In her ambitious endeavor, Judith Evans seeks to navigate
the landscape of Second Wave feminist theory, spanning from 1963 to 1994, by
dissecting a selection of seminal texts. Evans employs a familiar taxonomy of
feminist schools of thought, each represented by key figures and their works:
liberal feminism (Betty Friedan, Alice Rossi, and Susan Okin), early radical
feminism (Shulamith Firestone and Juliet Mitchell), strong cultural feminism
(Mary Daly and Adrienne Rich), weak cultural feminism (Carol Gilligan),
socialist feminism (Iris Marion Young), and postmodernist feminism (Joan Scott
and Judith Butler). Additionally, Evans dedicates a final chapter to 'the legal
challenge,' examining the contributions of Carol Bacchi and Catherine
MacKinnon. Throughout her analysis, Evans threads the tension between concepts
of 'equality' and 'difference' that persist within and between different
feminist schools of thought, as well as within individual thinkers.
It is evident that Evans' focus is predominantly on Anglo-American
feminisms, with major texts primarily authored by white feminists from the US
and the UK. While Evans briefly considers critiques from prominent Black
feminist theorists like bell hooks and Audre Lorde, and makes general
references to postcolonial and diasporic feminisms through figures like Gayatri
Spivak, her treatment of voices outside the established white Anglo-American
tradition feels marginal. This discrepancy raises questions about the
inclusivity and currency claimed by Evans' title, given the limited scope of
representation.
Within this framework, Evans offers more in-depth
discussions of individual theoretical projects by focusing on a select number
of texts. Particularly in the earlier sections, Evans provides useful summaries
of various feminist thinkers and contextualizes early Second Wave
Anglo-American feminism within left politics. She also tracks the emergence of
critiques regarding exclusions based on race, sexuality, and class within
different feminist schools of thought.
However, Evans' analytical framework reveals some
shortcomings. Throughout the book, she highlights the undertheorization of the
concept of 'equality' within feminism but fails to offer a sustained attempt to
address this deficiency by developing her own theory of equality. While
acknowledging feminist theorists who challenge the equality-difference
dichotomy, Evans does not systematically engage with alternative perspectives,
such as Joan Scott's argument in "Deconstructing Equality-Versus-Difference."
Scott's assertion that demands for equality arise within the context of
differences is not thoroughly explored by Evans, leading to a persistent
presumption that 'radical equality' can only be achieved by recognizing a
fundamental sameness between men and women. This oversight colors Evans'
treatment of 'difference' throughout the book, positioning it as inherently
opposed to equality.
Evans' treatment of difference theorists within Second
Wave feminist theory reflects a recurring attitude that is compounded by her
decision to sidestep critical themes that have been central to debates within
the movement. One such theme is the delineation of the sex/gender distinction
and its evolution within Anglo-American feminism. Understanding how individual
theorists or schools of thought define and navigate this distinction is pivotal
in comprehending their celebration or valorization of women's experiences.
However, Evans provides only a superficial explanation of the sex/gender
distinction, failing to acknowledge its contested nature within feminist
theory.
Closely intertwined with the sex/gender question is the
differentiation between the categories 'female' and 'feminine.' While Evans
often employs these terms interchangeably, many theorists make critical
distinctions between them, highlighting the nuances in how they perceive the
relationship between female embodiment, women's social positioning, and the
cultural resources available to women. For instance, in discussing Carol
Gilligan's work on a feminine voice and ethics of care, Evans substitutes the
term 'female' without adequately contextualizing Gilligan's contributions
within debates on the female/feminine and sex/gender distinctions. This
oversight leaves readers, especially those new to feminist theory, without the
necessary framework to situate Gilligan's ideas within broader discussions.
Introductory readers would benefit from a deeper
exploration of how feminist theorists across the sameness-difference spectrum
have utilized the concepts of sex/gender and female/feminine distinctions to
address issues of biological determinism, essentialism, and social
constructionism. By glossing over these debates, Evans oversimplifies the
dichotomy between 'difference' and essentialism on one hand, and 'equality,'
'sameness,' and social constructionism on the other. This reductionist approach
obscures the complexity of feminist thought and undermines the richness of
theoretical discussions within the movement.
Moreover, Evans' treatment of difference theorists lacks
depth and fails to engage with the multifaceted nature of their arguments. By
neglecting key themes and nuances within Second Wave feminist theory, Evans
inadvertently perpetuates a narrow understanding of feminist discourse. A more
thorough exploration of these contested concepts would provide readers with a
more nuanced perspective on the complexities of feminist thought and foster a
deeper appreciation for the diversity of theoretical approaches within the
movement.
In the later chapters of her analysis, Evans touches upon
contemporary "difference theorists" like Iris Marion Young, Joan
Scott, and Judith Butler, yet she fails to delve into the burgeoning debates
surrounding theories of identity, the self, and difference within feminism.
Evans categorizes these issues as "philosophical/metaphysical,"
positioning them outside the scope of her discussion. While it's true that
feminist engagements with postmodern and poststructuralist ideas have
complicated these debates, Evans' decision to gloss over the theoretical
foundations of contemporary approaches to difference has significant
implications. For instance, Young's recent work advocates for a redefinition of
concepts such as the public, the civic, and politics based on reconceptualizing
identity and difference. However, Evans' interpretation of Young's ideas
overlooks the philosophical depth of her project, reducing it to a simplistic
endorsement of identity politics.
Similarly, Evans' treatment of postmodernist theorists
like Joan Scott and Judith Butler is cursory and lacks substance. She makes
sweeping generalizations about postmodernism, characterizing it as solely
concerned with "texts" and promoting relativism. This
oversimplification ignores the complexities of postmodernist thought and its
implications for feminist theory. In the case of Butler, whose work is
admittedly challenging, Evans quickly moves past the philosophical aspects of
her inquiry into the nature of identity and focuses instead on her exploration
of the potential for a politics of identity. However, Butler's examination of
identity politics cannot be divorced from her broader interrogation of identity
and power, a dimension of her work that Evans neglects entirely.
While acknowledging the difficulty of presenting complex
ideas in a survey format, Evans' oversimplified treatment of Butler, Young, and
others may alienate readers familiar with their work and leave newcomers
struggling to grasp the nuances of their ideas. Coupled with the analytical
shortcomings identified earlier, this approach may hinder rather than
facilitate understanding of contemporary feminist theory. An effective
exploration of these theorists requires a more nuanced examination of their
ideas and their relevance to ongoing debates within feminism. By providing
readers with a deeper understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of
contemporary feminist thought, Evans could offer a more comprehensive and
insightful analysis of the evolving field of feminist theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment