What is Feminism? An
Introduction to Feminist Theory by Chris Beasley summarizes seven
definable “types” of feminism which include Liberal, Radical, Marxist,
Socialist, Psychoanalytic, Postmodern or Poststructuralist, and Race/Ethnicity
Feminists. There are many more definable
categories of feminism but the book restricts itself to these seven westernized
feminisms, which I think is a mistake.
This is a mistake because it limits what feminism is as a whole, taking
in only some of the pieces of the whole puzzle.
Without a complete puzzle, the finished picture cannot be discerned, nor
be meaningfully discussed. However, this
focus on a few western feminisms does help us zoom in a bit, aiding us in
getting a closer look at specific areas of feminism or specific pieces of the
puzzle.
While feminism is difficult to define and has extremely
diverse perspectives, there are some premises that can be discerned. Feminism is usually understood as expanding,
altering, or breaking away from traditional social and political thought or
what could also be referred to as mainstream thought. Mainstream thought is seen as being flawed as
it’s seen as being ‘malestream’,
focusing on men as the center of analysis and leaving women to the sidelines
who are viewed as second rate men or other. Mainstream thought is also structured by
misogyny and dualisms with hierarchies, which Feminists reject to varying
degrees. Feminism is also an alternative
to the normative (the mainstream) which concentrates on women or womanhood as
the center of analysis, although there is much debate within feminism about how
woman or womanhood should be defined.
While
Feminism in general does see sexual difference as shaping the social and
political (i.e. how we think and feel), there are five different viewpoints
within feminism about sexual difference.
First, there is the notion of
sameness where women and men are seen as being the same. This view is linked to Liberal Feminism and
Marxist/Socialist Feminism. The Second view sees differences between men
and women but challenges the hierarchy between men and women. This view is linked to Radical and
Psychoanalytic Feminists. The third view shifts its focus away from
the sameness/difference dichotomy to the question of power, wishing to resist
and destabilize sexual hierarchy. This
view is linked to Postmodern/Poststructuralist Feminists. The fourth
view sees men as potential political allies for the struggles of women where
men and women are seen as becoming similar through political struggle and
alliance. This view is linked to
Race/Ethnicity Feminists, Socialist Feminists, and Postmodern/Poststructuralist
Feminists. The fifth view of sexual difference sees women as morally or innately
superior to men. This last view is
linked to Radical Feminists.
There are four major groupings of feminists: Classical, Psychoanalytic, Postmodern/Poststructuralist, and Race/Ethnicity. Classical Feminists include Liberal, Radical, Marxist, and Socialist Feminists, all of which focus on realism and materialism and stress the externalized factors of oppression. Liberal Feminism, also termed penis envy feminism, focuses on the individual, reform, sameness, the public sphere, and Welfare Liberalism. Liberal Feminists wish to reform policies and practices (i.e. endorse welfare liberalism where benefits and opportunities are redistributed but doesn’t challenge the organization of society) to allow individual women equal access to the male dominated public sphere. This perspective likens equality to letting women being able to do what men do. This view is much less structural, not seeing the inherent incapabilities of capitalism to give women liberation. Liberal feminism is also very focused in on the mainstream, seeing women’s oppression as individualist problems needing fixing through changing individuals. It doesn’t see the capitalistic system as inherently oppressing women or other minority groups, much less see how it’s oppressing all people. Like my parents, they don’t see the entire capitalistic system oppressing its people. What they do see is the negative outcomes of capitalistic society, but they don’t relate it to capitalism as inherently oppressive. Notice I emphasized inherently. I’ve emphasized inherently because my parents, and many other liberals, do recognize the problems found within capitalism (i.e. the drive for profit, deregulation, poverty, environmental degradation, etc.) but they don’t see capitalism as the main problem. They believe reforming the system (not overthrowing the system) is the way to go, but they don’t see that once reform/reregulation is achieved it will at some point be obliterated due to capitalism’s need to oppress all people in order to exploit their labor for profit, separate and isolate people through ideology in order to keep their focus off the inherent ruthlessness of capitalism, and tear apart the welfare system in order to further make a profit concentrated in the hands of the very rich1.
Radical Feminism focuses on the private sphere (i.e. sexuality, bodies, sexual violence, the reproductive body, feminine motherhood), difference, separatism, patriarchy/men being the main enemy being fought, and on revolution through small-scale action. I have always found Radical Feminism as strange, but at the same time intriguing. Just like Liberal Feminism and maybe all Feminisms, Radical Feminism is narrow in its perspective. While Radical Feminism does critique patriarchy and heterosexuality critically in useful ways, it doesn’t seem to sympathize with men and sees separatism away from men as the answer (these are broad statements; not all Radical Feminists believe this way). They see men as the enemy being fought, as something to separate from in order to create spaces for women. While I do think it’s important for women to be able to discuss the variety of issues at hand and create “safe spaces” without the presence of men in order to facilitate skills that men dominate in, we can’t separate ourselves completely and endlessly from men. Why is this? Because men aren’t inherently oppressive. Capitalism is inherently oppressive, not men. After all, if we hold to separatism, how can you explain my own radicalization without the influence of two men who really expanded my understanding of feminism itself? Also, if we separate from each other as men and women, then we lose the experiences of the other, which I believe is critical for understanding the ways in which capitalism shapes all our lives in oppressive systems. Radical Feminists are sometimes perceived as critiquing men as the ones who are inherently oppressive, which I don’t agree with. To illustrate my point in a different way, blacks are oppressed under the capitalistic system, but blacks aren’t biologically, inherently, essentially oppressed outside the confines of capitalism. Radical Feminism also maintains sometimes biological, clear-cut differences between men and women, seeing women as something to celebrate, leaving men to the side as something not worthy of their time. I think men are worthy of our time. As a preliminary tactic while we hasten and await, men need to develop alongside women in order to facilitate a process of growth outside of capitalist oppressive structures.
There are four major groupings of feminists: Classical, Psychoanalytic, Postmodern/Poststructuralist, and Race/Ethnicity. Classical Feminists include Liberal, Radical, Marxist, and Socialist Feminists, all of which focus on realism and materialism and stress the externalized factors of oppression. Liberal Feminism, also termed penis envy feminism, focuses on the individual, reform, sameness, the public sphere, and Welfare Liberalism. Liberal Feminists wish to reform policies and practices (i.e. endorse welfare liberalism where benefits and opportunities are redistributed but doesn’t challenge the organization of society) to allow individual women equal access to the male dominated public sphere. This perspective likens equality to letting women being able to do what men do. This view is much less structural, not seeing the inherent incapabilities of capitalism to give women liberation. Liberal feminism is also very focused in on the mainstream, seeing women’s oppression as individualist problems needing fixing through changing individuals. It doesn’t see the capitalistic system as inherently oppressing women or other minority groups, much less see how it’s oppressing all people. Like my parents, they don’t see the entire capitalistic system oppressing its people. What they do see is the negative outcomes of capitalistic society, but they don’t relate it to capitalism as inherently oppressive. Notice I emphasized inherently. I’ve emphasized inherently because my parents, and many other liberals, do recognize the problems found within capitalism (i.e. the drive for profit, deregulation, poverty, environmental degradation, etc.) but they don’t see capitalism as the main problem. They believe reforming the system (not overthrowing the system) is the way to go, but they don’t see that once reform/reregulation is achieved it will at some point be obliterated due to capitalism’s need to oppress all people in order to exploit their labor for profit, separate and isolate people through ideology in order to keep their focus off the inherent ruthlessness of capitalism, and tear apart the welfare system in order to further make a profit concentrated in the hands of the very rich1.
Radical Feminism focuses on the private sphere (i.e. sexuality, bodies, sexual violence, the reproductive body, feminine motherhood), difference, separatism, patriarchy/men being the main enemy being fought, and on revolution through small-scale action. I have always found Radical Feminism as strange, but at the same time intriguing. Just like Liberal Feminism and maybe all Feminisms, Radical Feminism is narrow in its perspective. While Radical Feminism does critique patriarchy and heterosexuality critically in useful ways, it doesn’t seem to sympathize with men and sees separatism away from men as the answer (these are broad statements; not all Radical Feminists believe this way). They see men as the enemy being fought, as something to separate from in order to create spaces for women. While I do think it’s important for women to be able to discuss the variety of issues at hand and create “safe spaces” without the presence of men in order to facilitate skills that men dominate in, we can’t separate ourselves completely and endlessly from men. Why is this? Because men aren’t inherently oppressive. Capitalism is inherently oppressive, not men. After all, if we hold to separatism, how can you explain my own radicalization without the influence of two men who really expanded my understanding of feminism itself? Also, if we separate from each other as men and women, then we lose the experiences of the other, which I believe is critical for understanding the ways in which capitalism shapes all our lives in oppressive systems. Radical Feminists are sometimes perceived as critiquing men as the ones who are inherently oppressive, which I don’t agree with. To illustrate my point in a different way, blacks are oppressed under the capitalistic system, but blacks aren’t biologically, inherently, essentially oppressed outside the confines of capitalism. Radical Feminism also maintains sometimes biological, clear-cut differences between men and women, seeing women as something to celebrate, leaving men to the side as something not worthy of their time. I think men are worthy of our time. As a preliminary tactic while we hasten and await, men need to develop alongside women in order to facilitate a process of growth outside of capitalist oppressive structures.
Marxist Feminism focuses on economics,
class, capitalism, revolution, sameness, collectivity, and the public
sphere. Marxist Feminists see capitalism
as the main enemy being fought, as opposed to Radical Feminists who see men and
patriarchy as the main enemy. Marxist
Feminism’s idea of sameness is different from that of Liberal Feminism’s idea
of sameness. While Liberal Feminists see
sameness as something women need to achieve on par with men (women need to
become like men, having equality within the public sphere of politics,
government, and social life), Marxist Feminists see sameness as something that
has been disrupted by capitalism. Without
capitalism, women and men wouldn’t differ very much. Marxist Feminism see oppressed people through
a collective lens, believing men, women, and all oppressed people need to come
together in unity as workers of exploitive wage labor in order to overthrow the
oppressive and exploitive structures of
capitalism. They see unity among the
proletariat as we all are exploited for our labor. They say we can’t unite under identity
politics in the long run (i.e. gender/sexual identity, racial identity, etc.). Rather we must unite under our common
exploited labor, which is where our sameness lies. Marxist Feminism sees class relations as
built upon a hierarchy where wealth is distributed unequally; they also see
class relations as the source of power, oppression, and inequality. Lastly, Marxist Feminists see class
oppression as the creator of sexual oppression and as the primary oppression of
women. Radical Feminists, on the other
hand, see sexual oppression as the creator of class oppression and as the primary
oppression of women. In other words,
Radical Feminists see the interrelations between men and women as primary to
oppression, while Marxist Feminists see economics as primary to oppression. As debates occurred between Radical Feminists
and Marxist Feminists in the 1960s and 1970s over the causes of oppression,
Socialist Feminism was birthed as an inbetween drawing from both Marxist and
Radical Feminists perspectives to form one cohesive viewpoint. Socialist Feminists look critically at both
capitalism and patriarchy, bring them together into a single analysis. This Socialist analysis critiques both class
relations and sex/gender, relating them together.
The 2nd major feminist grouping are Psychoanalytic Feminists, which include Freudian, Lacanian, and Post-Lacanian French Feminists. All of these types of feminisms deal with the issue of difference, seeing women as other. They focus not just on the economic aspects of power but also on the psychological aspects. Freudian Feminism focuses on differences due to the formation of subjectivities, the category of sex, the mother who helps form a sexed self, and believe altering the psychological will change social relations. While critiquing the psychological element of humans is of importance for analysis and can be of help in changing individual people away from capitalistic ideology, Freudian Feminism is limited in its ability to change the system. It doesn’t seem to be too critical of the capitalistic system, and its analysis seems to forgo seeing things through the lens of the oppressive and exploitive capitalistic system. Like Susie Orbach’s book Bodies2, she seems to have a good understanding of our psychology and bodies, but she doesn’t base our psychology as due to a capitalistic system but rather on the beauty, fashion, etc. industries within the system. Lacanian Feminism focuses on the abstract, difference due to the sexed self, language which is based on a symbolic system of differences where the sexed self arises, and the symbolic phallus which is the ultimate signifying mechanism of society. The self and sexuality are seen as socially constructed, arising out of language and the symbolic phallus, which are both masculinized. Lacanian Feminists believe the outsider status of femininity can’t exist outside the masculinized arrangement of society. This makes sense; if the dichotomy of masculine and feminine are obliterated, then neither one will exist anymore. The current state of femininity can’t exist outside the current dominate masculinized culture because femininity is based on subordination, submission, and oppression. Post-Lacanian French Feminism rejects this notion of femininity being utterly castrated. While French Feminism does accept the notion that femininity is an outsider status under the current arrangement of society, they believe a new, alternative language needs to be developed which destabilizes the existing order and challenges the way women are interpreted in language and culture. Lacanian Feminism and French Feminism seem to both have slightly different angles on the subject. Lacanian Feminists interpret women/femininity as an inferior position (which it is under the current dominate system of capitalism), while French Feminism critiques this inferior position of women, calling for a reinterpretation of the current position of women.
The 2nd major feminist grouping are Psychoanalytic Feminists, which include Freudian, Lacanian, and Post-Lacanian French Feminists. All of these types of feminisms deal with the issue of difference, seeing women as other. They focus not just on the economic aspects of power but also on the psychological aspects. Freudian Feminism focuses on differences due to the formation of subjectivities, the category of sex, the mother who helps form a sexed self, and believe altering the psychological will change social relations. While critiquing the psychological element of humans is of importance for analysis and can be of help in changing individual people away from capitalistic ideology, Freudian Feminism is limited in its ability to change the system. It doesn’t seem to be too critical of the capitalistic system, and its analysis seems to forgo seeing things through the lens of the oppressive and exploitive capitalistic system. Like Susie Orbach’s book Bodies2, she seems to have a good understanding of our psychology and bodies, but she doesn’t base our psychology as due to a capitalistic system but rather on the beauty, fashion, etc. industries within the system. Lacanian Feminism focuses on the abstract, difference due to the sexed self, language which is based on a symbolic system of differences where the sexed self arises, and the symbolic phallus which is the ultimate signifying mechanism of society. The self and sexuality are seen as socially constructed, arising out of language and the symbolic phallus, which are both masculinized. Lacanian Feminists believe the outsider status of femininity can’t exist outside the masculinized arrangement of society. This makes sense; if the dichotomy of masculine and feminine are obliterated, then neither one will exist anymore. The current state of femininity can’t exist outside the current dominate masculinized culture because femininity is based on subordination, submission, and oppression. Post-Lacanian French Feminism rejects this notion of femininity being utterly castrated. While French Feminism does accept the notion that femininity is an outsider status under the current arrangement of society, they believe a new, alternative language needs to be developed which destabilizes the existing order and challenges the way women are interpreted in language and culture. Lacanian Feminism and French Feminism seem to both have slightly different angles on the subject. Lacanian Feminists interpret women/femininity as an inferior position (which it is under the current dominate system of capitalism), while French Feminism critiques this inferior position of women, calling for a reinterpretation of the current position of women.
The
third major grouping of feminists are Postmodern/Poststructuralist Feminists
(i.e. Post Feminists) and Queer Theorists, all of which stress the differences
between men and women and who also stress differences among women and vice versa.
As opposed to other Feminists, they really emphasis difference to the
point of rejecting any sort of unity (universalism) between people. They reject universalism as it marginalizes
differences and is connected to domination and censorship. For example, if there is unity between men
and women then these Feminists see this as a way to ignore the differences
between them and therefore the domination of men occurs under this
“unity”. They also reject any form of
fixed categories or identities (i.e. woman, black, middle-class, straight,
etc.) saying we’re all essentially different.
These Feminists are perhaps correct to state that we are all different,
but aren’t we similar in some ways also?
Aren’t we all made of flesh, blood, bone, have brains which are the
center of the nervous system, take in nutrients into our bodies to survive,
cry, and so many other things? We
obviously have our similarities, but Post Feminists may make it sound like we
have none at all. Even under a
capitalistic society which divides us into categories/identities, we still have
our similarities. Under capitalism we
are ALL oppressed. Isn’t that a
similarity, even if those oppressions are different? Under capitalism, workers predominately work
under exploitive wage labor. Now isn’t
that a similarity? While Post Feminists
do reject universalism, their main focus isn’t on this sameness/difference
dichotomy. They’ve shifted their focus
to the question of power wanting to destabilize and resist hierarchy. Like Radical Feminists, I am very drawn to
Post Feminists/Queer Theorists, even if I don’t completely agree with them… But
I don’t completely agree with ANY one “type” of particular feminism.
The
last major grouping of feminists are Race/Ethnicity Feminists who are similar
to Post Feminists/Queer Theorists in that they also reject universalism, sameness,
identity categories, etc. as they see it as marginalizing minority groups like
blacks. They hold to
anti-assimilationist views where they see universalism or sameness as
marginalizing or ignoring differences among people, which reiterates hierarchy. They don’t see women as a unified
grouping/category (for example, black women have differing political concerns
compared to those of white middle class women).
While they do critique unity in sameness, they see men as potential
political allies for the struggles of women where men and women are seen as
becoming similar through political struggle and alliance.
2
Orbach, Susie. Bodies. New York. Picador. 2009.
No comments:
Post a Comment