Sunday, July 24, 2011

Lesbian Separatism: A Profeminist Gay Male's Perspective


http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmcqBRxg3gs3oSgogScx03fRf8CERnjPC8rDRxDJXvkEN-V3tQxg
image is from here


(I write this at a time of loss of a recent friendship. The reason for the friendship ending was my own persistent insensitivity to the political-personal realities she faces daily. I ended the friendship.)

You may be wondering who in the world would want a gay male's perspective on Lesbian Separatism? Well, I'm not sure, to be honest. But perhaps out there somewhere are queer people or het men who don't understand why any woman of any race would choose to be a Lesbian Separatist and would like to know why it ought to be politically supported, not insulted, not degraded, not considered a consequence only of male violence against women, and so on.

I'll note from the start of this post that I'm white and all my experiences of Lesbian Separatism, as an outsider, are as a white gay male. The Lesbian Separatists I have known are of many class backgrounds; mostly working and middle class, all US, and all English-speaking. That's but one small population of Lesbian Separatists worldwide, and although many US people will deny this, or simply don't know it, Lesbian Separatism exists the world over.

The first time I learned of Lesbian Separatism was I was part of an urban Lesbian/Gay/Bi community, back in the 1980s. It was white-dominated, mixed class, and largely academically educated. But the L.S., as far as I knew, was not born of the Academy, which is what I've seen of other queer cultures and identities in my community, such as being trans, genderqueer, and polyamorous: I know not one person who is trans, genderqueer, or polyamorous who wasn't informed and introduced to these cultures in the Academy, which may explain why they are decidedly liberal in political viewpoint and alliances. I suppose I had a crush on the first Lesbian Separatist I knew. She had a L.S. friend who I'd encounter later in my life in a really ugly way, but this woman wow'ed me. She had children—all girls. She lived her life, as far as I know from other Lesbian women, entirely without men in it.

I was in awe. It never occurred to me that people could organise their lives to only have women in them, as the largely secular society I lived in merged women and men, assimilating women into a form of racist, heterosexist, capitalist male supremacist society that greatly enforced women caring for men, girls caring for men, and women and girls defining their ambitions and actions in terms of how men felt about them. I got how entirely fucked up that was and it led me to wear out a t-shirt that proclaimed, “A Woman Without a Man is Like A Fish Without a Bicycle”. A white Lesbian woman who was not Separatist gave it to me.

As I lived in queer community, I learned being a Lesbian Separatist didn't provide one with the ideal life I imagined—rather foolishly. To be a woman is to know what men do to women. To be Lesbian is to know what het people do to Lesbians. To be a Separatist, as I heard about it as a supporter of Lesbian Separatism, was to become the target of animosity and alarming levels of hostile judgment of not only straight men, gay men, and het women, but also of other lesbians who denounced it as hateful, bigoted, exclusionary, and so on.

So, really, it was to be marginalised in already marginalised cultures. As for the latter charge, I've witnessed few sexual cultures more exclusionary than het culture. Those of us who are not het are purged from it, are scorned and ridiculed in our youth, and are either hated outright, or are “tolerated” in the most condescendingly obnoxious ways. I've had to separate almost entirely from my white Christian het-obsesses family due to their utter refusal to acknowledge or be responsible with their heterosexual power and privileges. Needless to say, the women in my family have had much more to endure in the way of insults and assaults from men they were married to than the men have. Overall, the men have done well, having someone to wash their clothes, clean their homes, and be sexually available to them. I'm not making any determination about the women's agency here, except to note that being a Lesbian Separatist was not, ever, an option presented to them. It isn't a reality any more than being a Buddhist nun or monk is an option to them. But at least they may have seen some news stories about Buddhists who live cloistered lives; not so with Lesbian Separatists.

Corporate media hasn't touched the subject in the last twenty years, to the very best of my recollection. Curiously, corporate media is liberally reporting on trans existence--never beyond M2F and F2M white, class-privileged social circles, however. But trans issues are respectfully if narrowly reported on so much more so than on white, class-privileged Lesbian Separatist or lesbian feminist experience. For example, Chaz's physical/surgical transformation as well as the empathically told stories and political struggles of several white transsexual people are well-known to het middle Amerikkka; the work of Sheila Jeffreys and of any Butch Lesbian Feminist is not. It appears to me that CRAP-loaded media power is far less threatened by people surgically changing their gender than by Butch and Radical Lesbian women who want to demolish male supremacy and maintain sites of on-going radical resistance and woman-centered anti-gynocidal culture. CRAP-loaded media won't go there at all.

The second most exclusionary cultures I'm aware of are het men's culture and gay men's culture. Het men have loads of power with which to determine their social lives. They often organise it to leave out or exclude all women and gay men. Gay men often organise their lives to leave out het men and all women. My experience of gay male culture is that it is attached to forms of misogyny and sexism, as well as to some forms of heterosexism, that it won't acknowledge or responsibly and radically transform.

The first challenge to Lesbian Separatism that I read in print was by Audre Lorde in Sister Outsider. I took in her words carefully, and have reread the essay on occasion to remind myself of her challenges and points of view, and ended up believing and taking to heart what she had to say while also supporting Lesbian Separatism as a political practice. I understand that many women, most women, who live in a secular or religious heterosexist society will not likely be able to be Lesbian Separatist.

The reason I support it is because I support women doing more than surviving het and gay male supremacist societies. I support women living relatively well in them, to whatever extent that is possible, and it does appear to be possible with greater ease among class-privileged people especially.

The single most abusive challenge to Lesbian culture that I've ever seen, other than by het and gay male-identified people, is from trans people. So severe is the social and cultural assault against Lesbians, including Separatists, that I'm not sure it can be overstated.

What has been alarming for me to witness is how liberally accepted and supported the invasion and violation of Lesbian lives and culture has been by every demographic imaginable. Well, het men actually don't seem to give a shit, but that's because they view Lesbianism as being for them. Trans activists and het male supremacists together and apart exploit, appropriate, and attempt to colonise, control, and dominate Lesbian spaces, politics, and lives. Where is the progressive to radical outrage about this happening?

Whenever I've heard trans activists—always white, almost always class-privileged—a tiny percent of the actual trans community that will never make it to the stage and the mic, I've heard how put upon and degraded trans people are by Lesbians. I've never once heard from trans people how they invade and violate Lesbian culture and community. Not once. I've never heard trans people be respectful and responsible with the privileges that have—various but apparent—to invade and violate Lesbian women.

Now, what we must keep in mind is how girls and women across sexuality, class, region, and race are sexually violated in every way conceivable—and in many inconceivable ways—by males including by boys, men, and some trans people who were born male-bodied and who remain male-bodied.

Male-bodied people are arguing that they are Lesbian, as are formerly male-bodied people. I find this beyond insensitive to Lesbian culture and community. (To come into these feelings, I have to center the experiences of Lesbians, not trans people or anyone else. To do this, I'd argue, is a radical profeminist act.) All of us are socialised—normally coerced, manipulated, and terroristically forced--to care for and about anyone who wasn't born and raised as a girl, regardless of whether or not she is female-bodied or intersex. We are all taught to not respect or regard the physical and communal integrity of anyone who is female-bodied and women and Lesbian.  We are all taught that women exist to serve and service men. Even in queer communities, Lesbian energies have been spent caring for gay men and gay male energies do not come back to reciprocate the love. Therefore it doesn't surprise me that het, queer, and trans people assume they have the right to invade Lesbian spaces, lives, and communities.

What do you call a politic and practice that privileges males or formerly male-identified people disrespecting Lesbian lives, relationships, communities, and political projects moving us toward greater liberation for Lesbian women? How does it come to pass that this is seen as regressive, oppressive, and bigoted: being female and loving females as a woman and as a Lesbian and wanting to be with females only? How is it bigoted, regressive, or oppressive for females forced to be women under patriarchal violence, who are denied social permissions and privileges to love other women, to seek to do so in peace?

I'll share an anecdote. Not quite ten years ago now, I encountered a very “educated” white male who was sexually active only with women. A white gay male I knew, who was an age-peer of his (I was older than both young men) had a serious crush on him, and hoped they'd be sexual together, but this het-active male—who identified as pansexual for some reason—never wanted to have sex with any male-bodied person. He's only ever been sexual with female-bodied people who identify as women. The gay male I knew pined for him as did a few het women. He was considered “attractive” by many people across sexuality.

Then one day he told me he was a Lesbian. Really. He did. And he made some convoluted case for this being “true”. I called his sorry ass out on it. I said, “You're always going to be socially male, socially perceived as a man, and anyone who is with you will not be with a Lesbian.” I said he'd better be responsible with his male privileges, power, and entitlements, and that among those was the power to name himself as he wished, in ways completely unaccountable to and disrespectful of women. I told him to not attempt to manipulate Lesbian and bisexual women by pretending he was Lesbian. After all, had he grown up with a female body, knowing what it was to desire people whose bodies were like “his”? No. Had he had girlhood crushes on girls, feeling ashamed or being made to feel wrong for liking people of the same sex? No. Had he encountered all the many forms of discrimination, threat, and violence that Lesbian young women face? No. But he wanted to declare himself a Lesbian. Why? Because he was a het male with all the arrogance and entitlements in place to believe he could do so and get away with it. And he was getting away with it in some parts of the liberal circles he operated in. He was not expecting to come up against any radical opposition because for the most part none existed, until he confided in me. I supported him, instead, in owning his own political location, power, privileges, and entitlements, but not abusing them.

I've also disagreed with het men and het women for telling me they were, really, gay men. I've told them I find their self-definitions an expression of gross insensitivity to those of us who are gay.

For some strange reasons which will be analysed and determined in the next generation, trans existence is being respected in ways and in places that Lesbian existence is not. I don't support one group utterly invading and violating another, and that's what has happened socially and politically to Lesbian community by trans-identified people. 

I've heard people argue the parallel to being a Jew: some people convert, and aren't they then Jews? Well, religiously and culturally, yes, but ethnically and historically no. And, here's the significant difference: Jews welcome Jews who convert. That "welcoming" is a rather critical part of the reality. If a grossly disregarded, ignored, assaulted, mistreated, subjugated people struggling for survival don't welcome you in, and if you have some privileges, media access, community support, and institutional power and resources that they do not, and you insist you belong, you might wish to consider any outsider's insistence of inclusion a form of obnoxious and violating aggressive and oppressive behavior.

But back the not insignificant matter of men's violence against female-bodied people. Can you possibly imagine what it must be like to try and carve out some relationships and social-cultural spaces free of men, free of male bodies and all the many triggers they carry, free of male privileges and entitlements showing up in all their glaring arrogance and insistence, only to have your culture and being invaded by male-bodied people claiming to be Lesbian? I cannot fully imagine it, really. But it horrifies me to consider it.

If you want to compassionately imagine it in more detail, I encourage you to read what Lesbian women have written about such invasions and violations. To put in bluntly, it's a systematic gross assault against the psyches and bodies of women who have already endured--like all women who grew up as girls--the gross assault of het men's systematic violence, in the home and outside the home. That's what it is. And while liberal, progressive, and radical-minded folks do seem to oppose violence against women, somehow all go silent when it comes to trans-invasion of Lesbian lives and communities. Or, not silent but instead aggressively and outspokenly supportive of trans people showing up wherever they choose to or decide to, claiming rights to be celebrated, cared for, and employed by Lesbians, naming themselves however they wish no matter how insulting and insensitive to Lesbians that naming and those many other actions are.

I stand with Lesbian women, including, now at a more respectful distance, with Lesbian Separatist women in opposing any and all invasions and violations, all forms of insensitivity and aggression leveled by trans-identified folks and their liberal supporters.

I have had a few friendships for not too long periods of time—from hours to weeks to months to years—with a few white Lesbian Separatist women. I have found each woman to be deeply caring, profoundly thoughtful, sensitive, and woman-loving. I support any Lesbian living her life as she wishes and as she is able, with all the threats and dangers of male supremacist/male-adoring/phallocentric, liberal, and grossly heterosexist society condemning Lesbians as essentially bigots and haters. The liberal queer community, on the whole, has done nothing to deepen our understanding of the reasons for militant resistance to trans invasion; they have done the opposite: they have perpetuated the myth that Lesbian = hater. 

Liberal queers and privileged trans activists are doing to Lesbians what men do to women' generally: portray them only as hateful, scornful, reactionary human beings without a self-determining political cause worth fighting for. When lesbophobia and anti-Lesbian bigotry is seen as just as much of a social offence, as just as intolerable, just as obnoxious, violent, egregious, inhumane, and threatening as homophobia and transphobia, I'll know something radical has shifted in the society I live in. I'll know that male supremacy, heterosexism, and liberalism have each loosened their braided cultural gynocidal death-grip on Lesbian women's lives.

For more on Lesbian Rights, see *here*.


A Whiter Shade of Male: on naming white and male supremacy when we see or commit it

http://www.nathanielturner.com/historyofwhitepeople.jpg
I recoimage of book cover is from here

Given that I recommend reading the above book after reading in it, that probably means I ought to read it from cover to cover.  I hope to do that one day.

First up:
To the white women (and all people) who think I'm a troll on Facebook: please unfriend me on Facebook immediately. I'd unfriend you if I knew who you were, and have done so with two white women who have told me they think I'm a troll. I'm working on being sure my behavior is not particularly trollish. But what is trollish to some isn't trollish to others. For example, me calling out white women's racism and white supremacist practices on Facebook is considered to be a sure sign I'm a troll to some white women, but not to others. I determine this by the face that it has only been since posting on Facebook about white women's white supremacy that the accusation of being a troll has surfaced.

Me calling out white and male supremacy will be seen and experienced as offensive, harmful, misandrist, misogynist, and otherwise problematic by many white people. I accept that's their experience. And I conclude the resistance to being called out as racist, anti-Semitic, is effectively, if not also intentionally, racist, anti-Semitic, and white supremacist. Including when I'm called out as being white supremacist. I hope my friends and colleagues will call it out when it happens.

Second up:
This is what I've learned from white radical feminists and radical feminists of color: the distinctions between being sexist, misogynist, and male supremacist are ones that are terribly important for males to tease out, often determining ourselves to be possibly the former, but never the latter two.

This is what I've learned from white Lesbian activists: the distinctions between being pro-trans, heterosexist, and anti-Lesbian are ones that are terribly important to those of us who are not Lesbian. But from the experience and perspective of Lesbian women who endure discrimination, hostility, and violence from men, trans activists, and het women, the distinctions aren't that important.

Here's what I've learned from women of color: the distinctions between being racist, sexist, anti-Black, anti-Indigenous, anti-Brown, anti-Asian, a white "asiaphile", a white consumer of Indian artifacts, a genocidalist, a misogynist, and a white or male supremacist are terribly important for us whites to split as if hairs, but they are not necessarily so different, experientially, if one is not white.

I know women of color who do detail the differences between being racist and being a white supremacist. And I know women of color who do not. Most women of color I know do not. And I'm someone who also does not. Perhaps because I'm a Jew.

Here's what I experience as a gay male and a Jew: the distinctions non-gay men and het women make about not being homophobic, being anti-gay, being heterosexist, and being a het supremacist aren't all that meaningful to me. And the same with being someone who is kind of prejudiced about the Jews, or anti-Semitic, or white supremacist.

Structural, institutional, interpersonal privilege and entitlement means that we protect our positions of power, in part by declaring that anyone who isn't us who notices we have them must be a bigot and a very rude and hurtful individual. And it means we, not the oppressed, get to determine how racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, anti-Lesbian, anti-gay, male supremacist, heterosexist, and white supremacist we are.

This is my experience:

White class-privileged trans activists are anti-Lesbian, but being anti-Lesbian isn't a concern; being transphobic is. If they are radical, they'll own their anti-Lesbian values and practices. If they're liberal they won't.

White women and white men are racist and white supremacist. But white folks are only concerned with not being termed as either, not with whether or not, or how they are both. If they're radical they'll own their structural white supremacist ways. If they're liberal they won't. If they're conservative they're likely proud of being white supremacist and racist too.

Men of color and white men are sexist and male supremacist. But men defend against being named as either by anyone who isn't a man. If men want to identify as a misogynist, well, then they can and do and often feel entirely proud about it. But if a woman names a man a misogynist, well, he's not so happy about that. If they're radical they'll own that they are always potentially and structurally misogynistic, sexist, and male supremacist. If they're liberal they won't. If they're conservative they're likely proud of being all of those things.

Het folks along the gender hierarchy are heterosexist, anti-Lesbian, anti-gay, lesbophobic, and homophobic. If they're radical they'll own and be responsible with their privileges and power. If they're liberal they will appear to be, but won't be in ways that are meaningful to Lesbian, gay, and other queer people.

Rich folks are classist. They may want to pretend they are not, or they may want to show off how classist they are. If they are radical, they'll be responsible and accountable for what they do with their wealth and class privileges and entitlements. If they're conservative and liberal they'll say how much rich people should contribute to causes which help the poor poor, but not, for example, by closing loop-holes that unjustly benefit the very rich, by ending inheritance laws, or by radically redistributing wealth in a classist, capitalist society.

The whites are defensive about being called a white supremacist, but are not encouraged or pleased if men are defensive about being called a male supremacist. Hets are defensive about being lesbophobic and homophobic, and if they're men they don't want to be seen or called male supremacist or misogynist or sexist either.

I hope you see the patterns. If you're privileged in some way, I hope you break them. I work at it and it's not easy. But it is worthwhile. And it is necessary if I am to be an ally to those I oppress.

Third up:
Other related curiosities:

Some white feminists insist on me calling myself a man even though I identify, perhaps liberally, as intergender. I find their challenge entirely understandable: I have gay male power and privileges and entitlements. But white women I know, Lesbian and not, won't generally or usually identify themselves as white and will disappear their race and deny their racism in the ways they do identify themselves (such as, for example, "radical feminist") and behave (for example, being part of a white supremacist feminist organisation but not ever naming it as such or challenging its white supremacy). They won't say they are white supremacists even when they are. And they maintain the right to name themselves and not be named by people who are not white even while it is people who aren't white who are in a far clearer position--a subordinated one--to know white supremacy when it's right in front of you. Go figure that white folks along the gender hierarchy maintain this entitlement, privilege, power, and control.

I hope you see the patterns. Most of us, out of a need to believe we are uncomplicatedly "good",  don't want to be told we're an oppressor, unless we're so powerful we take pride in it. The rest of us want to have our delusions about ourselves supported, and our egos stroked. And if we are called a white supremacy, anti-Lesbian, or a male supremacist, we are insulted and believe this pain of insult is worse than any pain on Earth.

Fourth up, and last but not least:
My prayers today are with the tens of thousands of women struggling for survival in East Africa. The corporate press's concerns are with what a madman in Norway did to about a hundred white people. My heart goes out to the people who lost loved ones in Norway, and across Ethiopia, Somalia, and Kenya. We may learn the names and backgrounds of some of the people who died recently in Norway. We will be led to believe that the East African women who are homeless, on foot with families, searching for safety, food, and water, are not individuals with particular interests or even names. What the media also will not discuss is the role of white European het men in the political, economic, and social unrest and devastation in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, and in many places in Europe as well, particularly, in the East, the British, the Germans, and the Italians. (See, for example, *here*, on the colonial history of Kenya.)

I think the values, attitudes, and behaviors are disgustingly white supremacist and genocidal and gynocidal, particularly as they promote the media telling more intimately human stories about harm done to white people than to Black people.


Saturday, July 23, 2011

“All the Whites are Racist. All the Men are Sexist”, Part 4: bell hooks and the political ambiguity of being a Black Man or a White Woman in the US


http://s3.amazonaws.com/files.posterous.com/temp-2011-03-27/ClnenBpGoffjvzlAetIblCfpxAsbmoqiuszDvpeqJotIkuEpGEgwoorgceCa/bell_hooks.jpg.scaled500.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJFZAE65UYRT34AOQ&Expires=1311436723&Signature=aKewKkBEp7XwVbGZvRhohBaPTCU%3D
photograph of bell hooks is from here
From the book Killing Rage, by bell hooks (1995). The opening of the chapter, “Feminism: It's a Black Thing”:

More black men than ever before acknowledge that sexism is a problem in black life. Yet rarely is that acknowledgment linked with progressive political struggle to end sexism, to critique and challenge patriarchy. While these black men can acknowledge that sexism is an issue, they tend to see it as a “natural” response, one that need not be altered. In more recent years some black men link sexist thinking and action to their sense of exploitation by racist exploitation and oppression. Extreme expressions of sexism, misogyny, made visible by overt sexual exploitation of women by men, become in their minds a dysfunctional response to racism rather than a perspective that exists both apart from and in conjunction with racism.

Such thinking enables black males to assume no direct accountability for a politics of sexism that in reality does not have its origin racist aggression. To see sexism as an outcome of racist victimization, is to construct a worldview wherein black males can easily deflect attention away from the power and privileges accorded them by maleness within white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, however relative, even as they simultaneously undermine the seriousness sexist exploitation by insisting that the problem is ultimately, and always, only racism. This overlapping of the two systems of domination, in ways that deflect attention away from black male accountability for sexist exploitation of black females, was evoked in a recent interview with black male journalist Nathan McCall, highlighting the publication of his autobiographical work Makes Me Wanna Holler. McCall. McCall comments: “If you hate what's black it doesn't matter if its a man or a woman. And if it's a woman it's even more convenient because women are subjugated. It's understood that the only folks in this world who are at the mercy of black males are black women.” While there are culprits in racist aggression against black males, there are no culprits who subjugate black women in McCall's rhetoric. Female subjugation is presented as “natural,” already in place, not something black men create, only something they exploit.
Lets us consider this passage again, but this time with white women in the place of Black men. What we are looking for are the places of political commonality and structural familiarity.

More white women than ever before acknowledge that racism is a problem in women's lives. Yet rarely is that acknowledgment linked with progressive political struggle to end racism, to critique and challenge white supremacist society. While these white women can acknowledge that racism is an issue, they tend to see it as a “natural” response, one that need not be altered. In more recent years some white women link racist thinking and action to their sense of exploitation by sexist exploitation and oppression. Extreme expressions of racism, anti-Black hate, made visible by overt racial exploitation of Black people by whites, become in their minds a dysfunctional response to sexism rather than a perspective that exists both apart from and in conjunction with sexism.

Such thinking enables white females to assume no direct accountability for a politics of racism that in reality does not have its origin sexist aggression. To see racism as an outcome of sexist victimization, is to construct a worldview wherein white females can easily deflect attention away from the power and privileges accorded them by whiteness within white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, however relative, even as they simultaneously undermine the seriousness racist exploitation by insisting that the problem is ultimately, and always, only sexism. This overlapping of the two systems of domination, in ways that deflect attention away from white women's accountability for racist exploitation of black females, [is evoked in this interview with a fictional white female journalist. She comments:] “If you hate what's female it doesn't matter if its a white or black person. And if it's a black person it's even more convenient because black people are subjugated. It's understood that the only folks in this world who are at the mercy of white females are black women.” While there are culprits in sexist aggression against white females, there are no culprits who subjugate black women in the white journalist's rhetoric. Black subjugation is presented as “natural,” already in place, not something white women create, only something they exploit.

bell hooks continues on the subject of black men's refusal to see sexism as a political, not natural, reality:
These assumptions, presented as fact, are dangerous. They belie the reality that white men, and individual men from diverse groups who have access to all the traditional avenues of power and privilege, willingly perpetuate sexism and sexist exploitation of women. … When black men like Nathan McCall acknowledge a structure of sexist exploitation and/or oppression in black life that promotes the systematic abuse of black females, without in any way offering a critique or challenge to that structure, they reinscribe the assumption that sexist brutality cannot be changed or eradicated. This tacit acceptance of a system they acknowledge to be wrong is a form of complicity.

And again, I offer a parallel:
These assumptions, presented as fact, are dangerous. They belie the reality that white men, and individual whites women who have access to all the traditional avenues of power and privilege, willingly perpetuate racism and racist exploitation of women. … When white women like the journalist acknowledge a structure of racist exploitation and/or oppression in women's lives that promotes the systematic abuse of black females, without in any way offering a critique or challenge to that structure, they reinscribe the assumption that racist brutality cannot be changed or eradicated. This tacit acceptance of a system they acknowledge to be wrong is a form of complicity.

As with Black men, the racist-sexist structure is not just reinscribed, but reinforced. For it is not only ideology which is strengthened and maintained, it is abusive and oppressive power acted out against Black women. Black men and white women collaborate against Black women—and all women of color—to try and retain or gain the power and privilege of white men. White women see Black men do this and call it out; they refuse to see white women do it, and don't call it out. And when Black men call out white women's collusion and collaboration with white men, this critique is largely ignored or considered misogynistic.

In her book Killing Rage, in the very next chapter, titled “Revolutionary Feminism”, hooks writes:
Throughout the more than twenty years that I have spent writing feminist theory, I have consistently worked to make a clear distinction between revolutionary feminist politics and the more widely accepted version of feminism that has as its primary agenda achieving for white women of privileged classes social and economic equality with men of their class. In my first book, Ain't I A Woman: Black Women and Feminism, I suggested the movement of masses of white women, particularly those from privileged-class backgrounds, into the workforce was not sanctioned simply by feminist thinking but by the very white supremacist capitalist patriarchal economic system that movement claimed to want to dismantle.
Indeed. White radical feminists' insistence that patriarchy is woman's only or primary structural political problem conveniently ignores how white middle and upper class women benefit greatly from the White Man's economic system which she, along with men of color, overtly support and tacitly condone. Catchphrases like “It's the patriarchy, stupid” must exist because male supremacy and patriarchal atrocity are never, ever named as such by men as a group. (Never. Ever. You'd think the occasional dude-group would accidentally notice and name it. But no.) So too, white supremacy and white racist atrocity are never, ever named by whites—men or women. In a white-centric/white-dominant political view that ignores whiteness as a form and system of power, white women wish to only be seen as women, equal to all women of color in political power, not stationed, located, positioned above and against women of color, structurally, institutionally, and interpersonally. Rad Fem Hub and most other white feminist groups across four decades in the West, not only resist knowing, but refuse to notice how their unacknowledged whiteness is oppressive power; they resist knowing and refuse to notice how, exactly, that power harms women of color concretely, not at all abstractly or theoretically.

Moving beyond only Black men and Black women, men of color generally won't call their harm to women of color “Racist misogyny”. White women won't call their harm to women of color “Misogynist racism”. Built into the effectively liberal worldviews each allegedly radical group most supports, there can be only one key form of oppression at work: for race-oppressed men it is racism/white supremacy; for , gender-oppressed whites it is misogyny/male supremacy). What we are left with is political vision and practice that only sees the following: all the sufferers of racism are men; and all the sufferers of sexism are white.

Within such a narrow view, radical women of color are either seen by their men as traitors, or by white women as betrayers—or women of color are seen and mistreated, are silenced and marginalised, as both.

Those of us who are committed to the flourishing radical and revolutionary political theory and practice must contend with this ugly truth: until such time that men of color and white women acknowledge the powers they have, structurally, to harm women of color, their belief that their politics are “Radical” is fictitious as it applies to women of color; single-site oppression theory is a flagrant denial of the harm done to women of color on all fronts at once.

Far more often than not, “Radical Ant-Racist” Black men, and “Radical Feminist” white women collaborate with the most powerful and dangerous group on Earth, white men, to systematically and systemically harm and hurt women of color with no radical analytic tools or theory and no radical plan or practice to end racist-misogyny and misogynist racism—or, even, to liberally attempt to do so.

If white women only see the problem as men, not whiteness, and men of color only see the problem as racism, not sexism, we are left with three significant populations of differently empowered people committed to degrading and destroying the lives of women of color: white women, men of color, and white men.

I welcome constructive feedback, questions, and solutions to this glaring problem that white men, men of color, and white women, thus far, will not collectively name or directly address. As you read what follows, please bring to mind the power of white authority and dominance, and the effect of listing primarily, if not only, white women's materials as “important”, at Rad Fem Hub and all white men's, white women's, and men of color's spaces that proclaim to care about radical justice and liberation for all.]

To illuminate the political psychology of all three groups as hooks, with the work of the wonderful white feminist Mab Segrest, understands and describes it, I'll close this post with the last section of “Revolutionary Feminism” in Killing Rage:
[R]evolutionary interdependency is usefully outlined in Mab Segrest's book Memoir of a Race Traitor. She daringly critiques the way an ethic of competition can lead white women to seek the upper hand in all their relations, including those across race. Segrest contends:
As a child of Europeans, a woman whose families have spent many generations on these shores, some of them in relative material privilege, my culture raised me to compete for grades, for jobs, for money, for self-esteem. As my lungs breathed in competition, they breathed out the stale air of individualism, delivering the toxic message: You are on your own. Being “queer” only amplified the problem. Traveling across race and class and cultural boundaries, my ear eventually became attuned to different vibrations so that I began to hear, first as a murmur, then as clearly articulated sound: We … are … in ... this ... together. My lungs relaxed some, my chest gasped the clearer air.
Women and men of all races who are committed to revolutionary feminist movement, who want to end sexism and sexist exploitation and oppression, recognize that we create and sustain the conditions for solidarity and coalition building by vigilantly challenging the ethic of competition, replacing it with a communal ethic of collective benefit. Those white women who write about race in ways that mask the dept to black women and women-of-color thinkers often do so because they are working within structures that affirm competition, that encourage folks to make it appear that their ideas always come from some space of original thought. The ethic of competition does not place value on collaboration or dialectical exchange. It does not create an atmosphere where individuals who have white privilege and authority in relation to the discourse of race and racism can link their work to anti-racist struggle by repudiating the need to erase, render invisible, and/or devalue the work of non-white peers.

Honoring the engagement with black peers that enhanced her capacity to break with white supremacist thinking and fully commit to the anti-racist struggle Segrest shares:
Lenny taught me that fascism was about isolation, about political movements deliberately breaking down the human bonds between people so that they give blind allegiance to a leader or an ideology. Reverend Lee showed me how to go after the lost, to defy the isolation imposed by denial, terror and ideologies of hate. But I was lost myself, and found myself, at least in part, in the acts of searching out others. It made me a different person—but not a better person—than either of my parents. To differentiate myself, I have had to accept the gifts they gave me, which paradoxically, I could not do until I was sure I am my own person. “When people have to choose, they go with their own race,” my mother had said, but she was wrong. It is not a matter of choosing one race or family and betraying one another. The choice is for justice! community! humanity! the glimpse that we are all one organism. …
It is this understanding of revolutionary interdependency that must be shared if we are to reclaim a vision of feminist sisterhood that profoundly acknowledges feminist commitment to anti-racist struggle. Advocates of revolutionary feminist movement are among that group of women and men who do not despair about the capacity of white folks to divest of white supremacy because we have engaged in resistance and seen the reality of solidarity emerge in the context of mutual commitment and struggle. These stories must be told to counter the mounting despair, to counter the claims of white-power feminism. There will be no feminist revolution without an end to racism and white supremacy. When all women and men engaged in feminist struggle understand the interlocking nature of systems of domination, of white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, feminist movement will regain its revolutionary progressive momentum.

Friday, July 22, 2011

"All the Whites are Racist. All the Men are Sexist." Part 3: Patricia Hill Collins On Afrocentric Feminist Thought and Eurocentric Masculinist Thought

http://pixhost.info/avaxhome/ec/cd/0016cdec_medium.jpeg
image of book cover is from here

It has often been argued that writings by white feminist philosophers such as Andrea Dworkin lack subtlety. "Subtlety" is often male supremacist code for "the appropriate level of intellectual deference and demure posturing in the form of "well, I may not be right about this but I thought I'd speak up anyway--please forgive me if your sensibilities are offended".  The cloaked male supremacy that often is inferred or invested in demands for white women to speak more personally, less generally, is a critique that is practiced with nauseating regularity by men across race and region; it is a way for men to try and maintain control and dominance. Not surprisingly it is a tactic that is employed against radical feminists across race and ethnicity.

When white radical feminists are challenged by Black radical feminists and their allies and supporters to be more sensitive to some issues written about as "universal truths", this challenge is pro-feminist and entirely radical. The challenge is an act of valuing women's experience, conditions, and analysis of society that remains outside white women's experience and conditions, and therefore remains outside their analysis of society as well.

Catharine A. MacKinnon wrote a very telling piece called "From Practice to Theory, or What is a White Woman, Anyway?" It has been thoroughly and respectfully critiqued by another white radical feminist woman but because the critique is in a US Law Journal, not an internationally distributed and sold book, and also because, sadly, it is not available to most readers online, it is not regarded as important in part because because it is not read.

But if you wish to see a white feminist detail how other white feminists deny white (racist-misogynist) power among white women, please try and find the following article in the Yale Journal of Law & Feminism, Spring, 1993: WHITENESS AND WOMEN, IN PRACTICE AND THEORY: A RESPONSE TO CATHARINE MACKINNON, by Martha R. Mahoney.

I'll summarise my own views, while encouraging you to read both pieces of writing and come to your own conclusions. In her writing, MacKinnon offers up a view of white women as "women:privileged" but somehow not raced politically in ways that are directly and systematically oppressive and harmful to women of color. Her thematic point is that white women are not just white people/oppressors, as some women contend (or experience them to be). In this writing she effectively removes from reality white women as a raced class of human beings with raced power to oppress racially subordinated people across gender, region, and class.

The radical challenge to MacKinnon, by Mahoney and other theorists and activists, is that white women are also white, and practice white supremacy, albeit from a decidedly different vantage-point than do white men. White women like MacKinnon are promoted among white radical feminists as one of the authors of "must read" radical feminist texts. See, for example, the recommended reading resources list at Rad Fem Hub, just below (or click on the word "resources").

resources

PRINT
Books – Theory
Mary Daly
Beyond God the Father
Gyn/Ecology
Quintessence
Gail Dines
Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality
Pornography: The Production and Consumption of Inequality
Andrea Dworkin
Intercourse
Pornography: Men Possessing Women
Right Wing Women
Woman Hating
Cordelia Fine
Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference
Marilyn French
Beyond Power: On Women, Men and Morals
The War Against Women
Germaine Greer
The Whole Woman
Sheila Jeffreys
The Idea of Prostitution
The Industrial Vagina: The Political Economy of the Global Sex Trade
The Spinster and Her Enemies
Unpacking Queer Politics: A Lesbian Feminist Perspective
Celia Kitzinger and Rachel Perkins
Changing Our Minds: Lesbian Feminism and Psychology
Catharine MacKinnon
Are Women Human? And Other International Dialogues
Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law
Toward a Feminist Theory of the State
Women’s Lives, Men’s Laws

Kate Millet [sic]
Sexual Politics
Janice G. Raymond
The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male
Women As Wombs: Reproductive Technologies and the Battle over Women’s Freedom

Dale Spender
Man Made Language
Marilyn Waring
Counting for Nothing: What Men Value and What Women are Worth
Books — History
Emmeline Pankhurst: A Biography
by June Purvis
From Eve to Dawn, A History of Women in the World, Volume I: Origins: From Prehistory to the First Millennium
by Marilyn French
From Eve to Dawn, A History of Women in the World, Volume II: The Masculine Mystique: From Feudalism to the French Revolution by Marilyn French
From Eve to Dawn, A History of Women in the World, Volume III: Infernos and Paradises, The Triumph of Capitalism in the 19th Century by Marilyn French
From Eve to Dawn, A History of Women in the World, Volume IV: Revolutions and Struggles for Justice in the 20th Century by Marilyn French
Iron-Jawed Angels: The Suffrage Militance of the National Woman’s Party 1912-1920
by Linda G. Ford
Unshackled: Story of How We Won the Vote  by Christabel Pankhurst
Woman’s Evolution from Matriarchal Clan to Patriarchal Family
by Evelyn Reed

Ought not their blog be called "White Rad Fem Hub" and if not, why not? Is it considered insulting or offensive for me to state that their blog is a white rad fem hub? If so, what's insulting or offensive about it? Let us also ask, if Kate Millett's important Western- and Anglo-centric canonical radical feminist text, Sexual Politics, is fundamentally and only about the lives, literature, and conditions of whites, why isn't it called White Sexual Politics? I understand why it wasn't named that at the time and that reason is largely due to white privilege and entitlement to view white experience as universal, human, and unraced. It most assuredly is human--which is in part MacKinnon's point. But we must note that it is racist to view the book as unraced, as not positioned in real white supremacist space, and as a consequence, we are left with realities like the "NBA" and the "WNBA, the "World Cup" and the Women's World Cup", the "PGA" and the "WPGA", and "Sexual Politics" and "Black Sexual Politics".

http://pixhost.info/avaxhome/8d/eb/000aeb8d_medium.jpeg
image of book cover is from here

Covertly, overtly, and racistly, relatively young white radical feminists, along with their older white sisters, have been rejecting--or simply ignoring--radical feminist intersectional analyses, such as the brilliant one presented below, for allegedly (and erroneously) being too much in support of patriarchy.

It is sometimes contended that feminists of color take the much-needed focus off of how men oppress women: this is white radical feminism's primary and often only concern because it allows white women to not deal with how their whiteness also is misogyny--racist-misogyny. How it is that African American feminists' declarations of truth, and women of color's many declarations of truth across ethnicity and region, are viewed essentially as an obstacle to achieving women's liberation only means to me that far too many white women don't care about liberation for any woman who isn't white, unless it occurs as a parenthetical consequence of liberating white women. This is to say, the only white-approved means for women of color to work towards being liberated from men is on white women's terms, in ways that most directly benefit white women--in theory if not yet in practice (due to the sheer stubborn force of male supremacy), using the methods and approaches owned and operated by white women. Women of color daring to venture forth beyond the scope and sociological confines of white women's experiences are assumed to be working hand in hand with men.

What is less often recognised by white women is how white women work with white men to maintain their own white power and privileges--including the privilege of thinking of oneself as gendered by not raced.

This might sound like a strong critique coming from a male--a white one at that. It is. I've called out the white male supremacy of white men, the male supremacy of men of color, and more recently in a series of posts, the white supremacy of white women as a form of virulently dangerous white power-protectionism. I do this because any preservation of whiteness is more than a parenthetical obstacle to liberation for women of color, particularly but not only for women who live among whites. White and male supremacy are fused political ideologies, whereby whiteness is male supremacist and manhood is white supremacist. This is flatly and fiercely denied by virtually every white women writer I have ever read, including Catharine MacKinnon, except for one: Andrea Dworkin.

I encourage any woman readers of this post to ask any white feminist if she believes her whiteness functions as a serious obstacle to women's liberation from globalised Eurocentric male supremacy. The "patriarchy" referred to as only one historical thing by far too many white women, allegedly does not have raced power system embedded in it (in them) at all. But where in the world is patriarchy not raced? Given that it is always raced, how does ignoring the political effects of that oppressively and gynocidally raced power on women of color amount to a practice of radical feminism, and why is it so protected as a common practice?

What I learned from my feminist mentor, from Andrea Dworkin, and from Audre Lorde was that oppression must be named and called out--by all who see it. And when men do it, they'd better be respectful of women across race and not racist or misogynistic in the ways they do it. White women do call it out when men of color are misogynistic. Sometimes they do so in ways that are not racist. But regardless, I've rarely heard white women critique each other for challenging the misogyny of men of color--there seems to be an ethic created by the importance and urgency of women calling out men's misogyny wherever it exists. Indeed, white women have made it a practice to call out any misogyny anywhere in the world, whether in respectful alliance with women from other regions or not.

What's misogynistic about a white male calling out white women's racism, when that racism is racist-misogyny? How is such a practice 'anti-feminist' or 'anti-woman'--if women of color are, in fact, women? My actions are politically anti-white, I suppose, so it makes sense that if white women only view themselves as women, my critique of their white supremacist ways will be seen as anti-woman, even when they are not. I'm not at all saying I'm incapable of being misogynistic or just plain ol' sexist, or white supremacist or racist, for that matter. I can be at any moment of the day. I was just yesterday, actually.

I hope I've been careful to describe my objections and critiques in ways that welcome discussion and don't intentionally shame or insult the white women. They may well feel insulted or ashamed or any number of other things too. Those of us who are white people usually do feel all that--and seriously threatened--when it is called out. Men generally do feel significantly threatened when anyone calls out their male supremacist practices.

So I return to a declaration of the need to make room in the partial, privileged house of white radical feminism for the perspectives, truths, and realities of women of color across class, region, and sexuality. But far more important than that is the need--not "my" need--for whites across gender to do what men across race systematically refuse to do: to center the views and values of radical feminist women of color; to understand our own whiteness is real as raced privilege, entitlement, and power; and it is collectively and institutionally protected with whites in control. I believe that we collectively must understand that if we don't move outside our whiteness in our allegedly pro-feminist practices, we continue the age-old practice of silencing and subordinating women of color.

For me, what follows is another critical and key voice in radical feminism--a voice that ought to be central and regarded as just as important as that of Mary Daly, Catharine MacKinnon, or Andrea Dworkin. Collins' works of theory astutely tackle some very significant problems plaguing much of white radical feminist thinking. What I didn't know until reading this, and the work of Marimba Ani, was exactly how Eurocentric and masculinist a lot of white radical feminist thinking and theorising was, even while I have witnessed it's controlling and condescending effects on women who are located differently than are the white authors.

I've recently been in conversation with a white radical lesbian, not doing a very good job of articulating my own viewpoints relative to her own. Needless to say, hers are infinitely more sensitive than are mine to the harms being done to Lesbian communities she's been part of. But my experience of late has not been grounded in Gay or Lesbian spaces; my political community is women of color internationally. And those women are describing a constellation of oppressive realities that no one who is white in the US is experiencing due the protections and privileges that come with being white (and US) across gender.

What has frustrated me greatly, due to my alliance with radical feminist women of color, is how whites across gender, almost without exception, refuse to deal with the meaning and reality of their whiteness--and how it shapes their own theories, views, values, and political (including interpersonal) practices. I hope the work that follows continues to serve to break open the codes and help end the practices of white and male supremacist protectionism among whites and men.

What follows was found *here*, but that version contains a bunch of typos which I've attempted to correct in the copy that appears below. (Now if only I could correct the typos in my own posts!!) It may also be viewed as a PDF doc, *here*. That too is an earlier version that has been revised and updated in the 2008 edition of the book, published by Routledge.

In the newer edition of the text (2000, 2008), see especially the chapter 1: "The Politics of Black Feminist Thought" (pp. 1-20) and most especially chapter 11: "Black Feminist Epistemology" (pp. 251-272).

*          *          *

From Patricia Hill Collins, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge,Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1990, pp. 221-238. [JR's note: This is not from the latest edition of Black Feminist Thought. Page numbers mentioned here do not correlate to the pagination in the latest editions of the text. See just above for more.]

Patricia Hill Collins


Black Feminist Thought in the Matrix of Domination


Black feminist thought demonstrates Black women's emerging power as agents of knowledge. By portraying African-American women as self-defined, self-reliant individuals confronting race, gender, and class oppression, Afrocentric feminist thought speaks to the importance that oppression, Afrocentric feminist thought speaks to the importance that knowledge plays in empowering oppressed people. One distinguishing feature of Black feminist thought is its insistence that both the changed consciousness of individuals and the social transformation of political and economic institutions constitute essential ingredients for social change. New knowledge is important for both dimensions to change.

Knowledge is a vitally important part of the social relations of domination and resistance. By objectifying African-American women and recasting our experiences to serve the interests of elite white men,much of the Eurocentric masculinist worldview fosters Black women'ssubordination. But placing Black women's experiences at the center of analysis offers fresh insights on the prevailing concepts, paradigms,and epistemologies of this worldview and on its feminist and Afrocentric critiques. Viewing the world through a both/and conceptual lens of the simultaneity of race, class, and gender oppression and of the need for a humanist vision of community creates new possibilities for an empowering Afrocentric feminist knowledge. Many Black feminist intellectuals have long thought about the world in this way because this is the way we experience the world.

Afrocentric feminist thought offers two significant contributions toward furthering our understanding of the important connections among knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. First, Black feminist thought fosters a fundamental paradigmatic shift in how we think about oppression. By embracing a paradigm of race, class, and gender as interlocking systems of oppression,Black feminist thought reconceptualizes the social relations of domination and resistance. Second, Black feminist thought addresses ongoing epistemological debates in feminist theory and in the sociology of knowledge concerning ways of assessing "truth." Offering subordinate groups new knowledge about their own experiences can be empowering. But revealing new ways of knowing that allow subordinate groups to define their own reality has far greater implications.


Reconceptualizing Race, Class, and Gender

as Interlocking Systems of Oppression


"What I really feel is radical is trying to make coalitions with people who are different from you," maintains Barbara Smith. "I feel it is radical to be dealing with race and sex and class and sexual identity all at one time. I think that is really radical because it has never been done before." Black feminist thought fosters a fundamental paradigmatic shift that rejects additive approaches to oppression. Instead of starting with gender and then adding in other variables such as age, sexual orientation, race, social class, and religion, Black feminist thought sees these distinctive systems of oppression as being part of one overarching structure of domination. Viewing relations of domination for Black women for any given sociohistorical context as being structured via a system of interlocking race, class, and gender oppression expands the focus of analysis from merely describing the similarities and differences distinguishing these systems of oppression and focuses greater attention on how they interconnect. Assuming that each system needs the others in order to function creates a distinct theoretical stance that stimulates the rethinking of basic social science concepts.

Afrocentric feminist notions of family reflect this reconceptualization process. Black women's experiences as blood mothers, other mothers, and community other mothers reveal that the mythical norm of a heterosexual, married couple, nuclear family with a nonworking spouse and a husband earning a "family wage" is far from being natural, universal and preferred but instead is deeply embedded in specific race and class formations. Placing African-American women in the center of analysis not only reveals much-needed information about Black women's experiences but also questions Eurocentric masculinist perspectives on family.

Black women's experiences and the Afrocentric feminist thought rearticulating them also challenge prevailing definitions of community. Black women's actions in the struggle or group survival suggest a vision of community that stands in opposition to that extant in the dominant culture. The definition of community implicit in the market model sees community as arbitrary and fragile, structured fundamentally by competition and domination. In contrast, Afrocentric models of community stress connections, caring, and personal accountability. As cultural workers African-American women have rejected the generalized ideology of domination advanced by thedominant group in order to conserve Afrocentric conceptualizations of community. Denied access to the podium, Black women have been unable to spend time theorizing about alternative conceptualizations of community. Instead, through daily actions African-American women have created alternative communities that empower.

This vision of community sustained by African-American women in conjunction with African-American men addresses the larger issue of reconceptualizing power. The type of Black women's power discussed here does resemble feminist theories of power which emphasize energy and community. However, in contrast to this body of literature whose celebration of women's power is often accompanied by a lack of attention to the importance of power as domination, Black women's experiences as mothers, community other mothers, educators, churchl eaders, labor union center-women, and community leaders seem to suggest that power as energy can be fostered by creative acts of resistance.

The spheres of influence created and sustained by African-American women are not meant solely to provide a respite from oppressive situations or a retreat from their effects. Rather, these Black female spheres of influence constitute potential sanctuaries where individual Black women and men are nurtured in order to confront oppressive social institutions. Power from this perspective is a creative power used for the good of the community, whether that community is conceptualized as one's family, church community, or the next generation of the community's children. By making the community stronger, African-American women become empowered, and that same community can serve as a source of support when Black women encounter race, gender, and class oppression. . . .

Approaches that assume that race, gender, and class are interconnected have immediate practical applications. For example,African-American women continue to be inadequately protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The primary purpose of the statute is to eradicate all aspects of discrimination. But judicial treatment of Black women's employment discrimination claims has encouraged Black women to identify race or sex as the so-called primary discrimination. "To resolve the inequities that confront Black women," counsels Scarborough, the courts must first correctly conceptualize them as 'Black women,' a distinct class protected by Title VII." Such a shift, from protected categories to protected classes of people whose Title VII claims might be based on more than two discriminations, would work to alter the entire basis of current antidiscrimination efforts.

Reconceptualizing phenomena such as the rapid growth of female-headed households in African-American communities would also benefit from a race-, class-, and gender-inclusive analysis. Case studies of Black women heading households must be attentive to racially segmented local labor markets and community patterns, to changes in local political economies specific to a given city or region, and to established racial and gender ideology for a given location. This approach would go far to deconstruct Eurocentric, masculinist analyses that implicitly rely on controlling images of the matriarch or the welfare mother as guiding conceptual premises. .. . Black feminist thought that rearticulates experiences such as these fosters an enhanced theoretical understanding of how race,gender, and class oppression are part of a single, historically created system.


The Matrix of Domination


Additive models of oppression are firmly rooted in the either/or dichotomous thinking of Eurocentric, masculinist thought. One must be either Black or white in such thought systems--persons of ambiguous racial and ethnic identity constantly battle with questions such as "what are you, anyway?" This emphasis on quantification and categorization occurs in conjunction with the belief that either/or categories must be ranked. The search for certainty of this sort requires that one side of a dichotomy be privileged while its other is denigrated. Privilege becomes defined in relation to its other.
Replacing additive models of oppression with interlocking ones creates possibilities for new paradigms.

The significance of seeing race, class, and gender as interlocking systems of oppression is that such an approach fosters a paradigmatic shift of thinking inclusively about other oppressions, such as age, sexual orientation, religion, and ethnicity. Race, class, and gender represent the three systems of oppression that most heavily affect African-American women. But these systems and the economic, political, and ideological conditions that support them may not be the most fundamental oppressions, and they certainly affect many more groups than Black women. Other people of color, Jews, the poor white women, and gays and lesbians have all had similar ideological justifications offered for their subordination. All categories of humans labeled Others have been equated to one another, to animals, and to nature.

Placing African-American women and other excluded groups in the center of analysis opens up possibilities for a both/and conceptual stance, one in which all groups possess varying amounts of penalty and privilege in one historically created system. In this system, for example, white women are penalized by their gender but privileged by their race. Depending on the context, an individual may be an oppressor, a member of an oppressed group, or simultaneously oppressor and oppressed.

Adhering to a both/and conceptual stance does not mean that race, class, and gender oppression are interchangeable. For example, whereas race, class, and gender oppression operate on the social-structural level of institutions, gender oppression seems better able to annex the basic power of the erotic and intrude in personal relationships via family dynamics and within individual consciousness. This may be because racial oppression has fostered historically concrete communities among African-Americans and other racial/ethnic groups. These communities have stimulated cultures of resistance. While these communities segregate Blacks from whites,they simultaneously provide counter-institutional buffers that subordinate groups such as African-Americans use to resist the ideas and institutions of dominant groups. Social class may be similarly structured. Traditionally conceptualized as a relationship of individual employees to their employers, social class might be better viewed as a relationship of communities to capitalist political economies. Moreover, significant overlap exists between racial and social class oppression when viewing them through the collective lens of family and community. Existing community structures provide a primary line of resistance against racial and class oppression. But because gender cross-cuts these structures, it finds fewer comparable institutional bases to foster resistance.

Embracing a both/and conceptual stance moves us from additive, separate systems approaches to oppression and toward what I now see as the more fundamental issue of the social relations of domination. Race, class, and gender constitute axes of oppression that characterize Black women's experiences within a more generalized matrix of domination. Other groups may encounter different dimensions of the matrix, such as sexual orientation, religion, and age, but the overarching relationship is one of domination and the types of activism it generates.

bell hooks labels this matrix a "politic of domination" and describes how it operates along interlocking axes of race, class, and gender oppression. This politic of domination
refers to the ideological ground that they share, which is a belief in domination, and a belief in the notions of superior and inferior, which are components of all of those systems. For me it's like a house, they share the foundation, but the foundation is the ideological beliefs around which notions of domination are constructed.
Johnella Butler claims that new methodologies growing from this new paradigm would be "non-hierarchical" and would "refuse primacy to either race, class, gender, or ethnicity, demanding instead are cognition of their matrix-like interaction." Race, class, and gender may not be the most fundamental or important systems of oppression, but they have most profoundly affected African-American women. One significant dimension of Black feminist thought is its potential to reveal insights about the social relations of domination organized along other axes such as religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and age. Investigating Black women's particular experiences thus promises to reveal much about the more universal process of domination.


Multiple Levels of Domination


In addition to being structured along axes such as race, gender, and social class, the matrix of domination is structured on several levels. People experience and resist oppression on three levels: the level of personal biography; the group or community level of the cultural context created by race, class, and gender; and the systemic level of social institutions. Black feminist thought emphasizes all three levels as sites of domination and as potential sites of resistance.

Each individual has a unique personal biography made up of concrete experiences, values, motivations, and emotions. No two individuals occupy the same social space; thus no two biographies are identical. Human ties can be freeing and empowering, as is the case with Black women's heterosexual love relationships or in the power of motherhood in African-American families and communities. Human ties can also be confining and oppressive. Situations of domestic violence and abuse or cases in which controlling images foster Black women's internalized oppression represent domination on the personal level. The same situation can look quite different depending on the consciousness one brings to interpret it.

This level of individual consciousness is a fundamental area where new knowledge can generate change. Traditional accounts assume that power as domination operates from the top down by forcing and controlling unwilling victims to bend to the will of more powerful superiors. But these accounts fail to account for questions concerning why, for example, women stay with abusive men even with ample opportunity to leave or why slaves did not kill their owners more often. The willingness of the victim to collude in her or his own victimization becomes lost. They also fail to account for sustained resistance by victims, even when chances for victory appear remote. By emphasizing the power of self-definition and the necessity of a free mind, Black feminist thought speaks to the importance African-American women thinkers place on consciousness as a sphere of freedom. Black women intellectuals realize that domination operates not only by structuring power from the top down but by simultaneously annexing the power as energy of those on the bottom for its own ends. In their efforts to rearticulate the standpoint of African-American women as a group, Black feminist thinkers offer individual African-American women the conceptual tools to resist oppression.

The cultural context formed by those experiences and ideas that are shared with other members of a group or community which give meaning to individual biographies constitutes a second level at which domination is experienced and resisted. Each individual biography is rooted in several overlapping cultural contexts--for example, groups defined by race, social class, age, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. The cultural component contributes, among other things,the concepts used in thinking and acting, group validation of an individual's interpretation of concepts, the "thought models" used in the acquisition of knowledge, and standards used to evaluate individual thought and behavior. The most cohesive cultural contexts are those with identifiable histories, geographic locations, and social institutions. For Black women African-American communities have provided the location for an Afrocentric group perspective to endure.

Subjugated knowledges, such as a Black women's culture of resistance, develop in cultural contexts controlled by oppressed groups. Dominant groups aim to replace subjugated knowledge with their own specialized thought because they realize that gaining control over this dimension of subordinate groups' lives simplifies control. While efforts to influence this dimension of an oppressed group's experiences can be partially successful, this level is more difficult to control than dominant groups would have us believe. For example, adhering to externally derived standards of beauty leads many African-American women to dislike their skin color or hair texture. Similarly, internalizing Eurocentric gender ideology leads some Black men to abuse Black women. These are cases of the successful infusion of the dominant group's specialized thought into the everyday cultural context of African-Americans. But the long-standing existence of a Black women's culture of resistance as expressed through Black women's relationships with one another, the Black women's blues tradition, and the voices of contemporary African-American women writers all attest to the difficulty of eliminating the cultural context as a fundamental site of resistance.

Domination is also experienced and resisted on the third level of social institutions controlled by the dominant group: namely, schools, churches, the media, and other formal organizations. These institutions expose individuals to the specialized thought representing the dominant group's standpoint and interests. While such institutions offer the promise of both literacy and other skills that can be used for individual empowerment and social transformation, they simultaneously require docility and passivity. Such institutions would have us believe that the theorizing of elites constitutes the whole of theory. The existence of African-American women thinkers such as Maria Stewart, Sojourner Truth, Zora Neale Hurston, and Fannie Lou Hamer who, though excluded from and/or marginalized within such institutions, continued to produce theory effectively opposes this hegemonic view. Moreover, the more recent resurgence of Black feminist thought within these institutions, the case of the outpouring of contemporary Black feminist thought in history and literature, directly challenges the Eurocentric masculinist thought pervading these institutions.


Resisting the Matrix of Domination


Domination operates by seducing, pressuring, or forcing African-American women and members of subordinated groups to replace individual and cultural ways of knowing with the dominant group's specialized thought. As a result, suggests Audre 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." Or as Toni Cade Bambara succinctly states, "revolution begins with the self, in the self."

Lorde and Bambara's suppositions raise an important issue for Black feminist intellectuals and for all scholars and activists working for social change. Although most individuals have little difficulty identifying their own victimization within some major system of oppression--whether it be by race, social class, religion,physical ability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, age or gender—they typically fail to see how their thoughts and actions uphold someone else's subordination. Thus white feminists routinely point with confidence to their oppression as women but resist seeing how much their white skin privileges them. African-Americans who possess eloquent analyses of racism often persist in viewing poor white women as symbols of white power. The radical left fares little better. "If only people of color and women could see their true class interests," they argue, "class solidarity would eliminate racism and sexism." In essence, each group identifies the oppression with which it feels most comfortable as being fundamental and classifies all others as being of lesser importance. Oppression is filled with such contradictions because these approaches fail to recognize that a matrix of domination contains few pure victims or oppressors. Each individual derives varying amounts of penalty and privilege from the multiple systems of oppression which frame everyone's lives.

A broader focus stresses the interlocking nature of oppressions that are structured on multiple levels, from the individual to the social structural, and which are part of a larger matrix of domination. Adhering to this inclusive model provides the conceptual space needed for each individual to see that she or he is both a member of multiple dominant groups and a member of multiple subordinate groups. Shifting the analysis to investigating how the matrix of domination is structured along certain axes--race, gender,and class being the axes of investigation for African-American women--reveals that different systems of oppression may rely in varying degrees on systemic versus interpersonal mechanisms of domination.

Empowerment involves rejecting the dimensions of knowledge,whether personal, cultural, or institutional, that perpetuate objectification and dehumanization. African-American women and other individuals in subordinate groups become empowered when we understand and use those dimensions of our individual, group, and disciplinary ways of knowing that foster our humanity as fully human subjects. This is the case when Black women value our self-definitions,participate in a Black women's activist tradition, invoke an Afrocentric feminist epistemology as central to our worldview, and view the skills gained in schools as part of a focused education for Black community development. C. Wright Mills identifies this holistic epistemology as the "sociological imagination" and identifies its task and its promise as a way of knowing that enables individuals to grasp the relations between history and biography within society. Using one's standpoint to engage the sociological imagination can empower the individual. "My fullest concentration of energy is available to me," Audre Lorde maintains, "only when I integrate all the parts of who I am, openly, allowing power from particular sources of my living to flow back and forth freely through all my different selves, without the restriction of externally imposed definition."


Black Women as Agents of Knowledge


Living life as an African-American woman is a necessary prerequisite for producing Black feminist thought because within Black women's communities thought is validated and produced with reference to a particular set of historical, material, and epistemological conditions. African-American women who adhere to the idea that claims about Black women must be substantiated by Black women's sense of our own experiences and who anchor our knowledge claims in an Afrocentric feminist epistemology have produced a rich tradition of Black feminist thought.

Traditionally such women were blues singers, poets,autobiographers, storytellers, and orators validated by everyday Black women as experts on a Black women's standpoint. Only a few unusual African-American feminist scholars have been able to defy Eurocentric masculinist epistemologies and explicitly embrace an Afrocentric feminist epistemology. Consider Alice Walker's description of Zora Neal Hurston:
In my mind, Zora Neale Hurston, Billie Holiday, and Bessie Smith form a sort of unholy trinity. Zora belongs in the tradition of black women singers, rather than among "the literati." ... Like Billie and Jessie she followed her own road, believed in her own gods pursued her own dreams, and refused to separate herself from"common" people.
Zora Neal Hurston is an exception for prior to 1950, few African-American women earned advanced degrees and most of those who did complied with Eurocentric masculinist epistemologies. Although these women worked on behalf of Black women, they did so within the confines of pervasive race and gender oppression. Black women scholars were in a position to see the exclusion of African-American women from scholarly discourse, and the thematic content of their work often reflected their interest in examining a Black women's standpoint. However, their tenuous status in academic institutions led them to adhere to Eurocentric masculinist epistemologies so that their work would be accepted as scholarly. As a result, while they produced Black feminist thought, those African-American women most likely to gain academic credentials were often least likely to produce Black feminist thought that used an Afrocentric feminist epistemology.

An ongoing tension exists for Black women as agents of knowledge,a tension rooted in the sometimes conflicting demands of Afrocentricity and feminism. Those Black women who are feminists are critical of how Black culture and many of its traditions oppress women. For example, the strong pronatal beliefs in African-American communities that foster early motherhood among adolescent girls, the lack of self-actualization that can accompany the double-day of paid employment and work in the home, and the emotional and physical abuse that many Black women experience from their fathers, lovers, and husbands all reflect practices opposed by African-American women who are feminists. But these same women may have a parallel desire as members of an oppressed racial group to affirm the value of that same culture and traditions. Thus strong Black mothers appear in Black women's literature, Black women's economic contributions to families is lauded, and a curious silence exists concerning domestic abuse.

As more African-American women earn advanced degrees, the range of Black feminist scholarship is expanding. Increasing numbers of African-American women scholars are explicitly choosing to ground their work in Black women's experiences, and, by doing so, they implicitly adhere to an Afrocentric feminist epistemology. Rather than being restrained by their both/and status of marginality, these women make creative use of their outsider-within status and produce innovative Afrocentric feminist thought. The difficulties these women face lie less in demonstrating that they have mastered white male epistemologies than in resisting the hegemonic nature of these patterns of thought in order to see, value, and use existing alternative Afrocentric feminist ways of knowing.

In establishing the legitimacy of their knowledge claims, Black women scholars who want to develop Afrocentric feminist thought may encounter the often conflicting standards of three key groups. First, Black feminist thought must be validated by ordinary African-American women who, in the words of Hannah Nelson, grow to womanhood "in a world where the saner you are, the madder you are made to appear." To be credible in the eyes of this group, scholars must be personal advocates for their material, be accountable for the consequences of their work, have lived or experienced their material in some fashion,and be willing to engage in dialogues about their findings with ordinary, everyday people. Second, Black feminist thought also must be accepted by the community of Black women scholars. These scholars place varying amounts of importance on rearticulating a Black women's standpoint using an Afrocentric feminist epistemology. Third,Afrocentric feminist thought within academia must be prepared to confront Eurocentric masculinist political and epistemological requirements.

The dilemma facing Black women scholars engaged in creating Black feminist thought is that a knowledge claim that meets the criteria ofadequacy for one group and thus is judged to be an acceptable knowledge claim may not be translatable into the terms of a different group. Using the example of Black English, June Jordan illustrate sthe difficulty of moving among epistemologies:
You cannot "translate" instances of Standard English preoccupied with abstraction or with nothing/nobody evidently alive into Black English. That would warp the language into uses antithetical to the guiding perspective of its community of users. Rather you must first change those Standard English sentences,themselves, into ideas consistent with the person-centered assumptions of Black English.
Although both worldviews share a common vocabulary, the ideas themselves defy direct translation.
For Black women who are agents of knowledge, the marginality that accompanies outsider-within status can be the source of both frustration and creativity. In an attempt to minimize the differences between the cultural context of African-American communities and the expectations of social institutions, some women dichotomize their behavior and become two different people. Over time, the strain of doing this can be enormous. Others reject their cultural context and work against their own best interests by enforcing the dominant group's specialized thought. Still others manage to inhabit both contexts but do so critically, using their outsider-within perspectives as a source of insights and ideas. But while outsiders within can make substantial personal cost. "Eventually it comes to you," observes Lorraine Hansberry, "the thing that makes you exceptional, if you are at all, is inevitably that which must also make you lonely."

Once Black feminist scholars face the notion that, on certain dimensions of a Black women's standpoint, it may be fruitless to try and translate ideas from an Afrocentric feminist epistemology into a Eurocentric masculinist framework, then other choices emerge. Rather than trying to uncover universal knowledge claims that can withstand the translation from one epistemology to another (initially, at least), Black women intellectuals might find efforts to rearticulate a Black women's standpoint especially fruitful. Rearticulating a Black women's standpoint refashions the concrete and reveals the more universal human dimensions of Black women's everyday lives. "I date all my work," notes Nikki Giovanni, "because I think poetry, or any writing, is but a reflection of the moment. The universal comes from the particular." bell hooks maintains, "my goal as a feminist thinker and theorist is to take that abstraction and articulate it in a language that renders it accessible--not less complex or rigorous--but simply more accessible." The complexity exists;interpreting it remains the unfulfilled challenge for Black women intellectuals.


Situated Knowledge, Subjugated Knowledge,

and Partial Perspectives


"My life seems to be an increasing revelation of the intimate trace of universal struggle," claims June Jordan:
You begin with your family and the kids on the block,and next you open your eyes to what you call your people and that leads you into land reform into Black English into Angola leads you back to your own bed where you lie by yourself; wondering it you deserve to be peaceful, or trusted or desired or left to the freedom of your own unfaltering heart. And the scale shrinks to the use of a skull: your own interior cage.
Lorraine Hansberry expresses a similar idea: "I believe that one of the most sound ideas in dramatic writing is that in order to create the universal, you must pay very great attention to the specific. Universality, I think, emerges from the truthful identity of what is." Jordan and Hansberry's insights that universal struggle and truth may wear a particularistic, intimate face suggest a new epistemological stance concerning how we negotiate competing knowledge claims and identify "truth."

The context in which African-American women's ideas are nurtured or suppressed matters. Understanding the content and epistemology of Black women's ideas as specialized knowledge requires attending tothe context from which those ideas emerge. While produced by individuals, Black feminist thought as situated knowledge is embedded in the communities in which African-American women find ourselves.

A Black women's standpoint and those of other oppressed groups is not only embedded in a context but exists in a situation characterized by domination. Because Black women's ideas have been suppressed, this suppression has stimulated African-American women to create knowledge that empowers people to resist domination. Thus Afrocentric feminist thought represents a subjugated knowledge. A Black women's standpoint may provide a preferred stance from which to view the matrix of domination because, in principle, Black feminist thought as specialized thought is less likely than the specialized knowledge produced by dominant groups to deny the connection between ideas and the vested interests of their creators. However, Black feminist thought as subjugated knowledge is not exempt from critical analysis, because subjugation is not grounds for an epistemology.

Despite African-American women's potential power to reveal new insights about the matrix of domination, a Black women's standpoint is only one angle of vision. Thus Black feminist thought represents a partial perspective. The overarching matrix of domination houses multiple groups, each with varying experiences with penalty and privilege that produce corresponding partial perspectives, situated knowledges, and, for clearly identifiable subordinate groups,subjugated knowledges. No one group has a clear angle of vision. No one group possesses the theory or methodology that allows it to discover the absolute "truth" or, worse yet, proclaim its theories and methodologies as the universal norm evaluating other groups' experiences. Given that groups are unequal in power in making themselves heard, dominant groups have a vested interest in suppressing the knowledge produced by subordinate groups. Given the existence of multiple and competing knowledge claims to "truth"produced by groups with partial perspectives, what epistemological approach offers the most promise?


Dialogue and Empathy


Western social and political thought contains two alternative approaches to ascertaining "truth." The first, reflected in positivist science, has long claimed that absolute truths exist and that the task of scholarship is to develop objective, unbiased tools of science to measure these truths. . . . Relativism, the second approach, has been forwarded as the antithesis of and inevitable outcome of rejecting a positivist science. From a relativist perspective all groups produce specialized thought and each group's thought is equally valid. No group can claim to have a better interpretation of the "truth" than another. In a sense, relativism represents the opposite of scientific ideologies of objectivity. As epistemological stances, both positivist science and relativism minimize the importance of specific location in influencing a group's knowledge claims, the power inequities among groups that produce subjugated knowledges, and the strengths and limitations of partial perspective.

The existence of Black feminist thought suggests another alternative to the ostensibly objective norms of science and to relativism's claims that groups with competing knowledge claims are equal . . . This approach to Afrocentric feminist thought allows African-American women to bring a Black women's standpoint to larger epistemological dialogues concerning the nature of the matrix of domination Eventually such dialogues may get us to a point at which,claims Elsa Barkley Brown, "all people can learn to center in another experience, validate it, and judge it by its own standards without need of comparison or need to adopt that framework as their own." In such dialogues, "one has no need to 'decenter' anyone in order to center someone else; one has only to constantly, appropriately,'pivot the center.' "

Those ideas that are validated as true by African-American women,African-American men, Latina lesbians, Asian-American women, Prehistorical men, and other groups with distinctive standpoints, with each group using the epistemological approaches growing from its unique standpoint, thus become the most "objective" truths. Each group speaks from its own standpoint and shares its own partial, situated knowledge But because each group perceives its own truth as partial,its knowledge is unfinished. Each group becomes better able to consider other groups' standpoints without relinquishing the uniqueness of its own standpoint or suppressing other groups' partial perspectives "What is always needed in the appreciation of art, or life," maintains Alice Walker, "is the larger perspective. Connections made, or at least attempted, where none existed before,the straining to encompass in one's glance at the varied world the common thread, the unifying theme through immense diversity."Partiality and not universality is the condition of being heard;individuals and groups forwarding knowledge claims without owning their position are deemed less credible than those who do.

Dialogue is critical to the success of this epistemological approach, the type of dialogue long extant in the Afrocentric call-and-response tradition whereby power dynamics are fluid,everyone has a voice, but everyone must listen and respond to other voices in order to be allowed to remain in the community. Sharing a common cause fosters dialogue and encourages groups to transcend their differences. . . .
African-American women have been victimized by race, gender, and class oppression. But portraying Black women solely as passive,unfortunate recipients of racial and sexual abuse stifles notions that Black women can actively work to change our circumstances and bring about changes in our lives. Similarly, presenting African-American women solely as heroic figures who easily engage in resisting oppression on all fronts minimizes the very real costs of oppression and can foster the perception that Black women need no help because we can "take it."

Black feminist thought's emphasis on the ongoing interplay between Black women's oppression and Black women's activism presents the matrix of domination as responsive to human agency. Such thought views the world as a dynamic place where the goal is not merely to survive or to fit in or to cope; rather, it becomes a place where we feel ownership and accountability. The existence of Afrocentric feminist thought suggests that there is always choice, and power to act, no matter how bleak the situation may appear to be. Viewing the world as one in the making raises the issue of individual responsibility for bringing about change. It also shows that while individual empowerment is key, only collective action can effectively generate lasting social transformation of political and economic institutions.