MAIN POST: 3/31/10

Each of the readings for tomorrow’s class brought to light important issues regarding violence and abuse and their possible relation to class, gender, and race. Further, the readings also illuminated the possible detrimental effects that can spur from the pressures or generalizations related to a given identity. While a recognition of common issues definitely offer possibility for friendship, support, and understanding, the negative ramifications associated with group categorizations often go unnoticed. Group identities carry pressures, inaccurate assumptions, and even enhanced danger despite their goals of greater equality and respect.

In her article exploring the role of race and gender categorizations and their relation to violence of women of color, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw scrutinizes the unanticipated and undesirable results related to these identities. However, she does acknowledge, as many individuals have in the past, that group organization and shared experience maintain a certain power over the “pleas of a few isolated voices,” (Crenshaw, 1). It is important to realize that the coming together of marginalized groups helps members to find solace, support, and understanding in their problems and fight for change. Further, the power of many demands the attention of others who may otherwise not listen.

Crenshaw makes an important point, however, that these groups made up of many individuals fighting for a cause, so often lead to wrongful presumptions and flawed inferences in reference to group members. Crenshaw suggests that “ignoring the differences within groups frequently contributes to tension among groups,” (Crenshaw, 1). We saw this situation in our reading earlier this semester about The Rag newspaper members who felt left out and ignored because of their race. A common example of this type of generalization is when there is one black student in the class and the teacher looks to that individual, expecting him or her to offer the entire “black” perspective. When thought about, such a generalization is clearly very presumptuous as any response could hardly represent the views of an entire race. However, before I ever heard this idea I had never realized the absurdity of such a comment. Obviously, it is natural to look to people with different backgrounds for their experience and opinion, but it is completely inappropriate to expect an individual’s view to encompass the views of their entire race.

When we form groups and search for a sense of common understanding, those involved as well as outsiders must understand that the grouping does not diminish individuality or render each person exactly the same. Further, this individuality within a group can actually be a key aspect of the success of the overall goals. Crenshaw suggests that “through an awareness of intersectionality, we can better acknowledge and ground the differences among us and negotiate the means by which these differences will find expression in constructing group politics,” (Crenshaw, 15). With a recognition of members’ differences and an appreciation of the value of differentiated experiences, groups can touch upon a broader range of people and extend their purpose to a greater population rather than just the assumed race, gender, or sexuality associated with their cause.

Feminist groups, for example, often bring together women fighting for greater respect and equality for women. Almost always, however, group members have other causes they value as well. In other words, in joining a feminist group, a black woman may hope to channel her arguments for race equality as well. Rather than an individual fighting for a cause that most members of the group may not feel passionate about, Crenshaw suggests that all groups fighting for change must come together, recognizing and capitalizing on the “[intersecting] point,” of each of these categories.

Gloria Steinem’s essay “Supremacy Crimes,” also points to possible negative externalities associated with gender, race, class, and sexual categorizations. Steinem focuses on the pressures associated with being a white, male, and middle-class. She makes a very interesting point that most of the serial killers and mass-murderers in our society have been white men with money. She suggests that the “drug of superiority” is addicting and damaging as white men expect power and success and consider “dominance as a natural right,” (Steinem, 1). When white men expect everything to come easily and success to be a given in their lives, little bumps or setbacks anger some to the point of unrestrained aggression and violence. Perhaps these men want to obtain the superiority and dominance they believe will bring them happiness, or perhaps they believe that murder will help them prove to themselves their worth and ability. Steinem calls for us to recognize this overwhelming trend and delve in to the potential causes of such terrible behavior.

Why do we expect power and dominance to go along with simple characteristics of white, male, and economically privileged? Is it possible that the “promise of superiority” carried by the “white male factor” is to blame for these mass murders and irrational behavior? Why is it that people are so in need of power and a feeling of dominance? Are we so insecure with ourselves that we must resort to violence to satisfy our desire for confidence and power? How is it possible that we allow social constructions to gain such power that they are assumed true for each member fitting in to a specific category? Further, how do we maintain individuality and a recognition of personal identity when we are constantly forcing group labels and generalizations upon each portion of our society.