I was particularly moved by the two essays we read this week. Each writer described their experiences and the experiences of their people so vividly, it struck me. It struck me how much each writer was crying out for their heritage to be redefined in the western world, how they fought and are continuing to fight the hegemonic powers that govern our theories and discourses, that govern what is right and what is wrong. When did one culture become “right”? I was interested in language and the importance it played in both of these writers lives and work. I had never thought about it before; how important language is. By forcing cultures to adapt to a certain language they are being forced to leave behind the most essential part of their culture: communication, story telling, discourse. This became evident to me when Powell wrote,
“More than once during these forty minutes the listeners in this room have been moved to tears. We are crying in a conference room in a multi-nationally owned Denver hotel. The simple knowledge of Native people speaking our languages again makes us weep with joy and with sorrow”(14).
I had never felt the emotional breadth that this passage had made me feel. It was guilt, it was sorrow, and it was want. A want to write this wrong caused by my over-bering, unaccepting, cruel society. Why does our society “other” or “also” people? To stay in power? WHY do we need power over people, countries, the world?
Patti Duncan’s essay made me think of the savior complex that the United States has when it comes to the middle east. It seems that this isn’t a new idea, it’s been transcended through political pedagogy for many generations.
“My father likes to tell stories about how he rescued my mother, helped liberate her people… my mother would be a frail but beautiful doll-like creature, carried away by this white man who had traveled so far from home to find her and even risked his life to save hers” (159).
This would seem like a truth to me if I hadn’t taken the intensive courses in WGSS that widened my global feminist lens. I would have continued to believe that the Bush administration was doing the right thing. That these women, who were being brought back from “war torn” countries were coming to a better life. But it isn’t a better life. It’s a life filled with oppression, marginalization, and hatred. Our discourses and theorists tell us we must be wary of the “other”, we must oppress them and be sure to take away as much power as possible, just so we can maintain the control. Our society hides behind the facade of acceptance but if we look past the “advertisements” we find the fine print; “leave your heritage, culture, and language behind in order to be accepted”. That’s not a society I want to be apart of, but where do you start? Where do you start the subversion? That is the question I am constantly struggling with.
When I read Moraga’s narrative, it really drove everything home. The stories of feeling fake or missing part of her heritage were forced upon her by her mother, just wanting Moraga to have a better life. Is it really a better life if you feel like you’re missing a part of yourself? These essay’s and this book have something in common; narratives and storytelling. The sharing of cultures, narrating, and drawing attention to the power structures that are in place to marginalize people. These narratives create a source of Bio-Power, they are deciding who lives and who dies, and are deploying power in non-linear ways. I thoroughly enjoyed this weeks reading as I feel as if I have learned of an entirely new way to subvert patriarchal, hegemonic, western societies.
No comments:
Post a Comment