ABSTRACT
Linda Alcoff’s article, “The Problem of Speaking for Others,” wrestles with the dilemma and discomfort facing feminists as they debate the issue of involvement or non-involvement in speaking “other people’s business.” As an African woman (a. k. a. “Third World”2 woman as a member of the global community, and “minority” as a member of the citadel of learning), I must admit that I find the distinction Alcoff makes between “the citadel of colonial administration” and “activists and the academy” problematic. In fact, the “unease” that speaking for others elicits “among activists and in the academy” is precisely due to the fact that, although it pretends not to, the academy actually operates like “the citadel of colonial administration” in its full regalia of arrogance and hierarchy of district
officers, court clerks, and “natives.” Both “the citadel of colonial administration” and the citadel of learning are mired in power politics; the only difference is that “the citadel of colonial administration” is always comfortable with showing off its hierarchy and hegemony but the citadel of learning is sometimes uncomfortable. It seems to me that the problem in this feminist debate about intervention or nonintervention is that of extremes: total involvement or complete withdrawal. Feminist discourse and activism have not quite figured out how to bridge the gulf between this purported irreconcilable difference. We must look for ways in which involvement (proximity) and withdrawal (distance) can evolve into a workable symbiosis that is fashioned in the crucible of mutually determined temperance.
