So I was really interested in our class discussion today and the issues brought up from our reading. I thought Mohanty did a good job at finding a new facet through which to understand solidarity beyond the confines of sisterhood. I think the most important aspect of her explanation, and the aspect that I most agreed with, was that of mobility. Someone needs to come from somewhere before they can be in solidarity with you. Where was it? It could have been on the side you are opposed to. But because Mohanty stresses the possibility of mobility, it means that we are not stuck in the same rut that previous understandings have caused.
I think that is also what keeps the individuality within the 'we.' If the individual decides to move to the side you are on, then it was their individual choice. Now that they're in a group, though, some would say that their individuality is lost. However, they can make the exact same choice to leave your group. That freedom will always be there (oh god, I hope!). This is not the case with the example of sisterhood, as Professor Renzi brought up today. If you have a sister, than you will always have a sister--that cannot change. However, with reflective solidarity, it calls for the constant reexamination of what it is you are in solidarity with. I can dig that :)
I think that's a really interesting aspect of the idea solidarity and belonging to a group, and if the group is based off something one has control over, such as one's occupation or interests, then a person can definitely retain their individuality and agency within the group, since they have the power to change their position at any time.
ReplyDeleteI think it gets complicated though, when it's applied to things like sex, gender, race, and sexual orientation. Those things are rather unchangeable, and being forced into a labelled group by something you cannot change means that you are stripped of the power to work outside of that label, doesn't it? Even if you come from different backgrounds, assumptions are made of you based on the stereotypes associated with the community you have been assigned to, and I think that makes solidarity more difficult. So while the sense of community that comes with labeling may be sometimes helpful and allow for agency and individuality, I think it can be equally as harmful.
I also liked the fact that Mohanty discussed solidarity instead of sisterhood because solidarity includes more people instead of just women, whatever that may be understood to mean. However, like hooks argued, sisterhood is also vitally important because before feminism can become a cross-cultural, cross-gendered movement, there has to be solidarity between just women, the basis of a "feminist" (meaning female) movement. This would be the first step to developing a solid movement. Next would be solidarity between all people, regardless of gender, age, race, etc.
ReplyDeleteI also liked the idea of mobility, but mobility is also tricky and can be harmful. For instance, if I am standing on the end of the football field and you are on the other end, solidarity is not sufficiently obtained if I have to move all the way to the other end and you stay just where you are (or vice versa). Furthermore, each person should be mobile in some sense by moving 50/50. That way, each person has to change and do some of the work/transformation.