Of all the reading for this week, I enjoyed the section on Decolonizing Feminist Thought the most because the implications of this section extended beyond feminism (at least in my mind). I found myself considering the "West" and the "East" and allowed myself to react to my own assumptions about them. The result was that I stereotyped the "West" as a technologically advanced, economically superior, culturally and traditionally free space, whereas the "East" was a traditionally trapped, underdeveloped (in terms of overall human treatment), and economically weaker space.
Of course, a second thought had me thinking of the technology of Japan or the economy of China and realizing I don't entirely think in terms of my own stereotypes when applied to certain locations, but the initial thoughts are alarming. They demonstrate a capacity for assumption that may extend beyond "West" and "East", touching other subjects such as "Basic Writer" or students who are not native English speakers.
Two big names mentioned in this section are Mohanty and Narayan. The writings of Mohanty brought me back to our earlier readings where feminism in the US was considered too essentialist and supporting a single narrative (predominantly of the white middle-class woman). Just as African-American feminists in the US were asking for their unique struggles to be recognized as in need of assessment, Mohanty talks about how the "Third World Woman" is being generalized into a single narrative even though the history of particular hallmarks of oppression is more complex. This goes back to the idea of stereotypes; the "First World Feminist" is stereotyping the "Third World Woman" even though the application of those stereotypes does not necessarily pan out.
Narayan goes more into the colonialist stance that the stereotyping of "Third World Women" takes. She points out how the first world understanding of third world traditions is monolithic and poorly supported, demonstrating a lack of adequate insight or research into those traditions. These misconceptions are the building blocks of the first world call for action in the name of "objectified third world women". Narayan suggests that feminist thought ensure that generalizations are historically placed within the complex histories of the worlds they are attempting to generalize.
This train of thought made me consider how the composition teacher should take care not to generalize every student with a monolithic interpretation of "the student". Just as the "third world woman" may not necessarily be an object/victim of the traditions that surround them (perhaps seeing those traditions very differently from the first world feminist), so too should the basic writer not be necessarily objectified/victimized by the traditions of writing assessments or placement. It is important to understand the individual student and how they view their own situation as well. Do they know about their writing process? Do they feel that the system has treated them unjustly? Are they seeking agency within the school system, and do they feel like they do not have agency?
Answering these questions on a student level (and not a monolithic level) allows the school system to adapt to the students it is attempting to improve. Otherwise, it becomes a hit-or-miss system that is too rigid for some students to confront and excel within.
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Monday, November 14, 2016
(Late Post) Constructing Author Voice
Don't comment on this post, unless you really want to I guess. It is late and I'm am doing it mostly for posterity (see what I did there) and to make sure I still reach my blog number goal regardless of grade!
THIS POST IS REGARDING The Construction of Author Voice by Editorial Board Members BY Christine M. Tardy AND Paul Kei Matsuda!
Many reviewers who responded in the study suggested that the construction of the author voice when reading is "natural and unavoidable" (38). The results of the study mostly support this line of thinking. With a majority of respondents either speculating upon or passively sensing the author voice, it would seem that this act is in fact bound to happen when reading.
If we take this premise as given, how does this relate to the writing classroom? How does constructing the author voice benefit or hinder the student? To answer this, it is important to understand the ways by which the author voice might be constructed by the reader. What factors into a reader's construction of author voice? There are 19 things that the study looked for:
- Breadth/Depth of Knowledge
- Choice of Topic
- Author Representation of Field
- Research Setting Description
- Signs of Author Language Background
- Particular Sentence Structure Use
- Theoretical Framework Choice
- Author Representation of Other Researchers in Field
- Particular Term Use
- Particular Writing Convention Use
- Signs of Careful Editing (or lack thereof)
- Consistencies/Inconsistencies in Writing Style
- Research Method Choice
- Patterns of Source Citation
- Patterns in References List
- Manuscript Formatting
- Particular Genre Convention Use
- Choice of Journal to Submit Manuscript
- Citation Style use
That is a lot to consider, but I'm mostly concerned with what will apply in the writing classroom. As such, the choices in red (above) are not likely to factor into assessment in the writing classroom for various reasons (writing classroom students aren't likely submitting to journals for publication, for example). The pattern I have tried to suggest in my choices above are that I am assuming less emphasis on higher level concerns in writing classroom assessment. In other words, I care less about field wide student concerns and journal submission concerns than I do about whether or not they are citing sources correctly or demonstrating grammatical and syntactic competency.
In reflecting on the previous paragraph regarding MY concerns, am I showing a construction of author voice already though? Am I assuming students in the writing classroom are not WORTHY of higher level concerns? In general, I suppose that I am...but students are also to be taken on a case by case basis. I would also argue that teaching what a majority of students will benefit from (and providing individual assistance where necessary) is simply more practical than trying to cater every moment to every student. A teacher can't possibly attune every class and every lesson to every student without sacrificing an amount of content, breadth, or sanity.
But, let us return to my original questions. How DOES the construction of author voice relate to the classroom? As I may have already demonstrated, expectation from students will influence what a teacher looks for. To go further (read, more individual) a teacher's expectations of a particular student may influence what the teacher looks for in the work of that particular student. A good student who makes a unique choice may be seen as "exploring new terrain" whereas a bad student making the same choice may be seen as "lacking knowledge of conventions" (good and bad are also potentially problematic designations for students, but that is another blog).
Are there benefits to constructing the author voice? Maybe. It is possible that knowing WHAT mistakes to look for will help a student who is trying to improve that particular error. A student's self-awareness of their weaknesses (which come up from, say, journals and self-evaluation), as well as a teacher's knowledge of that student's self-awareness, may allow teacher and student to work together to locate, discuss, and improve those areas. Are the hindrances to constructing author voice? Absolutely. A good student who wrote a bad paper or a bad student who wrote a good paper suddenly have imbalanced expectations of future performance (and lopsided assessments of students is problematic in itself).
THIS POST IS REGARDING The Construction of Author Voice by Editorial Board Members BY Christine M. Tardy AND Paul Kei Matsuda!
Many reviewers who responded in the study suggested that the construction of the author voice when reading is "natural and unavoidable" (38). The results of the study mostly support this line of thinking. With a majority of respondents either speculating upon or passively sensing the author voice, it would seem that this act is in fact bound to happen when reading.
If we take this premise as given, how does this relate to the writing classroom? How does constructing the author voice benefit or hinder the student? To answer this, it is important to understand the ways by which the author voice might be constructed by the reader. What factors into a reader's construction of author voice? There are 19 things that the study looked for:
- Breadth/Depth of Knowledge
- Choice of Topic
- Author Representation of Field
- Research Setting Description
- Signs of Author Language Background
- Particular Sentence Structure Use
- Theoretical Framework Choice
- Author Representation of Other Researchers in Field
- Particular Term Use
- Particular Writing Convention Use
- Signs of Careful Editing (or lack thereof)
- Consistencies/Inconsistencies in Writing Style
- Research Method Choice
- Patterns of Source Citation
- Patterns in References List
- Manuscript Formatting
- Particular Genre Convention Use
- Choice of Journal to Submit Manuscript
- Citation Style use
That is a lot to consider, but I'm mostly concerned with what will apply in the writing classroom. As such, the choices in red (above) are not likely to factor into assessment in the writing classroom for various reasons (writing classroom students aren't likely submitting to journals for publication, for example). The pattern I have tried to suggest in my choices above are that I am assuming less emphasis on higher level concerns in writing classroom assessment. In other words, I care less about field wide student concerns and journal submission concerns than I do about whether or not they are citing sources correctly or demonstrating grammatical and syntactic competency.
In reflecting on the previous paragraph regarding MY concerns, am I showing a construction of author voice already though? Am I assuming students in the writing classroom are not WORTHY of higher level concerns? In general, I suppose that I am...but students are also to be taken on a case by case basis. I would also argue that teaching what a majority of students will benefit from (and providing individual assistance where necessary) is simply more practical than trying to cater every moment to every student. A teacher can't possibly attune every class and every lesson to every student without sacrificing an amount of content, breadth, or sanity.
But, let us return to my original questions. How DOES the construction of author voice relate to the classroom? As I may have already demonstrated, expectation from students will influence what a teacher looks for. To go further (read, more individual) a teacher's expectations of a particular student may influence what the teacher looks for in the work of that particular student. A good student who makes a unique choice may be seen as "exploring new terrain" whereas a bad student making the same choice may be seen as "lacking knowledge of conventions" (good and bad are also potentially problematic designations for students, but that is another blog).
Are there benefits to constructing the author voice? Maybe. It is possible that knowing WHAT mistakes to look for will help a student who is trying to improve that particular error. A student's self-awareness of their weaknesses (which come up from, say, journals and self-evaluation), as well as a teacher's knowledge of that student's self-awareness, may allow teacher and student to work together to locate, discuss, and improve those areas. Are the hindrances to constructing author voice? Absolutely. A good student who wrote a bad paper or a bad student who wrote a good paper suddenly have imbalanced expectations of future performance (and lopsided assessments of students is problematic in itself).
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Bad Papers Don't Make Failures, Assessments Do
Theorizing Failure in US Writing Assessments by Asao B. Inoue
I want to begin by saying that I understand the premise upon which Inoue builds her argument. Assessments produce failure by labeling certain characteristics or qualities of writing as bad, and enough bad characteristics or qualities in a piece means the piece is bad and the writer has failed.
I also follow her rundown of the different ways failure is assessed through the cognitivist, sociocultural, and macrostructural perspectives. Cognitivists see writers as individuals unto themselves whose failures are a result of personal learning behaviors. Socioculturalists suggest that writing is raced, gendered, classed, and cultured such that a piece designated a failure is merely a result of dissonance between the home literacy of the writer and the expectation of the dominant culture. Macrostructuralists argue that historical events, laws, and legal decisions produce the conditions of failure.
Lastly, I understand her explanation of the psychological effects of Performance-Approach and Performance-Avoidance wherein a distinction is made between students whose behaviors are geared toward succeeding (Approach) and students whose behaviors are geared toward avoiding failure (Avoidance). According to Inoue, assessments produce the possibility of failure and failure has consequences beyond the academic setting, therefore students become more concerned with avoiding failure (and thus the consequences) than with fostering positive behaviors that better writing.
The idea that I struggle with is one that comes along with the notion that assessments produce failure; that is, if there are no assessments, no one will have failed. If we are to believe that such a thing as good writing exists, and it is our duty to help students write well, we must also acknowledge the reality that bad writing exists in the first place. Is writing bad not failing in the first place, regardless of whether or not we assess it as such? At what point do "room for improvement" and "failure" become distinct responses to a writing submission? Is "misogonist" only a failure to spell "misogynist" at the moment of assessment?
I understand the initial response to these questions is that the designation of "failure" does not exist until an assessment has determined such and such writing to have failed, whereas individual instances of failure are not the same as the designation "failure". That is to say, an academic institution labeling someone a "failure" has external consequences whereas individual instances of failure on a writing do not. Is it the designation of "failure" that we are trying to replace with a state of constant "room for improvement" until a student is finally writing well?
I will yield that the designation of failure does become problematic within the sociocultural and macrostructural perspectives, and that perhaps my resistance comes from my tendency toward the cognitivist perspective. A student speaking in his or her home literacy may be perceived as failing in communicating an idea for no other reason than the judge of the writing not sharing that literacy. This has nothing to do with the soundness of the argument, the depth of insight, the academic scholarship, etc., but only in the way such things are being communicated. This leads into the inherent fallibility of the judge (teacher, proctor, etc.) and a questioning of his or her authority to adequately asses writing.
I want to begin by saying that I understand the premise upon which Inoue builds her argument. Assessments produce failure by labeling certain characteristics or qualities of writing as bad, and enough bad characteristics or qualities in a piece means the piece is bad and the writer has failed.
I also follow her rundown of the different ways failure is assessed through the cognitivist, sociocultural, and macrostructural perspectives. Cognitivists see writers as individuals unto themselves whose failures are a result of personal learning behaviors. Socioculturalists suggest that writing is raced, gendered, classed, and cultured such that a piece designated a failure is merely a result of dissonance between the home literacy of the writer and the expectation of the dominant culture. Macrostructuralists argue that historical events, laws, and legal decisions produce the conditions of failure.
Lastly, I understand her explanation of the psychological effects of Performance-Approach and Performance-Avoidance wherein a distinction is made between students whose behaviors are geared toward succeeding (Approach) and students whose behaviors are geared toward avoiding failure (Avoidance). According to Inoue, assessments produce the possibility of failure and failure has consequences beyond the academic setting, therefore students become more concerned with avoiding failure (and thus the consequences) than with fostering positive behaviors that better writing.
The idea that I struggle with is one that comes along with the notion that assessments produce failure; that is, if there are no assessments, no one will have failed. If we are to believe that such a thing as good writing exists, and it is our duty to help students write well, we must also acknowledge the reality that bad writing exists in the first place. Is writing bad not failing in the first place, regardless of whether or not we assess it as such? At what point do "room for improvement" and "failure" become distinct responses to a writing submission? Is "misogonist" only a failure to spell "misogynist" at the moment of assessment?
I understand the initial response to these questions is that the designation of "failure" does not exist until an assessment has determined such and such writing to have failed, whereas individual instances of failure are not the same as the designation "failure". That is to say, an academic institution labeling someone a "failure" has external consequences whereas individual instances of failure on a writing do not. Is it the designation of "failure" that we are trying to replace with a state of constant "room for improvement" until a student is finally writing well?
I will yield that the designation of failure does become problematic within the sociocultural and macrostructural perspectives, and that perhaps my resistance comes from my tendency toward the cognitivist perspective. A student speaking in his or her home literacy may be perceived as failing in communicating an idea for no other reason than the judge of the writing not sharing that literacy. This has nothing to do with the soundness of the argument, the depth of insight, the academic scholarship, etc., but only in the way such things are being communicated. This leads into the inherent fallibility of the judge (teacher, proctor, etc.) and a questioning of his or her authority to adequately asses writing.
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
Expectation and Lived Reality
This post is inspired by They Are Weighted With Authority: Fat Female Professors in Academic and Popular Cultures by Christina Fisanick.
The central theme of my Keyword Project is the idea that the identity of an individual (labels one associates or is associated with) are both internal and external. That is, the final identity of a person consists both of how they self-identify and how they are perceived. In light of this theme, I read They Are Weighted With Authority within the dichotomy of 'student expectations' and 'lived realities'.
After recounting the historical shift away from "pride in plenty" to "gluttony shame", a shift which placed fat people squarely within the perception of gluttonous (and therefore shameful), Fisanick speaks culturally about the "normal body" and the "normal professor body". Culturally speaking, the "normal body" is:
The central theme of my Keyword Project is the idea that the identity of an individual (labels one associates or is associated with) are both internal and external. That is, the final identity of a person consists both of how they self-identify and how they are perceived. In light of this theme, I read They Are Weighted With Authority within the dichotomy of 'student expectations' and 'lived realities'.
After recounting the historical shift away from "pride in plenty" to "gluttony shame", a shift which placed fat people squarely within the perception of gluttonous (and therefore shameful), Fisanick speaks culturally about the "normal body" and the "normal professor body". Culturally speaking, the "normal body" is:
- White
- Male
- Able
- Heterosexual
- Middle-Class
Fisanick argues that this "normal body" carries over into academia, and therefore the "normal professor body" is also:
- White
- Male
- Able
- Heterosexual
- Middle-Class
- Middle-Aged (additional)
- Thin (additional)
The above provides for us the 'student expectation' half of a professor's identity. That is, we now have the external perceptions of what a professor should be. These expectations arise from cultural affirmation and the studies cited in the article suggest that cultural affirmation carries over into the academic landscape (found via student evaluations, promotion and tenure statistics, etc.).
The other half of the final identity of a professor, the internal half, exists within the 'lived reality' of that professor. If the body of a professor does not match the external expectations, then the 'lived reality' does not match the 'student expectation', and from this discord arises discrimination. It is a discrimination born out of the imaginary conditions which one is culturally trained to accept as appropriate and capable. The opposite, then, is the belief that the body which does not match the "normal body" (or "normal professor body") is inappropriate and incapable. That is, incapable of teaching, extolling knowledge, succeeding, advancing, etc.
In my original consideration of the creation of identity (again, labels that one associates or is associated with), I looked at labels one can choose and labels one is given. You can choose to be a Feminist, Pro-Life, or a Democrat, but you are given the label Woman, Black, Gay, or Lower-Class. There is a difference, then, between my original conception of internal and external sources of identity and the way I am considering 'student expectation' and 'lived reality'.
I place both 'student expectation' and labels one is given under the heading of external sources of identity. One cannot control what is expected of them any more than one can control the labels a society gives to them. However, there is a notable difference between being labeled something and someone having a particular expectation of you based on cultural training. The common ground between these two external sources of identity at last, of course, is lack of agency in their determination.
I place both 'lived reality' and labels one intentionally associates with under the heading of internal sources of identity. One has (some measure of) autonomy over their lived reality as well as the labels they choose to associate with. Certainly, there is more to be said about the level of relative autonomy which exists in the 'lived reality' of an individual, but to the degree that there is more control over 'lived reality' than there is over expectations, I place it (along with chosen labels) squarely within the realm of controllable sources of identity.
Q: Do you agree that one's identity is half perception and half intention? Why or why not?
Q: To what extent do you feel that external sources of identity (sources you cannot control) affect your daily life? How could/should one combat negative external identifiers?
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
The Politics of Identification
In reading The Other "F" Word: The Feminist in the Classroom by Dale M. Bauer, I was struck most poignantly by the concept of identification. Particularly, I took note of the idea that by identifying oneself within this or that category (i.e., White, Feminist, Male, etc.), you are putting yourself at the mercy of whatever the selected label(s) mean to the people to whom you are identifying yourself.
In other words, if I were to walk into a room full of complete strangers (we can call them students) and proclaim myself to be a feminist, I would have to be prepared for these strangers (students) to take that into account when evaluating my actions/behaviors (lessons plans, grading, teaching style, etc.).
What I am left wondering is this; is it better to refuse any identification within a classroom (as a teacher) in order to preserve a sense of non-bias? Or is it better to embrace how I self-identify and attempt to perform a non-bias despite how I self-identify? In considering this, I also have to wonder whether or not I can be perceived by students as acting in a non-bias manner once my self-identification is public.
This idea of self-identifying creating a perception of bias (students believe that grades are based on their alignment with the view of the teacher) creates a space for discussing the implications of division. That is, if we suppose that a student doesn't agree with my position on some matter (as implied by my self-identification), the difference between that student and I is a place for discussion where we can ask questions like "where does agreement end and resistance begin," "are there places of unity," and "how does your difference of opinion also serve to identify you?"
One goal of Feminism in the classroom according to Bauer seems to be to help students identify themselves and, within that identification, build a community which can overcome divisions by finding where we align. Self-identification is internal. The acknowledgement of that self-identification as a political stance others may share becomes external. This bridging of the internal to the external opens up a pathway by which students can move from the realm of "moral speculation" (which I read as internal) to a realm of "decision making" (which I read as external; social change).
To sum it up (and answer my questions in paragraph three), it would seem that it is better to wear your self-identification on your sleeve and use any resistance to it as fuel to help students identify themselves (either with or against your identification). The key is not to focus on the differences, but to focus on what those differences say about the student, to help the student understand how those differences necessarily identify them, and then to help the student turn that identification into decision making and social action.
In other words, if I were to walk into a room full of complete strangers (we can call them students) and proclaim myself to be a feminist, I would have to be prepared for these strangers (students) to take that into account when evaluating my actions/behaviors (lessons plans, grading, teaching style, etc.).
What I am left wondering is this; is it better to refuse any identification within a classroom (as a teacher) in order to preserve a sense of non-bias? Or is it better to embrace how I self-identify and attempt to perform a non-bias despite how I self-identify? In considering this, I also have to wonder whether or not I can be perceived by students as acting in a non-bias manner once my self-identification is public.
This idea of self-identifying creating a perception of bias (students believe that grades are based on their alignment with the view of the teacher) creates a space for discussing the implications of division. That is, if we suppose that a student doesn't agree with my position on some matter (as implied by my self-identification), the difference between that student and I is a place for discussion where we can ask questions like "where does agreement end and resistance begin," "are there places of unity," and "how does your difference of opinion also serve to identify you?"
One goal of Feminism in the classroom according to Bauer seems to be to help students identify themselves and, within that identification, build a community which can overcome divisions by finding where we align. Self-identification is internal. The acknowledgement of that self-identification as a political stance others may share becomes external. This bridging of the internal to the external opens up a pathway by which students can move from the realm of "moral speculation" (which I read as internal) to a realm of "decision making" (which I read as external; social change).
To sum it up (and answer my questions in paragraph three), it would seem that it is better to wear your self-identification on your sleeve and use any resistance to it as fuel to help students identify themselves (either with or against your identification). The key is not to focus on the differences, but to focus on what those differences say about the student, to help the student understand how those differences necessarily identify them, and then to help the student turn that identification into decision making and social action.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
The Notion of Servitude
"The pastor was telling me that in the past months, a number of black ministers have committed suicide. And he was saying that they had committed suicide in part because they feel they can't live up to what we are told is the kind of standard one should have to be able to serve."
-bell hooks
A Public Dialogue Between bell hooks and Cornel West (Time: 17:30)
The notion of servitude was presented in two distinct ways by bell hooks in two separate pieces of media. The first is the YouTube video above of a dialogue between bell hooks and Cornel West in which the above quote can be heard. The impetus to serve in this sense is presented as noble (a black minister doing his duty to uplift his congregation), and a perceived failure to fulfill this duty leads to suicide. In this sense, "to serve" is a vehicle toward social uplifting and something to be admired, and a failure "to serve" is stressful and a cause of depression.
The second mention of servitude is in bell hooks' essay Breaking Bread: Insurgent Black Intellectual Life. In this essay, bell hooks explores the barriers that a black woman faces in trying to become an intellectual. She points to a combination of the self-imposed marginality of intellectual work in black communities, citing the inward exploration of one's own ideas (intellectual, often in isolation) as being opposed to the expectation of social service, and the expectation placed upon black women as ones who serve. Because black women are "socialized to devalue or feel guilty about time spent away from others," it is difficult for black women to place value in intellectual work because it will necessarily force them into isolation in order to explore the realm of ideas. In this sense, the notion "to serve" becomes a social construct which obstructs the black woman from seeing the intellectual life as one of value.
Both instances of servitude are forms of social support in which a community benefits by the actions of the one who serves. There are, however, some differences in the settings in which the servitude comes to be. The black minister may feel that he ministers because of a divine calling to do so, and he may be socialized to see this calling as noble, but he is not socialized to feel that being a minister is correct and required. On the other hand, a black woman is socialized to believe that her social service to her family or as a nanny, a "mammy", an older sister, a wife, a teacher, a therapist, a counselor, a priest, as "that all nurturing breast", is correct and the proper way to live. As a result, ways of life (such as intellectual) that take away from her ability to serve are frowned upon as getting in the way of her duty and are met with resistance.
It would seem that the idea of servitude itself is not so much the issue. The issue is when the idea of a predefined role is socialized into a person (in this case, a black woman), a role which may not be desired but when gone against is met with resistance, thus preventing the person from realizing a freedom of choice and way of life.
-bell hooks
A Public Dialogue Between bell hooks and Cornel West (Time: 17:30)
The notion of servitude was presented in two distinct ways by bell hooks in two separate pieces of media. The first is the YouTube video above of a dialogue between bell hooks and Cornel West in which the above quote can be heard. The impetus to serve in this sense is presented as noble (a black minister doing his duty to uplift his congregation), and a perceived failure to fulfill this duty leads to suicide. In this sense, "to serve" is a vehicle toward social uplifting and something to be admired, and a failure "to serve" is stressful and a cause of depression.
The second mention of servitude is in bell hooks' essay Breaking Bread: Insurgent Black Intellectual Life. In this essay, bell hooks explores the barriers that a black woman faces in trying to become an intellectual. She points to a combination of the self-imposed marginality of intellectual work in black communities, citing the inward exploration of one's own ideas (intellectual, often in isolation) as being opposed to the expectation of social service, and the expectation placed upon black women as ones who serve. Because black women are "socialized to devalue or feel guilty about time spent away from others," it is difficult for black women to place value in intellectual work because it will necessarily force them into isolation in order to explore the realm of ideas. In this sense, the notion "to serve" becomes a social construct which obstructs the black woman from seeing the intellectual life as one of value.
Both instances of servitude are forms of social support in which a community benefits by the actions of the one who serves. There are, however, some differences in the settings in which the servitude comes to be. The black minister may feel that he ministers because of a divine calling to do so, and he may be socialized to see this calling as noble, but he is not socialized to feel that being a minister is correct and required. On the other hand, a black woman is socialized to believe that her social service to her family or as a nanny, a "mammy", an older sister, a wife, a teacher, a therapist, a counselor, a priest, as "that all nurturing breast", is correct and the proper way to live. As a result, ways of life (such as intellectual) that take away from her ability to serve are frowned upon as getting in the way of her duty and are met with resistance.
It would seem that the idea of servitude itself is not so much the issue. The issue is when the idea of a predefined role is socialized into a person (in this case, a black woman), a role which may not be desired but when gone against is met with resistance, thus preventing the person from realizing a freedom of choice and way of life.
Thursday, September 22, 2016
Intersectionality: A Focus on Difference
Intersectionality is a 60s and 70s theoretical feminist perspective brought about by women of color as a response to the anger and exasperation of "continuing to find women of color on the lowest rungs of the social stratification ladder in the United States" (160). It is a perspective which addresses differences between women and seeks to find common concerns at the intersections of varied oppressions. Women of color came to the conclusion that the existing feminist movement was predominantly concerned with white, class-privileged women, and that only women of color could adequately address their own concerns. The existing feminist perspective of the time looked to the notion of sisterhood, or common concerns of women, as a rallying cry for mobilization. However, women of color found that this essentialist approach downplayed differences between women in such a way that women of color could not have their personal concerns addressed adequately. Through intersectionality, women of color sought to bring the uniqueness of their own oppression into the fold and find those places where similarity of oppression could be unified against, and difference of oppression could still be acknowledged and addressed.
The most surprising thing about intersectionality is the fact that it was needed in the first place. Here we have a movement (Feminism) which was born from oppressive differences that is failing to acknowledge differences within its own ranks. In turn, this becomes Feminism oppressing the very people they are hoping to speak for. The whole idea of pre-intersectionality Feminism seems to be that any woman, regardless of her history, culture, beliefs, or upbringing, has rights that are being fought for.
The issue, however, can be summed up as follows:
Ten men do not have the right to vote. Through political action, these ten men earn the right to vote. This is fantastic! However, one of the men doesn't have a car to get to the polling office. Another man lives in a place where education is underfunded and is unequipped to make an informed decision. A third man is harassed every time he tries to go and vote. A fourth man lives in a part of his town where it is so dangerous that partaking in his right to vote is dwarfed by his fear of crime and danger.
So even though all ten men were granted the right to vote, only six of them can take advantage of that right to vote without feeling unprepared or unsafe.
The most surprising thing about intersectionality is the fact that it was needed in the first place. Here we have a movement (Feminism) which was born from oppressive differences that is failing to acknowledge differences within its own ranks. In turn, this becomes Feminism oppressing the very people they are hoping to speak for. The whole idea of pre-intersectionality Feminism seems to be that any woman, regardless of her history, culture, beliefs, or upbringing, has rights that are being fought for.
The issue, however, can be summed up as follows:
Ten men do not have the right to vote. Through political action, these ten men earn the right to vote. This is fantastic! However, one of the men doesn't have a car to get to the polling office. Another man lives in a place where education is underfunded and is unequipped to make an informed decision. A third man is harassed every time he tries to go and vote. A fourth man lives in a part of his town where it is so dangerous that partaking in his right to vote is dwarfed by his fear of crime and danger.
So even though all ten men were granted the right to vote, only six of them can take advantage of that right to vote without feeling unprepared or unsafe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)