Cultural feminism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Cultural feminism, the view that there is a "female nature" or "female essence," attempts to revalue and redefine attributes ascribed to femaleness.[1] It is also used to describe theories that commend innate differences between women and men.[2] Cultural feminism diverged from radical feminism when some radical feminists rejected the previous feminist and patriarchal notion that feminine traits are undesirable and returned to an essentialist view of gender differences in which they regard female traits as superior.[1][3][4]

Origins of the term[edit]

Unlike radical feminism or socialist feminism, cultural feminism was not an ideology widely claimed by proponents, but was more commonly a pejorative label ascribed by its opponents. In 1975, Brooke Williams was the first to describe the “depoliticization of radical feminism” as “cultural feminism.”[5] However, the term surfaced as early as 1971, when Tor Bay, in a letter printed in Off Our Backs, condemned the literary magazine Aphra as having "served the cause of cultural feminism."[6] Socialist feminist Elizabeth Diggs, in 1972, used the label "cultural feminism" to apply to all of radical feminism.[7]

Ideas[edit]

Although the term "cultural feminist" is generally applied to individuals in the 1970s, similar lines of thought have been traced to earlier periods. Jane Addams and Charlotte Perkins Gilman argued that in governing the state, cooperation, caring, and nonviolence in the settlement of conflicts society seem to be what was needed from women’s virtues.[8] Josephine Donovan argues that the nineteenth century journalist, critic and women's rights activist, Margaret Fuller, initiated cultural feminism in Woman in the Nineteenth Century (1845). She stressed the emotional, intuitive side of knowledge and expressed an organic worldview that is quite different from the mechanistic view of Enlightenment rationalists.[9][10]

However, it was Alice Echol's article "Cultural Feminism: Feminist Capitalism and the Anti-Pornography Movement" that led to the widespread adoption of the term to describe contemporary feminists, not their historical antecedents.[1][11]

Alcoff claims cultural feminism places women in a position overdetermined by patriarchal systems.[1] She contends that:

Man has said that woman can be defined, delineated, captured, understood, explained, and diagnosed to a level of determination never accorded to man himself, who is conceived as a rational animal with free will.[1]

Alcoff makes the point that "the cultural feminist reappraisal construes woman's passivity as her peacefulness, her sentimentality as her proclivity to nurture, her subjectiveness as her advanced self-awareness".[1]

Motherhood and child-bearing is another popular topic in cultural feminist theory. Adrienne Rich theorizes on the institution motherhood constructed to control women, which is different from real motherhood.[12] Cultural feminists declares the relationship between mother and daughter, and therefore all women, has been destroyed by patriarchy and must be repaired.[3]

Cultural feminists identify women as the most important and most marginalized group. Daly claims that other categories of identify including ethnicity and class are male-defined groups, and women who identify them are being divided from other women.[1] Adrienne Rich declares the “social burden” placed on women is greater and more complex than even the burden of slavery.[12]

Taylor and Rupp have argued that critiques of cultural feminism are often an attack on lesbian feminism.[5] Suzanne Staggenbourg's case study of Bloomington, Indiana led her to conclude that engagement in activities labeled as cultural feminist "provides little evidence that cultural feminism led to a decline in political activity in the women's movement."[13]

Theory[edit]

Cultural feminist theory appeared in the 1970s to explain how male-defined constructions of “woman” devalue female traits.[14] Mary Daly, a cultural feminist theorist, linked "female energy", or her term Gyn/Ecology, to the female "life-affirming, life-creating biological condition" that is victimized by male aggression as a result of "male barrenness"[1] Adrienne Rich asserts that female biology has “radical” potential that has been suppressed by its reduction by men.[12] Some cultural feminists desired the separation of women-only, women ran centers and spaces to “challenge negative gendered constructions.”[14] This form of separatism within cultural feminism was criticized for ignoring structural patriarchy to instead blame men as individuals for women’s oppression.[14] In addition to physical separation, cultural feminists called for “separation from male values.”[3]

Criticisms[edit]

In a 2004 article for the Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Kristen Ghodsee notes several forms of criticism coming from women of color and women of developing countries, who believe that "the idea of a global sisterhood erases important differences in power and access to resources among women of varying races, ethnicities, and nationalities".[15]:727 A common concern, particularly among women of color and women of developing countries, is that cultural feminism only includes white, upper class women, instead of taking into account women of different color and status.[15]:727 This concern is reflected by Audre Lorde in “An Open Letter to Mary Daly” in which Lorde expresses disappointment that Daly excluded the heritage and herstories of Lorde and other non-European women in her cultural feminist book, while selectively using non-European women’s words out of context to prove her points and to describe “female victimization”.[16]

Another concern is the belief that cultural feminists "have not challenged the defining of woman but only the definition given by men" and therefore perpetuate gender essentialism[17]:11 This biological determinism is the topic of multiple criticisms. When cultural feminists claim issues like patriarchy and rape are inherent products of male biology and behavior, the opportunity to critique and challenge the structures behind these issues disappears.[3] Furthermore, essentialist definitions of “woman” reinforce the oppressive requirement for women to live up to “an innate ‘womanhood’ they will be judged by.”[3]

Historian Alice Echols stated that cultural feminists believe in order to combat “male lasciviousness,” women should demand respect by repressing their sexualities and proposing a conservative "female standard of sexuality".[18]:52 She critiques this concept for attempting to control women’s sexual expression to hold women responsible for perceived problems with male sexuality.[18]:52

Cultural feminism has also been criticized for engaging in capitalism, a practice feminists consider contradictory to feminist values and counterproductive to the feminist movement. To highlight problems with feminist capitalism, Echols analyzed the implementation, practices, and outcomes of the Feminist Economic Network (FEN), a feminist business that intended to use capitalism to help women overcome patriarchal barriers by lending money from feminist credit unions to feminist owned businesses. She found the network exploited employees, rejected democracy, collectivity, and accountability, and justified hierarchies of power within the business by claiming sisterhood ensures individual empowerment leads to collective empowerment for women.[3] Echols’s findings can be expanded upon by a critique of cultural feminist business practices in Off Our Backs. The authors explain that the “feminist” businesses cultural feminists advocate for depoliticize feminism, are inherently hierarchal, have minimal access to political economic influence, and are implicitly reformist. Additionally, the authors point out the flaws in cultural feminists’ attempts to counter oppression through membership in an oppressive economic system, use of bootstrap theory, and turning feminism into both a commodity and market which ultimately serves “male” capitalism.[11]

Another criticism regards cultural feminists' opinions of transgender women. Echols describes cultural feminist attribution of transgender women to male rapaciousness as inappropriate and explains that cultural feminists dislike transgender women for accusations that they “undermine the salience of gender, and erase the boundaries between genders,” appropriate the female body (which cultural feminists regard as a kind of rape), and threaten to bring the “residual heterosexuality” out of lesbians in lesbian-feminist spaces.[3]   

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h Alcoff, Linda (1988). "Cultural Feminism versus Post-Structuralism: The Identity Crisis in Feminist Theory". Signs. 13 (3): 405–436. doi:10.1086/494426. JSTOR 3174166.
  2. ^ Kramarae, Cheris; Spender, Dale (2000). Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Global Women's Issues and Knowledge. New York: Routledge. p. 746. ISBN 978-0415920902.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g Echols, Alice (1983). "Cultural Feminism: Feminist Capitalism and the Anti-Pornography Movement". Social Text (7): 34–53. doi:10.2307/466453. ISSN 0164-2472.
  4. ^ Evans, Judy (1995). "Cultural Feminism: Feminism's First Difference". Feminist Theory Today : an Introduction to Second-Wave Feminism. SAGE Publications. p. 73. ISBN 9781446264935. OCLC 874319830.
  5. ^ a b Verta Taylor and Leila J. Rupp, "Women's Culture and Lesbian Feminist Activism: A Reconsideration of Cultural Feminism" Signs, 19, No. 1 (Autumn, 1993): 32–61.[1].
  6. ^ Tor Bay, "goodbye", Off Our Backs 1, no. 19 (25 March 1971): 14.
  7. ^ Elizabeth Diggs, "What Is the Women's Movement?", Women: A Journal of Liberation 2, no. 4 (1972): 11-12, 20.
  8. ^ Ritzer, George. Contemporary Sociological Theory and Its Classical Roots. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007. ISBN 978-0-07-299759-0
  9. ^ Donovan, Josefine. Feminist Theory. 3d ed. (New York: Continuum, 1985.
  10. ^ Levine, Amy-Jill; Blickenstaff, Marianne (2004). A Feminist Companion to the Acts of the Apostles. London: T & T Clark. p. 242. ISBN 978-0-8264-6252-7.
  11. ^ a b "god, mom & apple pie: "feminist" businesses as an extension of the american dream". Off Our Backs. 5 (11): 18–20. 1976. ISSN 0030-0071.
  12. ^ a b c Rich, Adrienne Cécile. (1997). Of woman born : motherhood as experience and institution. Virago. ISBN 0860680312. OCLC 263689375.
  13. ^ Suzanne Staggenborg, "Beyond Culture versus Politics: A Case Study of a Local Women's Movement,"Gender and Society, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Aug., 2001), pp. 507
  14. ^ a b c Bromley, Victoria (2012). Feminisms Matter: Debates, Theories, Activism. University of Toronto Press.
  15. ^ a b Ghodsee, Kristen (Spring 2004). "Feminism by Design: Emerging Capitalisms, Cultural Feminism, and Women's Nongovernmental Organizations in Post Socialist Eastern Europe". Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 29 (3): 772–753. doi:10.1086/380631.
  16. ^ This bridge called my back : writings by radical women of color. Moraga, Cherríe,, Anzaldúa, Gloria,, Bambara, Toni Cade, (2nd ed.). New York: Kitchen Table, Women of Color Press. 1983. pp. 95–96. ISBN 091317503X. OCLC 10599574.CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: others (link)
  17. ^ Blumenthal, Dannielle (1997). Women and Soap Opera: A Cultural Feminist Perspective. Praeger. ISBN 9780275960391. Retrieved 12 November 2018.
  18. ^ a b Echols, Alice (Spring–Summer 2018). "Cultural Feminism:Feminist Capitalism and the Anti-Pornography Movement". Social Text (7): 47. JSTOR 466453.CS1 maint: date format (link)

Further reading[edit]

  • Balbert, Peter. D.H. Lawrence and the Phallic Imagination. Hong Kong: The Macmillan P, 1989. ISBN 0-333-43964-3
  • Verta Taylor and Leila J. Rupp, "Women's Culture and Lesbian Feminist Activism: A Reconsideration of Cultural Feminism" Signs, 19, No. 1 (Autumn, 1993): 32–61.[2].
  • "Jane Addams on Cultural Feminism." About. 1892. Oct.-Nov. 2006 [3][permanent dead link].
  • ""I'm Not a Feminist, But..."" Two Peas, No Pods. 24 Oct. 2005. Oct.-Nov. 2006 [4].
  • Roseneil, Sasha. "The Coming of Age of Feminist Sociology: Some Issues Of." The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Jun., 1995), pp. 191-205 [5].