Difference: 'A Special Third World Women Issue'

Author(s): Trinh T. Minh-ha

Source: Feminist Review, No. 25 (Spring, 1987), pp. 5-22
Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1395032
Accessed: 21/10/2010 16:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pal.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Palgrave Macmillan Journals is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Feminist
Review.

http://www.jstor.org
Dlffernce: 'A Speclal Third World Women lssue'
Trlnh T Mlnh-ha

It is thrtlltng to thtnk - to know thatfor any act of mtne, I

shat get twtceas muchpraise or twtce as much blume.It is
qutteexciting to hold the centerof the natzonalstage, with the
spectatorsnot knowtngwhetherto laugh or to weep.(ZoraNeale
Hurston, 'How It Feels to Be Colored Me')

Wordsempty out with age. Die and rise again, accordinglyinvested

with new meanings, and always equipped with a second-hand
memory.Intryingto tell something,a womanis told, shreddingherself
into opaquewords while her voice dissolveson the walls of silence.
Writing:a commitmentof language.The web of her gestures,like all
modes'ofwriting,denotesa historicalsolidarity(on the understanding
that her storyremainsinseparablefromhistory).She has been warned
of the tisk she incursby lettingwordsrunoff the rails,time and again
temptedby the desireto gearherselfto the acceptednorms.Butwhere
has obedienceled her?At best, to the satisfactionof a 'made-woman',
capableof achievingas higha masteryof discourseas that of the male
establishmentin power. Immediatelygratified,she will, as years go
by, sink into oblivion, a fate she inescapably shares with her
foresisters.How many, already,have been condemnedto premature
deathsfor havingborrowedthe master'stools andtherebyplayedinto
his hands?Solitudeis a commonprerequisite,even though this may
only mean solitude in the immediatesurroundings.Elsewhere, in
every cornerof the world,there exist womenwho, despitethe threat
of rejection,resolutelyworktowardthe unlearningof institutionaliz-
ed language,while stayingalertto every deflectionof theirbodycom-
passneedles.Sturvival,as AudreLordecomments,'is not an acaimic
skill ... It is learninghow to take our differences and make them
strengths.For the master's tools will nsver dtsmantle the master's
house.Theymayallowus temporarilyto beathimat his own game,but
they will never enable us to bringabout genuine change' (1981:99).
The moreone dependson the master'shouse for support,the less one

Faminist ew No 26 March 1987

6 Femin?st Review

hears what he doesn't want to hear. Differenceis not differenceto

some ears, but awkwardnessor incompleteness.Aphasia.Unableor
unwilling?Manyhave come to tolerate this dissimilarityand have
decidedto suspendtheirjudgements(only)wheneverthe otheris con-
cerned. Such an attitude is a step forward;at least, the dangerof
speakingfor the otherhas emergedinto consciousness.Butit is a very
smallstep indeed, since it servesas an excuse for theircomplacentig-
noranceand their reluctanceto involve themselvesin the issue. You
who understandthe dehumanizationof forced removal-relocation-
reeducation-redefinition,the humiliationof having to falsify your
own reality,yourvoice - you know. Andoften cannotsay it. Youtry
to keep on tryingto unsayit, for if you don't,they will not fail to fill in
the blankson your behalf, and you will be said.

Witha kind of pervertedlogic, they worktowardyour erasurewhile

urgingyou to keep your way of life and ethnic values within the
borders of your homelands. This is called the policy of 'separate
development'in apartheidlanguage.Tacticshave changedsince the
colonial times and indigenous cultures are no longer (overtly)
destroyed(preservethe formbut removethe content, or vice versa).
You may keep your traditional law and tribal customs among
yourselves,as long as you and your own kind are carefulnot to step
beyondthe assignedlimits.Nothinghas been left to chancewhen one
considersthe efforts madeby the white SouthAfricanauthoritiesto
distortand use the tools of westernliberalismfor the defence of their
racialisticallyindefensiblecause.Sinceno integrationis possiblewhen
terror has become the order of the day, I (not you) will give you
freedom. I will grant you autonomy - not complete autonomy,
however,for 'it is a liberalfallacyto supposethatthosewhomfreedom
is given will use it only as foreseen by those who gave it' (Manning,
1968:287). (Confidentially,I live in a state of intense fear, knowing
that western educationhas taughtyou aggressionin equality.Now I
sleep with a gun undermy pillow and lock the gate at the top of my
stairway;a singlesecondof carelessnessmaycost me my life - for life
and dominationare synonymsto me and I trembleat the slightest
movementof my servants.Betterinternyou 'foryourown good'than
be internedor 'drivento the sea' by you.) Self-determination begins
with the divisionof the land(on conditionthatI cut the cake)andI will
makesure each of you gets the parts/he deserves. Thedelimitationof
territoriesis my answerto what I perceiveas someliberals'dreamfor
'the inauguration,namely,of a systemin which SouthAfrica'smany
peopleswould resolve themselvesunreluctantlyinto one' (Manning,
1968:289). Thegoverneddo not (shouldnot) composea singlepeople;
this is why I am eager to show that South Africais not one but ten
separatenations(of which the white nationis the only one to be skin-
defined; the other nine being detexminedlargely on the basis of
language - the Zulu nation, the Swazi nation, and so on). This
 Difference,Identityand Racism 7

philosophy- I will not call it 'policy' - of 'differentiation'will allow

me to have better controlover my nation while lookingafter yours,
helpingyou therebygraduallyto standon yourown. It will enableyou
to returnto 'where you belong' whenever you are not satisfiedwith
my law and customs,or wheneveryou are no longeruseful to me. Too
bad if you considerwhat has been given to you as the leftovers of my
meals. Callit 'reservesof cheap labour'or 'bantustans'if you wish;
'separatedevelopment'meansthat each one of us mindsher/hisown
business(I will interferewhen my rightsare concernedsince I repre-
sent the state) and that your economicalpovertyis of your own mak-
ing. As for 'the Asiaticcancer,which has alreadyeaten so deeply into
the vitals of SouthAfrica,(it) ought to be resolutelyeradicated'(Jan
ChristianSmuts, quoted by Fischer, 1954:25).Non-whiteforeigners
have no partwhatsoeverin my plansandI 'willundertaketo dtive the
coolies (Indians)out of the country within four years'(LouisBotha,
quotedby Fischer,1954:25). My'passionateconcernfor the futureof
a European-typewhite society, and ... that society's tight to self-
preservation'is not a questionof colourfeeling, but of nationalism,
the 'Afrikanernationalism(which)is a formof collective selfishness;
but to say this is simply to say that it is an authentic case of na-
tionalism'(Manning,1968:278).

Wordsmanipulatedat will. As you can see, 'difference'is 'division'in

the understandingof many. It is no morethan a tool of self-defence
and conquest.YouandI mightas well not walkinto this semantictrap
which sets us up againsteach other as expectedby a certainideology
of separatism.Have you read the grievancessome of our sisters ex-
presson beingamongthe few womenchosenfor a 'SpecialThirdWorld
Women'sIssue', or on beingthe only ThirdWorldwomanat readings,
workshopsand meetings?It is as if everywhere we go, we become
Someone'sprivate zoo. GayatriChakravortySpivak spoke of their
remarking,'the maidsupstairsin the guest quarterswere women of
color'in a symposium(lS82:278);GloriaAnzaldua,of their usingher
as a token woman and her friend Nellie Wong as a 'purveyorof
resourcelists' (1981:167-8);MitsuyeYamada,of havingto start from
scratcheach time, as if-shewere 'speakingto a brandnew audienceof
people who had never known an Asian Pacific woman who is other
than the passive, sweet, etc. stereotype of the "Oriental"woman'
(1981b:71);AudreLorde,of the lack of inter-racialco-operationbet-
ween academicfeministswhose sole explanationfor the issueremains:
'We did not know who to ask' (1981:100);and Alice Walker,of the
necessityof learningto discernthe truefeminist 'forwhomracismis
inherentlyan impossibility' from the white female opportunist
'for whom racism,inasmuchas it assureswhite privilege, is an ac-
cepted way of life' (1980:137).The decisionyou and I are calledupon
to makeis fraughtwith far-reachingconsequences.Onthe one hand,it
is difficult for us to sit at table with them (the master andlor his
8 Famin?st Review

substitutes) without feeling that our presence, like that of the native
(who happens to be invited) among the anthropologists, serves to mask
the refine(I sexist and/or racist tone of their discourse, reinforcing
thereby its pretensions to universality. Given the permanent status of
'foreign workers', we - like the South African blacks who are allowed
to toil on white territories as 'migrants',but are gotten rid of and reset-
tled to the homeland area as soon as they become unprofitable labour
units continue in most cases to be treated as 'temporarysojourners',
even though we may spend our whole lifetime by their side pleading a
common cause.

the white rancher told Chato he was too old to work for him any more,
and Chato and his old woman should be out of the shack by the next
afternoon because the rancher had hired new people to work there.
That had satisfied her. To see how the white man repaid Chato's years
of loyalty and work. All of Chato's fine-sounding English didn't change
things. (SiLko,1978:57)

The lines are an excerpt of Leslie MarmonSilko's 'Lullaby'. From

the South African reserve to the American Laguna Pueblo Reserva-
tion, the story changes its backdrops but remains recognizable in the
master's indifference to the lot of his non-European workers. Yet, on
the other hand, you and I acquiesce in reviving the plot of the story,
hoping thereby that our participation from the inside will empower us
to act upon the very course of its events. Fools? It all depends on how
sharply we hone ourselves on the edge of reality; and, I venture to say,
we do it enough never to lose sight of our distinct actualities. Silence as
a refusal to partake in the story does sometimes provide us with a
means to gain a hearing. It is voice, a mode of uttering and a response
in its own right. Without other silences, however, my silence goes
unheard, unnoticed; it is simply one voice less, one more point given to
the silencers. Thus, no invitation is declined except in particular cir-
cumstances where we feel it is necessary to do so for our own well-
being. What does it matter who the sponsor is? Every opportunity is
fitted for consciousness raising; to reject it is almost tantamount to
favouring apartheid ideology. White and black stand apart (armed
legislation versus tribal law) and never the twain shall meet. There the
matter rests. Crossed fears continue to breed wars, for they feed
endlessly on each other until no conversation can possibly be carried
out without heaping up misunderstandingKs. It is, indeed, much easier
to dismiss or eliminate on the pretext of difference (destroy the other
in our minds, in our world) than to live fearlessly with and within dif-
ference(s).

'What's the difference?' as if I cared? or yes, I mean it, help me see?

Shall I quench my thirst gazing at the plums while waiting for my
helper to come by and pluck them off the branches for me? Do I really
 Difference, Identity and heis?n 9

Stills frcsn:the film Reassemblage

10 FeZministReview

askfor differenceor am Ijust sayingit's not worthtryingto find out?

Oneof the classicalquestionsourmaleworldleadersusedto throwout
in interviewswith feministswas: 'If women are to be men's equals,
how it is that historyremainsso shortof female leaders'names?'(In
otherwords, 'Tellme, what is women'scontributionto History?')Yes,
and I also remember Virginia Woolf's bishop who convincingly
declaredin the papersthat it was impossiblefor anywoman,past,pre-
sent, or to come, to have the geniusof Shakespeare(Woolf,1929:48).
From the male reader-leader'sstandpoint, again, the great male
writer-leaderis matchless. Such a narrow-mindednessmay sound
quite outmodedtoday, for sexismno longerexpressesitself blatantly
as it once did . . . and one somehow'feels sorry'for these men whose
powerextendswell beyondthe frontiersof theirterritoriesbut whose
field of visionendsat the fence of theirown yard.Yet,it is thissameig-
noranceandnarrow-mindedness that lie behindanswerssimilarto the
one quoted above from academicfeministson the scarcityof Third
Worldwomen's voices in debates: 'We didn't know who to ask.'
Historianshave, for severaldecadesnow, been repeatingthat History
with a capitalH does not exist and that it has never constitutedthe a
przorz reasoningof their discoursebut, rather,its result.Likethe an-
thropologicalstudy whose informationmay always be reordered,
refuted or completedby further research,the historicalanalysisis
nothing other than the interpretationor even transformationof
documentsgiven andfrozeninto monuments.Therewritingof history
is therefore an endless task, one to which feminist scholarshave
devoted much of their energy. The more they dig into the maze of
yellowed documentsand look into the non-registeredfacts of their
communities,the more they rejoice upon discoveringthe buried
treasuresof women'sunknownheritage.Suchfindingsdo not comeas
a godsend;they are gainedthroughgenuinecuriosity,concernandin-
terest. Whynot go and find out for yourselfwhen you don't know?
Whylet yourselfbe trappedin the mouldof permanentschoolingand
waitfor the deliveryof knowledgeas a consumerwaitsforher/hissup-
pliers'goods?The understandingof differenceis a sharedresponsibi-
lity, which requiresa minimumof willingnessto reach out to the
unknown.As AudreLordesays:
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 primarytool of all oppressors to keep the oppressed
occupied with the master's concerns. Now we hear that it is the task
of black and third world women 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 patriarchalthought. (1981:100)

Onehas to be excessivelypreoccupiedwith the master'sconcerns,

indeed,to try to explainwhy womencannothave written'theplaysof
 Dtfference, Identtty and Ractsm 11

Shakespearein the age of Shakespeare',as VirginiaWoolfdid. Sucha

waste of energyis perhapsunavoidableat certainstagesof the strug-
gle; it need not, however, be overprolonged.

'Whydo We have to be concernedwith the questionof ThirdWorld

women?After all, it is only one issue amongmanyothers.'Delete the
word ThirdWorldand the sentence immediatelyunveils its value-
loadedcliches.Generallyspeaking,a similarresultis obtainedthrough
the substitutionof wordslike ractst for sex?st,or vice versa, and the
established image of the lthtrd World Wornanin the context of
(pseudo-)feminismreadilymergeswith that of the Nattte in the con-
text of (neo-colonialist)anthropology.The problemsare intercon-
nected. Here,a plural,angryreplymaybe expected:what else do you
wish?It seemsas if no matterwhat Wedo Wearebeingresented.Now,
'in responseto complaintsof exclusionarypractices, special care is
always taken to notify minorityorganizationsand women of colorof
conferences,planningmeetings,job openings,andworkshops'(Pence,
1982:46).Once again, re-readthe statementwith the master'svoice
and with 'woman' in place of 'minority'.Muchremainsto be said
about the attitude adopted in this 'specialcare' progrsamme and its
(unavowedor unavowable)intent. Viewingthe questionthroughthe
eyes of a white sister, Ellen Pence thus writes:
Gradually,I began to realize the tremendous gap between my rhetoric
about solidarity with Third World women and my gut feelings . . . Our
idea of including women of color was to send out notices. We never
came to the business table as equals. Women of color joined us on our
terms . . .
I started seeing the similarities with how men have excluded the
participation of women in their work through Roberts Rules of Order,
encouraging us to set up subcommittees to discuss our problems but
never seeing sexism as their problem. It became clear that in many
ways I act the same way toward women of color, supporting them in
dealing with thetr issues . . . I'm now beginning to realize that in many
cases men do not understand because they have never committed
themselves to understanding and by understanding, choosing to share
their power. The lessons we've learned so well as women must be the
basis for our understanding of ourselves as oppressive to the Third
Worldwomen we work with. (1982:46-7)

No matterwhich side I belongto, once I step downinto the mudpit

to fight my adversary,I can only climbout fromit stained.Thisis the
story of the duperwho turns her/himselfinto a dupe while thinking
s/he has made a dupe of the other. The close dependency that
characterizesthe master-servantrelationshipand binds the two to
each otherfor life is an old, patentfact one can no longerdeny. Thus,
insofaras I understandhow 'sexismdehumanizesmen', I shallalsosee
12 Femtntstlu

how 'my racismmust dehumanizeme' (Pence).The inabilityto relate

the two issues and to feel them 'in my bones', as some native English
speakerswould say, has allowed me to indulgein the illusionthat I
shall remainsafe from all my negg4rs' problans and can go on
leadingan undisturbed,secure life of my own. Hegemonyand racism
are, therefore,a pressingfemiriistissue; 'as usual, the impetuscomes
from the gnssroots, activist women'smovement'.Feminism,as Bar-
baraSmithdefinesit, 'is the politicaltheoryandpracticethat struggles
to free all women . . . Anythingless than this visionof total freedomis
not feminism,but merelyfemale self-aggrandizement' (1982:49).

Onegives 'specialcare'to the old, to the disabled,andto all those who

do not matchthe stereotypeof the realwo/man.It is not unusualto en-
countercases where the sense of specialness,which comeshere with
being the 'first' or the 'only' woman, is confused with the con-
sciousnessof difference. One cannot help feeling 'special'when one
figuresamongthe rarefew to emergeabovethe anonymouscrowdand
eruoys the privilege of prepanng the way for one's 'unfortunate'
sisters.Basedon what otherwomenare not (capableof) doing,such a
rewardeasily createsa distance - if not a division - between I-who-
have -made-itandYou-who-cannot-make-it. Thus,despitemy rhetoric
of solidarity,I inwardlyresistyourentranceinto the field, for it means
StiU fom Naked Spaces- Livir
 IXfferenpee,
Ident?>tyand Ransm 13

competition,rivalryand, sooneror later, the end of my specialness.I

shall,therefore,playa doublegame:on the one hand,loudlyassertmy
right,as a(n exemplary)woman,to have access to equalopportunity;
on the other hand, quietly maintainmy privileges by helping the
master perpetuate his cycle of oppression. The reasoning holds
togetheronlyas longas he does not betrayme in my own game;andfor
that . . . I amboundto breathethe sameairhe breathes,no matterhow
pollutedit turnsout to be. Mystory,yoursperhaps,MitsuyeYamada's,
who describesherself as:
an Asian American woman thriving under the smug illusion that I was
not the stereotypic image of the Asian woman because I had a career
teaching English in a community college. I did not think anything
assertive was necessary to make my point . . . it was so much my
expected role that it ultimately rendered me invisible .. . contrary to
what I thought, I had actually been contributing to my own
stereotyping . . . When the Asian American woman is lulled into
believing that people perceive her as being different from other Asian
women (the submissive, subservient, ready-to-please, easy-to-get-
along-with Asian woman), she is kept comfortably content with the
state of things. (1981a: 36-7)

And AdrienneRich's,who perceivesher specialnessas follows:

My own luck was being born white and middle-class into a house full
of books, with a father who encouraged me to read and write. So for
about twenty years I wrote for a particular man, who criticized and
praised me and made me feel I was indeed 'special.' The obverse side
of this, of course, was that I tried for a long time to please him . . .
We seem to be special women here, we have liked to think of
ourselves as special, and we have known that men would tolerate,
even romanticize us as special, as long as our words and actions didn't
threaten their privilege of tolerating or rejecting us and our work
according to t)wetrideas of what a special woman ought to be.
(1979: 38-9)

Thereis morethan one way to relate the story of specialness.I may

orientmyselftowardthe sameend by choosinga reasoningcompletely
oppositeto the one mentionedabove. Not only do I like to think of
myselfas specialbut also as free-handed.We all have the potentialto
be special,I say, why not workfor it? Let me select those with whomI
wouldlike to sharemy blessings.Thusweavingmy cocoonandclosing
myself snugly, I then turn to my sistersand kindlyurge them to pro-
ceed alike:weave yourown/let it tie you in/in comfort/andI shallhelp
you gain/that special/ohspe-cial rec-og-ni-tion.Have you read Zora
Neale Hurston's'The "Pet" Negro System'?The policy of 'separate
development'means that we may all bloom in our garden. It also
14 Famtvn?stRevww

meansthat I am toleratedin my differenceas long as I confotmwith

the establishedrules. Don't overstep the line. Consideredboth a
dangerous species (remember the Yellow Peril in politicians'
discoursesand the descriptionsof warlikesavagesin colonialreports;
moresubtlyexpressedtoday,the fearresurfacesonlywhen someThird
Worldrepresentativesbecomes too outspoken)and an endangered
species(sufferingpatheticallyfroma 'lossof authenticity'),I amto re-
main behind the safety grille for the visitors' security and marvel.
Specialnessas a soporificsoothes,anaesthetizesmy sense of justice;it
is, to the wo/manof ambition,as effective a drugof psychologicalself-
intoxicationas alcoholis to the exiles of society. Now, I am not only
given the permissionto open up and talk, I am also encouragedto ex-
pressmy difference.Myaudienceexpects and demandsit; otherwise
people would feel as if they have been cheated:We did not come to
heara ThirdWorldmemberspeakaboutthe First(?)World,Wecameto
listento that voice of differencelikelyto bringus whatwe canwthave,
and to divertus fromthe monotonyof sameness.They, like their an-
thropologistswhose specialtyis to detect all the layersof my falseness
and truthfulness,are in a positionto decide what/who is authentic
and what/whois not. No uprootedpersonis invited to participatein
this 'special'two/man'sissue unless s/he makes up her/hismindand
paintsher/himselfthick with authenticity.Eagernot to disappoint,I
try mybest to offermybenefactorsandbenefactresseswhat they most
anxiouslyyearnfor:the possibilityof a difference,yet, a differenceor
an othernessthat will not go so far as to questionthe foundationof
their beings and makings.Their situation is not unlike that of the
Americantouristswho, lookingfor a changeof sceneryand pace in a
foreignland, such as, for example,Japan,strikeout in searchof what
they believe to be the 'real'Japan - most likely shapedafter the vi-
sion of Japanas handedto them and reflectedin televisionfilmslike
Shogun,or that of the anthropologists,whose conceptionof 'pure'an-
thropologyinducesthem to concentrateon the study of 'primitive'
('native', indigenous', or to use more neutral, technical terms:
'nonstate', 'nonclass')societies. Authenticityin such contexts turns
out to be a productthat one can buy, arrangeto one's liking,and/or
preserve.Today,the 'unspoiled'partsof Japan,the far-flunglocations
in the archipelago,are those which tourismofficialsactivelypromote
for the more adventuresomevisitors. Similarly,the Third World
representativewhomthe modernsophisticatedpublicideallyseeks is
the unspoiledAfrican,Asianor NativeAmerican,who remainsmore
preoccupiedwith her/hisimageof the real native - the trulydifferent
than with the issues of hegemony, racism,feminismand social
change(whichs/he lightlytoucheson in conformanceto the reigning
fashionof liberaldiscourse).A JapaneseactuallylooksmoreJapanese
in Americathanin Japan,but the 'real'type of Japanismoughtto be in
Japan. The less accessible the product 'made-in-Japan',the more
trustworthyit is, and the greaterthe desireto acquireand protectit.
 Difference, Identtty and Rarism 15

Difference as uniqueness or special identity is both limiting and

deceiving.If identityrefersto the whole patternof samenesswithina
humanlife, the style of a continuingme that permeatesall the changes
undergone, then difference remains within the boundary of that
which distinguishesone identity from another. This means that at
hea7+t,X must be X, Y must be Y, and X cannot be Y. Those running
aroundyellingX is not X, and X can be Y usuallyland in a hospital,a
'rehabilitation'centre, a concentrationcamp, or a res-er-va-tion.All
deviationsfrom the dominantstreamof thought, that is to say, the
belief in a permanentessence of wo/man and in an invariantbut
fragileidentity, whose 'loss'is consideredto be a 'specificallyhuman
danger',can easily fit into the categoriesof the 'mentallyill' or the
'mentallyunderdeveloped'.It is probablydifficultfor a 'normal',pro-
bingmindto recognizethat to seek is to lose, for seekingpresupposesa
separationbetween the seekerand the sought,the continuingme and
the changesit undergoes.Whatif the popularizedstory of 'identity
crisis'provesto be only a storyandnothingelse?Canidentity,indeed,
be viewed other than as a by-productof a 'manhandling'of life, one
that, in fact, refersno moreto a consistent'patternof sameness'than
to an inconsequentialprocessof otherness?HowamI to lose, maintain
or gain a (fe/male)identity when it is impossiblefor me to take up a
positionoutside this identity from which I presumablyreach in and
feel for it? Perhapsa way to portrayit is to borrowthese verses from
the Cheng-tao-ke:
You cannot take hold of it,
But you cannot lose it.
In not being able to get it, you get it.
When you are silent, it speaks;
When you speak, it is silent. (Tseu, 1970:121, xxxiv)

Differencein such an insituablecontext is that which undermines

thevery idea of identity, deferringto infinitythe layerswhose totality
forms'I'. It subvertsthe foundationsof any affirmationor vindication
of value, and cannot, thereby, ever bear in itself an absolutevalue.
The difference(within)between differenceitself and identity has so
often been ignored,and the use of the two termsso readilyconfused,
that claiminga female/ethnicidentity/differenceis commonlytanta-
mount to reviving a kind of naive 'male-tinted' romanticism.If
feminismis set forthas a demystifyingforce, then it will have to ques-
tion thoroughlythe belief in its own identity. To suppose,like Judith
KeganGardiner(1981:348-9,my italics), that 'the concept of female
identity providesa key to understandingthe special qualities of con-
temporarywritingby women . . ., the diverseways in whichwritingby
women differsfromwritingby men', and to 'proposethe preliminary
metaphor"femaleidentity is a process"for the most fundamentalof
these differences' does not, obviously, allow us to depart radically
from the master'slogic. Such a formulationendeavoursto 'reach a
16 Feminist Review

theoryof femaleidentity . . . that variesfrom the male model', andto

demonstratethat
primaryidentity for women is more flexible and relational thanfor
men. Female gender identity is more stable than male gender identity.
Female infantile identifications are less predictable than male ones . . .
thefemale counterpart of the male identity crisis may occur more
diffusely, atadifferentstage, ornotatall. (Gardiner,1981:354, my
italics)

It seemsquitecontentwith reformsthat, at best, contributeto the im-

provementand/orenlargementof the identityenclosurebut do not, in
any way, attemptto removeits fence. The constantneed to refer to
the 'malemodel'for comparisonsunavoidablymaintainsthe subject
undertutelage. For the point is not to carve one's space in 'identity
theoriesthat ignorewomen'and describesomeof the faces of female
identity, saying, like Gardiner:'I picturefemale identity as typically
less fixed, less unitary,andmoreflexiblethanmaleindividuality,both
in its primarycore and in the entire maturationalcomplexdeveloped
fromthis core' (1981:353),but patientlyto dismantlethe very notion
of core (be it static or not) and identity.

Womancan never be defined. Bat, dog, chick, mutton, tart. Queen,

madam,lady of pleasure. MISTRESS. Belle-de-nuit, woman of the
streets, fruitwoman,fallen woman. Cow, vixen, bitch. Call girl,joy
girl, workinggirl. Ladyand whore are both bred to please. The old
Womanimage-repertoire says She is a Womb,a merebaby'spouchor
'nothingbut sexuality'. She is a passive substance, a parasite, an
enigma whose mystery proves to be a snare and a delusion. She
wallows in night, disorder,immanenceand is at the same time the
'disturbingfactor(betweenmen)'andthe key to the beyond.Thefur-
ther the repertoireunfoldsits images,the moreentangledit gets in its
attemptsat capturingHer. 'Truth,Beauty, Poetry - she is All: once
moreall underthe formof the Other,All except herself', Simonede
Beauvoirwrote (1970:223).Yet, even with or becauseof Hercapacity
to embodyAll, Womanis the lesserman, and in the milieuof athlete-
mindedmen, the expression'you arejust a woman'is still resentedas
one of the worstinsults. Wo-appendedto man in sexist contextsis not
unlike Third World, Third, Minority or Colour affixed to woman in
pseudo-feministcontexts. Yearning for universality, the generic
woman, like its counterpart,the generic man, tends to efface dif-
ference within itself. Not every female is 'a real woman',one knows
this throughhearsay. . . Just as man providesan exampleof how the
part played by women has been ignored,undervalued,distortedor
omitted through the use of terminologypresumedto be generic,
woman moreoften than not reflectsthe subtlepowerof linguisticex-
clusion,for its set of referentsrarelyincludesthose relevantto Third
 Difference, Identity and Racism 17

World'femalepersons'.All the WomenAre White, All the Blacks are

Men, ButSome of UsAreBrave is the title givento an anthologyedited
by GloriaT. Hull, PatriciaBell Scott and BarbaraSmith.It is, indeed,
somehowdeviousto think that WOMAN also encompassesthe bound-
footed Chinese,the genitallymutilatedAfricansandthe one thousand
Indianswho committedsuttee or widow (self-) burningfor one royal
male. SisterCinderalla'sfoot is also enviablytiny but never crooked!
And, Europeanwitches were also burntto purifythe body of Christ,
but they do not pretendto 'self-immolation'.Third World, therefore,
belongsto a categoryapart, a 'special'one that is meant to be both
complimentaryand complementary,for Firstand Secondwent out of
fashion, leaving a seriouslack behindto be filled. To survive, Third
World must necessarily have negative and positive connotations:
negative when viewed in a vertical ranking system
'underdeveloped'comparedto over-industrialized,'underprivileged'
within the alreadySecondsex, and positive when understoodsocio-
politicallyas a subversive, 'non-aligned'force. The emergenceof an
immense repressed Voice into the worldwide political arena has
alreadypromptedJulia Kristevato ask: 'Howwill the Westgreet the
awakening of the 'third world' as the Chinese call it? Can we
(westerners)participate,activelyandlucidly,in this awakeningwhen
the centre of the planet is in the processof movingtowardthe East?'
(1980: 139). Exploited,looked down upon and lumpedtogether in a
convenient term that denies their diversity, a group of POOR
(neutralizednations),having once sided neither with the Occidental
liberaleconomytype norwith the socialisttype, has slowly taken on a
threateningface by turningthis denialto the best account.Weakness
becomes strength, one may conclude, when (un)consciousness
emerges.It is not difficult, then, to understandwhy every unaligned
voice shouldnecessarilybe either a personalor a minorityvoice. The
(impersonal)majority,as logic dictates, has to be the (aligned)domi-
nant. Notes Alice Walker:
It is, apparently, inconvenient, if not downright mind straining, for
white women scholars to think of black women as women, perhaps
because 'woman' (like 'man' among white males) is a name they are
claiming for themselves, and themselves alone. Racism decrees that if
they are now women (years ago they were ladies, but fashions change)
then black women must, perforce, be something else. (While they were
'ladies' black women could be 'women' and so on.) (1980: 133-4)

Yet, a morerevealingexampleof this exclusivemajoritymentality

is the story Walkerrelates of an exhibit of women painters at the
BrooklynMuseum:when asked 'Are there no black women painters
representedhere?' (none of them is, apparently),a white woman
feministsimplyreplied:'It's a wornen's exhibit!'(1980: 136).
18 Fexninist Review

Whatis woman?Longago, duringone of the forceful speeches she

delivered in defence of her people, SojournerTruth had been
requestedby a threatenedwhite doctorin the audienceto proveto all
those presentthat she was truly a woman:

'There are those among us,' he began in a tone characteristic of

institutional training, 'who question whether or not you are a woman.
Some feel that maybe you are a man in a woman's disguise. To satisfy
our curiosity, why don't you show your breasts to the women (sic) in
this audience?' (quoted by Bell, 1979: xxv)

It seemed,indeed, profoundlypuzzlingfor this man-childdoctor's

mindto see the Woman(or Breasts)in someonewho had 'neverbeen
helped into carriages,lifted over ditches, nor given the best places
everywhere',who had 'plowed,andplanted,andgatheredintobarns',
andwho, beyondmeasure,triumphantlyaffirmedelsewhere:'Lookat
me! Lookat my arm!... and no man could head me - and arn't I a
woman!' (Truth, 1978: 335). Definitions of womn, womanhood,
femininity, femaleness and, morerecently, offemale identity have
broughtabout the arroganceof such a sham anatomicalcuriosity -
whoseneedsmustbe 'satisfied'- andthe legitimationof a shameless-
ly dehumanizingform of Indiscretion.Differencereducedto sexual
identityis thus positedto justify and concealexploitation.The Body,
the mostvisibledifferencebetween men and women,the only one to
offer a securegroundfor those who seek the permanent,the feminine
'nature'and 'essence',remainstherebythe safest basisfor racistand
sexist ideologies. The two merging themes of Othernessand the
Identity-Bodyare precisely what Simone de Beauvoirdiscussedat
lengthin 17zeSecondSex, andcontinuedto arguein the Frenchjournal
she edited, QuestionsFeministes. The lead article written by the
editorialcollectiveunderthe title of 'Variationson CommonThemes'
explainsthe purposeof thejournalto destroythe notionof differences
between the sexes, 'whichgives a shapeand a base to the conceptof
"woman"',as follows:
Now, after centuries of men constantly repeating that wewere
different, here are woman screaming, as if they were afraid of not
being heard and as if it were an exciting discovery: 'We are different!'
Are you going fishing? No, I am going fishing.
The very theme of difference, whatever the differences are
represented to be, is useful to the oppressing group . . . any allegedly
natural feature attributed to an oppressed group is used to imprison
this group within the boundaries of a Nature which, since the group is
oppressed, ideological confusion labels 'nature of oppressed person' . . .
to demand the right to Difference without analysing its social
character is to give back the enemy an effective weapon. (1980:
214,219)
:_ ::: ...... c gcB | i I ....... l I !

DVerw, *dentiW and hoism 19

|: :F
i!

0 1:

:. _ :
| . _

i u _

...:....m

: ff7lT
S_ iS;

_
StiU from Naked Spaces- Living is Round

Difference as the editoxial collective of Questions F^ninistes

understandsand condemnsit is boundto remainan integralpart of
naturalistideology. It is the very kind of colonized-anthropo-logized
difference the master has always happilygrantedhis subordinates.
Thesearchandthe claimfor a female/ethnicidentity-differencetoday
can never be anything more than a move within the male-is-nonn-
divide-and-conquer trap. The maladylingerson. As long as wordsof
difference serve to legitimate a discourse instead of delaying its
authoxityto infinity, they are, to borrowan imagefromAudreLorde,
'noteworthyonly as decorations'. In 'An OpenLetterto MaryDaly',
LordereproachsDaly, whose vision of non-Europeanwomen in Gyn/
Ecologymainlyresultsfromher insistenceon universalizingwomen's
oppression,with utilizingher (Lorde's)words 'only to testify against
myself as a woman of color'. She further expands this commentby
specifying:
I feel you do celebrate differences between white women as a creative
force towards change, rather than a reason for misunderstandingand
20 Feqninist Review

separation. But you fail to recognize that, as women, those differences

expose all women to various forms and degrees of patriarchal
oppression, some of which we share, some of which we do not ... The
oppression of women knows no ethnic nor racial boundaries, true, but
that does not mean it is identical within those boundaries. (1980: 95)

In other words,

to imply . . . that all women suffer the same oppression simply because
we are women, is to lose sight of the many varied tools of patriarchy.
(1980: 97)

Here you prob-ablysmile, for none of us is safe from such a critique,

including I who quote Lorde in my attempts at disentangling Dif-
ference. The process of differentiation, however, continues, and
speaking near-by or together-with certainly differs from speaking for
and about. The latter aims at the finite and dwells in the realm of fixed
oppositions (subject/object difference; man/woman sexual dif-
ference), tending thereby to valorize the privileged father-daughter
relationship.

Should you visit San Francisco one day, be sure to be there sometixne
in late January or February, for you will be witnessing one of the
most spectacular festivals celebrated in America. Chinatown, which
until recently was the 'wickedest thoroughfare in the States', the taint
of 'America's dream town', a vice-ridden and overcrowded ghetto
where tourists rarely venture, is now the not-to-be-missedtourist at-
traction, an exotica famed for its packed restaurants, its Ariental
delicacies, its glittering souvenir-crammed shops and, above all, its
memorable Chinese New Year celebration. Over and over again, the
(off-)scenerepeats itself as if time no longer changes. How is theparade
born? Whwreand in what circumstances was it invented? 'Backhome'
- whose spirit this parade pretends to perpetuate - did the Chinese
celebrate their New Yearsqueezed up along the sidewalks with several
dozen of hefty policernen fAxnericanand Chinese almost alike) perch-
ed high on foot, on horseback and on motor bikes (no Chinese
policeman, however, has been seen on horsebackor on a motor bike) to
guard (what is supposed to be) their parade, shoo them, push thexn
back, or call tkm to order if they happen to get off the line while wat-
ching the procession? What do you think the motives are behind such
an ostentatious display of folklore/ of arrogance and coercive power
(besides the invariable it-is-for-your-own good answer Order usually
provides you with)?ForI myselffail to see any sign of 'celebration' in
this segregated masquerade, wherefeasters are forcibly divided into
actors and spectators, while participation exclusively consists in
either exhibiting oneself exotically on the scene, or watching the ob-
jects of exhibition distantly off the scene. ChineseNew Year thus takes
 Difference, Identity and Racism 21

on a typical dualistic westernface. Preserve theform of the old in the

context-content of the new; this is what decoration means. Power ar-
rogates to itself the right to interffierein every mass event that takes
place, and thefeast no longer belongs to the people, whosejoint merry-
making cannot be viewed other than as a potential threat to Power.
Tell me, where are those public celebrations described in tourist
guides, that 'spill onto every street in Chinatown and transform the
squares into fairgrounds'?

Notes

Trinh T. Minh-ha is a writer, film maker and composer. She has contributed
writings in the areas of theory and criticism, film, music, feminism and Third
Worldliterature. Her work also includes the books Un art sans oeurre, African
Spaces (in coll.), Woman, Native, Other (forthcoming) and En min?ules (a
book of poems), and the films ReassembZge and Naked Spaces - Living ts
Round. She presently teaches in the Department of Cinema at San Francisco
State University.

References

ANZALDUA, Gloria (1981) 'Speaking in Tongues: A Letter to 3rd World

Women Writers' in MORAGAand ANZALDUA(1981).
DE BEAUVOIR,Simone (1952, rpt 1970) TheSecond Sex New York:Bantam.
BELL, Roseann P. et al (1979) eds Sturdy Blgk Bridges: V?sions of Blgk
Womenin Literature New York:Anchor Press/Doubleday.
BLICKSILVER, Edith (1978) ed The Ethnic Amertcan Woman Dubuque,
Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishers Cie.
FISCHER,Louis (1954) Gandhi: H?sLife and Messagefor the WorldNew York:
The New American Libraryof WorldLiterature Inc.
GARDINER, Judith (1981) 'On Female Identity and Writing by Women',
Critical Inquiry Vol. 8, No 2.
HULL, Gloria T., SCO1F, Patricia Bell and SMITH, Barbara (1982) eds But
Some of Us are Brave New York:The Feminist Press.
KRISTEVA, Julia (1980) 'Women Can Never Be Defined', trans. Marilyn A.
August in MARKSand DE COURTIVON (1980).
LORDE, Audre (1981) 'The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's
House' in MORAGAand ANZALDUA(1981).
MANNING, Charles A.W. (1968) 'In Defense of Apartheid' in MOOREand
DUNBAR(1968).
MARKS, Elaine and DE COURTIVON, Isabelle (1980) eds New French
Feminwm Amherst: University of MassachusettsPress.
MOORE,Charles D. and DUNBAR, Ann (1968) eds Africa Yesterday and To-
day New York:Bantam.
MORAGA, Cherrie and ANZALDUA, Gloria (1981) eds This Bridge Called
My Back. Writings by Radical Women of Color Watertown, Mass.:
Persephone Press.
PENCE, Ellen (1982) 'Racism - A White Issue' in SCO1Tand SMITH
(1982).
22 Fexninist Review

QUESTIONSFItMINISTES(1980) 'Variations on Common Themes', in MARKS

and DE COURTIVON (1980).
RICH,Adrienne (1979) OnLies,Secretsand Silce New York:W.W. Norton &
Cie.
(1978).
SILKO,Leslie Marmon (1978) 'Lullaby'in BLICKSILVER
SMITH, Barbara (1982) 'Racism and Women's Studies' in HULL, SCOlT and
SMITH(1982).
SPIVAK, Gayatri Chakravorty (1982) 'The Politics of Interpretations'
CriticalInquiryVol. 9, No. 1.
STERNBURG,Janet (1980) ed on Her WorkNew York:W.W. Nor-
17weWrxvter
ton & Cie.
(1978).
TRUTH,Sojourner 'Speech of Woman'sSuffrage' in BLICKSILVER
TSEU, Lao Cheng-tao-kequoted in WA1TS(1970).
WALKER,Alice (1980) 'One Child of One's Own: A Meaningful Disgression
Within the Work(s)'in STERNBURG(1980).
WATTS, Alan W. (1958, rpt 1970) Nature,Manand WomanNew York: Vin-
tage Books.
WOOLF, Virginia (1929) A Room of One'sOwn New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
YAMADA, Mitsuye (1981a) 'Invisibility Is An Unnatural Disaster: Reflections
of An Asian American Woman'in MORAGAand ANZALDUA(1981).
YAMADA, Mitsuye (1981b) 'Asian Pacific American Women and Feminism' in
MORAGAand ANZALDUA(1981).