A Framework for Multicultural-Feminist Theorizing: Toward a Non-Binary, Relational, and Non-Static Theorizing Process

[DRAFT 2008-2009, Sally J. Sayles-Hannon]

A Framework for Multicultural-Feminist Theorizing: Toward aNon-Binary, Relational, and Non-Static Theorizing Process

Too often, we pour the energy needed for recognizing and exploring difference into pretending those differences are insurmountable barriers, or that they do not exist at all. This results in a voluntary isolation, or false and treacherous connections. Either way, we do not develop tools for using human difference as a springboard for creative change within our lives. We speak not of human difference, but of human deviance.

Audre Lorde

As Audre Lorde explains in my epigraph to this essay,

we, as human beings, have often ignored or viewed

differences as impassable barricades between us.

Disregarding differences and/or understanding differences as

impossible obstacles has, in turn, shortchanged the

potential which recognizing our differences has for

enhancing our struggles against injustice. For this reason,

differences are often not seen positively, but are rather

viewed as deviant anomalies. I have been grappling with how

to create a process of feminist theorizing that does not

ignore the complexity of each person and, at the same time,

uses each person’s uniqueness to develop more transformative

Sayles-Hannon 2

strategies for social change. While definitions of feminism

or understandings of practice vary, I believe a shared

common goal is the pursuit of social justice. The potential

our social justice classrooms provide for coming together

around communal purposes serves as a starting point for a

realizable and transformative practice of multicultural-

feminist theorizing. That is, utilizing our differences to

create new and revise old strategies for developing feminist

theories and practices capable of generating positive, long-

lasting social change. Through class discussions, writing

exercises, readings, and teaching experiences, I have

wrestled with my own definition of multicultural-feminist

theorizing and how it could be applicable to my research and

the discipline of education more generally. At this moment

in time, I define multicultural-feminist theorizing as a

non-binary, relational, and non-static process that strives

to eliminate injustice for all human beings.

My Understanding of Multicultural-Feminist Theorizing

Unlike many contemporary forms of feminist theorizing,

which center women’s experiences, understandings, and ways

Sayles-Hannon 3

of knowing and positions all other people on the margins, my

definition of multicultural-feminist theorizing rejects the

center/periphery model.1 That is, I believe that

multicultural-feminist theorizing must not create or sustain

hierarchies between human beings by valuing one race, class,

gender, sexuality, etc. over another. Norma Alarcón, in her

essay “The Theoretical Subject(s) of This Bridge Called My Back

and Anglo-American Feminism,” explains that placing women at

the center “leads to privileging women’s way[s] of knowing

in opposition to men’s way[s] of knowing, thus sustaining

the very binary opposition that feminism would like to

change or transform” (361). In other words, placing any one

group of people at the core of a theorizing process

marginalizes all others and hinders such practices social

justice potential. Moreover, any form of theorizing that

ranks the value of certain identities over others lacks the

possibility of achieving a multicultural focus. Ella Shohat,

in her introduction to Talking Visions: Multicultural 1Please see Barbara Christian’s “The Race for Theory” (341) and Norma Alarcón’s “The Theoretical Subject(s) of This Bridge Called My Back and Anglo-American Feminism” (361) in Making Face, Making Soul/Haciendo Caras: Creative and Critical Perspectives by Feminists of Color for a discussion of the center/periphery model in feminist theory.

Sayles-Hannon 4

Feminism in a Transnational Age, explains that

‘“Multiculturalism’ . . . does not simply evoke the mere

existence of multiple culture[s]. Rather it designates a

project which calls for envisioning world history and

contemporary social life from the perspective of the radical

equality of all peoples” (1-2). In order for any project to

be multicultural, then, the project must not only be

inclusive of all peoples, but it must also equally value

each person and hir differences.

While my comprehension of multicultural-feminist

theorizing requires an all-encompassing vision that

incorporates and equitably respects each person’s

differences, it must be able to provide useful theories. In

order for theories to be applicable to all human beings, I

believe multicultural-feminist theorizing must be

simultaneously grounded in practice. Christian explains, “My

fear is that when Theory is not rooted in practice, it

becomes prescriptive, exclusive, élitist” (340). In other

words, if our theories are not grounded in and continuously

revised by our practice, they could potentially become very

Sayles-Hannon 5

dogmatic. For this reason, I believe multicultural-feminist

theorizing is an ongoing, reflective, and back-and-forth

process between theory and practice. When we simultaneously

create theory, put it into practice, reflect, and revise, we

enable our theories and practices to respond to changes in

the world. Gloria Anzaldúa, in her introduction “Haciendo

caras, una entrada,” explains that we need theories that

“will enable us to interpret what happens in the world, that

will explain how and why we relate to certain people in

specific ways, that will reflect what goes on between inner,

outer and peripheral ‘I’s within a person and between the

personal ‘I’s and collective ‘we’ of our ethnic communities”

(xxv). To summarize, not only do our theories need to have

practical functions, but they must also provide a lens for

understanding our complex selves and negotiating our

individual and community identities. In order to accomplish

this goal, the form our theories and practices take can and

will differ depending on each person’s and community’s

current needs. For example, writing, in various forms, can

be both theory and practice if the objective is to help

Sayles-Hannon 6

create positive social change at either the personal or

community level.

Like other forms of theorizing, which hold certain

premises or values, my understanding of multicultural-

feminist theorizing is guided by specific principles.

Currently, I believe multicultural-feminist theorizing must

be a non-binary, relational, and non-static process. These

values, in my view, help develop theories and practices that

are grounded in the radical equality of all human beings

and, by extension, strive for the elimination of all forms

of injustice. By using the term radical equality, I am

stressing that if our theories and practices strive to

eradicate inequality, in all its configurations, they must

begin from a foundation that equally values all human beings

regardless of differences. While I have outlined specific

premises for my conception of multicultural-feminist

theorizing, these principles should in no way be seen as a

definitive formula. The characteristics that define my

understanding of feminist theorizing will change over time

as forms of injustice and the means used to propagate

Sayles-Hannon 7

inequality mutate. Through a brief analysis of each

principle, I explain why I believe these characteristics are

necessary for multicultural-feminist theorizing. In

addition, I describe how my definition of multicultural-

feminist theorizing and its premises are useful in my own

research and the discipline of education.

Principle One: Non-Binary

A primary principle of my definition of multicultural-

feminist theorizing is that it strives for non-binary

understandings. In my view, I believe binary thinking has

and continues to prevent our theories from creating

alternative visions to the unjust status quo. Anzaldúa, in

her essay “En rapport, In Opposition: Cobrando cuentas a las

nuestras,” explains that “[a]s long as we see the world and

our experiences through white eyes—in a dominant/subordinate

way—we’re trapped in the tar and pitch of the old

manipulative and strive-for-power ways” (145). In other

words, if we continue to construct theories that utilize the

dominant, Eurocentric lens, we will be unable to escape the

binary-oppositional thinking engrained in that worldview.

Sayles-Hannon 8

Either/or and antagonistic understandings paralyze us

because they limit the possibilities for change. Instead of

recognizing our differences as useful, binary thinking pits

our differences against one another. The devastating and

fragmenting effects of binary-oppositional thinking are

easily noticeable in many identity-based movements. As

Christian explains, the Black Arts Movement’s limited

“emphasis on one way to be black resulted in the works of

southern writers being seen as non-black since the black

talk of Georgia does not sound like the black talk of

Philadelphia” (341, author’s emphasis). Furthermore, she

explains that since most advocates of the Black Arts

Movement came “from urban centers they tended to privilege

their way of speaking, thinking, writing, and to condemn

other kinds of writing as not being black enough” (341). The

Black Arts Movement’s rigid, prescriptive, and either/or

understanding of being black, in turn, created a divisive

hierarchy between black people that maintained the status-

quo.

Sayles-Hannon 9

While non-binary thinking is necessary for a theorizing

process that seeks to equally value each person’s

differences, it is also crucial for bridging the

theory/practice gap. A non-dualistic understanding is

required for conceiving theory and practice as a

simultaneous process. Leela Fernandes, in her book

Transforming Feminist Practice: Non-Violence, Social Justice

and the Possibilities of a Spiritualized Feminism, explains

that the division between theory and practices is most

noticeable when students argue “that feminist knowledge and

theory is irrelevant for real activism and practice” (50).

In other words, when our theories are disjointed from our

practices, the theory/practice split is only widened.

Fernandes further notes, “Students are frustrated . . . by

the fact that they are not given the tools to think about

alternative forms of practice that do not repeat exclusions

of the past or help them move past their privileges in the

present” (50-51). That is, when our theories and, as a

result, our practices are invested in the dominant, binary-

oppositional framework, we end up perpetuating and

Sayles-Hannon 10

maintaining the unjust status quo because we are unable to

provide viable alternatives. For this reason, non-binary

thinking is imperative for a multicultural-feminist

theorizing that views theory/practice as a constant,

ongoing, and back-and-forth process.

Principle Two: Relational

In order for multicultural-feminist theorizing to

maintain non-binary understandings of people and cultures,

the theorizing process must be relational. By relational, I

am emphasizing the need for multicultural-feminist

theorizing to understand how identities, such as race,

class, gender, sex, and other identity elements, intersect

with and influence each other. If our feminist theorizing

does not encompass a relational approach, we run the risk of

minimizing, erasing, or omitting human differences because

our theorizing does not account for the multiplicity and

complexity of identities. Lorde, in her essay, “Age, Race,

Class, and Sex: Women Redefining Difference,” explains that

“[a]s a Black lesbian feminist comfortable with the many

different ingredients of my identity, and a woman committed

Sayles-Hannon 11

to racial and sexual freedom from oppression, I find I am

constantly being encouraged to pluck out some one aspect of

myself and present this as the meaningful whole, eclipsing

or denying the other parts of self” (120). When our

theorizing process does not recognize how the various parts

of our identities relate to one another to produce a complex

whole, we can end up constructing rigid, non-relational

understandings of identities. By premising relationality in

our theorizing process, our theories and practices are

malleable enough to encompass each person’s multiplicity

without requiring people to weed out specific aspects of

their identities.

While a relational approach to multicultural-feminist

theorizing enables our theories and practices to recognize

the complexity of identities, it is also needed for our

theorizing to maintain a multicultural focus. When our

theorizing process does not include a relational approach,

we could potentially end up producing theories and practices

that are Eurocentric. If our theorizing process operates

from a Eurocentric viewpoint, our theories and practices

Sayles-Hannon 12

lose multicultural relevance. As Shohat explains, “One

challenge for First World feminists of color is how to avoid

a Eurocentric rescue narrative that substitutes the First

World woman of color for the white man (á la colonial

narrative) or the white woman (á la white feminism) rescuing

a dark woman from a dark man” (9). If our theorizing process

produces theories and practices that posit the First World

as more superior to the Third World, we perpetuate a

colonialist mentality. A colonialist approach to theorizing

does not see individuals from other countries or cultures as

equal, but rather asserts that one particular group is

better and, in turn, has the authority to decide what is

best for the other groups of people. In contrast to

Eurocentric theorizing, when our multicultural-feminist

theorizing emphasizes relationality it is able to produce

theories and practices “that speak and act dialogically

with” different cultures, histories, and/or social locations

and share “the critique of hegemony and the burden of

representation” (Shohat 9). That is, when our theorizing

operates from a relational position instead of a

Sayles-Hannon 13

hierarchical or oppositional stance, we are able to see the

importance of our various differences and find ways to use

them to enhance our struggles against injustice.

Principle Three: Non-Static

If our theories and practices are going to have any

long-term usefulness, then our multicultural-feminist

theorizing must be non-static. Non-static theorizing

requires our theories and practices to always be shifting to

accommodate for new forms of discrimination or old

injustices that have changed shape over the years. In

addition, insisting that our theories and practices must be

non-static, enables our theorizing to be an on-going process

and not some finite formula. When theorizing is seen as a

process, we highlight the fact that errors will occur, but

also that mistakes may be part of theorizing. Lorde

explains, “[W]e have, built into all of us, old blueprints

of expectation and response, old structures of oppression,

and these must be altered at the same time as we alter the

living conditions which are a result of those structures”

(123). Because we have all been immersed in the unjust

Sayles-Hannon 14

status quo, we cannot expect to rid ourselves of the

dominant worldview overnight. For this reason, our

theorizing must be able to adjust not only to external

changes in the world, but also to our internal changes.

Trinh Minh-Ha, in her book Woman, Native, Other: Writing

Postcoloniality and Feminism, explains that “[e]ach story is

at once a fragment and a whole; a whole within a whole. And

the same story has always been changing, for things which do

not shift and grow cannot continue to circulate” (123). If

we think of our individual selves as one story within a

larger story, valuing non-static theorizing allows for

individual change that, in turn, alters the larger story. As

new generations are born and older generations grow, a non-

static multicultural-feminist theorizing maintains relevance

by enabling our theorizing to not only encompass the present

reality, but the past and future realities as well. For

example, instead of defining feminism in separate

generational waves (i.e., first, second, and third wave),

non-static theorizing allows for these waves to be seen as

Sayles-Hannon 15

both individual wholes and as parts of a larger whole that

has changed over time to maintain relevance.

Multicultural Feminist-Theorizing and Multicultural

Education

Due to my very broad definition of multicultural-

feminist theorizing, I find it very applicable to my current

research on how epistemologies of whiteness are communicated

through multicultural curriculum design and pedagogical

strategies.2 In fact, I intentionally designed my definition

of multicultural-feminist theorizing in a way that would

help me with my current research on multicultural education.

Multicultural education, in my view, emphasizes inclusive

models of learning that discourage monolithic thinking by

providing multiple perspectives about knowledge, systems of

oppression, and the complexities of social identities In my

research, I argue that multicultural education has often

propagated rather than eradicated prejudiced understandings

of the world because it is rooted in a pseudo-invisible

2Please see my research on whiteness and multicultural education, “In Search of Multiculturalism: Uncovering ‘Whiteness’ in Curriculum Design and Pedagogical Strategies,” for an example of my application.

Sayles-Hannon 16

epistemology of whiteness. I define whiteness as a way a

knowing, a belief system, which not only regulates racial

boundaries, but also formulates specific processes of

understanding. To explain further, I suggest that whiteness

works to maintain the unjust status quo by emphasizing rigid

boundaries, binary-oppositional thinking, single-voiced

perspectives, and non-relational understandings (Keating

133-37). A primary objective in my research is to

demonstrate how multicultural curriculum design and

pedagogical methods operate within a white-Eurocentric

framework. After I have established the presence of

whiteness in multicultural curriculum design and pedagogical

strategies, I explore ways to uproot whiteness.

My understanding of multicultural feminist theorizing,

as a non-binary, relational, and non-static process, is

helpful for my research because it assists me with

theorizing possible strategies for uprooting whiteness. As I

continue working on my research, I seek to utilize a non-

binary and relational perspective to envision alternatives

to the oppositional models of multiculturalism that are

Sayles-Hannon 17

often employed within academic contexts.3 For example, when

multicultural curricula only presents diverse perspectives

regarding sexuality, gender, race, class, etc. in opposition

to the norm (i.e., white, heterosexual, middle-class male),

they un/intentionally substantiate the norm (Loutzenheiser

and MacIntosh 153). Instead of equally valuing all

historical, social, or cultural perspectives and

demonstrating how they intersect with and influence each

other, this add-and-stir approach creates an oppositional-

binary (e.g., heterosexual/homosexual, white/black,

male/female, etc.). The non-binary and relational qualities

of my definition of multicultural-feminist theorizing helps

me explore strategies for presenting multiple perspectives

in non-oppositional and relational ways. For instance, if I

was constructing a U.S. history course, I would not separate

different racial/ethnic categories (i.e., African-American

History, Native-American History, etc.), but rather I would

design the course to showcase the multiple, and often

contradictory, perspectives simultaneously. Organizing the

3Please see AnaLouise Keating’s Teaching Transformation: Transcultural Dialogues (11-12) for a discussion of oppositional models of multiculturalism.

Sayles-Hannon 18

course in a thematic way, around broad themes instead of

rigid categories of analysis, enables students to see

different worldviews, identities, and histories in relation,

which works to dismantle instead of perpetuate binary-

oppositional thinking.

Throughout my research on multicultural education, I

believe that my definition of multicultural-feminist

theorizing can also be applicable to the field of education

more generally. While my background in education is quite

interdisciplinary, my research and experience in the field

reveals logical empiricism as a favored way of knowing.

Logical empiricism is a sensation-grounded epistemology that

believes all knowledge can be derived from sense experiences

(e.g., observation). This process of knowing relies on

empirical (scientific) methods to validate knowledge. In the

discipline of education, scientific research that relies on

precise formulas, such as quantitative methods, is most

valued. James L. Paul and Kofi Marfo, in their essay

“Preparation of Educational Researchers in Philosophical

Foundations of Inquiry,” explain that quantitative methods

Sayles-Hannon 19

seek to provide infallible truths or laws and qualitative

approaches seek understanding (540). Accordingly,

quantitative methods are often favored because they provide

a logical and rational set of procedures that ensure, in

theory at least, that one will arrive at truth. Because

education values quantitative methods, which are static, I

suggests that my definition of multicultural-feminist

theorizing could be useful for designing and implementing

non-static research methods. For example, when research is

seen as an on-going continuous process, rather than

something that has a definite beginning and ending, we allow

our theories and practices to adjust to new information and

conditions. A good example of how non-static theorizing

could be useful for educational research is with school

desegregation. While federal legislation has mandated school

desegregation since 1954, school segregation has lived on

through geographical segregation. If education research

adopted a non-static theorizing process, then educational

theories and practices might be able to shift and

Sayles-Hannon 20

accommodate for old injustices, such as school segregation,

which have mutated over the years.

Conclusion

Throughout this essay, I have explained my current

framework for multicultural-feminist theorizing and

attempted to demonstrate the usefulness of a non-binary,

relational, and non-static theorizing process for my

research and education more generally. While my

understanding of multicultural-feminist theorizing is only

based on my current views, I do believe that a non-binary,

relational, and non-static theorizing process that works to

end injustice for all people is realizable. As I have

outlined my definition of multicultural-feminist theorizing,

I have drawn from numerous readings that seek, above all

else, to create a more just world. The theorists named in

this paper do not have the same viewpoints, identities, or

histories, but the collage presented demonstrates that our

theorizing does not have to begin from a homogenous

foundation. Instead, the weaving of different identities,

social and historical locations, and points of view enrich

Sayles-Hannon 21

and strengthen my framework for multicultural-feminist

theorizing. The polyphonic composition of voices in this

paper represents a non-binary, relational, and non-static

theorizing process in practice. For this reason, the ideas

in this paper do not posit a fixed formula for

multicultural-feminist theorizing, but rather demonstrates

that the theorizing process must be amenable to account for

new voices and concerns.

Works Cited

Alarcón, Norma. “The Theoretical Subject(s) of This Bridge

Called My Back and Anglo-American Feminism.” Making Face,

Making Soul/Haciendo Caras: Creative and Critical

Perspectives by Feminists of Color. Ed. Gloria

Anzaldúa. San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books, 1990.

356-69.

Anzaldúa, Gloria. “En rapport, In Opposition: Cobrando

cuentas a las nuestras” Making Face, Making

Sayles-Hannon 22

Soul/Haciendo Caras: Creative and Critical Perspectives

by Feminists of Color. Ed. Gloria Anzaldúa. San

Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books, 1990. 142-48.

---. “Haciendo caras, una entrada.” Introduction. Making

Face, Making Soul/Haciendo Caras: Creative and Critical

Perspectives by Feminists of Color. Ed. Gloria

Anzaldúa. San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books, 1990. xv-

xxviii.

Christian, Barbara. “The Race for Theory.” Making Face,

Making Soul/Haciendo Caras: Creative and Critical

Perspectives by Feminists of Color. Ed. Gloria

Anzaldúa. San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books, 1990.

335-45.

Fernandes, Leela. Transforming Feminist Practice: Non-

Violence, Social Justice and the Possibilities of a

Spiritualized Feminism. San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute

Books, 2003.

Keating, AnaLouise. Teaching Transformation: Transcultural

Classroom Dialogues. New York: Palgrave Macmillan,

2007.

Sayles-Hannon 23

Lorde, Audre. “Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Redefining

Difference.” Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches by

Audre Lorde. Freedom, CA: The Crossing Press, 1984.

114-23.

Loutzenheiser, Lisa and Lori MacIntosh. “Citizenships,

Sexualities, and Education.” Theory into Practice 43.2

(2004): 151-58.

Paul, James L. and Kofi Marfo. “Preparation of Educational

Researchers in Philosophical Foundations of Inquiry.”

Review of Educational Research 71.4. (2001): 525-47.

Sayles-Hannon, Sally. “In Search of Multiculturalism:

Uncovering ‘Whiteness’ in Curriculum Design and

Pedagogical Strategies.” The International Journal of

Learning 16.10 (2009): 709-719.

Shohat, Ella. Introduction. Talking Visions: Multicultural

Feminism in a Transnational Age. Ed. Ella Shohat. New

York: The MIT Press, 2001. 1-62.

Trinh, Minh-Ha. Woman, Native, Other: Writing

Postcoloniality and Feminism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana

University Press, 1989.

Sayles-Hannon 24