Toni Cade and Audre Lorde on Blackness and Womanhood

Audre Lorde versus Toni Cade Bambara: Blackhood and Womanhood

Toni Cade Bambara’s call for black women to make challenging racism their primary concern by concentrating on blackness instead of gender has several strengths and weaknesses, such as ensuring black women have a voice or presence in black nationalist organizations or weak for assuming sexism will disappear with the end of racism (confusing). Audre Lorde, however, writes, “The need for unity is often misnamed as a need for homogeneity, and a Black feminist vision mistaken for betrayal of our common interests as a people (Lorde).” Unsurprisingly, Lorde would disagree with a black nationalist vision that embraces only blackness or blackhood without incorporating intersectionality and the multiple layers of identities each individual possesses. The idea of black solidarity geared toward ending racial oppression, sexism, and heterosexism would be attractive to Lorde, yet the problematic emphasis on blackhood would limit its effectiveness. The two thinkers would, however, come together with a shared belief that revolution begins with the individual, in the home.

Bambara’s black nationalist feminist vision has several strengths, which appear convincing, but fail to ensure an equally dedicated commitment to abolishing sexism and racism. Bambara states, for example, “And I am beginning to see, especially lately, that the usual notions of sexual differentiation in roles is an obstacle to political consciousness, that the way those terms are generally defined is a hindrance to full development (Bambara 124).” For evidence of changing traditional gender roles, she cites Fanon’s A Dying Colonialism that illustrates how traditional nuclear family units shifted away from patriarchal normativity with daughters and mothers joining the FLN and no longer marrying out of contract arrangements (Bambara 133). Though it is a sign of progress that men and women in revolutionary struggles do transcend some of the preexisting gender stereotypes, it would be naïve to assume that this means liberation. Bambara’s idealization of the Algerian anti-colonial movement’s impact on Algerian family structures, for example, ignores how male domination persists in Algeria and how women were often relegated to supportive, background roles of carrying messages, inventing alibis for men, and providing bandages and food (133). Of course these roles are significant in any struggle, but they still do not transcend gender stereotypes, despite raising consciousness of women participants through giving them a sense of responsibility and a stake in revolutionary movements. Likewise, black women working in the Black Panthers, for instance, or other black nationalist groups, found some empowerment by joining a larger movement, but were largely relegated to the background and targets of male violence and rape because of the patriarchal, military-like sub-culture. Thus, the idea of letting go of all notions of masculinity and femininity is contradictory since, like race, it will not just disappear. Stereotypical ‘women’s work’ must acquire the same value as ‘masculine’ revolutionary organizing, and both categories of organizing must be open to all genders. The best approach to reach this goal is movement dedicated to broader array of issues, such as coalitions battling racism, sexism, heterosexism, and poverty that affect everyone, not just blacks or any narrowly defined nation.

In addition, Lorde’s intersectional approach to oppression demonstrates how racism affects men and women differently. Without lens that properly place the differing systems of oppression blacks face into their own contexts, it becomes too easy to identify racism as a black man’s problem, subsuming black women’s experiences into a larger black narrative. Obviously this silences black women, and perpetuates patriarchy by emphasizing the black male experience. Moreover, as Lorde writes, “Refusing to recognize difference makes it impossible to see the different problems and pitfalls facing us as women (Lorde 287).” Therefore, open dialogue and an understanding of the nuances of racial oppression becomes necessary to include marginalized voices, such as the black lesbian experience, often perceived as a threat to black nationhood. (Lorde 290). Bambara’s desire to concentrate on blackness consequently faces immediate limitations, since blackness means different things for different people. Lorde’s experiences as a lesbian mother in an interracial relationship, for example, differ immensely from those of Shirley Chisholm, for example (Lorde). Yet both women faced racism and sexism, suggesting that the real focus of black nationalism should be uniting against the shared oppressions, instead of formulating a singular notion of blackness that must be imposed upon members of the African diaspora. As a result, black cultural nationalism, if imbued within black nationalist political projects, becomes dangerous by endeavoring to create a monolithic blackness that inevitably excludes certain voices and experiences, especially those of multiracial individuals.
Instead of creating an inclusive space that could open the door for collective liberation, black nationalism often attempts to create a black/white dichotomy based on the same binary oppositional thinking Bambara critiques in western European history that leads to another mythic norm of blackness (Bambara 124 and Lorde). Lorde herself also correctly notes the particularly strong patriarchy and homophobia within many black communities, making it hard to believe simply eradicating racism would provide liberation for women and queer folks. Furthermore, alliances among women of all colors may become essential in certain battles for reproductive rights, health, and combating sexism and rape, common issues facing people of all races and economic backgrounds.

In defense of Bambara, she does offer some compelling ideas for social change that endeavor to transcend the traditional stereotypes of the gender binary, as well as initiate the revolution on an individual level. Using the examples of Nina Simone, Abbey Lincoln, and Kathleen Cleaver, Bambara shows how black femininity can be redefined in ways that are empowering to black women because these aforementioned figures were well-known, unabashedly proud of their black skin, and contributed to the Civil Rights Movement and Black Power through their music, intellect, and organizing. These women became inspirational because they did not straighten their hair, conform to white standards of beauty, and define themselves along stereotypical notions of female inferiority or paternalism. They were measured in terms of their connection to the Struggle, but that validates a human being’s gender by how committed they were to a narrow struggle inexcusably masculinist. Though it may be tempting to eradicate all notions of femininity and masculinity for black nationalism, it is much harder to incorporate practically. Bambara correctly notes, “And a man cannot be politically correct and a chauvinist too,” but how does a man stop being a chauvinist if people are encouraged to stop seeing gender (Bambara 131)? She argues that the revolution begins with individuals, who must clean their own house by rejecting gender roles and ensure that their personal lives do not perpetuate sexism, which is something Audre Lorde would agree with (Bambara 134). Lorde, who believes the failure to recognize difference contributes to racism within feminism and sexism and homophobia within black nationalism, would argue that the revolution begins with the self who is cognizant of other systems of oppression, and resists through their social relationships.  However, Lorde would argue that acknowledging the nuances of class, sexual orientation, and gender identities within black nationalism ensures inclusion of different expressions of blackness instead of male, heterosexual domination. With continued recognition of gender as equally important, in addition to other differences, it will become harder to ignore the widespread problem of rape and male-dominated black institutions that espouse heterosexist, anti-feminist beliefs.

Another limitation of placing race as the primary concern for black women would also be the issue of interracial coalitions. Blacks are no longer the largest non-white ethnic group, nor do they possess a monopoly on racial oppression. Latina, Asian, indigenous, and immigrant women also experience racialized and gendered oppression that is intersectional, but unique from black women’s experiences because of its specific context within their separate racial backgrounds. Moreover, blacks and other minority groups often have, or at the very least, perceived, divergent interests that necessitates changing mutual attitudes. For example, immigration reform and the controversies engendered there regarding Latino immigrants and labor, have affected blacks. Blacks once had a stronger presence in the California construction industry, but have been largely replaced by Latinos, and race relations between blacks and Latinos in states like Texas are far from harmonious. A black nationalist project that embraces blackness in excess could easily drive a further wedge in black-minority relations, which would weaken multiracial coalitions that could oppose the racist environment that affects all minority communities. Lorde, who pays attention to the specific issue of intersectionality, sees the similarities in the struggles black American women and Third World women engage in, would resist focusing on creating a singular black race divorced from broader issues of race involving other ethnic groups.

Ultimately, one cannot create a hierarchy of oppressions and then decide which should be a primary concern. Black women, who stand at the intersection of class, racial, and gender oppression, are oppressed to varying degrees by the various components of their identities. Black nationalism, as espoused by Bambara, has some valid points regarding eliminating gender stereotypes, and beginning a revolution with the individual, but is undermined by its narrow focus. In order to achieve collective liberation for all of humanity, as revolutionary black nationalism often proclaims to be its goal, one must not become too caught up in a single identity group, or neglect the role of gender within organizations. Black nationalism has its value in cultivating racial pride, independent aesthetics, and strengthening African American communities, but cannot become separatist. Blacks alone will not be able to destroy racism, and neither black women alone will eliminate sexism.