This is not meant to continue a flamewar, but to clarify a term I think is woefully misunderstood: "postmodern feminism." It's demonized in various quarters, I think, because many people don't really know what it means and because various forms of contemporary "feminisms" which may or may not be feminist or postmodernist are given the label "postmodern feminism" as a default category. I teach feminist studies, and especially postmodern feminism, at the university level, so I have something of a soft spot for it as a mode of intellectual investigation and as a way of thinking about feminist politics in contemporary culture.
First, let me say something about what postmodern feminism is not because that is probably an easier task than saying what it is.
1. It is not "postfeminism." I think of this as "Sex and the City" feminism. I love the show as much as anyone, but the postfeminism of the show demonstrates the non-movement's failings: it expresses a widely-shared assumption that feminism is no longer desirable or viable. But the term doesn't mean much of anything, really, except that it rejects an active political engagement in anti-sexist/anti-misogynist politics and is very "sex positive," if by sex positive one means accepting one's objectification. Many feminists steeped in second wave and postmodern feminism see it as defeatist. Read more about it in
Genders.
2. It is not "third wave feminism." I'll let
Tamara Strauss describe the phenomenon:
"So an intergenerational struggle has sprung forth between mothers and daughters. On the one side are Second Wavers who lashed out against their sexually limiting roles as wives and mothers in exchange for equal pay and egalitarian partnerships. And on the other are Third Wavers who, perhaps dismissive of the battles fought and often won by their mothers, aspire to be Madonna, the woman who rose to fame as the ultimate virgin whore. Third Wavers, say Baumgardner and Richards, want to continue the fight for equal rights, but not to the detriment of their sexuality. They want to be both subject and object, when it comes to their sexual roles, their political power and their place in American culture.
As you will discover in the following interview and accompanying excerpt, Baumgardner and Richards believe the generational struggle over feminism marks a new era: the tapering off of the Second Wave and the growing pains of Third." see also
this and
thisSo what is it? Postmodern feminism is actually difficult to define, but part of that is about its genealogy. Postmodernism is a philosophical school, and it is notoriously difficult to boil philosophical schools down to basics. But postmodernism says that subjectivity is decentered and that "transcendent reason" and "transcendent subjectivity," hallmarks of modern philosophy and epistemology, is fallacious for a number reasons.
I'm now going to quote Linda Nicholson's "Introduction" to
Feminism/Postmodernism at some length because I think it is a necessary hinge to understanding the arguments of feminist postmodernists and postmodern feminists:
On the one hand, there are many points of overlap between a postmodern stance and positions long held by feminists. Feminists, too, have uncovered the political power of the academy and of knowledge claims. In general, thy have argued against the supposed neutrality and objectivity of the academy, assertion that claims put forth as universally applicable have invariably been valid only for men of a particular culture, class, and race. They have further alleged that even the ideals which have given the backing to these claims, such as "objectivity" and "reason," have reflected the values of masculinity at a particular point in history. Feminists have criticized other Enlightenment ideals, such as the autonomous and self-legislating self, as reflective of masculinity in the modern West. On such grounds, postmodernism would appear to be a natural ally of feminism.
Moreover, for some feminists, postmodernism is not only a natural ally but also provides a basis for avoiding the tendency in construct theory that generalizes the experiences of Western, white, middle class women. This position, qualified, is taken by Nancy Frasier and myself. As we note in "Social Criticism without Philosophy," postmodernism offers feminism some useful ideas about method, particularly a wariness toward generalizations which transcend the boundaries of culture and region. To be sure, transcendent generalizations within feminist theory have not been the same as those usually discussed by postmodernists. Feminist theorists have not attempted, by and large, the construction of cross-cultural theories of the true, the just, ad the beautiful. On the contrary, feminist theorists have most frequently claimed to base their theories in observation and to acknowledge their construction as rooted in the concerns of the present. To be sure, there are responsible critiques to be made about post modern feminists. Many think the idea of the decentered subject (and the "politics of location") make politics difficult, if not impossible. Some postmodernists have intervened in this claim by suggesting what Gayatri Spivak has called a "strategic essentialism" to counter what has been called the "contingent foundations" of postmodern subjectivity.
At any rate, this is probably a terrible effort at clarifying terms and for that I apologize. I'd be happy to talk about this more if anyone is interested. If you want to know more about postmodern feminism, I'd suggest the Nicholson book I cite above as a good, early primer. Also love Judith Butler's book
Gender Trouble and many of Hélène Cixous's writings. My overall objective, though, is to defend pomo feminism's honor (!) and to suggest that we might need a more careful engagement with is before we misrepresent its claims and toss it aside.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
