Today, I wish to engage with Audrey Lorde's piece about the potential uses of anger in response to racism. The level of this utility hinges on the level of productive solutions that one can generate from the "energy and information" in this intense emotion. To paraphrase something that Professor Nixon urged us think about in our first few days of classes, "what does it do to resist and attempt to dismantle certain oppressive structures without generating new and effective solutions to take their place?" Similarly, Lorde tells us that the utility found in anger is not found when one "become[s] filled with fury, and remain[s] silent" but is discovered when anger is "expressed and translated into action IN THE SERVICE OF OUR VISION". I think that this last part is particularly important given the current rise in the “screw the police" mentality amongst the younger generation we briefly discussed in class. Taking action motivated by anger is destructive if not done with the specific intent to amend or make something better.
As someone who identifies as a visible minority and also as a woman, I found that my first reaction to Lorde's eight examples of "racist" interchanges between women was, in fact, anger. This anger derived from the fact that I have experienced many parallels to the scenarios Lorde recounted, sometimes, sadly, in the academic realm. I have come to acknowledge (and appreciate) that many of the Women and Gender studies courses that I take provide a “safe” context with people who are well-versed and acutely aware of their social location, their privilege, and the overwhelming oppressive structures in our society. However, I cannot take for granted that every student enrolled at the university has had the opportunity to examine the aforementioned in detail.
Last year I was enrolled in an American literature class, specifically geared towards race, and I found that some of our class discussions would shift the topic centre away from the actual experiences of people of color to the way that their experiences may have made the majority feel. A few times throughout the term, the concept of “reverse racism” would be discussed and I found myself feeling very upset.
To relate this back to Lorde, I found myself taking this anger and doing nothing with it but remaining silent. Lorde’s explanation of the “fear of anger” resonates with me as I reflect upon this experience because I believe that I remained silent because I was scared. As a visible minority and a woman, I was conscious of the fact that in my rebuttal, others might have thought that I had a chip on my shoulder or that my anger solely derived from the fact that I identified with the oppressed subject in question. I believed that my anger would have been rendered non-productive and that I would have been perceived as unnecessarily emotional. That my anger would not have been taken as "in the service of our vision". In short, because I am a part of visible minority, I was policing my own anger in relation to the way that I thought others would perceive it. As many of my classmates have already mentioned, this begs the question then of who is allowed to utilize anger productively and who determines when anger is considered productive, important and generative or destructive, irrational and unnecessary.
I really appreciate you brought up an acknowledgment of the “safe” context that many Women and Gender studies courses have. In WGS courses I think we are lucky to mostly be surrounded by open-minded intersectionalist feminists and sometimes I forget that not every classroom will be as accepting and aware. Every now and then in class discussions in other departments something will be brought up that I strongly disagree with but often I will not speak up to defend my opinion. You quoted Audre Lorde in that the utility of anger is not found when anger “become[s] filled with fury, and remain[s] silent.” Much of my anger is not utilized for fear of being dubbed irrational and over dramatic. The question you pose at the end of your post was very intriguing because seeing someone use their anger productively is not as common as I would like. I felt that Audra Simpson was using her anger productively and “in the service of our vision” but what is frustrating is that some people may watch her speech as say that she is being unreasonable. So even though I think I am correct in saying her anger is important and generative someone else would say it is unnecessary. The idea of policing anger has stuck with me because I wonder that if I did speak up how can I be angry in a productive way? I want to be able to generate solutions that are positive but I worry my anger will not be fluid and well said enough to be effective. I think I could learn a lot from Simpson and Lorde about how to be effectively angry and I’m sure many more readings this semester will help with the “fear of anger.”
ReplyDelete