Header Image - The Worlds of Ntozake Shange

Tag Archives

2 Articles

The dissension that expands the base

by Keller 0 Comments

Readings
• Kimberly Springer, Chs. 1, 2, 4, Living for the revolution: Black feminist organizations, 1968-1980
• Ntozake Shange, A Daughter’s Geography

After discussing how Black women created their own organizations after finding their needs often sidelined in both white feminist and masculinist Black civil rights movements, Springer engages with fissures within Black feminist movements that mirrored the fault lines of power in society at large. At first glance, Black feminism suggests a reprieve from monolithic and hierarchical social organizing. Because “Black feminists’ voices and visions fell between the cracks of the civil rights and women’s movements,” Springer argues that they “conducted their ‘politics in the cracks’” (Springer, 1). These “cracks,” negative spaces breaking away from the establishment, offer a space to experiment with radical agendas and bottom-up change, to chip away at the foundations of the dominant political structure.

On closer examination, however, these “cracks” are not void of power relations, but are themselves constituted by power relations that need to be grappled with. “Though united through a collective racial and gender identity,” Springer reveals that Black feminists “discovered cleavages based on” various additional intersections,[1] such as “class and sexual orientation” (Springer, 63). The idea of a perfectly united struggle against hegemony is itself problematically monolithic.

Audre Lorde, for instance, struggled not only against racism and sexism but also against homophobia, ableism, and U.S. chauvinism. In the Cancer Journals, Lorde reflected that “I am defined as other in every group I’m part of” (Lorde, 18). Notably, this dilemma did not lead her to give up advocating for each group’s political rights. Rather, Lorde is famous for her intersectional methodology of using difference as a source of power and community, rather than a cause for constructing adversarial hierarchies and mutually exclusive competition.

Springer’s “cracks,” then, do not only refer to destruction of hegemony but to the generative use of difference as a basis for political solidarity, instead of insisting on identity as a prerequisite for empathy and shared interests. Here, I use the term “identity” according to its original meaning — the property of being identical. White rich women, for instance, claimed access to “equal” rights in the 1848 Declaration of Sentiments on the basis of their “identity” with white rich men. To these white feminists, equal rights meant rights identical to those of white rich men — meaning, an equal right to own enslaved people; an equal right to exploit the working class by owning businesses; an equal right to hire unpaid or underpaid surrogates for child care and domestic work. Far from challenging white rich men to end colonial capitalist violence, the 1848 Declaration epitomizes the ways in which white rich women’s challenge to power constituted of them jostling with white men for front and center seats in perpetrating colonial capitalist violence — especially against working women and women of color — and reaping the profits, “equally.”

The “cracks” represent a Black feminist refusal to seek “identity” with power. These “cracks” do not build on the foundation of power to include more groups, such as white women and the Irish and the middle class, but work to tear down the foundation of power altogether, and offer a more radical and syncretic way of life in its place. “The heterogeneity of black feminists’ individual political perspectives would yield dissention,” Springer reflects, “but that dissention would in turn expand the boundaries of black feminist politics and the base of the black feminist movement” (Springer, 64). Like roots splitting apart pavement, this rhizomatic disruption of monolithic hegemony creates what Black Lives Matter cofounder Alicia Garza has described as “an effervescence – so, a bubble up, rather than a trickle down.”[2]

These cracks that create more cracks abound in Ntozake Shange’s poetry. The diasporic geography of Shange’s Bocas: A Daughter’s Geography mirrors the dissension that expands the base of intersectional and transnational political solidarity:

i have a daughter/ la habana
i have a son/ guyana
our twins

Shange weaponizes the same slashes used in formal grammar to separate lines of poetry in order to unite people across difference, be it gender or oceans. Like Springer’s “cracks,” Shange’s slashes are a breaking that expands the boundaries of how we see ourselves and our opportunities for collaboration in the freedom struggle. Through her poetic mutilation of the colonizer’s language, Shange demonstrates the need to shatter the power structure and its standardizing mission in order to create a radical future.

 

[1] The term “intersectionality” was popularized by Kimberlé Crenshaw, a Black woman and legal scholar who is not credited often enough for her contribution. She uses the term not simply for people who stand at a crossroads of “identity,” but for people who find themselves targeted by multiple interacting systems of oppression at once.

[2] Great analysis of that TED talk here. Excerpted from Deva Woodly’s upcoming book, Black Lives Matter and the Democratic Necessity of Social Movements.

What’s in a Name ?

This course has facilitated my understanding of myself, not just as a student or a feminist, but as a combination of all my identity markers in connection to my studies. As a Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies major, the first thing I think about whenever I consider myself in relationship to anything—be that academic or personal, is my feminism. As a result of my personal values and the ways that I have been trained to think as a student of my chosen discipline, my way of thinking revolves around questions of sex and gender. However, despite being a member of the feminism movement, I am also a heavy critic of feminism and its practices and policies. When I discuss my feminism, I feel that it is important to note that I come from an intersectional and transnational perspective. A lack of these two notions are my two biggest issues with the mainstream feminist movement that limit it’s potential for success. To me, intersectional feminism is about the consideration and incorporation of individual identity markers that work together to produce a more informed and inclusive type of feminist practice. Among these include race, gender, socio-economic background, ability status, family makeup, carrier status, etc., each of which functions as a different facet to inform a feminist ideology. Transnational, for me, means incorporating and adapting feminism to fit into the context of a particular physical or geographical location. Our class conversations have, in the past, noted the difference and challenges of acknowledging borders as a marker of physical difference and a way of facilitating the recognition of social and cultural different. Simultaneously, there is a need to disregard borders to unite women across the world under a similar plight. Too much of an emphasis on border risks creating a physical, state-centric model for understanding transnational feminism, but not enough of a border risks essentializing the experiences of women and reducing them to a single narrative. For me, transnational feminism simply implies an understanding of the social and cultural differences that produce variant lived experiences among women around the world. These differences can then be used to formulate new kinds of feminism to fit the particular needs of women located in particular locations and cultures. To me, my feminism an intersectional and transnational feminism, informed by my personal identity.

My personal identity is hinged on my family background and my race. My father is white and has lived in American his whole life. My mother is Japanese and her entire family still resides in Japan. She is the only member of her family to immigrate to another country and one of the few in her family that speak English. As a result, to my mom and the rest of my Japanese family, I am a first-generation, English-speaking, American citizen. On the other side, my father’s family is all deceased, which means growing up and to this day, my largest familial ties are those to my Japanese family. Therefor, my understanding of my family and our background is dominated by my Japanese side, which has largely informed my position in this world. I was younger, it was easier to incorporate my Japanese heritage into my everyday life because it was my experience at home, living with my mom as my primary care-taker, and all my friends at school knew about my family. However in college, I’ve noticed I have to make a much larger effort to continue to identify with my Japanese side, especially as a white-passing individual. At university, the conscious effort I make to celebrate my heritage and incorporate my identity into the world’s understanding of me is a key part of my college experience. This course has allowed me to understand the ways that my personal identity informs my daily lived experience, and the way that I can harness my understanding of myself to further enrich my academic studies. There is a trend in university studies to stray away from using the personal to inform academia, but this course allowed me to realize that my identity is critical to my understanding of the world, and therefor my chosen field of study, and is something to celebrate.

The terms I mentioned that inform my identity and my feminism are all ones that I believe are critical to discussing the work of radical women who fought for feminist issues in the 1970s and 80s. Transnational and intersectional are both terms that were not widely used at the time of this work, but as a scholar looking back on the work of these women, I think it is important to dig through the dominant white, second-wave feminism to understand and share the work of women who embraced ideas of transnational and intersectional feminism before these terms were common place. Similarly, being bi-racial, particularly Japanese, makes me keenly interested in the work of the women of this time who came out of an incredibly hostile environment of Japanese internment, which (on paper) concluded just 25 years prior.

My mother’s experience being denied by customs when she first attempted to immigrate to the United States over 25 years ago on baseless claims that she was “suspicious,” and her struggle to obtain citizenship over the past four years serves as a constant reminder of the work that Japanese and bi-racial activists during the 1970s and 1980s, an idea that my final project will explore. My final project will incorporate details about the Japanese feminist movement in the 1970s, which is called ūman ribu. This movement is critical to understand the work of Japanese feminists at the time, and helps to inform the experiences of Japanese women living in both Japan and the United States at the time. The unique element of Japanese feminism is rooted in the countries historical (and contemporary) deeply patriarchal society. This is where it is important to understand difference through a transnational perspective. Japanese society differs greatly from US society in that ideas of patriarchy, male-dominance, and gender roles are so deeply engrained in society, it is difficult to even notice it among daily life there. Not that in the United States this is not the case, but having spent time in both nations, I firmly believe Japan is a society founded and supported by an incredibly patriarchal system, so much more than is the case in the US. Therefore, in order to understand ūman ribu as a woman whose exposure to feminism has been western-centric, it is key to first understand the underlying difference between our society and that in Japan. Understanding these two terms, intersectional and transnational, will be critical in analyzing the work of Japanese feminist activists in the 1970s and 80s in my final project.