Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
STACY GILLIS
University of Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
REBECCA MUNFORD
University of Exeter, United Kingdom
[T]here have always been, and will always be, differing versions of what
feminism is about, with the new or latest trajectories invariably keen to
mark their distance from the old.[1]
In 1982, the New York Times Magazine featured an article, Voices from the
Post-Feminist Generation, which positioned feminism as pass, its aims met
or unnecessary to the lives of everyday women.[6] Post-feminism has since
become the keyword for mainstream media representations of feminism,
where it most frequently describes:
a movement when womens movements are, for whatever reasons, no
longer moving, no longer vital, no longer relevant; the term suggests
that the gains forged by previous generations of women have so
completely pervaded all tiers of our social existence that those still
harping about womens victim status are embarrassingly out of
touch.[7]
The generational divide between second wave feminism and the new forms
of feminism whether it be a third wave or not is one of the defining
characteristics of the movement. Despite, or perhaps because of, these
criticisms against it, this new generation of feminist voices is increasingly
demanding to be heard, to be given credence and to claim a place in a
feminist genealogy.
It is this generation of feminists which identifies as the third wave but
which is labelled, more often than not, post-feminist. The slippage between
the two terms may explain the caution with which the academy regards the
possibility of a new kind of feminism. Whereas second wave feminist
activism introduced feminism to the academy, the academy is only just
beginning to acknowledge the possibility of a third wave.[12] In the 1990s,
third wave feminisms academic presence was confined to Third Wave
Agenda: being feminist, doing feminism (1997) and a special issue of
Hypatia (1997).[13] In July 2002, one of the first academic conferences on
third wave feminism took place at the University of Exeter, bringing
together theorists and activists, second wave feminists and third wave
feminists. The conference identified the ambiguous relationship between
those who identify as third wave feminists and those who identify their work
as belonging to a field informed by post-structuralist and postmodern
theories of identity and subjectivity. These tensions are explored in the
special issue on third wave feminism and womens studies of the Journal of
International Womens Studies (2003) as well as in Catching a Wave:
reclaiming feminism for the 21st century (2003).[14] Third Wave
167
168
The academy, in the eyes of the self-identified third wavers, has failed to
meet the needs of those women outside of it and has little impact on the
material needs of women, which can only be redressed by activist activities.
Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards implicitly acknowledge this
academic/activism schism with their roadmap to activism, which provides a
crucial model of how to do things.[23] This roadmap includes outing
unacknowledged feminists, safeguarding the right to choice, raising
awareness of evolutionary history, recognising the power of queer and
acknowledging that although feminists may have disparate values, we share
the same goal of equality, and of supporting one another in our efforts to
gain the power to make our own choices.[24] Tension between the real
world and theory is nothing new and the blame can be apportioned to
both sides of the feminist divide. What is of interest here is how third wave
feminism emerged in the popular consciousness as a result of cultural anger
and activist interventions and the academy subsequently has been trying to
control it theoretically. One text that attempts to bridge the
academic/activist divide is Leslie Heywood & Jennifer Drakes Third Wave
Agenda but it provides no model for moving this circular debate forward.
Although the collection positions itself as a third wave feminist critique, it
sits more easily as an account of Generation X. It is these tensions and
misunderstandings surrounding third wave feminism that form the basis of
our argument.
Some of the strongest, and most self-consciously clamorous, voices of
third wave feminism are those emerging from girl culture. In spite of its
homogenised media representation and second wave reception girl
culture is an extremely eclectic phenomenon which includes the Riot Grrrls
of the punk movement, the Hello Kitty-accessorised and lipglossed Girlies
exemplified by the writers of zines such as Bitch and BUST, as well as the
more anodyne mainstream proponents of girl power identified with the
Spice Girls. Although these various groups are not always politically aligned,
they do have in common a vigorous reclamation and recuperation of the
word girl as no longer a simply derogatory and disrespectful term but one
that captures the contradictions shaping female identity for young women
whose world has been informed by the struggles and gains of second wave
feminism.[25] Centred on music and zines, girl culture foregrounds the
relationship between feminism and popular culture that had been positioned
by many second wave feminists as unavoidably antagonistic.[26] Heywood &
Drake, for example, identify the third wave more generally as a generation of
feminists who often take cultural production and sexual politics as key sites
of struggle, seeking to use desire and pleasure as well as anger to fuel
struggles for justice.[27] But the extent to which girl culture provides a site
169
170
171
172
173
174
at the beginning of the 1990s, by the end of the decade the Riot Grrrl
movement had neither consolidated a clear agenda nor a programme for
activism in this respect, the girl-style revolution promised by the largely
white and middle-class Riot Grrrls and the New Girl Order is a far remove
from the carefully considered programme of political activism propounded
by Baumgardner & Richards in Manifesta. Moreover, there is a very real
danger that while third wave feminists, as exemplified by Walker, have
expressed their discontent with the inflexibility of second wave identity
politics, the insularity of Grrrl and Girlie culture risks instituting another set
of conventions.
Viner attributes this reactionary response to second wave identity
politics as symptomatic of a broader misunderstanding of that axiom of the
second wave by pointing up that [t]he personal as the political was never
meant to be a prescription of how to live your life. It was never meant to be
a rallying cry to shave off your hair or take up with the lady next door. But
what it was really meant to do was create an awareness of how our personal
lives are ruled by political factors.[58] The phrase the personal is political
invented by members of New York Radical Women endorsed a politics
sustained by concrete personal experiences of male domination. One of the
tenets of third wave feminism is its insistence and reliance upon the
confession as a tool of empowerment, one that is privileged over other
models of empowerment (including academic theory).[59] Third Wave
Agenda claims to fuse the confessional mode with the more analytic mode of
the academy whereas To Be Real is predicated upon an equation of third
wave feminist practice with anecdote, the personal providing the example for
political action. But what alienates the academic from the activist are these
sorts of claims: testimony is where feminism starts. Historically, womens
personal stories have been the evidence of where the movement needs to go
politically and, furthermore, that there is a need to move forward.[60]
Although this has its strengths for example, Amy Richards & Rebecca
Walker
founded
the
Third
Wave
Foundation
(see:
www.thirdwavefoundation.org), a national organisation to get young
feminists voting this is a particularised understanding of politics as
democratic action. Baumgardner & Richards can thus claim that the
personal testimonies in To Be Real and The BUST Guide to the New Girl
Order (the latter including such essays as The Mysterious Eroticism of MiniBackpacks and More than a Blow Job: its a career) are the foundation of
the personal ethics upon which a political womens movement will be built
and comparable with such events as the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas
hearings in 1991.[61] The unquestioning conflation of the personal and the
political focuses on personal freedom, but at the expense of political
equality, as Ally McBeal and Bridget Jones demonstrate. Third wave
feminism lacks an acknowledgement of the tensions in the personal is
175
176
on to feminism and then peters out after the first rush. Having no
sense of how we got here condemns women to reinvent the wheel and
often blocks us from creating a political strategy.[64]
The wave paradigm not only ensures that each generation must reinvent
the wheel but also lends power to backlash politics and rhetoric. Faludi has
foregrounded, in minute detail, the ways in which the Reagan and Thatcher
years were marked by a backlash against feminism. She identifies the way in
which the wave metaphor is used against feminist thought and activity.
In times when feminism is at a low ebb, women assume the reactive role
privately and most often covertly struggling to assert themselves
against the dominant cultural tide. But when feminism itself becomes
the tide, the opposition doesnt simply go along with the reversal: it digs
in its heels, brandishes its fists, builds walls and dams. And its resistance
creates countercurrents and treacherous undertows.[65]
The irony is, of course, that backlash rhetoric points up the supposed
irrelevance and powerlessness of feminism the same feminism which
requires such a strong backlash to contain it. The internecine and crossgenerational arguments contribute to the potency of the wave paradigm and,
ultimately, to the potency of backlash politics. Thus, the question
surrounding third wave feminism is not so much what is it? but how does
another wave contribute to the future of feminism?
That it was only in 1998 that an international court denounced rape as
a form of torture in prison and that nearly twice as many women as men are
illiterate testify to the overwhelming necessity for engaged, politicised and
active feminism(s).[66] As tired as this seems, and as obvious as it is to those
of us who think about feminism, these statements of fact need to be made,
and to be made repeatedly in the face of the generational divides that mark
feminist theory and practice. The third wavers are keen in their assertion
that they are doing something different from the second wave feminists
and second wave feminists are equally keen to dismiss this new form of
feminism: In the interest of affirming the difference of the third wave, many
third wave narratives assume a metonymic view of the second wave, in
which a part of second wave activity is substituted for the whole.[67]
Similarly, second wave feminists also use metonymic configurations of the
third wave (for example, the Spice Girls or Naomi Wolf) in order to dismiss
its power (as demonstrated by Segal in the opening paragraph). The politics
of the fairy tale with successive mother figures threatened by the sexual
agency of their daughters have been analysed by numerous feminists. This
model could be usefully deployed as a way of understanding and
interrogating feminist history, rather than being simply a method of feminist
analysis. The generational account of feminism which third wave feminism
is perpetuating should be understood as merely another tool of the
177
[1] Lynne Segal (1999) Why Feminism? Gender, Psychology, Politics, p. 205
(Cambridge: Polity Press).
[2] Ibid., p. 231.
[3] Ibid., p. 200.
[4] Ibid., p. 205. Segals comment refers to Leslie Heywood & Jennifer Drake
(Eds) (1997) Third Wave Agenda: being feminist, doing feminism
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
[5] Susan Faludi (1992) Backlash: the undeclared war against women, p. 14
(London: Vintage; first published 1991, New York: Doubleday).
[6] Susan Bolotin (17 October 1982) Voices from the Post-Feminist Generation,
New York Times Magazine, pp. 29-31, 103-116.
[7] Deborah L. Siegel (1997) Reading between the Waves: feminist
historiography in a postfeminist moment, in Heywood & Drake, Third
Wave Agenda, p. 75.
[8] See Naomi Wolf (1993) Fire with Fire: the new female power and how it
will change the twenty-first century (New York: Random House); Katie
Roiphe (1993) The Morning After: sex, fear, and feminism (Boston: Little,
Brown); Christina Hoff Sommers (1995) Who Stole Feminism? How Women
have Betrayed Women (New York: Simon & Schuster); and Camille Paglia
(1992) Sex, Art and American Culture: essays (New York: Random House).
[9] Never in history have women been freer than they are here. [This] bitching
... its infantile, its an adolescent condition, its bad for women. Its very,
very bad to convince young women that they have been victims and that
their heritage is nothing but victimization (Paglia, Sex, Art and American
Culture, p. 274; emphasis in original).
178
[10] Natasha Walter (1999) The New Feminism (London: Virago). The book was
proclaimed as feminism as phoenix, and as blazing torch lighting the way to
a new century by Michle Roberts on the front cover.
[11] Segal, Why Feminism? p. 228.
[12] For example, see Third Space (www.thirdspace.ca), an online community and
peer-reviewed journal for emerging feminist scholars.
[13] Heywood & Drake, Third Wave Agenda; Jacquelyn N. Zita (Ed.) (1997)
Hypatia: Special Issue on Third Wave Feminisms, 12(3).
[14] Stacy Gillis & Rebecca Munford (Eds) (2003) Special Issue on Third Wave
Feminism and Womens Studies of the Journal of International Womens
Studies 4(2); Rory Dicker & Alison Piepmeier (Eds) (2003) Catching a
Wave: reclaiming feminism for the 21st century (Boston: Northeastern
University Press).
[15] Stacy Gillis, Gillian Howie & Rebecca Munford (Eds) (2004) Third Wave
Feminism: a critical exploration (Basingstoke: Palgrave).
[16] Ann Brooks (1997) Postfeminisms: feminism, cultural theory and cultural
forms, p. 1 (London: Routledge).
[17] Sarah Gamble (Ed.) (2001) The Routledge Companion to Feminism and
Postfeminism, p. 298 (London: Routledge; first published 1998, London:
Icon).
[18] Ibid., p. 327.
[19] Brooks, Postfeminisms, p. 4.
[20] The very fact that third wave feminists often define themselves by their date
of birth is an indication of the movements disavowal of academic rigour and
practice. For Baumgardner & Richards, the third wave is women who were
reared in the wake of the womens liberation movement of the seventies,
while for Heywood & Drake it is those feminists born between 1963 and
1974. Jennifer Baumgardner & Amy Richards (2000) Manifesta: young
women, feminism, and the future, p. 15 (New York: Farrar, Straus &
Giroux); Leslie Heywood & Jennifer Drake (1997) Introduction, in Heywood
& Drake, Third Wave Agenda, p. 4.
[21] Rebecca Walker (Ed.) To Be Real: telling the truth and changing the face of
feminism, (New York: Anchor); Natasha Walter (Ed.) On the Move:
feminism for a new generation, (London: Virago); Baumgardner &
Richards, Manifesta; Betty Friedan (1963) The Feminine Mystique (New
York: W.W. Norton); Germaine Greer (1970) The Female Eunuch (London:
Paladin).[
[22] Wolf, Fire with Fire, p. 125.
[23] Baumgardner & Richards, Manifesta, pp. 278-281.
[24] Ibid., p. 280.
[25] A distinction needs to be drawn here between girl culture and the girls
movement. The girls movement, a second wave feminist initiative, is an
attempt to reach across the generational divide so as to inspire and
179
180
[42] Courtney Love (1999) Bad Like Me, in Karp & Stoller, The BUST Guide to
the New Girl Order, p. 313.
[43] Brooks, Postfeminisms, p. 148.
[44] Walter, The New Feminism, p. 98.
[45] For more on the debates surrounding Madonna, see the essays in Carol
Schwichtenberg (Ed.) (1993) The Madonna Connection: representational
politics, subcultural identities, and cultural theory (Boulder: Westview).
[46] Heywood & Drake, Introduction, Third Wave Agenda, p. 17.
[47] Margaret Marshment (1997 2nd edn) Representations of Women in
Contemporary Popular Culture, in Diane Richardson & Victoria Robinson
(Eds) Introducing Womens Studies, p. 147 (Basingstoke: Palgrave).
[48] For more on the pornography debates see Andrea Dworkin (1981)
Pornography: men possessing women (London: Womens Press); Susanne
Kappeler (1986) The Pornography of Representation (Cambridge: Polity
Press); Pamela Church Gibson & Roma Gibson (Eds) (1993) Dirty Looks:
women, pornography, power (London: BFI); and Pamela Church Gibson
(Ed.) (2004) More Dirty Looks: gender, pornography and power (London:
BFI).
[49] Baumgardner & Richards, Manifesta, p. 138.
[50] See Kathy Acker (3 May 1997) All Girls Together, Guardian Weekend,
pp. 12-19.
[51] Marcelle Karp (1999) Herstory: girl on girls, in Karp & Stoller, The BUST
Guide to the New Girl Order, p. 309 (London: Penguin).
[52] Greer, The Whole Woman, p. 407.
[53] Jennifer L. Pozner (1998) Makes Me Wanna Grrrowl, Feminista!, 2(1),
www.feminista.com/v2n1/pozner.html
[54] For more on this see Shelley Budgeon (1998) Ill Tell You What I Really,
Really Want: girl power and self-identity in Britain, in Sherrie A. Inness (Ed.)
Millennium Girls: todays girls around the world, pp. 115-143 (Lanham:
Rowman & Littlefield).
[55] Katherine Viner (1999) The Personal is Still Political, in Natasha Walter
(Ed.) On the Move: feminism for a new generation, p. 22 (London: Virago).
[56] Baumgardner & Richards, Manifesta, p. xix.
[57] Ibid., p. xx.
[58] Viner, The Personal is Still Political, p. 18.
[59] For more on this see Deborah Siegel (1997) The Legacy of the Personal:
generating theory in feminisms third wave, Hypatia: Special Issue on
Third Wave Feminisms, 12(3), pp. 46-74.
[60] Baumgardner & Richards, Manifesta, p. 20.
[61] Ibid., p. 20.
[62] Segal, Why Feminism? p. 204.
[63] Baumgardner & Richards, Manifesta, p. 137.
181
182