Universalism?

I wanted to address the issue of universality. Editor Ishmael Reed discusses this in the introduction to From Totems to Hip-Hop, he covers a few dynamics such as writing white being the perceived key to universal perspective placing white a s neutral and all other people as marginal. Where, “…the black writer is artistically free only when he writes a novel about white people. A novel about people. A universal novel" (pg. XXII). It seems to me that Reed is advocating for writing to be (or perhaps stating that it is intrinsically) universal and other perspectives and voices are and can be universal besides the white one. Reed cites David Baraza’s piece on Chicano experiences, “A Place Without Shame” as having universal themes of communication and vulnerability. Then continues to expand this notion by stating, “…the greatest challenge will be communicating with those who might be different from us through themes that are universal” (pg XXIII). I have a problem with this idea of universality. I definitely agree that people of color and other marginalized peoples should not be placed in literary ghettos of ‘special interest’, yet at the same time I find it faulty to try and fit communities and peoples writings and experiences into some larger ‘we can all relate’ type mentality. There are some things that are not universal, some struggles, passions, experiences, feelings even that are highly specific to the communities and people that they come from. So I am confused, is and should writing always be aimed at a universal theme? Or can it exist not marginalized, but still specific and not a “this could be anyone in these shoes” mentality.

This issue of universality further struck me as a read the Politics section in Totems. There were pieces within this section that I could relate areas that I could take excerpts out because they made me laugh or think or the wording was wonderful, all good things. Yet, there were a few pieces that even though they contained emotional weight and trauma like Foley’s Eli, Eli, I could not feel comfortable or in good conscience if I dissected those pieces by taking something ad trying to make it relatable or somehow looking at the words specifically separate from the context. Specifically I experienced this with Denise Levertov’s What Were They Like? And Richard Wright’s Between the World and Me. These two pieces as powerful and amazing as they are challenge my notions and even Reed’s notions of universal themes for different reasons. With Levertov’s piece, I think it to be highly powerful and moving, juxtaposing ‘innocent’ questions that suggest the exotification of the Vietnamese “Other” with answers stating the affects that war might have had on people. Yet Levertov, as her bio states is an English Russian Jew and I feel that her writing on this subject removes the voices of the myriad of Vietnamese poets who have discussed the affects of the Vietnamese American war on their people. Within the themes of universality and writing I don’t believe it is possible to accurately speak on someone else’s experience. In fact, as a white woman, I believe that her assertions of the affects of the war on Vietnamese people reaffirms problematic race dynamics within ‘universality’, because where marginalized people cannot speak neutral, there is an assumption that white people and those in the dominant framework, have the ability to speak for all.

Secondly, on the issue of universality, reading Wright’s Between the World and Me, as beautiful, captivating, and wrenching as it is, I feel that I have no place searching for relatable or universal themes in this. I speak as a white woman, so that does influence my experience and perspective, but within that specific perspective I feel that Wright’s perceived experience or communal and historical experience is not mine to try and relate to.

Ultimately I wonder where the lines are between relatability, universalism, and networking/coalition building?