Another major criticism of liberal feminist theory is the distinction between private and public spheres. Firstly, the difference between these two realms is not clear, and there is some merging that occurs. Secondly, maintaining the distinction between private and public, maintains dualistic thinking about gender roles. Mandell states that “men are more likely to be associated with the rational, instrumental … scientific and public domain while women are associated with the irrational, sacred, emotional and private world” (ibid; 9)
2.2. MARXIST FEMINISM
"He is the bourgeoisie and the wife represents the proletariat."
(Donovan, 2000; 79)
Marxist feminism is a combination of Marxist class analysis and of feminism. However, Donovan (2000) argues that there is "inherent methodological weakness in taking a theory developed for one set of circumstances and transposing it to another" (Donovan, 2000; 79). Donovan continues that Marx and Engels concentrated primarily on men and masculine circumstance when they developed their theories and consequently the legitimacy of these concepts when applied to women may be seen as intrinsically suspect. (ibid; 79). Engels published The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State (1884) and argued in this that women's subordination was linked to the rise of private property. In previous society, i.e. those that were pre-patriarchal, property was held communally, society was matriarchal where families were traced through the mother. However, as society developed and became more organised from hunter/gatherer societies to economic farming, it gave rise to property becoming privately owned. Society became patriarchal in order for men to ensure the passage of wealth through future generations, the benefactors of this passage being their own biological offspring. According to Donovan, during the transition of society, the male benefited as 'all the surplus fell to him'. Donovan continues:
"The woman's domestic labor began to count for less in comparison to all the wealth he was accumulating. The later was everything the former the unimportant extra."
(Donovan, 2000; 88)
As the male took command of the house, a consequence of the economic shift in power, the role of women changed. Woman was degraded and reduced to servitude and she became an instrument for the production of his children (ibid; 88), and in this sense she became a tool for male use. Engels calls this "the world historical defeat of the female sex" (Engels, 1884; cited in Ritzer, 1987; 329). Donovan concludes by arguing that the family unit was transformed into a monogamous-male-dominated nuclear unit, within which arose the first class struggle in history.
There are criticisms regarding Engel's work on the family, and his explanations of the nuclear family. Elliot (1988) lists four main criticisms. Firstly, anthropological research has demonstrated that nuclear families existed in early hunter/ gatherer societies, which negates Engel's claim that the nuclear family developed with the rise of private property. Secondly, Elliot cites Morgan (1975; 136-40) that Engel's account of the development of the family is of dubious historical accuracy. Thirdly, Elliot states that "socialist revolutions have not led to the abolition of the family, nor even to any significant change in its form" (1988; 63). Finally, Elliot asserts that Engel's thesis is not helpful in understanding the persistent nature of the monogamous nuclear family under capitalism (Elliot; 1988; 62-3).
Hartmann (1981) contends that there is no such thing as 'pure capitalism' nor 'pure patriarchy' but rather these coexist, for example patriarchal capitalism, or patriarchal feudalism or matriarchal horticultural societies etc (Elliot, 1986; 110). This approach then requires a struggle for women's liberation from subordination on two fronts, against both capitalist relations and also against patriarchal relations. Hartmann contends that men occupied a privileged position in pre-industrial society, and consequently as industrial capitalism developed, women's position was already weaker than the position on men continued to remain weaker (ibid; 111). Hartmann argues that capitalism and patriarchy reinforce one another, and women's subordination is not simply a consequence of capitalism, rather it is the result of class and sex struggles in which because women were in a weaker position at the onset of industrialisation had little chance to change their position (ibid.).
Marxist feminists would argue that class inequality and oppression is the primary form of exploitation, and after that is the oppression of women. This is very different from radical feminist arguments, which are discussed in the next section. Marxist feminists acknowledge that there will be differences of experience for women depending on their class. This difference will impact on the unity of women as one homogenous group, for example, upper-class wealthy women will share more experiences with upper class wealthy men than with poor welfare women (Ritzer, 1987; 330).
Criticisms were levied against Marxist feminism that it ignored differences around race and sexuality (Zalewski, 2000; 20). Zalewski uses an historical example, in that in 1984 a group of black feminists took over editorial control of the socialist journal Feminist Review, and made the claim that "[feminism is a] tradition [which is] white, Eurocentric and Western, and has sought to establish itself as the only legitimate feminism in current political practice" (ibid,; 20). One criticism levied against Marxist feminism is that structures of inequality within society are more complex than simply limited to the intersection of class and gender. Sexuality, ‘race’/ ethnicity, disability and HIV status can be added to form a matrix of inequality which is vastly different that the convergence of two strands namely class and gender.
2.3. RADICAL FEMINISM
Radical feminism differs from Marxist and Liberal feminism in that it has not developed out of existing social theories (as Liberal feminism has developed out of liberalism, and Marxist feminism has from Marxism). Radical feminism developed in the United States in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s (Jagger and Rothenberg, 1993; p120: Jagger and Young, 2000; p525). Radical feminism objected to traditional Marxism and the “class reductionism”, which radical feminist argued diminished the seriousness of women’s concerns with subordination and oppression (Jagger and Rothenberg, 1993; p120). This was also a method of delaying action on the same subordination. Radical feminists argued that by maintaining the focus on class oppression and not the oppression of women, consequently, action against the oppression of women was not taken. Radical feminism views the oppression of women as a fundamental form of subordination in that the oppression of women is not dependent on, or secondary, to other forms of oppression. Therefore, fighting or opposing the oppression of women should be priority because not only is this oppression the basis for other forms of oppression (class and race for example), the oppression of women is the primary type of oppression.
Within radical feminism, there is a strand of debate that supports a women-identified world. Radical feminism argues that only with the elimination of patriarchy will women be liberated. Mandell states:
Radical feminists suggest we begin [to eliminate patriarchy] by eliminating gender, specifically sexual status, role, temperament, and social constructions as they have been constructed under patriarchy…as patriarchy is organized through men’s relationships with other men, unity among women is the only effective means for liberating women.
(Mandell, 1995; 14)
Radical feminism calls for separation from patriarchal structures, institutions, relationships, roles and activities that are male-defined, males operated and that benefit and maintain male-privilege.
One central issue within radical feminism concerning patriarchy is violence. Violence is practiced by men and male-dominated organizations against women, although violence is not necessarily overt physical cruelty (Ritzer, 1987; 335). Forms of violence are wide ranging and include fashion and beauty, ‘tyrannical ideals of motherhood’ monogamy, chastity and heterosexuality (this last point is discussed in more detail later. Violence also includes, rape, sexual abuse, sexual slavery in enforced prostitution, spouse abuse, incest, sexual molestation of children though to female infanticide, Chinese foot-binding, the forced suicides of Hindu widows, and the practice of clitorectomy (ibid, 335-6). Although violence is not always used, it remains the last defence. Ritzer summarises work from Lengermann and Wallace (1985) which asserts that violence is repeatedly used to protect patriarchy from women’s individual and collective resistance (ibid, 336).
Ritzer (1987) lists heterosexuality as one method of violence through which men maintain control of patriarchy. Rich, her article Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence (1980) also takes up the theme of violence against women, and argues that compulsory heterosexuality also takes on the from of violence. Rich argues that women have learned to perceive themselves as sexual prey to men (Rich, 1986; 42). She also argues that the emergence of lesbian separatism positions lesbianism as more than a personal decision, it become an outward sign of the internal rejection of patriarchal sexuality (ibid, 58). Lesbianism also reinforces the separation required of women to overcome patriarchy, women no longer need to conform to heterosexual (and so supportive of patriarchy) for sexual satisfaction.
Criticisms of radical feminist theory include that radical feminists rely on the conviction that women are women and men are men. Mandell argues that agreeing that women are by nature compassionate and nurturing and that men are aggressive and competitive suggests that radical feminists accept and reinforce the stereotypes that they are trying to avoid (Mandell, 1995; 17). This then becomes politically dangerous and analytically inert, because one cannot alter or change that which cannot be changed. “Women become trapped inside their bodies and biology becomes their destiny” (ibid; 17).
Elliot (1986) comments that radical feminism equates women's domesticity and men's breadwinning with male domination and the subordination of women (Elliot, 1986; 113). Rossi (1977) and Harris (1983) assert that this is problematic because the sexual division of labour and gender inequality are separate concepts (ibid.). It has been argued that all men do not benefit from the gender role differentiation. It locks men into political docility to ensure safeguard of jobs (in order to maintain breadwinning commitments) deprives them of contact with their children and defines masculinity in ways that some men may find oppressive (ibid.).
- BLACK FEMINISM
Brand argues (1993) that women of colour were among the first to conceptualise the multiplicity of the female existence, through critiquing radical, liberal and socialist feminists for ignoring race as a category of oppression (cited in Mandell, 1995; 18). Mary Church Terrell in 1904, the first president of the National Association of Colored Women, wrote:
"Not only are colored women… handicapped on account of their sex, but they are almost everywhere baffled and mocked because of their race. Not only because they are women, but because they are colored women"
(cited in Jagger and Rothenberg, 1993; 220).
Patricia Hill Collins argues in The Social Construction of Black Feminist Thought that African-American women "have a self-defined standpoint on their own oppression" (cited in Donovan, 200; 212). Collins continues by arguing that "African-American women, as a group experience a different world than those who are not Black and female" (ibid; 212).
Deborah King argues that the experience of black women is assumed to be synonymous with that of either black males or white females, and therefore a discussion concerning black women is superfluous (cited in Jagger and Rothenberg, 1993; 221). bell hooks has made a similar point, stating that:
"no other group in America has so had their identity socialized out of existence as have black women. We are rarely recognized as a group separate and distinct from black men, or a present part of the larger group 'women' in this culture… When black people are talked about focus tends to be on black men; and when women are talked about the focus tends to be on white women."
(bell hooks, Ain't I a Woman, p12; cited in Jagger and Rothenberg, 1993; 232)
Black feminism seeks to readdress the imbalance of the marginalisation of black women in feminist thought. Ramazanoglu (1989) argues that the black female historical experience of "enslavement, indentured labor, enforced migration, imperial conquest and genocide" (Elliot, 1996; 66) has created power relationships between 'black' and 'white' women, subjects 'black' women to forms of sexual oppression that are unknown to 'white' women. Consequently, 'black' responses to this are unique to 'black' women, are not to 'white' women (ibid; 66). This position can then be related to four positions and interrelated arguments. Firstly, the notion of radical feminists of universal sisterhood is rejected, in favour of the argument that women are divided by "racial distinctions, ethnicity …nationality and the power relationships that are embedded in these distinctions" (ibid). Secondly, Carby (1982) argues the concept of patriarchal oppression as the primary for of oppression needs to be questioned with the relatively powerless position of 'black' males (ibid). Carby argues that the concept of patriarchy is not applicable in the same ways to 'black' people as it is to 'white' people. Thirdly, 'black' feminist writers have advocated that radical and Marxist feminist understanding and conceptions of the family is not representative of 'black' families, and at times betray 'black' feminist needs in favour of 'white' ones. One example of this, is while 'white' women were struggling for the right for abortion, 'black' women have struggled against the use of abortion, sterilisation and contraception to limit the reproduction of 'black' people (ibid). Finally, "feminism is defined as 'white feminism' and labelled 'racist' (Hooks, 1982, 1986; Carby, 1982; Amos and Parmar, 1984)" (ibid; 67). This is based on the notion that universal womanhood is reflective of 'white' middle class women, and not of other female experiences.
Criticisms of 'black' feminism include that the concept of fundamental 'black' and 'white' racial groups homogenises the groups, and ignores other differences within the groups (Elliot, 1996; 64). Also these concepts then polarise the racial groups. A second criticism against 'black' feminism is the emphasis on racism as the underlying determinant in 'black' life, distracts from social structures which contribute to their material position (ibid.). A final criticism considered here is the construction of 'race' as either 'white' or 'black', in that it detracts from racism experienced by other 'white' minority groups, like the Irish, the Jews (or even the Welsh). However, some 'black' scholars and political spokespersons,
" are now moving beyond a narrowly constituted racism to consider interconnections between racial categorisations, class, ethnicity, nationality and patriarchy"
(Elliot, 1986; 65)
- COMPARISON
These four theories adopt very different approaches to patriarchy. Liberal feminism seeks to integrate women within the structure, by adapting beliefs and processes of socialisation and legislating to ensure female rights. Radical feminism sits at the opposite end of the spectrum, not wanting to integrate women with patriarchy, a system that benefits men. Radical feminism seeks to overthrow patriarchy, and implement an alternative structure that is women-centered. Marxist feminism doesn’t seek to overthrow patriarchy nor integrate women within it, but argues that that patriarchy benefits capitalism, and it is only through overthrowing capitalism will women become liberated. Black feminism highlights that women do not form one homogenous group and as such, the way to combat patriarchy differs for each group.
Marxist feminist and liberal feminist theory explain gender inequality, whereas radical feminism explains gender oppression. There is a difference between gender oppression and gender inequality. Gender oppression describes women’s situation as the consequence of a direct power relationship between men and women. In this relationship, men have fundamental and concrete interests in controlling, subjugating and oppressing women. This pattern for oppression is then incorporated into society’s organization. Therefore, in order to rid society of the oppression, society must be restructured. Gender inequality, as opposed to gender oppression, is comprised of three themes. Firstly, that men and women are unequally and differently situated within society, in regards to material wealth, resources and opportunities. Secondly, this inequality results is a consequence of the organisation structure of society, and not of biological or inherent differences. Finally, inequality theory assumes that both men and women will respond fairly and naturally towards more egalitarian social structures and situations (Ritzer, 1987; 323). Also of note, is that these theories were 'race-blind' in that race was not initially discussed, for it is not just men and women that are unequal and differently situated within society, in regards to material wealth, resources and opportunities - race groups differ in this way as well. In South Africa as a consequence of apartheid have vast differences in access to materiel wealth among different racial groups. Black feminism has sought to highlight this fact, and integrated racial inequality into feminist theory.
The interrogation of ‘race’/ethnicity, class and sexuality difference(s) with feminism is linked to the acknowledgement that there are differences amongst women, that women do not form one homogenous group. Elizabeth Spelman (1988; p4) is cited in Chow et al, elaborating on these differences:
The ‘problem of difference’ for feminist theory has never been a general one about how to weigh the importance of what we have in common against the importance of our differences. To put it that way hides two crucial facts. First, the description of what we have in common “as women” has almost always been a description of white middle-class [heterosexual, Western] women. Second, the “difference” of this group of women – that is, their being white and middle class [and heterosexual and Western] – has never had to be “brought into” feminist theory. To bring in “difference” is to being in women who aren’t white and middle-class [and heterosexual and Western].
(Chow, et al, 1996; 360)
Spelman here clearly encapsulates where the movements within feminist theory are occurring, that is what “other” views are being incorporated into feminist theory. This clearly shows the position that feminist theory started from – in regard to class, ‘race’/ethnicity and sexuality.
Globalization also needs to be mentioned. South Africa experienced a period of isolationism from the rest of the world, and since that has ended, South Africa has entered into the global market. As such, there is more fluidity of movement, workers and families immigrate and emigrate, and consequently there is a higher level of mixing of different cultures than previously experienced in this country. Also the rise of technology impacts on feminist debate. Internet mailing lists, internet forums, enable feminist discussion to take place in a method that wasn’t occurring previously. Charlotte Bunch argues that to date, Western mass media have dominated in controlling the images of feminism (cited in Jagger and Rothenburg, 1993; 249). This is true of theory too. Traditional sociology has been dominated by theories devised by white, Western heterosexual males, and feminist sociology has been dominated by Western feminists.
One of the emergent debates within feminism is that of who has the right to speak for whom. Is it acceptable for white women to speak for black women? For Western women for non-Western women? Heterosexual women for lesbian women? This debate features at many different levels of feminist debate – from conferences in New York down to class room level. It is particularly relevant for South African society given its unique history, with apartheid and the oppression that this system entailed. There has been the distinction made between speaking for and speaking about different groups of women.
There are of course other strands of feminist debate – postmodern feminism and psychoanalytical. These strands of feminist theory have not been discussed here, but for a complete picture concerning the movement of feminist debate through the 1990’s, these strands would also have to be considered in some depth.
- CONCLUSION
Feminist theory and feminist knowledge will continue to grow and develop through time. The impact of globalisation will impact on the knowledge that is created, through technological advances and increased availability of the internet etc. However, there will still remain the issue of access to resources, and this includes the internet. Increasing, the global context is being considered, class is not simply an issue facing one society, but in apparent throughout every society within the globe.
Women do not form one homogenous group, and it is being increasingly recognised that we are no longer able to simply discuss “oppression of women” or “inequality of women” – through patriarchy, women are unequal to men, or oppressed, but some are more oppressed than others. This increased awareness of the difference of situation that women face can only serve to further increase feminist debate. Just as it has been recognised that women’s position varies along many differing lines, so too much it be recognised that the position of men does as well.
Specifically, class, ‘race’/ ethnicity and sexuality difference(s) are approached in very different ways with each of the theories discussed. Radical feminism promotes lesbianism as a viable method of combating patriarchy. Marxist feminism focuses much more so on class debates. The rise of prominence of debates on class, ‘race’/ethnicity and sexuality difference(s) throughout the later part of the twentieth century, was in acknowledgment of the difference of position of women. More recently these differences have been extended to include third world women as well. Feminist debate and theory must reflect women within society, and with the rise of globalisation and advances in technology, have made it easier for many traditional feminists to gain access to other groups of women. It is not surprising that advances in feminist debate reflect the global change. It will be interesting to note the impact that the current HIV/AIDS pandemic has on feminist debate within Southern Africa, and impact of that debate has on global feminist theory.
Increasingly, it is becoming harder and harder to argue convincingly about one overriding line of oppression. Inequality takes many differing forms along many lines which vary depending on society and position in time and incidence, for example under apartheid in South Africa, race was an overriding line of inequality, in different times, differing lines have differing strengths of inequality. Therefore, feminist theory has had to accept this, and incorporate this into feminist debate, while maintaining its position in regard to the extent of oppression against women.
The ways in which feminism has adapted through the 1990's by incorporating 'race' and ethnicity, class and sexuality differences(s), brings us back to the quotation taken from Elizabeth Spelman (see page 15). It is the very notion of incorporating difference that is reflective of where and in which ways feminism developed, and consequently from the origins the way in which feminism develops in the future. The incorporation of 'race'/ ethnicity, class and sexuality differences has generated debate within feminist theory, and forced theory to confront the fact that the issue's facing women are not necessarily the same across the globe, and differ according to the individuals situation. Elliot argues that recent work by feminists is moving feminism towards;
"an open-ended, multi-dimensional theoretical framework… in which class, racism, ethnicity and gender are seen as inextricably intertwined…[and may not] specify the precise nature of the interrelationship between racial distinctions, class, ethnicity and gender or assume it to be specifable only in particular historical conditions… and recognises …that women's experience is specific to their class, ethnic and 'racial' positions in particular historical periods [but also women are] located in a range of social positions and have a range of identities.
(Elliot, 1996; 72)
The acceptance that there is not one female experience typical of womanhood has forced feminism to adapt theories that reflect the multitude of female experience. The impact and incorporation of 'race' / ethnicity, class and sexuality difference (s) on feminist debate can only serve to enrich feminist theory and ensure that it remains a viable theory to explain woman's position across the globe.
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
-
Abbott P amd Wallace C. (1997) An Introduction to Sociology: Feminist Perspectives. (2nd Ed.) Routledge; London.
-
Afshar H and Barrientos S. (1999) Women, Globalisation and Fragmentation in the Developing World. Macmillian Press Ltd.; London.
-
Burack C. (1994) The Problem of the Passions: Feminism, Psychoanalysis and Social Theory. New York University Press; New York.
-
Chow E N L, Wilkinson D and Zinn M B. (eds.) (1996) Race, Class and Gender. Sage Publications; London.
-
Donovan, Josephine. (2001) Feminist Theory; The Intellectual Traditions. (3rd Ed.) Continuum; New York.
-
Elliot, Faith Robinson. (1988) The Family: Change or Continuity? Macmillian Press Ltd; London.
-
Elliot, Faith Robinson(1996) Gender, Family and Society. Macmillian Press Ltd; London.
-
Jagger A M and Rothenberg A. (1993) Feminist Frameworks. (3rd Ed.) McGrw-Hill, Inc.; London.
-
Jagger A M and Young I M. (2000) A Companion to Feminist Philosophy. Blackwell Publishers Ltd; London.
-
Jardine A and Smith P (eds.) (1987) Men in Feminism. Methuen, Inc.; New York.
-
Mandell N. (1995) Feminist Issues; Race, Class, and Sexuality. Prentice-Hall International Ltd; London.
-
Rich, A. (1986) Blood, Bread, and Poetry; Selected Prose 1979 – 1985. W. . Norton & Company; New York.
-
Ritzer, G. (3rd Ed.) (1987) Contemporary Sociological Theory. McGraw-Hill, Inc. London.
-
Schaefr R T. (2000) Sociology: A Brief Introduction. (3rd Ed.) McGraw Hill, Inc. London
-
Smelser N J. (1995) Sociology. (5th Ed) Prentice-Hall International; London.
-
Tripp, Anna. (Ed.) (2000) Gender. Palgrave; London.
-
Wilkinson S and Kitzinger C. (1996) Representing the Other: A Feminism and Psychology Reader. Sage Publications; London.
-
Zalewski, Marysia. (2000) Feminism after Postmodernism; Theorising through Practice. Routledge; London.
