BLACK DIVESTMENT AND THE MASTER'S TOOLBOX

I was reading an article by critical race theorist, Zanita Fenton, "The Paradox of Hierarchy - Or Why We Always Choose The Tools of The Master's House" and I wanted to share it with those of you who are interested in examining dominance strategy in the context of black women's empowerment.

First of all, I don't agree that we always choose the master's tools.

It's problematic that whenever we talk about our strategies, that someone always interjects this preposterous notion that we are seeking to use "white people's strategies". There are many black women I've encountered online who think that anytime the word "dominance theory" is mentioned, that it means we are adopting "the white man's strategies". There is an outlandish assumption that dominance is a "foreign" concept to black people around the world and that the black slave learned the mechanisms of dominance from the white slave owner. This assumption is rooted in a (ridiculous) belief that caste systems were non-existent in Africa. It is believed that the African was introduced to the infrastructures of oppression by the white man.

Perhaps they believe that anything that black women have utilized for their own advancement must consist of something that we have stolen from "the white man's toolbox".

The notion that any type of self-actualization strategy that black women adopt is an imitation of "the white man's" dominance strategy is outlandish - and demeaning. I have encountered this mentality quite often among our people. This assumption dismisses the intellectual capital that is leveraged by black women. We are fully capable of developing our own ideologies. The assumption that we're either borrowing or stealing the tools that we wield is disturbing. Whenever I encounter black women who bring that assumption into this forum, I usually dismiss them because that mentality seems too convoluted and too puzzling for me to unpack.

When I began introducing stage four of the path of self-actualization of black women, I noticed that many black women came into the dominance theory dialogue with an expectation that we were seeking to validate "the white man's" tool box.

The white man" doesn't own every toolbox. Strategic advancement in the global arena requires more than one set of tools. The same tools that are leveraged by white people in America will not work for black women in America. We do not have a parallel existence and we do not (and should not) navigate the race landscape, or the class landscape, or the gender landscape using the same methods.

This forum intends to identify the array of unused and unsharpened tools that are available to black women who are seeking to apply dominance strategies in the global arena.

A few academics who understand the foundations of dominance theory have sent notes to me stating that I am "rewriting" dominance theory at my own forum. Perhaps I am. Is that a problem? Do I need a permission slip from white people to do so?

Should I stay within the framework that other races have constructed to evaluate the application of dominance strategy? Who says that I have to? Who says that black women have to? I am entitled to take one tool and reshape it into another. I examine tools of oppression and I decide if I can reshape those tools for other purposes.

I spoke with a womanist scholar online a few months ago who asked me to write about the intersectionality of womanist theory and dominance theory. I told her that it would require a dissertation - not a blog post! I welcome a guest column from any womanists who want to share their perspectives about how womanists interpret the black divestment imperative. Since I am not a womanist, I have refrained from making any statements in my discussions about how womanists should apply the strategies that we are identifying as a group.

As the email discussion that I was having with this inquisitive womanist prof was replayed in my mind over the span of several days, I began to think about the ideological intersections of the critical race feminist and the divested black woman. I thought about the platforms of the black woman who becomes a dominance strategist and about the foundations of a liberationist who has womanist methodologies. It is incredibly exciting for me that so many new connections are being formed on Facebook because I believe this forum will move in an entirely different direction in 2010 with a different mix of ideologies that are introduced by new participants.

Over the summer, I began to think about the change in direction that was needed for this forum. I believed that I had spent far too much time giving too much attention to those black women who entered this arena who had no intentions of committing to inner work or committing to the examination of dynamics in which we recognized that BlackThinkTM had marginalized several generations of black women.

In 2008, we had many discussions where we were identifying the requirements of stage one of the path of self-actualization. In 2009, we started having more discussions about the requirements of stage two of the path of self-actualization and the blogosphere was "abuzz" about my elevation of the black divestment imperative. I also began to focus on stage three of the path of self-actualization because I realized that there were many black women who had successfully moved through stage one and stage two.

In order for us to discuss dominance strategy in a way that will be palatable to the newly-emancipated sistas, we have to fully understand how they have been conditioned to view dominance. We have to deconstruct their fears about validating dominance. We have to examine their mental associations that link dominance and oppression because many black women whom I've engaged with do not seem to interpret dominance apart from subjugation. They have been taught to believe that we have a moral imperative to eradicate inequality. I believe it is preposterous to accept accountability for eradicating the infrastructure that will not be dismantled without any participation of its deconstruction by those who fortified it in the first place.

While Dr. Fenton evaluates "the master's tools" differently than I do, I agree with her view of the dominance landscape. She writes, "I recognize how the structures of power...will support the status quo. This inertial force is the paradox of hierarchy. The paradox of hierarchy is that it strives to affirm itself..." She goes further to say that "the indicia of success (or the markers for equality, as the case may be) are established through the structures of power."

She asserts that "...the elimination of hierarchy is nearly impossible". I agree with this observation. This reckoning is necessary for the divested black woman. I believe that the decision to refuse to accept the existence of inequality is a dangerous one. Accepting inequality does not require perpetuating inequality. It requires that we remove the blinders of an imaginary utopia as we navigate channels of power.

In the post "White Patriarchy Without All The Mess", I mentioned that Oprah's dominance strategy was not to dismantle the channels of power, and it was not to fight against those who fostered the infrastructure of inequality, buther strategy consisted of working within those power channels. Her goal was to redirect the power amassed by the power brokers to herself. Ultimately, she maneuvered well enough to claim a portion of the power for herself and to create an entirely new power base that outgrew the power base of those who had given her access.

She implemented this strategy under the radar and so that she would not be deemed a threat by those who had the power to shut her out entirely before her power base was fortified by manufactured dependencies. Oprah didn't try to dismantle "the master's house". She walked into the house as an employee of the house. She left "the master's house" intact when she began building her own house and did not seek to dismantle it.

I've seen too many black people operating with the mentality that in order to acquire something for themselves, they need to take apart what someone else has because what someone else has is an obstacle for them to attain what they desire. I believe this mentality is dysfunctional for black women who seek dominance in a global arena and it will not reap collective gains for black women.

In the discussion "We Are Not Equals!", I mentioned that I don't believe it is necessary that we embrace egalitarianism. I am not threatened by those who know how to increase the value of their levers of privilege.

I've seen numerous black women step into an arena where they have no tangible power at all, trying to tell those who control the power channels what they will and will not accept. Some of these ladies are demanding equality without realizing that equality is bartered. There is nothing in our nation's history that should lead black people to believe that equality has no price tag and no requirements. Frederick Douglass said, "Power concedes nothing without a demand" but I say that "a demand is not taken seriously at the negotiating table when you have nothing to wield that those in power want to acquire."

I have mentioned to black women in this forum that it is important that we understand the types of capital that we can acquire and that we identify the types of capital that we already possess. Often, we show up at the negotiating table listening to others act as if they are being gracious when they appraise our blue diamonds as if we are holding cubic zirconia. From where I sit, our outrage should not be directed at those who have done so brazenly - but at those who show up at the table failing to recognize that we were not bartering cubic zirconia.

I have already mentioned that the appraisal of various types of capital will differ in different constructs so we need to understand the different systems of valuation of capital that currently exist. Without that knowledge, we can't issue a demand - and be taken seriously.

Dr. Fenton writes, "Only those who have achieved (or embody) hierarchical success have the power to change its contours but these are the individuals with the greatest interest in maintaining the structures that ensure their success..."

Dr. Fenton mentions that there are two options - burn the house down or remodel the house from within. I believe there are three options - construct another house entirely (as Oprah did). Dr. Fenton admonishes that "the master's tools will not give us a new place to live." Oprah is an example of one who didn't need to use the master's tools to build her own house, she used the master's materials to produce new materials that she controlled, and she brought her own toolbox into the master's house (disguised, of course, as a lunch box).

Dr. Fenton made an observation that I have attempted to reinforce in this forum: "Make no mistake: No hierarchical structure exists on its own; each contributes to and affirms the others."

Dr. Fenton offers two suggestions for breaking the paradox:
1. "Always look beyond what you are handed and the expectable. Read between the lines. Be clear on the consequences for all."

While I don't believe that we have to change our methods based on the consequences for all, I do believe that we need to be mindful of what the consequences are and how it will impact us in the future.

2. "When you find yourself at the top of the pyramid, when you have power in a given situation, this is the most important time to challenge structures of hierarchy."

I don't believe that black women have to challenge the structures of hierarchy in all cases. I think it depends on the dominance strategy that we have implemented. There have been cases when I haven't challenged them - as part of my strategy.

The notion that the acquisition of power carries a mandate to open channels of power for those who do not have access to them - seems to only exist in the minds of marginalized people. The assumption that black women in power have to create inroads for other black people or other black women is preposterous. They don't have to share the power they have acquired with other blacks. It would be nice. They aren't obligated to do so.

This seems to be distressing to many black women who believe that they are owed some types of access to blacks in positions of power. I hope that those black women will read the discussions "Black Divestment and Condoleezzation" and "Dismantling The Mentality of Entitlement" and "We Are Not Equals!".

One blog guest said to me in a note, "I am always being misunderstood when I try to share my view in your forum" and I replied, "I don't think you are misunderstood at all. I believe that you assume that we speak the same language - when we don't."

I've mentioned in prior discussions that the assumption among black women that we all have similar experiences as black women in this country, or that we should strive to minimize our cultural, ethnic or class differences fortifies BlackThinkTM - and devalues the mosaic that black women represent. We have different ideologies and different visions of self-actualization.

There are black women who were frustrated in exchanges with me at this forum and stormed off - without examining their incorrect assumptions. They believed that they had identified the foundational assumptions that inform my ideologies. I would listen to their assumptions and I would shake my head in bewilderment. My tool box may not have the same contents as your tool box. Even if some of the tools appear to be the same, I may be utilizing those tools for different purposes. A crow bar can be used to force access - but it can also be used as a weapon.

How often have black women been surprised because they assumed that the tools in someone else's tool box would not be used as a weapon against us? How often have black women entered the class landscape without all of the necessary tools in their tool boxes - while believing that others should share?

While there is an expectation that we all should create tools for other black women to use, I think we should be cautious about doing so. Those who are using tools that they have not been properly trained to use are dangerous. Some of our sistas will only see as far as their conditioning allows them to. It will benefit all of us to be more observant about the conditioning that informs the ideologies that we encounter.

Many women in this forum are immersed in discussions on empowerment strategies that a large segment of our sistas can not even see. They don't believe that strategic dominance is even possible for black women. Who is ultimately responsible for what they can and can't see? Their vision of their own self-actualization directly impacts the tools that they will use, and it impacts the tools that they will create.

As individuals, our self-actualization hinges on our ability to produce the tools that are needed to construct the roads that we travel upon. It also hinges on our ability to navigate the roads that we did not construct.

We don't need to obsess about the tools in the "Master's tool box". We can begin crafting and sharpening our own.