The Problem of Commonality
* The below is part of a longer piece of writing critiquing white antiracist feminism, and the importance of a multi-cultural solidarity and understanding power dynamics. Please send me an e-mail if you’re interested in reading more!
What I have understood and termed as “a lifestyle of solidarity” in my own life, other writers have called “coalitional consciousness-building” (Keating, 1). In some ways, traditional white feminism takes an important step in seeking out a “sisterhood” with women of color, and finding common ground in womanhood. However, this is only an elementary step as it ignores the issues of race, class, and other intertwining concerns. The call for sisterhood also allows white feminists to continue to see and work from their perspective, without acknowledging bias even if they’re aware the other perspectives exist. In this way they maintain the power they’re claiming to give up in with an invitation to sisterhood. There are problems created by simply being aware of the white privilege and classism readily available in white feminism. Solidarity and consciousness are both raised when white feminists accept a place of learning instead of assumed commonality.
The idea of sisterhood (deciding that women are united in oppression simply because they are women) allows white feminists to feel connected to women of color without admitting and submitting to their place in systems of power. Allowing that we are connected as women does not mean that all our political or personal concerns are the same and it does not mean we have the same daily and internal struggles. In Powerlines, Aimee Rowe suggests that white feminists seek alliance with power, and because women of color hold less than they do, they are considered “friends,” and not allies (8). The sisterhood ideal allows white feminists to continue to work from their own location, while acknowledging women of color as “friends,” continuing a hierarchy of power and belittling the work women of color continue to do under the feminist label. Sisterhood does not make equals; it continues lines of power that must consciously be crossed. Rowe writes that, “for women of color, alliances with white women are necessary and often productive, yet sometimes incommensurate with the feminism they seek to manifest.” (8) Is sisterhood appropriate or real if we’re all working and living from different pages and not admitting it? In contrast, “transracial alliances among differently marginalized women of color broaden and complicate the scope and intersections constitutive of their feminisms, displacing any simplistic ranking of oppressions or unified notion of women of color, demanding self-reflexivity and an accounting with their own relative privilege.” (8) In this observation we see the benefits and strength in closely examining race with gender, and coming to terms with our own places of power in larger society.
I used to base my belief system around the idea that everyone is the same so we should love everyone and treat them equally. However, the more I learn from antiracist circles and the more I continue to work those practices into my life, the more I realize how naïve and non-dynamic that position is. As it turns out, it’s a good first step toward the messy reality of fighting racism, but holding such an amorphous belief isn’t really fighting a hard reality. Many white feminists see their commonality as women, with women of color, and search for other commonalities from that bias place. “In addition to the search for commonalities as the analytic focus of the consciousness-raising method,” writes Cricket Keating, “the assumption that women make up a unified category often [makes] it difficult to point out and address power imbalances among women themselves.” (92) If we focus only and specifically on our unity as women, do we leave room to challenge our place in the systems of power and privilege that we, as white women, are close to? Or do we just scratch the surface of deeper issues with our good intentions?
Keating points out that while acknowledging that there are “very real and often troubling links between women,” it’s important to realize that “for many women, the opportunity to interact with women from varied backgrounds [is] a central component of their consciousness-raising experience.” (92) Still, we need to keep in mind that this is a good place to begin learning instead of stopping relationships and antiracist work at mere commonalities. She goes on to share about a new model for consciousness-building groups where, “instead of searching for commonalities among the experiences, after sharing their (located, context-rich) experiences, members would collectively analyze the shared experiences in order to understand the multiple relations of oppression and resistance at play in the scenarios.” (96) Seeking to understand how we are implicated in our commonalities and how we might differently perceive each other’s lives is a step toward solidarity and actively fighting racism within feminism.
——
Works Cited
Keating, Cricket. “Building Coalitional Consciousness”. NWSA Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2 (Summer): Pg. 86-103.
Rowe, Aimee Carrillo. Powerlines: On the Subject of Feminist Alliances. Durham: Duke University Press. Pg.1-17. 1999. Print
—————-
