1. The way French Feminists deal with social, Marxist, and psychoanalytic theory
2. Their antifoundationalism and use of genealogical approaches
3. The work of French feminists on the social construction of race, gender, and sexuality is unsurpassed (in my humble opinion)
4. The focus on language and its embodiment of patriarchal norms
5. The way many French Feminists have been so good at balancing political activism with a focus on theory
6. The multiplicity of writing styles that French feminists are willing to use, and their use of metaphor
7. The relentless insistence on exposing instances of norming/othering
8. The work many French feminists have done to expose the inherent ties between capitalism and patriarchy
9. The inclusiveness that follows from their assumption that racism, sexism, homophobia, etc stem from the same systemic sources and are motivated by similar impulses
10. Simone de Beauvoir. (and Colette Guillaumin, Christine Delphy, Monique Wittig, Michèle Le Dœuff ...)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Tuesday Ten: Ten things I love about French feminism(s).
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10990
YES!
or should I say "Wee"!
"Oui," actually. But I agree.
I agree on all points...but I part ways when it comes to the incorporation of socialism or Marxism into feminism. It makes me cringe when I am reading along and suddenly realize that the feminist in question is that far left. Egalitarianism is very overrated and has seldom worked historically, save extreme cases. Even then, the societies are very simple, not industrialized, and are still socially restrictive on gender. Just reflecting, I have been getting into de Beauvoir a lot recently.
For most Marxist or socialist feminists it's not quite accurate to call it "incorporating socialism and Marxism into feminism." Instead, they have a holistic socialist or Marxist approach, a theoretical outlook, that's not just a separate set of ideas that are then added into their feminism. This is usually quite different from socialism or Marxism (as political theories) in that they are using socialist or Marxist conceptions to critique social norms, gender roles, etc. but are not necessarily recommending a socialist or Marxist political structure. For instance, a Marxist critique is quite different from a defense of Marxist social structuring. Does that make sense?
Yes, I just dont quite understand why there is such a reliance on Marx from a sociological standpoint. There is a subset of feminism devoted to marxist theories, and I see that I may have gotten into a semantics jungle...I just do not place a lot of value in Marx, Freud, et al, and really want to see feminists push forward out of that. But, I know that these are big names in European intellectual discourse and would be hard-pressed to avoid. Even Weber irritates me some. Ah well :) They still write beautifully, en francais (translations are only so helpful, unfortunately).
Yeah, I think it does have to do with local influences. But also "Marxist" is the catch-name for any social critique which begins with class, or economic structures and motivations. So if you're doing a critique which assumes that labor and economic forces are primary forces that give rise to various social trends and attitudes, then you're doing a Marxist critique, whether or not you take a Marxist political stance. And I think there are many times when a Marxist critique is really useful and revealing.
Hey Rachel, could you recommend which of Colette Guillaumin, Christine Delphy, Monique Wittig, Michèle Le Dœuff you think I should read first?
I love Colette Guillaumin, especially "Race and Nature: The System of Marks," which doesn't really sound like it's about feminism, but it really is indirectly. She starts by pointing out that race is not a natural or biological category, as most people assume, and then traces the concept of race back to the end of the 18th century when it was constructed to justify the African slave trade. I think that using this approach of tracing genealogies is so incredibly useful in demonstrating that race and gender are non-necessary, historically contingent social constructs that were created and are manipulated in order to justify and facilitate hierarchical social structures. So I think Guillaumin is a great one to start with, although de Beauvoir is chronologically primary.
I have a difficult time equating capitalism with patriarchy . . . largely because I was raised with the idea that I would work for what I got and that I wouldn't get any handouts (which, I can tell you, led to a lot of annoyance at classmates who bitched and moaned about only getting $10 a week for taking out the trash when I spent my weekends mucking out goat and chicken pens and chopping/stacking wood for nothing:P).
Granted, the American version of running things is still pretty skewed to favor men, but I honestly believe that if you're intelligent and willing to work hard, you will get where you want to be.
See Obama getting elected. :D
I look at my peers and see people who expect everything on a silver platter and don't wish to put forth effort for anything. It's frankly a revolting attitude, and one that I had hoped I wouldn't find in professional school.
I am interested to read what feminist authors have to say on the matter, though - do you have any specific people/papers you could recommend?
Meritocracy only works so far for certain folks. There is certainly merit in working for what you got, but "intelligence and hard work" simply cannot overcome structural injustices for so many. Obama getting elected does not equal proof of the myth of meritocracy, P.S.
American capitalism is based upon imperialistic globalization of goods and labor, which is highly un-feminist, racist, and traps so many in poverty.
Meritocracy only works so far for certain folks. There is certainly merit in working for what you got, but "intelligence and hard work" simply cannot overcome structural injustices for so many. Obama getting elected is not evidence for the myth of meritocracy, P.S.
American capitalism is based upon imperialistic globalization of goods and labor, which is highly un-feminist, racist, and traps so many in poverty.
The idea that anyone who critiques capitalism is simply a lazy person who's looking for a handout is a uniquely American view, and incredibly inaccurate. The claim here (mostly represented in Delphy's work) is that capitalism and patrarchy are interconnected class systems that both rely on the appropriation of labor.
In this view patriarchy depends on the appropriation of women's unpaid labor, both domestic labor and reproductive, and capitalism depends on the appropriation of the product of the workers by those who own the means of production. This system itself (the appropriation of wage labor) depends on the patriarchal appropriation of women's labor, since it assumes the existence of some unpaid worker at home attending to the things that the wage worker cannot. Hence the 8-10 hour workday which doesn't allow for childcare, elderly care, and housework, the tensions that result when women join the workforce and therefore take on the "second shift," etc.
Delphy writes about this in "Familiar Exploitation: A New Analysis of Marriage in Contemporary Western Societies."
I didn't mean to imply that critics of capitalism are lazy and looking for handouts; or that Obama getting elected is in any way confirming meritocracy.
By the handout comment, I was expressing my frustration with the expectations of a large portion of my peers on getting compensation with little work.
I meant that Obama getting elected shows the fact that we are overcoming the structural injustices that have defined our society in the past - in that his race wasn't the main reason people voted for him (or not). The fact that he's intelligent and diligent and has actual plans to improve the country were more important issues.
"In this view patriarchy depends on the appropriation of women's unpaid labor, both domestic labor and reproductive, and capitalism depends on the appropriation of the product of the workers by those who own the means of production. This system itself (the appropriation of wage labor) depends on the patriarchal appropriation of women's labor, since it assumes the existence of some unpaid worker at home attending to the things that the wage worker cannot. Hence the 8-10 hour workday which doesn't allow for childcare, elderly care, and housework, the tensions that result when women join the workforce and therefore take on the "second shift," etc."
Okay, looking at it that way, I can see where you're coming from about the intertwining of patriarchism and American capitalism. But how is the appropriation of labor in the manner of unpaid home worker taking care of children purely a capitalist problem? Surely socialism (or, y'know, any other ism) has the same issue.
Various socialist systems actually have compensation for things like childcare, elderly care, domestic labor, etc. In some European countries (like Sweden and Norway) there are generous paid maternity- and paternity-leave programs that cover either parent for more than a year after birth.
I think the form of capitalism that this critique applies to is the way our system has developed after the industrial revolution. Prior to that it was much more common to have cottage industries in which both parents and the older children were engaged. Child care and elderly care were part of the work of the family as a whole. But the industrial revolution really polarized the two worlds of domestic vs public, took earning out of the home and into the public sphere, and left the unpaid labor in the home with the wife/mother. This resulted in a few things. Women's domestic work is unlike paid labor because it has no exchange rate, it's personalized to the situation and individual receiving it, and whatever material gain the woman receives has nothing to do with her work, but depends completely on her husband's performance and opportunities. So it sort of disappears in a capitalist system, and the fact that it is undervalued is thought to justify the fact that women also consume a smaller portion of the family's shared resources. The fact that the capitalist system is built up on the "invisible" unpaid labor of women (who also provide the work force through their reproductive labor) makes it inherently patriarchal.
... no Scandinavian countries are socialist. They are perfectly capitalist countries - with social security that not only benefit the people but also produces highly competitive and strong capitalist economies. It would not hurt the US capitalist system (not that I would cry over that) to have healthcare, maternity leave, workers' and womens' rights etc - on the contrary!
Again: just because there are social rights and security does not mean that it is not a capitalist economy.
And capitalism is not the same as "meritocracy"... that is a uniquely American idea (just like the idea that a stable and healthy work force is inherently "socialist"). Capitalism is a specific economic structure based on a specific organisation of production (which creates a specific system of exploitation, domination and subjugation) and it exists perfectly well in Scandinavia. The welfare state does not remove capitalism - neither does charity, and the welfare state is just organised, structured and dependable charity (which is still a lot better than random, unreliable charity).
Since capitalism is a specific organisation of production and power in a society then OF COURSE you need to analyze that when you analyze things such as sexism and racism (note to Sthenno). Avoiding that means patching the symptons not adressing root causes. BTW. in Skandinavian Welfare states of course, sexism and racism takes somewhat different forms than in the US - but like exploitation it still exists.
PS. I am a Swedish citizen who grew up in Denmark. I swear that neither country is "socialist" and that we either laugh or cry when McCain et al claim that.
PPS. I am not critisizing you (and I like your post btw)... just ... for the sake of all Americans too, be careful with equating basic decency and equal rights with "evil" socialism ("socialism" seems to be used mostly as a swear word in the US) :) The Skandinavian countries are NOT socialist, they are just capitalist countries which protect the people a little bit more than the US does - which is also to the benefit of the Skandinavian capitalist economies.
OK, first, I don't actually equate socialism with evil, and I hope none of my earlier comments suggested that. Second, I was not trying to say that these countries are socialist, but that they have stronger socialist elements than in the U.S. Contrary to the opinion of most Americans, the form of gov't here in the U.S. also incorporates a number of socialist elements, as any welfare state that taxes its citizens in order to provide social services does. A purely capitalist system would leave its poor to starve and its uninsured sick to die. However, countries like Sweden and Norway (I have a number of Swedish relatives) do have better "safety nets" in place (like better maternity leave, etc.) that try to account for some of the important unpaid labor that capitalism appropriates.
I think the thing that most people don't realize is that a system can incorporate elements of capitalism and elements of socialism. They are not mutually exclusive. If the government own some industry sectors but not others, if the people are taxed in order to provide safety nets such as welfare and disability, and to pay for universal education, then you are incorporating elements of socialism, even if your economic system remains predominantly capitalist.
Hi,
No, I didn't mean neither that you equated socialism with "evil" (I only mean that it is often so equated in the US, e.g. in McCain's campaign recently) nor that you meant that Scandinavia is "socialist" (although McCain clearly thinks so). I just wanted to make a point against pretty common and established misconceptions / abuses of words / lies in the US... and used you as a vehicle for that :)
You are right that socialists have had a bigger impact in Scandinavia - but that does not make the countries "socialist". Socialism is about abolishing capitalism, and no Scandinavian country have done that. In fact the incorporation of labor rights, women's rights, social security etc have given Scandinavia a strong capitalist economy. My point is just that people like McCain are wrong (he is in fact probably deliberately lying... he must know that Scandinavia is a capitalist region).
oh... and the reason I want to say this is that people in the US (where I currently live) obviously need - and want - labor rights, healthcare, affordable (or free) education, social and financial security, maternity and paternity leave, equal rights (for real, ie also equal social and job opportunities) etc. That is: common liberal decency and equality. But every time a fraction of a beginning in that direction gets proposed nutcases and liers starts yelling that this is "socialism" when in fact it actually just means creating a stable and labor force which is good for capitalism.
Now, I am critical of capitalism. But creating a well-functioning capitalist economy where people actually have equal rights and sort-of-equal opportunities should not be dismissed because of a false argument that it would be "socialism". Even if we cannot (and perhaps want not) get rid of all the ills of capitalism the people of the US still deserve ... better :) These small improvements should not be destroyed by a lie that welfare means "socialism" (although it is often brought by the struggles of socialists, leaving capitalism intact).
Does this make sense?
I was just thinking about today how gendered nouns are a meta hypersexualization that is extraordinarily strongly ingrained in culture. It is embarrassing to mess up the gender of a word in French speech. The French language is strongly regulated by the Académie Française. At any time 40 people comprise the membership and of the 710 members since the beginning of the Académie in 1635, only 4 women, the first in 1980.
Isn't it interesting the the French word for vagina is gendered male?
The French are excited about Obama too.
Yeah things are "male or female" in most latin languages, like portuguese and italian. But german does that too.
It's interesting to think this is a form of hypersexualization. I'd like to know if there are any studies about that, it would definitely be an interesting read. Portuguese is my first language and I have no problem with english, where objects are neither "male" or "female". But I do find it weird when I'm studying german and I have to refer to objects that were always "female" as "male".
My first language being Spanish, I also have a strong sense of words being male or female. But then again most words are based on the vowel they end with...
By the way, word for vagina in Spanish is female.
Grammatical gender is totally unrelated to the social concept of gender. Hence in French, tables are feminine, but in German they are masculine and in (Modern) English there is no concept of word gender.
Both my first language (Bulgarian) and my second (French) gender words, and I've studied some Spanish and am currently learning Russian. Honestly, gendering is mostly based on the letter at the end of the words (ex: "e" at the end of a word generally means female, with exceptions, in French, whereas "a" at the end of a word usually makes it female in Bulgarian, Spanish and Russian).
The only time I can see this actually playing a role in social interactions (in the French language, at least) is in professional titles, which are mostly all male (even though, as of late, people have started gendering them according to the person they're refering to) and collective nouns (if you have a group of people, and only one of them is male, you still have to use the male plural noun and male adjectives to refer to them).
In Slavic languages, on the other hand, in refering to groups, the gender is lost and you use the neutral form. There is also a third gender in Slavic languages called neuter, which is neutral, similar to the English "it", although much more widely used, as some words are gendered neuter.
Yeah, the gendering of nouns in various languages isn't what they're talking about when they claim that language is the embodiment of patriarchal norms.
I could be wrong--my knowledge on this subject is indirect at best--but I believe that Jacques Lacan wrote about the idea of gendered language and how that affects society as a whole. . .if you're interested in thinking about this further :)
That's exactly right - the concern with language is seen mostly in the French feminists whose work is grounded in psychoalanytic theory (Irigaray, Kristeva, Cixous) because of the influence of Lacan (and Derrida). Then this influence continues forward into the work of American feminists such as Butler.
These kids today with their loud rock music and their antifoundationalism...
@ Rachel in WY...probably not the best place for this, but after reading this post I felt compelled..and well here I am.
I just wanted to say thank you for your contributions to this community. I appreciate your insight and thoughtfulness and always look forward to reading your community posts. This post is no exception. Thank you!!
Thanks!
Fadela Amara and her group Ni Putes Ni Soumises is pretty interesting, whether or not you agree with it. I really think the group is great, and I hope that she has a bright future ahead of her.
Rachida Dati, on the other hand...
I really admire the work that Fadela Amara has done, but don't know much about Rachida Dati except about her pregnancy as a single mom and politician - something that would be kind of scandalous here. It's always interesting to me to watch how European nations handle this kind of stuff as compared to Americans.
thank you thank you thank you for bringing french feminism into the discussion. i also highly recommend julia kristeva (catharsis, the abject and failure of politics and religion) and luce irigaray(woman as envelope or container, the elemental) for any cohesive pictured of french feminism. it should be said, however, that "french feminism" is typically an american construction for a select set of continental philosophers(indeed, not all are french) and is bound up in theory - thought politics. i love how ff brings language and metaphor to the forefront, but it is also a deep psychiatric and phenomenological study/ critique.
i love it!
it should be said, however, that "french feminism" is typically an american construction for a select set of continental philosophers(indeed, not all are french) and is bound up in theory
Yes and no. Most of the French feminists I've been referring to here are not a part of the "Anglo-American construct" of French feminism. This usually refers to the Psych et Po group (Kristeva, Cixous, Irigaray), and as Christine Delphy has pointed out, these three are often taken to be representative of all French feminists, but are not. When I refer to French feminists I don't mean just this psychoanalytic group, because I really like Guillaumin, Delphy, Wittig, etc., because I reject the essentialism that is so often found i their work, and because I think it's another instance of othering to lump them together and then claim that they're all basically saying the same thing. I tried to avoid this by calling it French feminisms.
i meant to include these, not isolate. in no way is french feminism so simplistic, and that is why i wanted to broaden the discussion on this point. yet i feel it is definitely in keeping with your top ten list. i would think you would understand representation. it seems you are focusing more on the political and social angle, which is appropriate for this site.
curious how you came up with the term, feminisms. is that something you use strictly in the french construct, or do you think it answers to the general problem of defining feminism?
I'm not the first to use the term feminisms, but I think it should be used more since it's more inclusive and aknowledges the wealth of different feminist positions and thoughts.