What’s Feminist Theory When It’s Not White?
The Silenced Voices of Feminism
By Mina Kohara
When asked to picture a feminist, most would describe a white woman. Indeed, this image may not be an inaccurate reflection of what feminism is today: after all, historically, middle-upper-class college-educated white women have led feminism in America. As bell hooks argues, however, they have often been unaware of their class- and race-based biases and made their experience synonymous with all women in America. Hooks is correct in suggesting that this implies that feminism has a skewed foundation to build upon, an inability to create radical change, and a tendency to silence large groups of women.
Hooks’ (1984) central critique in the opening chapter of Feminist Theory – From Margin to Center, “Black Women: Shaping Feminist Theory,” is that white feminism has overtaken the spotlight of feminism in the United States. Hooks shows this through the ideas expressed in The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan (1963), an influential figure in second-wave American feminism. Friedan paints sexism in America as housewives who want more out of life than just leisure. At this point, in the early 1960s, a third of American women were active members of the workforce. Therefore, Friedan’s portrayal of feminism as a critique of the plight of being a housewife is extremely exclusionary.
One could object that hooks is overly harsh in her criticism and that we must address the sexism privileged white women experience. It is true that one should not ignore the sexism that constricts white women to specific gender roles. However, these ideas are not only addressed but dominate feminist discourse, shifting attention away from more pressing issues such as the economic survival and racial discrimination that other American women face. Therefore, feminism is historically led by the select group of women who possess the most privilege and pretend their experience is reflective of all other women, ignoring the needs and reality of nonwhite women.
The first implication of hooks’ critique of feminism is that it lacks a solid foundation. Hooks states that many white feminists are ignorant of white supremacy as racialized political framework as well as of the impacts of class. This ignorance has led feminists to embrace the ideas that sexism involves an equal misery of all women in any class or race and that gender is the most vital determinant of the mistreatment women face. Yet factors outside of gender, such as race and class, significantly impact women’s oppression. Certain feminists, such as Leah Fritz (1980), would claim that the oppression of welloff white women and of poor women is equal due to the suffering they both experience. However, if oppression is the absence of choice, then claiming that an educated and well-to-do white woman with various career choices and a poor black woman are equally oppressed is not fully accurate. The degrees of oppression that these two women experience are different. One could object that hooks’ emphasis on class and other forms of oppression distracts from the central issue of sexism. Yet even if sexism should remain the primary focus, it is critical to distinguish the difference in the oppression women face. It is necessary to acknowledge how the sexism that white women suffer is of a different degree than that which black women suffer due to race-based oppression. White women still enjoy certain options while many black women are choiceless. Without such acknowledgment, feminism in America has a weak foundation that focuses on gender-based sexism as the leading issue women face, when other factors, such as race and class, also define women's oppression.
In addition, the focus on gender as the sole issue for feminism implies that feminists cannot initiate radical reform. When led by white women, who only experience sexism in the form of social inequality, feminism concentrates on safe, non-revolutionary acts that can be easily adopted in the ruling capitalist patriarchy without any radical shifts in society. One could object that this fails to acknowledge the significant contributions that white feminists have made to the movement. Indeed, social reforms such as suffrage are a critical first step to reaching equality. Still, white feminists are far more likely to stop at social reform and leave in place the dominant values of society because they do not experience their harshest effects. Therefore, hooks correctly asserts that privileged upper-class white women’s leadership of the feminist movement implies that the potential radicalism of feminism is undermined. Instead, only more minor, readily accepted changes can be implemented due to the limited forms of sexism they face.
Hooks’ analysis implies that there is a silent group of women outside the “white feminist sphere” that is unable to participate fully. hooks maintains that many of these women are silenced and ostracized due to the dominance of white upper-class feminists. The current system of feminism, hooks criticizes, is resistant to internal criticism and the introduction of diverse ideas. Black women suffer discrimination and often experience stereotyping or testimonial injustice when their accounts do not fit into white feminism’s narrative that suffers from race-based biases. Thus, black women are unlikely to participate in feminist discourse. This silencing is a disadvantage for feminism because intersectionality is vital for the feminist movement and black women are essential for bringing necessary structural changes to society due to their unique experiences. Due to black women's subjugation to sexism, class-based exploitation, and race-based oppression, they are the ones who can best criticize the dominant sexist, classist, and racist hegemony in American society. Hooks highlights the importance of intersectionality, which is a valuable contribution to feminist theory.
Exposing the Roots of Feminism
By Caiden Cellak
Looking at its outer shell, feminism seems like the perfect solution for doing something about the sexism that runs in America’s veins. Sadly, though, that is only the outer shell. Past the seemingly innocent values and intentions of feminism lie questionable foundations on which feminism was built. In Feminist Theory – From Margin to Center bell hooks critiques feminism for being biased towards upper-middle class white women, and how feminism therefore is not truly about empowering all women.
One of hooks’ main arguments is that feminists had a particular interest in liberating white women from their leisure, middle-upper class lives, ignoring working class, oppressed women. Some may argue against this claim, however, pointing out that it is unethical to put into question those women’s resentful feelings as stay-at-home wives and moms who desire to lead more purposeful lives. However, hooks clarifies that she does not want to invalidate these feelings and desires, but that she tries to shine more light on those women that are dealing with daily oppression, hate, and discrimination:
Specific problems and dilemmas of leisure class white housewives were real concerns that merited consideration and change but they were not the pressing political concerns of masses of women. Masses of women were concerned about economic survival, ethnic and racial discrimination, etc. When [the feminist Betty] Friedan wrote The Feminine Mystique, more than one third of all women were in the work force. (hooks, 1984, 2)
In other words, hooks does not want to take the entire spotlight off the stay-at-home wives, she just wants to shift it so that more attention is given to women that are impoverished and severely suffering. If two people were injured, one with a cut, and one with a bullet wound, you would not give them both the same band aid and claim to be ‘fair.’ All women’s issues are valid, but some need more attention than others, especially when they never got the attention they needed – or, in fact, barely got any at all. Due to their class and race some women were struggling to survive in an oppressive world, yet feminism was focused on getting rich, educated women the freedom from being couped up and bored in their homes all day. Feminism did not help satisfy needs, only wants.
How could this happen? Following hooks, the voice of white women was much louder than that of non-white women. White women were given the spotlight to speak up against sexism, implying that they discovered it, and were doing other women a favor by “revealing” to them the sexism in their current society. It could be argued that just because white women spoke up more about sexism that this does not imply that they claimed exclusive dominance over this problem. It just means that they were more proactive on solving the issue. However, while it may be true that white women were more “involved” in fighting issues of sexism, that was only because they were most comfortable of expressing their voice. Hooks brings home this point with her own story. As a black woman she wanted to get involved in feminism but faced repercussions. She discovered that the roots of racism in feminism run very deep and that white feminists would do anything possible to keep black women in their “place:”
The condescension they directed at black women was one of the means they employed to remind us that the women's movement was “theirs” – that we were able to participate because they allowed it, even encouraged it; after all, we were needed to legitimate the process. (hooks, 1984, 11)
Hooks saw firsthand how white women would use this idea of heroism to justify their racist agenda. They believed black women would gain liberation through the white women’s courageous acts of speaking up, even while the latter never gave the former the opportunity to speak in the first place. This dynamic not only suppressed black women’s ideas, but also quietly reenforced the systematic racism that runs through America’s veins.
The feminist movement may have a shiny exterior, but inside lies extreme bias, and self-serving ideas that are aimed to help only one group of people: wealthy, white women. Over the years feminism has gained a great reputation and name, but the larger the movement has become, the more this truth has begun to spill out. How can the feminist movement begin to promote equality or unity of women when it is deeply rooted in racism? This ingrained bias may call for starting a new movement from scratch, one that gives light to everyone and pays special focus to those that are truly oppressed. Moreover, education on the history of feminism is crucial for better understanding and contributing to this social movement, as well as for estimating the role that systematic racism plays in America’s contemporary history. Knowing the background of feminism may help current or future feminists to create an environment that does not allow for any of these biases. It might also enable feminists to foster a movement that truly encapsulates the unity of strong, driven women, who speak up against sexism no matter their race or class background.
There Is No Such Thing as an Adequate Reference Point
Noè Freiburghaus
Bell hooks criticises the second wave feminist movement of the 1960s and 70s for its racist and capitalist biases. Since I have neither lived in this period nor in the United States, I have no intention of questioning her experience. Nevertheless, from my perspective on present feminist frameworks, more varied theories seem to have emerged, and feminisms now attempt to address a wider audience of women.
In this context, I want to relativize the implications and consequences of hooks’ Feminist Theory – From Center to Margin, written in 1984. She states that white middle-class women are an inadequate reference point by which to gauge the impact of sexist oppression on women’s lives. Hooks posits, however, that black women are such a reference point.
Yet there is never one reference point from which the complex forms of patriarchy can be judged; to aim for and eventually achieve adequacy, there must be multiple such points. To this end, I advocate for a broader definition of oppression. It is not, as hooks (1984, 5) suggests, just the sheer “absence of choices,” a definition which narrows oppression down so that only the most disadvantaged person falls within this category. This leads to stagnation and does not have the enriching effect on the feminists’ struggle as intended. On the contrary, it diminishes the struggle. Racism and classism within feminisms must be eliminated – but not the movement itself.
Of course, the term oppression cannot be applied to all human experience of limitation or suffering regardless of the cause and degree. Rather, I advocate applying the term whenever we are systemically pressured into fewer choices and suffer negative consequences either way, even though we may still be free to choose something. Nota bene, regardless whether we are conscious of that or not. Yes, “people who are truly oppressed know it” (hooks, 1984, 10), at least somehow. But especially if we are not regularly exchanging experiences across separate groups of women, then we may simply not be aware of the social or systemic dimension of our oppression and endure it alone without being able to ascribe a term. Indeed, hooks is correct that insofar as we draw attention to the suffering of one issue, we thereby deflect this limited resource away from the suffering of another. The degree of suffering should be a factor of political priority – not just the number of people disadvantaged by the situation. Although oppression may not be determined or measurable by an isolated indicator, it can certainly be compared. That should not, however, silence everyone with some degree of privilege.
Such an approach would lead to a complete stagnation of social change. There is always someone more oppressed and thereby more deserving to be heard. Should a rich black woman be quiet, if she is not part of the lowest economic class? Or if she is able-bodied? Should a woman who has never been sexually assaulted not be allowed to express how wrong sexism is? Should someone socialized within a minority religion have more say? Or someone without a supportive family background? Should an oppressed black woman, as mentioned by hooks, be shadowed by a queer or trans person? This list of examples could be further expanded and thus lead the argumentation in question ad absurdum. After all, how realistic is it that the most underprivileged, marginalized person has the financial resources, leisure time and social networks to carry the burden of having her voice heard in public discourse?
Furthermore, hooks acknowledges that the choices individual women have are generally inadequate. So, I argue they should all be co-opted and empowered to engage in the process of liberation – for their own definitions of freedom. The concept of feminism must withstand and protect these tensions of the forms it takes, because one of its core concerns is the fight against limiting determinations of the existence of a woman, of the ‘female nature.’ Therefore, we need a strategy which does not ostracize or silence women – even if they are white and of middle-class background. Only the pursuit of intersectionality is a solid foundation for feminism.
Recognizing the limits of your own point of view as well as empowering diversity in contribution is crucial. Hence, we must educate ourselves about the interrelatedness of asymmetrical power relations. Prestige, fame or money – especially when gained through making my feminist point – would also lead to the obligation to bring attention to others’ oppression that does not affect me personally or can be considered privileged by race or class. It is not a patronizing form of letting someone speak that should replace domination by spokespersons, but an appropriate and reciprocal discursive reinforcement of minorities that is needed.
To implement such a convention to deconstruct dominant norms, collective interests must be taken into account. While hooks (1984, 4) states that “it is evident that many women suffer from sexist tyranny, there is little indication that this forges ‘a common bond among all women’” , I argue that differences should not divide us. Social division leads to maintaining or enforcing existing power structures. Intersectional awareness and solidarity, by contrast, lead to questioning of the dominant values and shifting power dynamics.
Therefore, we should expose our blind spots, re-examine our intersectional inclusion, and tolerate the diversity of opinions. We should focus on the common bond we share and mark ourselves as “women,” or even better, as “feminists.” Sisterhood is based on some overlapping values and wishes for change among women. They stem from experiences made in numerous contexts and concern problems faced or encountered when comparing women’s situation to that of men in our androcentric world. We should foster a diverse community of equal allies against those who seek to uphold sexist hegemonies. Then our opponents will be the others, and no longer will they hold the power to reduce feminisms to one single reference point.
Works Cited
Friedan, Betty. 1963. The Feminine Mystique. New York, W.W. Norton.
Fritz, Leah. 1980. Dreamers & Dealers : An Intimate Appraisal of the Women’s Movement. Boston: Beacon.
hooks, bell. 1984. Feminist Theory from Margin to Center. Boston, South End Press.
