Borders: boundaries that we create between ourselves and others. Fences. Lines we draw to divide us (or me) from them. There is little doubt that American philosophy is filled with borders; we draw them all the time. In this sense, it may be surprising that one of the social philosophies that touts, among many other things, equal rights between men and women is also rife with borders that become very difficult to manipulate without being able to see beyond them. Feminism is, in this case, a “cause” with limited spectrum, and only by including other perspectives from the marginalized positions that white, middle-upper class, “academic” feminism create can we begin to tear down the theoretical walls that marginalize those who don’t fit the “typical” feminist bill.
These theoretical walls become all too apparent when considering the readings for this week. Reading these testimonials revealed the individuals who, as bell hooks often notes, “advocate feminism” or identify themselves as “feminist”; there were women of different classes, backgrounds, races, and sexual orientation who gave testimonials and definitions of their feminism along side a self-described “wussy boy” who cares a great deal about “pussy power.” The main point? There’s enough feminism to go around, and embracing voices outside the “typical” (read: white, “educated,” privileged) feminist perspective greatly enriches the social ideology.
One of the most striking elements of the “ethnic” approaches to feminism was that of Womanism, particularly in light of Alice Walker’s description of the term. Indeed, “white” feminism can tend to be a little “pastel” in its consideration of exactly whose rights women ought to be fighting for and whose viewpoint ought to be considered “legitimate” in regards to feminism. Womanism, on the other hand, considers the many issues involved in pursuing equal rights—for everyone; not just white women, but everyone. No longer segregated by personal cause, Womanism attempts the struggle of combating both racism and sexism, deepening the lavender to a regal purple. Third World and Mujerista feminisms take this a step further, emphasizing differences in class and race that are often unacknowledged and often not even considered part of “serious” feminism. It is clear that these types of feminisms literally widen the “color” spectrum of feminist consciousness, changing the focus from “me” to “we.”
Despite the flak I’ve tossed at “white academic” feminism, my first encounters with different “schools” of feminist thought were, ironically, in college classes peopled by white women. I was aware of racism, classism, and other rampant sorts of discrimination, but was completely unaware of the feminisms that identified them. Since then, I feel that I understand feminism in terms of Walker’s analogy of purple to Womanism and lavender to feminism; she has, in a sense, helped me to see the different “colors” of causes that effect the way that women, men, and intersexed individuals shape their own roles and the roles of others in society. Setting up borders between gender, race, class, sexual orientation, and other “social dividers” only succeeds in subsequently bordering those individuals who speak from “bordered” perspectives, effectively silencing them in a sea of lavender. Bringing these perspectives together in a larger color spectrum allows—please forgive the over-used image—a rainbow of voices, testimonies, struggles, and causes. In this sense, I feel that the multi-colored eye pictured above has become my expanded awareness concerning feminisms, allowing me to literally see beyond my own lavender identity and begin to understand, appreciate, and advocate other perspectives within the spectrum.
No comments:
Post a Comment