To preface what I am about to say, allow me to explain that this is the result of a thought experiment. The nature of this experiment is delicate and paradoxical. Explaining it renders it ineffective in the exact same way that explaining the rules of "The Quiet Game" is a direct violation of said game. Regardless, my intention here is to highlight an issue that may lead to an understanding of what I believe brings about one's constant need/desire to contribute to feminist discourse [unfortunately] often to the detriment of Women Of Color, and other such marginalized and oppressed groups. Ie. Why, no matter what it is I have to say, I have such difficulty shutting up and just letting other people talk.
In consideration of a concern for Feminist voices amid Misrepresentation, Mansplanation, Space Sharing, etc... I decided to conduct a personal experiment. During Feminist Theory this week, I tried to speak as little as possible. As the discussion continued, I listened and absorbed, and watched the discourse proceed beautifully. During the time I spent listening, and as a result of the input I witnessed, I found myself unable to escape a thought:
What is the role of a male (my) voice in Feminism?
I've been pondering this for a few years, and haven't gotten very far. In addition, as we discussed the #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen discourse over the past few weeks, it was brought to my attention that within feminism, Women of Color Feminists face a similar conflict with White Women Feminists. This broadened my question to "What is the role of a dominant group's voice in Feminism (as it pertains to not infringing upon non-dominant and/or marginalized voices)?"
What I found was a dilemma. A big one. If I spoke on issues presented by Women Of Color Feminists, I risk infringing upon what would be a genuine expression of their voice(s). And yet, solidarity, for whatever reason, is a desired yet unattained virtue. So on the matter of joining the discussion, if I remained silent, I risk failing the discourse? maybe? Still working on that one.
So I struggled. I needed to see whether me saying nothing was the most positive contribution I could make to seldom heard feminists. So I kept silent. If you know me, you'll understand that that is by no means in my nature. I like to contribute, if for no other reason but for love of philosophical conversation. So being the well intentioned windbag, I decided to present a view that hadn't been mentioned yet in response to one of the questions. I believe it was "If you could describe problem that results in the apparent need of White Women Feminists to contribute to feminist space in the name of solidarity, what would it be?". To which, I replied "Trust". My idea was that you wouldn't feel the need to contribute your voice in every conversation of a movement if you trusted, or granted faith that other members of the conversation would successfully progress the movement, and achieve its goals, even without you. Consequently, by explaining this I contributed to the conversation thus violating the very thing I was talking about. I. F*cked . Up. Experiment over.
I was guilt ridden (not because I had failed the other feminists in the class, but because I failed the integrity of my own ideas).I KNEW what would happen to my experiment if I spoke. The ENTIRE time I was talking, part of me kept saying "Shut it. Just shut up. Shut. Shut. Shut up. Just shut it. Shut Up. You're going to mess up everything". Of course, I kept going. But that got me to wondering... why did I speak? I assumed, by the reaction of my classmates, that they weren't as disappointed in my act as I was. In fact, they seemed to welcome my input. So what was the problem? It wasn't as if I had said something detrimental? There was value in what I said. So what is my role? What did I give them through my silence? What did I give them through my voice?
Having replayed both the internal and external elements of the class period repeatedly in my head for the past 27+ hours, I realized a few things, and begged a few more questions.
Realization: I am not a White Woman Feminist, but I served a similar purpose in the discussion.
Realization: There was value in my voice, but what was needed was silence. By not speaking, I granted faith and trust.
Question: How would any of you know this if I didn't say anything?
I haven't come up with a solution (which is why I posted this for discussion), but to address the latter question, I came up with the following:
There is an issue with silence in that it carries, and broadcasts *ambiguity*. Consider what happens when you are babysitting and everything goes quite; ANYTHING could be happening. To you, as I sit there in silence, I could be thinking of anything (or everything, if you are a Schrödinger fan... ba dum tss). To me, I am not sure if anyone is aware of whether or not I am paying attention, agreeing, disagreeing, ignoring your voice (Patriarchal dismissal), or granting faith (my desire). This may have been Why I Broke My Silence. Perhaps I wanted to remove the ambiguity. I risked it in order to show that my silence was intentional. Why I felt the need to do so? I don't know... Perhaps I desire solidarity? But, I digress.
So my question now is how do we remove the ambiguity of silence? How do I make silence an affirmative, and not just inactivity? Ie. could me not saying anything be percieved as participation? I am a male voice in Feminism, and I desire to contribute without infringement lest there be a #SolidarityIsForNii. I Recognize that sometimes I just need to shut up, grant faith, trust, concede the floor, share the space, etc... And perhaps my inability to understand how to go about this dialogue is an indication of my position of privilege as an African Male Feminist.
Anyway, I hope I have explained my observation in a way that was clear, concise, logical, and organized enough for you to understand what I'm saying. If any clarification is needed, please ask. I'm not the best writer, and occasionally what I wish to convey through my writing is askewed from what I actually meant to say. This is an "Easier said through phone call than through text message" scenario.
Ps. I recognize that it is also possible that no one really noticed my silence at all. The world doesn't revolve around me.
Nii, this is a great representation of the type of imaginative, introspective thought that I find needs to happen far more consistently, among ALL of us within the struggle. There are a lot of layers in your post, and I know I am not going to respond to them all, but I will attempt to respond to the things that stood out to me the most.
ReplyDelete1. The need to deconstruct the ambiguity of silence- There's so much non-verbal communicating that you were doing during the course of our discussion that it was easy to see your silence was an engaged and affirming one (there's a lot more to be said generally here, but I think there's a limit on characters in the comment box)
2. Balancing the silence w/ the noise of discourse- I think there probably should be more of an emphasis on parsing where the balance is between affirmative and engaged silence and adding engaged speech to the discourse. I don't think there's as much a demand for the silence as you might think. I think there's a need for that silence & space to let us do our thang, but there is also a need for your [and anyone engaged in the struggle coming from a place of normative privilege] very unique and philosophical contribution! It is more about finding that balance to me.
3. I would like to see more about your affective experience going into the discussion and how it played throughout. I would like to see how you express this within this engaged imaginative space you've created!
CHEERS!