Yesterday I came across an interesting article by Naomi Wolf (via Luca Baptista on G+). I am not always positively impressed by what she writes, and even this very article is somewhat uneven. But she presents a ‘genealogy’ of feminism as a doctrine/ideology which strikes me as prima facie plausible. Being a recent convert to feminism myself, I’d be interested in hearing what other, more seasoned feminists (both male and female) think of her proposed genealogy.
She argues that the two main historical and conceptual sources for the particular blend of feminism which became dominant in North America and Western Europe are the 19th century middle-class white suffragists in Britain and French existentialism in the mid-20th century (especially Simone de Beauvoir, naturally). This is how the first tradition is described:
These women, though they struggled against it, were immersed in an ideology described by the poet Coventry Patmore as the "Angel in the House": women's influence was to be emotional, not logical; they were to create a "separate sphere", apart from the rigors of the male world; women were to be higher, purer and less sexual than men; and their role was to exert moral judgment.
Unsurprisingly, this was a puritan tradition, with very strict views on female (and male) sexuality. The second trend, French existentialism, did not share the negative views on sex, but instead focused on the woman as an individualist individual: it would be virtually impossible for a woman to be truly free while embedded in a collective structure of other individuals, and the role of mother in particular would be incompatible with a woman’s épanouissment. The Victorian influence would lead to the doctrine that sex is above all a form of male domination over women, to be combatted and rejected, and the existentialist influence to the doctrine that family life and maternity are nothing but chains preventing women from fulfilling their real potentials as individuals (e.g. Alice Walker). (Naturally, the irony is that the Victorian tradition is anti-sex but pro-family, while the existentialist tradition is pro-sex but anti-family; the ‘anti-’ bits prevailed.)
Wolf then goes on to present an alternative form of feminism, a 'global' feminism inspired by the ideals of the Enlightenment, which finds its most poignant expression in women’s contributions to the recent political events in countries such as Egypt and Algeria. I don’t really buy her positive proposal all the way (although I do like the focus on Islamic feminism, more on which soon), but her diagnosis of mainstream feminism as anti-sex and anti-parenthood (both aspects acquiring multiple forms, including tacit, veiled manifestations) strikes me as worth thinking about.
As a recent convert, I’ve never felt the pressure to conform to a particular, pre-conceived formulation of feminism, and instead adopted what could be described as a ‘buffet’ attitude (help yourself only to what seems appetizing). In particular, these two aspects of ‘mainstream feminism’ do not sit well with me, and I’ve been fortunate enough to find alternative, inspiring formulations (e.g. so-called ‘sex-positive’ feminism, and feminist endorsements of motherhood, e.g. Sarah Hrdy’s work). Wolf also identifies a ‘sisterhood pressure’ in Western feminism (coming from the Victorian strand) to conform to a specific formulation of the feminist ideals, entailing a lot of policing of ‘how much of a feminist’ someone really is. Non-conformity to a given version of the doctrine would mean that someone 'is not really a feminist' (a familiar reproach), and this strikes me as a cogent sociological observation. Instead, I want to say: let a thousand flowers bloom; let there be many flavors of feminism to suit people’s different backgrounds and personal inclinations.
But is there still a core of what it means to be a feminist? Tentatively, I want to suggest three tenets which I think come somewhere near capturing this core:
1) Generally speaking, women are systematically denied the same privileges and opportunities as men.
2) That 1) is the case is not a good thing.
3) It is imperative to combat 1), in a variety of ways.
Naturally, different flavors of feminism will emerge from different interpretations to 3). My point here is to endorse a pluralist conception of feminism, one where 1), 2) and 3) are all shared tenets and yet there is room for radically different interpretations of what it means to be a feminist.
To finalize, and as promised, a few words on the wonderful manifestations of feminism in countries such as Egypt, Algeria and other African and/or Islamic countries. That women played a decisive role for the recent political changes in these countries is beyond discussion, and yet to see women fighting for freedom with their faces still covered may be surprising to many feminists in North-America and Europe. A picture such as the one in Wolf’s article, of women protesting in Yemen, is a sharp reminder that the logical space for feminism is vast.
For those who may want to deny 1) above, I can only say: look beyond your own small backyards. Women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to drive; women in many places in Africa still undergo genital mutilation; the list could go on and on (see this nice TED talk by Isabel Allende). (And in your own backyard, while it may be more veiled, it is still there alright.)
Recent Comments