Quote:
Originally Posted by dreadgeek
This is why I mentioned my experience with Afrocentrism in the black community. Initially, the whole idea was that this was a way for blacks, if we so chose, to 'decolonize' our minds by focusing our attention on Africa and African culture. It has become a symbol of how 'black' one actually is. The more one assimilates the less 'authentically black' one is. To observe this in action, note how Juan Williams, or John McWhorter, Shelby Steele, Condi Rice or Clarence Thomas get called "oreo" or "coconut" or "Uncle Tom". Now, I am the last black woman on this planet to defend Thomas, but isn't it possible that he and I could have a disagreement, even a spirited disagreement, while both of us maintain our 'black identity'? I would say yes. In the black community the consensus may very well be 'no'. So now, being African-identified, if you will, is now normative and what is aberrant is to be American-identified, or black-identified, or--gasp!--assimilationist.
I am not saying YOU would like to see gender neutral be the new norm to the exclusion of a strong sense of gender. Rather, I'm saying that just like no one in the black community in the 60s or 70s *intended* Afrocentrism to become the de facto badge of 'real, true blackness' so too might it come to pass that being strongly identified as 'he' or 'she' will be considered a sign that one is not 'really' enlightened or not 'really' committed to equality.
I understand that this is a somewhat pessimistic view of human behavior but it seems to me that *everything* implies some form of costs and that unintended consequences do crop up despite all our best intentions.
I agree that now, as we increasingly move away from the basis of economic activity being physically based and toward it being intellectually based, that we have gained some new degrees of freedom to maneuver. But I still think that we will have the evolutionary hangover from the African savannah for millennia to come. I am one who does not think we can build just any old kind of society we might conceive of--not if we have any concern about freedom or equality. That does not mean I think that change is impossible, far from it. Rather, I think that there are changes that are easier and harder depending upon how much inertia must be overcome. Getting people to eat sugary or fatty foods is easy because our bodies LOVE sugary or fatty foods and will make us feel very, very good about eating them. Getting people to have sex is, again, pretty easy to manage. Getting people to *not* eat to satiation or to eschew having sex is a bit more of a challenge since we are now trying to push something uphill.
I think getting people to a gender-neutral society is probably possible in the long-term, having a gender-neutral society where that is not normative is an uphill push.
Cheers
Aj
|
I agree with everything you said here. Granted, I'm a bit of a youngin and have only been able to view the afrocentric movement of the 60s and 70s through the lens of white privilege and the pages of history books, but I can certainly draw parallels between that struggle for self-definition and the current dialogue about gender.
Thank you very much for recognizing that I am not trying to encourage gender neutrality as an exclusionary tactic. I agree that, as with all passionate movements, it is the responsibility of the revolutionaries to be vigilant and self-monitor to be sure we aren't losing sight of the big picture. I thank you for pointing that out, as it's something I feel I would like to keep in the back of my mind.
Am I correct in stating that we are both commited to the
idea of a more inclusionary societal structure with it's accompanying set of terminology, despite our radically different approaches to the subject?
