Feminist Hypocrisy

“The Masters Tool Will Never Dismantle the Masters House” by Audre Lorde represents a vivid metaphor (The Masters Tool) satirizing females for claiming to be feminists when, in fact, they seem to be following the patriarchal system previously set out by men by classifying and segregating women into groups (in this case, white, upper-class feminists vs. black, third-world, and/or lesbian feminists). Her central argument reflects upon the irony of this situation; she expresses frustration in the ignorance and hypocrisy of these women by falling into the same errors as the men they protested against. Further, Lorde emphasizes the need for a more unified everyday thought and existence between all feminist women, calling for an identity in “our [women] relative roles in joint survival” (27). 

While I agree with her point that it is hypocritical of certain feminists to classify themselves as better or more elite than others based on social rank, I find that Lorde seems to neglect that people are different and have different general outlooks on the world, even if they stand for feminism. The fact is some feminists come from white upper-class families and others from a third-world country so naturally they will view the world differently. Even if they share a common belief that men have mistreated women for thousands of years, the fact is white women did not go through slavery, wealthy women do not suffer the same as women in third-world countries, heterosexual women may not always agree with homosexuality, etc. Lorde makes a compelling argument, yet fails to fully consider the context between different classes of feminists and states, “This is a diversion of energies and a tragic repetition of racist patriarchal thought." (27). Maybe I am a cynic. Maybe I am a realist. Maybe being around an all-male environment severely sways my views towards feminism. I just do not believe bickering over the women involved in the movement serves a purpose; rather, feminists should focus on their commonalities and neglect their differences for the greater good of the cause.  

"Who is 'We'?" -- A Closer Look at Feminist Theory

Audre Lorde's The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Masters House and Adrienne Rich's Notes Toward a Politics of Location are both very critical reactions to the broad concept of Feminism. Both authors contest that the feminist theory derived from the white, middle to upper-class, educated, and Western-thinkers leaves out or marginalizes the views, contributions, and/or beliefs of women who do not fit that mold. In her essay, Lorde argues that the feminist movement cannot prosper so long as feminists reject or ignore the ideas of other feminists. She relates this ignorance of white feminism to the problems of patriarchy, the tool responsible for the inequality between man and woman:

"Women of today are still being called upon to stretch across the gap of male ignorance and to educate men as to our existence and our needs. This is an old and primary tool of all oppressors to keep the oppressed occupied with the master's concerns. Now we hear it is the task of women of Color to educate white women-in the face of tremendous resistance-as to our existence, our differences, our relative roles in our joint survival. This is a diversion of energies and a tragic repetition of racist patriarchal thought." (27)

Adrienne Rich makes a similar claim to including and embracing different views/takes on feminism. Rich goes on at length about how she has come to understand feminism through her own experiences through talking about "the body." Rich then goes on to critique many on feminists for attempting to speak for women as a whole. She argues that the concept of feminism must be inclusive to women of all race, religion, sexuality, socioeconomic status, political views, etc.

 

"There is no liberation that only knows how to say 'I'; there is no collective movement that speaks for each of us all the way through." (37)

Rich ends her argument by explaining that the shape of the feminist theory has deep roots in the African-American struggles for equality (41). This idea that Black feminism, in many ways, has a more legitimate claim to the harsh realities of discrimination and inequality shows that white liberal feminists need to fully commit themselves to including and understanding these arguments, as well as others, into their feminist rhetoric.

Lorde's Duplicitous Theory

Audre Lorde’s The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle The Master’s House, is bitey attack on the separation of feminist thought due to refusal for white feminist to recognize the inherent difference of the Black, lesbian and Third World woman.  While I applaud her gutsy and straight forward talking, her tactics were sort of cheap. She clumsily tried to clump the Third World, lesbian and black into one category. Which may be an identity for some, but for most these three things are quintessentially different.

I doubt Third World women care to much about “being” progressive feminist with the many pressing issues that cloud their existence.  Perhaps marriage or human rights is a little higher on the priority list of a lesbian Oh and lets steer clear of the whole “black struggle” for I can spend many moons and even some suns on that topic.

Lorde needs to be cognizant that her collectivizing is just as harmful as the white woman ignoring the house keeper’s feminist thoughts. By trying to sound “provocative”, Lorde accidentally perpetuates the very thought pattern she condemns. Under her paper the Third World, Black woman and lesbian become one and their individual differences are blurred. Their goals are simply to be recognized by white women.

Despite this error, Lorde’s sort of spill-the-beans method was intriguing. An image of three overweight white women, fumbling through contacts, hastily trying to find a diverse black woman at the “last hour” stayed with me. She hints at something much greater than placing poor Black lesbians at a conference. She sheds light on the “token”. White America has clung to its colored representation; a few specs here and there and now are conference is set. This is problematic and while Lorde doesn’t spend much time on it, her illumination is welcomed and notable.  

Feminism-Rich and Lorde

In the pieces “The Masters Tools Will Never Dismantle the Masters House” by Audre Lorde and “Notes towards Politics of Location” by Adrienne Rich we discover that there are some serious road blocks in the Feminist theory.  Lorde’s main argument was that the whole field of feminism is largely white middle class feminism.  Which to an extent I agree with, after all there is very little input from the poor, black and third world women.  Lorde even comments on how her own voice was inadequately represented due to the fact that the lesbian voice was also underrepresented.  She goes onto say “Even the two black women who did present here were literally found at the last hour” (25).  What sort of message does that send?  Which is why Lorde goes on to critique the field of feminine theory.  By arguing against the oversimplification of ‘special third world women’ as one collective group and pushing for understanding of their difference—not tolerance—Lorde hopes to break down the ignorance that is holding them back.  Her arguments do make a lot of sense, because we often identify with our country, race, class or sexuality way before we even identify ourselves as a man or a woman.  For example, when asked to identify myself Latino is the first thing that comes to mind.  And it is this type of thinking that causes so much division in the field of Feminist theory. Rich focused on the question ‘who is we?’ (41) And continues Lorde’s claims about the division in their field. “I was defined as white before I was defined as female” (32) Rich does pose her solution to the problem though.  She argues that we can’t shirk from the challenge because it will only isolate white feminism from the other movements involving women.  Rich pushes for figuring out who the ‘we’ is.  Over all she is for the inclusion of other feminists, stating that she needs to realize that her feelings are not at the center.  Her claim is a good one, but things like that are easier said than done.

Identity in feminism

Both of these authors Audre Lorde, the author of an essay titled The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Masters House and Adrienne Rich the author of Notes Toward A Politics Of Location, seem to be from very different, contrasted backgrounds.  Lorde is a black, lesbian, feminist who feel that feminism cannot be defined by a single list of goals, motives and shared struggles; rather feminism is divided into many different categories like race, country of origin, class and so on and so forth.  Lorde expresses that she believes that woman are constantly called to fill men in where they are ignorant of woman and that men and the nature of a patriarchal society speaks volumes to the ignorance of men.  This sort of frustration, I find merited as Lorde points out that with different social-economic status and related factors such as race the struggles for women can be entirely different.  This seems to relate to a idea presented by Rich as she views the world and her existence as one small piece of an ever expanding universe with untold diversity.  There are signs in each essay that suggest that diversity is a source of power.  Lorde says this directly; however Rich seems to more subtly approach this conclusion as she addresses the it with questions like, "Who is we?" (41).  For Rich there are many questions involving identity of a personal and collective matter, nevertheless Rich recognizes on page 38 that once something that needs to be changed is identified that the "we" has the power to change it.  The only issue that remains is finding out who the we is.  Is the we feminists in general, or black feminists, or white, or third world, or lesbian feminist?  To what extent does the establishment of identity lend itself to power for change?  Do you need a large group or many small groups with similarities that bind them?

Unstable Language

…his Journals

assume a household use;

We learn to shape from them, where nothing was

The language of a race

It is through this journal that a different language is birthed. We must assume this for if this were not the case the journal would not have to “assume a household use” it would have already been one. Therefore we can also infer that through language another race has been created in the native’s eyes; for we can only really know our selves through the juxtaposition of the other. So essentially the “learning” of language is to comprehend the idea of other races and consequently, the idea of the human race. Before “his journal” came there were no other humans, but there were a variety of fish, different species. This formation of language that beget the idea of race, that begets the human race is ironic in that it would be more logical to invert the equation to human race=different race=language. Also if we were to look at this dilemma through a post-structuralist lens, it’s ironic that the journal, catalyst for the Native’s arduous journey on comprehending this idiom, is the source of knowledge for this language. Language can never fully be grasped because we do not have the means to understand this language due to its forever changing nature. So this idea of another race, consequently human race is predicated on a journal that inadequately represents language.

They must be savages if they don't believe what we do.

It seems at though the poem Crusoe's Journal by Robinson Crusoe, is centered on a binary associated with Catholicism and mission work.  Crusoe makes many Catholic references such as "He", referring to God, "Christofer", referring to St. Christofer, and "Genesis" referring to the beginning book of the Holy Bible.  The other half of the binary refers to "Savages", meaning people who have not yet been converted to Christianity or Catholicism.  This is interesting because of the nature of colonization initiated by eastern European countries in Africa and various other countries where religious beliefs were seen as a form of modernity and civilized life.  This connotation, however is not one shared by all; though in eastern European countries colonizing territories, this ideology seemed to be generally accepted.  At the root of this thinking is the thought that if they don't think and believe what we do then they must be uncivilized.  Crusoe, in his first stanza seems to see this as inherently bizarre for he finishes the first stanza by saying, "converted cannibals/ we learn with him to eat the flesh of Christ." (24/25).  These lines seem paradoxical to the colonizer's beliefs and seem to align with those of the colonized because of the symbolic reference to communion.  It is the consumption of the body of Christ, thus making the Catholic colonizers a form of cannibals.

Crusoe's Catholocism?

"...whose sprinkling alters us / into good Fridays who recite His praise,/ parroting our master's / style and voice, we make his language ours, / converted cannibals, / we learn with him to eat the flesh of Christ."

I find this section of the first stanza to be interesting because it appears the author is drawing a connection between Crusoe's colonizing influences and the colonial nature of Catholicism. Deserted on an Island, Crusoe firmly believes it is his responsibility to impose his beliefs and his order onto an otherwise lawless and savage world. In pursuit of this goal, Crusoe encounters a native, whom he calls Friday, and appoints him as his manservant with the intent of providing a positive moral influence on Friday's savage nature. Yet here I believe the author engages in a little bit of wordplay concerning the "good Friday"as Good Friday is the day Catholics and many other Christians believe that Christ died on the Cross for our saves, saving us from our otherwise sinful and barbaric nature. The author carries this theme forward, linking the mimicking abilities of a parrot with the Catholic desire to emulate Christ in all his words and actions. Furthermore the author draws an interesting comparison between the redeeming grace of Christ and the Catholic church with the seemingly barbaric practice of the Eucharist which is central to the Catholic faith. Through the practice of the Eucharist Catholics claim to consume the actual corporeal body and blood of Jesus Christ presented under the appearance of bread and wine, a practice instituted by Christ himself at the last supper on Holy Thursday (Christ's last meal before Good Friday). Through his use of alliteration the author provides an interesting insight into the nature of "converted cannibals"; while Crusoe and Catholicism both perceive their efforts as redeeming and refining, to what extent can this binary be turned in on itself? The author's use of jungle metaphors (parrot, cannibals, cannibalism) causes the reader to not only reflect on the nature of Crusoe's "civilizing" efforts but also to re-examine our definitions of the savage and the refined.

Crusoe's Journal

“Its shape an earthen, water-bearing vessel’s/ whose sprinkling alters us into good Fridays who recite His praise,/ parroting our master’s/ style and voice, we make his language ours,/ converted cannibals/ we learn with him to eat the flesh of Christ”

                These above lines are from the poem Crusoe’s Journal by Derek Walcott.  The poem is a response to the novel 'Robinson Crusoe' written by Daniel Defoe. Which is written as an autobiography with an underlying message that one could create the British system of rule anywhere in the world.  The overarching theme in this poem is one of the colonizers colonizing.  This is seen by the dichotomy developed with the use of the words ‘his’ ‘ours’ ‘parroting’ ‘alters’ and ‘converted’. When the poet says ‘we make his language ours’ it alludes to the fact that colonizers made the natives adopt a subservient role by making them take up English as a language.   When Walcott talks about altering them into ‘good Fridays’ he is talking about the natives becoming subservient, who’ recite His praise’ which could also mean that the natives were converted. 'Friday' was also a character in the novel who is turned into a slave by Crusoe himself, furthering the colonizing theme. Another example to back up the religious connotations is that when Walcott says good Friday, he could also mean ‘Good Friday.’ Which is a religious holiday that takes place during the end of Lent, a liturgical season we just entered.  Additionally, Walcott uses the word converted, which obviously has religious connotations.  Calling them cannibals the colonizers take them and teach them to eat the body of Christ instead, moving them into a new symbolic sort of cannibalism.

First Stanza

Religion plays a tremendous role in the first stanza of "Crusoe's Journal."  Biblical imagery and references abound, as the narrator describes the land as a paradise not unlike the garden of Eden: it is "perched between ocean and green, churning forest," truly a lush "green world."  The narrator also seems to connect Crusoe to Adam.  This is ironic, however, as Adam truly was the first inhabitant of Eden, and Crusoe stumbles upon an Eden that is already inhabited.  Both, however, establish themselves as masters of their surroundings.  Adam ruled over Eve and the beasts, and Crusoe over the "good Fridays" already inhabiting the island.  There is another example of irony in the stanza when the narrator speaks of the natives' conversion to Christianity: they are "converted cannibals" that have been taught to "eat the flesh of Christ."  In this sense, if viewed through a postcolonial perspective, the narrator undermines the supposed civilizing influence of Western Christianity and exposes its nonsensical doctrines.  To extend the postcolonial analysis even further, the narrator speaks of the mimicry by the natives of the colonizing culture, and also the resulting hybridity due to the mixing of the two cultures, when he writes "parroting our master's style and voice, we make his language ours."

The Mistaken Missionary

"out of such timbers/came our profane/ Genesis/ whose Adam speaks that prose/ which, blessing some sea-rock, startles itself/ with poetry's suprise,/ in a green world, one without metaphors;/ like Christopher he bears/in speech mnemonic as a missionary's/ the Word to savages" (10-18)


The passage I have chosen likens the relationship between Crusoe and his servant to a missionary and a savage. The image is not as simple as a kind Christian coming to share the good news, nor is his method as hideous as the missionaries who converted by the sword. Rather, his servant's conversion is a subversive tactic used by Crusoe to establish himself as superior. The missionary image seems tainted, as it says "out of such timbers/ came our first book, our profane Genesis/ whose Adam speaks that prose"(10-12). This suggests that Cruse is serving as Adam, who was the first human according to the Bible. The fact that he is not the first person on the island suggests that he considers himself to be the first human, in turn suggesting that he considers the natives to be subhuman. The "prose" he speaks, from his interpretation of the Bible, only adds up to a "profane" version of Genesis. Crusoe's interpretation of the Bible and his method of being a light unto the world is perverse, and does not parallel the Bible's message. The true Christian faith was not designed to make servants out of men, but rather enable its believers to serve others in humility. For Crusoe to convert the native into a servant is to completely take the Bible out of context only to meet his own ends. This is a concept that many European explorers struggled with, including the "Christofer" mentioned in the text (16). This is likely a reference to Christopher Columbus, who after his voyage to the Americas, failed at attempting to convert the natives by the sword. His attempts did not result in rescued souls, only the loss of life. To liken Crusoe's speech to "like Christofer he bears/ in speech mnemonic as a missionary's/ the Word to savages" (16-18), is to say that he uses the Word only as a tool to exert dominance over the "savages", not to present himself as the humble servant the Bible calls its missionaries to be.

In Derek Wolcott's Crusoe;s Journal, we can see that the author is following multiple components of Post-Colonial theory; specifically, the strenuous relationship between the colonizer and the colonized. The speaker of the poem speaks for the colonized, satirizing the historically immoral "Christofer" -reference to Christopher Columbus- as a poster-child for how colonizers, notably European colonizers, praise a man of tyranny and greed. Further, Walcott says, "parroting our master's/ style and voice, we make his language ours" (Walcott lines 22 & 23). Here, Walcott is advocating for the Caribbean community to cease with their hegemonic mentality and refuse further dictation from the British colonizers. By doing so, the Caribbean people will be able to live a life free from this imperialistic era "that makes us objects, multiplies/ our natural loneliness." (Walcott lines 40 & 41). Walcott is stating that further unwarranted and unethical treatment by the British will inevitably cause them to become naturally lonely, just as Crusoe was while stranded on the Island in Defoe's novel.

Superiority and Inferiority in "Crusoe's Journal"

out of such timbers

came our first book, our profane Genesis

whose Adam speaks that prose

which, blessing some sea-rock, startles itself

with poetry’s surprise,

in a green world, one without metaphors;

like Christofer he hears

in speech

mnemonic as a missionary’s

the World to savages,

its shape an earthen, water-bearing vessel’s

whose sprinkling alters us

into Good Fridays who recite His praise,

parroting our master’s

style and voice, we make his language ours,

converted cannibals

we learn to eat the flesh of Christ.

(Walcott 92 – 93)

            In this section of Derek Walcott’s poem Crusoe’s Journal, we can see Crusoe’s attempt at rebuilding a world he remembers, the British Empire, at the expense of the new world he shipwrecked upon. This section emphasizes the importance of the Empire’s primary religion to Crusoe, which he uses and compares himself to Adam in this new environment. This indicates a kind of arrogance when one calls himself a Biblical character while using it to claim or conquer new lands. His comparison to an important Biblical character can be seen as a reflection of the British Empire colonizing other nations with a superior attitude, as if they thought themselves better and wished to help those that appeared inferior. This goes further when he becomes like a missionary to the cannibals of his island. While the lines “whose sprinkling alters us / into Good Fridays who recite His praise, / parroting our master’s / style and voice, we make his language ours” can be read as a simple praise of God, it also indicates the gradual conversion of the natives to the religion of the British Empire, Christianity. Since Friday was the name given to a captured native by Crusoe, it brings the context of assimilation into play. The line reads “…alters us / into Good Fridays…” which indicates the binary that before this religion he was a bad, a kind of situation where the colonizer (Crusoe) attempts to implant the thoughts that he (Friday) is inferior and need Crusoe and his Empire in order to become “good” (Walcott 93). Therefore, we can see both the air of superiority and the implanting of feelings of inferiority in the natives in the poem about the life of Robinson Crusoe shipwrecked on his island.

Works Cited

Walcott, Derek. “Crusoe’s Journal.” Collected Poems: 1948 – 1984. New York: Farrar, Strans &

            Groux, 1999.