There is a significant difference between the two declarations above. The following suggestion from bell hooks helps clarify:
To emphasize engagement with feminist struggle as political committment, we could avoid using the phrase "I am a feminist" (a linguistic structure designed to refer to some personal aspect of identity and self-definition) and could state, "I advocate feminism." Because there has been undue emphasis placed on feminism as an identity or lifestyle, people usually resort to stereotyped perspectives on feminism. Deflecting attention away from stereotypes is necessary if we are to revise our strategy and direction. I have found that saying "I am a feminist" usually means I am plugged into preconceived notions of identity, role, or behavior. When I say, "I advocate feminism," the response is usually, "What is feminism?" (from Feminist Theory from Margin to Center)
bell hooks argues for a de-personalization of feminism by replacing "feminist" as an identity category with "feminism" as a philosophy of action and movement that anyone can advocate. It would be difficult to argue that the identity "feminist" does not override the meaning of feminist movement, at least if we are arguing with those who might always already disagree with feminist politics. Any women's studies teacher who spends her/his first day of class debunking myths about feminists knows that some ill-intentioned representations of feminists, and the consequence of people not thinking critically, can get in the way of feminism(s).
My curiosity lies in whether these representations (and distractions) would exist in the same way if those who advocated feminism did not associate or even conflate their philosophy with initiation into an identity category ("feminist"). Realistically, the term "feminist" has a history that won't be forgotten, and misrepresentations of feminists will linger. But I do think that our actions become re-oriented when we divert attention away from ourselves ("feminists") and re-direct it toward what we are about (feminism).
At the same time that I believe emphasis on feminism rather than on myself as a feminist is more beneficial to feminist movement, I can't deny the incredible and complex feelings attached to the term "feminist." We all have our stories about how we came to be or become feminists - they can be intense, emotional, and life-changing stories that inspire other people to look at their lives differently. But, as I focus on bell hooks's suggestion that we need to prompt more questions and envision new directions, I have to wonder what the ultimate goal is when we attempt to inspire many other women and men to become feminists, too. What then?
Yes, people often need to look into their own lives before they can see patterns that are wide-spread, constructed, and sometimes beneficial for only a few. But I think people can still be prompted to take this intense look without being asked, "Are you a feminist?" And I believe that more focus on advocating feminism and less on ourselves as feminists removes distractions we experience by continually cultivating a feminist identity. We could be more focused on improving lives with feminist politics and having a greater reach into the world with feminism.
hooks makes a good point when she writes that "undue emphasis placed on feminism as an identity or lifestyle" has resulted in making feminists vulnerable to stereotyping, but that emphasis on identity has also created a huge distraction for feminist movement itself. Laboriously, some of us wonder if what we are doing is "feminist." And we place large burdens on conscious women and men to associate themselves with the term, at times believing that if they don't identify as feminist, they are either in denial about gender oppression or they have heard the stereotypes. We don't usually assume that they have chosen not to identify with the term because they feel it excludes them in some way, or because emphasis on identifying as a feminist can distract them from doing feminist politics.
For instance, if we recognize feminist politics mostly when they are performed by feminists, we ignore that anti-sexism exists out from under our banner. At times, someone's anti-sexist actions or words can be dismissed because that person may also have a history of sexist actions and words. Because of this contradiction, we may say this person is clearly not feminist. The pretense of identifying as "feminist" seems to be that we ourselves have few contradictions. We know the boundaries of sexism and anti-sexism.
Because feminist politics are so closely tied to who we are as feminists, we are pressured to demonstrate these boundaries and embody feminist continuity. If this pressure were lifted, and anyone could do feminism without the pressure of being a "feminist," we could focus more on identifying feminist action independent of whether someone identifies as a feminist. Rather than pointing out to a person that, whether they know it or not, they're a feminist because of their actions, we could instead have a conversation about the positive impact of anti-sexist actions. Similarly, we could re-direct our attention to sexist action and words rather than to "sexists," as if they are never anything else.
These terms can give the illusion of perfect boundaries such that a "sexist" can never do anything "anti-sexist," and if someone is an anti-feminist, we don't have to recognize when they may be anti-sexist. We all embody contradictions, and recognizing feminist actions outside a feminist identity could encourage people to notice sexism and incorporate feminist politics into their understanding of the world without giving them the impression that only feminists can do so.
So my question is, do we believe that feminism and feminist politics can exist without "feminists"?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: "I am a feminist" versus "I advocate feminism".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14874
I love hooks, and this especially. In my own experience, the identity "feminist" has served me by helping me form my own politics, convictions, and behaviors; find others that identify in the same way; and draw attention the the word most do not understand, thus beginning conversations with people, educating them on what feminism really is. But I agree with hooks too. There are many people who do feminist things, but don't really feel a connection to the identity. Must they, or can we applaud their lifestyle choices and let them be? I like hooks' argument here.
I'm gonna go all Biblical now, and quote: "You will know the tree by it's fruits".
A feminist is one who does feminist things (things that advance feminism).
To call oneself a feminist does not equal that one does feminist things (and thereby not that one is a feminist).
One is a feminist to the degree that one does feminism.
One can thereby be more or less feminist (exactly what that means is open for debate).
In the same way, a Socialist, or a Conservative, or a racist... etc... is one who does the things that are implied by those terms. Not just one who identifies with them. One can also be more or less of those to the extend that one does more or less of the actions implied by them.
By the fruit shall you know the tree - and label it. By the actions shall you know (and perhaps label) the person.
There is no need to choose between saying "I am a feminist" and "I do feminist things". By doing feminist things you do feminism. This is how our language works: A feminist = an advocate of feminism.
If someone does not identify with the label 'feminist' but continues to DO feminism and hold the particular believes that together constitute Feminism... well, I guess that's still great (certainly better than one who identifies with the label but does none of the things it implies). We should, though, still - if we feel it's right - be allowed to day: "but, that's what feminism is all about - that means you are a feminist" (just like we should be allowed to say: "you call yourself a feminist, but your actions speak to the contrary").
Did I understand the topic? Or am I overly linguistic?
(This is jmwmwriter, the one who posted...for some reason I have two usernames).
I don't think it's possible to be overly linguistic, but I still respectfully disagree with a couple of the points you make and that some of this analysis accurately does what linguistics does. It would make sense that one who does certain things implied by the term would be considered that thing (racist, feminist, etc.) But we usually function in life as if these things are most certainly bounded and self-contained, even as it is difficult to articulate those bounds - and I don't think it should be any other way because nothing is that clear-cut and obvious. But I think we still attempt to override that difficulty by trying to articulate the bounds as obvious (so we don't have to explain them).
You're right that there isn't a large difference between saying "I am a feminist" and "I do feminist things," but those aren't the two declarations I posed in my original post. The way you've framed "feminist" in your post (as a direct relationship between feminist actions and being a feminist) really doesn't allow there to be any differentiation between the two things I posed. What if a person is doing something feminist to *us*, but they adamantly say that they do not identify as a feminist? It might be patronizing for us to say, "Despite what you say, I am going to call you a feminist because I want there to be more feminists." Why do we want more people to call themselves feminists?
In this post I was trying to draw a distinction between calling onself a feminist, an identification that can get really hung up on lifestyle and *being* a feminist, and advocating for feminism through anti-sexist actions. If we were to adopt this outlook as a strategy, I argued that things might be different for feminism. More people could "do feminism" because, among many things, they wouldn't be scared of the implications of publically identifying as a feminist, and feminism is something that everyone can do in large or small actions. This doesn't mean that it's right that feminism has a bad reputation - we've been working on that. But the pretense of identifying as a feminist seems to be that you must do large actions all the time - no contradictions and you live this stuff. If we were to recognize anti-sexist actions wherever they were without bemoaning that more people don't call themselves feminists, that could encourage more people to act and speak against sexism without feeling pressure to come to "our side."
And responding to the last paragraph you wrote: I'm trying to ask why it's necessary that we call ourselves and others feminists. Isn't anti-sexist action enough? You reasonably suggest that we should be allowed to say about someone's feminist actions "that's what feminism is all about - that means you are a feminist." I don't see why the term is so necessary. Can feminism exist without us calling ourselves feminists? I really believe that it can. So why is there so much emphasis on identifying as feminists?
Hi, I was not sure how much I agreed with my meta-language theory either. It's rather functionalist. On the other hand, I don't think it makes sense to talk about a Feminist-an-sich (if you're familiar with Kant? If not, then just ignore) abstracted from the particular feminist things. If one does not do feminism in the circumstances that it is appropriate, then I'd say the label is not appropriate. It is certainly not enough to just label oneself. The word does signify (to me) a set of potential actions and attitudes, not just an "identity".
(I don't know if what I just wrote makes sense outside of my head? I know what I meant, but does the text make sense to others?)
I think your comment, btw, clarified your post. My point was to emphasize the particular actions and attitudes, rather than the self-identification with the word, as the important defining part of feminism. I think that is kind of your point too: It is way more important that one does feminist things than how one labels oneself. That's what you meant, right?
I agree, and my point was further, that doing feminist things is more important in defining whether one is actually a feminist than self-identifying as one is. I don't know if you agree with that (and I'm not absolutely sure myself - language-theory is not my strongest interest). If we were to define "a feminist" as "a person who has an attitude that implies she would in circumstances Y do action X" (or something like that) then, if a person fits that definition, what is then wrong with saying: that's a feminist? Is self-identification with the label a necessary part? (maybe it is, I'm leaning towards no). You're right, that it's certainly not necessary to label the person, but I'd say it's legitimate (it may, of course, be inappropriate or unwise).
"Can feminism exist without us calling ourselves feminists?". I agree, that it can. I believe it is linguistically legitimate to say, for example, that Feminism has been around since before the word was invented.
I know I write a little messy here, but I think we agree for the most part. At least in that doing feminism is more important than identifying as a Feminist. Your final question: why is there, then, so much emphasis on the identification part, is another matter. I guess there are different reasons: One being that the word has been demonized and there's a battle to reclaim it. Another could be that it's easier to buy a box-set of believes - if I start by identifying with a "movement" then I can just come to Feministing.com for example and see what I believe, plus identifying often comes with social networks etc. That was the potential negative part of labeling. But also... it is simply often practical to have unifying concepts, I mean: this website is about a broad diversity of issues, that somehow are all related to this one word, and it is simply easier that we have that word. It could be another word too, but to have a word is useful.
Now, I'm straying off on a tangent again...
A rose by any other name, would still smell sweet. And a person who does the things that the word "feminism" implies, would still be doing good, even if she did not call herself a feminist. The actions and attitudes are indeed, more important than the label and self-identification. Now, I think I've tried to say the same thing in a couple of different ways - I hope one of them worked. If not, I could have boiled it down to: "I mostly agree" :)
I think your "tangents" are terrific. You said a few things that clarified what I had been thinking. Definitely, I agree that feminist action is more important than calling oneself a feminist. I would take it a step further and say that feminist action doesn't have to include trying to get other people to call themselves feminists.
We definitely are getting into some tricky language issues here, because the questions "what is feminism? and what would we call a feminist action?" keep pushing against my whole argument. When we're all using terms like feminist, sexist, feminism, sexism, it's a responsible thing to clarify or at least try to feel out the boundaries of those words so that when we level them at people, we're on the same page. I usually ignore the impulse to clarify and define because I think the term feminist can get really narrowed, then people have anxiety over not fitting themselves into the meaning of the term.
For instance, I know some men who are sympathetic to feminist causes, but depending on who they are talking to, they don't feel right, or even welcome, to call themselves feminists. And these are not men who are dying to be involved with feminist movement, but they understand feminism, sexism. Their words and actions are consistent with a philosophy that supports treating all people equally. But they stress over being inauthentic because "men can't be feminists," something that some feminists have actually said.
I know women who feel this way, too - my mom, for instance, and my sisters (who ask me a lot, "Can I be a feminist if I..." and I always say, "Yes! Nobody's stopping you!" But then they see the things that I'm doing - grad school in Women's Studies, a lot of writing, and what they see as attitudes that they just can't identify with), and they say, "No, I'm not a feminist, but I like what you're doing." So what I would say about that example is that some people feel that their good actions that don't hurt anybody aren't toward feminist causes, or causes toward equality, because they don't identify as a feminist.
Just to belabor a little more on this point...I just don't think there should be a significant difference (to people who identify as feminists) between themselves and people who don't or don't want to identify as feminist. I understand that as a movement, we appreciate when more people do identify, or when more people claim the identity despite all the negative associations - we think it's a victory, however large or small, and that it ought to happen more often. I don't know that it has to for feminism to grow even stronger.
And just a last side note about where all this is coming from...I've spent a lot of time this past semester outside women's studies (I was taking some other courses in a sub-field that I have a graduate minor in), and I was so surprised to find the amount of people who already understood gender issues and issues of inequality very well, who really understood intersectionality and applied it in what they did. In those environments, equality was an assumed value. Now this isn't totally consistent with my entire college experience outside women's studies, but it appears that many more higher-ed folks know the importance of difference in what they do. For my first year of grad school, I lived with what I think of now as the myth that no one but "us" (feminists, or scholars and students in women's studies) knew how to work with gender and other differences. This has got me thinking about feminism's adaptability, and specifically the good that can come from even those who don't identify as feminist, but who keep gender and difference on the table.
Although it would probably be legitimate for me to call myself a feminist (is there a checklist..?)I always feel reluctant to identify myself this way, and instead say things like "I believe in feminism" or "I support feminism." It just feels like identifying oneself as a feminist is taking on an enormous burden that is really difficult to bear to the fullest. I am, unfortunately, not a feminist in every single aspect of my life all the time, yet calling myself a feminist somehow makes it very absolute.
Also, since a lot of the time this topic comes up in conversation with people not very knowledgeable about feminism, I think identifying myself as a feminist as opposed to saying that I actively support feminism opens up questions about "how I can be a feminist when I do XYZ." I do not always have the opportunity to answer these questions, and I feel like even when they aren't asked, they are implicit. Perhaps saying "I support feminism" sounds less decisive but also less controversial and, in a way, less discrediting to a philosophy that is much more expansive and diverse than myself.