Simply Complex

When an idea enters my mind, it sometimes (well, more times then not) stays there. It sends my mind ablaze and it drives me crazy. The topic of space. How far out does it really go? Is there another Earth? If there is, are there humans? And don’t even get me started on the history of language. How did it start? Why are there so many variations? Who came up with an idea of a system of symbols, now known as the alphabet? But the topic that has recently got to my mind is the idea of “strong objectivity.”

I have never heard that term before, let alone gave it much thought. In his article, “’Telling The Story Her Own Way’: The Role of Feminist Standpoint Theory In Rhetorical Studies”, Glen McClish says “an oppressed group such as women is more valid than the knowledge of those in dominant positions” (28) and “standpoints are not absolute but constituted by social positions, they also propose that the knowledge of those who are marginalized is less partial than that of those who hold societal power” (30). Is it necessarily true that dominant groups are oblivious to marginalized groups? I would have to say that’s true in any situation. In the work force the “cubical workers” know who the CFOs or the CEOs are but it’s not the case when the situation is flipped. It has me questioning the structural patterns of several different places I go. In class, for instance, I know who my teacher is. But in my large lectures… does the professor know each and every student (the marginalized groups)? Not necessarily. So when it comes to different standpoints… do these marginalized groups have a more “educated” theory? You betcha. They have their own theories regarding their own group and have background of the dominant groups. Those said “dominant groups” think they know all about the smaller groups but they are actually blind to the (sometimes harsh) reality of the marginalized group's world.

McClish also mentioned that “’social phenomena’ such as race, class, and gender mutually construct one another… binary paradigms based on ‘race-only or gender-only conceptual frameworks’ are incomplete” (29).And before this class, I haven’t given much thought to the idea that I am made up of several different “pieces” and that if I don’t acknowledge each piece then I’m not “complete.” Before this course, I didn’t give much thought to the idea that I was complex. I thought I was simply… a Caucasian woman. But then I got myself to extend that idea. Now I believe myself to be a daughter and a ‘sister’. I am a friend and a godmother. I am an athlete and a coach. But since I am young, I am still trying to grow and learn more about myself each and everyday. And sometimes I can’t help wondering how different I would be if I was an African American or Asian woman. Or if I was a homosexual. Or if I was homeless. Everything would be different. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that I can’t truly understand the lives of other people/women, such as Harriet Jacobs and Marjane Satrapi, until I, as cliché as it sounds, put myself in their shoes. Or maybe I won’t understand them until I fully understand myself? I still don’t know.

I'm walking in circles again.
Joy :)