Difference Between Strategic Essentialism And Binary Oppositions
1309 Words6 Pages
Both concepts of strategic essentialism and binary oppositions rely on rhetoric and linguistic techniques in order to highlight issues which are caused by a hegemonic society and help change disadvantaged minorities. Binary oppositions highlight ontological separatism within rhetoric about gender, race and class. Binary oppositions create stable categories within society; however by connecting them to specific sexes they become oppressive terms that enable continued discrimination. Strategic essentialism uses this form of rhetoric in order to create a unified powerful voice of the essentialised race, class or gender group. Gloria Anzaldua address the idea of hybridity, she discusses the cross between two separate races both culturally and linguistically. Anzaldua sees her linguistic ‘mestiza’ mixture as a mode of enablement, and rejects the limited choices structured by binary opposition and favours a multiple identity (Klages). In turn she rejects the description of race and sex…show more content… Deconstructing linguistic binaries and strategic essentialism has both been used historically to eliminate social inequality in race, class and gender. Even though both strategies have limitations, strategic essentialist identifies a collective group that essentialise themselves temporally in order to enhance there public voice, hybridity deconstructs binaries and enables minorities to reject categories they have been subjected to, both historically show potential in eliminating problems of inequality.
Minority groups essentialise themselves in order to gain a public voice and subvert cultural norms. Although illustrating limitations initially, strategic essentialism highlights potential through conforming then changing the structure for minorities. Spivak coined the term strategic essentialism, Spivak believed that we must ‘take a risk of essence’ in