Audre Lorde's Sister Outsider doesn't read like feminist theory for one big reason: it isn't feminist theory, or at least not in the sense that we're used to thinking about theory. Lorde is primarily a poet, and one of the guiding rules of writing contemporary poetry--or at least as far as I can discern from having taken a grand total of two poetry-writing classes at MSU--is to use concrete imagery rather than abstraction, to favor vivid example over general description; Lorde does this with her prose, drawing on personal (sometimes shocking) personal experience to discuss such broad issues as sexism, racism, and homophobia. Rather than get lost in theoretical speculation, she consistently grounds herself in first-person testimony; she forces herself as well as her audience to deal with the world as it is--not as it should be in theory--and in privileging the empirical over the theoretical, she radically takes ownership of ways of knowing (and creating) that are often discounted by more academic feminism.
The two most prominent and unconventional sources of knowledge, power, and creativity that Lorde radically owns are the concepts of anger--or more broadly emotion and affect--and the erotic. Her validation of anger as a creative force goes hand in hand with her (and many other black feminists') belief in the generative power of dialectics: like bell hooks, she believes that progress comes from the acknowledgment and celebration of difference, and angry responses to injustice or oppression or the refusal of difference should not be discounted. Lorde values emotion as an important source of power and knowledge, and although one might read this embrace of affect over logic as playing into traditional and oppressive views of gender as dichotomous--men are logical and women emotional, a distinction that Lorde herself sometimes owns--such a validation of emotion refuses to divide and compartmentalize aspects of the self and gestures toward a more holistic concept of knowledge. Lorde also owns and redefines the erotic as a source of power, but rather than create through dialectical opposition, the erotic is an entirely self-centered source of power. It is for Lorde a type of brutal honesty, a refusal to be circumscribed by external forces and to be true to oneself and one's capacity for joy.
Almost as important as what Lorde owns is what she refuses to own. She refuses guilt, as guilt is an unproductive feeling that takes the place of action as effected by anger. She refuses the pornographic as a perverted, objectifying manifestation of the erotic that stems from the shame and the cultural guilt--again, an unproductive feeling--surrounding sexuality.
To be completely honest, I don't see Lorde's ideas about feminism and racism and homophobia playing a huge role in my academic study of gender, but I have already seen their effect on my everyday life. Her writing has made me re-examine my own fear of difference and encouraged me to be more open to varied views and cultural customs and even ways of knowing. Her refusal of guilt and her assertion that silence (particularly suffering in silence) is counterproductive resonate deeply with me and have made me try to be more honest with myself. I think that Lorde provides a beautiful example of living feminism rather than practicing it; from what I can gather from her personal testimony as a black lesbian feminist mother, she was not simply politically active (fighting for black/gay/women's rights), she rather lived a life critical of oppression in all its forms and in all aspects of her life. This represents the practical realization of hooks's call to examine the interpenetrating nature of racial/sexual/gender/cass oppression, the true transition from the objectification of feminism as "women's studies" to the active "femininely studying", the practice rather than the theorization of an anti-oppression philosophical paradigm. Reading Lorde has helped me to do the same: to own my own difference, to be more respectful of others' difference, and to hold myself to a certain level of honesty about my own complicity in contemporary systems of oppression.
Looking back over this post, I realize that things got a bit awkwardly gushy and personal, so I apologize for that. I just really dig Audre Lorde.
Dear Patrick,
ReplyDeleteI agree strongly with both of your major points. I feel that Lorde is the embodiment of feminism. Though she does not teach theory per se, she embodies the qualities that define what feminism seeks to obtain. I particularly found her arguments on anger to be fascinating. I agree with you completely in you commentary that suffering in silence is counter-productive. To go a bit personal myself, my brother is severely autistic and as a result has special programs for his education. Often, because of the perception that he will not become a productive member of society, the "professionals" who were supposed to help him did extremely poor jobs. My mom refused to accept this and through strenuous advocacy, has allowed my brother to develop into a hard-working wonderful person.
I feel this is the spirit that Lorde writes about. Anger is productive. Anger lets one understand that a disparity exists and allows one to express dissatisfaction with that disparity. Too often bullying, oppression and other abuses go unnoticed and unsolved because people do not speak up. By encouraging women, who too often are denied access to anger, this voice, Lorde offers empowerment.
Hey Jason/Pat!
DeleteI really enjoyed reading both of your posts about this subject, because I am definitely another fan of Audre Lorde's. I also want to touch on the issue of anger for a moment. I think that anger suffers from the social judgment which says that it is a 'bad' emotion. However, like all Lorde (and both of you talked about), anger is often one of the most productive emotions. But I don't think I agree with the statement that anger is productive, because there are some forms of anger which forces us to be anything but productive. The excess of any emotion, or anything in life really, weighs us down and renders us incapable of forward action or thought. However, that being said, the anger that drives us to elicit change can be incredibly powerful. I think that is why I like Audre Lorde so much--because it is of this anger she speaks of. She speaks of anger that is not self satisfying, or for anger's sake, but rather of anger that can provide insight into that which was once incomprehensible. Like you said, Jason--it's all about empowerment, and I love it.