Feminism and feminist theories are interesting sites, in that there is no one totalizing description of feminism that is adequate; nor is there one theory, framework or methodology that is “the best”. Additionally, there is not one experience that can speak for the rest, nor should there be.
There are some that will acknowledge these ideas. There are some that will contribute their voice. There are others who may not acknowledge these ideas, and still others who will not contribute their voice. And, there are those who are struggling to be heard……this train of thought is endless….
One thing that I argue, is that: We (feminists) must acknowledge difference(s).
Additionally, I argue, that no matter one’s own position, one’s own preferred paths, to claim that one way is superior is problematic and is an attempt to silence. For example, Moya (2001) in her piece titled “Chicana Feminism and Postmodernist Theory”[i] insists that: “Only by conducting a careful examination of how, when, and under what conditions la facultad develops- using the methodology and epistemology provided by a postpositivist realist theory of identity – will we be able to understand adequately the latent epistemic privilege of the oppressed” (Moya, 2001, p. 474). I do not have a problem with her passion towards postpositivist realist practices, but I do have a problem with her suggesting that her way is the only way. What I find interesting, juxtaposed to this argument, is that throughout her piece she makes some important contributions (minus her disservice to postmodern theory through poor and unfair characterizations, and her “my way or the highway” proposals for research) to feminist theory and the ideas of difference, highlighting that race, class, and gender are all things to consider. For example, she states that “some women who now identify as women of color may have participated in gender-based political movements without fully understanding that such organizations systematically neglected the race and class interests central to the lives of most nonwhite women” (Moya, 2001, p. 475).
Moya’s attempt at highlighting the need to consider difference is better, or also, illustrated in the works of Anzaldúa[ii] , Lorde[iii], and Johnson[iv]. Johnson (1998) illustrates difference in many ways, and the ways that caught my eye were in her examples through literature, law, and legal writing and publishing. For example, in her work on legal rhetoric she states that “in real life, as feminists split and debate, the notion of woman- or feminist- is shown to have more than one meaning, to be subject of dispute in its own right” (Johnson, 1998, p. 193). And, this is ok. In fact, it is encouraged! She adds that: “Feminists have to take the risk of confronting and negotiating differences among women if we are ever to transform such differences into positive rather than negative forces in women’s lives” (Johnson, 1998, p. 194). Finally, what we can’t do is “erase the difference” (Johnson, 1998, p. 23).
Lorde (2007) takes a similar position, in that she also acknowledges the importance of difference, and the disadvantages to not recognizing difference. For example, she states that: “Refusing to recognize difference makes it impossible to see the different problems and pitfalls facing us as women” (Lorde, 2007, p. 118). Additionally, she states: “it is not our differences which separate women, but our reluctance to recognize those differences and to deal effectively with the distortions which have resulted from ignoring and misnaming of those differences” (Lorde, 2007, p. 122).
Finally, Anzaldúa (2007), highlights difference in her piece titled “The Homeland, Aztlan/ El otro Mexico”. In this piece she does an excellent job at presenting a narrative that highlights some of the violence(s) that Anglo-American’s have enacted, and continue to enact, upon People of Color, and specifically: Indians, Chicano’s, Chicana’s, Mexicans, Tejanos, and others during the continued colonization of “American” “territory”. For example, “Those who make it past the checking points of the Border Patrol find themselves in the midst of 150 years of racism in Chicano barrios in the Southwest and in big northern cities. Living in a no-man’s boarderland, caught between being treated as criminals and being able to eat, between resistance and deportation, the illegal refugees are some of the poorest and the most exploited of any people in the U.S.” (Anzaldúa, 2007, p.48). Additionally, this piece highlights the importance of considering feminism within a transnational context. She states: “The infusion of the values of the white culture, coupled with the exploitation by that culture, is changing the Mexican way of life” (Anzaldúa, 2007, p. 47).
Although it is imperative to remember that we can’t essentialize or make totalizing claims about experiences and identities through reading the above pieces by Anzaldúa, Johnson, Lorde, or Moya; all of these pieces are important in their contribution to highlighting the importance of acknowledging difference, of hearing difference, of not being afraid of difference, and considering one’s own difference(s). I argue that this is something to harp on, especially for White feminists who may still cling to notions of being color blind, or class blind, and/or to those who are positions of power but who will not acknowledge their power, the impact of their power, or their difference(s). Overall, people’s positionality is something to be considered, as well as our own practices and reflection. According to Lorde: “The true focus of revolutionary change is never merely the oppressive situations which we seek to escape, but that piece of the oppressor which is planted deep within each of us, and which knows only the oppressors’ tactics, the oppressors’ relationships” (p. 123).
[i] Moya, P. M. L. (2001). Chicana feminism and postmodernist theory, pp. 463-481. Found in McCann, C. R., & Kim, S-k. (Eds). (2010). Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives 2nd Ed. New York, NY: Routledge.
[ii] Anzaldúa, G. (2007). The Homeland, Azatlan/ El otro Mexico, pp. 44-49. From The Transnational Studies Reader: Intersections and Innovations (Eds. Sanjeev Khagram & Peggy Levitt). NY: Routledge.
[iii] Lourde, A. (2007). “Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Redefining Difference”. pp. 114-123. Sister Outsider: Essays & Speeches. Berkeley, CA: Crossing Press
[iv] Johnson, B. (1998). The Feminist Difference. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ch 1- Is Female to Male as Ground is to Figure? p. 17-36.
Ch 9- The Alchemy of Style and Law. pp. 165-187.
Ch 10. The Postmodern in Feminism: A Response to Mary Joe Frug. pp. 183-194.
