Are the differences between radical and liberal feminism greater than what unites them?

There is an evident difference in attitudes towards the nature of men and women on an intrinsic level. Liberal feminists assume men and women have different natural inclinations so accept a women’s leaning towards family and domestic life. They accept that to an extent the role of women in society reflects a willing choice on their part and thus the traditional family structure is ‘natural’, echoing an overall acceptance of the authority structure in society. In contrast, Radical feminists are outraged by the liberal notion that that the limitations of individualism can be used as a basis for gender politics. They argue instead that this argument draws away from the structural character of patriarchy, which subordinates women not as individuals, but as a whole sex. This idea of overcoming the inherent authority structure of society arose with early radical feminists such as Simone de Beauvoir and Germaine Greer. According to them the existing structure pervades the culture, philosophy, morality and religion of society and they place particular emphasis on the notion that in every aspect of life women are inferior to men.

Radical feminists also disagree with the liberal notion of individualism. They claim that the stress placed on ‘personhood’ makes it more difficult for women to think and act collectively based upon their common gender identity; their ‘sisterhood’. Furthermore they conclude that in placing value on personal talents, liberal feminists are making it possible for the depoliticising of sexual relations by effectively making such relations invisible. They fear that at worst such notions allow the imposition of male attributes and aspirations onto females. His is a problem because radicals think that this supposedly ‘sexless’ individual will inevitably have concealed male norms.

Liberal and Radical feminists have contradictory attitudes towards Patriarchy, and it seems this is the fundamental difference between them. Radicals allude to examples that our society is one of male dominance. Typically the family is heralded by a father figure, the amount of women in government, in the House of Lords and Commons is minute. In a recent article in ‘The Independent’ statistics show that even now only 20% of women are MP’s, that only 33% of women are managers, that there are only 6 women in the cabinet; radicals claim that this is reason to criticise the patriarchal nature of society. While liberals take the view that women should aim for formal equality and thus historically argued for a change in the law, radical feminism argues that liberals are wrong to assume that they can ensure equality through changing the law because the system is inherently swung in favour of men. Instead they argue that it is the overall structure, within which the laws lie, that needs to be reassessed, because women are within that society. Radicals believed that gender differences were culturally bestowed upon men and women and must ultimately be abolished because the sexes are actually equal and identical. There are however some differing views on this with the pro-woman position being that women are superior to men is certain ways, such as that they are caring, creative and sensitive.

The differing principles of the two strands transfer themselves onto the methods that liberal and radical feminists take to achieve their goals. Liberals are working fro emancipation of women though political activism (e.g. groups such as NOW) whereas radicals are consciousness raising to achieve women’s liberation, spurring the political system,. Activists such as Kate Millet developed a systematic theory of sexual oppression, however, that was clearly distinct from established liberal traditions. Liberal feminism initially required the vote in order to progress further and thus the process of reform in favour of women was gradual. It seems that there is an ironic overlap in that the slowness of liberal feminism spurred a move towards the more radical goals and methods of radical feminism. Taking this into account one can take a broad-brush approach and place liberal feminism in the 19th century and radical feminism in the 20th century. Radicals see patriarchy where liberals see gender inequality leading some radicals to believe in ‘sisterhood’ and liberals to individualism. Fundamentally radicals are looking fro a revolutionary change with sexual politics while liberal feminists want to achieve equal rights through gradual reform.

        Taking these very clear differences into account, one must nevertheless realise that conflict is always going to arise within an ideology that will inevitably adapt because of progression of time alone. Until the 1960’s it is questionable whether feminism can even be regarded as an ideology in its own right; it is perhaps rather a sub-set of liberalism and socialism, the point at which the basic values and theories of these two ideologies can be applied to gender issues. The rise of radical feminism changed this, in that radical feminist proclaimed the central political importance of gender divisions, something that no conventional ideology would previously accept. Radicals questioned how much could be achieved autonomously, for example they notice that a downside of the rhetoric of the equality of the individual is that the success of whatever plan be it might be is down to that individual, and thus equally the failure – progression for women is thus fundamentally restricted.

Liberal feminism’s demand for equal rights has historically attracted white middle-class women, i.e. those able to benefit from education and access to public life. This has not been because liberal feminism was aimed directly at certain women and purposefully excluded others, but nevertheless radicals argue that by focusing solely upon equal rights for women, there is a failure to address other social issues regarding, for example, class and race. A major distinction has thus arisen where radical feminists also aim to help all females, such as working class and non-white women, and especially women of the developing world. Perhaps one cannot focus too greatly on the differences between the two strands but merely recognise that change was required because of certain evident disadvantages that became clear with time. The evolution of feminism was natural and a new form, radical feminism, was inevitably going to arise.

        This argument however is flawed in that there is still a great degree of debate between the two strands. Rosalind Coward and Germaine Greer, for example, have fundamentally different takes upon Feminism and its ‘world view’. Coward argues in “Sacred Cows” that feminism is out of touch; it relentlessly insists that the world is still divided, but that this is not true anymore. Greer claims that the success of feminism on the suface is being undermined by the nature of the success and that there is actually little true success. An interesting development has arisen, where Coward suggests that the ‘Greer-type’ feminists are only ruining the feminist movement with outdated concepts and that consequentially there has been a backlash by men on the defensive, and a return therefore to the ‘hairy-legged’ feminist stereotype that previously hindered feminist developments. While such views cannot truly be seen as reflecting the liberal and radical poles, they nevertheless echo inherent differences.

        It seems that in conclusion, the question of whether the differences between radical and liberal feminism are greater than what unites them is a little unfair. While the differences seem to outnumber the factors that unite them, the fundamental attempt to work to create a more positive role for women in society is underlying in both, and it is this uniting principle that defines the ideology.