Searching for Sisterhood

Or, "How I Learned to Find the Power in Sisterhood and Cross This Bridge"

Here is some lovely feminist theory analysis courtesy of me!

Over break, I was reading two classics of feminist anthology. They are both wonderful books, and total must-reads for anyone who is interested in the great tradition of American activism and feminism. I would highly recommend them to anyone. One is Sisterhood is Powerful, and it is compiled by Robin Morgan. The other is This Bridge Called my Back, and its editor is Cherie Moraga. I liked them both, but I've noticed that they both have their own very distinct methods of promoting women's equality. My question is, which way is best? Or does an activist need to strike some sort of balance? (And yes, I am ultra-analyzing, but bear with me here.) Let me elaborate, as both do have their own backgrounds and quirks.

Sisterhood was published in the 1970s as "an anthology of writings from the women's liberation movement." It's considered one of the classics of that time, and it contains writings from both well-known and more obscure authors regarding what its editor, Robin Morgan, sees as the "women's experience." Morgan is the author of two other Sisterhood books, and they take their names from substituting "global" and "forever" for "powerful." My blog post "Sisterhood and Brotherhood Are Powerful, Global, and Forever" is actually based on the titles of the three Morgan books. She's also written about terrorism (Demon Lover) and politics (Anatomy of Freedom) and bills herself as a radical feminist.

What Morgan promotes is a focus on the "women's experience." She notices the way that history has often been written from the point of view of men, and she seeks to compile writings by and about women in order to pay attention to a much-overlooked "female experience." By pointing out what women have gone through, she hopes to foster a sense of solidarity and to prevent female voices from getting lost in the writing of history. Morgan is devoted to fostering a sense of "sisterhood."

The other book, This Bridge, is considered the seminal text that ushered in the third wave of feminism, and it's billed as "writings by radical women of color." The third wave is marked, among other things, by an expansion of feminism's outreach and an attention to the interlocking problems that women have faced (i.e. they also focus on racism, classism, faithism, and homophobia as well as sexism). Moraga, its editor, is adament about blurring the boundaries between groups and striking up alliances between social justice groups. She has written that one cannot be focused on ending sexism if one is not also willing to take on the problems of racism and homophobia, among others as well. Sure, she implies, sisterhood may be powerful, but forming alliances and expanding that definition of sisterhood is even more so.

Now these two views, promoting a "women's experience"/sisterhood and fostering alliances and expanding outreach, are equally valid and have their share of problems.

Morgan sees solidarity as based on a shared experience, a sisterhood, something women can all claim as their own. By having an experience that women can relate to, feminism becomes an "everywoman" sort of movement. Moraga, on the other hand, sees alliances as the way to go and that feminism should take a more active role in other social movements as well.

However, the trouble with sisterhood is that it leaves a ton of people out. Sisterhood is Powerful is a radical anthology, but most of the contributors identify as White and were fairly well-educated. None of the essays are by male allies, and only a handful are written by or about lesbians. Sisterhood certainly can be powerful, but according to whose terms? For every woman who complained about a feminine mystique (with no disrespect intended to Ms. Betty) and dissatisfaction as a domestic wife, there was another woman who was upset over having to work incredibly hard and have no time for her family. Or a woman who loved another woman and was feeling like her relationship was being ignored by the media and by a supposedly progressive social movement. If a "woman's experience" is promoted, any woman whose life did not measure up to those terms would feel left out.

But how much better is forming "this bridge" between groups? Moraga and her coeditor Gloria Anzaldua see the formation of alliances between groups and expanding feminist politics to include anti-racist and anti-homophobic activities. All of the writings in This Bridge are by minority writers. By focusing on ending racism and other social ills as well as sexism, women can then be truly empowered. The book does make a lot of sense, as many women, in particular lesbians and minority women do face interlocking forms of oppression. By being women in a patriarchal society and women of color/of a lower class/in relationships with other women in a white-preferential/materialist/heterosexist society, their burdens are even more augmented. However, the problem that Moraga runs into is the loss of a unique voice of a group. If one takes on the views and problems of others, one's voice is co-opted and expanded to include that of others. The issues that are unique to one group can become lost in the quest for alliances.

I am not entirely sure of which activist's way is best. Maybe I am overanalyzing it, because they are both legendary anthologies and should be treated as such. However, I personally think that the best way would be a delicate balance between them. Know your group and the issues that make it unique and different. But don't be afraid to reach out to other groups to gain allies and to help them in their struggles as well.