Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Klein Reclaiming The F-Word
Klein Reclaiming The F-Word
179
180
Unfortunately, some of the most celebrated recent developments in historiography would distance specialists from these
broader conversations. Debate circles around an assemblage of
authors and texts known as "NewWestern History."Some "New
Western Historians" have argued publicly and polemically that
western history is not, should not, and cannot be frontier history,
and that true western history is found only in those arid spaces
west of the hundredth meridian, a place that escaped the gaze of
Columbus and his acquisitive crew.Time was, old western historians like FrederickJackson Turner spoke of the West as a place
where European and indigenous cultures collided, a place that
moved north, south, east and west with the imperial tide. In the
late sixteenth century, the West was NewJersey and New Mexico;
in the early nineteenth, Illinois and Texas. By the end of the
twentieth century, white people had overrun the continent, and
the last of the Wests, stretching from the plains to the Pacific, has
kept the name. Influential scholars like Patricia Limerick,
Richard White, and Donald Worster have insisted that we must
settle down in this last, best West and recant frontier history if we
are to escape the evil priestcraftof the Tumerian dark ages. But
not all "NewWestern Historians"have given up on frontier and
continental Wests. Scholars like William Cronon, Antonia Castafieda, and Stephen Aron criticize triumphalistnarrativesof white
male westering, but still imagine a "GreaterWestern History"that
studies frontier processes in continental or global terms. Though
commentators have conflated them, we must distinguish at least
two schools of "New"western history: students of the Greater
West and New Western Regionalists.2
1991), 12-18; andJames Axtell, "Moral Reflections on the Columbian Legacy,' in
Beyond 1492: Encounters in Colonial North America (New York, 1992), 241-266.
2. For a sampling of recent discussions, see Michael P. Malone, "Beyond the
Last Frontier: Toward a New Approach to Western American History," Western
Historical QuarterlyXX (1989), 408-436; Brian W. Dippie, "The Winning of the West
Reconsidered, Wilson Quarterly,XIV (1990), 70-86; William G. Robbins, "Laying
Siege to Western History: The Emergence of New Paradigms"' Reviews in American
History, XIX (1991), 313-332; Antonia I. Castaiieda, "Women of Color and the
Rewriting of Western History: The Discourse, Politics, and Decolonization of History,"Pacific Historical Revie4wLXI (1992), 501-533; Gerald D. Nash, "Point of View:
One Hundred Years of Western History,' Journal of the West,XXXII (April 1993),
3-5; Susan Armitage, Elizabeth Jameson, and Joan Jensen, "The New Western
History: Another Perspective" ibid. (uly 1993), 5-6; Richard W. Etulain, "The New
Western Historiography and the New Western History: Continuity and Change"
New Western Regionalists contend that only the arid, transMississippi West is really "The" West, and historians using the
label for any place back east or using the "F"word anywhere at
all are voting for Manifest Destiny. "Frontier,'said PatriciaLimerick in her important study,Legacyof Conquest:TheUnbroken
Past of
the AmericanWest(1987), "is an unsubtle concept in a subtle
world."And in "Whaton Earth Is the New Western History?,'she
described the word as "nationalistic;'"ethnocentric;' and even
"racist."The old, frontier-stylewestern history, so the argument
goes, has so closely identified itself with celebratory accounts of
what a good thing it was for Europeans to have slaughtered their
way across the continent that the only way to introduce non-male,
non-white voices to our public memory is to renounce frontier
history, give up talking about western history in continental
terms, and concentrate on the West as region. In a more recent
essay,"The Adventures of the Frontier in the Twentieth Century"
(1994), she has noted that after a slow crawl through the foggy
swamps of false historical consciousness, scholars began to revise
our bad, old triumphalist narratives and a few, such as Jack
Forbes and Gloria Anzaldua, even tried to reclaim the "F"word.
Limerick has reluctantly concluded that we are stuck with the
word, but she seems to have little hope that recent attempts to
redefine frontier as a zone of cultural interaction will succeed.
Other New Western Regionalists, like Richard White, have spent
comparativelyless time and ink on critiques of the "F"word, but
White's textbook, It's YourMisfortuneand Noneof My Own (1992),
simply begins and ends West of the Mississippi, thereby erasing
the "F" word far more completely than any critique ever
could.3
ibid. (Oct. 1993), 3-4; William Deverell, "Fighting Words: The Significance of the
American West in the History of the United States," WesternHistorical Quarterly,XXV
(1994), 185-206; Stephen Aron, "Lessons in Conquest: Towards a Greater Western
History;' Pacific Historical Review LXIII (1994), 125-148; Michael Allen, "The 'New'
Western History Stillborn," Historian, LVII (1994), 201-209; Susan Rhoades Neel, "A
Place of Extremes: Nature, History, and the American West," WesternHistorical
Quarterly,XXV (1994), 488-206; andJohn R. Wunder, "What'sOld about the New
Western History: Race and Gender, Part 1" Pacific Northwest Quarterl)yLXXXV
(1994), 50-58.
3. Patricia Limerick, Legacy of Conquest:The UnbrokenPast of the American West
(New York, 1987), 25; Limerick, "What on Earth Is the New Western History?," in
Limerick et al., eds., Trails: Toward a New WesternHistory (Lawrence, 1991), 85;
Limerick, "The Adventures of the Frontier in the Twentieth Century," in James R.
181
182
New Western Regionalists have written some wonderful histories, but they have chained them to a geographic abstraction
created by western historians.They would also segregate the field
from all the exciting frontier history now in the works, at a time
when even Shakepearean scholars like Greenblatt are scurrying
to get in on the action. Worse, they would separate the West
from the imperial processes that placed it at the center of national memory and joined it to transnational global histories.
And they propose that replacing "frontier"with "West,'historically the key word of Orientalism, will eliminate ethnocentrism
from our scholarly discourse! It is more than faintly ironic that
we arrived at this parochial position out of a desire to reconnect
the specialty to larger dialogues about race, class, gender, and
sexuality. Meanwhile, people in other departments and professions continue to watch TheLast of theMohicansand follow the
media controversyover Europe's imagination and occupation of
Native America. The New Western Regionalist'smessage to these
enthusiasts? "Callus when you reach the Rockies."
The regionalist attack on "frontier,'the "F"word, enacts an
understanding of language that is at best partial and at worst
ahistorical. It also effaces a tradition of frontier histories, written
by scholars like William MacLeod, Americo Paredes, Edward
Spicer, William Appleman Williams,Robert F Berkhofer,Wilbur
Jacobs, and Robert V. Hine, at odds with the triumphalistfrontier
tales that New Regionalists rightly criticize.4 Even Limerick's
recent genealogy of "frontier"paints a remarkablymonolithic
Grossman, ed., The Frontier in American Culture (Chicago and Berkeley, 1994),
66-102; Limerick, "TurneriansAll: The Dream of a Helpful History in an Intelligible World;'AmericanHistoricalReview,C (1995), 697-716; Donald Worster,
Rivers of Empire:Water,Aridity, and the Growthof the American West(New York, 1985);
Historical
Worster,"NewWest,TrueWest:Interpretingthe Region'sHistory, Western
XVIII (1987), 141-156;Worster,"Beyondthe AgrarianMyth' in Trails,
Quarterly,
3-25; Richard White, "Trashing the Trails" in ibid., 26-39; White, "It' YourMisfortune and None of My Own":A New History of the American West(Norman, 1991).
4. Several writers have recently drawn our attention to the many frontier
historians who have offered critical or counter-Turnerianhistories. See Allan G.
Bogue, "The Significance of the History of the American West: Postcripts and
Prospects,' WesternHistorical Quarterly,XXIV (1993), 45-68; John Mack Faragher,
"The Frontier Trail: Rethinking Turner and Reimagining the American West,"
AmericanHistoricalRevie, XCVIII (1993), 106-117; and Gerald D. Nash, Creatingthe
West:Historical Interpretations,1890-1990 (Albuquerque, 1991).
183
184
CX (1966), 10-34 (the quotations are on pp. 28, 33). Comparehis story with the
(Oxford,1933),565, 566, and the
chronologyset out in the Oxford
EnglishDictionary
new Supplementto the OxfordEnglish Dictionary(Oxford, 1972), 1167. See also Fulmer
185
186
Tribe (1979; Eng. lang. ed., Cambridge,Mass., 1985), 159-197; RichardBernheimer, Wild Men in the Middle Ages: A Study in Art, Sentiment, and Demonology(Cam-
1982), esp. 1-4; William Cronon, "Turner'sFirst Stand: The Significance of Significance in American History, in RichardW.Etulain,ed., WritingWestern
History:
187
188
189
190
PacificHistoricalReview
strongly patterned that they amounted to a coherent culture
analogous to a single personality or object of art. Customs were
arranged in systematicwholes rather than in evolutionary stages;
social mores were learned habits rather than natural tendencies;
and one could judge another culture only from within one's own.
As BeneThe revision had important consequences for "frontier."
dict saw it, capitalism, greed, and imperial aggrandizement were
cultural products, the result of "ourparticularsystem of property
ownership.... Self-support is a motive our civilization has capitalized. If our economic structure changes so that this motive is
no longer so potent a drive as it was in the era of the great
frontier and expanding industrialism, there are many other motives that would be appropriate to a changed economic organization."Both Turner and MacLeod were wrong; there was nothing
natural about the degradation of the Indian by the great frontier.
The frontier, to ethnographers like Benedict, meant death and
decay.14
Reclaimingthe "F"Word
anthropologists meeting under the auspices of the Social Science
Research Council (SSRC) began exploring Native and EuroAmerican interaction. Acute enough to realize that Natives had
not yet disappeared, some ethnographers now doubted they
would. Some tribes had vanished, others seemed to have assimilated, but still others looked to be growing. They were not the
people they had been in 1492, but neither were they all residents
of Middletown. To explain this development, ethnographers took
up a new trope, "acculturation;' that placed frontier issues near
the heart of American ethnographic imagination.15
In 1936 an SSRC Subcommittee on Acculturation (Melville
J. Herskovits, Robert Redfield, and Ralph Linton) defined the
word as "those phenomena which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous firsthand contact, with subsequent changes in the original culture
patterns of either or both groups." They distinguished it from
assimilation, "which is at times a phase of acculturation."16 The
classic statement came in Ralph Linton's 1940 anthology, Acculturation in Seven American Indian Tribes. Partly financed by
grants from the Works Progress Administration, the book gathered a series of articles into an overview of acculturation. Linton
saw the study as a technical report for New Deal social engineering: "AsWhite world dominance declines, the direct and forceful
15. On salvage ethnography, see Stocking, Ethnographer'Magic, 276-340; and
Jacob W. Gruber, "Ethnographic Salvage and the Shaping of Anthropology, American Anthropologist,LXXII (1970), 1289-1299. Also relevant here is Brian W. Dippie,
The Vanishing American: WhiteAttitudes and US. Indian Policy (Middletown, Conn.,
1982). On acculturation, see Robert Redfield, Ralph Linton, and Melville Hersokovits, "Memorandum on the Study of Acculturation" American Anthropologist,
XXXVIII (1936), 149-152; and Stocking, Ethnographer'sMagic, 142-144, 228-229.
culturation." See also the Social Science Research Council Summer Seminar on
Acculturation, "Acculturation: An Exploratory Formulation,' AmericanAnthropologist,
LVI (1954), 974. According to the editor, Ralph Linton, this journal published its
first article on acculturation in 1932, but the subject effectively began with the 1936
memorandum. As the editor put it, in the editorial comment to American Anthropologist in 1954, the 1936 and 1954 issues "mark off the whole history of a subject"
(ibid., 972). The 1954 piece lists 117 items in its bibliography, virtually all of which
were published after 1936. Philip Gleason, Speaking of Diversity: Language and
Ethnicity in Twentieth-CenturyAmerica (Baltimore, 1992), offers a good overview.
Compare Russell A. Kazal, "Revisiting Assimilation: The Rise, Fall, and Reappraisal
of a Concept in American Ethnic History,' American Historical ReviewuC (1995),
437-471.
191
192
Pacific HistoricalReview
methods which Europeans have hitherto employed in their dealings with other groups become less effective and more dangerous
to their users. There is an obvious need for new techniques and
for exact knowledge upon which the development of these techniques can be based" As the earlier frontier period of world
history ended, Europeans and Euro-Americans needed to learn
new ways of incorporating others. Ethnography was ideally situated to inform policy in a world where cultural frontiers transected nations rather than wilderness.17
Most of the contributors to Acculturation measured cultural
survival in terms of "adaptation:' "adjustment;' and "maladjustment" Some cultures successfully adjusted to a world dominated
by Euro-Americans; others, the "maladjusted:' did not fare so
well. As a rule, authors placed contemporary cultures into one of
three categories. In one, the Indians were nearly assimilated, so
close to complete Europeanization that it seemed a sure bet.
Another possibility was that they might unrealistically resist white
culture and disintegrate entirely. Still another was a sort of equilibrium in which Natives retained certain features of traditional
culture while sustaining themselves in a white political and economic system. Few of the authors believed this resolution appropriate for their subjects. Most fell back on custom and the ethnographic tragedy. Still, the articles mixed confident displays of
analytic language with moral ambivalence. Virtually all told tragic
stories of maladjusted cultures facing adaptation or extinction;
virtually all described aspects of Indian life at odds with this
narrative.
Editor Linton blandly smoothed out these wrinkles. His
summaries drew the often discrepant accounts of his contributors
into his own simple story in which acculturation sounded suspiciously like assimilation. And his mechanical metaphors filled out
17. Ralph Linton, ed., Acculturation in Seven American Indian Tribes (1940;
reprint, Gloucester, Mass., 1963), vii. Such appeals to the needs of government
administrators quickly became a rhetorical convention for acculturation articles
published in the American Anthropologist,the discipline's leading journal in the
United States and edited by Linton. See, for instance, Laura Thompson, "Attitudes
and Acculturation' AmericanAnthropologist,
L (1948), 200-225; Florence Hawley, "An
Examination of Problems Basic to Acculturation in the Rio Grande Pueblos" ibid.,
612-624; and Edward M. Bruner, "Primary Group Experience and the Processes of
Acculturation" ibid., LVIII (1956), 602-623.
193
194
1962).
195
196
197
198
Reelairningthe "F"Word
199
200
In mid-century social science, cultural mixing held an ambiguous place. Sociologist Robert Parks's"marginalman" stood at
the center of George Sanchez's history of Hispanic New Mexico,
ForgottenPeople(1940). In keeping with period convention, Sanchez described the Anglo sweep across mexicanoculture as a
tragic judgment on modernity. Harmonies of pathos and hope
timbred his conclusions, as he lamented the loss of organic
28. Compare Edward M. Bruner, "Ethnography as Narrative;' in Victor W.
Turner and Bruner, eds., TheAnthropologyof Experience(Urbana, 1986), 139-153; and
Clifton, "Alternate Identities and Cultural Frontiers." I have treated this topic at
greater length in Frontiersof HistoricalImagination: Narrating theEuropean Occupation
of Native America, 1890-1990 (Berkeley, forthcoming).
29. I do not mean to suggest that only these three (and internally variegated)
ethnicities, Anglo, Native, and Mexican, exemplify frontier issues and history. But
the genealogy running from Spanish Borderlands history to Chicana/o studies
illuminates broader patterns in historical imagination.
community but looked forward to a day in which even the villages of the Rio Grande Valley could enjoy the benefits of social
democracy. His groundbreaking study, later denounced for its
reactionary "assimilationistrhetoric,'did not much swaythe storytelling of contemporary frontier historians, but the readable
works of journalist CareyMcWilliamsplaced Anglo oppression of
Mexicans and Hispanic Americans firmly within California history, if not inside America'sFrontierHeritage.By the end of the
fifties, ethnographers like Robert Redfield and Oscar Lewis, and
folklorists like Paredes, had rewritten Mexicano culture as a
viable unity, rather than a degraded cross-breed. In their
texts, the "village"figured organic community, a new frontier
topos certifying the authenticity of a formerly "intercultural"
society.30
Mexicano culture was a product of mestizaje, and so even
the simplest of tellings, an even blend of two cultures, ethnicities,
nationalities, or races, forced some critical choices upon any
narrator.One could identify predominantlywith either European
or Native heritage. Authors like Sanchez and Paredes emphasized
continuity with the Hispanic traditions of Europe. Strong academic traditions enforced this choice: Borderlandshistory'sdominant focus on the Spaniard and the hegemony of Peninsular
literature in departments of Romance languages. But the possibility of stressing Native identity, indigenismo,had a tradition all its
own, embodied in the great works of art, literature, and philosophy of the revolutionary era, articulated by writers like Jose
Vasconcelos and artists likeJose Clemente Orozco, Diego Rivera,
and Frida Kahlo. During the sixties, American activists revised
indigenismo for Chicano activism. Some of the clearest expressions of the new genealogy could be found in political manifestos
like El Plan Espiritualde Aztlin from the First Chicano National
Conference in 1969 and reprinted in the opening issue of Aztldn:
ChicanoJournal of theSocialSciencesand theArts.
In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud
201
202
Pacific HistoricalReview
territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern
land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land
of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the
sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility,
and our inevitable destiny.
This was frontier romance in revolt: spirit, consciousness, heritage, blood, power, destiny, all rooted in the soil.31 While scholarly works in Chicano history typically adopted contemporary
social science vocabularies, the mystic tribalism of Aztlan always
hovered in the distance as a potential horizon, much as AngloSaxon tribalism had shadowed Turner's western Volkgeist.32And
most period monographs implicitly identified Chicano culture as
indigenous victim of Anglo invasion and colonization. The title
of an early important synthesis, Rodolfo Acufia's OccupiedAmerica:
A History of Chicanos (1974), made the point clear enough for the
slowest frontier historians.33
theSocialSciences
31. "ElPlan Espiritualde Aztlian Aztldn:ChicanoJournalfor
and theArts,I (1970), iv,v;Jesis Chavarria,"APrecisand a TentativeBibliography
on Chicano History,"ibid.,133-141;JuanG6mez-Quifiones,"Towarda Perspective
on Chicano History,"
Aztldn,II (1971), 1-50; idemand Luis L. Arroyo,"Onthe State
of Chicano History:Observationson Its Development,Interpretations,and Theory,
1970-1974" Western
HistoricalQuarterly,
VII (1976), 155-185;CarlosE. Cortes, "New
Chicano Historiography,in EllwynR. Stoddardetal., eds., Borderlands
Sourcebook:
A
Guideto Literatureon NorthernMexicoand theAmericanSouthwest(Norman, 1983),
60-63; Weber,"Turner,the Boltonians,and the Borderlands";
Weber,"JohnFrancis
Bannon and the Historiographyof the Spanish Borderlands:Retrospectand ProsXXIX (1987), 331-363; Renato Rosaldo, "Chicano
pect; Journalof theSouthwest,
XIV (1985), 405-427; YvesStudies, 1970-1984: Annual Reviewof Anthropology,
Charles Grandjeat,"Conflictsand Cohesiveness:The ElusiveQuest for a Chicano
History, Aztldn,XVIII(1987), 45-58; Alex Saragoza,"RecentChicano Historiography: An Interpretive Essay; Aztldn,XIX (1988-1990), 1-77; David G. Gutierrez,
"Significantto Whom?MexicanAmericansand the Historyof the AmericanWest:
HistoricalQuarterly,
XXIV (1993), 519-539; and Ram6nA. Guti6rrez,"ComWestern
munity, Patriarchyand Individualism:The Politics of Chicano History and the
Dream of Equality,AmericanQuarterly,
XLV(1993), 44-72. Of these variousworks,
Chavarria,G6mez-Qufiones, Cortes, and Weber all adopt Spanish Borderlands
history (or even Hubert Howe Bancroft, in the case of G6mez-Quiniones),as a
starting point for their historiographies.Cortes, "NewChicano Historiography,"
points to yet another development,the creation of a scholarlycommunitydevoted
to transnational,international,or comparativestudiesof the United-States-Mexico
border regions.
32. See, for instance, John R. Chavez, TheLost Land: ChicanoImagesof the
Southwest(Albuquerque,1984); Saragoza,"RecentChicano Historiography."
Compare the frontierregionalismof Chavezwith that in RichardNostrand,"AChanging
Culture Region; in Borderlands
Sourcebook,
6-15; and OscarJ. Martinez,Troublesome
Border(Tucson, 1988).
33. Rodolfo Acuna, Occupied
America:
A Historyof Chicanos(New York,1974).
203
204
205
206
PacificHistoricalReview
This was a long way from Turner, and yet enough history
glimmers through for us to recognize it as more than a trendy
"politically correct" inversion. Long before the appearance of
professional frontier history, the border had been understood as
the dangerous margin of country inhabited by social outcasts of
antagonistic worlds. And Anzaldua did not simply choose, as a
polemic against academic taste, the language of injury and pathology; that tradition had been passed down in good academic
words like "encysted."By the end of the sixties, boundaries and
frontiers had been taken up as markers of identity. Turner's
frontiers had inscribed themselves in blood and barbed wire
along the international divide, around the perimeters of the
Indian reservations, and in the psychic chasms crossing selves
and others. Still, Anzaldua's tone pointed toward a reclamation.
If the border grates, bleeds, hemorrhages, edges, distinguishes,
and divides, if it is what "Reagancalls a frontline, a war zone;' it
is also a place of intimacy, where two different identities touch,
merge, and form a third, in Anzaldua's example, the mestiza
consciousness, especially as embodied in the experiences of "the
queer,' the ultimate borderers.38
A long, strange trip carriesus from the frontiers of Victorian
America to those of multiculturalism. But the new, like the old,
join a fascinating cluster of meanings. Anzaldua's frontiers are
geographic space, political line, and social process. Theyjoin and
divide, for good and for evil. They are gendered, sexualized, and
erotically charged. We might ascribe these almost unbearable
polarities to creative license. Anzalduia,like any good poet, sets
unlikely meanings side by side. Seen this way,her frontier might
be just another example of fatuous postmodern word play. But
even a strong poet cannot create meaning ex nihilo,and we can
hear echoes of her usage in the most staid linguistic reference
works. If we open up the 1978 EverydayRoget'sThesaurus(scarcely
a radical authority),we find "frontier"indexed in two categories
listing some of its traditional associations. One, "Limit,'includes
boundary, bounds, confine, enclave, term, marches, Pillars of
Hercules, Rubicon, ne plus ultra,and turning-point. But the sec38. Anzaldua, Borderlands/LaFronter, 3, 11. See also Marcienne Rocard, "The
Mexican-American Frontier: The Border in Mexican-American Folklore and Elitelore, Aztldn, XVIII (1987), 83-94.
Reclaimingthe "F"Word
ond, "Contiguity,' includes contact, proximity, apposition, juxtaposition, touching, meeting, conjunction, coexistance, and a
string of related verbs: join, adjoin, border, graze, touch, meet,
and my favorite, kiss. In the depths of the word itself we find the
doubled patterns of inclusion and exclusion, assimilation and
differentiation, that Edward Spicer finds on the frontier ground
of the historic Southwest.39
Anzaldia's queer frontier highlights the amazing endurance
of frontier figures in late twentieth-century discourse and should
dispel the notion that we can find social justice in history only by
forgetting all our "F"words. How far we press "frontier" is another question. In 1987 William Cronon's "Revisiting the Vanishing Frontier" recuperated "wilderness" connotations by describing environmental history as a new form of frontier history. But
"culture" dominates most important recent definitions, from
Howard Lamar and Leonard Thompson's "Comparative Frontier
History" (1981) and Paul Kutsche's "Borders and Frontiers"
(1983), to William Cronon, George Miles, and Jay Gitlin's "Becoming West: Toward a New Meaning for Western History"
(1992). Cronon, Miles, and Gitlin take the word through a list of
defining verbs, from species shifting, state forming, and market
making, to the Barthian processes of boundary setting and self
shaping. The 1986 Dictionary ofAnthropologyassociates it with the
study of "inter-ethnic relations" while also packing "colonization"
and "domination" into its brief abstract. And in Annette Kolodny's "Notes Toward a New Literary History of the American
Frontiers" (1990), Anzalduia's poetic constructions worked their
way into a thoroughly scholarly venue: "[I]n my reformulation
the term 'frontier' comes to mean what we in the Southwest call
la frontera, or the borderlands, that liminal landscape of changing meanings on which distinct human cultures first encounter
39. Roget'sThesaurusof Synonymsand Antonyms(London, 1978), n.p. To underscore the point, in 1975 a group of Women's Studies scholars centered at the
University of Colorado, Boulder, began a new periodical, Frontiers:A Journal of
Women'sStudies. Frontiershas become known in recent years for publishing multicultural studies, but the "Letter to Our Readers" (in the first issue), placed the
journal firmly on the frontier between academic and nonacademic feminists as a
way of dissolving those "barriers" which "seem unnecessarily to divide women."
Frontiersmeant to transcend difference and incorporate all women in the circle of
sisterhood. Just twelve years later Anzaldua could employ the same language to
legitimize division and difference.
207
208
209
210
211
212
214
53. Josiah Royce, Race Questions, Provincialism, and Other American Problems
(1908; reprint, Freeport, 1967).
215