Beth,
Yes, I too see it important to speak "with", if this "speaking with" is
desired by all involved. Your assertions as to the fluidity of identity and
the need to contextualize, etc. are very important. I too see my identity
as perhaps shifting and unstable, but as you, I do have opinions on things!
I too am concerned with and critical of the tendency of some to "speak
for", not only as a white woman, but out of my recognition of the
neo-colonial ventures of Western feminists who seem to feel they must go in
and "save" all the "poor, uneducated, backwards" women of the world, who
are not only constructed in this discourse (that of Western feminism) as
unable to recognize thier oppression, but as often complicit in thier
oppression (see the Western, particularly US discourse on female
circumcision/genital mutilation as one example).
As a general question, can we not seek ways in which we may "speak with"
without resorting to racist constructions of the "other"? And similarly,
why have so may Western feminist organizations/movements failed in this
capacity? What is needed?
Jessica
At 02:46 PM 3/8/99 -0500, you wrote:
>hi everyone,
>
>the question of experience as a source of knowing seems to me to be a very
>important one. especially in regards to validating the experience of
people of
>color, i think it would be very inappropriate for me, a white woman, to ever
>speak *for* a woman of color; however, i do see real importance in
speaking *to*
>and speaking *with.* in other words, i think my opinion counts for
something (
>if i have done the necessary thinking, research, listening to others, etc
on a
>particular topic), but i could never attempt to speak from a position of
>experience, which, to me seems of vital and *primary* importance.
>
>another thought: often personal experience of a particular social
position only
>gives me a partial understanding of what it means to be of that particular
>group. for instance, i'm not sure i totally understand what it means to be a
>woman. and i certainly know i can't speak for all women.
>
>if we see identity as fluid, shifting, always contextualized and
historicized,
>we might see that there are many differing (contradictory?) definitions which
>inform even one social category. experience in a particular time and
place can
>vary drastically from one person of a certain category to another (of the
same
>category), so that i might think it means one thing to be a woman right here,
>right now, and another woman on this list will probably have a differing
>definition. can we both be "right"?
>
>but in the context of speaking about issues outside your own cultural, social
>position, i have to agree with nicole. you can never know what it means
to be a
>member of a group until you have walked in those shoes, so to speak.
>
>cheers,
>beth
>
>Susan Hoyle wrote:
>
>> Just in case Nicole's latest post was referring inter alias to me, I
should
>> say that I could direct all the questions I asked in my first post to a
>> feminist position. Our experience as women is valid, I do not dispute
that;
>> but what exactly does it validate and invalidate? I am not trying to score
>> points. I am interested in what others have to say about what seems to me
>> to be a real problem.
>>
>> Susan
>
