I kind of agree with this statement because I am both a pessimist and a purest. So when I think of dismantling a system I think of abolishing it, not reforming it. I think that the ideal would be to completely wipe something out and start over because if you have any bit of the original version left, I think it will return to its original form. And if you try to dismantle it with its own ways it can figure out your next move. I agree with the statement, but if your role is being an activist and trying to get people to join you, most people just aren’t that radical, and if you are trying to take something established down you need numbers. There was a line that Corey Booker said during a democratic debate a few years back “We cannot sacrifice progress on the altar of purity,” and as much as I HATE to agree with him because this line was used against my favorite progressive candidates (Bernie and Warren) about universal health care… He did have a point. At that time republicans were the majority in the Senate and held the office of president, and this was pre-pandemic, so things were different, and there wasn’t much of a chance. I do however think that there would be more of a chance had those primaries happened after the first part of lockdown, but still I’m not hopeful because our way of voting by electoral college is so conservative and racist that unless we abolish that too we won’t get what we want.
Anyways my point is I like the way Audre thinks in theory and I do agree with her, but I don’t think that much progress will be made if it’s an all or nothing ideal and to be able to even suggest that, is a privileged stance (and by privilege here I mean she is an artist and writer- she was able to transcend her role in the universal world in order to become her authentic self, and in doing so she can make these statements that other women of color who maintain regular jobs and normal lives would not be able to make and stand by without repercussion). Audre’s way of thinking is great on an individual level as an artist, but I just dont think it will work itself out to be the universal. Also all of these systems were built on the back of other systems that we would need to abolish. Like above when I mentioned healthcare and the electoral college, you’d need to get into a near infinite regress in order to properly dismantle the system and the systems they were built on. Otherwise everything “fixed” within these systems will just be topical. That is why though I like what she says and agree with the statement I just don’t see it as ever working out. Personally I just don’t think much change will ever be made in regards to anything progressive whether it’s her all or nothing approach or Booker’s small steps approach. Excuse my language but I think we’re all fucked and will continue to get more fucked.


This is the best analysis of her statement that I have read so far. When I wrote mine I said I agreed but your point of view is so realistic. Like yes it sounds great, in a dreamland everything would work out just how she wants it to but in the real world things don’t work that way and the masters house will most likely never be dismantled and we will just have to suffer through it. Thank you for reminding me the real world is not that simple. Great analysis!