Differences, Audrey Lorde, and Totalitarian Governments

In my last course with Dr Ali Raza, A Brief History Of Evil, we read 1984 and touched upon the idea that totalitarian regimes, in their pursuit of complete control over what and how people think, seek to eliminate differences among people as much as they can. Throughout that book though, I always felt like most lot of the interactions between characters (particularly those that took place between Winston and any character who succumbed to the party's propaganda) always seemed a little.. soulless. There was an element of humanity missing. The books themes explicitly touch up on a number of things: propaganda, totalitarian governments, language etc. but all of these felt like an incomplete explanation for the lack of humanity I felt in each character's interaction. 

I've found my answer in Audrey Lorde.

"Difference must be not merely tolerated, but seen as a fund of necessary polarities between which our creativity can spark like a dialectic.. Difference is that raw and powerful connection from which our personal power is forged." (The master's tool will never dismantle the master's house)

It's a pretty simple thought, but I think it's a powerful one. For Audrey Lorde, the fact of difference fundamentally shapes human interactions. It opens up a world of possibilities. Without it, we lose connection and identity. This is what was missing in 1984: when different characters interacted, the differences between characters that weren't yet erased remained unacknowledged. With barely any difference to address, the conversation felt hollow. Here's what I understand from this: some of the truest connections between people only come through when the differences between them are not just acknowledged, but encouraged and made a part of the conversation. Lorde says this explicitly: 

"Advocating the mere tolerance of difference between women is the grossest reformism. It is a total denial of the creative function of difference in our lives"

To me personally, this is powerful. I don't know if it's possible to completely understand all of the subtleties and hidden bits of nuance that are a part of every human interaction. What Lorde has done though is make me ponder the centrality differences have therein.

Anyway, this is what makes the black feminist movement so unique. It's acceptance of difference goes beyond just the upbringing of a a single downtrodden race: it accepts gendered differences within it, and sexual differences beyond that.

There's another powerful thought here. Between a totalitarian government abject denial of difference and the black feminist tradition's radical acceptance of it, it's also possible to commit another sin nestled between the two. This is the "mere tolerance of difference" she mentions and warns against. It isn't do enough to bring up oppressed people, all of the microaggressions and her issues with the academic conference are implied to be a result of that. Sure, decolonization has to fight against the process of differences being repressed, but it also needs to go beyond that and actively recognize and cultivate differences whenever it can. I suppose black feminism is all about pushing decolonization past merely tolerating them.