Answering the Questions

V 23

Age, Race, Class, and Sex Women Redefining Difference

A u d r e Lo r d e

Much of western European history conditions us to see human differences in simplistic opposition to each other: dominant/subordinate, good/bad, up/down, su- perior/inferior. In a society where the good is defined in terms of profit rather than in terms of human need, there must always be some group of people who, through systematized oppression, can be made to feel surplus, to occupy the place of the dehumanized infe­ rior. Within this society, that group is made up of Black and Third World people, working-class people, older people, and women.

As a forty-nine-year-old Black lesbian feminist so­ cialist mother of two, including one boy, and a mem­ ber of an interracial couple, I usually find myself a part of some group defined as other, deviant, inferior, or just plain wrong. Traditionally, in American society, it is the members of oppressed, objectified groups who are expected to stretch out and bridge the gap between the actualities of our lives and the consciousness of our oppressor. For in order to survive, those of us for whom oppression is as American as apple pie have al­ ways had to be watchers, to become familiar with the language and manners o f the oppressor, even some­ times adopting them for some illusion of protection.

Whenever the need for some pretense of communica­ tion arises, those who profit from our oppression call upon us to share our knowledge with them. In other words, it is the responsibility of the oppressed to teach the oppressors their mistakes. I am responsible for ed­ ucating teachers who dismiss my children’s culture in school. Black and Third World people are expected to educate White people as to our humanity. Women are expected to educate men. Lesbians and gay men are expected to educate the heterosexual world. The op­ pressors maintain their position and evade responsibil­ ity for their own actions. There is a constant drain of energy which might be better used in redefining our­ selves and devising realistic scenarios for altering the present and constructing the future.

Institutionalized rejection of difference is an ab­ solute necessity in a profit economy which needs out­ siders as surplus people. As members of such an econ­ omy, we have all been programmed to respond to the human differences between us with fear and loathing and to handle that difference in one of three ways: ig­ nore it, and if that is not possible, copy it if we think it is dominant, or destroy it if we think it is subordinate. But we have no patterns for relating across our human

Audre Lorde, “Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Redefining Difference,” from Sister Outsider. Copyright © 1984 Crossing Press.

239

240

differences as equals. As a result, those differences have been misnamed and misused in the service o f sep­ aration and confusion.

Certainly there are very real differences between us of race, age, and sex. But it is not those differences be- tween us that are separating us. It is rather our refusal to recognize those differences, and to examine the dis­ tortions which result from our misnaming them and their effects upon human behavior and expectation.

Racism, the b elief in the inherent superiority o f one race over all others and thereby the right to domi­ nance. Sexism, the belief in the inherent superiority o f one sex over the other and thereby the right to domi­ nance. Ageism. Heterosexism. Elitism. Classism.

It is a lifetime pursuit for each one o f us to extract these distortions from.our living at the same time as we recognize, reclaim, and define those differences upon which they are imposed. For we have all been raised in a society where those distortions were endemic within our living. Too often, we pour the energy needed for recognizing and exploring difference into pretending those differences are insurmountable barriers, or that they do not exist at all. This results in a voluntary iso­ lation, or false and treacherous connections. Either way, we do not develop tools for using human differ­ ence as a springboard for creative change within our lives. We speak not o f human difference, but of human deviance.

Somewhere, on the edge o f consciousness, there is what I call a mythical norm, which each one o f us within our hearts knows “that is not me.” In America, this norm is usually defined as White, thin, male! young, heterosexual, Christian, and financially secure. It is with this mythical norm that the trappings of power reside within this society. Those o f us who stand outside that power often identify one way in which we are different, and we assume that to be the primary cause of all oppression, forgetting other distortions around difference, some of which we ourselves may be practicing. By and large within the women’s move­ ment today. White women focus upon their oppression as women and ignore differences of race, sexual pref­ erence, class, and age. There is a pretense to a homo­ geneity of experience covered by the word sisterhood that does not in fact exist.

Unacknowledged class differences rob women of each others’ energy and creative insight. Recently a

id e n t it ie s

women’s magazine collective made the decision for one issue to print only prose, saying poetiy was a less “rigorous” or “serious” art form. Yet even the form our creativity takes is often a class issue. Of all the art forms, poetiy is the most economical. It is the one which is the most secret, which requires the least phys­ ical labor, the least material, and the one which can be done between shifts, in the hospital pantry, on the sub­ way, and on scraps of surplus paper. Over the last few years, writing a novel on tight finances, I came to ap­ preciate the enormous differences in the material de­ mands between poetry and prose. As we reclaim our literature, poetry has been the major voice of poor, working-class, and Colored women. A room of one’s own may be a necessity for writing prose, but so are reams of paper, a typewriter, and plenty o f time. The actual requirements to produce the visual arts also help determine, along class lines, whose art is whose. In this day of inflated prices for material, who are our sculp­ tors, our painters, our photographers? When we speak o f a broadly based women’s culture, we need to be aware of the effect of class and economic differences on the supplies available for producing art.

As we move toward creating a society within which we can each flourish, ageism is another distortion of re­ lationship which interferes without vision. By ignoring the past, we are encouraged to repeat its mistakes. The “generation gap” is an important social tool for any re­ pressive society. If the younger members of a commu­ nity view the older members as contemptible or suspect or excess, they will never be able to join hands and ex­ amine the living memories of the community, nor ask the all important question, “Why?” This gives rise to a historical amnesia that keeps us working to invent the wheel every time we have to go to the store for bread.

We find ourselves having to repeat and relearn the same old lessons over and over that our mothers did because we do not pass on what we have learned, or because we are unable to listen. For instance, how many times has this all been said before? For another, who would have believed that once again our daugh­ ters are allowing their bodies to be hampered and pur- gatoried by girdles and high heels and hobble skirts?

Ignoring the differences of race between women and the implications of those differences presents the most serious threat to the mobilization of women’s joint power.

As White women ignore their built-in privilege of Whiteness and define woman in terms of their own ex­ perience alone, then women of Color become “other,” the outsider whose experience and tradition is too “alien” to comprehend. An example of this is the sig­ nal absence of the experience of women of Color as a resource for women’s studies courses. The literature of women of Color is seldom included in women’s litera­ ture courses and almost never in other literature courses, nor in women’s studies as a whole. All too often, the excuse given is that the literatures of women of Color can only be taught by Colored women, or that they are too difficult to understand, or that classes can­ not “get into” them because they come out of experi­ ences that are “too different.” I have heard this argu­ ment presented by White women of otherwise quite clear intelligence, women who seem to have no trouble at all teaching and reviewing work that comes out of the vastly different experiences of Shakespeare, Moliere, Dostoyefsky, and Aristophanes. Surely there must be some other explanation.

This is a very complex question, but I believe one of the reasons White women have such difficulty reading Black women’s work is because of their reluctance to see Black women as women and different from them­ selves. To examine Black women’s literature effec­ tively requires that we be seen as whole people in our actual complexities— as individuals, as women, as human—^rather than as one of those problematic but familiar stereotypes provided in this society in place of genuine images of Black women. And I believe this holds true for the literatures of other women of Color who are not Black.

The literatures of all women of Color recreate the textures of our lives, and many White women are heav­ ily invested in ignoring the real differences. For as long as any difference between us means one of us must be inferior, then the recognition of any difference must be fraught with guilt. To allow women of Color to step out of stereotypes is too guilt provoking, for it threatens the complacency of those women who view oppres­ sion only in terms of sex.

Refusing to recognize difference makes it impossi­ ble to see the different problems and pitfalls facing us as women.

Thus, in a patriarchal power system where White- skin privilege is a major prop, the entrapments used to

a g e , r a c e , c l a s s , a n d s e x

neutralize Black women and White women are not the same. For example, it is easy for Black women to be used by the power structure against Black men, not be­ cause they are men, but because they are Black. There­ fore, for Black women, it is necessary at all times to separate the needs of the oppressor from our own le­ gitimate conflicts within our communities. This same problem does not exist for White women. Black wo­ men and men have shared racist oppression and still share it, although in different ways. Out of that shared oppression we have developed joint defenses and joint vulnerabilities to each other that are not duplicated in the White community, with the exception of the rela­ tionship between Jewish women and Jewish men.

On the other hand, White women face the pitfall of being seduced into joining the oppressor under the pre­ tense of sharing power. This possibility does not exist itt'the same way for women of Color. The tokenism that is sometimes extended to us is not an invitation to join-power; our racial “otherness” is a visible reality that makes that quite clear. For White women there is a wider range of pretended choices and rewards for identifying with patriarchal power and its tools.

Today, with the defeat of ERA, the tightening econ­ omy, and increased conservatism, it is easier once again for White women to believe the dangerous fan­ tasy that if you are good enough, pretty enough, sweet enough, quiet enough, teach the children to behave, hate the right people, and marry the right men, then you will be allowed to co-exist with patriarchy in rela­ tive peace, at least until a man needs your jo b or the neighborhood rapist happens along. And true, un­ less one lives and loves in the trenches it is difficult to remember that the war against dehumanization is ceaseless.

But Black women and our children know the fabric of our lives is stitched with violence and with hatred, that there is no rest. We do not deal with it only on the picket lines, or in dark midnight alleys, or in the places where we dare to verbalize our resistance. For us, in­ creasingly, violence weaves through the daily tissues of our living— in the supermarket, in the classroom, in the elevator, in the clinic and the schoolyard, from the plumber, the baker, the saleswoman, the bus driver, the bank teller, the waitress who does not serve us.

Some problems we share as women, some we do not. You fear your children will grow up to join the

241

242 ID EN TITIES

patriarchy and testify against you, we fear our children will be dragged from a car and shot down in the street, and you will turn your backs upon the reasons they are dying.

The threat of difference has been no less blinding to people of Color. Those of us who are Black must see that the reality o f our lives and our struggle does not make us immune to the errors of ignoring and mis­ naming difference. Within Black communities where racism is a living reality, differences among us often seem dangerous and suspect. The need for unity is often misnamed as a need for homogeneity, and a Black feminist vision mistaken for betrayal of our common interests as a people. Because of the continu­ ous battle against racial erasure that Black women and Black men share, some Black women still refuse to recognize that we are also oppressed as women, and that sexual hostility against Black women is practiced not only by the White racist society, but implemented within our Black communities as well. It is a disease striking the heart of Black nationhood, and silence will not make it disappear. Exacerbated by racism and the pressures of powerlessness, violence against Black women and children often becomes a standard within our communities, one by which manliness can be mea­ sured. But these woman-hating acts are rarely dis­ cussed as crimes against Black women.

As a group, women o f Color are the lowest paid wage earners in America. We are the primary targets of abortion and sterilization abuse, here and abroad. In certain parts of Africa, small girls are still being sewed shut between their legs to keep them docile and for men’s pleasure. This is known as female circumcision, and it is not a cultural affair as the late Jomo Kenyatta insisted, it is a crime against Black women.

Black women’s literature is full o f the pain of frequent assault, not only by a racist patriarchy, but also by Black men. Yet the necessity for and history of shared battle have made us, Black women, par­ ticularly vulnerable to the false accusation that anti­ sexist is anti-Black. Meanwhile, womanhating as a recourse of the powerless is sapping strength from Black communities, and our very lives. Rape is on the increase, reported and unreported, and rape is not aggressive sexuality, it is sexualized aggression. As Kalamu ya Salaam, a Black male writer points out.

“As long as male domination exists, rape-will exist. Only women revolting and men made conscious of their responsibility to fight sexism can collectively stop rape.’’^

Differences between ourselves as Black women are also being misnamed and used to separate us from one another. As a Black lesbian feminist comfortable with the many different ingredients of my identity, and a woman committed to racial and sexual freedom from oppression, I find I am constantly being encouraged to pluck out seme one aspect o f myself and present this as the meaningful whole, eclipsing or denying the other parts of self. But this is a destructive and frag­ menting way to live. My fullest concentration of en­ ergy is available to me only when I integrate all the parts of who I am, openly, allowing power from par­ ticular sources o f my living to flow back and forth freely through all my different selves, without the re­ strictions o f externally imposed definition. Only then can I bring myself and my energies as a whole to the service of those struggles which I embrace as part of my living.

A fear of lesbians, or o f being accused of being a lesbian, has led many Black women into testifying against themselves. It has led some of us into destruc­ tive alliances, and others into despair and isolation. In the White women’s communities, heterosexism is sometimes a result of identifying with the White patri­ archy, a rejection of that interdependence between women-identified women which allows the self to be, rather than to be used in the service of men. Sometimes it reflects a die-hard belief in the protective coloration of heterosexual relationships, sometimes a self-hate which all women have to fight against, taught us from birth.

Although elements of these attitudes exist for all women, there are particular resonances of heterosex­ ism and homophobia among Black women. Despite the fact that woman-bonding has a long and honorable history in the African and African-American commu­ nities, and despite the knowledge and accomplish­ ments of many strong and creative women-identified Black women in the political, social and cultural fields, heterosexual Black women often tend to ignore or dis­ count the existence and work o f Black lesbians. Part of this attimde has come from an understandable terror of

Black male attack within the close confines of Black society, where the punishment for any female self- assertion is still to be accused of being a lesbian and therefore unworthy of the attention or support of the scarce Black male. But part of this need to mis­ name and ignore Black lesbians comes from a very real fear that openly women-identified Black women who are no longer dependent upon men for their self- definition may well reorder our whole concept of so­ cial relationships.

Black women who once insisted that lesbianism was a White woman’s problem now insist that Black lesbians are a threat to Black nationhood, are consort­ ing with the enemy, are basically un-Black. These accusations, coming from the very women to whom we look for deep and real understanding, have served to keep many Black lesbians in hiding, caught between the racism of White women and the homophobia of their sisters. Often, their work has been ignored, trivialized, or misnamed, as with the work of Ange­ lina Grimke, Alice Dunbar-Nelson, and Lorraine Hansberry. Yet women-bonded women have always been some part of the power of Black commu­ nities, from our unmarried aunts to the amazons of Dahomey.

And it is certainly not Black lesbians who are assaulting women and raping children and grand­ mothers on the streets of our communities.

Across this country, as in Boston during the spring of 1979 following the unsolved murders of twelve Black women, Black lesbians are spear-heading move­ ments against violence against Black women.

What are the particular details within each o f our lives that can be scrutinized and altered to help bring about change? How do we redefine difference for all women? It is not our differences which separate women, but our reluctance to recognize those differ­ ences and to deal effectively with the distortions which have resulted from the ignoring and misnaming of those differences.

As a tool of social control, women have been en­ couraged to recognize only one area of human differ­ ence as legitimate, those differences which exist be­ tween women and men. And we have learned to deal across those differences with the urgency of all op­ pressed subordinates. All of us have had to learn to live

a g e , r a c e , c l a s s , a n d s e x

or work or coexist with men, from our fathers on. We have recognized and negotiated these differences, even when this recognition only continued the old domi- nant/subordinate mode of human relationship, where the oppressed must recognize the masters’ difference in order to survive.

But our future survival is predicated upon our abil­ ity to relate within equality. As women, we must root out internalized patterns of oppression within our­ selves if we are to move beyond the most superficial aspects o f social change. Now we must recognize differences among women who are our equals, neither inferior nor superior, and devise ways to use each others’ difference to enrich our visions and our joint struggles.

The future of our earth may depend upon the ability of all women to identify and develop new definitions of power and new patterns of relating across differ­ ence. The old definitions have not served us, nor the earth that supports us. The old patterns, no matter how cleverly rearranged to imitate progress, still condemn us to cosmetically altered repetitions o f the same old exchanges, the same old guilt, hatred, recrimination, lamentation, and suspicion.

For we have, built into all of us, old blueprints of expectation and response, old structures of oppression, and these must be altered at the same lime as we alter the living conditions which are a result of those struc­ tures. For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.

As Paulo Freire shows so well in The Pedagogy o f the Oppressed,^ the true focus of revolutionary change is never merely the oppressive situations which we seek to escape, but that piece of the oppressor which is planted deep within each of us, and which knows only the oppressors’ tactics, the oppressors’ relationships.

Change means growth, and growth can be painful. But we sharpen self-definition by exposing the self in work and struggle together with those whom we define as different from ourselves although sharing the same goals. For Black and White, old and young, lesbian and heterosexual women alike, this can mean new paths to our survival.

We have chosen each other and the edge o f each others battles the war is the same

243

244 . IDENTITIES

ifw ^ lo s e someday wom en’s blood will congeal upon a dead planet i f we win there is no telling we seek beyond history fo r a new and more possible meeting.^

NOTES

1. From “Rape: A Radical Analysis, An African-American Perspective” by Kalamu ya Salaam in Black Books Bulletin vol 6 no. 4 (1980). . ’ ■ ’

2. Seabury Press, New York, 1970.

3. From “Outlines,” unpublished poem,