I feel inspired. I picked up a few books from the Cline Library at NAU the other day and couldn't help but snatch a few philosophy books. It has been over a year since I have taken a philosophy course and it seems... unsuitable. Perhaps I have begun wearing clothes that do not quite fit. (This is actually true, I have taken to enjoying the fit of large tee-shirts despite—or because of—their slightly too small cut.) One of those books is Women of Color and Philosophy which contains the essay mentioned in the above title.
Here are a few lines that have me thinking:
“What are the points of contact today between feminists from developing countries and western feminism?” (60)
“Postcolonial feminisms differ from the classic critique of imperialism in that they try to stay away from rigid self-other binaries... Postcolonial feminisms call attention to the process of splitting of culturally dominant subject in terms of the demands placed on the dominant subject by culturally disadvantaged others.” (61)
“People in mixed unions that are based on parity... are very strongly motivated to understand each other, as well as to communicate with each other so as to communicate with each other so as to deepen and strengthen their understanding. Such individuals commit themselves to lifestyles in which giving of one's time to reach out to the other, as well as making space for the other's differences, are part of the very fabric of daily existence, neither a forced nor an occasional happening.” (63)
The first half of the essay—which I read yesterday and so is somewhat less fresh in my mind—has to do with the mechanics of intercultural dialogue, especially in the context of asymmetrical cultural authority. It provides a solid means to the later parts, but it is difficult to parse clearly from the quotes themselves.
Well, it got me thinking of an article I am very interested in writing. I want to understand a means for engaging in trans-cultural ethical conversations in an egalitarian way. That is, I want understand or articulate the tools needed to fairly converse about ethics between cultures. This is a long-term piece that was set by the wayside last summer but hope to return to eventually. It is still a puzzle that thoroughly interests me.
But being in Flagstaff, a stranger to this town of visitors (I think of A Garden in Winter, which I wrote this last Winter in and Spring and have posted here), these words and my thoughts steer elsewhere. I feel deeply motivated to explore “points of contact” and to negotiate out of “rigid self-other binaries.” I have no one in this town I know well; that is, even with the earnest and heartfelt kindness of Miss Johannesen, I cannot deny that we are still getting acquainted. This is by means a sleight to Miss Johannesen, only a recognition of the brief—if noteworthy time—we have known one another, and I refer to Julia here because if I am friends with anyone in this town, I am friends with her.
That said, I have an abundance of acquaintances I am eager to understand better. In no great amount of time, I would like to call many of these people friends; unfortunately I feel that doing so now would be somehow premature. Nonetheless, Ms. Schutte's words ring deeply. In exploring the dialect of this specific place (by specific, I mean this point in my personal history; this time of beginnings, firsts, and mottled understanding; this particular locale being Flagstaff, NAU campus, the Village Baker, the apartment complex; and the network of friends in Lincoln, around the country, and new bonds here) I wish to foster a tongue appropriate for dissolving boundaries and authoritarian expectations of those around me.
How is it that one might make light conversation with someone without imposing on her/him the sort of filter or rules of engagement that Schutte describes? Mostly, it seems, one makes a quiet, even tacit effort to open one's mind and ears to listen more carefully. Schutte decries the way a dominant audience will splice together the easy bits of a cross-cultural conversation and make up a conclusion to fit her/his expectations. (She uses particular gendered grammar mechanics I here avoid.)
A broad openness to the language of another person—not just words or tone, but body, gesture, accent, reference, personal narrative play a part in her/his language—necessitates a disrobing of the tools we have come into the habit of using to understand one another. Especially in this town of visitors and transients—words with intentionally overlapping but not synonymous denotation—such an effort to unequip oneself is especially demanding; it leaves one more open to harm, naked before a person. Such nakedness may lead one into blunder all the same, but erring in such a way almost equally facilitates a resolution. Whereas the dominant interlocutor claiming understanding where there is none is much more likely to fatally wound a developing relationship.
In some way, I hope I have been engaged in this vernacular for some time. I often attempt to articulate my understanding back to someone in the midst of a conversation. In effect, I hope to say, “If you mean this, then I understand you pretty well. If you do not mean this, then I would like us to step back again so that we can right my course.” The effort here is to work simultaneously in the same direction. This, I suppose, developed out of attempts to actively listen to people I want to understand clearly, but it also plays into this role of spacious conversation. With this sort of interpersonal, cultural space we can more clearly navigate around as well as with one another.
No comments:
Post a Comment