I cannot afford the luxury of fighting one form of oppression only

The biggest issue with writings blogs on the readings we are assigned is that the writers are so profound in their thought and prose that commenting on what they say seems almost childish. Every utterance in "There is No Hierarchy of Oppressions" by Audre Lorde is incredibly moving, worthy of hours of contemplation. The fundamental premise of Lorde's argument is that the basic human condition is predicated on an inescapable interconnectedness (what MLK calls an "inescapable network of mutuality"), and from that she extracts two major arguments. The first argument she makes is that oppression cannot be disaggregated to be the oppression of one group and not the other, and the second is that fighting oppression on the basis of this disaggregation, that is, fighting for the oppression of one group over another, is an injustice itself. 

Lorde argues that the future is one that we all share, and so we cannot possibly benefit from the oppression of any group of people. Rather, the society we exist in, and will exist in the future, are both part of what Lorde defines as her "identity", and hence the following statement: "I know that my people cannot possibly profit from the oppression of any other group which seeks the right to peaceful existence", rather, through this denial of this peaceful existence, Lorde argues, "we diminish ourselves". This is hauntingly similar to MLK's famous quote, "Injustice everywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". What affects one directly, inevitably, affects all indirectly, because it is an obstruction to a peaceful existence in the now, and in the future. Her argument is further illustrated by the depiction that the oppression of women and of people of different sexualities is an extension of the oppression of the black race, implying that this is not a new or a different oppression, but rather an evolving oppression. Oppression, for Lorde, is a function of power, and power, as always, seeks reduce and limit all of what it is not. "And when they appear to destroy me, it will not be long before they appear to destroy you." I harp on about this in almost every blog, but I think the argument about power's function of limiting (through eliminating difference, i.e., what it is not) is the thread that ties all of what we have studied together. First they go for the blacks, then they go for women, then they go for the LGBTQ, power gradually seeks to limit what it is not. So the oppression of one group is never isolated, rather, it is in the web of all the different expressions that the oppressor seeks to limit. "Then, I know, I cannot afford the luxury of fighting one from of oppression only." 

"And so long as we are divided because of our particular identity we cannot join together in effective political action."  Her second key argument is that fighting against one oppression over the other is necessarily an injustice, because "freedom from intolerance is [not] the right of only one particular group." That is why she cannot afford the luxury of fighting one form of oppression alone, because that necessitates that the oppression of one group has primacy over the oppression of another group. The battle against oppression must be a universal exercise, not limited by the division of identities. Rather, all oppressed identities see a singular identity in their condition of oppression, in the web of vulnerability within which they are collectively enmeshed. This condition is the only condition through which a collective cry against oppression can be launched.

The repression of collective political action, through encouraging “members of oppressed groups to act against each other”, is an attempt, then, to foil the realization of this collective precarity. This precarity is collective because it is the product of a singular, evolving oppression, and it is the very recognition of this collective oppression that becomes the vehicle for locating the oppressor. Otherwise, as Lorde argues, we are divided by our particular identity, not able to join in collective political action against the oppressor.

In conclusion, then, perhaps it would suffice to say that it is essential for power to divide and conquer, for when the anthem of resistance is sung in unison, its deafening sound will vaporize the chains of oppression.