Ignorance in Judaism, Prejudice, and Quotations

Epistemologies of Ignorance defines the limitations of our knowledge on a subject and acknowledges what placed these limitations. It is essentially a system of valuing what subjects are important enough to become knowledge. If something is not deemed important to know, it can be ignored, suppressed, or simply left unexplored by either society or an individual. 

When ignorance is imposed by societal structures ignorance can easily be seen as "intersect[ing] with power" because it is the dominant opinion which suppresses others into their state of unknowing (Tuana 3). One example of this is how Jewish women with religious backgrounds are often not provided the same educational opportunities as their male counterparts. While secular education is often neglected for both sexes, Jewish women are prohibited from studying certain texts, including texts solely devoted to the topic of women. In orthodox communities, women are also prohibited from leadership roles which would allow them to become versed in Jewish law. This excludes women from having a voice in determining rulings for Jewish law in modern context, even when the rulings will directly affect them. "The ignorance of certain groups"--in this case orthodox women--"is systematically cultivated" by those in power (Tuana 9). 

Sometimes ignorance can develop into multiple categories because while the aforementioned example is relevant in terms of patriarchal practices within Judaism, many orthodox women do not take issue with not being allowed access to certain religious texts or positions simply because they are taught that these texts are not fit for women to study. While this mindset stems from societal framework, their "current interests, beliefs, and theories obscure" any desire to stray from the societal norm (Tuana 6). Thus, ignorance can be both self-imposed and imposed by society, therefore reaffirming each other.

There are other forms of "ignorances about conditions experienced by non-whites" (Tuana 10). White people cannot claim to understand the overwhelming societal prejudice against non-whites, and this structure undoubtably originated from white dominance in the larger society. Racism, however, does not only exist within the structural hierarchy of society; it also exists within individual prejudice. While there are plenty of white people who have both subconscious and conscious prejudices towards those of color, the reverse is also true. These prejudices stem from white prejudice, but many non-whites have their own prejudice against whites. Societal norms make it easy for a non-white individual to assume that a white individual has prejudice towards another because they are non-white. Such prejudices of prejudice are most easily exemplified by the question, "Is it because I'm black?" I don't say to take away from the struggles of growing up non-white on the levels of society, but rather to highlight that racism (on a situational level) is not an entirely a non-white experience, and that it is possible for a white person to be classified as the "other." 

I do not, nor will I ever, claim to "understand the experience of all women of color," (Ortega 62) nor do I think that it is the place of any white woman do claim this or theorize about the colored experience. It isn't the place of any human to presuppose generalizations (i.e. form prejudices) because "although many experiences can be shared there will always be experiences that cannot" (Tuana 16). Generalizations, or rather stereotypes, are however, sometimes useful in grouping individuals for a cause or for a sense of connection. Within feminist theory, there are certain experiences assumed to be experienced by all women. "The experience of women of color are homogenized" not only by white feminists, but by black feminists too. Are self-imposed stereotypes any less harmful or ignorant?

Ortega takes offense to any white woman citing black feminists "while at the same time using women of color to the perceivers own end" (61). Understanding the personal context of any person's words is impossible because we each have our own experience. Any quotation is put out of its original context and the quoter's intention is clearly to use someone else as a proof or a validation. I would like to draw a distinction between quoting a black feminist as a feminist who happens to be black and quoting them as a black person who happens to be a feminist. I would also like to draw a distinction between writing about another races experiences and drawing similarities between racial experiences (according to individual perspectives). While every quote is out of its intended context, some contextual gaps are greater than others. It is by checking and questioning the place of this contextual gap that one develops the loving eye, rather than knowing, loving ignorance, after one has been exposed to other perspectives through looking and listening.