Anzaldúa Analysis
I see a lot of similarities between the language and concepts that Anzaldúa uses and those that our earlier thinkers, like James, Dewey, and Bergson use. She homes in on universally inclusive ideas like a “collective consciousness” (p. 20) and her belief that “each person’s actions affect the rest of the world” (p. 15). This has been a pretty controversial/contested idea in our class as well; many of us seem to be apprehensive when approaching that concept, as if doing so is imposing the belief that we are all the same. And while we aren’t all the same, and we all live different lives, it seems we devalue our common denominators, either purposely in malicious ways (racism, sexism, etc. any dehumanizing) or subconsciously, in which we fall victim to the structures of thought that the malicious ways imposed upon us (even if we believe we are acting
…show more content…
outside of those; i.e “wokeness”). Regardless of whether it’s in the name of racism, or anti-racism, or any other power structure and its opponent, we – all people – tend to place heavy emphasis on our differences, as if somehow that absolves us of our need to coexist with each other. This is not all a problem of right-wing racist/sexist/homophobic nutjobs either, but many leftists do the same thing, albeit in a different manner.
For leftists, it’s that we must be aware of our differences, lest we forget them and then succumb to things like racial blindness. While this has merit, no doubt, it seems fundamentally misguided to me, although the intentions are good. Once we get to the point in which each person’s differences from someone else are their sole identifying factors, we lose sight of our collective consciousness, preferring only to interact with our own, and reenacting the same malicious maneouvers against those who question our differences as those who want so badly to enforce them. This is all bit jumbled, but essentially the point I’m trying to make is: don’t lose sight of the common objective of humanity! To me, that is the fundamental message Anzaldúa is prescribing here, and Bergson, Dewey, and James before her. It sounds so hippy-ish! Perhaps since this idea is intertwined with many sensitive and topical issues of today, it could be something we further pursue in class
discussion.
outside of those; i.e “wokeness”). Regardless of whether it’s in the name of racism, or anti-racism, or any other power structure and its opponent, we – all people – tend to place heavy emphasis on our differences, as if somehow that absolves us of our need to coexist with each other. This is not all a problem of right-wing racist/sexist/homophobic nutjobs either, but many leftists do the same thing, albeit in a different manner.
For leftists, it’s that we must be aware of our differences, lest we forget them and then succumb to things like racial blindness. While this has merit, no doubt, it seems fundamentally misguided to me, although the intentions are good. Once we get to the point in which each person’s differences from someone else are their sole identifying factors, we lose sight of our collective consciousness, preferring only to interact with our own, and reenacting the same malicious maneouvers against those who question our differences as those who want so badly to enforce them. This is all bit jumbled, but essentially the point I’m trying to make is: don’t lose sight of the common objective of humanity! To me, that is the fundamental message Anzaldúa is prescribing here, and Bergson, Dewey, and James before her. It sounds so hippy-ish! Perhaps since this idea is intertwined with many sensitive and topical issues of today, it could be something we further pursue in class
discussion.