Beyond speaking as an "as a" and stating the "etc.": Engaging a praxis of difference

For over two decades, feminists interested in identity politics have been trying to come to terms with difference-what it is, how it is recognized, and why it matters.1 Difference, that which separates us from each other, can sometimes be so overwhelming that progress in feminist politics appears to be at a standstill. At times, as we struggle to be inclusive of cultural, social, political, and economic differences among women, we are being further marginalized culturally, socially, politically, and economically. For us, what is most significant is how we can engage a praxis of difference, that is, how we can employ political practices that are both sensitive and supportive of differences among women and other marginalized groups of people while being effective interpersonally, locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally. Initiating change while recognizing difference is arduous and fraught with contradictions because we are all embedded in the world we want to transform. But this need not be an obstacle, for contradictions can push us further in our politics and in our analyses of power. It seems to us that, as feminists, we need to pinpoint which set of power relations we want to challenge with a specific project and direct our action toward that end. It is in this sense that a praxis of difference breaks down the task of "transforming the world" into achievable "bits," into a practical politics.

Two strategies underlie our suggestion of engaging a praxis of difference-- critical reflexivity and elaborating embeddedness-which have their origins in two practices popular with feminists today-speaking as an "as a" and staging the "etc." Before turning to a discussion of a praxis of difference, we describe these practices in reverse order.

As a result of taking difference into account, feminist theorists are moving away from characterizing women as whole and alike toward distinguishing personal and separable identities for individual women and groups of women. In place of figuring out what one particular "thing" makes women women, most feminists are now differentiating women. But sometimes this differentiation is no less essentializing than claiming common ground based on biology. We suggest that experiences of and processes involving power must be key components of the study of differentiation, including questioning how power is deployed through social and political practices that oppress, exploit, marginalize, exclude, dominate, colonize, normalize, naturalize, and construct women differently. These processes, somewhat sarcastically referred to as the "etc.," cannot, and should not, refer only to those women, or that woman, whom the activist and researcher want to know but cannot. Activists and researchers are part of and complicit in these processes. Exposing our own locations within these processes, even if partial, contributes to an understanding of the way difference can be part of praxis.

Such a challenge also brings with it careful consideration of where individuals and groups of individuals are positioned within this set of processes, within the "etc." Taking into account difference in our activism (as individuals and as part of a group) and research (the entire process, including deciding on a topic, identifying participants, gathering information, and writing up the "results") forces us to question how it is that we are located where we are. In fact, rather than use "identity" as a description of who we are, we suggest using "positionings." In this way, we can refer not only to a sense of self (internally generated consciously and unconsciously) and social situation (externally imposed identities that we take on in order to "fit in"), but also an individual's or group's overt and covert locations within these various sets of power relations.2 Being able to place oneself publicly within this web of power of the "etc." is increasingly popular in both activism and research. For example, at introductory political meetings and in write-ups of research, feminists often identify themselves through phrases or sentences that reveal their own positions vis-a-vis citizenship, class, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, and sexuality. They tag themselves in light of what they see as central to the experiences of the women they speak of, work with, and write about. Disclosure of such pertinent autobiographical detail sets up the woman to speak as an "as a."3 Disentangling attachments to the world by highlighting certain "facts" assists in assessing how it is we are embedded in this web of power. By identifying ourselves as an "as a," we momentarily fix our positionings so that other people can fit us into their map of the "etc."

Even with this explanation of why a feminist speaks as an "as a" and states the "etc.," we still have an uneasy feeling when we hear or read such phrases. In our activist and academic lives, we have often come across attempts at positioning-being an "as a"-that serve merely as qualifiers and excuses, or as symbolic claims to affinity or authority when referring to those social processes-the "etc."that shape women's lives. These thoughts brought us around to the two strategies we mentioned before, critical reflexivity and elaborating embeddedness. Critical reflexivity involves "those introspective aspects of thought that are self-critical and self-consciously analytical."4 This means that we must not take our own positioning for granted, and that we need to place ourselves in relationship to other people, including bonds that tie us together as well as differences that keep us separate. Elaborating embeddedness entails questioning and requestioning how positionings are linked to and are part of a wider context. This strategy is useful in demonstrating how power is deployed through our very locations and in finding both similarities and differences in how power is wielded. Together these strategies form a base upon which a praxis of difference can promote feminist change and transform the world piece by piece.