Sylvie Greenberg's response essay

Feminist historians Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham and Elsa Barkley Brown are both concerned by the alarming and striking exclusion of the discussion of race in feminist philosophy, theory, and general historical writings. “Womanhood,” argues Barkley Brown, is a homogenous term—and a racist double standard. “Womanhood” alone can denote all white heterosexual women, but one would have to modify it with “black” or “lesbian” in order to consider other races or sexual orientations. Both Higginbotham and Barkley Brown argue that this is because race is inherently tied to gender—and yet it is not included in gender studies because it creates ‘chaos’ in the field. For her part, Higginbotham laments the lack of consideration on the part of new wave feminist theorists in regard to women and their races. She argues that it is necessary for race to finally be included in feminist scholarship, and gives credence to her claim by providing evidence for race being intrinsically interwoven in the subject of gender. Barkley Brown explains why race is so often left out of feminist theory: mainly that feminists are afraid to break apart “womanhood” into groups based on race or sexual orientation for fear of alienating women from each other.

Higginbotham’s argument for the importance of writing on race and gender is bolstered by her claims that gender and race are intrinsically connected. She outlines the connection between gender and the very construction of race, the effect that race has on gender, class, and sexuality, and lastly how race is a dialogic tool for both oppression and liberation. Her essay leaves the reader thinking: how could race have ever been left out of this discussion before?

Elsa Barkley Brown’s piece comments on the discontent of some feminist theorists by the thought of including race in the discussion of women (which answers Higginbotham’s question of why race is so often left out). Barkley Brown argues that feminists are reluctant to pay attention to differences (e.g. racial differences) between women for they are afraid that looking at differences will push women apart rather than draw them together as a community. She says that the fear of creating a vacuum where there was common ground is like pretending there is a linear history (like a piece of linear classical music) rather than a jazz orchestra of overlapping and responsive histories—a “gumbo ya ya” of discourse. Without acknowledging and studying these differences, Barkley Brown says that false norms (such as the attitude that white heterosexual females are the norm, and everyone else is a deviation) proliferate dangerously.

Both Higginbotham and Barkley Brown draw on the work of other feminist historians and theorists to provide evidence for their claim that race is too often overlooked in regard to gender studies. Rather than refute ideas from other historians, they both use sources that they agree with to bolster their arguments. Higginbotham quotes H.L. Gates, James Jones, W.E.B. DuBois, and Dolores Janiewski, among others. Barkley Brown uses, for example, Zora Neal Hurston and Darlene Clark Hine (whose theory of ‘culture of dissemblance ‘ is especially critical to her analysis).

Atha Fong Response

Atha Fong was successful in drawing me in to the mystique and excitement of Ma Rainey, the performer. My favorite parts were when she was describing Ma physically (‘gold-toofed smiles’) and analyzing her song lyrics. She did a very good job outlining her argument and thesis, but by about page 25 I felt her thesis had become restated so many times it was a bit repetitive. I wish she had expanded upon her original thesis a bit more to include venues for further research, or at least asked more questions that could inspire the reader in more directions.

Her ability to synthesize sources was very admirable (and I enjoyed how she explained which sources she would put in concert with one another). Her references to Darlene Clark Hine’s theory put Ma Rainey’s story in context with the pieces by Higginbotham and Barkley Brown, and made Rainey all the most pertinent. Her clear abstract at the beginning of the paper was also a good organizational tool. I did feel that the end of her paper was a bit rushed. Her last point—about Ma’s performances being a double-edged sword sometimes when she preformed for whites and had the effect of both showcasing the hardships for black women and propagating stereotypes by her flashy performance and stark talk of sexuality—seemed like it deserved greater fleshing out. I wish there were a picture of the raucous Ma included—she really captivated my imagination.