Unification, But at What Cost?

In both Campbell and Benhabib's essays, the issue of feminism is discussed. Benhabib in particular pushes against the feminism (or feminisms) we still see in our society today: confused and fragmented. She states that, "The clash of multiple identities as well as of the allegiances which surround them have come out into the public; the continuous and inevitable fragmentation of identities has made it almost impossible to develop a common vision of radical transformation" (Benhabib, 3). I can certainly understand a desire to move toward change. To have disagreements within our community, to reach a point of stagnation, must constitute some sort of action. But in fact, this logic is something I cannot agree with. I would argue that the diversity we see in feminism is not something to fight against, and that even with these differences within the movement, we are making progress. Because I am of this opinion, I am greatly skeptical of Benhabib's cry for unification. And the Sojourner Truth example in Campbell's essay only provides this skepticism with more ammunition. Unification is well and good, but when it comes at the price of the narratives of women of color (and why stop there? Disabled women, LGBTQ women), is it really worth it?

To delve into this further, I'll refresh everyone's memory on Truth's speech. Honestly, I should say Gage's fiction, because in reality that is what the text Campbell references is. Gage, a white woman, took Truth's speech and gave it a dramatic element. Campbell claims that "without Gage’s artistry, which gave Truth’s speech dramatic form, we could not participate in what we imagine to be the originary moment or experience the play of ideas, the metaphors, or the interaction between Truth and her opponents" (14). I would not argue against this. Gage gives Truth's speech an agency that it would not have had otherwise.

But I would like to bring attention to Campbell's following sentence: "At the same time, Gage’s text contains the malign agency of racist stereotypes that demean Truth and those for whom she speaks" (14). This sentence points to the heart of my argument against Benhabib's call for unification and transformation. We see a woman's narrative being used to make change, but it is riddled with language that ultimately degrades her. This should not be treated as a side note. This should not be a sacrifice we must make for greater change. Racism, along with ableism and homophobia, are serious issues within the feminist movement (they are part of the reason there are multiple feminisms!), and they should not be swept under the rug for the "greater good."

This isn't necessarily an attack on Benhabib and her goals. I think that she has good intentions. But someone who confidently proclaims that they do not celebrate diversity is not someone that I want to align myself with. Let us follow Benhabib's plan of unification to its realization. What does this unification entail? The homogenizing of women everywhere, a watered down movement that centers around white, abled, heteronormative ideals. Perhaps Benhabib has a more hopeful view of a unified feminism, but she does not give it much elaboration in her essay.

I think the crux of that matter is that women are complex beings, and many have intersecting identities that constantly affect their lives and their oppression. The oppression of women varies greatly among races, cultures, and sexualities, and to argue for a simplification of this is honestly frightening to me. "But without unification, how will we make progress?" Benhabib might demand. I believe that in accepting the complexity of women's identities, in embracing diversity, we are already making strides. To homogenize the many narratives in this movement means progress will only be achieved for those who fit into the restrictions. I do not believe there is a way to make restrictions without excluding a group of women. And ultimately, the goals of feminism are not specific to one faction. They are goals that all women must be included in. Acknowledging diversity among us will help us further this movement, not inhibit it.