What exactly is feminism? This may seem like an easy answer; after all, a definition is everywhere. The problem is, a definition is everywhere. It is widely acknowledged that there is a myriad of definitions and concepts related to feminism. It is even a point of pride as it is said to demonstrate the diverse aspects of feminism and the inclusive nature that it embodies. But many of these perspectives are metaphysical, which in and of itself can be difficult to grasp. When combined with multiple, sometimes conflicting, metaphysical perspectives, it creates a lack of focus and distorts the purpose behind feminism as a whole. With so many definitions and perspectives, one must ask, does this help or hurt the feminist cause?
This is a topic that extends beyond a short blog. For one, simply listing the various types of feminist studies requires a dedicated book chapter. But fully addressing the issue involves examining multiple areas of the heavily branched feminist movement on both analytical and synoptical levels. But to keep within appropriate lengths, this short study will use the three waves of feminism to address a pattern that begins to emerge.
Feminism is traditionally categorized into three historic waves. When these waves are viewed as a whole, a pattern emerges with a possible correlation between clear, tangible definitions and successful application. The clearer and more pragmatic the definition and goals are, the more likely they are to succeed in their quest. To encapsulate the range of feminist perspectives, it is best to quote Susan K. Foss in summing up feminism. She says, "Feminists are united by a broadening of the scope of the term feminism to include the effort to eliminate relations of domination not just for women but for all people."
The first wave of feminism started in the middle of the nineteenth century through 1920. It primarily focused on women's right to vote. This wave is characterized by specific tangible goals that sought legal rights and representation. The purpose was clearly defined, and underlying its pursuit were ideologies that were understandable, well-defined, pragmatic, and measurable. While being oppositional to the current culture, they were not isolated in opposition for their own benefit. They benefited all of society by removing the limits placed on women, not adding limits to others. And what happened is that the first wave of feminism achieved the goals it set out to accomplish.
The second wave of feminism, credited to Betty Friedman, is characterized by a mixture of tangible legal and cultural shifts and intangible ideologies. The tangible elements included women's equality in the workplace, pay, reproductive freedom, and legal achievements such as Title IX. These are measurable elements with specific purposes. The intangible ideologies include questioning motherhood, traditional family structures, patriarchal systems, capitalism, glass ceilings, etc. It focused on oppression not as physical suffering but as a constraining force through laws, social norms, and institutions. The slogan, "the personal is the political," was coined during this wave. While some of the specific goals were achieved during this wave, many argue that others, such as true equality in the workplace, despite legal representation, have not been achieved. Most of the unattained goals are metaphysical in nature with no clear measurement of success.
Built on the achievements of the second wave, the third wave of feminism dates to the 1980s onward and is the least tangible of the waves. It focuses on metaphysical constructs in which definitions are challenged, self-identity is redefined through personal experiences, unified concepts are rejected, and the identification of oppression is sought. It builds an ideological framework that guides cultural talking points, academic literature, and political debates. But unlike the first and second waves, it is an obscure wave, with no clear definition or tangible milestone by which to establish progress. Instead, it leans on identifying oppression and opposing traditional norms, which cannot be measured but are subject to personal identification. Further, it has branched feminism into personal experiences, which allows for a nearly limitless number of perspectives and definitions. For instance, it is commonly accepted that a teacher controls a group of students and that a man can teach a class with women in it. But if someone were to challenge this accepted norm, should it not also be accepted since it is based on personal experience, challenging cultural norms, and identifying oppression? The third wave of feminism lacks a defining purpose. And while there may be small successes within a specific area of feminism, the third wave of feminism does not measure success like the first and second waves. So, how does culture know if progress is being made? In order to achieve a goal, the goal must first be defined. A race with no ending is not a race.
As we have seen, the progressive waves of feminism have moved from a well-defined pragmatic purpose to an obscure, undefined intangible idea. Is it possible that by obscuring the purpose and incorporating limitless numbers of perspectives and definitions, while creating unmeasurable goals, that third wave feminist movement is causing more harm than good?
No comments:
Post a Comment