Diversity in Contemporary Feminism - Literature review Example

DIVERSITY IN CONTEMPORARY FEMINISM: NO NEED TO 'BEG TO DIFFER' By definition, an ideology is a "set of beliefs held by a particular group" (Oxford English Dictionary 449). Termed "isms," some espouse benevolent and socially acceptable tenets, such as altruism, while others, like racism, reflect societal evils. Many "isms" have evolved into movements, and attempt to promote change by congealing the tenets of many into a single, employable ideology. And, in the forming and implementation of an ideology, its advocates are bound to range in opinion and methodology, with both pronounced and subtle similarities and differences. Based on four readings from Philosophy of Woman: An Anthology of Classic to Current Concepts, contemporary feminism is no different. The works reflect the priorities and opinions of four feminist authors, revealing some consistent ideas of and goals for the feminist movement, yet also manifesting different perspectives on how feminist ideology can and should be defined and realized. To begin, a recurrent thread in, and indeed the prominent thrust of all four readings, is the need to challenge and undermine the heterosexual value system embedded in our society. In "Lesbian Ethics," Sarah Hoagland succinctly explains heterosexualism as a "way of living" that accepts a balance between men "dominating and de-skilling women" and women "consequently valuing an ethics of dependence" (452). As such, men are always in the role of either protector or predator, thereby creating a self-perpetuating system of men preying on women, the victims, who thus require the protection of men (Hoagland 452-53). And, the woman who bravely attempts to break this vicious pattern by refusing to play the feminine role, such as the active feminist, is perceived as having surrendered her need for protection, thereby subjecting herself to the attacks of her predators (Hoagland 453-54). Such women suffer from a "vocabulary of abuse" (Ruddick 450) and erroneous depictions that not only indict their judgment and character (Ruddick 450), but threaten their physical safety as well (Hoagland 453-54). From this heterosexual value system arises a "concept of 'woman'" (Hoagland 456) that these four feminists recognize as an absolute deterrent to their ideas and goals. According to Hoagland, our current perceptions lack an awareness of female power, an understanding of the violence that women as a group suffer, and a sense of female resistance to male domination (457). It is this concept, depicting women as breeding sex objects with male-defined identities and values, that Hoagland seeks to destroy (458-60). Similarly, in "Feminism and the Environment: An Overview of the Issues," Karen J. Warren discusses theories of how the conceptualization of women and nature accounts for the historical domination of both (497). Warren recognizes that certain theorists have espoused the belief that our society perceives that which is associated with emotion, women and nature as inferior to that which is associated with rationality and men (497). Moreover, the tendency to discuss nature in terms that are both female and dominating - "[n]ature is raped, mastered, conquered, controlled, mined," "[v]irgin timber is felled," "[f]ertile soil is tilled," and unproducing land is "barren" - has given rise to an "oppressive conceptual framework" that has effected and perpetuated societal domination of women and nature by men (Warren 497, 501). The relevance of this same, oppressive concept of woman and its impact on the development of feminist theory is recognized and expanded by Bell Hooks in "Black Women: Shaping Feminist Theory." For Hooks, though, the formation of feminist ideology and its definition of "woman," originally dominated and skewed by white feminists who had more access to education, funds, and an audience than did black women, does not reflect the realities of the struggles and oppressions prevalent in society today (487). Indeed, according to Hooks, white women tend to maintain and perpetuate the patriarchal values of heterosexism by treating black women as a group requiring protection based on their race (491-92). And, similar to Hoagland's assertion that women place themselves in the position of victim vis-a vis men by catering to the expectations of men (452-53), Hooks contends that white women in particular uphold a self-imposed image of powerlessness by their perception of black women as symbols of power and strength (Hooks 493). In addition to the authors' shared belief that the goals of feminism face a dramatic struggle unless the current heterosexual and patriarchal value system and the perception, or concept, of woman change, the writings reveal a common sentiment that feminism should no longer attempt to define the plight of all women in general, but rather particular circumstances of oppression. For instance, Ruddick recognizes a new, alternative ideal of women's solidarity based on a sense of alliance of women with like struggles (448). As such, and unlike "sisterhood," the predecessor of modern feminism, today's ideology, according to Ruddick, "does not extend to 'women' in general, but rather to women in particular situations of struggle" (448). Consequently, and as will be discussed further below, Ruddick recognizes the often turbulent relationship between feminists and women who are mothers, the transformation of mothers who embrace feminism, and the relevance of that relationship and transformation to the feminist movement (445-51). Similarly, Hooks emphatically denies the existence today of a "common oppression" of women, a concept that she maintains was asserted early on by middle-class white women and still promoted by the feminist movement today (486-87). Hooks argues that the success of the feminist movement is dependent on the abolition of a limited ideology that excludes certain struggles, and that the formation of a workable feminist theory to upend the prevailing social structure requires the inclusion of the broad spectrum of women's experiences of abuse and oppression (494-95). But, do all feminists agree as to the extent and the process of dismantling the existing value structure and creating a workable feminist theory In other words, must society begin, tabula rasa, or are there elements of the current, mainstay societal and philosophical perceptions that would further rather than hinder the process of defining feminist theory and achieving the goals of the feminist movement The language and tones of the four given authors suggest that the degrees of acceptance differ. Most explicit in her language and style is Sarah Hoagland. She unambiguously defines heterosexism and its associated evils, and unequivocally argues for its overthrow by calling for "a moral revolution, a revolution of lesbianism" (452-61). According to Hoagland, the concept of lesbianism is not "irretrievably tied up with" the suppositions of "dominance and subordination" that abound in the current concept of "woman," or femininity, such as the perception of women as "sex object[s]" and the nurturing and peacemaking qualities associated with motherhood (460-61). Indeed, Hoagland plainly asserts that feminists today do not defy sufficiently the heterosexual institutions of our society, and will not achieve their goals unless the feminist movement overtly challenges the current perceptions of femininity and unconditionally demands withdrawal from the heterosexual framework (460). Similarly, Karen J. Warren, although less argumentative and assertive than Hoagland, is equally clear and courageous in her conviction that many of our society's prior experiences, perceptions and philosophies must give way completely to a new framework of ideas. In discussing the twin domination of women and nature, Warren contends that the historical, empirical, and conceptual links between feminism and the environment, as discussed above, must be eradicated by "rethink[ing] and reconceiv[ing] . . . mainstay philosophical notions" from which such links arise (497, 503). Indeed, Warren boldly asserts that vital to the genuine realization of feminist goals is the "revising [of] . . . much of our scholarship" (504). As such, instead of accepting the realities our current value scheme and attempting to create any harmony between that which is and that which should be, Warren's writing reveals more of an inclination to expose, dismantle, revise, rethink and reinvent (497, 503, 504). Sara Ruddick, however, in her essay entitled "Maternal Thinking," seems less eager to reject at least one facet of the concept of "woman," namely motherhood. Rather, Ruddick acknowledges the responsibilities of mothers - the preservation, growth and social acceptability of their children, concomitant with the passions that arise there from (443). And, instead of proclaiming a need to revamp the attributes and societal perceptions of mothering, Ruddick attempts to harmonize the realities of mothering with the goals of the feminist movement, and vice-versa. She recognizes first, and "paradoxically," that the relationship between feminist and mothers is "tense," that many feminists forget that their strengths are rooted in their mothers, and that many mothers condemn feminism as overlooking the genuine tribulations of motherhood (445). Despite this reality, though, Ruddick seeks harmony between mothers and feminists. She appreciates that the feminist movement has worked diligently for the rights of mothers, and that mothers, in becoming active in the feminist movement, have gained a clear awareness of past abuses they have suffered while subordinating themselves to a patriarchal value structure, thereby allowing them to realize more fully the qualities of peace associated with their maternal practice (445-47, 450). Thus, unlike Warren, who envisions a complex change in historical and philosophical teachings (497), and unlike Hoagland, who demands nothing less than new perceptions and definitions, including that of "motherhood" (463-64), Ruddick, while recognizing that prevalent values need to be changed (446), accepts the inherent traits of maternal thinking and how they respond to and, to a lesser extent, affect the feminist movement. Similarly, Bell Hooks, while acknowledging sexism as an institutionalized "system of domination" (486), does not advocate a complete uprooting of the mainstream value structure as the means to define feminist theory and to achieve its goals. Instead, in her powerful and, at times, scathing, criticism of the domination of the feminist movement by middle class white women, Hooks maintains that black women who, unlike white women and black men, have no comparative group to dominate and against which they may discriminate, have a distinct and vital role to play in the formation and application of feminist theory (494). Specifically, Hooks condemns the historical, racist treatment of black women, including herself, yet finds value in the impact such "lived experience[s]" can have on the feminist movement (494-95). As such, like Ruddick's acceptance of the realities of maternal thinking, Hooks recognizes her own experiences at the hands of racism and, instead of merely turning her back on them as a societal evils and moving forward, she embraces her experiences and offers them as a contribution to the formation of a better, more enriched feminist movement (494-95). To be effective, a movement need not be uniform. Indeed, a movement and its supporting ideology must be as fluid and diverse as those whom it is attempting to champion. Just as women come in all different shapes, colors and sizes, from different socio-economic classes and cultures, from different life experiences, and with different priorities, so must the feminist movement accept this diversity and develop with its eyes wide open. The four authors discussed herein demonstrate that, as an ideology, the primary goal of feminism is accepted as the eradication of the perceptions and the concomitant realities that stem from the value system of a heterosexual social system. And, the readings by those same four authors manifest the diverse range of priorities in, attitudes towards and solutions for the development of an attainable and workable feminist movement. Works Cited Hoagland, Sarah. "Lesbian Ethics." Philosophy of Woman: An Anthology of Classic to Current Concepts. Ed. Mary Briody Mahowald. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co. Inc., 1994. 451-64. Hooks, Bell. "Black Women: Shaping Feminist Theory." Philosophy of Woman: An Anthology of Classic to Current Concepts. Ed. Mary Briody Mahowald. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co. Inc., 1994. 486-95. Oxford English Dictionary. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001. Ruddick, Sara. "Maternal Thinking." Philosophy of Woman: An Anthology of Classic to Current Concepts. Ed. Mary Briody Mahowald. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co. Inc., 1994. 442-451. Warren, Karen J. "Feminism and the Environment: An Overview of the Issues." Philosophy of Woman: An Anthology of Classic to Current Concepts. Ed. Mary Briody Mahowald. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co. Inc., 1994. 495-504. Read More