On Difference, Guilt and Sisterhood
Women's experiences, perspectives, and desires are frequently bundled into one category: women's issues. The problem of ignoring differences is not limited to one sex, but this blog post will encourage an exploration of sisterhood through the framework of Audre Lorde's seminal essay "Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Redefining Difference." Because women make up over half of the world's population, there are over 4 billion varied viewpoints, unique bodies, minds, and thoughts that belong under the category of woman. Our identity as women is tremendously complex, weaving together both similarities and differences, agreements and disagreements, whether it be in the workplace, politics, family, within our own ethnicities, our creative spaces, or an intersection of it all. According to Audre Lorde, "there is a pretense to a homogeneity of experience covered by the word sisterhood that, in fact, does not exist." But what does this mean? It implies that the word sisterhood has been used as a blanket statement which, on the one hand, unites women under a single umbrella but with a programmed rejection of difference. With Audre Lorde, we'll consider how we may be unintentionally participating in the rejection of difference and explore how we may work on viewing our own differences, as well as those of others, as a source of strength rather than weakness.
In her article "Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Redefining Difference," Audre Lorde offers a paradigm-shifting examination of intersectionality and its enormous impact on our understanding of what it is to be a woman, as a woman. The essay also examines how Lorde's demand for female togetherness while still recognizing individuality challenges the boundaries of classic feminist ideas. Traditionally, there was a demand for togetherness without recognizing individuality. And this is where sisterhood can come into play. For example, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the suffragette movement was at its height. Though they were campaigning for votes, many early feminists' actions and vocabulary were concentrated on women as a "one-size-fits-all'' slogan. In certain contexts, this one-size-fits-all slogan is still used. This is problematic when considering that the majority of these early feminists and “equal rights” protesters were middle-class and white, and within the movement, there was a disparity in whose voices and experiences were heard. For instance, though women could not vote, many working-class women were already out working hard jobs, therefore their reality, life, and aspirations for a fairer future did not necessarily fall under the category of "women." While the idea for some was to be equal to men, others argued that they already were working just as men did. In the end, Lorde joins other voices like Henrietta Moore in highlighting how we live in a culture that profits from our fear of differences, both inside ourselves and between each other.
There are three ways we are taught to respond to differences. The first is to ignore the difference itself, if that fails then we copy the dominant idea, which is called “normal”, and if this difference is not accepted by the majority, we destroy it.
Institutionalized rejection of difference is an absolute necessity in a profit economy which needs outsiders as surplus people. As members of such an economy, 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: ignore 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 differences as equals. As a result, those differences have been misnamed and misused in the service of separation and confusion.
In other words, ways to approach connections between people of different identities are in short supply. There are undeniable distinctions between us, but it is not our differences that are separating us. It is the rejection on our part to notice these distinctions without responding to them in a predetermined manner that causes rifts both between women and also within ourselves. Comparison, for example, comes from this programmed attitude and can be our downfall in many instances because there are no structures set in place that help us understand and cultivate the idea that difference does not mean less-than or more-than. Lorde continues, “[f]or 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… [it is] impossible to see the different problems and pitfalls facing us as women.” In this separation there is no understanding, even simply of ourselves from ourselves, and therefore women are deprived of “each others’ energy and creative insight.” We may be holding back on the way we love ourselves because we think our difference makes us less than. Or we may approach differences in others with a sense of guilt, because we are assuming they have it worse or better. Whatever the angle is, this institutionalized rejection of difference makes it impossible to see ourselves, and each other, clearly.
My Mom, for example, emigrated to America from India in the 90s. She has led most of her life as the head of the household, working her way from the college kitchen into IT. She is opinionated, caring and protective. She shared with me an experience where a white woman approached her and apologized for how unfair society must be to her. She has expressed that this type of guilt-driven apology is patronizing because there is an insistence, and an assumption, that because of the color of her skin she must have been a victim. There is an element of superiority that comes with assuming that because her skin is brown, she needed an apology in the first place, and on top of that the apology itself is generic and not at all appropriate to addressing the situation of the individual. In her words, “people are not inherently a victim or a tyrant, they become so based on their journey [and] their patterns.” So this apology was guilt-driven which hinders how we see ourselves and approach each other. My Mom felt unseen as an individual in these interactions. When she tried to tell the white woman that she did not experience the hardships that were being attributed to her life, she was not taken seriously. In the same way, one who has gone through different hardships cannot be understood just because one may respond to such differences with guilt.
As women, we must root out internalized patterns of oppression within ourselves if we are to move beyond the most superficial aspects of social change. Now we must recognize differences among women who are our equals, neither inferior nor superior… [t]he 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 difference. The old definitions have not served us, nor the earth that supports us.
Audre Lorde goes on to discuss many additional complexities and nuances, both historical and personal, throughout her essay. It's a quick read, I highly suggest it. But in discussing this essay for BoldHER, I merely want to emphasize that how we, as women, react to differences may be a product of the society we live in. We can discover a route ahead by dismantling ideologies that force us to believe that our differences are weaknesses and that demand us to react in one of the three programmed ways. This can translate into the workplace, but also more broadly to our sense of purpose, our ability to understand each other, how experiences that fall under sisterhood may vary greatly from our own, and where our reactions to those differences may be originating. “Ignoring the differences of [class and] race between women and the implications of those differences presents the most serious threat to the mobilization of women's joint power.” Again, it is more of a denial on our side to respond to differences in a predefined way. According to Lorde, “refusing to recognize difference makes it impossible to see the different problems and pitfalls facing us as women.” However, when we see difference as a duality of inferior and superior, we can never honestly acknowledge it.
We can also apply this to the way we think about ourselves. What if I don’t look like her? Do I feel threatened because she is beautiful, do I feel threatened because she is good at something I also like to do? Why are we pitting ourselves against each other? Can we both be funny? Or what if my heritage is mixed? Does that mean my voice is less than others who I view as more valuable than mine just because they aren't mixed? These comparisons, this perception of less and more, is a programmed reaction to difference that profits society, not us. So I think it’s worth reflecting on our reaction to difference to not only reclaim our own voice but also to hear more clearly the voices of others.
Citations
Lorde, Audre. Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Redefining Difference.
MasterClass. “First-Wave Feminism: Timeline and Criticisms .” MasterClass, 11 Oct. 2022, www.masterclass.com/articles/first-wave-feminism.
Brandman, Mariana. “Audre Lorde.” National Women’s History Museum, June 2021, www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/audre-lorde.