Classmates, there are many different types of reviews I could write in response to this week’s readings.
I could, for example, write a review that suspends our author, Ms. Alison M. Jaggar, and the writers she cites, in the perturbing form of a (white) utopic imaginary future from which she prodigiously draws to write Feminist Politics and Human Nature. We’d have a very civilized conversation on this online forum, and if we’re feeling scandalous, we’ll quibble over Jaggar’s definitions of ‘Marxism’ and ‘socialism’ and ‘feminism’, even disagree. It’ll all be in good form because we’ll smile and nod and shake hands, go our separate ways.
Or if you wanted to spin the wheel, I could write you a memo that allows our author a begrudging measure of leniency. I’ll grimace as I mete it, I’ll wince as I say it:
Dear institution,
For argument’s sake,
(for your sake)
let’s call it
a ‘symptom’,
you know,
‘of her time’.
and we’ll pretend we can’t hear the echo:
Oh, Ms. Jagger,
that good woman who just couldn’t help those little privileges of hers.
and then – if we’re really lucky – someone will chuckle and say:
Technological advances,
you know.
How can you blame a woman for never stumbling across the oppression in her backyard, down the street, around the corner?
At this last, we’ll agree to disagree.
Silence.
Eventually, I’ll sigh and placate:
okay, yes, she does mention race in her book
and yes, she admits she could be better
why, yes, she does one better, saying “it is necessary to approach all political issues with a consciousness that is explicitly feminist as well as explicitly anti-racist and explicitly socialist” (340)
And if you really pressed me, I’ll tell you Jaggar writes a couple memorable lines in this book.
Over here, she says, “A hierarchical, undemocratic, sexist and racist organization can achieve only a hierarchical, undemocratic, sexist and racist ‘revolution’” (338).
Over there, she tells us, “To emphasize women’s domination outside the market, however, is often to neglect women’s domination within the market” (159).
Then I’ll wrap that review up, conceding to you that though her logic is circular and ill-founded, it is impossible to deny a certain rigor to her intellectual and philosophic training, that Jaggar does desire a better future for herself and (a problematically vague) ‘others’, and yes, on occasion, her writing waxes poetic.
Or, I could write you a strident memo, one that points a HUGE, blinking, neon arrow at the root of the problem – that Jaggar only sees “a relatively small body of written work is available by feminists of color other than black feminists, and what is available is mainly at the level of description” and that in 1982, she believes that “So far, however, relatively few attempts exist by non-black feminists of color to develop a distinctive and comprehensive theory of women’s liberation”.
Cool.
My friends, I could write you memos that follow major philosophical through-lines of Jaggar’s arguments, give you a chapter-by-chapter assessment, highlight the major themes and takeaways. And that would be fine. But it would all cut a little too close to reifying hegemonic power structures for our tastes, right?
How about instead, I write you a memo that takes flight from your Morrison and your Roy, you’re your Ambedkar and Césaire, a splash of Ferrante, a sprinkle of DuVernay, a dash of Ng to even the keel? Wouldn’t that be nice?
So, these become are statements for our proofs:
That one Ms. Jaggar of 1982 had the raw materials, skills, and resources she needed to give a proper think about capitalism and race and racial capitalism.
That one Ms. Jaggar of 1982 had the time and wherewithal to seek perspectives outside her own, experiences outside her community, thoughts outside her boundaries.
That one Ms. Jaggar of 1982 had the opportunity to persuade her audience towards a truly expansive, honestly revolutionary understanding of a socialist feminist future.
With a murmur, the indictment:
That one Ms. Jaggar of 1982 did not do the best she could.
