I so loved reading Haraway’s A Manifesto of Cyborgs. I
like that the meanings I make from it are
implicitly creative and that the turnings in and backward and round about in
the text are defiant of arbitrary naming of a meaning. I like
my own confusions in reading, the wild moves of theory and the momentary
connections to the material. The whole
piece is a question.
In the same list of readings this week were parts of
Patricia Collins’ Black Feminist Thought.
Her preface brought my hooray for Haraway to a puzzling bumpy place,
which for such a text should not feel so out of place. In the preface Collins carefully names her
political purposes for “[not stressing] the
contradictions, frictions, and
inconsistencies of Black feminist
thought” (p. xiv). Collins
instead asserts a collective picture of Black Feminism(s) with particular
political aims, which she names for doing so.
I was caught when I read this by the power in this naming of
the stances we are taking, naming that there are many other possible and useful
stances, but that we, for named reasons, are taking this particular
stance. I suppose the danger here, which
Haraway attempts to avoid is the washing over of such statements in the use and
circulation of the text’s ideas. Rather
Haraway’s Manifesto makes a claim of instability its particular mission
and political work. The creative
meanings of the text are not easily washed away by removing prefacing or
footnoted or other periphery remarks that might (as in Collins) act to disrupt a
sense of stability in the text. Haraway’s
Manifesto is the disruption itself.
I do think Haraway’s political work of fore fronting the
slipperiness and theoretical nature of meaning still gets washed over, just in
different ways from Collins. While
Patricia Collin’s thinking might be taken up as any particular flag for Black
Feminism, Haraway can just be erased as eccentric, radical and overly
theorized, and so dismissed altogether.
I am painting a dim picture in my mind. Everyone, all the women, washed away. Another interpretation, and one that might be
more useful, even as I should probably keep in mind the first, is that these
texts, these stances, in tandem as part of a growing conversation among
feminists are difficult to wash away as a collective, however settled or
fractured the collective story might appear.
No comments:
Post a Comment