Crystal et al.:
I read and greatly appreciated your piece on Sotomayor as well as your response to my piece. I think the highest compliment to an author of anything is thoughtful dialogue- so thanks. I think you captured the intent of my blurb in your comment “challenge” … “without vilifying race and gender.” I wholeheartedly concur that there has been and continues to be a pervasive Euro-American male hegemony. The absence of other voices have greatly limited but not negated the value of some of their achievements. For example, we have a fabulous constitution mainly written by European (Anglos) males. However, had they included the Native Americans and the Africans we would have less to be a shamed of and to repair as a Nation. As a black Caribbean American who loves America, I want an America enriched by diversity and divested of systems of domination. My dream can only be achieved by coalitional alliances that are difficult to grow in soils of animosity ( vilifying race and gender). Did I think Sotomayor meant to be racist or sexist ? No! Most people who live in New York City know the value of diversity ( all voices),so I just wanted to provoke those who don’t. Those who want to be able to dismiss those who struggle for egalitarian structures as being just as dominating as those they are standing up against.
PS: Blind-spots – Prior to writing I was reading an article entitled “Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency.” The theorists came to their conclusions mainly from a sample of “underprivileged” youth (ethnicity was not specified). I appreciated the “objective” take of the outsiders as many of the traits that were described such as being rebellious against the system in my opinion as a minority was very laudable. My next desire was to see studies done on juvenile delinquency of the privileged. As I as an “objective” outsider could more clearly identify delinquency in behaviours that those within the group find normal because they are not caught: drugs, promiscuity, addictions (cigarettes, alcohol). Then the next step would be the insiders and outsiders making policy together for all juvenile delinquents.
I appreciate very much how you have expressed your goal and your concern over the “soils of animosity” which make progress not only difficult, but next to impossible. It is a goal that our faith calls us to. That being said, this follow-up comment is not directed to or at you but instead as a clarification I find it necessary to make after my last comments about feminism:
I mentioned the challenge feminism faces in that it seeks to stand up against systemic sins that continue to oppress women and minorities while at the same time trying to avoid vilifying a particular race, or gender. I failed, however, to say that by its very nature feminism is a movement that creates – perhaps sometimes intentionally and other times not – a space for dissenting voices. As a result, people have and continue to characterize feminism and/or feminist theology as a movement that is hostile and which creates discord (and I state this conservatively). It reminds me of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s movement. (I often site King because I think his work is a great model of peaceful protest which proved to make a powerful statement and which brought about definitive change). During the movement, many people (both colleagues and opponents) accused King of creating discord and disturbing the peace. Incidentally, peace is not the absence of conflict but instead it is people living in peace and loving community in the midst of or after conflict has occurred. In addition, the state in which the African community lived during the civil rights movement could not truly be characterized a state of true peace. For opponents of the civil rights movement “peace” was characterized by the African American community continuing to live in conditions that were unjust and inhumane (this too, is a conservative statement). The movement had to create a level of discord and dissent in order for change to occur; that is, change not only in the law but also in the hearts of the oppressors so that they might see that their sentiments and actions were unjust and inhumane. And so, my intent here is to clarify because after some reflection I feel as though I did the feminist movement an injustice my not mentioning this as well; because although I do believe that any liberating movement ought to seek not to become that which it speaks against, I do believe that feminism, along with other liberation theologies, finds itself in a position in which it is unfairly characterized as a movement which creates discord; the fact is that discord has already been created in that women and minorities are mistreated by unjust systems, they are responding to these systems which may bring further discord, but it is necessary in order to bring about the peace we desire and which is a goal of our faith. This discord and dissent is often the only way to help bring about change in the order of unjust systems and the hearts of people, as well. This need not be a thing for which feminism should be apologetic. Again, I felt I had done feminism an injustice by not mentioning this in my previous comment.
Thanks
Fascinating argument