Modern Feminist Thought: From the Second Wave to 'post-feminism' 0748632085, 9780748632084

Citation preview

Modern Feminist Thought From the Second Wave to 'Post-Feminism,

I melda \l\Thclchan

ED INRURG H UNIVERSITY PRESS

*31 ....ldi Wb 9nd the bookshops appear to be burning wi 1h new publicmons dciling wirh issues of gender. Yet u r1derl'in ning 1hi1 ac;adrnliC ~ut'pcgo:its for the ills of contem porary life This tcmion bciw in u>11lc111porou y Sc~'Ond w:wc thought, 2nd then, in P-irt -r4Wtl, debiting lhc pl:acc el f fc:r1ini.s111 in ~c>o:tl, pt1litic:a.I •nd personal life dun ng the '90s. 1l owettr, b~fo1c l e 111h:u k 0 11 • \un·cy' of d istil" U\'C s1r.nds i11 second wave fcmjnist tho ught, 1 would li ke lO pro,·ide a context for undc rsund.i ng the emergence of the women's h~ruion mo"ement. As l hope JA.lrt Two wil l dc1nomcralc, it is nol always easy or de-sir3.ble co di"tr.rnds, ic is c1ca1 lh at fem in isl 1hnug ht rnnl>in5 pcr~pecli\1:5 wh ich \l>rnctimQ hold pol>n7.Cll views on the origin and pcrpcruuion of gender d1ffcrcncc, and from chcnccag1ccmenh ca11 e..c.ll•re. T he 1:iuq M)sc of this l ntJ(Klu\!tjon 1s 1hcrcforc rwofc>lci tn (>rnvillc ;a ra 0 ii. d efence of the ra,1 ical potcnaal o f feminJst though t 1odiy, m face of demctors all 100 ready 10 dJsmiss the ,·cry rw rc•-oluuon which feminism made on the c.onj(iousness of so many. As I ho pe this wggests, neither my l nrrodumon nor subsc a.ic 1n1ended 10 he objecm•c. One of the m:ijn rc:uo1r> whv I chru;c to wri1e thi.- book 1s 10 offer a posiaon whic h scrongly re futes clai111s th u feminism threatens to explode under irs o wn nu111eruw idcniity uis;c5, 01 rhoc die 1c.1111 femi nism itS~ rcnc"'·cd ret.is.t:;a.nc--c tn 11 forcc(ul and

roncntrd b.adm in Europe 2n d the US1\ ,l In the Uniccd S1.ucs, many women, d1scnc:h:1med by 1hecr involverncn1 in malc· do rnin a1cd left-wing po litics, were defecting to lonliud, non· hicra.rclucal women's libcrt cm 1) 1 i.le:u.. The l\'fi» A merica protc3t alught H5 org;m1urs th•t dcmonitr.m ons "f •i•lerly •ulidarity could too c::tsily be construed as viaous attacks on other women (1.hc co111cst:1.nb in the he1-vc 2rn•y ' ufbbuur, and c11li 1nlogic';illy p ackaged ll a skilled, hJghJy tech nologiud mdusuy of 1rs own. T he housewife's role •Y.t S rm• nf " uronomy rn,! re•pomihili 1y~ '" t he n13jor purelnscr of commodines 1n the fam1ty hou~hold, she w2s inrcruivcly targeted through comlll('rcial advcnmng. The im:iige o f t he hou~w1fo u the pur\'cyor of h igh sandMds of domestic orwin12Jti11n was fed back to inJividual women though the 111cdi2 - whcoe it lu,I beLvrr1e im:re:a•int1IY gl1moriud and cone.pundingly dilTicuh to live up 10 Unle"'>•, th.i i•, rhr mlc w.a •doptctl ~· a full- time

o-.-cupuion. Undoubtedly the tm:n11c1h

"""'"'>' >ul.-1.n ti:al irnprovuncnls

iu the qu:i.liry of " 'omen's li,•cs. T he w ife and mother of the 1950s and l-thology. Never thelcH, the home w;u onLe again rcg.udcd 3.) the pr0pcr 11.lvc u fc>r the ~ ...vh.:>le "ro1n:in. ~Or '1w1rr11;i.1' " 'u1ne11 1

wo m en whn m• rricd • nd had .-hild rc n m:aint:aoning th e hmL•f'hnld was to be their proper desun~r. 1nd«d 11 bcc~c an idenncy to im:lf. to the nclusion of •ll others. Car lihcration movement ~5 2ch1~d h)· 2 trlln,fonn.iinn o f feminist notions of polnk:il tnte,-w,n11on, sig nliL.ng :i significant deparrurc fro m the m ai ns rrc:im poL ncal arena altogeth er and extending the pan.mcrcn ol fe minist discourse bcrond rccognicion. Fcminisrs of 1.lac u1e1 '60~ onw:ud. broke all the 'rulei', both ofo:adition:J lobbymg tactics and to some extent oflcft--...1ng opposioon.i.l pobrics; they communkucd tn womcn· o nly cad1cs. prcfening non· hicrarchjcaJ form:u:ioru w here all group members shared c.tslls equally. H erc women attempted 10 create a poltticaJ plulosophy which p;ud Little heed lo founding f.thus or modem tlcmocn..:y. b ut 1night 1d1;i.bi!itatc female anrecedcnts w here .,,·a.tJable 'Nlule the mcdi• ancmptcd rn pnrrr:ay ~uch wo111en""' l"'llY biter-day hycn:is in Jlmc.

CONSTRUCTING TI IEORIE.SlrlNDlNG AN ORIGIN

Ilcny Fn~an's TIJt Fmwrtn1 M)'lf''I"~ (1963} • ppcMcd to hcrild the new dyn..; virulenl, int~rrual tli~putes oi,,e1 wll:ll il ..ns possible or ~rm o«•blc for • fcmoni•f ID do, SO)". th ink o r fed' (n~t nur, 1n M irr hrll ~nrl O,k!cy 19~6: 9). R,,t d«pi re e,;,.1cnce t h2t tlic :.c"ond .,....;;,a."c ,~..,_. fit.>u1,dcd UJX>11 a... ti,·c tC'lbjo-ns, fcmi.n1sts of the e:1.rly 70s dJd construct nerworks of communicanon, conferences, clemnn!!.tr:i tion1e 11nc of car ly fcrni11i ... 1 agcnd.is co12ttn1r~1ing I\ i-»~O ~uc._h a.; p:ud ho usework, goomon, contracepaon, the fam •l)'• and th e sexua.l di•·i~im 1 of l•bcm r. TI1erc: •pparcd lo he no ti""'"'"' olivi.l• l>t:lwe...11 t heory and pr:1.cc ice with in t he n a.;ccn1 mo\·cmcnt wh,c.h - by '~rrue o r its hn,.t.1- li.a.f1:ir11ly in :1 ; r.re or trrnsformation and moditication - to idcmify on~lf :u a r'2d ic:LI, for curnplc, would not gu:U;lrtlcc a oorrscnsus among r;i.dicals u a whole u to how ndical feminism could

be defined. The '''1mcrr'1 liberation nwvcm~nl n:maincd looJ11Cl£th1l9'.; '\\•h ic:h ic all (c:rr11 mst positions uuhze such a process; part1cubrly effecnvc in femi1mt politics because ii oeitatcs 1he scruriny of one's P'iY2tc life and tl1er~ro1e 1,ri\rf!s the lir tf> rhc t1CJtl tu 1 1h a1 1hii :arra f t•urnan t"Xprrience 1s, o r should be, beyond the purview of polmcol m tcr.-cnt1o n The C''asion of 'domenic' issues m politlcs had occluded women for c~nruriei.

Yet the rc>ru·entnt 1ftn n '1>e r!limu1l' pnllti~ nu::~11t thut the aC'tu;il narus of feminism as pcrcewcd by other poLucal groups became problematic. Left-wingers felt rh•c 1 focus on gender-specific issues :icrcd '" 3 clivnsion frum tho main hu•inc..< of a ~-.111.:olid>itcd •tUAS OF T I IF. SF.C0\11'> WAVf'

There was generally ~ubsranrial agttemenc between different fcm injsts about the 1nain issues for femi nism. Mowcvcr, dc2r splits ore cviclcnt in thci r • nalyses of the rools of female oppre"ion: wlulc they were qwtc c.ert:;li n of the cfTocr. of fc1112lc •ub0tdina1io ra, 1ht1e Ienc led to be sharp d1sagrcements abou1 whe.rc rhe origins of rn:ale power were louted. Nonetheless, certain rerms became common fcn1iuist p:irbnrc, 2ntl •r cntic •«l•~s c3 mc 10 reflccr men in clrrler I f, 2t 1e rnpt

me

a.grccmcm on some fundamcmal issues. althoup;b main diftkuhy in duin11 1his w;u to a.voiJ a. n)' i1npfa.21jVh at she duw s 10 o ur artcnnon most s1roni:;ly is some of t he mort: pcrv~­ •i.c: efrccc.. of p:ur;:u ...hy - th>t it. clleu ive opt:r•tion . i the level of 1triu~h>l uleology' ;, • till clra·ll•'r ( Fhrrclt 1988: 19) For fr mini•ts, 1hc cffc:c1s of a pamarchaJ ideology arc most keen!)• felt Withi n 1hc: family envrronmenr - which is po cciscly 1hc ,pherc

17

/n1rodur110'1

most often ignored by political theorises. Fe minist c.ntiqucs t.1..c nude ir d..u 11\at it i~ the w ife who gellerally pby• the instrument>I 1o lc in the .oc.i:Ui.n, p:J.rtieul.:1rly sint-c m ainltn'am g,n~lyw5 elf the fam ily tell u< li tt le •bout ii. c;omplc" anrl mdir..n rcl•t•onshir to rlo min•nt netwnrlc~ nf pow..r T'h~ rnncC'p• of th• fiam 1)y 51";('m5, therefore, ro function most dTectivcly at an ideological level - even though there is an increasingly matkcd disJuncnon bcr..ecn the family 'norm' and most people's Ji~cd experience of famiJy hfc T his ambiguity •round wh;i1'the family' re:i lly means prorluccs ~ IS I() t r)nfornl 10 Y:ltious 1nd1ces of bcha\llour rc1'1re more m fe:u of suci.il di~11pprov-.i.I of "rhc family' th an to strictly internal family dcm~d;' (Bamrt 1988: 205). Atlher~ni:c: tn gcrider identity, fnr mst:lnCC', is something endorsed ~nd remforcc-d by schools. mcd1a, peers and olher ideologi cal agencies o utsehuld doma in. It w.o therefore loglol for fc mmms to devote much anenoon to the strucrure of rhe fam ily, ~nd anemp1 to unr.,ver tlte ro:;al .-nnlic bl.out dTc.1.1i"':ly ucdudc~ t heir m •l 2nd ccnnomic ~-u11tnhu1 io11s at both a mJcro and m acro level. In the pt0«ss o f intcrrogaung the publJc/priv:ate di~1s1on, fcmtrusts &uitfu.Uy quesooned lhe found~­ trons of such a cLvide, and rn whose tnterest this dis tmction was m arnt.1mcd. I n the search for momenu of ongrn and incidents of pcrpctu nJOn of gende red inequ..litics, some worki n~ definition of 'p21 riarchy' 2ppe2 to be inJi,1>lutiont in ureter l (t s.h~Nc.r the gencr;.i._I con1pl.:1 ....'Cn...y arou11d the immutabilny of gender d1!TercncC'I md corrc5ponding i;o.;i•I ""llcricnccs.. Yer a. 1h i, houk 1c.iitic3, the mean.. hy ,\lhid 1 'patrt an::hy' is diaractcnttd i. infinitdy \'auous, and the conclus1ons and utn1'ia" forrnul.uetl m.:iy onnflirt; l>nt ~oc-h r~n1innK in of !he di vrr~iry of we>mrn's lived ""p 01 bot lo) in a sy.1cm uf do mination" (hookJ 1989: 22). La11erly m1ny fe111inisu have uken up bbn5' h ts • till a com monplace to atc potcncw 'recrum' is 10 ch:i1 l~teri1e all fc111ini,1s , , lcshi:u1t. It is disturbing, rhcrefore, th at many early fcminjsts prop:ig:ucJ homuphubic i;cntimcnt~ in 1hc fur o(being found 'gu]ty', by a.ssociuion, o f bcmg a le~bi an. Gi ne11c C astro's account of these form.mvc: years of second

"''"II

20 \\•ave m iliLa1 1C)' suggcs.t~ t h~r le~bi:an! \Y1:.1c c0rn1rlonJy .);c~Jl 1s :t

tl i.3ruptive force, !uspccttd of usi ng me movement as a •·chide for pros dytization She further r.-counts rumoon that lesbians were used by l hc FRI to \N'Cre fc)rcgtuuruJcJ by thr 1ncdia as 5pok«pt c1itiques co be gwc:n any serious atrcnaon. I Ix-gin niy survey f the rl,>min:anl ·srTarad~' o f (crn inji..rn t.A-il]l

lihcr•I' feminism b"ousc it is one of chc olden form~ of fcmmist thought, and argu~bly the m1JS1 dlffi~'tllt 10 define. In commo n "~th M UDst fcmm1sm, 11 depends upon a degree of analyucal 1nvesrment with malc-orienced mophy ocl.S o ul 10 p rO•C lfl• H'> ttakcnl de£i1 c for •uciety, yet inI rhmlc~r< h•~ to bnd~ a """"' cnn trad1ct1on 1n t hen th inkJOg- chat ts to porcraycw1J.izaaon •s a m ru.ral prop,rcssion in the e"olu1ion of 1n2n , whilst allowi ng thit 11i~11 l'"" ' • lc• civil1~-1 tion and could. smctly speiksng chose 11\ocher meim to uis1 in the world Thomas H obbes, wnting Tht C1/IU'1 in 1651, projects 3 \i cw o f m:rn i11 the h~tt \ Ill e o f n aru re (hd n rc civil i7..1r inn) ~· consnndy m conOoct with >II o ther men 'nd therefore ccquirinj:\ contnd s o t c•tlz.cnslup ;ond rules of mou.l lty and govern111eo1 tu p1cvcnt the lugical conc!u~t,)11 C U prcsuw1io11, wouW need to be c.icc111cd equal, one which c:>t>OU>d r• tiun:Jity .u it~clf " n•l ual lumm1 yu"1ity cng~n,!cring a rrcngm tion W1tfun Ul humins of 1hc nccrl for sc>n•I gro11pings i;:ovcrned by rules and contrncrs, which >0mc enforce and some have enforced upon them . Althou11h lucr wr11en; conccwr o f individuals acti ng upon p rinciples of moral imp:u tiality as o pposed ro naked self-in terest, libcr.J t hinkers tend to pictulc soci.U cohesion n based upon individual competitiveness, go ,-c:rned by limited powers o( the suce to enforce muru:i.l respect and c1V1c nghu and counrcr L1 kcly mnffict. Moreover, g-0vcrnm cnt is po rrrayed :u a p1 occ:ss achieved by un l\·e rnl consent. T he 1 hcro ric of 11aluralnc~¥ ounjure~ up image> of biologihc:1c arc used to identify the lim it> ;< tn t he hmne 2nJ 111 1he irr.u io 11al •idc of human 11am1c, . ssociatcd with q u:ll.irics such as nu1 runn~ and emonon . Accordingly the chief aim oflibcr.tl fcminiry n l i;ud1 writers os ~:try "Vollstonecnft , a.nd larc.r John Sru:in M ill 2nd Harriet Taylor, who set om to show that al.I social categories uc acrucrurcct hy rhe fart o f gender; :1.nd 1h:i1 'fcmini11i1y' i> • pri\Oll rorhc-r rh•n a q uality of he:ahhy frmalen(Ss. The b ngu:age of libcny, righ" • 11mc a vital dininction for latter day feminists; chat the bare physical faces o[b1olog:icaJ dirfcrcncc should not be unqu estionably el io n cannot c:;a\i ly l>e n:ntlcrr.d tnamp.ur.nt. T hey 2rc •u ni< in, >nd ub..cure "111nnion up images of unn arur1lncss 2nd irnu on· 2.liry. \A/0Us1one«afl's case, it ~ems. 1s a P'"" deno unced by the cpmcmologic.tl fou nd ano ns of liberalism. l.ook«I at anothn w•y. \IV0Usto11cuaft a.ig=bly exposes 1ns1c contnd1ctions wn lun liberal lh clf in tJ.1~t it> u11 tve1sa.I moral punciplcs of liberty, jusncc and c11i~ensh1p cannot be, applied cq u1ubly to all hu man beings \Vorce. C'("'r1ain in!'4ti11.1 rinns are lc>r1n2ll1cJ a, ~il l'1 \'lo'illlall which ccruin incq11ir;~ rnch • s h1cr>rch;e s of p m•ilcgc pcn1e, th~f'l""by mform«Uy •u•mninl\' rh c p m·,1e spherr "' 1h a1 qu2litu:< o f justice or libe1ry cannot p roperly be g:augcd wilhLn ns pun ·1ew. 'Nollnonccnit ap~s to ~•son - a n in clusion of wo men wich in the 'Rights o f .M an· - which is clln·ti.-dy an appea l for w1)mcn's inL lu~ion "'I'"' 1 of t he l11nn:i11 •1)etic•, to ~hew 1hc " ht c!Tccu o f biological reductionism She vgucs th at women h~"C l.1dcrd the c •r•ciry It• " "i{'•gc activdy in pol i1 i.-al 1•hlC~~c' pu 1cly beuusc they h~•e been denied oppummit1es to dc.,clop thctr 1n1cllccru:>.I faculties (she 3cccp1s the posstb1locy o f grca!cr phpiu.I frailty, b ut dismisses its rdcv.1n1c rcsponsib1linc;, would be able to curb men's unbndlcd and corrupt scxu:i.I appcote! - on this. central features associated '"irh 111,1•c:uli11iry and fc1nirlin11y remained un~imincd Yet ht'r p rimacy demand - for the same cducuion robe prO\~dcJ for women as 1s p rovided lor m en - nc-ccs""1til)' p,csrurcs

fururc whe1c ,..o rncn , c.1u2l in in1clle1..tu:ll ~11:.inmcnb. m iglrt rk •c"'"'• 2• individu •I., t he n g ht ro enrer rhc dvil dom•in 3nd to be economically amonomous. I [er underly ing 31gumcn1 th.at t he i11d usio11 of the right• of wom• n wichm civic rights would en~ble women 10 be trul)• useful members of >01..iccy bcliu the face th~t a rowa.rds

~

Lrkral Ftmmi1m

33

'rcvoluuon in female m:a nncrs' (\,Vollsio necnft 1975- 317) mJght pave 1l1c way for a 111orc gtoundbrt:aki ng form .,f rc•·o!utiuo. ·n.c w nrlc of \Vo ll•1r1t r •i t1nns dcn''C impetus and inspiranon from such wmcrs, so th~1 dus cnd1

tion lies >1 th• h~rc of fcm ini~t knowledge. Hut 1hi~ letpl")' •l.o hrin~ with i1 certain trnsinns that lie 2t the ccmrc oflibcral 1houghL T hese te nsions arc pciciiy finds herself tr:l.p pcd in self absorp uon ~nd nI feminist c!forts which focus upon individ1u l fcmaJc identity and experience as 1hc li1~1 step tu ~ullc~t i~e revolurion , Fri«Ltele of !>dllal d2ffer enre. ln idclmon, someth ing wh ich po•~nti of 11ui11s11c:im p0liti try tel nh-11 \ ancl c ustoms, bu t u ndercstim • t•s 1hc Kopc of thn 1ntenoon, w htch assumes tha1 projected social u•nsformacions incorpora te a d1111ging su1u~ for 1nen :u w~ll. Feminm u1opi01S are neccsurily wo111a11 c~nucd in dic1t concern1. since one: o r •heir most 1mport;m1 functions 1• 10 1dlec1 upon the presenl - to gesrute at ways in which tlungs could be o th rrw ise, l{id1ltds l'ritiei7r.~ 1hc \vOm en's movement fo 1 " h 11 , he Jl - le.ads 10 a ttprcss1o n of md1V1dual sdf derermin:mon: 'the fac1 is th31 w omen who tlr= in ~ t"()nvcntinnn:al preference - although of OOUJ SC iLS would W;lfll 10 debate the CXtCOt l O w hj ..(\ SUUJ 'choices' •n: 1t12c!c f1cely. She defends me s.anc1i1y 1he priva1c sphcrr, • nd 1hucforc n:fuwan1 mc:1>, ond if wmncn W2nt me n chey mu~t be w illing to be plcas ing 10 th em' (Richards 1982: 230). The 1hnm of the book, in 1is :memp110 rescue femi n1'm frnm it1 wur>t cx~a•c•, . ddre»o 2 ruder who ha. always been t he focus of IJbcnl femmiar n:ai\.'t 11ntl even srup1d. Ii rypically 1ppeals co lhe readers' common se nse - assuming chem co be women who may Wish ro "'su t chcir righc to equality u ndct dc 11lOCrJL)', but have 110 wish lO radiu lly t1" with 111cr1. n.th1re

fc:11urn , 1n

la-3:t

Chapter 2

M arxist I Socialist Feminism: Reconstructing Male Radicalism

& th ...,form1• r• •nC rcvoluaomrics 111.v-c tocomcnd with the nf • rl•ss •n•>gonimc soc1ciy: and feminms must simi· !Mly rcili~c tint the o ppccuhre socUJ djvision bciwccn men and women, though nOf a cl:us di,ision, at the •cry least rcprc i11 which lil>ctal femi nism hc:enmc inclu('lahly cntTcnchebing thos.c fcminins w ho ha\IC cnd~vourcd 10 form a.llianc" wi1h 1hc po lJticaJ Ltf1. I lowe,e1U IWO Ji.tincc cendcn~ics witllj n feminist though1 - soci:i.fu1 feminism h2ving >upc1sedcd M uxi.1 ferninism • nd hcing 'brgcly the n:sulc of Ma.rxm fcmi njsrs' din •t1sfan i1>n with the C;\Scnoally gcndcr·bund clu..ractcr of 1'¥lanrist thought' ITong l 9R9~ 173). :"l.hn:ist fcmi11is1>, ""' 2s>cr1', see d2•~ :u chc ultim>te dcccrm inant or women's current socullcconomrc surus, whereas

c• n •ccm

I

45 ~al1st

fcm[nins view gender and cl~s< • • cqu;Uly powerful opprc:1 >1"C: 1ncd unis11u. In nddiuon. SOCJaiat fcminuts fo~us upon :.tru• of SC:J(\Jal iiy ind 1cp1.:>duLtion. I do not 1g1c:c, h"·~c:r, 11,11 •uch .1 dc.1r distinction can be mide , and would concur "ith Alison J~wr thu ·~o.·i•h w il l. i 1tvoluCii>U ir1 c.:cn1.)1..io u,:110.s.. In tJ1ei.1 :At tc1111Jt tn n1erge c:ncou111c::1 a 1112jor difli.:uh y. the cun· n pt cd the facr thu cl:us· b:i.sed :rn:tlysis either :assumes that women enter the cl31s system on equal terms 'Ylth me n. or that th ey aie of no relH:lnce 10 either it$ rn tinh:nancc nr dc:mpat ihl~. A ncl M an:i•U have n n ml!'S been hoscilc 10 to-mm ins, du.uc ten zing chc womc n's mo»cmcnt as conslructi ng 3n absl13ct :rnd ahmo ric:i.l ca.sc ofspccI in the dimi n utio n of Founcnsr. O...·en11e and other utopian positions. whkh, c!eri ,~ng impetu• lnm• t l1c le'2CY ol l\hry \.Voll•t11n ft'• ll1nd1rar10,,. ofth~ R1sh11 efiJtoMan, had n1 ::a. rcn rral cooccrn '"'nmcn'1 li~ration and scxuaJ freedom A ccmr11 problem for l\luxist fcm inlS!s was th.r wom en seemed to be go,·cmed by rwo semi-autonomous but murually strengthening power mechanisms - the Of"'~l ion nl a l"'ri •rch:d ideol031 of imrnu12bl~ st:xu~ I d;flc1cm,. widlln t he fimily, and 2 ~eiuur in the wo:kpu~'C. Buth had •CC• ivcd lit tle :Lll l tr.iditfon. In t loe ,f..vclup111crH .,r ~ Mat>ttOI rcmir11•t thenry, FricdrL a cronal IC::> po~it ion on women's r lacc:: under cap1tJ.!1sm IS 11nbiguous: he assumes m 3t wo men 1ndcpen cJently 2cqu i1 e. c-b.ss st::atus

t,). vii 1uc of Lhe

~.a mc cc.:on c)mit' ciererm1-

n•nt3 as men, b ut also infers thu1 ul l women arc pro\cr;irian rud wirh sn 1n111i2gc-whc1c male 1JOwcr is regarded as 2n:Llogou> tu t lo:u of the bourgeo1S1e. T he family. therefore. represen ts a capm.lm sys te m of rebuon< in microcosm. md st is ·••sumcd that once cl.us 1s aholithcJ, So 'c"u~I inerpt;ility will ciis:1ppcar. In th i• w;iy women'< r.rtiruhr vc merely hccornc: fu n,.ticin:al for opinli$m, 1hen one might ugue th.at analytii of cap1ul 11.nd m rcproducaon ncgucs the need for an an:Uysi.. of paLri:in:hy per 1~. and tor thi' rc:uon feminis t scrutiny of women'$ spc:cif,e na1u' in the t phcrcs .,f the family and in commod[ty producnon ~re held to obscure the more ' illlpor12ni ' •1uc.i101u r2ittd by cb13 •n2l.ri•- T he .cornml1rion of cap1mL T he 'private sphec1o' - the obverse of the bbour market - bc:comcs hcrmcticU!y scaled ilS outside the framework of mucnali~t an rigurou..1)' bou nd ed by he r b1t>logiul i,lc ntity and no1urc; while m alC$' r11pc:nor rn1onaJ11:y or 1hinst 10 transform narure by the action o f proxu wu thc hy 10 ci•-iliurion . A ~cntr>I fcn ure of con tempo rary )1,"b.1x.1st feminist thought h:is been to construct a viab!c chcotttical fr.uncwork tlr21 11 women at woak. Fcn1inis1s observed th at female labour as concentrated in low piUd bands, such os d eaning, n u0ur pow"r COlkc place subsr1noaUy Wllhin the family throug h the bbuur o( 1he housewife. then it i well as screnglhemng j umficauon for the sc.u.Jl! division of l2bour in the workplace. \Vh1lc M :uxist feminists highlight the economic imporancc o f the household, an common With o th er feminists they simuluntous!y explode the popubr l»olo-glsnc myth thu ' home m:1.long' ts some ching to whtch women narunlly • spire In order to do this it ls impnrnnt f () C'f)n\icler tl'e r~mlly lorrn in :Lil ILi.SIO:iaJ l"Onl~x• t I () show how flexible it is to the needs of dominmr socrnJ forces. and how it reproduce< 1t~lf most dTccctivdy thrtocrgh idehip ru tht la.hour m:i.rkct is mediated through her dependence upon a hus,b:i.11d and her '1Ssumcd domc>nc

,\111fx11//StJrial11t Fmw111m

55

responsib ilities - nnt to m•ntion how gentler ~.,.,i•li~-•• inn 21Ti:cu her ow n view of her cuct!r po1e1m:il. Jn view of 1hc n umerous cornp!ex factors whirh m ay rC'lfTl n 1n61der factor< suc-h , , r;ic-e 2nd •au:tl 01ient:llJOn - l ltO!>e cffaccnor 10 feminis1 2pp101ches 10 ideology, Lo uis Althusl her w .. rdh the •l~ le inren" in the 1cproducnon of labour-power at a crucn.I lcvcl 'oumde' thc ttalms of pmc lunion '11rnpeT', ~nd enfowcs n,.votablc ~nd •mmuublc. AJ1husscr poim.. o ut rhai du: rd a1ion•hip> l>l!rv.een infr..mr~ture •ml rnpcr< 1ruc1u~ h~vc, on 1ud1hon:d ;\ du1mna11Le vi:i. 2" 2bstr.lct power nerwork (rhe sure appa Mltn•). which enulcJ L-Onceiv:ibl)' 1C11l2i1l in1acl af1c1 o sei2u1e o f pow-er by another social ~roup fn •ddn inn " ' the Sute Apr1~u11u rlew:ribed ~ 1cp1essivc since it ultimatcl v ' functions by violen ce' (Althusscr 1984; 17), wh ether phys10J o r non· phrica I in form - he cli•tini;uishcs ldcolu11ica! Sr;1.re Ap1nnrusc:s (ISAs) tl12t em2nite from and (ettl hork into the Rt:prcni,·c S~.ltc App>r.tlus (RSA). "Ili. lu\lootrd~ ~ cJclinitinn nfh15pc11y 1duion.. and t:hc $ClCUJ.I division of l3bour. F'u rthcr. Althusscr a\'cJs !hat rt ls th e •!Ale (1hc ruling d .i1ru.oic,I - in • .,.,.~}' th at profound ly .iffccts our material existence, he offers a pos1t1on wt11ch ech'"" 1tu1 uf !""l•tnu·tur:i lo~t rheonsi. ltlro logil'al pmre&«:s, in t he w•y rh.-y mN.lmre •ntl nrgorillc tlir fq'rr1 by 1he 'double-mirror dTect' of an ISi\ w hjch tmplocn:ly conains 3t irs cc1mc 1hc Suhjee1 p~r "i cellericc (c,.g •

illfarxiu/SOA, or the idea of the mo dd famLly whJch is summoned in the functions of the wdfuc state) to which we :uc subjc1.:tcd. 'We rc:rogni:l.c: out 'self' 1 dlcctcd in t hc•c beC1l1> to Le thuui.;ht ' (Allhu,se1 1'IS4 3) In other ,,;ords, 1nodes of production thcm.cl•·cs need 10 be considered at a m1crolevd, whcn.:c 1hdr condition~ of c~i1C l"'rL"Ci\l:.i 10 1tui\fC upo11 1 scxual/ethnu..c11t1 ic divi.ion of labour. where women and racral outgroups ue concenrr~ted 10 low-~tt.ry whid1 imuhc> 1hc pro,.1011•. T he nlrk.~ of contcmporiry soc1al formations rs Vital The first steps to suc h a revolurion arc to c~posc 1hr ron1raJi.-1 inn' inh~rcn1 in 1hr doininant itlcologiei. of comcrnpo1"2J)' tifc IJr nn t •he l'JC:aggcr-Jlb 1he case, corn111cn1amrs o n fe1111nm acrivity o n both ~ides of the Atlantic chari scriou• tcnn•l \/\/omen'~ Liberation conference, hd d 1n B•rrmngham An 1mportan1 and n:cumng poinl of dii.putc wo.s the q uc"jon of w hc tl 1torical specifi6iy meant th:i.r they were oblc t•J u np:u:I< the \mwidd}' n m Cef'I of p2t ria,chy, :ind rn~kc .:onncctions bcrwcen this :.ttmingly ameless sys1c m of domination and • c-apir.tlis t ClCific nellective, precicty. At this cn.J uf the ,,Kl;ahst fc:mini~1 ~pcc:"­ rn1rn, we c;an wiln6' 2 t.t1nng

li11k with 1,jLfic:1.l fc1nini,n1,

w]'\ere

pc:rpn~tc a nd n:appn"c ' masculine' d1seourllc•, if o nly'" 'uhve11 then 1>tl 2s 10 be bgy •nd reproduction uc fund~men t.tl Bry ill very cx1..oetcnc-c., 1t keep!; rhc "'UC of di.e pohuc• c:of •c:im&l11y oml •c.xu:il prcfcrend1r~I fcmmm5 nf 1he l:ote '60; w:b t h:i.1 rnou we1e dcfruon from the ~cw Ld1 3.nd civil nghB movements, and ' much of r.idtcal frmmist theory w:i.s th e reforc forged m f'C"acaon ag;ains1 1he theories, Ol'.l(:i.nizarional structures, :o nd pcrwn;d •tyle< of the m;ale 'New l.ef1'' (DQno•·an 1992 141) In this ..c11..e, rodiinst p:it rian;-hy 1'h1s r•gc, d i•!or1cd, cnviahzcd and depoli11et2cd. w:u seized upon by the mcdii -and p:arodicd in rhe mainnrca111, a nd still i11 fu1m• 1he pu11ul:az (1llis)co11 "eptinn n( a 'feminist' 1od.1y Radical fcminis1s eschewed r"xisti n::;

68

fl1odl'rtt Ftm1noJ11'bought

political •m.ICl\ues or 111alc 01ic11 tcd l'hilosuphlcs. in favou 1 uf atl1iu~ 1u the "''n1ncn·~ 11 1ovc m ent arc rreared with suspkion. on the gro1tnds that the}' mil '"'dd the power 10 be potennal o ppn:ssors c~i•ting with the pri•-ilcgcs s ~sing w•s conccwcd as the most effective meJtns of cncO\Jr>)ll ns; all women rn ack.nnwletlgc their ennenC'hed secondary sarus, by accepung th•t no • spen of rhcir lives - p•n:icularly their pc r5uld Ix argued tl>:tt such cndeavouts risk leaving t he domi nant n 1ln11e unin1rrr'other b ranch of modern feminise thought, ~weal femjnJSm's acti \~lies mrnsform ed the found u ions of wlnt could be defined ~~ "polioc~', not le•st becaus.c 'ou r theory iJ that practising our p1a..:ticc ;, oor 1hoory' (Chc>1er in Fe111i11is1 AnthoJ,.gy CoUeco,·c 1981: 69) In other wordc, ndica.I feminist writingi arc con~ciou~ly deemed in"'pm1hle from group r2~ic•, n 1her 1lun ~s u discrete contribution to an absrracc ph1losophinl posiriof'I . Thoory and practtce, personal 2nd poLnc:ll rnm binrd we~ robe the means by wh ich women mighr uansform thecr lifest)1~ . ar 1he Hme nme as militating for soc:tal crmsforntuion. T he belief chat radkal fem1 nism needs 'to quesrion eve ry single aspect o f our lives rh2t we h2\"e

74

lWodrticularly arr>Und isM••• of m• lc violcne1lity ha.-.: a lcndcncy 10 bp~c into a biolugi1m whii;h sugges1 that men uc inMtely aggressive (sec, for cxotmple, Hrow111niUcr 1976). 111 >lld i1il)tl, the com1n i1 mcn1 10 pro• muti11g a " o men's cull\ilc can 2ho h:a.-.: a SJmilat effect, stnce often thi1 a""'un1ed ro a cclebr• tion of 2spcl'1s of fem ininity wl1ich lurl prc'''°'isly been cast in ntg•tivc rerms - for u • mplc, heing irn1icmal, emotional, co ruiti,•e, nunuram and inssivc - ruhcr than a rejection of the ril9diry of such qualities. Comm unal Living Wll5 rhc idi:aJ lo r"nc!r:r male a1"i5!2m:e rcdu nd'1nl, •nd in '"'""' c a l.CS (l.u1 by 110 mcms all). lesbianism, 'polillcal lcsb1~nism' (the cho ice of 2 lesbian S One of the chid rc~'-0"' for fcmal~ subon:linacion, the only pro,L,'TC$$ towanl$ a fc:mini.i utopia might be seen a' :1 tcchnologic•J rcvolu1iu11, where wonocn arc no longer h:111dicappelogic:ol inc•p:ocity. rnJ it i11 t his fund3 mcn nll hand icap t hat mus• h.- rcmn•·cd to ITansfonn our ruJrC'n t social order. In some respcns, Firestone 1s 1n a~rccmcm with other tadical and socialist feminists - llut is, that th e co1u tn.1ctio11 of th e famJ y and the msorution:Wz.ition of monogamous hctcroscxwlicy as me dcsorcd no rm arc crucial factors in women's oppression. Fircston.c: thc:cfnre •dWlC:•tcs the rtc.icssiry of remvving the biolc:>gk•l l>-011d bcrwccn mother and chi ld, through sociahzi ng child c:uc and domesoc urangcmcn~. and thereby rendering die m aJclfcmalc par (nting role rttlunchrw '«> fttc womcn rhu~ frnm their hiology wo 11lti be to d11t11rcn 1hc socia.1 unit that 1s OtR""nizcd :lro und biolop;ical ceproduclion' (Fircsronc 1979: 193). Although she demands the u5c of technology, most of Firestone's accomp9n}1ng dc.-mands - the end of monog-:>my. incest taboos, ch ~dhood scxu.J rcstr.Unc. the nuclear family, the reproducuve/producnvr t.bour binary - arc aimed at reddinin)!; rh e n1c.-aning and thc.-refore idcolo~c.J imp:tc t of such social 'given>. O ooc valid ubjection to hc1 parri-.-uLu fc111i11ist uropi• is rh .r ro clerrivc women of rhcir 'righr rn .-honub111 i1 our cu1-en1 211rnu atro liber1y to sacnofic processes w hic.h ue a 1 prcse n r rn rhe banch of men (see Tong 1989: 78-84; J•Klf-'r 19&1· 92- 3). firesto ne's work, t ho ugn it lus survi,•ed in punc 10 1he p t t'.SC:llt, h~ not been as innucnti•l l1pon rndicol \"mini~t poliucs u other texts - p1:;1h1ps J,ec.iusc Ilic cnlJC of l1cr m 2ty,;, ol subordin:ition is that female biology is 3t fault. r:i.thcr t han lhe sy.tcm o( m~k dominan~c. which interprets rcproducoon as :l reason for l>Oci1l di.:oc.h .. oot•gc. Certlinly the most famous culy ra.dical fcmiooist work ;, K:uc M illw ·, Saud ~ti" ( 19f.9). a honk th• I h iB been compl'Chcnsrvcly att~ckcd by lirc.-rary critics and modc.-rn fcmrnisrs :alike, b ur which is

76

Madnn

F'~mim!I

Tho11gh1

still 'ompcUmg in iu artt11lpt l.> C•t:•tc a revolu tiou.ry fcrn ini•t pet>pc:d i'e fwm 3 very raw ~late o l bricol.1.gc a heady mu:rure of lireraty criticism, hmoric:i.I '"n.cy 1 11d politic~! polemic:. 'nie fu3ing togecher of the words 'sexual' and 'polincs' o pened up new 1hcorc 1ic:U possibilities for feminise d ebate, enabling the assertion that :i.U thingii 'privue' and 'perM•n• I' in wnmrn's li"es were affected by the pol.lllcs of the sc1.te snd patriarchy, and that 1.hc chief "e2pon of rc51sr.rncc for frmmi, lu noric;illy and a 1 t he present 1t is opporrune, perhaps today even m andacory, th2t we dC'vt'lop • more rdcv>nt psychology and p ti.iJosophy of po"'~' 1d allon>hips beyond d ie si1nplc c:unu:ptu..! ft:amcwmk pm..;tlcd by our lr.tdi ti•in.1J form.J pol1tirs l nd('('d, 1t m•y be 1mpcr•tivc th>r wr give some n tcnnon co d efini ng a theory of politics wluch treats of power rcluionships on s:rounds Jess co1wcn 1ion:tl th:i.11 those to " h ich we J1c accu~101111:d. (.M illcu 19n: 24) M ilie u 's assertion has 1hc ring of 2 propheu c sca ceme nt in the Jjg h t of concemporuy fcmtn 1st thought, and th e way It has moved toWlltds ;1 rnrc curnplc.x c::xounir1~ 1inn of the po" cr stt\J1..tu1 ct. \vhich µIr.a.cc:: ""o men as subjects m p;imcula.r opprcsswe n:h uonsh tps. In common " -icl1 .MiUcn, Gcnm_ine Greer in Tix Fm.,,/~ Ermu./i ( l 970}. concen trat es 11ui nly oo ra.i•i11i; 1Jnivc"~ fc1n1nist ro1bCi01tsnr•~. ra ther dun pro..,;ci,,,g • rlcar •,grnd • rh~ngc, on •h r b•sl5 chat woman 'could begin not by chanjtlng the world, but by reassess ing lt.e1'cll' (C reer 1971: 14), \V hil~ \llilletl crnharkli o n • so thi ng crlllquc o f t he viukn1 211d ofTcmi»dy scx" :i.li-icd im•~cry wo1ocn in no•c!s by nuk literal)' Ljom of lhc "-Cllliclh ccnrury, Cr,..:r inmucs her enquiry by looking at the construCtJon and fcllshtzcd 1tuurah2a1iun o f lhc Ceru i11i11e bu,ly. However, b ,lth h• ve • •irnil u e nd in view: to :inal>'sc the W2Y the fem:ale body has been s1rua1cd m • discourse of no rmauvc fcm1ninicy in order that they m:ty posit a r~dica l frn~11u a 1 in)l o( w d1 llis,-011rs• . Greer'• •·irw of • posi1i•·c re''Oluuo1ury sr2nc.: i> o oe •n•lognus co 1he situation of the prolcr;iriat o utllned m classic M 8J'Xlst thought. and h er solution is for womc.n tu wittu.lraw their l~lmur. T hi• hen.It!• armthcr imporr ~nt feminist cnn\tic·tic,n; th:at \vnmen'< '"nr&c. a nlOrc wido ra11gi11g t 1udy of l:rngu:igc which li nk$ modes of spc«h •s well 23 writing to wom en'• multifarious and possibl,- c11nflicang social 1dcntincs, in a much broader b:uo:d intcrn>iprion o r the man• hy which mc:rning i• 31\ wci~ty inns b}' which th e spre•d n f pornograph)• could be conr.iincd, is enc cx:implc of s..:.c.h 1 co11 c...a J.il..tU1y ;illi;;:1 u.:e. •

Radi... aJ

t~r11i oisrs

hJvt: of£cn been t.•1t1ci1etl

fc')t rc-cra 11ing;

wnmen

in 1he role of pas.ive vir1i 1m 11f their haologicil impulses - more s

Ra1irNI Ftmrms"' hcC2uM: 2nti- po rn and str>rw:c:p.ts were C."UC.i:al i11 the Urut>Slc Lu establish a rcsisulnt fem1mn discoonc, yet both ten.Jed to be musrcrcd 0.1 i( rhcy wcic •df-upunm>ry, rather lhrlt1 :i "' ay of f11ccbt2ong a thorough 11nderst11nd1ng o f the w•y ~ndrT incqlr.i foy is pc'T"'ttr•rerl in the c um:m social formation The e•.rly wTiongs of rad 1c.J feminists - esp«ially in t he United Sutes, where the radical tradioon had a srrnngct hoM d ispl:ay a m:irkcd relucranct to adopr t he a n11yncal frameworks or 'jugon' of csubhshffi patriarch:il academic discourse. Thu 2nn chcory rendcncy, coupled with many femmisrs' dosc nchantmenc wn h le ft WJng male oominucd hie=hics, resu lted in an almm r whnleu lc rcjccrion nf M.ririu l'"'"Trcctivc•. The no n hierarchic:ll org;rnizarion of C2rly consciousness raising coUcctivcs wlucb attempted to give all women. r~ardless of ffiucuiom.1 back!,'T011 nd, a voi~c within the mo"~ment nccllcd to • vuirl 'jorgun'; b ut thlS also indicates :1. concentration on material .nuances of women's sut.orcfination, n'1cdiatc " rg;iniLc$Srbihty th•t ch•ngCJ m pt:r$onal 1wwcr rcl>lilln> will Onl)' be: c ltc1.Jal l.y i111r:rvcn1mn JI rhc level ul 'public' manifcst:i.t1ons of power. l':itnarchy, m common "~th ideology, is '-M:wcd as 1rncribcd "itltin the toul11y of the social form•uon. JI is implied thrit "" ovcrthr"w of p.u11~rd1y (cruucd pri on.uily JI the lotlli ...cd le•·d ol the 1ndi,'id11aJ's rcjttrio11 of hc:1 ';;ppmpn~tc' tlolllc>litht.xual role) would nc.c~siutc ;r )hift in the rcprc«:nt>1tton of women. and con,equcn1ly ,, rcrrcgotiati,)n of cut1c111 ~oci~I pt1si1ioning. P-~t11ar~hy, in thi' context, s1gn1llcs more than the rule of men, it connotes a ruling body of inth~i0"""r rdn1o ns embedded in pnriarchy is totall)' rcnunrl•nl Jm•gcs ond rrprucnUllIU of fcmm1n11y arc rcu1io11 u l the ovctOJ Uli11g imp.u of gco11dcr soci:ali~tion :m a.lyM:s the w>y m which ~ dominan l >tlcolnginl pcrspecclivc on gender pol;anzcs the r.cxcs 1mo having rwo cUsunct dcmcd roles wi1hin 1hc soci:tl form:1.1ion_ This hypothesis, which she terms 'norcs tow;ird a t heory of p atriarchy', impficiLly allt»Vll fo1 the con>idt1a1ion of clas!ilr~ciaJ ltierarehie11

RadiLnl Fcmir.i1m in 2ddi1 ion to • sc:x\1•1 onc, 11 • nd 1huc:forc c:mblcs her to spc:nabtc:

that males outside tlac dominant group a1e also 'subjc~tcd'

10

gc11dcr

'4:>t1.&liati~1n wi 1hcM1t it gu:1rJ11tee.ing thr.1n the !tJ:mc :tccc5~ I f) pnwer Yrt a ra••dox ronfronnng all fr m 1nists is th •t all males hJ\'C acCt'S< to po•.....:r O\'er fomalcs 10 the domestic sphere. Another chomy prob km o utlinc1J hy Millett i> one which Ii.a• tmublcd fern iniNl1 ever since· th~t women's soc1:illy constructed role has alwa)'S derived its crcJibility l10 1n the 'fad ' of lcmale biology." M illen , w ri ting 1n a \'Cntable vacuum at the onsc:t of feminism's second wave, ccnds co asmme the ,·alidityof a qm1s1-l\ devised b)' femini >ts - espcci2lly when it is accom1>11nicd by a all ro \Cp:lr-Jlis111. i\. r h:i.vc al11:ady :L>> plcntially misle~dir because it i~ 1esolutcly .un i -theory, :l.s i1 olten suggested, bu1 tamer th11 theory and pramcc :l.l'C vtcwed as each a product of the othc r, and therefore muruilly slrcngthc=ning In recen t yc• n1, the publi~•1io11 of W'Orlu wltich cun•idc• the Leg:.a ..y uf radi-.al fo ninism, suggest that radiul poUcics is experienw1g a modest renaissi nC'e u lh d rc•J feminism ar gu:tb ly had 1 more pro lound llnd sust.lined effec t o n t he d.cvcl(Hncnl i-\ n·1c:ric::&n t-OCCet of the book as :l whole, :lppea.rs w be inren~ly p:uodic. 1 ' It i, un at tr.iclJl"C ni.ltiurl to asse-:1t. :o. 12dical fc111i11U.u 4>f[c:rt cJ. th-Jt every l'r. will 2lway! IM: in dircu opposrlion to men's, and ch1s ts a mosr u11p:tlat able st~ncc for fcmi ni,rs • llii1ulrc•m politilon of women "3 women n m dc.,pc•t in con tempon ry society. and rnnsrqucndy $itions pu ...11ed , methodology more or lcs.. ba.cd upo n die 11otion of a homogcmz.cd ' u ndcrcl• ss' of women . The facts of race, 6CXU•1 oncnn uo n or clus me:im t n at many women pm >Lin1cJ t•) fuse the JM>•itivc aspects o f /,'y men, lcsbia.n fc m inj5t1' injli:t l cc•occrn w;u wit h t~n>funning 1hc soci1' pu.id which mcrnt th at their sexual choices, and all their personal rdu1onsh rps, werr l 1~hle to su rveillance ~nd control, ~nrl to end 1hc ;as,,.,ciu ion n l homoscX\lmty wn h mental o r physic•I 1lln= Although g •y men and ksb11n1 m•ght wcU be dee pl)' cntlcal of the W'1.)' hetcroscxualJly is situarcd as the ccncral no nnaove a.nd socially endorsed form of 'n:i.tural' scxua1 expression, !hey do not necessarily conclude th>t all heterosexual n)cn a11d w umc11 ate acijnM in bad faith by Virtue of theJt sexual rdanonshtps In che 1;1rly 'i(>.I, >1~1emcm~ is.ued by Americ:i.n ltlbi:i.n groups such u T he Fu ries or Radmuesbi:i.ns pro•-oked 1 profound un~sc among strnght fcmini~cs. Bo ch grou ps, notion;ally a put of the ndic-•I f~minis1 politic;i,J e ndea,·our, criti,..i7.ctl "-'r e("111 of femin ist an•lrsi• whjch focu• :ilm1»1 u:elu,ivcl)' upon hcterosc.W:ll rela tions, 211d w hose assessment of female sc.xu:ilicy b lindly purs1'.e:s an UJlJnrerro i,r.ite< role pl:i)·ing: T he organi2cd gay mo•·cmenc seeks to pro1ccr d te freedom of •ny ho111m:cxu:.I, no 111:inc:1 wha1 hc:t or his individual style of homoscxuiili ty may bc. ' lloi' m~M the pmtc('.tion nr th• tronsllCSO IC, the q ueen. chc 'butch' lesbo:in, dte couple rhac ~nrs a in:aniage license, or the homosexual who may prefor no parcicul.r role. ( Knlly eorren fnrrn ofhnmn•c:xuol rel:o1ionship, by "im1e ol her list of umcccprablc saual 1demirics; but nowhere docs she hinr ac means to ltbcruc he1erosewahty from irs prc, on tloc dcfen>ivc ag:Un>t Lhc 'lavcnc ler mrn2cc' (to com Berry Fncdan's tc rm, mtcndc:d ro be pcJOratJ\'c, but since appropoia tcd "' c·clelir.Hory), hcumc oont rJdicrtHy in their argumen ts around scxuahry. conrennng themsel,'t's wuh ofrcn coon tcrproductivc arnLk.~ u pon lohiarls - 1n211y ol whom as fcrni11i.i~, othcn visc shaml theu cemn.1 polltlcal :urns Tiic R.ldicalcsbians' cvoution of t he 'w'Omlln identified womin', is irne11dcd to be more th an II depiction of ~e>cu;;a) p reference; they sough! 111 end the compctitivcness rhat Ji,.;dcd women in patriarc·hr. th en": to n n:ug thc11 puliticrJ ;u1d ,..erson~ bondi. T l1cir essay Cel :t dcsrructive force in women's li•-es, but J\1W6t5 this is the case 21 pn:Knl '1cn 11sc .,r th• tcn• Ociil •nd pobt ical lmpornnce of female bondmg. and che means by wluch ~ patriuth ;il icJco!ogy ~ llCmJJ I$ rn '" l'l'reu i ~ imvorUnc:e. In 2 forew.>rcl «> l\Jdent. (Ri.-h 1986: 47)

T he ;ibo\•c 112> a >Lriking rC>.~ep1 th•t Ri h ~sscrt~ 1h:11 thc~ is a ·n~scent feminist pohnal content 1n choosing a woman lover or life p~rtncr, in the face of instirutionalizcd heterosexualny' ( Rich 1986: 66) This satcmcnt, which might be ~gudcd as equating 1hc fact of lcsb1anien if chi!J u .rc wou $m , 'JS wcll 2s :wum inio; th at r olc·pl~ying is

u1bian F1mlffi1"'

99

necessari ly violent m d cxploiut ive. Sadomuod1u m, •he asi.cm, is contrary to a fcmmtst agenda for change, since 11 rcuucrlbes po"'~' politit'3 within pcnplc"s pcr>on21 livcs. She c.binu th •I •nine lc~hi2ns ha\'e been seduced by libcr1f\I IC>!,ians claim to be 1>u tt 1ng the sex back into ksbiamsm' (Blackm•n and Perry, Ft"''"'" RtwnJJ, Spnnp; H190: 70). In th e slow demise o f fem inist poLtie a~M>m of hctcroseAu.lliry inay profoundly affect their economic and personal ln.·cs, w here one might wish further to quesaon the intcgmy of sud1 ascnpnom as 'lesbian' free from repressive 50C13.I formations. \.V1rtig endows lesbians with an agency whJCh she dcmcs straight women, suggcs11ng an csscn aaL.st reading of lesbian on this oontcin, t1i•-cn the pob.rizuion of snaigh1 aud lesbian idcn111ies D1•n • F'uss :o~erts that, 'in gcner>I. lesbian theory is !css willing ro question or 10 put wi th the idea of a "lcsbiarl doc;. extensively ch1.rt the gro.,.ing commtroaJi~•non o f lcsb1•n mlturc in the'• irwombyn. Now we're in th:u-1 at le:.i.~t~ :a 1~vivJ.J of 1 101n;1nti4.:.i7aliun ofle-~lll:tu iden tit1e• of 1hc: P•~ fomini>l '50s and '60•. wilh an incrc:a. iHg 1c:fc:1c:ncc to the """k.' uf older lc•biJt\ll •ud1 a.s J•Y.11\ N c:srlc. /\$ liidJy f\ h rti n observes. it is somewhu d 1shc:anc:mng '10 ~e how ofrcn a 11ew pofo,cs o i ~inality h:is bc:cn formul:i.1cd against fcmtmsm, 1~the1 th an 1n 3 more complex rdaaon to 11' (Maro n 1n Barren and PhJhps 1992: 117). :arc cun,.t;an tl}· rcr111nd cJ 1h~t tl11" 11cw·pu~t -- fe:rn i 111ttt '

Chapters

Black Feminism: Reimagining 'Equality' Nn n ther group in Amenc~ h•s so h ad thcu 1dcn 11 ry rity 10 ""cr.h•dow 1heir plrns to support b~~k m>le ,uff1agc' (hooks 1982: 3). The ~me inssio1ure Aooli tinnisc wumcn re~-c:Ucd 1hemsd ves to be u ncompromising!)• racis1 in rhetr Views; ap~ng for an end to •bvcry d id not amoon • ro adl,"n(ati ng hum•n crp1• li1y in 11rhc1 :t1:atri:a rt:.h)' ar,J. i1111~r-ialisn1 &.::lut,;ht bl.ack \'f'Or11cn in 2 ttnilLiO-US double bind. W hether thi:y ch!lt $1tOngly ii that although white fe1ninist$ taci tly '•»urn ed tha t ;,lcntifyi ng oneself as oppreAed Cmiel one fmm being an oppcc:ssor' (hooks 1982: 9) , such women \till reaincd t acis1 assumptions which weakened t heir nonon of a unh"Crn l sis tcrhootl, since womeo of colour we re a.1"''1)'1 :tlrc;idy erased. In common with le.s:bim s, bbck women rcrognii.oo th•t white hcterosCJCual fcmim3n ..,...n,eivcd of che wumcn's nio>'c1nen1 as chci1 'own' - ~nd th e cons id cration of wome n who experienced oppression not only bcouse of the fact of chcir binlogieal rc: h~rd ff> ("(Jr1(rc1nt by hc:i 11g rcru..lc:cd invi~illlc, ~ nt>n·ihi':iUC. Dunng the '70s, white femmin's commotmcnt to discussions of 1hc ~!Tech of ~ism only w;u 10 a large cxtcnr :t reaction 2g2ins1 rhc punarchal sr.rucruring of polmc:tl groups which cffect1vdy outl1wcd ducussion of issues rele,':l.nr to women. For t his re-as n it w.i.s com mon ly frlt •h••, fnr 2n ino.rim puiot: 1>t'fcr

rcbuons rcquu-c transformanon · \\'nmen'~

libt'rationirrs, white :Lnd bfack, will always bear odds wLrh one another :is long as 011r idea of libc t u ion is b:t>cd on ha;; ng t he power white men have For rhat power denies urut)',

112

lWodrr" Ftmini>t Thought denies co mmon connecttons , and 1s i nherem ly dwisive 2S a. l'1anu;1.I onlcr that has ausrd black and white womm co cling re ligiously 10 !he belief ihac bonding a.cross nci~ b oondaries is imposs1ble, 10 passively accepr rhe norinn rhar the dis1a.nc~ th at scpttate women 2re immu12ble . (hooks 1982: 156)

f-lerc she 1mplJes that divlSions be tween bb c k and whJte fem inists arc !,115caine1s u c tu gcly oon 1m in ed to r.dic•I 5ocial change, wfuch mig ht an nnp>re a dismantling of im pc.1i2.lm and capitafa1 soc:UI 1c .Jitics. hunk.' highljgJits a tcnsion thar l ha•·c already hrnted at m my cnminacion of lesb1:i.n fcmmm uitiquc>: rhut fcmini~cs do no t consistently d eny such wci:il d ivisions' validity, and th ar therefore a future fem inJs1 uropia might be

ont whicJl rtt:tin.s ~1 1.;ajn llJle:Cls nf :t 1.o1xii l l 1icra.r~hy int:t~. Black tcmm1scs wm:ing in rhe 19 70s and 1980s h ave found little 21"ined

fcm1 msi.

par1mr:1cn of rhe ~ma in ,ttt;i;m' womr n·~ mo vcmc.nr, tind 11n r 1 from

«:r.tch; exp lo ri ng the hiJc tlc;Jt wi1 h .11 ..11 , it ,. usually in rh c con text or bfack btcnrun: which largely ignores ch~ implications o f >.u~ politics. \Nhen whice women look at black women's works rh ey u c o f course 1U equip~d ro dal wuh me ~ubdcntS of racrn.I polm cs. A blac k fcmini •I approach ro li rerarurc th at e m bodies the rC'lliuoon Ul:lt t he poli t[cs of \U 2~ wrll . , rite politio:"l o( u rc ancl rbss

Blad Feminism

113

are cn1c:-iUly in1crloc:-ki11g fat lhtt in the wnrk$ or bl~ck wnmrn •ni ter~ i> an ~bsolutr necessity. (Ncwron lltld Rose11 (eh

1985: S) In th• field of liceruy cheory, black fc111inists h3vc de>oteJ Lhc:ir efforts 10 p1oducing a bl2.:k positive mcthodoloK)•. -wl1iI 2nd whkh :i.lso confronts and comments cxtcns1vd y upon thcu absence [n litcrH)' criucism produced by whitvo rnen. 1 Black voice$ •nd clCp&rio:cncc arc at b~t undcr-repre~cmcd :rnd 21 won l ,-,..;ludcd from discussions which prod u(etl" fcmi11iun1, the 1ejc1:1in11 i1 basc:d on the inference that a sek et group of(whice) ... omen 1he keepers uf fcm1msm's hmory, in the poo.••erfuJ elitist position to suppress uiu•1ue• nf 1hi::ir own hegemony whi~h mai nrnins inr.>ct uncqu ivoc;tl 'ttu tlu' about fem1rusm. T he use of the word 'community' belies the inequitable. cxcl1"i1inary inrrnl tion of 111211y wlii1c femin ist groups. Unforrunatcly ir seems robe the case chat while ferr1inis1s h~vc been ro some extent responsible for stunting t he 111o•vd1 ,,f bl~cl< fcmi niit 1h cori51< in wh•• ran o nly be intcrprcccd as a wish, conscious 0 1

••e

11-1

Modtrri

FtMllftJ/ 1"6r;ugltt

inLcmW-.u:d, 10 limit 1he pu rvu:w o f •ny fcm1nJSt pcnpcccivc co an ethnoccncnc o ne. Thu perspective, in a1Len1p1ing to si reni,'then the rhetoric of commu njty and universal $.am:rhood, e"ades deb:ucs which 1h rc,1 cn to nipaurc such (;,-iion:J u nity. Black feminists in the IJ:.A and Europe point oua aJ12t such a speciou• (orm of cohesion is bnugh1 drar, when 11 h1g hughts tnccs of an imperialist po-r s trug glc wichin 2 rnovemem ah.at pw porn co d&ot1s1ru~1 rnalc--0ric111cd power prim;1plC$. nSSUR£~ IN 11-tE WH ITE FEM INIST AGENDA: TIIE FAMILY, 1'£..\lfl\!NIT'\', HEALTl-t /\ND POV..ER

\Vhi te radic.tl a nd ooc••lht fcm1 ni.is wmocom muted to •.n atuck on t he mo le dominated social 'ynem - wheiher ency happily termed t hJS pauian:hy o r noL Cor1~quenlly they focused upon inscirutions wloid1 •timed u p p a1riud1y, >ud1 ;u lhe family. Convcr>c.ly, Lb.ck fcmi nice. different cth11ic oomrnuniti..i i11 diffe1cnt ways th row u p addit1on:i..l issues far removed from the expcricnn: of white wcnnc11 , even though the rhetoric white feminism theotet.i cally broaches them. O ne example would be the rrcatment Asian wt>rnen f1 avc rcnd's violcnrc m igh r ttso.i rn killing 1hc111 in self defence. Southall Bbd: Sis ten, formed in l \17\1, has done much ro hd p such women and to publ1ciu the a:pcncnces of w omen such as Kir~njit A luwali~ who w•$ j:ailod for the mnrder of her husbanrl SourhaU Alar k Sivour of an '> n rihuinaoist' tOl'h..t:pl o r ~ubic:~t1v-1tr.' l:>•ut r.a.~ I shi ll fur-tl'lcr explo re: Utc rin dm volume, die will lu li i>1>e:i.e with • h igh libcrAI (211d cJee11ly

119

BlarJr: Frmlflom

or

entrenched pacrirrn:h.J) notion ljbe:rilism docs not ncccssanly t•c•lir.ue the rlTCC1 ivc: c.fopul of Mcr:i.rching plitii;;il commu nities based on identity, unce the abi lity to lay cb im to shucd experiences of socjal Life is o ften a vnoJ strp in po litical • cnon In the fcminiu con text, bell hook.s pucs forwud the idea o f 'soli· darity' to repf;icc the overused term '$ often 1cc: n :l.S the c rnotion:J •ppul nusk.ing the opporrurusm of m~n•puhnve bnyrgen i< wfutc wnmen' (hnnlc$ 1n f"u.,inill RetJiew, No. 23 , 1986· 127), sh1d d111.g the b ald fact th ~t wo men ~n :incl do oppress women. She fun ner :1.rgues t hat the call for sisterhood on the bu15 of common oppression :u women is a c~ to a~knowlcdgc the natu1c of our vtc:cimiurjoo ;ind co cclcbrarc as vtcnms r2th~r th an push for • rejection n f such ""l'jccc po :l r:lCL•I .lnd hecerOKXISI one. T IL1s IS somcrnm.~ wh11c hcrcro•tit.IS, w iah s=srn an first"'"""• cwakcs 1 w;nse ofCd become enrrc ndted rn fem inist polmcs wcU before rhe inception o f the ~conn< a body of knowledge, m the '80s • nd '90s In " "'' CiSC, the llscfu lne« of dw1dmg fem;111sm into 'strands' 1s called into qucmon from the !:inc p;tJt o j the 'RO.. ro rlic !"...,nt d•y; che tli..;sion• r.1diC2l, l\larxm and Liberal fcrrnnisu\, for 1ns1rnc.,, 'oo longe1 copm tt rhe ulie nr fe1rurcs of the mulnple "'~)'' in which cun e111 ferni ni;t theories ln tu2c t with domi112nt Slk.in po lu icol then1ie'' (Gateru i11 Ru re n ond Ph11hps 1992. 120). Perhaps rhe most rroublmg :upttr o ( fcmmi, m is t he fau of its ow11 h c1emge11r i1y. Thi~ rmke< fnr "

126

1\1cJn·n Ft"' irwt 1'htiug6t

»tisfyi ng 2nd cnal,ling c.ioss-fcrtaliatio1) 0 1 iJ e;u, but it ..t .., u:•mlts in a sense of immlnent crisis rn the proceSSC$ of femtn1s1 cnt1cum. The m ain P" 'l"'IC of 1his eltoptcr i• m ini1ia1 c some nf the '1'UciaJ debates in femin tSm for the '90s 1 shall then proceed to ch:m m dcmic feminism in 1hc followi11g chapters. I hope 10 ,ugges1 1h a1 , aJthough thcS1hfirw ling fcmmm essays - n-aders to enab le people 10 'sec by' m feminism. On 1hc bee o l it chi• migh1 he seen to reflcCd for social change. Perh aps it 1s in 1hc nuurc o f •nadcmic purm• I polit ie11. Nnw, well i1110 the '90., one needs to rc;ifi,e that second wa''C femm1sm has undergone a masm'C cpistcmolog..ca! t r:o n~formuion. ond nol •ll 1hc change• in 1hc sh.• pc of feminism rem am dirccrcd '.11 the ongonal go:tls A symptom of 12n p1cscn1 r•thcr 1han 1hc 1cvcrsc. Brinsh fcmi n1s1 polltics has alw;iys shown a 1e ndcncy 10 operue at o ne remove from ma1nscrcam porli• mcm... y politics a11d social in~orutions - perhaps righdy fem inists ha~ regarded the prospect of fully integn.ring mto · of 1hc ted. white midd le·cbss he1rn>\e>Cla.I cast ig ;a tie1n. ln '>n:lcr n::>rrlpre hcn""ivcl.Y to

:atl~ lren

the problem• of idwlog:icol :tnd matcri:al oppression, 1t 1s nc«:.idcrt1ion of the wi11cr rnedunisnts of power 3.nd domsna!ion. Ald1011gh conducted ro a luge extent m 3 gendcr-bhnlgiol g iwon< in p rc-exining tli..-1p lines. \'v' h11cver Yicrorics can I> >eudjes :u a discipline h•, its oost a nd iu p• radOJlion, J irct'1 in,'01\'ement by men 1n femi nist theory u n be poliric2Uy and acade mmilly dan1rcrous As Elalne Show>ltc r observes: Fem injs1 criticism has worried too much a!Jeady, in my opin ion, abwt comnmnit-aling wi1 h 1hc white fa therf v.. h it~ feminiun'~ 1c.h 1t't2nee to confrom th e challenge ofblick feminist wrinngs, or to discuss them in th eir mm work is rouchetl in terms of nor w:annng ro 'appropro ate' the black \'Oice and consequently perperuace rhe silen ci ng cffecr tlf dnmin•nr rhrl"l'f!C":tl di :.t.l'-'Ui:.t.l iOO.!i uf

being ,fubl.c J 'privileged" in th"t 1hcy hJYc 1h c dioinfinn, with the rc•u lt thJt , 'we coold be heud only if o u.r st•temc nu echoed chc sentiments of rhc dom inan1 Ji>eour'ic:' (hook.. 1984: 1 1 12). T h i, is p::uticululy •ppuent when rncc and class cons1derecl, but mainrained as Luhordin11c 111 gcnra5inn npentes aurnr1 not appc:ir 10 mr to he inrnmp• t1blc wi1h • •m~inrd focus o n 1he iclenlugic:Li 1-~Jn­ suucuon of gender and a con csponding nnaly< 1s of irs ~IT...-r< upon ....-omen o f all groups, as a contribuuon 10 the uos1on of pam•,.h•l opprt:•!ion, ra1hcr 1h an ri •king r"plica1ing pre-existing power dynamics. At pn:.sen l - pntirnluly in che United Sures b l;odc fe:111inisi rho ug ht llounshcs scmj autonomoud y. dc,-cJoping tn academe ,.;a wr11cn·~ :1n1I bb~k matlic,; ~'Ur~,.. anti furthenn~ 1he an alysis of the nexus bcrwccn r:aci:ll and SCX\I~ o pp ression. Altho ugh bbck critiques of wh ite f,. min it IO •dvorate complacency with the term femin ism, which has till now ~en catdy in cecogni2i ng m po rcn1i:ll for the pcr~ruu1ion ol crmain forms of d omi n• ncr As hooks in ~ c!isprOpflrtin11•1 e dc:gre~ ol :ittcntion being gwrn '" 1he 'new' .,.,,.e of writer. >11d1 "' N1om1 \Volf and Katje Roiphe. The imp!iatJon 1s cha r they h•''" rt."'" h.m; 1hc 2n1i- por1mgraphy wing o f rh c w nmcn's mm·emcnt bcg'lln to hr rcgndcd by other fcmuusfS as needlessly narrow because T he fon t>sy that •·ic,lrni:e ag:.i1·"1 women is loc~tetl or origin:itcs in obJeccionable sex magazines or ,·1deos ra ch.r than be1n~ pan o f the deep ct.II scrucrurc of e•cry irutirucion in our culrure

142

Modtm Ftmmul Thought scruc k some fcm1msrs as hopd cssJy n~ive a nd wrong, :as did the 5llJlKC&t1on that the oci•ion of the seirually explicit would sol\'c the pro!Jlelll. (Vance 1992; n)

V3 ncc's acooun1 includes 3 dcscr ip1 io11 of :a (uirly f11rufamcn1..J $pli1 between >nti-pornoi.,rraphy ~nd ano-ccnsorsh1p fcmmms where those who didn't foUow the aori po1nog1aphy st:a11cc ws tho.- cncapttgh of cnuNo< ctruio groups 211d pcr.ipcctiw:. may o.licoate or anragonrzc other fcm1n1sts as .,.-.,U as a broader range of women. T his need not •u~c..i rl»t femin i.t phllowphy is necct.iltily l)'rannic:tl, hut direct 11• to ~>ps •nrl •hnrrcommgi< wh1rh •hoold he •ddre~.ed, r3the:r than mallow fcmi111st detractors to 1~h-ash the old arguments about tyranny as 1f 1t os some gwc n truth and as 1f ill these so-called proscripcions arc 3ctually wntten down in some feminist biblc.11 If I h3vc dwelt upon the ncgacivc constructions put upon feminism in the '90s, 11 i~ to outline 1he range of d ullenge> tha1 I ferJ fcm 1n1sm needs now to address. and perlups be more candid about its own prt>tt•>•'· T hese ntaaliYr (ca1u1N ,huuld i~ hnc u le:t,\t briefly counterpoised by mentioning a marked inucase in feminist contrib utions to pni losophy IDd politic~ science which cmci;;ed during the 'llOs. ThJs resulted in works '''h1ch quc.1 ion the o.lcvelup 111e111 of 2 ~peci finlly fcminig•in d raw ottcntion 10 the problern of c11:Ati11g •n eOective opr"'irinnd JiscouN which 1s not tmmedi21dy disuedired by • d o n1i na 111 world view whin in rnr1.,ein11i;ne.1$ i~ no r tn he divercerl 1n tn a tceries nf pyrrhic ~ctoncs - such as g crung women's srudJes councs on the uiric;i.I ;i.gc:11d;i. - no 1lla1tcr t.uw i111 pu r1;u11 these individueri1y; uniury produc~ may now be :och·c11 i;cd on rclcvisiud wnii; i(>usnc~.t; nf

)"Oli nger wo men who tend to chmk that fcmmum JS a dany word. Mo~cwcr, it is becoming increasingly common for " 'om"n"s srudicemcnt .,f t he bo unaJucd a.peOlit ic>, it m uJ t be cm ph :i rUl) l tc 1hcltly sloned and gi•dually •W"'"I~· Fcrninibt theory - " term I use in its widest sense co embrace c uller feminist '-Tirings '~hich were not orig i11:a.lly adoro wledgcd :u '1henry' ""'""""'-'of l:u-lc o( 'rigour" or unorthongc the '"""· •nd the longing for the gatdcn of .lity, wlocrc clcfiniu o m of the femole •exual response a.re construed as the o b,oersc of male scxualirv - the P"-"•"e to cornpktc the attivc, 1l1e 11);.'k t•) fi 1 1l 1e key. s~•11•lity. the n. liu ~history of its own

148

ill the women's mo~ment, where the queluon 1s of a •"Oman's rd~ tion to sex and (if sex is de.tiny) to hcfjlelf. £:atty ,!eb>rc. 1bnu1 female sexuality rendcd 10 focm o n 'propcr' forms of sexual pr2c tice, or more rnmmonly upo n rhe mc•ns by w hirh fenule sexu:aJity hu btl'n u$Cd :u a rool of rel'1 cssion, rcb tei1lJ in t11c '-'';ay c!airciel fc>r111s c>f ~CJC\l;J lH:h:.aviour ;uc enforced by means of 1dcnafy10g and cat>.loguing form s of dc:viancc. AJ1houg h he 1e10SCX1Jaliry is siruaced as COffelarive wirh the mosc na1 ural fnnn f 1s ccincer 1"2I fr:uncwo>rk lu d. CO 2 very complex view o f the de"d o pment o f female scxuahiy. \ Vhile the possession of a penis allows bo)'~ • relanvcly trouble-free tnnsirion from im mature auto -eroncism ro ad111t que~t for an :ar1pmJ1 ri• 1c tell"lla.I object, the fcm :i.lc's pa th from imnu tutc (ditotal) to marure (vagin al) scxua.l 1dcrmficat1on LS a Ue2chcrous o nce \Vhcn cmlogcni~ •u..:C:plihiliry lo •t imuhtion h:b been >uCCCSS• fully tr~mferred by a woman from die clnoris ro t he vogin•l onficc, it im pl.ics th• t she h'" adoprccl • new le-ding zo ne for the purposes of he r later sCJ, mode cnncre te notions n f fc:11;•Je infc.riority inro psy ch02n:i.!ytical 2nd sexologial th inking. Coupled ,.,jrh this is Freud 's suggcscon th ac in order for the tnnsition from cliroral 10 v•gi 11al iden tificatio n to be ach ieved the g:irl begins 10 senl nu1hennci1y hrs dsewherc - rather than raking chc form of 2n snack upon em1end1ed bclicl~ .trmmd ,.,,...,.1 iellhrK>ll Later fem inJst chconrcs ha'~ followed 1he lelld of thtnken st:ch as J\lichcl Fo11i-Ault, "'"h"'ing th•t ~•uality 1s an hmorical

M t:dun Fmi ir1111 TJxJughr

152

consU1.1ct . and 1s meani ngless wiLhout its rdevazll socio- hiuorii:id contO(t. T his f.i.cilit:.u cs a further and more concerted attack upon 1he ~r:it11., of the nan1raJ in Western epistemology; a move readily compa· a ble with carlJer fcmini5t endea\/OutS 10 decoostruCc Lhc naru,.Jiut ion uf the •ocial idf. Fcm1msm. m eanwhile. sull tends to contlatc ch e biologic;d and Ct1hural when it comes to srud ies of fcm~c K xuality, and this M:cms co lie an inevi t;ible cffcct of dr•wing u po n t h~orics uf $cxuality con· scructcd with m :tle - crue of Freudian Lhco1y which 'uses v~ble anaco"'ical difference :u. its guarantee of pSJnC'eLOnlcs tile modcl of sexuality in gcncr:ll . . . ·n1c modcl thu.. reflects and rc inforce'J the m•le 1uprcrnac;iit> sueh as Kinsey and M•51crs :rnd Jhnlablc, thr:y rcnu in suhordin•I• to this·~ the o rg•nii,ing p rinciple: 'l n fact thr •·rry ttrm ·,~aJ intercoun;t",

JS4

which wouJd in theOI'}' mtlfl any form of ~ual inlcr• Ction, i> in pr>ctice oynonymous with coitus in cverycby speech u.s well 11s m chc s.:.icm1llc li1cruurc' (Jack.son i11 Cove11ey er al. 1984: 71). Sexu•lity has brcn ompLcitly accepted b)• psychoan:alysrs and scxologisrs to '"Jl"'"coll • fu~i1rn of mltu re • nd nanm·· 1he instinct is there from b m lt, bur our cnnsition 10 hcil.lthy adulc (herero)=21iry is a 1orruoos joumo

However ,..;desptead pe1mi.>Sl\·c11ess is believed 10 h2>t been, thi$ new wa"e of sexual 'revoluuon' spawned an increase in the producoon and sales of m:iinstl'C•m 'soft ' rornogr.iphy, and alurrtaJ c>f H urn.in Relalinns'

effcc-ti\·e ly r.&nnoun.cc-.

its ma1or mcenn on of being a scnous pubLa.uon for the djssem1natio n of inform ation arou nd $C~U.tl m•m:rs. It bcn me specific:~y associated w11h the Scxu:U Revolution and the en of 'swing ing' (grt.JVp sc~. •rid p.1rt nr r swapping) - Oftens1bly ~ddr~sing the needs of both men and women, ,..;2 ltt tuJU designed m incrttse en lighten ment •nrl romb ar scru;al 'hang-ups' In actu.Wt)', most of its l'C;l,'l.llar features, incl1u li11g 1l1 c pmhlc111 p•gc, 1~inln«euhjcctcd 10 whulcs;tJc colon;z.atiun by the m ale. Dworkin c:o.c111plif:es this conllanon of pcrspccoves: The sexuali ty of women h,,,• l>e:en \ lolo::11 outright, •ppropriatcd by men - conquered, possessed. taken, "iobtcd: women h~vc b«n syotc11l2lip()n 1c•...1f .3,000 Amc11can women Ill• 'IUtjlionn• ir< add~mg issues surrounding sexuality and s.cxual practices. It con~i•11 l2rg•ly of q11otC$ hy these annnymnus eon tributors, e2t egori71:rill rdati•·ely srnull and eth nic origins of rc"pflndents -.~re 1101 rcrordctl). For 1hc purpo~c of 1his disc1>1, io11, 1he mcht i111crcs1ing put of chc book i~ the ~cc1io11 deali ng ,,,;,h 1hc Sexual Rc\'olu1iun, "here lfl•l•t of tlic women's responses :i.rc prnfimndly riegaci"c, anti appe:i r largrl)' ple rc;m.wn for 5CXlJ;1J cunt1cl arid ir1tcr..::uursc ncctl not

be Cc.111ral tcJ ~tw< i11t c1oou1>e: )'OU ei the-1 1i>kcd a11 11n~n1etl prrgruncy or acccpred rhc lonp; rcrm risks nf t!K P1U. Conlr.1Lcp1io11 :uad !1l)Of1 ion, ncJt .J revolution in 3.Cxu21 pi~ctit.~, rcmamed central to fem111 rn: ""'" anti •1ill '" dnmm.iecl hy hercrnsexu•I wo men, and t he area oi sexual idemiry mdf was ofcen n eglected as • potcna3Jly divisive subjccr. which memt th•t kwims felt >lir n•tcd and u1uep1csc:ntcJ uy ni;1 i11•trci1n fc1nini~111. I lctcroserua.J " 'Omen thermclve• ~rrc.irem were ;a..:wtomed IO being Ouh1 •okc11 •bour their o"''" nitht to sexual sdf-d, tcrmin>tion, b"" c'-cn today tu:tcro~t:Ku:1.l ft:,ni11 i!llt1 rcrn2in relu("t:in r rel iccrurirli?.t: the: i--0c-i.il C't1nsrrucaon ofheccrosuu:tlil)', ar1d the means by which - as msrirunon - lt uercs a powerful influence O\'er women's sociaVscxua.I h'·es. O i 5cour&c~ which mform knowled;;es o f ht1 m• n scxu;il bch.i.viour

cont..tin ;;,i.11c_I c·are~nl·1e •u>mn!';t"1Ct.uls a$ i.ui>jci.-IS hc>lu,,ic.d 2nc l cJe.1cr-

m rnc1$ who ie-lt that het"~eiruali1y ill-ddincd :u it is ~··mild be: reformed from wi1hin. 1\ \ it is, :i call fot the rejection of ma1c lovers on political grounds, in favour of female lovers or ccl ib :1cy, in1plics th at t he women's 1ight to choose her sex u:il oncntmon (3.SSUming th e recognition thu heteroscxu:ihty 1s not autom•tic:ally chosen) might met•rnorpho"" into no rea l d\nice 21 :lll within a r:tdiea1 fc min~1 world view. Fem inisrs who re rained their scxu ,.I tie• 10 men were afraid o(bcing ~CLU•td u l •~Ling in bad fanh ""d shield ing the e nemy. inotead o( exposing h im co the entcquencei of men's past acroc11ics •glm~t women. Al th . very few fcmirusu cxpllc.id)• Wied for all women co reicct men. che elision of d 1«"u.J!l1nnic :arnund l'°l1uc.::all)· :appror•r1:a1c form " nf texu:il de.c-1rc fc>i.l creJ t J1c 00111111011 C"111oc11lio11 lh ::al tlic:c w :u ~ cc>rrcct fu:1n of

scw2J rrsponl>t' even though feminist$ h.id only rc• IJy gn1 ·~ for•~ ident1fying the n egative effecu of che preV211i ng p atri :uc.hal ideology of heteroscxu~ity It $Cem• chu in t he sphere of scJrua l rel> tinns at ku11, •trnght wume11 found it djJlicult to collap$c chc public and pm·2tc •phera., :rnd w·c rc cnr~gc..I by they regarded as the cocrave ness o f maru f~tos such as 'The V/oman ldennfied \ Voman' ' Such a con flict is ""P''"kd by • ret:Xu.J one. ArnJ •ud1 :l pusi1jo11 undnuhtcclly ;a mi nor-ity c>nc W"J.s \1-tcd lo suggcrt 1h r.i.1 fcrn i1 1i~111 w:c. ncccssa.r ily p1c:scriptive in I!> dd inc-ation ot app1o pr ia1c tonm of >txual rtspon~. rl1c noC1011 of :1 ~oncer poUtical identjl)• which encrr1t.:n~~ 1n-"'l 1>ri\.":lle lt\.'~ clU.SC:d •lt.alcll co11tro\'Ctsy

the movement, -and soll docs :Vhny feminists mi~ht ac femi ms rs' paranoic fe'U of a lesbian take~r with 1n the r.mks St.r;i.ight fem inists of1c11 rather wilfully igno1cd the fact o f ilic1r r~ndent'y ro •m:1sc:ul in1Yt"' ce!IC; tn :lll ,: and the cnga):cmcnt tn pr;icuccs; 's-xua.bry' w.i.s about idcnmy and gcnJcr. ;a.bout mastcrn 1neJicuj11richr-poliriral discourse Only o nce the •nterdcp1t1?)· act within a 'hc1.,.orcaJiry', •he appcai. lu Jeny th•t lcsbi""' might """be '"'" ccpublc to the crone s)'MbolJ u.non of power play in their sexual li\'Crnrular fonns of lesbian sauill expression, such u butch/fe mme ro lc· puy, and espcc1:illy sadomllochism. For her, sad.omllochism is " pnor;-ti~c cmbc:diJcd in gay m:.rlc 5clCU•hty, wmcth ing wh ich wme lesbi:m1 ha•c adop1cd, despite JdTtt:ys' JlC!'>01ul oonvictiun that 'f./rn ideology lS in conmuLcuon to the most cherished prcccp11 of fcm1· msm' (Jeffreys 1990: 210) What Jeffreys' own precepts :ire and how she rnvi~•gcs a fu ture feminist political stance on apprnpriuc forms of 1cxu>li ty is difficult to dcccrminr:, r:xer:pt 10 say th•t sht pencci"C5 all form~ ol scxu~I rcb 1iunships ~p• rt fro111 SIH'-Jilcd \ •"11 ilb' !cs· bi3n sex - as !:limed by powerpl3y polillcs. She impl 1es th u male heterosrxu;il "lve 1he full ront inns, w h ich malu: li ttJc sense for feminist thcoris111 in the wake of 1h ei1 des1abiliLing of the agendas of the 1112insue:am p• rlJ•mcntary 5}'Stcm , Libertrn•msm and morahsm :uc both fc1S seek is 2n eth ics of svcu3hty - a consc nsu.s of dcfi nmons 1rou nd this uc1 tnat neiiher le•d~ 10 pret inm the nld vcriues of "Nuu:c· or w !lCaJch for new Lnllh5 and cerr2i111i~ . a new 2b mctcrs l woold argue tlut sCX\1ality is such a m inefield fo-: fcmini•b 1h21 l"''h"I'~ 1hcy rccogniu 2 nt:cd to con•trucl 11uite well-defined models of 2ppropria1c fornh o( scxu:i.I expression to prc,•c nt a pcrpctunion of m:i.le definiaons of scxualny outside the existing f:J mili:a l org~niz:auon Once sex 1s scru tiniud in rel.•tion 10 ih \11 lly dc.11 th >I in rcl:u .on ro sex. power LS addmonally orgm1zc largely ig11orccl by wrilcl'! like Fouc:iull a nd "\leeks, "nd ycc ju•t as we •ct u pon our kno-• lcdg;c of chc liric 2ntl illicit, •n}' ' (Scg21 l 994: xv); and noaonal meeting oflesbi:rn \Uld Str~ight fe111i11isb under 1hc • ctr• uf '911ccr lltcory' c:crt•inly •llow• for the dcferr.tl or denial of fixed mc:in 1ngs attnbuted 10 SCJrual roles, ond desire itfelf. Yer Scg:il h erself seems amhiv were in rh c '"PJ'rd!ion nfhcrcm~21 dC$i rc in 1 fcmini~1 conron, or whar their mom'CS might ltt•·c been. h is suggested that feminism itsdfis at fault; b ut th is g;•·a the hero the m•sscd hct~to· i.acuotl 001utilucncy of Ccininis111. She suggcns th:it te:ndcncics to pos111on lcshtamsm as a polmcal 1mpcn tivc for feminists in the 1?70• inari.~nn 1.>f orlicr fc1n in.i~t positic>1lS 0 11 sex. To Clltlhnue rn ignor< the p rohlc nl of fem ale >CXUJlity i11111lic:i d12t h etcroscxu.i.I women retain an 1n,·cstment m hctcrosc>r. Some of u• fd t tli.t 11 w:d • d:rngc«>u• ,li11nction from the ~enrr•l inuB rif cl:d s pli tics. Sorne uf us wc:re simply excited by tt. but we were all, m o ne way o r another, thti:-• t c:ned 2nd c:unfuscJ Ly it, as suun :u it tOcuuion. ln i1j:i.l diKuuions necessarily centred upon the question of whrth.r men c;ould he o uttcd if une ••·ecpted th.i 't11e creario n of a new woman o f nec csstry de mands the creacion of a new man' ( lfowtmtham, in vV:i ndoi 1971: 3). i\lo.t sccm rd wave fem inism focused o n soci;J constructioni•t , r>lhcr th:i n t:cS5Cnti:Wst, ai~mcnts :tnd theicfo1c c:tS1ing men as the 'enemy' was u ..itly •rceptcd u • temporary 5ncio- h iI m hjttl pttdtrn Fo111ni1r Thought

180

be cspeoaJJy ~nflrn;;. Such groups and org~muuom did no t 21Wl)'S 1ncet with the unqu21ifted supp1t o l th e women·, mvcn1cn1, •inec (c.Tnini~IS (c:(t that Such ill\"C::Sli&;atic:>JlS nc~• raising for men b.;c•111e a 1n2l life which IN far fto1n the r"'2litie~ ol mr>.r i11clwidu >I• live•. Somcthini:; Sddler C\•nktc hcd oursch..,~ .-cry tform from whence men might d r term1nc their O\~n 1cspo11scs to feminism so tlut the men's move: menr tu.s ~ 11101c !iignific~1nt role 1h :l11 t}t:l l of :.t:rvi~ing 1ttt \\'d1nt:N°t

M cdfT11

184

F~minnt

Thought

monmcnt. bu1 a role wiuch facilit:ues lhc dc' •d opme ni o f feminist idt.i~, in con1 ra~t to tJic com petitive •tmoopherc thar tu5 d eveloped :lfnorig 'r-nco in fc1nir•iini in :L~dcme. M EN IN FEM IN15 M. CONFl.IC."TS IN ;\ CA OEl\IE

T he tTUd-'80s 5:1g nallcd a rcrurn co an argument 1ha1 was 6crcdy debat ed in the l~tc '60s abou t the pla,cc o i men in fcm ini5t dcbrgunicrus "'' d thco1eti. al pcrspcci.-es, bccau.c men - rcg2rd less of rhe benignity of their mtent1ons - represented !he means by wtuch fema1e discourse could be/ had been absorbed :u1d d efused b)' a pamarchal sleig h t of hand. lluc in the academic inmrurion in rhe face: offeminum 's rapid cxpa n · s1o n and perhaps by virtue of feminJsm's increasing e~c mcnt "~th eiitieal theory, """' felt that they had ~ ~onttibution to offer, u if fcmir1 is m'5 involvemen t m new thcoreti02l d "p2rru re• •ignifiel as fcminJSU had prc,~ously ~ed the male cxdus1v11y of r2dical d tscouncs such as .M a.rxism, so m• lc rhcorisn felt j u stified in questioning fc rniniu n's right II> female o:d usivit)'· Sume nicn wc1c content Lo use fcon inism 2s ~ point of J cp:1.t1urc igcnc •ty "' ••rte nf f"nnf11c"1, henr r tn f.i1tttat~ the ri.ght · n f their nwn wnrk In ex15t 1

within m ch diversity. the second LS to SIJP:.t(CSI rhar aoy cxclusionism 011 fcmi ui•t> p~rt uhih it> tl1c iucrca;i ug tyr:1m1y of lcmi uist di.course, " h~ ' lead ers' rcsc.r;c th e righ t to prohibit d1ugrccmcnt even amongst their own 'ki nd' T he problfm with manr of these e".ap i~ t hat. ~uch dt fenlly contested amo ng v;ing group• nf fem1msr. rhcm..,Jvr• - 2lrho11g h the rh1rf 111ro mny of us arc now perhaps O•cr fami liar' (Smirh in Smith ;ind J•nli11e 1987: 35). For many femmms rcmv k poses two im med iate pnirt1~ of cnnrenl ilc 'greots'; (b) thit . thi• being 1hc ~•se, and male theonsrs being 'over fam1liu' "~'h i1s methodology, th e problem o f mcu in fculmc.r theory i~ otuurrdly 1101

or

trus

188

1Wodtr n f•"emim1I Thouxht

one of lack of undcts1anding. lmJcccl, Smi1h'• con01ru~1 ion puces fcmi11i.i thrnry 'i11 me11', and, furthe r, " u1b ws or cliu,·oW'5 other wi ng" of fem inism, so 1h 21 we might be forgiven for wondcnng whether thjs liirly rcccn1 male theorenc21 interest on fem1n1sm ts nor 5pawnc'ih!e key ro snlvi11g rhc pthlem of 1ne11's pnssihly 1111wt.lrorne ~11e11 1io11~ 10 femi nism, Boone 1mplic.irly identifies rhe problem :is lying tn femi ni~1 5' fe:i r5 of ~ymbolir penel!71tion of their di«·ourq: Hy ~no1 hc1 skighr of hand he igno res 1hc 1e:Ui1y that lesb1arh h a.·c long bttn exposing fcm1nm's mamsueam hetcroscxism tn wom an co "''I>~ d eb-.ices quite d Tcctively. In hts essay Boone h:lS wu h a bold flourish rcleg>rcd the cerm 'feminist' co a i:endcr-ncutr.1.1 ~mrus, rhcrefore removing 1ts investment rn a 1nea11jng whic.ll designa1es ii '1.S a men wht c-om·inion that they uc woricing ag;.Jnst rhe mteresrs of parr[archy, not el.c.h oLhc:t - 2 >C nsc: whidi pervades lloone's rcmi1c: c:~uy (•cc M ui in Kauffrnuro 19 9a; 1 1 90). J\hny f•mini1fy a female presence, after cc:nruric:s. of invisibility in very real material as w ell ~s ideolog iul terms Feminism is ;after ill comtruncJ as ~ work in JJrogress. a deh.1tc in tcndc:J tc> crnpower "'"C>rnc:n. :ind indeed i-.: the o nly ny of reaffi rming male power (sec :iho Christian 1994 : J'). it 1s more o frcn a p.uody o f iemini•t dern•nds 1h~n a re'Ponse to 1hern . As H arry C hri•tian po int> our rneu'. app102ci1 to fe1ninism has 10 be acti•e if It 15 10 be forwud-loolol\~• and there needs to be a d1stincuon made b crwccn 1hc a.utt sexist and 11011-sc.xi!c:t rc;1ct in: "To l.c ..3f1Ci-"c.xiit~ n1e:ins h~\ing ~n ~Mive •••n rh at '/Os fomirusm 'sof1cned' modem m;an at the cxp g u.:1r.1ntt:e th:tt aU 1rLt.Jivit.lu:a.ls ai1d grCJups undr:r ~uch 2 ter111 :igrc:e w itll c::ach c1thc:r'~ J.1ltlitic:1 I pcr~pcc.li\c, St) rtu: tc11n ·rnc::n'\ 1ntt\'C1nent ' might embrace any1h>ng from •~n overtly pro-femmm consc1ousncss-r.ismg group, to Robert Bly's '\.Yilcl M:111' w•1cc f.i,ler; Alf, ir in Hagan 1992. -13- SJ. SS- 66). It 1s not surpnsrng that endeavours ttu h a~ ll ly'c are vie\.\'L""4J !$CCplieally l•y rrtaU)' feu 1 in i5t~ ~' ~ n1lturnl 'me too1sm'which docs noc n~csurily engagc in anycm ical debates :.bout g~ndcr pdari1ic3 in 'raonplc of aloe non oC'(Uiru,, uciliicd "'give liis ltgurncnr a seusc o f d ir«t;on). T ho m as iden111ics what he peicei•cs -u cnoci:tl differe nces IJn12n h as 10 do with his ta.gee. \Vomtn a1c :ihle to recall the :irrangemcnt of objc.:rs because that ts whu a gnhcrer, searching rhc ground for edible phnts, rn=ed~ to be able to remember from one hu vesun,g mp 10 anothc1. M udcr11 111cn li ncl it easier 1h a11 ... 0 1ncn tu ,L,ivc • cu through a narrow opc1ung; but, unlike women, they un never remember where 2n)i1hing in the house is kept. (1no111as 1993: 48) T hnmJS pretends to re"1cw the facts m a progn:urve and obJCCll"C lighr, bur h i.1 COllclusinns rel lct"t the d~ep conscrvati)m of mert who fed 1hrca1cncd by 1hc women's rr1ovcmcnt r;t hcr than d1:tlJen~d by ir, and can only rcspood 10 it 2~ if p1esc11 red wich a pctll1111:al i11dio;;1mcn 1.

1\-'ltn 1r1 J•tmrnrJtrf

19J

Many femi 11ish fo:I d it10n•. 111c adupti()n ()f the: 'piofc:nional' sLOlnda.rds of ani·rcd grouping:i on lhe b~s1s of race or sexual o r icntatiou , using 1ou-.h of thc.i1 energies to si!!f1'11 1hc mMt grievou< •ins f w hite. houtgeni• heterm anr l pScil in forms we b.rcly rcro,11ni« as fc111i ni~t' ( E:d itor1al, FamniJI & LittJJ, No. 3 1, Spri ng 1989: 3). The 1wo points intersect, of course; whether we recognr~e a parorular s tance :is 'feminist ' d epends upon our sense ofidenc.iry within a particular factioo. No nethele~~,

1-n(tt l fe111 ini!tf'~ recO",;n i'le :1rui arc: :1ntip:irhetie co

:i

specific

d1storoon of fem tn1st ideas w hJCh is sustouncr" fc11 11nU.1n by rc:fc1Ti11g tu tl 1c ro1n11lcx

nature of d1eir own subject posiooning, o r whid1 ~ing female i• t he lowd t of common dcno mrnarors. T he result o f such a tendency can ~ 'not to clua datc debate but to fix a woman somewhere :ilong a prcdc1c1mined hier:l.1-chy o f oppressions in order ro jusofy o r contest • polit1cal p10Lm1 by 1dc1cntc 10 a opcakc(s iJcmity' (I larriss, F1min11t R 1·1Mw. No.J I , Spring 1989: 17). T here are clr:uly risk.~ in dcri\.'ing aucho rity as 2 feminist spcakct from nnc• own Cnthtdhuon of penon:J.l 1dcnuttCS (2s whtte, Jcsbi11n, working d;w., cLc.), and a ch>cl dangcr iJ 10 em ph a>itt tbc bounda· ric• heh•tc11 major >Lr>flJ> of fcrninisrn t i if they "'""~ fued ond immur:.hlc, rather ch:an pau of a dcbatc which h.s u ii. slu.rcd gO of piolifeu ting •~:trlcmir dil(()u!1eS on le..,ini' "'· mns iousn"l-S r2isin,g o f $01'1$ C2n b< :t ui.eful part n l rc.U~gie:al pr!1c1kr . This C:tll i•~clf bc rejuven• ling tnr fcmin i1m, n1 ii:~11 be lll"Jl'til'ed in order 10 tn1e:iull the trut h d aims of anri- fem ini\ls who wnultl hl rctl1ink the dominant fr.uncwork ul their thco,iQ; since the m1d· '80s fcmm1s1 postmodern theonsts such u Llnda Nicholson h2vc idrntiftcd the con tinued aistencc of un1vc11iali'Zing tendencies with in feminist thouf>h t, obsC"rv1ng t hat, 'it "' ll the failure, cornmon 10 many forms of a~ackmic schol:u ship. to rccogniu the embedded

lt 11 not o nly t he

fl C!'!t u( it3i U" 'tl :l't"'Utnptic>n" \vithin ~ 3i[DCl-'°'1fic hi!iittiU ie 1n.li111 p6"·erfu l; wl\cre:u utt>p i.an tendencies in phour. C:ynth ii C:ockhurn looks back on the e mergence of second w;tve polim:s and re fleets upon rhe neb ..Iou• 1cn>c of Ji1Te1rncc which pcrv:idcs feminism st ill: T here WJ.S " mitcn•I rc•stm for rhc growth of diffcrcncepolit.i a. h was a respon11: co women's IJ\'C'd experience in the 1970s of struggling wirh men's re.pon:1c lfl fe111ini!lrn . \l\'c felt different Not some cs~no~ or b1ol~cal rl1fferencc bur 3n empowering dilfcrcnt"f bnrn nl ou r crnturics- lo 11g o pc:ricn cc M the rnhord 1nated half of 1h e h e1cm s.au:ll couple. Our hts cory h ad gl\'en us d 1ffcrcm values. (Chapman and Ruth erford 198!1: J 26) There may b r much tlut • frrnini-. t"an inve.c in the posunodtrrl c.1tplosion of rhc binaries of classic \.Ycs1ern though1. Bu i m 1ghr 11 noc be the case due posrmodcrnism 1cself dem~s impetus from a ccrtafo binarisn' in iu dCJn:i.rcauon of pos1modcrn1sm :rnd feminise post modernism> Is ir readily apparen t that most pornnoocm rdlecnons arc any mo re gcmlc1 wnsciys of thin king. hell ht>lu 1>inb oul 111• 1 when rai;,: iHliTHI' CYBORC

T he 1e1m 'cssenriahsm' lus often been u!ed wi1h ncgy m~ny ft"rr•i ni , 1a.; I J1:1ve: u.w:cl it mywlf tarli('r in this \Ynrk JS .fwrthimd dn or ;i fcmini~t •tnd !epc:ricnce to feminist thought mdic.ues a belief in the ~11the111 iu1y f e"J'cricnl! n~•I otm:nc-y wi1hin • hclcmsc,,"IUl worl:plJ1 th.at ou tweigh,

ocher 1denti11cs, l f we acttpt th,n gender disti ncrion• arc in effect of culrurc, 3nd 1h11 their rnerni11g. >n nc•·c:r hc:oornc " suh.ciru tc for d irect l"'llticul carnp:o il(ning If idc ntiry is :i oons1:111rly slrif6ng and chrnging phcno rnc11Qn, it '"" no lunger he a u.cful u llying uy for mo!Jili-1.inK pec>J)lc into •.cuo11' (Fcmmut ~•rtJJ, No. } 4, Sp n ng t '.190. 78). W hether lesbian rolcplay "tsiblc. \ Vhether o r no t such boond•.n~ uc desiuble. they seem to be urgently needed Vl"ri1ing in 1971,Julirt "1 itchdl prophe~icd 1hat the biggest (M 1tchdl 1971: ? 1); here, ~htf founding disciplines of empiric21 krioW.cdgc. Simi!uty, fcmtnisrs have lo ng been in the busi ness of morki ng, in,·erting or di~rupting

214

M odrrn

Ftmi~ist

Tl;ouxht

1hc iexining 'order of 1hingi', p :uticululy in observing dut \Nc:stc:rn c:ptstcmology usumes orders w hieh on closer ~cru 1iny cnnfortr1 to and mpport the conditions of possibdi iy of a dini ncdy m airu!inc boC of t he publinty that ~urrour1dcd tlus book bur sccond:ml}' bcc:wse \Volf appc:i.rcd co p1ornisc a new pcr.;pcL1k111s for fcmini~m - in p:trtirula.r, rhc construnts that the ideology of fem1nin1ry ph)•sic1llly as wdl J ! rrrent•lly impo•c "!'°" 211 "'"'"""- \Vo lf picked " fl 011 n.imhhngio withtn ft12ncc111cnt: the beauty myth ... As women 1ele2sed 1hem sel ves from th.: feminine inysciq ue of domesticity, ii W2ncd .and the be• uty myth look """' its lc»t gmund, o:.xp•nd ing to et mcfay's ~un:enful wo rl12n it n ill tyt:anrfrr.ed by Wcs1u n sttnduds of fr male beauty - parttcubm )' in che ~e of cos· metic SU'JiCI)' where ·p • rh:c;tion' it Llued for th« experienced jo um a.Lsm skills and ca.a look merely 'd1sttrtgu1shcd'. but worncn ha'"' to be young, slim a.nd aiu:1.c1 ivc. whe~ ageing withou1 the uid of c•rnetic •u1ger)' 1niglt1 be cou>oidcrcd 2 s:i.dmblc o fkncc. T he majoc part of t he book C"atalogue s the wa)" in whk h buut)" h os b«:omc a fu ndam cnal, almo•t 'religious' ~\'en , in t he lives o i won1Cn in th« b tc twcnric1h cc111u1y. S he o udi ncl its 11111cri;i l cffet:I> (how women's li•r elihood, even rn professrons when: display isn't part of the job. might be profound!)" affected by it), and its culrur-.tl reinforcement. She focusrs in p3 rtkul~r upon im ages of wome n in magnirics anti 1~lr;vision; 1) n how )l~rts of the rcma!c boJy a.rr fc1ishiud ohjcc1s for 11ulc de.ire in the sex ind ullf}' o ften gtO!lsly cliscor1 ~. dirmcmbcrcd, or rccc i,-ini: acts o f '~nlcncc - a nd 1hc way th e sbmmlng and beauty 1ndusuy ha~ caused women co do acu of

violence to their

o w 11

boJics. ln1,;idc11ocs (

wo rnc11·ftl

vilenc:e ug;1 inst

218

M~dt:m

Pnninut T hought

t l 1c11u..cJvc~ a.re nir.1.1 1)', ir1clud1ng cltl1cr :&t;&r...·ing or bi nge: at1ng rcs\1l t i11g in .:1flit:)tt:Xi::e Li t l)uh1ni2; n't liclicvc that tire E:u th waJ created on seven d ays It's bclo~vcd t1ncnt1c:>lly, • 1 on :ortic le of faith. ( \.Volf l 990. 65) Ccrr1inly, as \Volf poaus o ut, aspttrs of chc beau ty mdusiry - par C1cul:uly th e sLmm1ng rndusiry - ha~ appropnatcd the language of ~ligion, with irn gt11Jt, innumerable ~in.s an• I touh rni?;r.iun t ~ grcoatcr. higher bci ng. She talu:s th is :m:i.logy much further, companng the operatio n of dieting and slim ming regimes to the o pcruion of cult religions, which n 1.,mpt 10 alter prople's $ l:Ot. . of om nd on • .-cry short s!Mcc of tire of men who may love thcrn Soon, nor even a lovtng putncr will be able to sa''C many women's scxuahty from the knife. (Wolf 1990. 206)

'.V hcn \'Votf mencions men she chuactcri%cs th en as dcspcruc indi•iclual• trying 10 corl\inoc the:ir fcrn2lc p:\'nlf 1'190: 17 1), to whrch " " all p;a•sli.-..1)• malme i• to b L1mc women tor;ally for therr cunenc nUlcria.I :IJld ideological position - m fact, it is to make them responsible for the lusrorica.J condioons o f pos.srhi111y of their subj~("tion Such • construrtion cast5 wom•n • s too wuk to ~isl rhc bbndishmenrs and shallow p!iU::S of the beauty rn)'lh; yet as \Volf henclf demonstrates in her survcr o f the means by which the myth

or

220

/\llrNkrn Femmirt Thought

i~ !"''l''"u•t ctl , rc•i>L>iwc rnight mcon the loss o f employment, ~nd 1n m:i.ny cas~ n certa.tnly mcam cndt.ring the an12g•)nisrn of one's peers, p:utnns and famtl)'. \V hu is most significanr 1n \Vol.ls rc>po nsc 10 rhe ' hc :1111y myth ' is rh11 she ag;tin p laces rh c rcspomibiliry of re~i~anC i11 the h •nigh1s, b ur d i~pby. 2 rendcncy m bh mc women benusc the rcvolu roon promi:in 1hrc:e of the bnok 1rcn~, they soil shoulder 1lw: chief bu1 Jc n u l chilck:uc arr:1.11gc11lc111s, ufte11 suffering soci:J ccnsuJC of their 'sclfahness' in w.Lnting an)'lhmg for themselves at all. \.\'omen's m 3.j(Hine$ and ncwspJpcrs alike uc cncooragin,i; " omen "'hlaanc fcmini1fN1'Jlsuc, r.iscd :t< :i ch.11le11ge 10 the women's movement was the cla.im that femi nism w;i.s an an u f.anuly org•nizano n. that it soo(\h l ro desrroy wh.r moOlJ'licul:uly iu 20 Cl'1 "here mcn·hl•rning i• rcg•mlcd as r•rti~"brly n•i,·c, even puerile.. The late '805 and '90s h•vc seen the 1ncruscd production o f wntin~ by m en o.ru.ioos 10 dis;usociace th c-1nsd "t> from po.criarchy, or identify 1hcm •elvc•..,. itll .-:u.s:1Jtics.. T here ;, •lso • trend fu r writ ing. by wurm::11 who feel obliged to remove the \~ctim' labd from wnmcn; wntcrs such u ::-.laorm \Vo lf in 1'1u with F 1u ( 1993) o.nd Katie Roiphc in TIN Mom1ng Aftn ( 1994) sec scco11d wave fcminut$ 2S culp;i.ble in the construction of • notion of con re mpor• ry 'NOm< n >5 thr neccs· s•ry vie-rims of a m ale pov.-.:r which reru lc~ rhcm unable: to e h:u1ge their lives. Nor noly i$ th is a g«i•~ d i,rnn in 11 flf the te111ini>1 theory of p•1 ri~1c.h •I h111 'vi1"1imlulsc m fc:tr amon)( all women, whkh is no t all~vi­ :ucd by any conccttcd lcp reipOn•c 1u >Lrch • th1cat. F rcndi, like Brownmillcr and l\lullcn ( to n:ime b ut 1wo) before her, charactcrius

or

I''"'"'·

l'o rt-.ftminirm', tlM /11dia and 'Pcm:nirt Su;n Jl;in'

125

pa[fi:trchy rod women's oppr«sion as a •.var against women, 2nd as 1hc book progrclemplcs of how 1hc world appJ. the prnfiand iry nf nule t·c>ntrmpt for 1ht" nt'C'l""i~•ty in hurn;an ltff", \Vom c n"s

"'orlc but the

trt";a t"1ng

not jlJSr

enVlronment ;;15 1n , 1gn1 fir~nt . •• .

C(>'ttam ling tree oll'er. >h:itlc anti c·ool nes~, pr~-vcn lS n .,.ion, ;mJ rdurm o~ygc n to the at nl•>Sphcrc. Bu t it h:i.1 fl•• ,·. luc in the; c;op [gnin dmm:ot ic produe1J 11ntil 1t 1s cut down (French 1992: 31) \IVith 1perifie rcfrrr ncc 10 th< dJ>ngini; ptilitii:•l cl im~le •ince the inc.rcas111g hegemony of righ1-wing 2nd fumbmern:1.lis 1 poli1ic. sinu 1hc la1c 70s, she counters chc popular w isdom that women have di ... , tly bcnc ti tt:'d fro m 1 ~,e system~ of power, through t he more rcgufar cmc:rgc:ncc o f (c:m.ole figwc:hc:~d.. Citfog the: cx:>mplc:s of f\laI. 11tcn c;a.n u~u~iy cc>unl on tlLc1n tc> uphold clw intat'.ntcmporary cx:i.mples of female 'power' arc contingcot upon the vicissitudes of power rela tionship~ bnce. French n fail 10 suppo n :> ch ild he h.- engcndcl'Cd. clcm• nd the wornim he lives wit:h w•1t on him like a scrv:i.m. I le can beat or kill the wo m1n he cb .i11u to lo H , he on r• pc women, wh•1 hcr mll e, .icqu~i ntancc, or stronger; he c1n rape or sew illy molest his d aughters. nic~s . sre~hildrcn, u1 1h.c ch1ltlrcn nf n m>rn an lie: cl~i ni~ f f> love. Tkl' w:~! major•'J if mtn 111 tlN 'IJ.'Orltl tlo 'mt or mort cf tbe a!n1:t (Frcnch 1992: 184) As the abo•'t >Uitgt> h, Frenc h • t ti1nc• 1dlcc t• whit might L-,,, ..cc 11 •s • n unrc:con11ruc1cd udrc•J Y1ewpo1nc wh ich uni,·ersalius t he irlc• of m an u a socml grouping regardless of race , d 11.ss or scxu21 id enttl)', but I belie,·c that this is " 'ho lly dcJibc1~1 c. The bn um line uf her argument " -ouJd be that wo men as a soc1.al d a»lcastc arc glob:i.Uy explo ited and oppressed b)• me n as a w hole, :i.nd dus as reiterated as a dire:• t r hallcngc to a wave o f 'fcmln1st' wntings wh1ch anxiously art~rnpr co ~XORt-t'2tt: '111en~ :ts irtdivi2l• i2rch: a sc h o hing • 1lliJotc 10 the k;nd uf 'ne:w fcmi n is1' rheto ric th~at runts that the only cnemie5 of women in t he to cry 'rape' after an un~ucC"Cssful d ate, and 1hemselvcs. Similarly, F'aludi's wo rk i• m imp rcs.ivc cnn1 ribu1i nn 10 fcmini~m·s rurpizrd • idc:io 11, rhcn for !cning men 'get their way'. Cowud's reputimon as an imponant fem1ms1 theorist makes this book p:m :cularl)' poign:rnt; wb1le s be ironically ch:arts the med ia's joyful sou nding of femimsm'~ Jca1hk11cU i11 tu 1.h e '90s, to some extent she scc11b 10 2~-cep1 tl121 fc111in;srn may be i11rut;in 1Jy faced wic h llie enurrnity c>f S:;.t(·rif,cc r..ttl,c:r tha.n the: liberation of choice In add ition Cowud rccoa;mu& 1h~t the ideologicri.1 c091 uf a rhc1011c of soc.1al cqu:lliry is 1ha.t 1he onu, 1s on w omen 10 'prove' 1heir &kill• as C':trc rs as wcU as professionals; in the w•kc of 2ny C of fa;Ju1c the 'dclin11ucn1' child or 1hc a1:2demic failuJC~s - women rec~we the brunt ofbla.mc. lronic:illy, the injusacc o( this ~itu;1tion h~t' not prU\.'C>kccl ll rcnaiJ3llrTf'C: in femirli'm l mpon"'< - the anractions ro the 'needy' child - become vtrrual.ly pachological a• compc11,2tio11 fo, :>fo;na1ion and feeli ngs of lack of worth tn other areu. It •ee111s puli1ico.lly d:rngeruus for w ... n cn 10 evoke d1c•c kinds of response s w11nou t a thorough ancmpt u lonnng and idcntif)ing lhe legacy of many of these responses in the toc:illy disnnct sooal apt:ri.cnt:es uf ""'-c1n1C,11 f 10 11l n 1cr1. As it is. her ,.r.arcr11cnb r-l-..k ..ffit111~ ing 'tro•h• abou t fem:i lc nature long avrm:d by •nti·fcmi n1s1" - that 1he m21emal i1htinc1 is bmh 'p1imicive' and i"fl'ation:ll (like the female mind?) und possibly pathologic~. At 1he same ti me Cow.ird accurntcly rcc1Y,.;11 ius the ideologic:U po»tr of the image of the idc:>.I woman, the mode I morhcr who musr de•-otc hcr whole being to the enten ainmenr and especially the educanon of her c.h1ld, 2nd rhu 'mosr vmmen rcoognize the 1mpoblt fo1 m;1ny, :and there has been a rnreat aw.iy from confronoaonal sexual polmcs and towards a rMre ~rn:p1 cd notion of the feminine. Even amor'll the most :udem of fornnists, there ha> been • rcs111'&c nce of J'IO'liOn:i.l adornmrnt, but always justified as 'domg if for myself, not men'. (Cowud 1992: 152- 3)

1n fl1et be more sophisrieatcd rc:l$0rl$ inr the growrh th

It.

\o\fhen 11 c:arnc to the

cninch, most made 1t quite clear rhcy d idn'r want ronflict with men. Ruh~ than h~•e eonfljet, which they so w :u a !icym pro m of d1srurbcd and angry people, dtey "''Ould prefer ro kttp the tndJCional nrucrurcs of muculinny and femininity intact, C\'Cn if i1 111eunt nnt ' Camille Paslia and Naomi \Yokf wi th • "~cw 10 c:hscredninp; 'old' feminism - •Jthoup;h both their a,gend:u arc qwtc different. Pa.gli~'s moCJve for bundung f:urly vim· olie 11u k~ Ofl femini>rn •N>S, 1ccurdin6 to Suun Faludi, 1tlori•••1ed om of'sirnple spire':

Rival ljrer:i.ry schobtn w ho wete temini,rs, she complained, had 6nbbed :Jl t he '•1Cdai m' and l.Ulc.J lo be '101>cclfuJ' o ( hc1 p11>d1ginus talcflh, a siruation th21 consigrte die n1>n- tenul'C

2JS t!'2ek 21 rh c unsung Philaddphia. Uruversicy o f the Aro :rnd

allowed her book to bt snubbed by seven pubfahers lt wu t hen, u she ro!d a New Yorf writer farer, th • r she beg.in 'prep;iring my t:'C\'cni;c' •1;•iMt fem inist 2adcmia. (F:Uudi 1992. 353) This •oc:ouni ul her motivarion is compcllJ ng" when one re.ids wme of Pagliis more: ludicrous chinu such 1s th1t conmn('d in Sfft.,7/ Pu1omu {199 1) thu '1f ciY1li:r" 'rion h as been left in fcm:Uc h and., we would uiU be living in grus huu' ( P.gli• 199 1: JA). P•g lia'• uttcr• ncc< arc 5oundbi1es ill the ma.king, dcclanng her manifest dJS:ilfcctoon wtrh rhc shape' n f sca>nd """"" l ~1ninisrn it>clf. I lcr 1nodeJ o f the 'rrue fcrnin i~1 · ii l\bdo nna, who is dcscnbcd as haVlng 'taughr young womtn to be fully female and sexual while still cxerasing con irol o•-cr their li•·es' ( Pugl i2 1992: 4). \l\lh• t kind of cont1ol thCllc young women c.xc1cisc is not m2dc clear, but Paglia tdcnufies a fC:lt of m:isculiruty :i.s o ne of femi nisms probl~ms, suggc-ting th21 lor l'>glia masculinity i• 211 en.during and stable aerompinimcnr ro bcing m;i.lc. P1glia Likes ro portray herself as a sexual r:i.drcal of sorts, bu r h~r r l•im th21 wnmon's E"'wcr h1lll 2lW2ys l:ain in her ""' is far from raruc~ and her assemon that 'le>••ing se>< ro the feminm~ i5 like lcrting your dog v:ic:at:ioLl at rhe t:llUdcrm;sc's' (P.~g)Ja 1992· 50) is 1im11ly picking up on the popubr consciousness that feminisrs aie anti-sex •nd therefore tynn nir:;il in their morol o u1look. Nowhere LS P.glia more con rrovcrn .J th:m a5 OlD mhmous scepac ;i.bou1 date •:lf>C. Bdtu:d de~trc:. AJthough it t:tk~ some imagmati~ lea!M to gcr rherc, rheir version ofHcrland is a land \Yilhout dirty jokes. leer• , and other rnsunccs of 'unwanted

236

M•dt:rn Ftmrm",1 Tl;ou;rht

sexual anemion'. \Alhc1hrt or 11ot \fisions of a unh·CJst free from 'i;e>111' 111cans lc:i.11\iog ft o m ·~fadonna, Spike Lc:c :and Bill Cosby'; (\c\'olf 1993: 108) .,.;tho11t cl Corna~ of L-0111muni.,~1 ion whiooh " 'lc t hem to cum1tcr ~uch :anacks_ Femimsm is populuty portn)·cd as o utmoded - media a nnounccmcn~ herald a 'pose telll1nist' di nurc where youn)\ women arc succc:-~1~1J ~nd independent, :llld k~• likely co cspouiC 'd..>ngemus' feminise 1dc:-als. Tho~ women who d oggedly insist o n procbJming

Conr/wjon

24 1

th emselves feminJSt uc lampooned as ugly, far and undoubtedly Jcsb11ms who spend their time condrmning men and tea11ng up pornography. An example of such a chanctcrization appeared in Juj Stcphcns's newsp•pcr rcvirw of• ~RC" Omni h11< p rognmmc w inch repo11cd o n the work of Andrea Dworkin. Sccphcns remarks. \Vhy LS it chat the women who speak up most defcnm'Cly about their 0"'11 S4:l< arc •uch an 11mppaling bun.-h of 16 hvc l~11rncd - often p;1 infully - 1h ;11 wu1ncn't libtl111iu1;, imlcer.I any M.>cial n1ovcrr1ent, has 110 single 1X>i111 of origin; it is bro1 in a di•crsiry of 1im1:.s and pbces' (Fcminul Rruirw, No. 3 1, Spring 1989: 2). Much of this diversity h.u been c._cnri.J In the dcvclopmenl of" frminit wh1rc feminism rnuld leun many lessons from black feminilm - one of whs ..h would be tn te ti ~• h OU-)C\\r'C)tk 'i"-'2.S wo1 k - licncc tlie: ini1i:a..l cxcite.11 1cnt created br this • sscrtion' (Rowboth •m 19R9: 294), In tandem With the emergence of works of high feminist theory, there "rP'"'"''I r1uhlic-:1tifln< ;,uch"' Rowho 1lurn'5 re1 rn~prcri•·"-· Tix !'&11 iJ Btf();, U1 ( 1989) :ind ]\'fichclen c \Vando1's Or.tt n Fnr.rniu (1990) . w hJch attempt to offer personal a nd collccnve memo ries of che 'v\'om~n's Libcntion Mu,·rment which ~re •cc·essiblt m d inccre.iing 10 all women. Tlme ~ no easy snlu1inn 111 1hr a1mo,phcre n f cxclus io nJsm end emic co a femin ism which now docs 11los1 of i1s m•tunng in u mvcrs1tics. and whe re clements or cuJrunl dmsm arc diffit:ult 10 avuicL Nurict hclcss, ir is Wu1'lli 1cr' to :iuert 1h:11 tlti~ rc hru l:cr-n

an cvoluoon 1n 1lwiught tn wy 51mplisnc sense. buc to rcmt the 'sad conclusion' cxpr~d by }Ot!Cphine l>onovan in the epi~~ph lo thjs c·oncl11~ion 1h~1 to lose t he 8cnen·u, m rhc USA the m ovement had mformal bf'ginni og~ in 1967 wh.-1~ •1flitll gt\Jup:. of r:.d;'-J ""'\.lri)ct• bcg~n 10 rncCI rn the Aurumn of ch.u year ( fchols 11189: 4). 4 , 111 Chis (Vflltil , 1'1 .c)\'tl1~Cf'U doiMt'Yt'Jr c:xper1CJ1Cltj 1n Rrm1n, •cc F.liubcrh \Vrbon, Oof:I H~!Jw.z> ro P.wadiu Jiii.,.,., ;.

p,,,,,,_..,,

Bn't;;in 1945-146/i, Lundon; Tivi•l"'-1.. Pulilio liUllS, 1980. 6. It u wdl doaamcntcd tlu.1 many women on bot h d ie nill •n c:q ncni>n uf the furoJamrntal oulc she lw been c""t in· (Donuv;ar1 199 2: 123).

9. Liter Frcudi';f..n l-t1tics l•:avc on oce:asjon u_kcn ::. Jc,, KCllCJIJU) \icw of Ft cu d ', piycho:uWytinl ponitts, a nd lrovt analy! 1\l tho11,1th her su!V. 2. See TI.om:u Hohbe1. i'bt r;.,;u• (11151), M.t• d•J Cili:u'f. ed. Rcm1rd Gert, S1nse• 1-hn~t•r f're•1, 1978 3. See, for rx-•.mple, AlilOfl J>wJ · "bcral political tlocOt)' cllk• t(td with the rill: of ctpi n.Ji1m, it o p1csscd tlrc needs of the dcvclopi11g r lilxra.l vo.luci of autonomy ~n.d sdf-fulftlmcnt h""" often been Lolo.td "ith the 1~ht to private pr opcny' (1983. 34). 4. Th,. ""'m• nlo.laW" anolt>gyh>• bc3P•c tn go by we could not tell whetl>or &011~thiiog c:alli11g ibclf\Vorocn'• l_,ibcr.ition \\."11 rrying rn free: "':omen &o..n tbc ..,O""Cl uf uxn, or cooi,~cnlionaJ 5rr.rcotypc5, nr pol.Jnal rcspomibiliry. or the lure o f tlrc unfcmi.nioe, or .-oen the bl•ndnhmen" of the fomnu1 "'°'"'men:' (Riehm.ls 1982: 8:8). CHAYT&R TWO

I. A, Uaiban Ta~ior asscru, 1'hc ;dcologlcal root• nfSocr:al1St fcmrn ..m lay 10 doc populu ckroouatic c.-.dition of 1hc b te cigh1ecn1h eocnrury, ind i11 puticultt in tllc: rt.dical cgtLcur•mfilTI nf 1hc l 7YO" (Toyl0< 1983: I).

l. 'Over oOl(a of the cnrirr fem• le workforce n corKCJ1tr:ucd in only ten ccruporinn~ Th~• "•p rcn" jobs for women an: beaded h)• d.c:-nal wotlr:. which 1akti 17 Silt of " 'Omen wor), 19;9 6. A• Anna (.'Our< and llemi>: c ..mpbd' •Ult, 'U riti•h feminism .... ~w~yi more t. (Sq;al 1987: 211) 9. ' .. whirc women canMt .1'-'01d rhc lcgac)' o f r.a.ri~m -"it1un femif'li~m. Thu leg>itiun whid1 Ocnida daim" i> ct>nl(clli lal lO philb.ophy' (Omida 1978: 282-3) Of cuurx fc1oin[jt ilCtc1nplt tu

o.pludc

iY ...l• 4.

lugu. - in ann1nun 1A·1d 1 all forms

or oppo•itl(>naJ d'.•~om•c - c• 'I o nly 11~•< rrcou.1.c to the philowphy or such • log>c: i r1;cn1T101)' of r~•on on only ocrur from wirhin; we th"ctorc hnc 'only tbc rccou~ to mataRctns and srruep,ics' ( Uettid1 l 978 JI>). CHAl'TER TI IRE-E

r,,_,

i n iotert~ting acCO\ull uf t Publiolic1 >,

J989, rr llC>-33,JcwrUc GUOllCX wJ l a1b•H s.oith, · r.lkj,.g Abo•ll It I lomphobia ·n the Rlacl< (;omrn11niry', Fun1mr ' rh.c "'Om~n who due 1t0t go out w;ch11ul their ftl.c C)·cLt.,h011.1c in ~rioos psyc.hic croubLc' (G reer 1971 : 324), Cooscrucon~ the 'poliucs of appem.nc-c'

'.''U cnorc: :abou:t oon.1cinu."nc.c r.uling th:an 1nt(nian of bbow, >.1td il!jlUCJ th:it c:xplcxtahon of dtc rc..,"O!ulion in rcpruducti""C tcchnolo(SCI i:i the only means b,- whx.h ..,·.omcn·s soaal opprc>sion a.n be cndicztcd 1n ;ll\

the long term by mc::.Lm o f .1.rt1fte1~ repmducnon; 1n the 1hoct term •prc.cbng chc duld·rc:anng role •• chc raponsab•l>ty of society as a whole~

\Voo\tn, btologi~.ill)' 1tt~11ogui-;hcd fto,n 11 to 81Jc rulrunlly Ji~ nngulshcrl trnm 'h\1m ::1n°. N.in1re produccrl rhe liu~damcnr1I mcqlWity luJf thc h"'""" nee rn•J>t bur md rear the chddrcn wh>Ch was UICI wmol1da,cJ. uutirutiontlm:d, in lht tnttfC§tl ol mttl Ktproclll'-.liun o r tllie species C u~t WOll~ LI dc-.u ly, l\ul unly rn101iotull)'. P>)'1u p:a.nc of rhe hnute :ire described Eddie'• l(lUup, ~d ' \\'o men aml Politics', wcnl on a tow uf tbc Ftcc F.llm, 1aiioK •Ut;oo Thi< org>niurion la•recl fow Y""• its brc-.1< up lrcra.ldcd by the cho1en 11'(·~ of irs final cooJcrcnc~ - 'Bl I< F'cnuru.,n' (Lovrnduski ant! lhn.tlly 1hc lll'M ...,1bt:J.Jo11:iral ·"" 1tvor'1.:a/ rmliiI

• mcthodul"!(11how• cal lc.-cl - ,., I h"pe my c>wn 1 . In :h'"' prnctrotc1 1.he whol< Jln tc 1hi' from derail• ot hi1 rclauort 1ppll101•dg' Pres, 1992.

CHAl'I t:R NINt: J.

0

j it:.1.n-J. r.1.R(!Oi5

l.yofard'5 "gr~nd n~ft1lf\Vt'$ ofleg•• inl:_~ ti(ln',

I i diKU&~

m Fr.ber ..,d :-;idwlS0 which can be ~ry boring 1ndc«i'

(C:omman and

M1JUtoJWChlJ\~ mii;ents fron; ,utf'lc central ""-l-!'11tol 1oom , f\t)f i re rh~ ptnr l(: who «1.,·t ic< rnd' n rtitn 1wlirt- n f rht-ir ml.e. r.nme ev..- n rnnqtl~r rh~~rlvr< frmln 1,.rc.' (F allliL t 'l92: 16). J. ') r '.4'Wl1cn JJC 11\0tt inte:ligcfit, titm'O-gtt :l:f\d tOOU: i1tdtpct1Jc.n.t cJian the nml t he)• .,....., •le with. a11d ;r they 1tfu1< t•' be go .-r rncd by th&"'ds Of Wull\Cll . f c1nicidc

2. 'The b.aLM!m Boob, 19S4 Cow:ud, R., o,,, HrJ•h llo/ ri~..,.,. Lu Mm Gtt Tbti• U·:O,. Lo ndon: F1hcr &. F>bcr, 1992.

r,,,,,br~n(C" AtW>1h-er

l....ook

~t ~1iscnriatis.m', Vol.

1, No. 2, S ummer l ?IW.

°"'1.JK, J. and D. Hod11. Nou.;lf;oa nJ s,~-1 Diffr''"" Tbt R~'"'"~" 10 C4nl. f'.gl1•, C., StJ! Pro w"~' 1f1t """ Ckra.1ma fio.., Nefr.ii1i 10 Emily

.O,,~'"'°"· I lumoodswordt Penguin llooks, 1991. P.;glia., C , Sr:c. Art, a11J /!m}, ofD•rr. l

'\.t.

Ki"J1oth 419761, 86 /\it11,,_,., L"'""• SS~ IJ. Cuicttc, l'l-l0,61 ..11 16, 74 Chrisci~n.

H:iiry. I 'I(>- J Sl-S. 57, {ol - J , sn, ~~ . BJ, 91, lll, 119, 120, 12q, 137, 138, 166, lbR, 1RO, 182, 199, 212, 2JI, 2.16 Collin•, Patna• HJ!, IJS ~. HS CUSS,

C1,,.nl-."•l11~·