Journaler

I was recently at a friend’s house and entered into a conversation with those present when the question concerning the reality of the homogenization in Ireland.  I responded:  “color, you mean?”  “Yes,” was the response.  This got us onto the question of color, in particular whiteness and identity.As the conversation had transitioned into the color of folks presently occupying the space, I piped up and said:  “we’re not all white!”  This, of course, was greeted with:  “well, you look white.”  I began by situating myself outside the binaries by suggesting that I’m colorless, and my friend said, “well, you just said you identify as a person of color.”  Yes, of course, I did say that, now didn’t I!  How does one identity as a person of color while identifying as a colorless person?

My birth mother is Mexican, probably more Indo-Mexican, and she is brown, very brown.  Her skin is beautiful.  My birth father is [er, was, as he is dead now] white, and probably always “checked” the “white” box on U.S. census forms.  [side note:  I wonder if my birth mother did too, considering that her family of origin never did [or does] recognize their racial/ “ethnic” identities?]  I come from the two of them–1/2 brown or Mexican all the while being completely Mexican; meanwhile, I am 1/2 white all the while being completely White.  I constantly straddle the borders of color and “ethnicity.”

So, though I appear white, does that make me white?  I have to question the binaries and the culture[s] that are associated with such binaries.  There is NOT really a box for me to check:  I’m not white, but I am white.  I’m not Hispanic, as I’m not from Spain.  Then, there is oftentimes that box that says “White, and in parenthesis (not of Hispanic origin).  That’s not really me, either.  

Though I was raised white, I always knew there was color to my life.  When my birth mother asked me at the “tender” age of five whether anyone ever made fun of me because of my color, I knew then that I was different.  Different color, perhaps?  My reply to her question was an emphatic “NO” but I walked through life knowing that I was being raced and colored by the culture in which I was situated.  And what was that culture?  It was the white culture.  It wasn’t until later that I discovered all things Mexican; I was young, still, and my Mexican experiences and summers were quite formative.  I’m grateful for those experiences.  

I should mention that I watched my body/skin color change as I grew older.  Face a bit more whiter than my legs, but soon the skin pigmentation caught up and evened out.  There are places, even still, that are more brown than others, and my thesis supervisor immediately can point out the Latin American in me, along with some of my Texas buddies.  People all around me have helped me to race myself.

I am colored and yet I am colorless.

So, the question of color is an important one.  Not only for me, but for you, too!  Let me explain.  The culture[s] that are associated with the the binaries are difficult for all of us to fit; there is not adequate room for all of us.  For the Irish who appear and/or look white, are they White?  Are they part of that White Symbolic Order?  Many of these folks come from the margins, as do many Latin Americans?  Where is that box for us to check?What box do you check?

So, it is being projected now that Huckabee wins for the Republicans and Obama is projected to win for the Democrats. Yet, MSNBC’s & CNN’s panels are holding out to suggest a definitive response to the projections. It seems as though the panel prefers Clinton over Obama. I find this quite interested and I find the outcome of the Republican’s projection even more interesting and, quite honestly, rather troubling!

Do folks in New Hampshire go for an “Evangelical” leader? Hmm…

I received an email yesterday concerning a call for submissions. This is not an atypical email, since I receive call for submissions quite often. This call for submissions, however, is an attempt to counter the normalizing rhetoric of the anti-rape discourse typically touted as “No Means No!” If you’re familiar with current feminist discourse and the “young” liberals’ movement, then perhaps you’ve heard of Jessica Valenti and her recent text: Full Frontal Feminism?! Valenti runs a popular feminist webzine called Feministing. Feministing dot com is a site dedicated to providing a space, albeit virtual, for young women [and I'm sure others who identify as women] to find their tradition and framework of feminism and their feminist voice. On occasion I peruse this site and have enjoyed the energy and verve I find here. When I read the call for submissions, however, for the Rape Anthology, I found myself a bit stumped. Let me explain.

Certainly, feminism has a sordid history. There is 1st wave feminism , 2nd wave feminism, 3rd wave feminism, and now to popular post-feminism label, etc. I’m sure there will be a 4th wave and 5th wave, too. We have the French Feminists who give us an alternative to the essentializing 1st wave feminist theory in their constructivism and linguistic feminist theory. Certainly, if you’re a regular reader of this site, then you’ll be familiar with my contructionist bent. Despite the plethora of feminist and gender theorists who are rigorously researching and writing to improve the situation for women [including children and men], there are still problems. In fact, despite the variety of feminist theory and “schools”, there continues to be a history of feminist voices trying to find their ground–perhaps even their ground of being.

Originally trained as a theologian, I have seen and studied the varying anthropological theories of gender and their expressions throughout the history of theology. In fact, there are even shifts within theological feminism [or feminist theology] that can be compared to the variety of shifts of the above “waves” of feminism. Many of these shifts are paralleled with what is termed “secular” feminism. The reality is that both feminist theology and feminist theory have the empowerment of women and their status of becoming fully human in mind. The dichotomy of “sacred” and “secular” is not helpful for me but for some, however, this dichotomy makes sense. My point here is to indicate that feminism[s], whether situated within the disciplines of religion or theology or situated within a more interdisciplinary field has the betterment of women as its goal. Side Note: My hope is that my own feminist theory will have the betterment of all humans as its goal. Different disciplines achieve this goal in a variety of ways, but I am certain that the goal is privileged in their theory, discourse, advocacy and action.

One way this goal is achieved is by creating tools and sharing history’s critical social tools in an effort to dismantle the hegemony of various oppressions. One of the many oppressions can be seen in the ways in which women, including women of color, are subjected to being second-class citizens. Their second-class citizenry is further perpetuated and seen in the way women’s bodies are used and/or expected to be used. Women’s bodies, throughout history, have been commodified. Here, I think, the reality of the rape culture is an adequate example of the ways in which feminist theory attempts to theorize to combat the violence against women and girls. This history of the rape culture and the theory that has come afterward ties into the call for submission with which I began this post.

The history of the anti-rape culture [both its roots in advocacy and theory] has continued to emerge to provide a means for women to reclaim not only their bodies but also their sexual experiences. The anti-rape culture’s slogan has become known to the public as “No means No!” The “No means NO!” campaign has been the overwhelming slogan combating the reality of the rape culture. Now, Seal Press, along with Jessica Valenti and Jaclyn Friedman, is calling for authors to submit a counter effort to the “No means No!” campaign with “Yes means Yes!”

I cannot help but see that this “new” campaign seems to pit itself against the “older” campaign. My question is: Is it enough to simply stop with the “No means No!” campaign and go into a “new” or different direction? Is it fair to abandon the history of earlier feminists and others who have fought for the safety of women? Is there a way to weave this “older” tradition, the more “stable”[?] tradition with this more ‘radical’ invention of Yes? I think the “Yes means Yes!” campaign provides us with a new point of departure along with provocative questions, but I am not yet convinced that one should abandoned the “old” in an attempt to move beyond today. Having a hermeneutic of suspicion is key, yes, but alongside a hermeneutic of suspension, it is my sense that one should also have a hermeneutic of retrieval.

And so, I’m considering submitting a paper proposal but will only do so by combining the traditions of No and Yes. If you’re interested in reading the call for submissions, I have attached the link below.

You can find the full call for submissions here at Seal Press:  http://www.sealpress.com/docs/yesmeansyes.pdf.

It seems as though I have run into and issue concerning identity.  In fact, I have been reading the History of Philosophy in an attempt to trace where the question of identity was raised and where, perhaps, the subjectivity of identity became problematic for philosophers.  As I continue to work on the question of borders and the ways in which our identity is formed, I’m reading Adorno as a means of understanding critical social theory and the Frankfurt’s understanding of self and borders.  This is becoming a “larger than life” project, but I am committed to understanding this fully.

So, I am back to work on the question of identity while still enjoying my Holiday.

boring post…just testing Journaler…