Angela Davis and Albert Memmi: Ideas, Problems, and Solutions

March 26th, 2021

Angela Davis’s Women, Race, and Class and Albert Memmi’s The Colonizer and the Colonized both examine issues pertaining to race, class, and gender. In Davis’s version of the United States, black women have suffered under slavery and its legacy, while in Memmi’s Tunisia, citizens endured the colonial regime and its legacy. In both of these cases, the groups that Davis or Memmi write about are oppressed by the ruling class — subject to violence, repression, poverty, and bigotry; denied fair opportunity and deliberately disenfranchised. Both Davis and Memmi are focused on the goal of universal emancipation, the freeing of the oppressed classes and the elimination of the institutions that held them down. While both of these texts provide tremendous insights into the issues of race, class, and gender, and the lasting impacts of oppressive regimes, this essay will investigate and analyze both authors’ arguments in order to identify problems and to better understand how to address the goal of universal emancipation. The first section will analyze Davis’s argument, and the second section Memmi’s. The third section will elaborate on the issues in their texts; reconciling, adjusting, and improving them in order to provide four recommendations that will better address the author’s shared goal of universal emancipation. These recommendations will, at times, draw upon one author’s insights to improve upon the others’. At other times, they will be my own. These solutions will all address the problems that the authors discuss, with the aim to better facilitate universal emancipation using more parsimonious proposals.

Part 1: Examining Davis’s Analysis

Davis opens her book with a description of black women’s situation under American slavery and afterward. Davis describes black womens’ treatment under slavery, stating that “[h]ard labour in the fields from sunup to sundown” was typical, and that, “[w]here work was concerned, strength and productivity under the threat of the whip outweighed considerations of sex. In this sense, the oppression of women was identical to the oppression of men . . . when it was profitable to exploit them as if they were men, they were regarded, in effect, as genderless.” (Davis, 2) However, they were simultaneously “victims of sexual abuse and other barbarous mistreatment that could only be inflicted on women.” (Davis, 2) She argues that this situation, which she calls the ‘Burden of Equality’ — women experiencing a ‘negative equality’ with men; or equality under oppression — is unique to slavery.

Once slavery ended, black women were oppressed from three standpoints: gender, race, and class. The feminist and women’s movements became widely racialized. Many white women were eager to maintain their status above black men, and opposed abolition, desegregation, and other emancipatory measures. Black women worked most often as poorly paid servants for white families, or they were bound to the private sphere by the burden of unpaid domestic labour while their husbands worked outside the home. (Davis, 126) The formal conclusion of slavery was far from an end to the conditions and dynamics that black women experienced under slavery. Davis views this as a direct obstacle to black women’s emancipation, as the conditions they experienced post-slavery did not allow them to enter the public sphere, thereby keeping them from attaining emancipation

To combat these issues, Davis lays out two solutions. First, desexualization of domestic labour must occur. To Davis, this is necessary but not sufficient, because conversations surrounding the topic are inherently privileged. (Davis, 123) The demands of working class life are such that desexualization of housework is largely unfeasible — workers are overworked and underpaid, making splitting up housework difficult. Working class men, while underpaid, earn slightly more than their female counterparts, and as such, sharing the obligation of housework was largely an unattainable ideal. This brings Davis to her second solution, the socialization of domestic labour, which involves government-directed teams of cleaners using advanced technology and techniques to perform domestic labour for every household. This, for Davis, will free women from the binds of the arduous task of housework, which need not be part of the capitalist framework any longer. (Davis, 121) This solution, however, has two key flaws. First, Davis’s solution is predicated upon teams of strangers entering into the homes of every member of society on a daily or weekly basis, and fails to acknowledge the problems that this would pose. Second, while socializing domestic labour may help to free women from the private sphere, it does not adequately address the sexualization of housework because the physically demanding labour performed by men is unlikely to be taken up by large numbers of women, meaning that the socialized domestic work will fall largely on them.

Part 2: Examining Memmi’s Analysis

Where Davis sees black women’s negative equality as being unique to their struggle, Memmi offers a counter argument. Having grown up in colonial Tunisia, he identifies the dynamic between the colonizers and the colonized as one that creates an instance of negative equality. The class division in the colony was drawn between the two groups, creating a definitive black-and-white divide in which individuals were either colonizing Europeans or colonized Tunisians. In this system, colonized men were not superior to colonized women, for that would have raised the status of (part of) the colonized — an idea that was unacceptable to the dominating, repressive colonial regime. (Memmi, 107) In doing so, the colonizers create a situation in which colonized women experience the burden of equality, sharing status with colonized men — negative equality under oppression. Memmi’s argument clearly contradicts that of Davis by demonstrating that slavery is not unique its ability to create “negative equality” for both sexes. While Memmi’s analysis of this situation is not universally accurate- as different colonial regimes presented different societal structures — it demonstrates that forces other than slavery can establish negative equality between the sexes.

Similarly to Davis, Memmi presents two proposals aimed at emancipating the colonized from the colonial regime. His solutions do not address the issue from the standpoint of gender like Davis’s, as Memmi views the colonial issue as one of class and national liberation. However, their ultimate goal is still one of universal emancipation, an idea that Davis certainly supports. Moreover, he has identified a dynamic that produces the same situation that Davis laments.

Memmi’s first solution is assimilation, which will herein be referred to as gradual reform; on the basis that the connotation of assimilation has shifted since the time at which Memmi wrote the text, and that gradual reform better describes the processes that Memmi sets out. Despite presenting gradual reform as a possibility, Memmi almost fully dismisses it. (Memmi, 165) For Memmi, the only path to emancipation is through revolt, because the colonizers will never allow the process of gradual reform as that would put an end to colonialism. (Memmi, 165) While revolution may be the only path in some cases, the process of reform and reconciliation has taken place in countries such as Australia and Canada. And while the relations between the state and groups who experience the legacy of colonialism are not perfect in these places — especially through the lens of race or gender — they demonstrate that revolt is certainly not the only path forward. Memmi’s second solution is, of course, revolt. For Memmi, revolution is the only method by which the colonized are able to reject the colonizers, and the only path that will put an end to the colonial system, for it is not something that the colonizers can choose to allow or not — it is an end to their ability to dominate the colonized, undertaken by the dominated.

Part 3: Issues and Solutions

Issues

This section will first analyze, adjust, and reconcile parts of Davis and Memmi’s respective solutions and assertions that are problematic; identifying the specific elements of their proposals and arguments that can be improved upon. Second, it will combine Davis and Memmi’s ideas with my own analysis to create more parsimonious solutions to the problems that the authors have identified. These solutions will have the same emancipatory aims as the authors’, but will better address the issues that these groups experience.

The first problem is Davis’s contention that only under slavery have women experienced negative equality, the equal status with men that women experience under extreme oppression. Memmi, on the other hand, demonstrates that colonial rule in Tunisia and elsewhere also created a situation in which colonized men and women shared an equally low status; an instance of negative equality. Memmi’s argument clearly contradicts that of Davis, illustrating that slavery’s ability to create negative equality is not unique. However, these two arguments can be reconciled: Davis does not disagree with Memmi’s assertion, she simply does not consider the dynamics that colonized women experience; she has placed it outside of her scope. Comparisons between Memmi and Davis’s accounts of women’s experiences under slavery and colonialism can be easily drawn — both institutions used denial of womanhood, dehumanization, sexual violence, and both groups of women experienced oppression on the three fronts of race, class, and gender. Given the number of similarities between the two groups’ experiences, many of the same solutions may be applied and many of the same conclusions may be drawn.

The second problem concerns Memmi’s proposed solutions, or rather, how he discounts one of his solutions without proper consideration. Memmi wholeheartedly endorses revolt as a means for achieving universal emancipation, while writing off gradual reform. This is problematic: not only does revolt infrequently produce circumstances conducive to emancipation, but because gradual reform has proven relatively successful in some places. Memmi contends that the colonizers would never allow gradual reform to take place because it would end colonialism, and while revolution may be the only feasible solution in some cases, in others — such as Canada and Australia — it has proven perfectly possible and has taken place more peacefully and produced sound results. Colonized populations are better off revolting in some instances, and are sometimes better off pursuing gradual reform. Memmi does not account for this, and Davis’s notions of policy reform proposals and changes to other aspects of public and private life can help improve his diagnosis.

The third major issue that this essay will examine is Davis’s proposals to desexualize and socialize domestic labour in order to allow black women (and other marginalized groups) to enter the public sphere. The desexualization of domestic labour is imperative to women’s emancipation from the private sphere, but Davis goes further than this by arguing that domestic labour, or housework, ought to be socialized. This would inevitably involve teams who go from house to house, using advanced techniques and technology. However, this solution is unfeasible. Not only is a public enterprise responsible for the entering into and cleaning of others’ homes unrealistic from logistical, bureaucratic, and (likely) financial standpoints, it involves teams of strangers entering the homes of each member of a given society on a daily or weekly basis. Most residents would be skeptical of this measure at the very least; many would be hesitant or refuse to accept it. And for good reasons — the home and its condition are deeply personal, and Davis’s proposed solution makes it a simple object of the bureaucracy, tended to by strangers in its occupants’ absence. Furthermore, it is unlikely to desexualize domestic labour, as much of the work done by men — physically demanding work — will continue to be so, while many of the newly available positions in the department of socialized housework will inevitably be filled by women entering the employment market. And although this solution does mean that these women will now all be paid for their labour, it fails to accomplish the initial goal of desexualizing said labour. This solution is both unfeasible and insufficient to women’s emancipation.

Solutions and Recommendations

Davis and Memmi’s ideas surrounding the burden of equality can be easily reconciled. In both circumstances, women experienced equality to men, but not in the sense that they achieved emancipation — in the sense that both men and women of a certain race, ethnicity, class, etc. were subject to equally inhumane treatment under an oppressive regime. With this in mind, the two ideas can be reconciled by acknowledging that the two groups experienced such similar oppression that they ought to play the same role in the global emancipatory movement. The writings, voices, and experiences of women who suffered under the legacy of slavery should be considered as important to women’s emancipation as that of women who suffered under the legacy of colonialism.

Davis’s notions of reform also compliment Memmi, who is more radical in his approach and favours revolt as the only means of achieving emancipation for the colonized. While I find some of Davis’s solutions largely unfeasible, her tendency towards gradualism can be used to improve upon Memmi’s ideas in the same way Memmi’s analysis of colonized people’s experience adds to Davis’s analysis of enslaved people’s. With this in mind, I propose four recommendations, or solutions to the issues with the author’s texts.

1. Davis elaborates on pre-industrial societies, which often viewed childcare as a women’s obligation collectively, as opposed to the practice of each mother caring for her own children only. (Davis, 33) Instead of bearing this difficult task on one’s own, the responsibility was shared, alleviating much of the burden. Davis is very complimentary of this practice, but misses how it can be effectively applied to contemporary times. Socialized daycare is a more feasible alternative to socialized housework, as it alleviates the strain on mothers otherwise bound to their children. Additionally, it does not involve teams of strangers in everyone’s homes, rarely relies on any expensive equipment, and requires a far less enormous bureaucratic effort. Socialized daycare presents many of the advantages that socialized housework is meant to, but does not pose any of the drawbacks of the latter. It is an effective proposal that both benefits children and their mothers, is easier to implement than Davis’s alternative, and does more to work towards emancipatory goals.

2. Universal basic income is a more parsimonious solution for desexualizing domestic labour than universal or socialized domestic labour. Universal basic income is a policy that involves the payment of a relatively small amount of money paid at regular intervals to all members of a given political body. The policy is intended to alleviate the strains presented by the less savoury aspects of life for the socioeconomically disadvantaged by providing a small amount of support. For instance, it provides enough money each month to cover unpaid expenses. Its key function as it relates to Davis is that it removes the privilege from the discussion of desexualizing domestic labour. Because the working class were poorly paid and overworked, discussions between men and women about sharing domestic labour could not begin to occur, as working class men outearned working class women. This measure ensures that working class men could share the housework with women without fear of failing to generate enough income. It also ensures that, should women decide to remain in the home, they will receive some money each month. Universal basic income is not payment for domestic labour, rather it ensures that the process of its desexualization of domestic labour can occur. It also allows the lower classes to take financial risks that they were not previously able to, enabling them to emancipate themselves in cases where Memmi’s revolution has not come about.

3. It is imperative that conversations about the desexualization of domestic labour take place. In many places, they have occurred and are still occurring, but in many more the status quo has shifted little since Davis and Memmi’s time. If universal emancipation is to be achieved, then housework should not be an exception. The previous two solutions help foster conditions under which these changes can occur, but they are not sufficient. Social norms surrounding the role of men and women in private and public life must be changed, and the state can play a key role in this. The institution of quotas, for example, could be helpful to change the dynamics that women in public life experience. A mandatory 50–50 split is not necessarily necessary, nor is the sweeping or permanent implementation of such regulations. The quota is simply designed to expedite women’s emancipation into the public realm and ensure the representation of historically underrepresented groups in key roles and opportunities. Governments could also create courses, campaigns, and programs that educate and influence the citizens to share the domestic labour as they do with other social issues in order to normalize and facilitate this new norm. In order to achieve an equitable society, that society must be representative of its population, and these solutions are aimed at just that.

4. Because women impacted by the respective legacies of colonialism and slavery have shared similar experiences — both bearing the burden of equality under regimes that oppress them from three standpoints — it is imperative that they share the leadership in the global feminist and emancipatory movements. These movements were dominated by white women throughout much of the twentieth century, and as such, overlooked important aspects of women’s emancipation — and by extension, universal emancipation. The voices of intersectional women who have experienced the legacy of slavery and colonialism must be the drivers of women’s emancipation, for they are the voices that have been most repressed by violent and coercive regimes throughout recent history.

Conclusion

The solutions discussed in section three are not a means to erasing the legacy of slavery or colonialism. They are a means to alleviating the burden that befalls marginalized groups, thereby creating circumstances under which universal emancipation can occur. Davis and Memmi correctly identify many issues that affect the groups that they discuss, however their solutions have been improved upon in order to create more parsimonious ones that better address the issues they lay out. Though their approaches may differ, common ground can be found between the pair’s insights — most of all, their goal of universal emancipation, and least of all, their path to get there. While it may seem that Davis and Memmi are opposites on certain issues, their outlooks can be reconciled with one another fairly easily, complimenting the others’ where it may be weak. An analysis of both authors’ texts — especially in tandem — lends itself to a better understanding of the forces that keep oppressed groups down, as well as what might be needed to change that.

Works Cited

1. Davis, Angela. Women, Race, and Class. New York: Vintage Books, 1983.
2. Memmi, Albert. The Colonizer and the Colonized. London: Earthscan Publications, 2003