December 1, 2014 - 20:12
"I argue for going beyond the historicization of the intersection that limits us to questions of origins, genealogy, and provenance to focus more on the history of now, the moment of action that captures both being and becoming, both ontology and evolution" (361).
The diversity of subcultures that Nnaemeka discusses connected by shared values, attitudes and institutions make negofeminism a movement that binds people together. I found her argument about African cultures putting value on collective success and happiness to be an interesting way to look at feminism. There is a way in which the egocentric capitalist society of America is incompatible with feminism on a grand scale. But when everyone's happiness and well-being is necessary for the success of any singular person, feminism can catch fire and spread.
If values like the ones she speaks about being so important in indigenous African cultures were as widely held in America, I can see how feminism could be adopted as a universal norm instead of being seen as hindering capitalist progress. Bryn Mawr likes to rant about it all the time, but after reading this again I’ve begun to understand some of the mechanics of how the patriarchy and capitalism are intimately connected. I think in some ways Nnaemeka takes us back to the very first exercise we did with Kristin. Our horizontal and vertical identity charts are a recurring consideration for me. Though we agreed right away that our horizontal and vertical identities cannot be separated, and not all of our identities fit on a 2-dimentional graph, I keep coming back to this idea that more value is placed on our vertical identities because they connote progress and change and fast-moving advancement within one patrilineal line of descent.