While social geographers have convincingly made the case that space is not an external constant, but rather is produced through inter-relations, anthropologists and sociologists have done much to further an understanding of time, as itself constituted through social interaction and inter-relation. Their work suggests that time is not an apolitical background to social life, but shapes how we perceive and relate to others. For those interested in exploring issues such as identity, community and difference, this suggests that attending to how (...) temporal discourses are utilised in relation to these issues is a key task. This article seeks to contribute to an expansion of the debate about time and sociality by contributing an analysis of a variety of ways in which Gloria Anzaldúa utilises temporal concepts as part of her work of rethinking social identity and community. In particular, I suggest that in contesting homogeneous identity, Anzaldúa also implicitly contests linear temporal frameworks. Further, in creating new frameworks for identity, I suggest the possibility of discerning an alternative approach to time in her work that places difference at the heart of simultaneity. I suggest that the interconnection between concepts of time and community within Anzaldúa’s work indicates, more broadly, that attempts to rework understandings of relationality must be accompanied by reworked accounts of temporality. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Sodalism as Open Worldview: Conspiring to Dismantle the White FranchiseSunny Heenenin the introduction to Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza, Gloria Anzaldúa writes: “Today we ask to be met halfway. This book is our invitation to you—from the new mestizas” (Anzaldúa 20). Mestiza is a specifically feminine descriptor for a Latin female-identifying person of mixed descent. What Anzaldúa proposes in this theory of the new mestiza is a consciousness rooted (...) in “the creation of yet another culture, a new story to explain the world and our participation in it, a new value system with images and symbols that connect us to each other and to the planet” (Anzaldúa 103). Just as the mestiza gracefully learn to navigate their complex multicultural identities, fashioning a new hybrid culture within which to flourish, so can we all develop an enlightened conception of who we are. The invitation extended by Anzaldúa is not meant only for those who identify as mestiza. The who being invited to help build this new culture is the group that identifies as white; Anzaldúa believes that those she invites are capable of learning to improve their behavior and their consciousness regarding their relation to other human beings. In fact, it is this dominant group who is needed for this new story because collectively dismantling hegemonic whiteness is the only path toward the kind of inclusive culture that Anzaldúa envisions. I will argue that a proposal like Anzaldúa’s first requires a new worldview for white people: one that restructures cognition toward communal activity.An ushering in of this new worldview can be made practical, I submit, through Audre Lorde’s theory of difference. Lorde advises that it is the recognition of and embracing of our differences that has the potential to move us forward. To reclaim difference and celebrate our pluralistic world, we require an in-depth look at the ways in which identity is formed through difference, especially white identity. In an essay on defining difference, Lorde worries that it is something we respond to with fear and contempt, when instead, [End Page 32] these differences have the capacity to be the strength of our foundation as social beings: “We have no patterns for relating across our human differences as equals.... Certainly there are very real differences between us of race, age, and sex. But it is not those differences between us that are separating us. It is rather our refusal to recognize those differences, and to examine the distortions which result from our misnaming them and their effects upon human behavior and expectation” (Lorde 115). According to Lorde, we misunderstand and misuse our differences, relying on them to form dualistic identities in negation to one another, identities that sow hatred and division. It is through confronting these identities based on difference that we might begin to approach them in new ways that take us forward together and that build these patterns of relating as equals.The new worldview that I am suggesting must be, primarily, a form of education. In examining the epistemic problems of white identity, I have developed something that I call “sodalism.” The word is derived from the Latin sodalis, which holds various meanings for our purposes, including comrade, fellow, and conspirator. The theory of sodalism connotes a sense of conspiring together toward a collective purpose of betterment, toward a world in which we perceive each other as comrades and fellow humans with beneficial and beautiful differences. Sodalism refrains from becoming totalizing by making visible and celebrating a plurality of identities and experiences. This skill can be developed through educated interchange, of which Anzaldúa writes hopefully: “Whites could allow themselves to share and exchange and learn from us in a respectful way” (90). But how can white people adopt a new open consciousness that will allow this interchange? After all, according to sociologist Anibal Quijano, the colonial structure of power—whiteness—“was, and still is, the framework within which operate the other social relations” (168). If white perceptions are still lodged in these hierarchical epistemologies, where can we begin to break down these mental barriers and decolonize minds? Anzaldúa suggests... (shrink)

ABSTRACT We are concerned with borders and their crucial importance in people's lives. Throughout we place emphasis on liberatory critique and knowledge and on the importance of the forces lineages exercise in the ways we live. How might we speak of whatever is bordered and allow that of which we speak its manifest differences? How are we able to engage differences and maintain our own differences? How might we, as philosophers, speak philosophically about what is beyond philosophy? Such speaking would (...) constitute an art, a philosophical art, that is guided by unspeakable differences. After developing the concepts of border, in-between, sensibility, and mutations of lineages, we turn to Gloria Anzaldúa's accounts of border awareness and her experiences of it. Through an engagement with her account of nepantla, we offer reflections on the force that “beyond” can have in the happenings of liberatory philosophies. In doing so, we emphasize her conceptions of border arte and her manner of bringing it to expression. In that process we find parts of Alejandro Vallega's work helpful in elaborating radical exteriority, fluid margins, and “ana-chronic” sensibilities. We are engaging a philosophical understanding that gives us bridges that provide thresholds beyond philosophy. (shrink)