Transformation Now!: Toward a Post-Oppositional Politics of Change

3. “I am your other I”: Transformational Identity Politics

Chapter Three “I am your other I” Transformational Identity Politics In the spirit of the Mayan philosophy “In Lak Ech”—yo soy tú otro yo, I am your other I—I offer these words as a prayer for connection. Irene Lara, “Healing Sueños for Academia” Once you have discerned the meaning of a label, it may seem to define you for others, but it does not have the power to define you to yourself. James Baldwin, The Price of the Ticket Aswesearchforincreasinglyeffectivewaystouselanguageandinventtheories that can assist us in creating progressive social transformation, more equitable societies, and modes of living that value all forms of life, scholaractivist theorists in a variety of fields (including contemporary U.S. literary studies, ethnic studies, women’s studies, LGBTQ studies, and queer theory) have relied on oppositional terms like “margin/center,” “oppressed/oppressor ,” and “colonized/colonizer,” where one half of the binary represents historically disempowered groups and perspectives, and the other half representsthoseinpower .Althoughthisframeworkhasofferedausefullenswith which to analyze systemic issues, the words themselves (and the concepts theyrepresent)reinforceatroublingdichotomousstructure,thusundermining the goals we seek to achieve. Despite our intentions, we generally use these terms in ways that subtly draw on and replicate our status-quo stories and the existing power structures these stories reinforce. Take, for example, 90 • chapter three margin/centerdiscourse.If,inaclassroomdiscussion,Idrawontheperspectives of a “marginal” author in order to underscore my point, my reference automatically (yet invisibly, silently, insidiously) reasserts the centrality of the (male/heterosexual/‘white’) invisible norm.1 And yet, given the great epistemological authority often granted to personalexperiences ,thisflippedscript—wherewemarginalizetheconventional center and center the previous margin—can seem like common sense. Why not flip this script? After all, we can use our marginalized status for good: as we elevate our marginalized perspectives (our lives on the borders, as it were), we can claim epistemic privilege (our previously unacknowledged perspectives and the additional insights we have obtained from these perspectives give us intellectualauthorityandnewknowledge ). With this new knowledge—these additional perspectives—we make strong assertions designed to achieve social justice. Unfortunately,however,thebinarymargin/centerstructureweuseinthistype ofmargin/centerdiscoursesubtlypoisonsandundercutsthetransformation we’re trying to achieve. Henry Louis Gates Jr. makes a similar point in his discussion of “‘ethnic and minority’” literary studies. According to Gates, theoristsadoptingthisrhetoricofmarginalityinordertosupporttheirclaims overlookthefactthattheirreferencesto“marginalized”and“central”writers and texts reinforce existing literary values and other categories of meaning. Eveniftheyelevatethemargininordertodecentertheexistingnorm,thefact that the center has defined the margin as marginal ensures that the margin’s “privilegedsiteofculturalcritique”isitselfauthorizedbythedominatinghegemonicculturalsystem .Andso,theother’smarginalizedworldviewremains lockedinadyadicrelationshipthatunintentionally(andironically)reinforces existing power structures and social systems. Gates maintains that our attempts to transcend this binary construction have been equally ineffective and result only in a proliferation of margins, “breeding new margins within margins. . .aneverrenewedprocessofdifferentiation,evenfragmentation” (298).Andso,thedivisivestatus-quothinkingcontinues,andtheoldwornout stories remain in place. My questions about the limitations in dichotomous language structures reflect my larger concern, about the political (in)effectiveness of identity politics and other oppositional forms of resistance, especially when applied towritingsbycontemporaryU.S.feministsandothersocial-justiceactivists wholocatethemselvesonthemarginsandspeakinthevoiceoftheother(s). If,asGatessuggests,“keepinginsideandoutsidedistinctisameansofkeep- “I am your other I” • 91 ing the other elsewhere” (298), then the “radical openness and power” that marginaltheoriesseemtopromisedonotprovidesocialactorswithaneffectivelocationtotransformdominant -culturaldiscourse.Instead,wesitonour elevatedmargins—marginsdefinedbythecenter—and,asweauthoritatively claimourunique,superiorinsights,wecannothelpbutalso,simultaneously, reinforcethestatusquo.Sure—wemightchipawayatsomecentralconcepts, offer additional perspectives, and make a few small changes; however, we remain firmly entrenched in the existing system. Indeed, some of us “marginalized ” scholars might benefit from this system, when we are asked to speak as marginal people, when we use our margin as a pulpit to elevate our specific social-justice visions (andourselves). Identity politics has become increasingly ensnared in this dichotomous framework, making it less effective today than it was in the twentieth century . When I first realized the dangerous limitations in these oppositional identity-basedstrategies,Iwantedtoreactwithwildabandonment.Iwanted to entirely reject all forms of identity politics as too narrow, too worn-out, tobeeffectiveanymore.However,aftertryingoutthisanti-identity-politics perspective in my classrooms, a few conference presentations, and earlier versionsofthischapter,IrealizedthatwhenIentirelyrejectidentitypolitics, I unintentionally re-activate the oppositional dynamics I’m trying to move beyond. And so, in this chapter I develop a nonoppositional (orperhapspostoppositional ?) approach. Rather than reject all references to personal experiences or the knowledge claims we obtain from our daily lives, I consider how we might redefine identity and identity politics, using a metaphysics of interconnectedness. In the following sections, I build on the previous chapter ’s critique of self-enclosed individualism and propose an alternative to conventional identity politics that I call “transformational identity politics.” As I define the term...