusing largely on the goal of suffrage. Racism was used as a tool to distract white women from including women of color more fully in the feminist movement. In addition, the concept of racism is largely intellectualized by white women—they attach little emotion to the issue. Rich argues that women need to move past silences and engage in dialogue regardless of whether it is painful or difficult. White women must recognize their racism, move past their guilt while building coalitions and working together [with women of color] in order to transcend silence to work against racism. Newman and Rich would agree that women must examine how gender is raced and race is gendered and move past the ideas inherent in early feminism. Following this discussion we watched the Dixie Chicks video “Not Ready to Make Nice.” The video was made as a response to the backlash the band received for their public betrayal of nationalism and patriarchy (and their ability to exercise free speech). Symbolism was rampant in the video, from the black oil in the background to the white picket fence in the foreground. More specifically, the black oil certainly speaks to racism and war while the white picket fence symbolizes the American dream, suburbanization, and the construction of the middle class and women's confinement within their expected gender roles. The band wore white Victorian dresses depicting women's bodies as sexualized as pure and the level of restriction and confinement that women experienced during that time. Ultimately, the band makes a statement by sullying the dresses with black paint; they will not be held to the old Victorian values of womanhood. Finally, the scene in the hospital room reminded us of eugenicist history. The woman resisting medication is a throwback to when science and medicine was (is) used to control women's bodies; keeping them in check in order to preserve white supremacy. Newman's book White Women's Rights reclaims feminist history through its inclusion of the racialized origins that were left out. We all agreed that feminist (her)story is important in order to understand where we have come from, where we need to go, and to get a full understanding of the issues for which we have fought in the past. The book illustrates how racism was really solidified during the Victorian period. Notably, after the passing of the 13 th and 14 th amendments Stanton and Anthony abandoned the originally “united” women's movement (that started with abolition) due to its association with black men, regardless of the fact that black men were central to winning women's suffrage. Throughout the book racism on the part of white women suffragists bubbles to the surface; Stanton 's anger over black men winning the vote first was almost palpable. Although the women's movement began as an interracial movement, it ultimately shifted and became racialized when black men won the vote before white women. This left room for white women associated with Klansmen and other white supremacists to jump on the boat and join white women's plight for suffrage. They argued that white women needed the right to vote in order to illustrate their moral superiority (to black and poor immigrant men and women) to ensure white supremacy. Although white women did not buy into the scientific argument that they were mentally inferior to white men, they did use scientific and eugenicist contentions to claim superiority over black men and women. Central to our discussion was the notion of interracial marriage and its gendered nature. White men who have children (usually through rape) with women of color ultimately gain control of those children and keep them enslaved. White women who have children with black men ultimately have offspring who are not enslaved, therefore, limiting the level of control that white men have over those women and children and the reproduction of the white race. As a result white women were forbidden to have children with and/or marry black men. Interracial unions threatened white supremacy. This illustrates a clear intersection of race and gender. White men benefit from both unions—the forbidden union between black men and white women and white men's ability to rape black women and have control of the children that result—economically and socially. Subsequently, we discussed Newman's connection between segregation in the US and colonialism in the African continent (and how they both promote white supremacy). Whites thought they had to control “wild savage” Africans and ultimately civilize them. In the US , white men deliberately and strategically raped black women, sending a message to black men that they still have access to their wives, mother, daughters, and sisters. At the same time black men were lynched for raping (so it was proclaimed) white women. In closing, the class discussed the importance of examining white privilege. Privilege is an advantage that not everyone receives and it is generally not earned; rather, it is something one gets by being part of the category that is at the top of the social hierarchy, in this case the racial hierarchy. White privilege is a relational construct—it is an advantage that white people have in relation to people of color. And when white people are encouraged not to “see” race the power of privilege is ignored and the misconception that we live in a colorblind society is perpetuated. Although it is generally invisible we need to understand white privilege and recognize it in order to rise above it and create a cohesive united women's movement. [Return] It seems that one of the main themes we discussed from M. Jacqui Alexander's Pedagogies of Crossing were colonialism and its legacies, queer identity and its place and space (or lack there of), nation building and spirituality in women's studies/feminist theory in general. Tori presented on Gloria Anzaldua's “La conciencia de la mestiza,” in which Anzaldua calls for a new feminist consciousness born out of the mestiza identity. Anzaldua discusses issues of borders and borderlands through the legacy of colonization and the ways in which colonization has itself contributed to the creation of the mestiza. Anzaldua's ideas are similar to M. Jacqui Alexander's ideas about remembering the borderlands or areas of crossing. Furthermore, Anzaldua argues movement beyond counter stance to a consciousness that is more liberating. It is in this way that truly understanding the mestiza consciousness can help think through dichotomies and deconstruct the types of dichotomies to which many people ascribe. I am reminded here of the discussion we had about spirituality and Professor Hobson's comment that when the material is spiritual in nature, students “check out” because they do not take it seriously. Similarly, it is provocative to think of the ways that spirituality is not regarded critically nor taken as having the potential of theory. If we could apply Anzaldua's theme of developing a consciousness that was more mixed or open, we could deconstruct the dichotomy between academia and spirituality and then perhaps develop a much needed discourse and theory for addressing the type of religious fundamentalism, whose name in which much violence is waged. It is also noteworthy to think of the ways in which difference must be considered, not erased, but also not to let stand in the way of coalition forming, an idea Anzaldua expressed. Anzaldua also writes that it is important to be aware of our collective and individual histories and the ways that these might overlap and are also different. This is a useful trope to use in which to think about the ideas Professor Hobson discussed in terms of the formation of “The Family” as contributing to the legitimating of racism, heterosexism, imperialism, and industrialization (capitalism). Alexander's text seemed useful for thinking about how we understand pedagogies and how we can relate various issues back to pedagogy. Tori suggested that one of the ways Alexander constructs pedagogy is as we see it in the academy; traditional ways of teaching versus a more spiritual approach in which knowing the self is just as important. Leigh expanded this and said that she understood Alexander as suggesting that if we look at the academy critically and also the ways we inform and teach one another from our histories we will reclaim them and build accurate ones. These ideas connect with the themes we read from White Womens Rights and Free Enterprise . This idea of incorporating lost, stolen or forgotten histories is also an effective way to dismantle dichotomies. Perhaps if we could create more space for these types of dialogues to occur then we could incorporate the sacred and the spiritual in a scholarly setting. Along with this same idea is that much of queer history has been forgotten or re-written. It is provocative to consider Alexander's ideas about the ways in which heterosexism has been used in the formation of the nation state. In placing this construction within the context of the extreme homophobia existent in the Caribbean region, it is useful to consider not only the ways homosexuality is constructed as a Western phenomenon but also the various ways queer identity ascribes to both subversive and neo colonial practices. Professor Hobson brought up the issue of the gay cruise, and as Alexander suggests the ways in which, “gay capital mobilizes the same identity and operates through a similar set of assumptions as does heterosexual capital” (71). Tori suggested that it is useful to think about the ways homophobia is institutionalized subtly, such as in legislation that seemingly has nothing to do with being queer. Leigh also asked us to think about overt homophobia and compulsory heterosexism, for example the ways the language of the nation state is sexualized. I find it is notable to consider the ways in which national identity is always formed at the expense of some group, what we can call “the subaltern,” in the name of empire building in reproduction of future citizens and depending on the dependency of others. The nation state is constructed herein only after it establishes a group of people as non citizen or dependent, such as the non producing lesbian, or the welfare mother.[Return]
|