FEMINIST THEORY from margin to center bell hooks south end press Copyright © 1984 by bell hooks Copyrights are still required for book production in the United States. However, in our case it is a disliked necessity. Thus, in any properly footnoted quotation of up to 500 sequential words may be used without permission, as long as the total number of words quoted does not exceed 2000. For longer quo­ tations or for greater volume of total words, authors should write for permission to South End Press. Typesetting and production at South End Press. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Hooks, Bell. Feminist theory from margin to center. Bibliography: p. l.Feminism-United.States-Evaluation. 2.Afro­ American women-Attitudes. 3 . Marginality, Social-United States. I. Title. HQ1426.H675 1984 305.4'2'0973 ISBN 0-89608-222-9 ISBN 0-89608-221-0 (pbk.) Cover design by Sharon Dunn South End Press 116 St. Botolph St. Boston, Ma. 02115 Printed In The U.S. 84-50937 For us sisters-Angela, Gwenda, Valeria, Theresa, Sarah For all we have shared for all we have come through together for continuing closeness table of contents Acknowledgments vii Preface ix Chapter 1 Black Women: Shaping Feminist Theory 1 Chapter 2 Feminism: A Movement to End Sexist Oppression 2 Chapter 3 The Significance of Feminist Movement Chapter 4 Sisterhood: Political Solidarity Between Women 33 43 Chapter 5 Men: Comrades in Struggle 67 Chapter 6 Changing Perspectives on Power 83 Chapter 7 Rethinking the Nature of Work 95 Chapter 8 Educating Women: A Feminist Agenda 107 Chapter 9 Feminist Movement to End Violence 117 Chapter 10 Revolutionary Parenting 133 Chapter 11 Ending Female Sexual Oppression 147 Chapter 12 Revolution: Development Through Struggle 157 Notes 164 Bibliography 171 acknowledgments Not all women, in fact, very few have had the good fortune to live and work among women and men actively involved in feminist movement. Many of us live in circum­ stances and environments where we must engage in femi­ nist struggle alone with only occasional support and affir­ mation. During much of the writing of Ain't I A Woman: black women and feminism I worked in isolation. It was my hope that the publication of this work would draw me closer to feminist activists, especially black women. Ironically, some of the most outspoken black women active in feminist movement responded by trashing both it and me. While I expected serious rigorous evaluation of my work I was totally unprepared for the hostility and contempt shown me by women whom I did not and do not see as enemies. Despite their responses I share with them an ongoing commitment to feminist struggle. To me this does not mean that we must approach feminism from the same perspective. It does mean we have a basis for communication, that our political com­ mitments should lead us to talk and struggle together. Unfortunately it is often easier to ignore, dismiss, reject, and even hurt one another rather than engage in constructive confrontation. Were it not for the overwhelmingly positive responses to the book from black women who felt it compelled them to either re-think or think for the first time about the impact of sexism on our lives and the importance of feminist move­ ment, I might have become terribly disheartened and dis­ illusioned. Thanks to them and many other women and men this book was not written in isolation. I am especially grate­ ful for the care and affirmation given me by Valeria and Gwenda, my younger sisters; Beverly, my friend and com­ rade; Nate, my companion; and the South End Press collec­ tive. Such encouragement renews my commitment to femi­ nist politics and strengthens my conviction that the value of feminist writing must be determined not only by the way a work is received among feminist activists but by the extent to which it draws women and men who are outside feminist struggle inside. preface To be in the margin is to be part of the whole but outside the main body. As black Americans living in a small Kentucky town, the railroad tracks were a daily reminder of our margin­ ality. Across those tracks were paved streets, stores we could not enter, restaurants we could not eat in, and people we could not look directly in the face. Across those tracks was a world we could work in as maids, as janitors, as prostitutes, as long as it was in a service capacity. We could enter that world but we could not live there. We had always to return to the margin, to cross the tracks, to shacks and abandoned houses on the edge of town. There were laws to ensure our return. To not return was to risk being punished. Living as we did-on the edge-we deve­ loped a particular way of seeing reality. We looked both from the outside in and and from the inside out. We focused our attention on the center as well as on the margin. We understood both. This mode of seeing reminded us of the existence of a whole universe, a main body made up of both margin and center. Our survival depended on an ongoing public awareness of the separation between margin and center and an ongoing private acknowledgment that we were a necessary, vital part of that whole. This sense of wholeness, impressed upon our conscious­ ness by the structure of our daily lives, provided us an opposi­ tional world view-a mode of seeing unknown to most of our oppressors, that sustained us, aided us in our struggle to trans­ cend poverty and despair, strengthened our sense of self and our solidarity. The willingness to explore all possibilities has character­ ized my perspective in writing Feminist Theory from margin to center. Much feminist theory emerges from privileged women who live at the center, whose perspectives on reality rarely include knowledge and awareness of the lives of women and men who live in the margin. As a consequence, feminist theory lacks wholeness, lacks the broad analysis that could encom­ pass a variety of human experiences. Although feminist theor­ ists are aware of the need to develop ideas and analysis that encompass a larger number of experiences, that serve to unify rather than to polarize, such theory is complex and slow in formation. At its most visionary, it will emerge from individu­ als who have knowledge of both margin and center. It was the dearth of material by and about black women that led me to begin the research and writing of Ain't I A Woman: black women and feminism. It is the absence of femi­ nist theory that addresses margin and center that has led me to write this book. In the pages ahead, I explore the limitations of various aspects of feminist theory and practice, proposing new directions. I try to avoid repeating ideas that are widely known and discussed, concentrating instead on exploring different issues or new perspectives on old issues. As a consequence, some chapters are lengthy and others quite short; none are intended as comprehensive analyses. Throughout the work my thoughts have been shaped by the conviction that feminism must become a mass based political movement if it is to have a revolutionary, transformative impact on society. 1. BLACK WOMEN: SHAPING FEMINIST THEORY Feminism in the United States has never emerged from the women who are most victimized by sexist oppression; women who are daily beaten down, mentally, physically, and spiritual­ ly-women who are powerless to change their condition in life. They are a silent majority. A mark of their victimization is that they accept their lot in life without visible question, without organized protest, without collective anger or rage. Betty Frie­ dan's The Feminine Mystique is still heralded as having paved the way for contemporary feminist movement-it was written as if these women did not exist. Friedan's famous phrase, "the problem that has no name," often quoted to describe the condi­ tion of women in this society, actually referred to the plight of a select group of college-educated, middle and upper class, mar­ ried white women-housewives bored with leisure, with the home, with children, with buying products, who wanted more out of life. Friedan concludes her first chapter by stating: "We can no longer ignore that voice within women that says: 'I want something more than my husband and my children and my house.'" That "more" she defined as careers. She did not discuss who would be called in to take care of the children and maintain the home if more women like herself were freed from their house labor and given equal access with white men to the professions. She did not speak of the needs of women without 1 2 Feminist Theory: from margin to center men, without children, without homes. She ignored the exist­ ence of all non-white women and poor white women. She did not tell readers whether it was more fulfilling to be a maid, a babysitter, a factory worker, a clerk, or a prostitute, than to be a leisure class housewife. She made her plight and the plight of white women like herself synonymous with a condition affecting all American women. In so doing, she deflected attention away from her classism, her racism, her sexist attitudes towards the masses of American women. In the context of her book, Friedan makes clear that the women she saw as victimized by sexism were college-educated, white women who were compelled by sexist conditioning to remain in the home. She contends: It is urgent to understand how the very condition of being a housewife can create a sense of emptiness, non-existence, nothingness in women. There are aspects of the housewife role that make it almost impossible for a woman of adult intelligence to retain a sense of human identity, the firm core of self or "I" without which a human being, man or woman, is not truly alive. For women of ability, in America today, I am convinced that there is something about the housewife state itself that is dangerous. Specific problems and dilemmas of leisure class white house­ wives were real concerns that merited consideration and change but they were not the pressing political concerns of masses of women. Masses of women were concerned about economic survival, ethnic and racial discrimination, etc. When Friedan wrote The Feminine Mystique, more than one third of all women were in the work force. Although many women longed to be housewives, only women with leisure time and money could actually shape their identities on the model of the feminine mystique. They were women who, in Friedan's words, were "told by the most advanced thinkers of our time to go back and live their lives as if they were Noras, restricted to the doll's house by Victorian prejudices."* From her early writing, it appears that Friedan never wondered whether or not the plight of college-educated, white housewives was an adequate reference point by which to gauge the impact of sexism or sexist oppression on the lives of women in American society. Nor did she move beyond her own life experience to acquire an expanded perspective on the lives of women in the United States. I say this not to discredit her work. It remains a useful discussion of the impact of sexist discrimi- Black Women: Shaping Feminist Theory 3 nation on a select group of women. Examined from a different perspective, it can also be seen as a case study of narcissism, insensitivity, sentimentality, and self-indulgence which reach­ es its peak when Friedan, in a chapter titled "Progressive Dehumanization," makes a comparison between the psycho­ logical effects of isolation on white housewives and the impact of confinement on the self-concept of prisoners inNazi concen­ tration camps.* Friedan was a principal shaper of contemporary feminist thought. Significantly, the one-dimensional perspective on women's reality presented in her book became a marked fea­ ture of the contemporary feminist movement. Like Friedan before them, white women who dominate feminist discourse today rarely question whether or not their perspective on women's reality is true to the lived experiences of women as a collective group.Nor are they aware of the extent to which their perspectives reflect race and class biases, although there has been a greater awareness of biases in recent years. Racism abounds in the writings of white feminists, reinforcing white supremacy and negating the possibility that women will bond politically across ethnic and racial boundaries. Past feminist refusal to draw attention to and attack racial hierarchies sup­ pressed the link between race and class. Yet class structure in American society has been shaped by the racial politic of white supremacy; it is only by analyzing racism and its function in capitalist society that a thorough understanding of class rela­ tionships can emerge. Class struggle is inextricably bound to the struggle to end racism. Urging women to explore the full implication of class in an early essay, "The Last Straw," Rita Mae Brown explained: Class is much more than Marx's definition of relationship to the means of production. Class involves your behavior, your basic assumptions about life. Your experience (deter­ mined by your class) validates those assumptions, how you are taught to behave, what you expect from yourself and from others, your concept of a future, how you understand problems and solve them, how you think, feel, act. It is these behavioral patterns that middle class women resist recog­ nizing although they may be perfectly willing to accept class in Marxist terms, a neat trick that helps them avoid really dealing with class behavior and changing that behavior in themselves. It is these behavioral patterns which must be recognized, understood, and changed. 4 Feminist Theory: from margin to center White women who dominate feminist discourse, who for the most part make and articulate feminist theory, have little or no understanding of white supremacy as a racial politic, of the psychological impact of class, of their political status within a racist, sexist, capitalist state. It is this lack of awareness that, for example, leads Leah Fritz to write in Dreamers and Dealers, a discussion of the current women's movement published in 1979: Women's suffering under sexist tyranny is a common bond among all women, transcending the particulars of the dif­ ferent forms that tyranny takes. Suffering cannot be mea­ sured and compared quantitatively. Is the enforced idleness and vacuity of a "rich" woman, which leads her to madness and/ or suicide, greater or less than the suffering of a poor woman who barely survives on welfare but retains some­ how her spirit? There is no way to measure such difference, but should these two women survey each other without the screen of patriarchal class, they may find a commonality in the fact that they are both oppressed, both miserable. Fritz's statement is another example of wishful thinking, as well as the conscious mystification of social divisions between women, that has characterized much feminist expression. While it is evident that many women suffer from sexist tyranny, there is little indication that this forges "a common bond among all women." There is much evidence substantiat­ ing the reality that race and class identity creates differences in quality of life, social status, and lifestyle that take prece­ dence over the common experience women share-differences which are rarely transcended. The motives of materially privi­ leged, educated, white women with a variety of career and lifestyle options available to them must be questioned when they insist that "suffering cannot be measured." Fritz is by no means the first white feminist to make this statement. It is a statement that I have never heard a poor woman of any race make. Although there is much I would take issue with in Ben­ jamin Barber's critique of the women's movement, Liberating Feminism, I agree with his assertion: Suffering is not necessarily a fixed and universal expe­ rience that can be measured by a single rod: it is related to situations, needs, and aspirations. But there must be some historical and political parameters for the use of the term so that political priorities can be established and different forms and degrees of suffering can be given the most atten­ tion. Black Women: Shaping Feminist Theory 5 A central tenet of modern feminist thought has been the assertion that "all women are oppressed." This assertion implies that women share a common lot, that factors like class, race, religion, sexual preference, etc. do not create a diversity of experience that determines the extent to which sexism will be an oppressive force in the lives of individual women. Sexism as a system of domination is institutionalized but it has never determined in an absolute way the fate of all women in this society. Being oppressed means the absence of choices.It is the primary point of contact between the oppressed and the oppressor. Many women in this society do have choices, (as inadequate as they are) therefore exploitation and discrimina­ tion are words that more accurately describe the lot of women collectively in the United States. Many women do not join organized resistance against sexism precisely because sexism has not meant an absolute lack of choices. They may know they are discriminated against on the basis of sex, but they do not equate this with oppression. Under capitalism, patriarchy is structured so that sexism restricts women's behavior in some realms even as freedom from limitations is allowed in other spheres. The absence of extreme restrictions leads many women to ignore the areas in which they are exploited or dis­ criminated against; it may even lead them to imagine that no women are oppressed. There are oppressed women in the United States, and it is both appropriate and necessary that we speak against such oppression. French feminist Christine Delphy makes the point in her essay, "For a Materialist Feminism," that the use of the term oppression is important because it places feminist strug­ gle in a radical political framework: The rebirth of feminism coincided with the use of the term "oppression." The ruling ideology, i.e. common sense, daily speech, does not speak about oppression but about a "femi­ nine condition." It refers back to a naturalist explanation: to a constraint of nature, exterior reality out of reach and not modifiable by human action. The term "oppression," on the contrary, refers back to a choice, an explanation, a situation that is political. "Oppression" and "social oppres­ sion" are therefore synonyms or rather social oppression is a redundance: the notion of a political origin, i.e. social, is an integral part of the concept of oppression. However, feminist emphasis on "common oppression" in the United States was less a strategy for politicization than an 6 Feminist Theory: from margin to center appropriation by conservative and liberal women of a radical political vocabulary that masked the extent to which they shaped the movement so that it addressed and promoted their class interests. Although the impulse towards unity and empathy that informed the notion of common oppression was directed at building solidarity, slogans like "organize around your own oppression" provided the excuse many privileged women needed to ignore the differences between their social status and the status of masses of women. It was a mark of race and class privilege, as well as the expression of freedom from the many constraints sexism places on working class women, that mid­ dle class white women were able to make their interests the primary focus of feminist movement and employ a rhetoric of commonality that made their condition synonymous with "oppression." Who was there to demand a change in vocabu­ lary? What other group of women in the United States had the same access to universities, publishing houses, mass media, money? Had middle class black women begun a movement in which they had labeled themselves "oppressed," no one would have taken them seriously. Had they established public forums and given speeches about their "oppression," they would have been criticized and attacked from all sides. This was not the case with white bourgeois feminists for they could appeal to a large audience of women, like themselves, who were eager to change their lot in life. Their isolation from women of other class and race groups provided no immediate comparative base by which to test their assumptions of common oppression. Initially, radical participants in women's movement de­ manded that women penetrate that isolation and create a space for contact. Anthologies like Liberation Now, Women's Liberation: Blueprint for the Future, Class and Feminism, Radical Feminism, and Sisterhood Is Powerful, all published in the early 1970s, contain articles that attempted to address a wide audience of women, an audience that was not exclusively white, middle class, college-educated, and adult (many have articles on teenagers). Sookie Stambler articulated this radical spirit in her introduction to Women's Liberation: Blueprint for the Future: Movement women have always been turned off by the media's necessity to create celebrities and superstars. This goes against our basic philosophy. We cannot relate to Black Women: Shaping Feminist Theory 7 women in our ranks towering over us with prestige and fame. We are not struggling for the benefit of the one woman or for one group of women. We are dealing with issues that concern all women. These sentiments, shared by many feminists early in the movem.ent, were not sustained. As more and more women acquired prestige, fame, or money from feminist writings or from gains from feminist movement for equality in the work­ force, individual opportunism undermined appeals for collec­ tive struggle. Women who were not opposed to patriarchy, capitalism, classism, or racism labeled themselves "feminist." Their expectations were varied. Privileged women wanted social equality with men of their class; some women wanted equal pay for equal work; others wanted an alternative lifes­ tyle. Many of these legitimate concerns were easily co-opted by the ruling capitalist patriarchy. French feminist Antoinette Fouque states: The actions proposed by the feminist groups are spectacu­ lar, provoking. But provocation only brings to light a cer­ tain number of social contradictions. It does not reveal radical contradictions within society. The feminists claim that they do not seek equality with men, but their practice proves the contrary to be true. Feminists are a bourgeois avant-garde that maintains, in an inverted form, the domi­ nant values. Inversion does not facilitate the passage to another kind of structure. Reformism suits everyone! Bour­ geois order, capitalism, phallocentrism are ready to inte­ grate as many feminists as will be necessary. Since these women are becoming men, in the end it will only mean a few more men. The difference between the sexes is not whether one does or doesn't have a penis� it is whether or not one is an integral part of a phallic masculine economy. Feminists in the United States are aware of the contradic­ tions. Carol Ehrlich makes the point in her essay, "The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Can It Be Saved?," that "feminism seems more and more to have taken on a blind, safe, nonrevolutionary outlook" as "feminist radi­ calism loses ground to bourgeois feminism," stressing that "we cannot let this continue": Women need to know (and are increasingly prevented from finding out) that feminism is not about dressing for success, or becoming a corporate executive, or gaining elective office; it is not being able to share a two career marriage and take skiing vacations and spend huge amounts of time with 8 Feminist Theory: from margin to center your husband and two lovely children because you have a domestic worker who makes all this possible for you, but who hasn't the time or money to do it for herself; it is not opening a Women's Bank, or spending a weekend in an expensive workshop that guarantees to teach you how to become assertive (but not aggressive); it is most emphati­ cally not about becoming a police detective or CIA agent or marine corps general. But if these distorted images of feminism have more reality than ours do, it is partly our own fault. We have not worked as hard as we should have at providing clear and meaningful alternative analyses which relate to people's lives, and at providing active, accessible groups in which to work. It is no accident that feminist struggle has been so easily co-opted to serve the interests of conservative and liberal femi­ nists since feminism in the United States has so far been a bourgeois ideology. Zillah Eisenstein discusses the liberal roots of North American feminism in The Radical Future of Liberal Feminism, explaining in the introduction: One of the major contributions to be found in this study is the role of the ideology of liberal individualism in the con­ struction of feminist theory. Today's feminists either do not discuss a theory of individuality or they unself-consciously adopt the competitive, atomistic ideology of liberal individ­ ualism. There is much confusion on this issue in the femi­ nist theory we discuss here. Until a conscious differentia­ tion is made between a theory of individuality that re­ cognizes the importance of the individual within the social collectivity and the ideology of individualism that assumes a competitive view of the individual, there will not be a full accounting of what a feminist theory of liberation must look like our Western society. The ideology of "competitive, atomistic liberal individual­ ism" has permeated feminist thought to such an extent that it undermines the potential radicalism of feminist struggle. The usurpation of feminism by bourgeois women to support their class interests has been to a very grave extent justified by feminist theory as it has so far been conceived. (For example, the ideology of"common oppression.") Any movement to resist the co-optation of feminist struggle must begin by introducing a different feminist perspective-a new theory-one that is not informed by the ideology of liberal individualism. Black Women: Shaping Feminist Theory 9 The exclusionary practices of women who dominate femi­ nist discourse have made it practically impossible for new and varied theories to emerge. Feminism has its party line and women who feel a need for a different strategy, a different foundation, often find themselves ostracized and silenced. Criticisms of or alternatives to established feminist ideas are not encouraged, e.g. recent controversies about expanding fem­ inist discussions of sexuality. Yet groups of women who feel excluded from feminist discourse and praxis can make a place for themselves only if they first create, via critiques, an aware­ ness of the factors that alienate them. Many individual white women found in the women's movement a liberatory solution to personal dilemmas. Having directly benefited from the movement, they are less inclined to criticize it or to engage in rigorous examination of its structure than those who feel it has not had a revolutionary impact on their lives or the lives of masses of women in our society. Non-white women who feel affirmed within the current structure of feminist movement (even though they may form autonomous groups) seem to also feel that their definitions of the party line, whether on the issue of black feminism or on other issues, is the only legitimate discourse. Rather than encourage a diversity of voices, critical dialogue, and controversy, they, like some white women, seek to stifle dissent. As activists and writers whose work is widely known, they act as if they are best able to judge whether other women's voices should be heard. Susan Griffin warns against this overall tendency towards dogmatism in her essay, "The Way of All Ideology": ... when a theory is transformed into an ideology, it begins to destroy the self and self-knowledge. Originally born of feel­ ing, it pretends to float above and around feeling. Above sensation. It organizes experience according to itself, with­ out touching experience. By virtue of being itself, it is sup­ posed to know. To invoke the name of this ideology is to confer truthfulness. No one can tell it anything new. Expe­ rience ceases to surprise it, inform it, transform it. It is annoyed by any detail which does not fit into its world view. Begun as a cry against the denial of truth, now it denies any truth which does not fit into its scheme. Begun as a way to restore one's sense of reality, now it attempts to discipline real people, to remake natural beings after its own image. All that it fails to explain it records as its enemy. Begun as a theory of liberation, it is threatened by new theories of liberation; it builds a prison for the mind. 10 Feminist Theory: from margin to center We resist hegemonic dominance of feminist thought by insisting that it is a theory in the making, that we must neces­ sarily criticize, question, re-examine, and explore new possibil­ ities. My persistent critique has been informed by my status as a member of an oppressed group, experience of sexist exploita­ tion and discrimination, and the sense that prevailing feminist analysis has not been the force shaping my feminist con­ sciousness. This is true for many women. There are white women who had never considered resisting male dominance until the feminist movement created an awareness that they could and should. My awareness of feminist struggle was stimulated by social circumstance. Growing up in a Southern, black, father-dominated, working class household, I expe­ rienced (as did my mother, my sisters, and my brother) varying degrees of patriarchal tyranny and it made me angry-it made us all angry. Anger led me to question the politics of male dominance and enabled me to resist sexist socialization. Fre­ quently, white feminists act as if black women did not know sexist oppression existed until they voiced feminist sentiment. They believe they are providing black women with "the" anal­ ysis and "the" program for liberation. They do not understand, cannot even imagine, that black women, as well as other groups of women who live daily in oppressive situations, often acquire an awareness of patriarchal politics from their lived experience, just as they develop strategies of resistance (even though they may not resist on a sustained or organized basis). These black women observed white feminist focus on male tyranny and women's oppression as if it were a "new" revela­ tion and felt such a focus had little impact on their lives. To them it was just another indication of the privileged living conditions of middle and upper class white women that they would need a theory to inform them that they were "oppressed." The implication being that people who are truly oppressed know it even though they may not be engaged in organized resistance or are unable to articulate in written form the nature of their oppression. These black women saw nothing liberatory in party line analyses of women's oppression. Neither the fact that black women have not organized collectively in huge numbers around the issues of "feminism" (many of us do not know or use the term) nor the fact that we have not had access to the machinery of power that would allow us to share our analyses or theories about gender with the American public Black Women: Shaping Feminist Theory 11 negate its presence in our lives or place us in a position of dependency in relationship to those white and non-white femi­ nists who address a larger audience. The understanding I had by age thirteen of patriarchal politics created in me expectations of the feminist movement that were quite different from those of young, middle class, white women. When I entered my first women's studies class at Stanford University in the early 1970s, white women were revelling in the joy of being together-to them it was an impor­ tant, momentous occasion. I had not known a life where women had not been together, where women had not helped, protected, and loved one another deeply. I had not known white women who were ignorant of the impact of race and class on their social status and consciousness (Southern white women often have a more realistic perspective on racism and classism than white women in other areas of the United States.) I did not feel sympathetic to white peers who maintained that I could not expect them to have knowledge of or understand the life experiences of black women. Despite my background (living in racially segregated communities) I knew about the lives of white women, and certainly no white women lived in our neighborhood, attended our schools, or worked in our homes. When I participated in feminist groups, I found that white women adopted a condescending attitude towards me and other non-white participants. The condescension they directed at black women was one of the means they employed to remind us that the women's movement was "theirs"-that we were able to participate because they allowed it, even encouraged it; after all, we were needed to legitimate the process. They did not see us as eqauls. They did not treat us as equals. And though they expected us to provide first hand accounts of black expe­ rience, they felt it was their role to decide if these experiences were authentic. Frequently, college-educated black women (even those from poor and working class backgrounds) were dismissed as mere imitators. Our presence in movement activi­ ties did not count, as white women were convinced that "real" blackness meant speaking the patois of poor black people, being uneducated, streetwise, and a variety of other stereo­ types. If we dared to criticize the movement or to assume responsibility for reshaping feminist ideas and introducing new ideas, our voices were tuned out, dismissed, silenced. We 12 Feminist Theory: from margin to center could be heard only if our statements echoed the sentiments of the dominant discourse.* Attempts by white feminists to silence black women are rarely written about. All too often they have taken place in conference rooms, classrooms, or the privacy of cozy living room settings, where one lone black woman faces the racist hostility of a group of white women. From the time the women's liberation movement began, individual black women went to groups. Many never returned after a first meeting. Anita Cornwall is correct in"Three for the Price of One: Notes from a Gay Black Feminist," when she states,"... sadly enough, fear of encountering racism seems to be one of the main reasons that so many black womyn refuse to join the women's movement."* Recent focus on the issue of racism has generated discourse but has had little impact on the behavior of white feminists towards black women. Often the white women who are busy publishing papers and books on "unlearning racism" remain patronizing and condescending when they relate to black women. This is not surprising given that frequently their dis­ course is aimed solely in the direction of a white audience and the focus solely on changing attitudes rather than addressing racism in a historical and political context. They make us the "objects" of their privileged discourse on race. As"objects," we remain unequals, inferiors. Even though they may be sincerely concerned about racism, their methodology suggests they are not yet free of the type of paternalism endemic to white supremacist ideology. Some of these women place themselves in the position of "authorities" who must mediate communica­ tion between racist white women (naturally they see them­ selves as having come to terms with their racism) and angry black women whom they believe are incapable of rational dis­ course. Of course, the system of racism, classism, and educa­ tional elitism remain intact if they are to maintain their authoritative positions. In 1981, I enrolled in a graduate class on feminist theory where we were given a course reading list that had writings by white women and men, one black man, but no material by or about black, Native American Indian, Hispanic, or Asian women. When I criticized this oversight, white women directed an anger and hostility at me that was so intense I found it difficult to attend the class. When I suggested that the purpose of this collective anger was to create an atmosphere in which it Black Women: Shaping Feminist Theory 13 would be psychologically unbearable for me to speak in class discussions or even attend class, I was told that they were not angry. I was the one who was angry. Weeks after class ended, I received an open letter from one white female student acknowl­ edging her anger and expressing regret for her attacks. She wrote: I didn't know you. You were black. In class after a while I noticed myself, that I would always be the one to respond to whatever you said. And usually it was to contradict. Not that the argument was always about racism by any means. But I think the hidden logic was that if I could prove you wrong about one thing, then you might not be right about anything at all. And in another paragraph: I said in class one day that there were some people less entrapped than others by Plato's picture of the world. I said I thought we, after fifteen years of education, courtesy of the ruling class, might be more entrapped than others who had not received a start in life so close to the heart of the mons­ ter. My classmate, once a close friend, sister, colleague, has not spoken to me since then. I think the possibility that we were not the best spokespeople for all women made her fear for her self-worth and for her Ph.D. Often in situations where white feminists aggressively attacked individual black women, they saw themselves as the ones who were under attack, who were the victims. During a heated discussion with another white female student in a racially mixed women's group I had organized, I was told that she had heard how I had "wiped out" people in the feminist theory class, that she was afraid of being "wiped out" too. I reminded her that I was one person speaking to a large group of angry, aggressive people; I was hardly dominating the situa­ tion. It was I who left the class in tears, not any of the people I had supposedly "wiped out." Racist stereotypes of the strong, superhuman black wo­ man are operative myths in the minds of many white women, allowing them to ignore the extent to which black women are likely to be victimized in this society and the role white women may play in the maintenance and perpetuation of that victimi­ zation. In Lillian Hellman's autobiographical work Penti­ mento, she writes, "All my life, beginning at birth, I have taken orders from black women, wanting them and resenting them, being superstitious the few times I disobeyed." The black 14 Feminist Theory: from margin to center women Hellman describes worked in her household as family servants and their status was never that of an equal. Even as a child, she was always in the dominant position as they ques­ tioned, advised, or guided her; they were free to exercise these rights because she or another white authority figure allowed it. Hellman places power in the hands of these black women rather than acknowledge her own power over them; hence she mystifies the true nature of their relationship. By projecting onto black women a mythical power and strength, white women both promote a false image of themselves as powerless, passive victims and deflect attention away from their aggres­ siveness, their power, (however limited in a white supremacist, male-dominated state) their willingness to dominate and con­ trol others. These unacknowledged aspects of the social status of many white women prevent them from transcending racism and limit the scope of their understanding of women's overall social status in the United States. Privileged feminists have largely been unable to speak to, with, and for diverse groups of women because they either do not understand fully the inter-relatedness of sex, race, and class oppression or refuse to take this inter-relatedness serious­ ly. Feminist analyses of woman's lot tend to focus exclusively on gender and do not provide a solid foundation on which to construct feminist theory. They reflect the dominant tendency in Western patriarchal minds to mystify woman's reality by insisting that gender is the sole determinant of woman's fate. Certainly it has been easier for women who do not experience race or class oppression to focus exclusively on gender. Al­ though socialist feminists focus on class and gender, they tend to dismiss race or they make a point of acknowledging that race is important and then proceed to offer an analysis in which race is not considered. As a group, black women are in an unusual position in this society, for not only are we collectively at the bottom of the occupational ladder, but our overall social status is lower than that of any other group. Occupying such a position, we bear the brunt of sexist, racist, and classist oppression. At the same time, we are the group that has not been socialized to assume the role of exploiter/oppressor in that we are allowed no insti­ tutionalized "other" that we can exploit or oppress. (Children do not represent an institutionalized other even though they may be oppressed by parents.) White women and black men Black Women: Shaping Feminist Theory 15 have it both ways. They can act as oppressor or be oppressed. Black men may be victimized by racism, but sexism allows them to act as exploiters and oppressors of women. White women may be victimized by sexism, but racism enables them to act as exploiters and oppressors of black people. Both groups have led liberation movements that favor their interests and support the continued oppression of other groups. Black male sexism has undermined struggles to eradicate racism just as white female racism undermines feminist struggle. As long as these two groups or any group defines liberation as gaining social equality with ruling class white men, they have a vested interest in the continued exploitation and oppression of others. Black women with no institutionalized "other" that we may discriminate against, exploit, or oppress often have a lived experience that directly challenges the prevailing class­ ist, sexist, racist social structure and its concomitant ideology. This lived experience may shape our consciousness in such a way that our world view differs from those who have a degree of privilege (however relative within the existing system). It is essential for continued feminist struggle that black women recognize the special vantage point our marginality gives us and make use of this perspective to criticize the dominant racist, classist, sexist hegemony as well as to envision and create a counter-hegemony. I am suggesting that we have a central role to play in the making of feminist theory and a contribution to offer that is unique and valuable. The forma­ tion of a liberatory feminist theory and praxis is a collective responsibility, one that must be shared. Though I criticize aspects of feminist movement as we have known it so far, a critique which is sometimes harsh and unrelenting, I do so not in an attempt to diminish feminist struggle but to enrich, to share in the work of making a liberatory ideology and a libera­ tory movement. � �. FEMINISM: A MOVEMENT TO END SEXIST OPPRESSION A central problem within feminist discourse has been our inability to either arrive at a consensus of opinion about what feminism is or accept definition(s) that could serve as points of unification. Without agreed upon definition(s), we lack a sound foundation on which to construct theory or engage in overall meaningful praxis. Expressing her frustrations with the ab­ sence of clear definitions in a recent essay, "Towards A Revolu­ tionary Ethics," Carmen Vasquez comments: We can't even agree on what a "Feminist" is, never mind what she would believe in and how she defines the princi­ ples that constitute honor among us. In key with the Ameri­ can capitalist obsession for individualism and anything goes so long as it gets you what you want. Feminism in American has come to mean anything you like, honey. There are as many definitions of Feminism as there are feminists, some of my sisters say, with a chuckle. I don't think it's funny. It is not funny. It indicates a growing disinterest in feminism as a radical political movement. It is a despairing gesture expressive of the belief that solidarity between women is not possible. It is a sign that the political naivete which has tradi­ tionally characterized woman's lot in male-dominated culture abounds. Most people in the United States think of feminism or the more commonly used term "women's lib" as a movement that 17 18 Feminist Theory: from margin to center aims to make women the social equals of men. This broad definition, popularized by the media and mainstream seg­ ments of the movement, raises problematic questions. Since men are not equals in white supremacist, capitalist, patriar­ chal class structure, which men do women want to be equal to? Do women share a common vision of what equality means? Implicit in this simplistic definition of women's liberation is a dismissal of race and class as factors that, in conjunction with sexism, determine the extent to which an individual will be discriminated against, exploited, or oppressed. Bourgeois white women interested in women's rights issues have been satisfied with simple definitions for obvious reasons. Rhetorically plac­ ing themselves in the same social category as oppressed women, they were not anxious to call attention to race and class privilege. Women in lower class and poor groups, particularly those who are non-white, would not have defined women's liberation as women gaining social equality with men since they are continually reminded in their everyday lives that all women do not share a common social status. Concurrently, they know that many males in their social groups are exploited and oppressed. Knowing that men in their groups do not have social, political, and economic power, they would not deem it liberatory to share their social status. While they are aware that sexism enables men in their respective groups to have privileges denied them, they are more likely to see exaggerated expressions of male chauvinism among their peers as stem­ ming from the male's sense of himself as powerless and ineffec­ tual in relation to ruling male groups, rather than an expres­ sion of an overall privileged social status.* From the very onset of the women's liberation movement, these women were suspi­ cious of feminism precisely because they recognized the limita­ tions inherent in its definition. They recognized the possibility that feminism defined as social equality with men might easily become a movement that would primarily affect the social standing of white women in middle and upper class groups while affecting only in a very marginal way the social status of working class and poor women. Not all the women who were at the forefront of organized women's movement shaping definitions were content with making women's liberation synonymous with women gaining social equality with men. On the opening pages of Woman Feminism: A Movement to End Sexist Oppression 19 Power: The Movement for Women's Liberation, Cellestine Ware, a black woman active in the movement, wrote under the heading "Goals": Radical feminism is working for the eradication of domina­ tion and elitism in all human relationships. This would make self-determination the ultimate good and require the downfall of society as we know it today. Individual radical feminists like Charlotte Bunch based their analyses on an informed understanding of the politics of domination and a recognition of the inter-connections between various systems of domination even as they focused primarily on sexism. Their perspectives were not valued by those organ­ izers and participants in women's movement who were more interested in social reforms. The anonymous authors of a pam­ phlet on feminist issues published in 1976, Women and the New World, make the point that many women active in women's liberation movement were far more comfortable with the notion of feminism as a reform that would help women attain social equality with men of their class than feminism defined as a radical movement that would eradicate domination and transform society: Whatever the organization, the location or the ethnic com­ position of the group, all the women's liberation organiza­ tions had one thing in common: they all came together based on a biological and sociological fact rather than on a body of ideas. Women came together in the women's libera­ tion movement on the basis that we were women and all women are subject to male domination. We saw all women as being our allies and all men as being the oppressor. We never questioned the extent to which American women accept the same materialistic and individualistic values as American men. We did not stop to think that American women are just as reluctant as American men to struggle for a new society based on new values of mutual respect, cooperation and social responsibility. It is now evident that many women active in feminist movement were interested in reform as an end in itself, not as a stage in the progression towards revolutionary transforma­ tion. Even though Zillah Eisenstein can optimistically point to the potential radicalism of liberal women who work for social reform in The Radical Future of Liberal Feminism, the process by which this radicalism will surface is unclear. Eisenstein offers as an example of the radical implications of liberal femi­ nist programs the demands made at the government-sponsor- 20 Feminist Theory: from margin to center ed Houston conference on women's rights issues which took place in 1978: The Houston report demands as a human right a full voice and role for women in determining the destiny of our world, our nation, our families, and our individual lives. It specifi­ cally calls for (1) the elimination of violence in the home and the development of shelters for battered women, (2) support for women's business, (3) a solution to child abuse, (4) feder­ ally funded nonsexist child care, (5) a policy of full employ­ ment so that all women who wish and are able to work may do so, (6) the protection of homemakers so that marriage is a partnership, (7) an end to the sexist portrayal of women in the media, (8) establishment of reproductive freedom and the end to involuntary sterilization, (9) a remedy to the double discrimination against minority women, (10) a revi­ sion of criminal codes dealing with rape, (11) elimination of discrimination on the basis of sexual preference, (12) the establishment of nonsexist education, and (13) an examina­ tion of all welfare reform proposals for their specific impact on women. The positive impact of liberal reforms on women's lives should not lead to the assumption that they eradicate systems of domination. Nowhere in these demands is there an empha­ sis on eradicating the politic of domination, yet it would need to be abolished if any of these demands were to be met. The lack of any emphasis on domination is consistent with the liberal feminist belief that women can achieve equality with men of their class without challenging and changing the cultural basis of group oppression. It is this belief that negates the likelihood that the potential radicalism of liberal feminism will ever be realized. Writing as early as 1967, Brazilian scholar Heleith Saffioti emphasized that bourgeois feminism has always been "fundamentally and unconsciously a feminism of the ruling class," that: Whatever revolutionary content there is in petty-bourgeois feminist praxis, it has been put there by the efforts of the middle strata, especially the less well off, to move up socially. To do this, however, they sought merely to expand the existing social structures, and never went so far as to challenge the status quo. Thus, while petty-bourgeois femi­ nism may always have aimed at establishing social equal­ ity between the sexes, the consciousness it represented has remained utopian in its desire for and struggle to bring about a partial transformation of society; this it believed could be done without disturbing the foundations on which it rested .. .In this sense, petty-bourgeois feminism is not Feminism: A Movement to End Sexist Oppression 21 feminism at all; indeed it has helped to consolidate class society by giving camouflage to its internal contradic­ tions... Radical dimensions of liberal women's social protest will continue to serve as an ideological support system providing the necessary critical and analytical impetus for the mainte­ nance of a liberalism that aims to grant women greater equal­ ity of opportunity within the present white supremacist capi­ talist, patriarchal state. Such liberal women's rights activism in its essence diminishes feminist struggle. Philosopher Mihailo Markovic discusses the limitations of liberalism in his essay, "Women's Liberation and Human Emancipation": Another basic characteristic of liberalism which consti­ tutes a formidable obstacle to an oppressed social group's emancipation is its conception of human nature. If selfish­ ness, aggressiveness, the drive to conquer and dominate, really are among defining human traits, as every liberal philosopher since Locke tries to convince us, the oppression in civil society-i.e. in the social sphere not regulated by the state-is a fact of life and the basic civil relationship between a man and a woman will always remain a battle­ field. Woman, being less aggressive, is then either the less human of the two and doomed to subjugation, or else she must get more power-hungry herself and try to dominate man. Liberation for both is not feasible. Although liberal perspectives on feminism include reforms that would have radical implications for society, these are the reforms which will be resisted precisely because they would set the stage for revolutionary transformation were they imple­ mented. It is evident that society is more responsive to those "feminist" demands that are not threatening, that may even help maintain the status quo. Jeanne Gross gives an example of this co-optation of feminist strategy in her essay "Feminist Ethics from a Marxist Perspective," published in 1977: If we as women want change in all aspects of our lives, we must recognize that capitalism is uniquely capable of co­ opting piecemeal change... Capitalism is capable of taking our visionary changes and using them against us. For example, many married women, recognizing their oppres­ sion in the family, have divorced. They are thrown, with no preparation of protection, into the labor market. For many women this has meant taking their places at the row of typewriters. Corporations are now recognizing the capacity for exploitation in divorced women. The turnover in such 22 Feminist Theory: from margin to center jobs is incredibly high. "If she complains, she can be replaced." Particularly as regards work, many liberal feminist reforms simply reinforced capitalist, materialist values (illustrating the flexibility of capitalism) without truly liberating women economically. Liberal women have not been alone in drawing upon the dynamism of feminism to further their interests. The great majority of women who have benefited in any way from feminist-generated social reforms do not want to be seen as advocates of feminism. Conferences on issues of relevance to women, that would never have been organized or funded had there not been a feminist movement, take place all over the United States and the participants do not want to be seen as advocates of feminism. They are either reluctant to make a public commitment to feminist movement or sneer at the term. Individual African-American, Native American Indian, Asian­ American, and Hispanic American women find themselves isolated if they support feminist movement. Even women who may achieve fame and notoriety (as well as increased economic income) in response to attention given their work by large numbers of women who support feminism may deflect atten­ tion away from their engagement with feminist movement. They may even go so far as to create other terms that express their concern with women's issues so as to avoid using the term feminist. The creation of new terms that have no relationship to organized political activity tend to provide women who may already be reluctant to explore feminism with ready excuses to explain their reluctance to participate. This illustrates an uncritical acceptance of distorted definitions of feminism rather than a demand for redefinition. They may support spe­ cific issues while divorcing themselves from what they assume is feminist movement. In a recent article in a San Francisco newspaper, "Sisters­ Under the Skin," columnist Bob Greene commented on the aversion many women apparently have to the term feminism. Greene finds it curious that many women "who obviously believe in everything that proud feminists believe in dismiss the term "feminist" as something unpleasant; something with which they do not wish to be associated." Even though such women often acknowledge that they have benefited from feminist-generated reform measures which have improved the Feminism: A Movement to End Sexist Oppression 23 social status of specific groups of women, they do not wish to be seen as participants in feminist movement: There is no getting around it. After all this time, the term "feminist" makes many bright, ambitious, intelligent women embarrassed and uncomfortable. They simply don't want to be associated with it. It's as if it has an unpleasant connotation that they want no connection with. Chances are if you were to present them with every mainstream feminist belief, they would go along with the beliefs to the letter-and even if they con­ sider themselves feminists, they hasten to say no. Many women are reluctant to advocate feminism because they are uncertain about the meaning of the term. Other women from exploited and oppressed ethnic groups dismiss the term because they do not wish to be perceived as supporting a racist movement; feminism is often equated with white women's rights effort. Large numbers of women see feminism as syn­ onymous with lesbianism; their homophobia leads them to reject association with any group identified as pro-lesbian. Some women fear the word "feminism" because they shun identification with any political movement, especially one per­ ceived as radical. Of course there are women who do not wish to be associated with women's rights movement in any form so they reject and oppose feminist movement. Most women are more familiar with negative perspectives on "women's lib" than the positive significations of feminism. It is this term's positive political significance and power that we must now struggle to recover and maintain. Currently feminism seems to be a term without any clear significance. The "anything goes" approach to the definition of the word has rendered it practically meaningless. What is meant by "anything goes" is usually that any woman who wants social equality with men regardless of her political pers­ pective (she can be a conservative right-winger or a nationalist communist) can label herself feminist. Most attempts at defin­ ing feminism reflect the class nature of the movement. Defini­ tions are usually liberal in origin and focus on the individual woman's right to freedom and self-determination. In Barbara Berg's The Remembered Gate: Origins of American Femi­ nism, she defines feminism as a "broad movement embracing numerous phases of woman's emancipation." However, her emphasis is on women gaining greater individual freedom. Expanding on the above definition, Berg adds: 24 Feminist Theory: from margin to center It is the freedom to decide her own destiny; freedom from sex-determined role; freedom from society's oppressive re­ strictions; freedom to express her thoughts fully and to convert them freely into action. Feminism demands the acceptance of woman's right to individual conscience and judgment. It postulates that woman's essential worth stems from her common humanity and does not depend on the other relationships of her life. This definition of feminism is almost apolitical in tone; yet it is the type of definition many liberal women find appealing. It evokes a very romantic notion of personal freedom which is more acceptable than a definition that emphasizes radical pol­ itical action. Many feminist radicals now know that neither a feminism that focuses on woman as an autonomous human being worthy of personal freedom nor one that focuses on the attain­ ment of equality of opportunity with men can rid society of sexism and male domination. Feminism is a struggle to end sexist oppression. Therefore, it is necessarily a struggle to erad­ icate the ideology of domination that permeates Western cul­ ture on various levels as well as a commitment to reorganizing society so that the self-development of people can take prece­ dence over imperialism, economic expansion, and material desires. Defined in this way, it is unlikely that women would join feminist movement simply because we are biologically the same. A commitment to feminism so defined would demand that each individual participant acquire a critical political consciousness based on ideas and beliefs. All too often the slogan "the personal is political" (which was first used to stress that woman's everyday reality is informed and shaped by politics and is necessarily political) became a means of encouraging women to think that the expe­ rience of discrimination, exploitation, or oppression automati­ cally corresponded with an understanding of the ideological and institutional apparatus shaping one's social status. As a consequence, many women who had not fully examined their situation never developed a sophisticated understanding of their political reality and its relationship to that of women as a collective group. They were encouraged to focus on giving voice to personal experience. Like revolutionaries working to change the lot of colonized people globally, it is necessary for feminist activists to stress that the ability to see and describe one's own reality is a significant step in the long process of self-recovery; Feminism: A Movement to End Sexist Oppression 25 but it is only a beginning. When women internalized the idea that describing their own woe was synonymous with develop­ ing a critical political consciousness, the progress of feminist movement was stalled. Starting from such incomplete perspec­ tives, it is not surprising that theories and strategies were developed that were collectively inadequate and misguided. To correct this inadequacy in past analysis, we must now encour­ age women to develop a keen, comprehensive understanding of women's political reality. Broader perspectives can only emerge as we examine both the personal that is political, the politics of society as a whole, and global revolutionary politics. Feminism defined in political terms that stress collective as well as individual experience challenges women to enter a new domain-to leave behind the apolitical stance sexism decrees is our lot and develop political consciousness. Women know from our everyday lives that many of us rarely discuss politics. Even when women talked about sexist politics in the heyday of contemporary feminism, rather than allow this engagement with serious political matters to lead to complex, in-depth analysis of women's social status, we insisted that men were "the enemy," the cause of all our problems. As a consequence, we examined almost exclusively women's rela­ tionship to male supremacy and the ideology of sexism. The focus on "man as enemy" created, as Marlene Dixon emphas­ izes in her essay, "The Rise and Demise of Women's Liberation: A Class Analysis," a "politics of psychological oppression" which evoked world views which "pit individual against indi­ vidual and mystify the social basis of exploitation."* By repu­ diating the popular notion that the focus of feminist movement should be social equality of the sexes and emphasizing eradi­ cating the cultural basis of group oppression, our own analysis would require an exploration of all aspects of women's political reality. This would mean that race and class oppression would be recognized as feminist issues with as much relevance as sexism. When feminism is defined in such a way that it calls atten­ tion to the diversity of women's social and political reality, it centralizes the experiences of all women, especially the women whose social conditions have been least written about, studied, or changed by political movements. When we cease to focus on the simplistic stance "men are the enemy," we are compelled to examine systems of domination and our role in their mainte- 26 Feminist Theory: from margin to center nance and perpetuation. Lack of adequate definition made it easy for bourgeois women, whether liberal or radical in pers­ pective, to maintain their dominance over the leadership of the movement and its direction. This hegemony continues to exist in most feminist organizations. Exploited and oppressed groups of women are usually encouraged by those in power to feel that their situation is hopeless, that they can do nothing to break the pattern of domination. Given such socialization, these women have often felt that our only response to white, bour­ geois, hegemonic dominance of feminist movement is to trash, reject, or dismiss feminism. This reaction is in no way threat­ ening to the women who wish to maintain control over the direction of feminist theory and praxis. They prefer us to be silent, passively accepting their ideas. They prefer us speaking against "them" rather than developing our own ideas about feminist movement. Feminism is the struggle to end sexist oppression. Its aim is not to benefit solely any specific group of women, any parti­ cular race or class of women. It does not privilege women over men. It has the power to transform in a meaningful way all our lives. Most importantly, feminism is neither a lifestyle nor a ready-made identity or role one can step into. Diverting energy from feminist movement that aims to change society, many women concentrate on the development of a counter-culture, a woman-centered world wherein participants have little contact with men. Such attempts do not indicate a respect or concern for the vast majority of women who are unable to integrate their cultural expressions with the visions offered by alterna­ tive woman-centered communities. In Beyond God the Father, Mary Daly urged women to give up "the securities offered by the patriarchal system" and create new space that would be woman-centered. Responding to Daly, Jeanne Gross pointed to the contradictions that arise when the focus of feminist move­ ment is on the construction of new space: Creating a "counterworld" places an incredible amount of pressure on the women who attempt to embark on such a project. The pressure comes from the belief that the only true resources for such an endeavor are ourselves. The past which is totally patriarchal is viewed as irredeemable ... If we go about creating an alternative culture without remaining in dialogue with others (and the historical cir­ cumstances that give rise to their identity) we have no reality check for our goals. We run the very real risk that the Feminism: A Movement to End Sexist Oppression 27 dominant ideology of the culture is re-duplicated in the feminist movement through cultural imperialism. Equating feminist struggle with living in a counter­ cultural, woman-centered world erected barriers that closed the movement off from most women. Despite sexist discrimina­ tion, exploitation, or oppression, many women feel their lives as they live them are important and valuable. Naturally the suggestion that these lives could be simply left or abandoned for an alternative "feminist" lifestyle met with resistance. Feeling their life experiences devalued, deemed solely negative and worthless, many women responded by vehemently attack­ ing feminism. By rejecting the notion of an alternative femi­ nist "lifestyle" that can emerge only when women create a subculture (whether it is living space or even space like women's studies that at many campuses has become exclusive) and insisting that feminist struggle can begin wherever an individual woman is, we create a movement that focuses on our collective experience, a movement that is continually mass­ based. Over the past six years, many separatist-oriented com­ munities have been formed by women so that the focus has shifted from the development of woman-centered space to­ wards an emphasis on identity. Once woman-centered space exists, it can be maintained only if women remain convinced that it is the only place where they can be self-realized and free. After assuming a "feminist" identity, women often seek to live the "feminist" lifestyle. These women do not see that it under­ mines feminist movement to project the assumption that "fem­ inist" is but another pre-packaged role women can now select as they search for identity. The willingness to see feminism as a lifestyle choice rather than a political commitment reflects the class nature of the movement. It is not surprising that the vast majority of women who equate feminism with alternative lifestyle are from middle class backgrounds, unmarried, college­ educated, often students who are without many of the social and economic responsibilities that working class and poor women who are laborers, parents, homemakers, and wives confront daily. Sometimes lesbians have sought to equate fem­ inism with lifestyle but for significantly different reasons. Given the prejudice and discrimination against lesbian women in our society, alternative communities that are woman­ centered are one means of creating positive, affirming envir- 28 Feminist Theory: from margin to center onments. Despite positive reasons for developing woman­ centered space, (which does not need to be equated with a "feminist" lifestyle) like pleasure, support, and resource­ sharing, emphasis on creating a counter-culture has alienated women from feminist movement, for such space can be in churches, kitchens, etc. Longing for community, connection, a sense of shared purpose, many women found support networks in feminist organizations. Satisfied in a personal way by new relation­ ships generated in what was called a "safe," "supportive" context wherein discussion focused on feminist ideology, they did not question whether masses of women shared the same need for community. Certainly many black women as well as women from other ethnic groups do not feel an absence of community among women in their lives despite exploitation and oppression. The focus on feminism as a way to develop shared identity and community has little appeal to women who experience community, who seek ways to end exploitation and oppression in the context of their lives. While they may develop an interest in a feminist politic that works to eradicate sexist oppression, they will probably never feel as intense a need for a "feminist" identity and lifestyle. Often emphasis on identity and lifestyle is appealing because it creates a false sense that one is engaged in praxis. However, praxis within any political movement that aims to have a radical transformative impact on society cannot be solely focused on creating spaces wherein would-be-radicals experience safety and support. Feminist movement to end sex­ ist oppression actively engages participants in revolutionary struggle. Struggle is rarely safe or pleasurable. Focusing on feminism as political commitment, we resist the emphasis on individual identity and lifestyle. (This should not be confused with the very real need to unite theory and practice.) Such resistance engages us in revolutionary praxis. The ethics of Western society informed by imperialism and capitalism are personal rather than social. They teach us that the individual good is more important then the collective good and consequently that individual change is of greater signifi­ cance than collective change. This particular form of cultural imperialism has been reproduced in feminist movement in the form of individual women equating the fact that their lives have been changed in a meaningful way by feminism "as is" Feminism: A Movement to End Sexist Oppression 29 with a policy of no change need occur in the theory and praxis even if it has little or no impact on society as a whole, or on masses of women. To emphasize that engagement with feminist struggle as political commitment we could avoid using the phrase "I am a feminist" (a linguistic structure designed to refer to some per­ sonal aspect of identity and self-definition) and could state "I advocate feminism." Because there has been undue emphasis placed on feminism as an identity or lifestyle, people usually resort to stereotyped perspectives on feminism. Deflecting attention away from stereotypes is necessary if we are to revise our strategy and direction. I have found that saying "I am a feminist" usually means I am plugged into preconceived notions of identity, role, or behavior. When I say "I advocate feminism" the response is usually "what is feminism?" A phrase like "I advocate" does not imply the kind of absolutism that is suggested by "I am." It does not engage us in the either/ or dualistic thinking that is the central ideological com­ ponent of all systems of domination in Western society. It implies that a choice has been made, that commitment to femi­ nism is an act of will. It does not suggest that by committing oneself to feminism, the possibility of supporting other politi­ cal movements is negated. As a black woman interested in feminist movement, I am often asked whether being black is more important than being a woman; whether feminist struggle to end sexist oppression is more important than the struggle to end racism and vice-versa. All such questions are rooted in competitive eitherIor thinking, the belief that the self is formed in opposition to an other. Therefore one is a feminist because you are not something else. Most people are socialized to think in terms of opposition rather than compatibility. Rather than see anti-racist work as totally compatible with working to end sexist oppression, they are often seen as two movements competing for first place. When asked "Are you a feminist?" it appears that an affirma­ tive answer is translated to mean that one is concerned with no political issues other than feminism. When one is black, an affirmative response is likely to be heard as a devaluation of struggle to end racism. Given the fear of being misunderstood, it has been difficult for black women and women in exploited and oppressed ethnic groups to give expression to their interest in feminist concerns. They have been wary of saying "I am a 30 Feminist Theory: from margin to center feminist." The shift in expression from "I am a feminist" to "I advocate feminism" could serve as a useful strategy for elimi­ nating the focus on identity and lifestyle. It could serve as a way women who are concerned about feminism as well as other political movements could express their support while avoid­ ing linguistic structures that give primacy to one particular group. It would also encourage greater exploration in feminist theory. The shift in definition away from notions of social equality towards an emphasis on ending sexist oppression leads to a shift in attitudes in regard to the development of theory. Given the class nature of feminist movement so far, as well as racial hierarchies, developing theory (the guiding set of beliefs and principles that become the basis for action) has been a task particularly subject to the hegemonic dominance of white aca­ demic women. This has led many women outside the privileged race/class group to see the focus on developing theory, even the very use of the term, as a concern that functions only to rein­ force the power of the elite group. Such reactions reinforce the sexist/racist/classist notion that developing theory is the domain of the white intellectual. Privileged white women active in feminist movement, whether liberal or radical in perspective, encourage black women to contribute "experien­ tial" work, personal life stories. Personal experiences are important to feminist movement but they cannot take the place of theory. Charlotte Bunch explains the special significance of theory in her essay, "Feminism and Education: Not By Degrees": Theory enables us to see immediate needs in terms of long­ range goals and an overall perspective on the world. It thus gives us a framework for evaluating various strategies in both the long and the short run and for seeing the types of changes that they are likely to produce. Theory is not just a body of facts or a set of personal opinions. It involves explanations and hypotheses that are based on available knowledge and experience. It is also dependent on conjec­ ture and insight about how to interpret those facts and experiences and their significance. Since bourgeois white women had defined feminism in such a way as to make it appear that it had no real signifi­ cance for black women, they could then conclude that black wo1nen need not contribute to developing theory. We were to pro'Vide the colorful life stories to document and validate the Feminism: A Movement to End Sexist Oppression 31 prevailing set of theoretical assumptions.* Focus on social equality with men as a definition of feminism led to an empha­ sis on discrimination, male attitudes, and legalistic reforms. Feminism as a movement to end sexist oppression directs our attention to systems of domination and the inter-relatedness of sex, race, and class oppression. Therefore, it compels us to centralize the experiences and the social predicaments of women who bear the brunt of sexist oppression as a way to understand the collective social status of women in the United States. Defining feminism as a movement to end sexist oppres­ sion is crucial for the development of theory because it is a starting point indicating the direction of exploration and analysis. The foundation of future feminist struggle must be solidly based on a recognition of the need to eradicate the underlying cultural basis and causes of sexism and other forms of group oppression. Without challenging and changing these philoso­ phical structures, no feminist reforms will have a long range impact. Consequently, it is now necessary for advocates of feminism to collectively acknowledge that our struggle cannot be defined as a movement to gain social equality 'vith men; that terms like "liberal feminist" and "bourgeois feminist" represent contradictions that must be resolved so that femi­ nism will not be continually co-opted to serve the opportunistic ends of special interest groups. 3. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FEMINIST MOVEMENT Contemporary feminist movement in the United States called attention to the exploitation and oppression of women globally. This was a major contribution to feminist struggle. In their eagerness to highlight sexist injustice, women focused almost exclusively on the ideology and practice of male domi­ nation. Unfortunately, this made it appear that feminism was more a declaration of war between the sexes than a political struggle to end sexist oppression, a struggle that would imply change on the part of women and men. Underlying much white women's liberationist rhetoric was the implication that men had nothing to gain by feminist movement, that its success would make them losers. Militant white women were particu­ larly eager to make feminist movement privilege women over men. Their anger, hostility, and rage was so intense that they were unable to resist turning the movement into a public forum for their attacks. Although they sometimes considered them­ selves "radical feminists," their responses were reactionary. Fundamentally, they argued that all men are the enemies of all women and proposed as solutions to this problem a utopian woman nation, separatist communities, and even the subjuga­ tion or extermination of all men. Their anger may have been a catalyst for individual liberatory resistance and change. It may have encouraged bonding with other women to raise con­ sciousness. It did not strengthen public understanding of the significance of authentic feminist movement. 33 34 Feminist Theory: from margin to center Sexist discrimination, exploitation, and oppression have created the war between the sexes. Traditionally the battle­ ground has been the home. In recent years, the battle ensues in any sphere, public or private, inhabited by women and men, girls and boys. The significance of feminist movement (when it is not co-opted by opportunistic, reactionary forces) is that it offers a new ideological meeting ground for the sexes, a space for criticism, struggle, and transformation. Feminist move­ ment can end the war between the sexes. It can transform relationships so that the alienation, competition, and dehu­ manization that characterize human interaction can be re­ placed with feelings of intimacy, mutuality, and camaraderie. Ironically, these positive implications of feminist move­ ment were often ignored by liberal organizers and partici­ pants. Since vocal bourgeois white women were insisting that women repudiate the role of servant to others, they were not interested in convincing men or even other women that femi­ nist movement was important for everyone. Narcissistically, they focused solely on the primacy of feminism in their lives, universalizing their own experiences. Building a mass-based women's movement was never the central issue on their agenda. After many organizations were established, leaders expressed a desire for greater participant diversity; they wanted women to join who were not white, materially privi­ leged, middle class, or college-educated. It was never deemed necessary for feminist activists to explain to masses of women the significance of feminist movement. Believing their empha­ sis on social equality was a universal concern, they assumed the idea would carry its own appeal. Strategically the failure to emphasize the necessity for mass-based movement, grassroots organizing, and sharing with everyone the positive signifi­ cance of feminist movement helped marginalize feminism by making it appear relevant only to those women who joined organizations. Recent critiques of feminist movement highlight these failures without stressing the need for revision in strategy and focus. Although the theory and praxis of contemporary femi­ nism with all its flaws and inadequacies has become well established, even institutionalized, we must try and change its direction if we are to build a feminist movement that is truly a struggle to end sexist oppression. In the interest of such a struggle we must, at the onset of our analysis, call attention to The Significance of Feminist Movement 35 the positive, transformative impact the eradication of sexist oppression could have on all our lives. Many contemporary feminist activists argue that eradi­ cating sexist oppression is important because it is the primary contradiction, the basis of all other oppressions. Racism as well as class structure is perceived as stemming from sexism. Implicit in this line of analysis is the assumption that the eradication of sexism, "the oldest oppression," "the primary contradiction," is necessary before attention can be focused on racism or classism. Suggesting a hierarchy of oppression exists, with sexism in first place, evokes a sense of competing concerns that is unnecessary. While we know that sex role divisions existed in the earliest civilizations, not enough is known about these societies to conclusively document the assertion that women were exploited or oppressed. The earliest civilizations discovered so far have been in archaic black Africa where presumably there was no race problem and no class society as we know it today. The sexism, racism, and classism that exist in the West may resemble systems of domi­ nation globally but they are forms of oppression which have been primarily informed by Western philosophy. They can be best understood within a Western context, not via an evolu­ tionary model of human development. Within our society, all forms of oppression are supported by traditional Western thinking. The primary contradiction in Western cultural thought is the belief that the superior should control the infe­ rior. In The Cultural Basis of Racism and Group Oppression, the authors argue that Western religious and philosophical thought is the ideological basis of all forms of oppression in the United States. Sexist oppression is of primary importance not because it is the basis of all other oppression, but because it is the practice of domination most people experience, whether their role be that of discriminator or discriminated against, exploiter or exploited. It is the practice of domination most people are socialized to accept before they even know that other forms of group oppression exist. This does not mean that eradicating sexist oppression would eliminate other forms of oppression. Since all forms of oppression are linked in our society because they are supported by similar institutional and social struc­ tures, one system cannot be eradicated while the others remain intact. Challenging sexist oppression is a crucial step in the 36 Feminist Theory: from margin to center struggle to eliminate all forms of oppression. Unlike other forms of oppression, most people witness and/or experience the practice of sexist domination in family settings. We tend to witness and/or experience racism or clas­ sism as we encounter the larger society, the world outside the home. In his essay, "Dualist Culture and Beyond," philosopher John Hodge stresses that the family in our society, both tradi­ tionally and legally, "reflects the Dualist values of hierarchy and coercive authoritarian control" which are exemplified in the parent-child, husband-wife relationships: It is in this form of the family where most children first learn the meaning and practice of hierarchical, authoritar­ ian rule. Here is where they learn to accept group oppression against themselves as non-adults, and where they learn to accept male supremacy and the group oppression of women. Here is where they learn that it is the male's role to work in the community and control the economic life of the family and to mete out the physical and financial punishments and rewards, and the female's role to provide the emotional warmth associated with motherhood while under the eco­ nomic rule of the male. Here is where the relationship of superordination-subordination, of superior-inferior, or master-slave is first learned and accepted as "natural." Even in families where no male is present, children may learn to value dominating, authoritative rule via their relationship to mothers and other adults, as well as strict adherence to sexist-defined role patterns. In most societies, family is an important kinship structure, a common ground for people who are linked by blood ties, heredity, or emotive bonds; an environment of care and affir­ mation, especially for the very young and the very old who may be unable to care for themselves; a space for communal sharing of resources. In our society, sexist oppression perverts and distorts the positive function of family. Family exists as a space wherein we are socialized from birth to accept and sup­ port forms of oppression. In his discussion of the cultural basis of domination, John Hodge emphasizes the role of the family: The traditional Western family, with its authoritarian male rule and its authoritarian adult rule, is the major training ground which initially conditions us to accept group oppres­ sion as the natural order. Even as we are loved and cared for in families, we are simul­ taneously taught that this love is not as important as having power to dominate others. Power struggles, coercive authorit- The Significance of Feminist Movement 37 arian rule, and brutal assertion of domination shapes family life so that it is often the setting of intense suffering and pain. Naturally, individuals flee the family. Naturally, the family disintegrates. Contemporary feminist analyses of family often implied that successful feminist movement would either begin with or lead to the abolition of family. This suggestion was terribly threatening to many women, especially non-white women.* While there are white women activists who may experience family primarily as an oppressive institution, (it may be the social structure wherein they have experienced grave abuse and exploitation) many black women find the family the least oppressive institution. Despite sexism in the context of family, we may experience dignity, self-worth, and a humanization that is not experienced in the outside world wherein we con­ front all forms of oppression. We know from our lived experien­ ces that families are not just households composed of husband, wife, and children or even blood relations; we also know that destructive patterns generated by belief in sexism abound in varied family structures. We wish to affirm the primacy of family life because we know that family ties are the only sus­ tained support system for exploited and oppressed peoples. We wish to rid family life of the abusive dimensions created by sexist oppression without devaluing it. Devaluation of family life in feminist discussion often reflects the class nature of the movement. Individuals from privileged classes rely on a number of institutional and social structures to affirm and protect their interests. The bourgeois woman can repudiate family without believing that by so doing she relinquishes the possibility of relationship, care, protection. If all else fails, she can buy care. Since many bour­ geois women active in feminist movement were raised in the modern nuclear household, they were particularly subjected to the perversion of family life created by sexist oppression; they may have had material privilege and no experience of abiding family love and care. Their devaluation of family life alienated many women from feminist movement. Ironically, feminism is the one radical political movement that focuses on transform­ ing family relationships. Feminist movement to end sexist oppression affirms family life by its insistence that the purpose of family structure is not to reinforce patterns of domination in the interest of the state. By challenging Western philosophical 38 Feminist Theory: from margin to center beliefs that impress on our consciousness a concept of family life that is essentially destructive, feminism would liberate family so that it could be an affirming, positive kinship struc­ ture with no oppressive dimensions based on sex differentia­ tion, sexual preference, etc. Politically, the white supremacist, patriarchal state relies on the family to indoctrinate its members with values support­ ive of hierarchical control and coercive authority. Therefore, the state has a vested interest in projecting the notion that feminist movement will destroy family life. Introducing a col­ lection of essays, Re-thinking the Family: Some Feminist Questions, sociologist Barrie Thorne makes the point that fem­ inist critique of family life has been seized upon by New Right groups in their political campaigns: Of all the issues raised by feminists, those that bear on the family-among them, demands for abortion rights, and for legitimating an array of household and sexual arrange­ ments, and challenges to men's authority, and women's economic dependence and exclusive responsibility for nur­ turing-have been the most controversial. Feminist positions on the family that devalue its importance have been easily co-opted to serve the interests of the state. People are concerned that families are breaking down, that positive dimensions of family life are overshadowed by the aggression, humiliation, abuse, and violence that character­ izes the interaction of family members. They must not be con­ vinced that anti-feminism is the way to improve family life. Feminist activists need to affirm the importance of family as a kinship structure that can sustain and nourish people; to gra­ phically address links between sexist oppression and family disintegration; and to give examples, both actual and vision­ ary, of the way family life is and can be when unjust authorit­ arian rule is replaced with an ethic of communalism, shared responsibility, and mutuality. The movement to end sexist oppression is the only social change movement that will strengthen and sustain family life in all households. Within the present family structure, individuals learn to accept sexist oppression as "natural" and are primed to sup­ port other forms of oppression including heterosexist domina­ tion. According to Hodge: The domination usually present within the family-of child­ ren by adults, and of female by male-are forms of group The Significance of Feminist Movement 39 oppression which are easily translated into the "rightful" group oppression of other people defined by "race" (racism), by nationality (colonialism), by "religion," or by "other means." Significantly, struggle to end sexist oppression that focuses on destroying the cultural basis for such domination strengthens other liberation struggles. Individuals who fight for the eradi­ cation of sexism without supporting struggles to end racism or classism undermine their own efforts. Individuals who fight for the eradication of racism or classism while supporting sex­ ist oppression are helping to maintain the cultural basis of all forms of group oppression. While they may initiate successful reforms, their efforts will not lead to revolutionary change. Their ambivalent relationship to oppression in general is a contradiction that must be resolved or they will daily under­ mine their own radical work. Unfortunately, it is not merely the politically naive who demonstrate a lack of awareness that forms of oppression are inter-related. Often brilliant political thinkers have had such blind spots. Men like Franz Fanon, Albert Memmi, Paulo Freire, and Aime Cesaire, whose works teach us much about the nature of colonization, racism, classism, and revolutionary struggle often ignore issues of sexist oppression in their own writing. They speak against oppression but then define libera­ tion in terms that suggest it is only oppressed "men" who need freedom. Franz Fanon's important work, Black Skins, White Masks, draws a portrait of oppression in the first chapter that equates the colonizer with white men and the colonized with black men. Towards the end of the book, Fanon writes of the struggle to overcome alienation: The problem considered here is one of time. Those Negroes and white men will be disalienated who refuse to let them­ selves be sealed away in the materialized Tower of the Past. For many other Negroes, in other ways, disalienation will come into being through their refusal to accept the present definitive. I am a man, and what I have to recapture is the whole past of the world. I am not responsible solely for the revolt in Santo Domingo. Every time a man has contributed to the victory of the dignity of the spirit, every time a man has said no to an attempt to subjugate his fellows, I have felt solidarity with his act. 40 Feminist Theory: from margin to center In Paulo Freire's book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, a text which has helped many of us to develop political conscious­ ness, there is a tendency to speak of people's liberation as male liberation: Liberation is thus a childbirth, and a painful one. The man who emerges is a new man, viable only as the oppressor­ oppressed contradiction is superseded by the humanization of all men. Or to put it another way, the solution of this contradiction is borne in the labor which brings into the world this new man: no longer oppressor, no longer oppress­ ed, but man in the process of achieving freedom. The sexist language in these translated texts does not prevent feminist activists from identifying with or learning from the message content. It diminishes without negating the value of the works. It also does support and perpetuate sexist oppres­ sion. Support of sexist oppression in much political writing con­ cerned with revolutionary struggle as well as in the actions of men who advocate revolutionary politics undermines all liber­ ation struggle. In many countries wherein people are engaged in liberation struggle, subordination of women by men is abandoned as the crisis situation compels men to accept and acknowledge women as comrades in struggle, e.g. Cuba, Angola, Nicaragua. Often when the crisis period has passed, old sexist patterns emerge, antagonism develops, and political solidarity is weakened. It would strengthen and affirm the praxis of any liberation struggle if a commitment to eradicat­ ing sexist oppression was a foundation principle shaping all political work. Feminist movement should be of primary sig­ nificance for all groups and individuals who desire an end to oppression. Many women who would like to participate fully in liberation struggles (the fight against imperialism, racism, classism) are drained of their energies because they are contin­ ually confronting and coping with sexist discrimination, ex­ ploitation, and oppression. In the interest of continued strug­ gle, solidarity, and sincere commitment to eradicating all forms of domination, sexist oppression cannot continue to be ignored and dismissed by radical political activists. An important stage in the development of political con­ sciousness is reached when individuals recognize the need to struggle against all forms of oppression. The fight against sexist oppression is of grave political significance-it is not for The Significance of Feminist Movement 41 women only. Feminist movement is vital both in its power to liberate us from the terrible bonds of sexist oppression and in its potential to radicalize and renew other liberation struggles. 4. SISTERHOOD: POLITICAL SOLIDARITY BETWEEN WOMEN Women are the group most victimized by sexist oppression. As with other forms of group oppression, sexism is perpetuated by institutional and social structures; by the individuals who dominate, exploit, or oppress; and by the victims themselves who are socialized to behave in ways that make them act in complicity with the status quo. Male supremacist ideology encourages women to believe we are valueless and obtain value only by relating to or bonding with men. We are taught that our relationships with one another diminish rather than enrich our experience. We are taught that women are "natu­ ral" enemies, that solidarity will never exist between us be­ cause we ca...
Purchase answer to see full attachment