Monday, February 20, 2012

Sister Outsider - Why Won't You Let Me In?

Audre Lorde irks me. Some may say she's brilliant, or progressive, I'd call her exclusive. And frequently contradictory. Even if we, as "critical" readers were to set aside the fact that Lorde rarely fails to title herself as the "black, feminist, lesbian, mother, poet" that she was, any member of her audience is excluded at some point or another by default because we cannot identify with every facet of her identity. As much as she preaches sisterhood she encourages individuality and the self alone. You can't travel the pages of her book without being swarmed by the wasps of her harsh tone, or drowned by the floods of her extreme feminism, or pinned by her anti-racist yet race-bound remarks. I am not black. I am not a lesbian. I am not a mother. And I am not an extreme feminist, for I do not find anything in the extreme to be productive, sensical, or loving towards any "other." It as if she claims that to be a sister you must be an outsider in all aspects, which I am not, nor do I think I will ever be. In all her open-mindedness, she closes the door. And what good are we - the slightly less ostracized, the minimally insecure, the dominant quality in whatever category it may be - if you won't let us come out to play?

2 comments:

  1. Lizzie,

    This is such a thoughtful (and usefully emotional) post, and I'd encourage you to keep using your emotional reaction to Lorde to amp up your critical commentary about her. In order to help you do so, I'll just note a few things I was struck by in your entry, as well as my thoughts on questions that these prompt:

    1. I'm interested in the binary you post: exclusion vs. identification. I wonder if you need to have the SAME categories of difference in order to IDENTIFY? And, if so, what specifically does your lack of identification exclude you FROM? Is it an understanding? An experience? A guilt-free invocation of self?

    2. Anti-racist yet race-bound is a fascinating descriptor. I wonder why this "pins" one? Is part of what you're responding to the discomfort of being "read" by others in a certain way because of your race? If so, is part of what's at stake here a political argument ABOUT race? Is Lorde exposing something that is happening to her and including her readership in this experience as well?

    3. Is Lorde saying that to be a sister, one must be an outsider? Or is she trying to expose the TENSION between these two terms? Is she trying to use this phrase to talk about the kinds of relationships that she sees taking place ALREADY or about the kinds of relationships she'd LIKE to see take place?

    4. Does Lorde want you to come out and play? Is play the right word here? What if she doesn't? What might she want instead?

    Keep pushing yourself to interrogate your responses--I'd love to see you question your reactions to pinpoint the particulars of what bother you here.

    Best,
    Dr. Renzi

    ReplyDelete
  2. Alright, so I tend to agree with you in regards to Lorde. I do understand what she is trying to do, by positing all of her different descriptors. She is showing all of her different sides, and that she is more than just a black woman. However, like you, none of her descriptors could be used to describe me. I am not black, nor a mother, nor a writer, or heavily feminist. This made it hard for me to connect with her text, and thus her argument. This said, I do enjoy that she shows how you cannot judge people on one aspect of their being. There are so many more sides to everyone, and to judge them solely on their skin color or gender leaves so much more to be uncovered.

    ReplyDelete