Women’s Studies: Are We “Broad” Enough
Victoria Bromley, Ph.D., is an Assistant justice sociale et féministes, pour maintenir Professor in the Pauline Jewett Institute of les politiques transformatives qui ont toujours Women’s and Gender Studies at Carleton fait partie du projet féministe. University. She teaches and researches in the areas of feminist activism, gendered vio- lence, critical identity studies, feminist theory, human security, and transnational feminist Women’s Studies programs in issues. Canada have long been engaged in a debate over the names by which they should be Aalya Ahmad, Ph.D., is a Contract Instructor known. Since the 1970s, when “Women’s in the Pauline Jewett Institute of Women’s Studies” emerged as an academic discipline, and Gender Studies at Carleton University. its naming has been contested (Messer- She is a well-respected activist and union Davidow 2002; Groag Bell and Schwartz organizer. She teaches and researches in the Rosenhan 1981; Salzman-Webb 1972; Sap- areas of feminist activism, popular culture, ler 1972). In the 1980s, debates arose around and international literature. the use of the term “gender” in Women’s Studies, resulting over time in changes to de- Abstract partmental and program titles. Gender Equal- The authors consider the “naming debate” in ity and Social Justice, for example, replaced Women’s Studies and the implications of the Women’s Studies at Nipissing University current tendency to broaden the scope of (2001); Simon Fraser University renamed its Women’s Studies by including terms such as Women’s Studies Department the Depart- “gender” or “feminist” in the name. To this de- ment of Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s bate, they contribute an analysis of how neo- Studies (2009); and Queen’s University’s has liberal ideology attempts to contain Women’s become the Department of Gender Studies Studies within the policies and discourses of (2009). McGill University’s Centre for Re- the corporatization of universities. This paper search and Teaching on Women has been calls for renewed connections between femin- reconstituted under the Institute for Gender, ist academics and social justice and women’s Sexuality and Feminist Studies (2009). Carle- movements in order to sustain the trans- ton University too has added “gender” to the formative politics that have always been part more than a quarter-century-old Pauline of the feminist project. Jewett Institute (2008). These changes are not confined to departments and programs: Résumé the Canadian Women’s Studies Association Les auteurs prennent en considération le became Women’s and Gender Studies et «débat sur le nom» en études sur les Recherches Féministes in 2012. femmes, ainsi que les implications de la ten- The concern with renaming depart- dance actuelle d’élargir l’envergure des ments and programs arises at a time when études sur les femmes, en incluant des universities are facing tighter budget con- termes tels que « genre » et «féministe» dans straints and looking for ways to make cuts. In le nom. Ils contribuent à ce débat une ana- this context, Women’s Studies programs lyse sur les essais de l’idéologie néolibérale have undergone relentless and escalating de contenir les études sur les femmes au attacks as Canadian universities move to sein des politiques, et des discours sur les “trim the fat” in economically tougher times tentatives de transformer les universités en defined by a politics of neoliberalism and corporations. Cet article appelle au renou- corporatism. Our central concern in this paper vellement des connexions entre les univer- is to link this political and economic context to sitaires féministes et les mouvements de the naming debate, even as we support the
www.msvu.ca/atlantis ■□ 36.1, 2013 33 broadening of Women’s Studies as a field.1 far from narrow and has always included a We are specifically concerned with the de- particular understanding of “gender” as a so- politicization and dehistoricization of the con- cial construction. “Gender” thus functions as cept of gender through an overly broad a modifier, not some stand-alone notion, rendition of gender as a catch-all term. As we broadening understandings and challenging see it, gender is an analytic concept that chal- the power relationships that characterize lenges and disrupts the binaries of gendered- gendered-sexed-raced-classed-aged-abled sexed-raced-classed-aged-abled bodies. De- bodies. Moreover, the politics of these trans- fining gender as a complex social construc- formations inform and are informed by tion opens up a discursive space to examine women’s and social justice movements be- both the normative and transformative prac- yond the academy. The link between aca- tices of power, bringing renewed vigour, deme and women’s movements has thus value, and inclusivity to feminist work. In this been central to many Women’s Studies pro- sense, many scholars in Women’s Studies grams (Messer-Davidow 2002, 87). More- were already “doing gender”; including over, critical questions about the “subject” of “gender” in department or program names study, how to “know,” who speaks, from formally recognizes this work. As such, we which positions of knowledge and authority, aim here to reclaim the broad scope of the and for what purpose, all create strong con- discipline by reframing the naming debate. nections between the discipline and broader Adding gender is necessary to economic and socio-political changes. amend the overwhelming (and not neces- Programs dedicated to the develop- sarily accurate) perception that Women’s ment of such critical thinking are experiencing Studies programs are overly narrow in scope an unprecedented assault from the main- and that Women’s Studies is solely about stream media, occurring via a variety of both women. But we caution here that Gender “traditional” and new media technologies. Studies, as a replacement for a “not-broad- This assault further legitimizes anti-feminist enough” Women’s Studies, may undermine academic enterprises. For instance, Susan women’s political power and women’s move- Cole (2010) observes that January 2010 was ments, subsume feminist scholarship, erase a bleak month for Women’s Studies, women’s women, obscure women’s heterogeneous movements, and feminism in Canada. In this histories, and bolster the neoliberal agenda in month, the National Post, the Toronto Star, constructing a “marketable” degree. In this and CBC Radio’s The Current all participated sense, Gender Studies becomes a less in the attack, featuring anti-feminists as ob- threatening, more “disciplined” discipline, jective evaluators of the state of Women’s which then replaces the “undisciplined” disci- Studies scholarship, without bothering to con- pline of Women’s Studies. sult any Women’s Studies scholars. In this The idea that Women’s Studies is a broader political context, “What’s in a name?” narrow field unworthy of disciplinary status becomes more clearly linked to the very has plagued the work of feminists who existence of Women’s Studies programs and struggled to establish it as the academic arm the literal, figurative, and symbolic contain- of the women’s movement in the 1970s ment of feminisms. So, then, why add gender (Robbins et al. 2008, Messer-Davidow 2002). to the mix and why now? According to Guy-Sheftall and Heath (1995), Emerging out of second-wave femin- the objectives of Women’s Studies can be ism, the establishment of Women’s Studies generally described as deconstructing patri- programs in universities was widely acknow- archy, reconstructing knowledge to include ledged as one of the major triumphs of feminist theories, and engaging in social women’s movements, linked to the broader change that empowers marginalized people struggle for women’s equality (Rupp 2006, (17). Patriarchy here must also be under- 59). Women’s movements helped feminist stood as inextricably entwined with capital- academics to uncover “patriarchal biases in ism, white supremacy, heterosexism, and im- scholarship, to create new concepts and ap- perialism. This ambitious project is obviously proaches, and to suggest alternative ways
34 www.msvu.ca/atlantis ■□ 36.1, 2013 forward for change” (Christiansen-Ruffman oppression that constitute the very premises 2008, 114). Women’s Studies, therefore, has of intersectionality (May 2012; Guy-Sheftall involved a politics of naming women, listening and Heath 1995). Women’s Studies also both to women, and hearing women’s voices. revealed and commemorated the struggles, However, this politics also included and successes, and challenges of feminism, rath- continues to include counter-hegemonic chal- er than allowing feminist achievements, such lenges by women of colour, feminists from as access to reproductive choice, to be the Global South, indigenous women, disabil- complacently accepted as already existing, ity, queer, and trans activists, and scholars “natural” realities. In so doing, a very real link and students who have strongly critiqued the was—and is—maintained between social jus- erasures of difference, the exclusions and the tice movements and feminist scholarship. complicity with imperialism, the ableism and Women’s Studies scholarship, with its fem- heteronormativity that underlie simplistic or inist focus on intersectionality, not only ex- monolithic denunciations of patriarchy. It has poses the underlying realities of systemic been well documented that such voices were discrimination, but works to transform those largely absent in university curricula, regard- realities. less of the discipline, prior to the push to es- When Women’s Studies emerged in tablish Women’s Studies programs (Robbins academia in the 1970s, feminist theory and et al. 2008; Messer-Davidow 2002; Groag praxis became firmly rooted in women’s lived Bell and Schwartz Rosenhan 1981; Salzman- experiences and material conditions. Along Webb 1972; Sapler 1972). Another goal of with the linking of the personal and the politic- this transformative politics was to establish a al, gender was adapted as a useful concept feminist community that opened up possibil- to explore the nature/nurture debate whereby ities for collectivity, collegiality, and collabora- sex came to be understood as biological and tion. In contrast to the myth of the lone (priv- gender was used to explain the social. In the ileged male) scholar, Women’s Studies culti- 1980s, “gender” and “sex” became increas- vated the potential for more feminist activism ingly interchangeable, so that the established within the academy and the possibility for division between the two began to blur, activism through and with social justice move- particularly in American scholarship, as ments. Feminist scholarship within Women’s Christiansen-Ruffman (2008) points out. For Studies, therefore, has both defined and Christiansen-Ruffman, the concept of sex produced empowered subjects and networks roles is preferable in that it retains a sense of of/for feminists. These empowered voices the real world where sex roles are embodied represented a significant change from the iso- and enacted. For feminists and the discipline lation often experienced by feminist aca- of Women’s Studies, then, the “task was demics confined within traditional disciplinary recognizing, naming and creating concep- boundaries. tually autonomous spaces for diverse women By assembling feminist academics at …to act for effective change” (Christiansen- the centre of a critical and self-conscious Ruffman 2008, 120). Hence, the “concept of discipline, Women’s Studies created a space sex roles was being used by women academ- to hone intersectional analyses and interdisci- ics as a bridge to the women’s movement” plinary work. Intersectionality, now a core (Christiansen-Ruffman 2008, 118) rather than analytical framework in Women’s Studies, is elaborating an abstract theoretical under- too often understood only in contemporary standing of gender that might not register in terms as a recently accepted/acceptable feminism as an everyday practice. During the practice. As Wendy Kolmar (2012) points out, 1980s and 1990s, Canadian Women’s Stud- this “presentism” or intersectionality’s “al- ies research by, for, about, and with women ready” status tends to obscure the historical continued to use “gender” interchangeably practices and struggles of black, Latina, and with “women,” but this interchangeability de- indigenous women’s activism and writings, noted the feminist politics of transformation of and their theorizing about the interdepend- the real world; gender had yet to enter into ence, interconnections, and multiple sites of the naming debate for academic programs.
www.msvu.ca/atlantis ■□ 36.1, 2013 35 Another concept of gender also international development discourse targeting emerged outside Women’s Studies in the the Global South, but also on the policy 1980s meaning both more and less than agendas in the Global North, creating a whole women and the social characteristics of their new career path for “gender professionals.” sexed bodies (i.e., sexuality, paid and unpaid Rather than a visionary feminist politics of labour, reproduction). As a response to fem- transformation, however, gender mainstream- inist challenges and as a token of inclusivity, ing runs the risk of diffusing the revolutionary governments, in Canada and elsewhere, power of feminism through a politics of tinker- adopted “gender” as a category in surveys, in ing with the status quo. Equality in the context data collection, and on official forms. Thus, of gender mainstreaming is based on the idea the concept of gender as it has developed that the presence of a gender component in outside Women’s Studies and feminist policy constitutes a “magic” pill that will bring scholarship has been strategically deployed about equality, reinforcing the idea that to placate and appease authorities and women want to be the same as men and that decision-makers, becoming depoliticized and women and men are undifferentiated or dehistoricized in the process. constitute the only categories of analysis. What did this mean for Women’s These notions stand in stark contrast to Studies? The subversive feminist intent in equity policy initiatives that seek to redress using “gender” as a political and analytic tool historical and systemic power imbalances can fall into Kolmar’s “presentist” trap and (Jhappan 2002). Under gender mainstream- can therefore be too easily erased in the shift ing, women remain in the policy picture as from “woman” to “gender” in, for example, objects of equality, but not as knowing sub- public policy and international development. jects actively seeking equity. Gender, there- For instance, in international development fore, as a substitute for “women” tends to ob- discourse, a transition occurred from WID to scure complicated issues of power, identity, WAD to GAD—Women in Development to and knowledge. Women and Development to Gender and The appropriation of feminist concern Development. These policies, while well- for women in the Global South by global intentioned, created the faulty perception that financial capital, repackaged as a desire to women were at the centre of issues in de- rescue “those poor women over there,” allows velopment (Sen 1987; Moghadam 1990), gender mainstreaming to invade domestic without concomitant transformation of the policy agendas and can lead to accusations existing international financial structures and that women are themselves complicit in pa- organizations. Gender, in this context, be- ternalistic and exclusionary practices. For comes a gesture intended to signify progress example, the neoliberal Harper Conservative from the past practices of “adding women and government proclaimed women equal in stirring.” Such tokenism, we contend, depolit- 2006, slashing funding to Status of Women icizes women’s lived experiences of poverty, Canada, while simultaneously waging war limited access to health care, and suffering against Afghanistan, and invoking feminist under the export-oriented production policies concerns by using the status of women “over and structural adjustment programs forward- there” as justification for war. One of the ed by the International Monetary Fund and excuses given for cutting funding to Status of World Bank. As the current status of women Women Canada by then Minister Bev Oda globally illustrates, urgent transformations are was that gender ought to be integrated into needed. every government department. This example Following the “lost decade” of inter- shows that the effectiveness of gender main- national development in the 1980s, renewed streaming depends on who defines the term. interest in funding for development ensued Gender mainstreaming thus can be used to and, with it, a new focus on gender main- create and foster the myth that everybody is streaming. Gender mainstreaming—the inclu- “doing it” and everybody cares about sion of gender analysis in every public policy women’s equality. Feminists should therefore decision—became the catchword not only in be pacified by the inclusion of gender and, in
36 www.msvu.ca/atlantis ■□ 36.1, 2013 the words of Conservative Senator Nancy line,” in turn, affects research, curriculum de- Ruth, “Shut the fuck up” (Roman 2010). velopment, and academic direction. The busi- These examples show us how gender can be ness model that increasingly governs our used to divide, dehistoricize, and depoliticize education systems demands particular tan- women’s struggles. gible and measurable results that do not The problems with gender main- necessarily align with the demonstrable bene- streaming we have just discussed can be fits of a feminist politics of social trans- compared to the ongoing debate over wheth- formation. The feminist politics of Women’s er feminist scholarship should be an autono- Studies within the academy, and its his- mous discipline in the academy or whether it torically transformative agenda and connec- is best integrated as a specialization within tion to women’s movements, is therefore in male-dominated disciplines such as History, jeopardy. Literature, or Political Science. Jill Vickers’ Indeed, Women’s Studies programs argument for Women’s Studies as an autono- are among the leanest and smallest of univer- mous discipline cites the frequent marginaliz- sity units, taking up little space and consum- ation of feminist scholarship within the afore- ing only a few per cent of most university mentioned disciplines (2008). Concern about budgets. It seems that this has always been the marginalization of Women’s Studies as a the case. As contributors to an anthology on stand-alone discipline must be weighed the emergence of Women’s Studies in Can- against the replacement of Women’s Studies ada note, much of the initial labour in de- with “women and…[insert discipline/issue/ veloping programs and teaching courses was subject]” that commonly occurs in the main- voluntary (Robbins et al. 2008). It is absurd streaming process. Since feminist scholarship that universities would focus on these pro- does not necessarily equal women, the grams as places to cut; yet, this is exactly formulation “women and…” is not necessarily what is happening. In the wake of the Univer- feminist and risks depoliticization. At the sity of Guelph axing its Women’s Studies same time, the existence of a “women and…” program in 2008, most Women’s/Gender/ component serves to weaken the case for an Sexuality/Feminist programs in Canada are autonomous Women’s Studies, diverting feeling an increased level of vulnerability. feminist scholarship away from the work of Across the US and the UK, feminist scholars systemic and collective change. This is done have noted the ambiguous position of not only in the very real sense that funding Women’s Studies in the academy, being both and resources are allocated elsewhere, but on the “cutting edge” of subversive theory also in the media attacks cited above on and praxis and on the “cutting edge” of uni- Women’s Studies as hopelessly passé. versity budgets (Davey and Schippers 2002). Following the logic of neoliberalism, which is The realities of chronic underfunding of fem- engaged in restructuring publicly funded uni- inist research and the under-resourcing of versities into corporate enterprises, women Women’s Studies programs in Canada are no longer require the discipline of Women’s evident (Campbell and Patterson 2007). The Studies. The integration of “women and…” re- ongoing controversies over the absence of inforces the power of disciplines to discipline women in the awarding of Canada Research unruly feminists, which complies with the neo- Chairs again raises the issue of the marginal- liberal agenda of corporate universities. ization of feminist scholarship (Side and Like many of our sister programs in Robbins 2007).2 Women’s Studies is not the the United States (Slagter and Forbes 2009), only discipline to face such attacks. Human- Women’s Studies programs in Canada are ities programs—notably Comparative Litera- under intense scrutiny. Our value, contribu- ture—have faced similar pressures. These tion, and productivity are increasingly meas- liberal arts programs share with Women’s ured by enrolments, the popularity of our Studies a commitment to critical, counter- classes, and the number of majors and hegemonic thought and education.3 minors we can claim. This micromanagement In Canada, the corporatization of the that is solely in the interests of “the bottom university began in the 1980s with the transi-
www.msvu.ca/atlantis ■□ 36.1, 2013 37 tion from public funding for higher education can result in narrowing the scope of know- toward “shifting university resources to meet ledge production even as it implies that commercial ends and moving government Women’s Studies programs are risky places funding to matched-funding targeted at spe- in which to invest. cific research programs” (Reimer 2004, 119). The Corporate U curriculum empha- This corporate restructuring of universities is sizes “marketable skills” rather than critical defined by Chandra Mohanty (2003) as the thinking, using business-speak such as “the combination of “a market ideology with a set new economy,” “accountability,” “innovation,” of material practices drawn from the world of “efficiency,” “benchmarking,” “standardized business” (171). Many universities have fol- measures,” “performance indicators,” and lowed this market-driven agenda by restruc- “deliverables.” For consumer-students, “Cor- turing their faculties, cutting programs, and porate U” is all about the marketability of courting private-sector partnerships. Re- course materials, the factory model of educa- search shows the incursion of market-driven tion where knowledge is transferred from discourses into the voices of students enter- provider to client, and the question of “what to ing Women’s Studies and other Humanities do with” (how to profit financially from) their and Social Sciences programs, who express degrees. For service-provider-professors, concern about the lack of legitimacy and “Corporate U” is all about producing workers value of their degrees (Hughes 2005; Webber who will do more for less, resulting in fewer 2005). The consequences for higher educa- tenured faculty positions. While public educa- tion are grim. Professors become mere serv- tion has ostensibly always existed to create a ice providers and revenue producers. Stu- malleable working class with greater know- dents are constructed as consumers who are ledge and skills (Salzman-Webb 1972, 70), no longer expected to value knowledge for this process has intensified under the knowledge’s sake, but rather seek only know- “Corporate U” model. Project funding and ledge that can be applied to their individual research agendas are directly tied to con- employment possibilities in the “new” econ- sumption, markets, and perceived values. omy.4 Neoliberalism conditions both students and Indeed, one of the most important professors to accept this environment and to events in many Humanities and Social Sci- regard it as natural and normal. ences departments is the annual “What to do Jennie Hornosty (2004) warns that, with a ____ degree?” panels, workshops, and “the primary danger of corporatization is the job fairs. Under the strictures of neoliberal- subtle intrusion of a corporate ideology, which ism, many of us now work closely with career works to redefine the university’s prior- services programs to make visible the many ities” (48), where “disciplines that further cor- post-graduation possibilities for Women’s porate interests…are granted more faculty Studies students. While many students positions and given larger amounts of the remain committed to transformative politics, university’s operating budget” (52). No longer they are constantly bombarded by propa- is the production and dissemination of know- ganda and assumptions about marketability ledge open to exploring unknown possi- that are rooted in neoliberal ideologies. While bilities. When research and knowledge are the tired old slurs about man-hating feminists reconfigured as marketable commodities, the are ridiculous, they continue to resonate question becomes: What corporate/ market among students, reflecting the deep fear of value does the discipline of Women’s Studies the transformative politics that feminism of- possess? According to Hornosty, “students fers (Webber 2005). Indeed, the fraught, who are concerned only with getting practical, contested aspects of women’s movements skill-related courses to enhance their job are often deleted from Women’s Studies opportunities will have little or no interest in curricula (Kolmar 2012); this enhances the Women’s Studies or feminist scholarship” contemporary marketability of programs, but (51). “What to do with a Women’s Studies erases valuable histories and struggles in the degree?” becomes “How can you ‘market’ process. The obsession with marketability your Women’s Studies degree?” Obviously,
38 www.msvu.ca/atlantis ■□ 36.1, 2013 the answer will not be “Transform the sys- ulty will garner research funding from private/ tem!” corporate sources opposed to transformative We have argued elsewhere that feminism, feminist scholars are forced to neoliberalism constructs a marketable type of consider revising their research agendas to professional feminism that is reformist rather placate institutional agendas. The neoliberal- than revolutionary (Bromley and Ahmad ism of “Corporate U” therefore polices, con- 2006). Professional feminists can be critical, trols, and contains feminist scholars and their but not too critical so as to not jeopardize knowledge production.5 Thus, Women’s Stud- their privileged, precarious positions within ies scholarship gets set up to fail. It is too hegemonic power structures. Limited in num- radical for the conservatives, too threatening ber, starved for funding, and huddled defen- for the neoliberals, and not allowed to be sively in think tanks, NGOs, and other institu- radical or inspiring enough to ensure real so- tions, professional feminists are forced to cial change. constantly justify their existence and render Gender, as we have seen, can be their arguments palatable to neoliberal forces. used as a way to talk about feminism that is As we further argued, their lack of support not overly threatening and does not antagon- among the broader populace is exacerbated ize decision makers in the sense that the by the inaccessibility of the knowledge they word can be adopted as a replacement term produce. They are susceptible to the popular for women, once emptied of historical and myth that further change is unnecessary or, political context. When such a dehistoricized worse, that (some) women’s movements and depoliticized concept of “gender” is pre- have gone too far. The broader political ferred over “woman,” thereby claiming territory of women’s activism is then taken “objectivity and neutrality,” gender becomes over by anti-feminists, post-feminists, and both ambiguous and insidious, meaning “backlash” agents who distort and silence everything and nothing. It is thus used feminist voices. against women in political ways, as Christian- In “Corporate U,” the professionaliza- sen-Ruffman (2008) points out. It undermines tion of feminism, even as a strategic re- women-centred political work, makes the sponse, forces a break between activism and power imbalances between men and women many academic feminists. “It is no longer invisible, and normalizes “patricentrism, the possible to assume a direct relationship be- culture and stand-point of men” (124). A tween academic women’s studies and grass- feminist analysis, on the other hand, encom- roots feminist activism or to assume agree- passes a subversive concept of gender that ment on what kinds of activism are best envisions the need to engage in trans- suited to feminist pursuits” (Campbell and formational politics. Patterson 2007, 129). Indeed, the historic and While the analysis of gender has long constant struggle to retain a foothold as a been integral to feminist scholarship, placing feminist activist in the academy continues, gender front-and-centre should not put while faculty workload, combined with lack of Women’s Studies in the back seat. The move institutional support for the work of directing to eliminate the term “women” altogether from and administrating programs, already places program titles, course codes, descriptions, an enormous strain upon feminist academics. and academic discourse fails to recognize the Moreover, for those of us who do engage in feminist politics of placing women at the activism, participating in women’s movements centre. As Christiansen-Ruffman (2008) asks, or community development is not rewarded how could anyone “become inspired by a and may even be punished. There is no rec- ‘gender movement?’” (123). If we abandon ognition for such work in most tenure formu- the women in Women’s Studies, we are left las or criteria for promotion where “what is with a non-threatening “disciplined and com- needed for promotion is an academic record modified” discipline. To the question of what uninterrupted by activism or creative program to do with a Women’s Studies degree, the development” (Campbell and Patterson 2007, answer becomes take a Gender Studies 127). Coupled with the expectation that fac- degree, where the corporate you can find
www.msvu.ca/atlantis ■□ 36.1, 2013 39 employment drafting gender mainstreaming The danger of uncritically adopting policy in a think tank. Gender Studies as “the new Women’s In considering the name changes of Studies” is the risk of depoliticization within Canadian programs, it might be argued that “Corporate U.” This would entail the abandon- replacing “women” with “gender” could both ment of the transformative politics that has broaden and balance Women’s Studies. This historically wed Women’s Studies to social implies that Women’s Studies has a narrow movements. Some scholars contend that focus, whereas Gender Studies is seen as Gender Studies merely builds on existing re- more inclusive, bringing men and mascu- search and theory. But assertions that “gen- linities under the rubric of feminist scholar- der studies, more so than women’s studies, ship. As we defined the concept earlier, “gen- has focused on the way the organization and der” functions best as a modifier, challenging structure of society itself and its cultural and the power relationships that characterize knowledge productions are gendered” (Davis gendered-sexed-raced-classed-aged-abled et al. 2006, 2) are not only false, but erase bodies. Masculinities scholars such as Jeff centuries of women’s struggle and theorizing. Hearn and Michael Kimmel (2006) agree with As such, Gender Studies depoliticizes and this concept of gender, insisting “Women’s dehistoricizes feminist work. The attempt to Studies made both women and gender vis- stake out a new, broader area of study is ible” (54). For these scholars, the gendering understandable in the context of “Corporate of men intersects with “racial, ethnic, class, U.” However, such projects should not be occupational, national, global, and other so- undertaken at the expense of Women’s cially constructed and defined statuses” Studies. Indeed, Gender Studies as defined (Hearn and Kimmel 2006, 58). Subversive above is well-trodden territory for Women’s concepts of gender can therefore indeed be Studies scholars. Critical analysis of the rela- transformative, and the institutionalization of tions of power, masculinity, patriarchy, sex- Gender Studies may be a positive develop- uality, and gender remain central to feminist ment in that gender can be more inclusive of Women’s Studies frameworks. feminist men who bring new insights to femin- In the debate over gender in ist scholarship. When paired with Women’s Women’s Studies, Gender or Women’s Studies, Gender Studies concretizes existing Studies, or Women’s and Gender Studies, we intersectional and interdisciplinary analyses. side with the third option. By coupling the two, It calls for more—more on masculinity, more the politics of transformation becomes visible. on sexuality, and more on transgenders, to After (re)naming the discipline, however, the name but a few possibilities. As such, Gender problem becomes one of ensuring that Studies can stand in solidarity with, not in Women’s and Gender Studies retains its competition with, Women’s Studies. And thus, activist focus under neoliberal academic re- we call for a politics of sharing rather than structuring. How can feminist theory and displacing, thereby retaining the historical- praxis be embedded in our practicums? As political context of the field by retaining Ann Braithwaite (2004) suggests, the disci- “women” in program names, rather than sim- pline must remain “open-ended, complicated, ply assuming that gender can be uncoupled situated, and always changing” (136). from the feminist scholarship that has defined In conclusion, we suggest that practi- Women’s Studies. Gender Studies as a tioners in Women’s and Gender Studies must stand-alone concept should not be uncritically reclaim responsibility for broadening their out- allowed to mask and trivialize ongoing sys- reach to women’s movements and social jus- temic discrimination against women. What is tice groups. This cannot be accomplished needed to keep Women’s Studies relevant is from behind “Corporate U”’s desks or class- acknowledgement of and support for the rooms. We must both embody and share our broad scope that has historically character- knowledge. As such, the debate over naming ized the discipline, with its ongoing links to the discipline should never overshadow the activism. importance of what we do. Such a debate reminds us, however, that it is always about
40 www.msvu.ca/atlantis ■□ 36.1, 2013 power—Who has it? Who wants it? Who where students are mocked for taking “easy” doesn’t have it? And what will you do with it if Women’s Studies courses and where self- you get it? By maintaining a focus on inter- censorship is routinely practised. disciplinary projects, critical self-reflection, and feminist praxis, Women’s and Gender References Studies still retains possibilities for transform- Apple, M. “Education, Markets, and Audit ative action. It also encourages broader par- Culture,” Critical Quarterly. 47.1/2 (2005): 11– ticipation in feminist work. In being clear 29. about what is good about Gender Studies, we are better prepared to fight neoliberal ideol- Braithwaite, A. “‘Where We’ve Been’ and ogies that dominate academia today. ‘Where We’re Going’: Reflecting on Reflec- tions of Women’s Studies and ‘The Women’s Endnotes Movement,’” Troubling Women’s Studies: 1. We would like to thank the reviewers and Pasts, Presents and Possibilities, A. Braith- editors for their insightful comments. waite, S. Heald, and S. Luhmann, eds. To- ronto: Sumach Press. 2004. pp. 91–146. 2. As noted by Slagter and Forbes (2009), in the United States, the less tangible contribu- Bromley, V. and A. Ahmad. “Wa(i)ving Soli- tions that Women’s Studies scholars make to darity: Feminist Activists Confronting Back- the creation of a feminist academic collective, lash,” Canadian Woman Studies. 25.3/4 to the intellectual climate and function of the (2006): 61–72. university, and to our students’ lives tend to go unacknowledged and unrewarded. Campbell, L. and N. Patterson. “‘FOR IM- PROPER OBJECTS’: Thinking about the 3. As Michael Apple (2005) notes in his an- Past, Present, and Future of Women’s Stud- alysis of neoliberal education reforms in the ies,” BC Studies. 154 (2007): 121–130. UK and the US, democracy is threatened by the shift from the production of collective Canadian Association of University Teachers. knowledge to a consumer-driven production “Windsor: Private for-Profit Plan Withdrawn,” of individualized and marketable knowledge CAUT Bulletin. 4 (2010). for clients. Christiansen-Ruffman, L. “Women, Know- 4. In this climate, it is not surprising that the ledge and Change: Gender Is Not Enough,” management of the University of Windsor at- Resources for Feminist Research. 32.1/2 tempted to establish a private partnership for (2008): 114–138. program delivery. The Study Group multi- national corporation proposed (unsuccessful- Cole, S. “Women’s Studies Under Attack,” ly) to challenge public funding as the core of Herizons. 23.4 (2010): 15. higher education in Canada by setting up a private, for-profit education college on the Davey, C. and B. Schippers. “Women’s University of Windsor campus (CAUT 2010). Studies: The Cut(ting) edge of Contemporary Other Canadian universities are consider- Critical Theory and Practice?” International ing partnerships with another corporation, Feminist Journal of Politics. 4.2 (2002): 278– Navitas, to contract out teaching language 283. courses, university preparation courses, and other academic work. Labour issues arise Davis, K., M. Evans and J. Lorber. “Introduc- related to women’s relegation to lower-paid tion,” Handbook of Gender and Women’s and precarious contract work. Studies. London: Sage Publications, 2006, pp. 1–10. 5. This knowledge is routinely trivialized, de- valued, and dismissed. Campbell and Patter- Groag Bell, S. and M. Schwartz Rosenhan. son (2007) write about a hostile environment “A Problem in Naming: Women Studies-
www.msvu.ca/atlantis ■□ 36.1, 2013 41 Women’s Studies?” Signs. 6.3 (1981): 540– Reimer, M. “Will Women’s Studies Programs 542. Survive the Corporate University?” Inside Corporate U: Women in the Academy Speak Guy-Sheftall, B. and S. Heath. Women’s Out, M. Reimer, ed. Toronto: Sumach Press, Studies: A Retrospective. New York: Ford 2004, pp. 118–137. Foundation, 1995. Robbins, W., M. Luxton, M. Eichler, and F. Hearn, J. and M. Kimmel. “Changing Studies Descarries, eds. Minds of Our Own: Inventing on Men and Masculinity,” Handbook of Gen- Feminist Scholarship and Women’s Studies der and Women’s Studies, K. Davis, M. in Canada and Quebec, 1966–76. Waterloo, Evans, and J. Lorber, eds. London: Sage ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2008. Publications, 2006, pp. 53–70. Roman, K. “Tory Senator to Women’s Hornosty, J. “Corporate Challenges to Aca- Groups.” Retrieved May 15, 2010, from
May, V. M. “Intersectionality,” Rethinking Side, K. and W. Robbins. “Institutionalizing Women’s and Gender Studies, C. Orr, A. Inequalities in Canadian Universities: The Braithwaite, and D. Lichtenstein, eds. New Canada Research Chairs Program,” NWSA York: Routledge, 2012, pp. 155–172. Journal. 19. 3 (2007): 163–181.
Messer-Davidow, E. Disciplining Feminism. Slagter, J. and K. Forbes. “With/In the Acad- London: Duke University Press, 2002. emy: Sexual Harassment Policy, Bureaucratic Audit Culture, and Women’s Studies,” NWSA Moghadam, V. Gender, Development, and Journal. 21.2 (2009): 144–170. Policy: Toward Equity and Empowerment. WIDER: World Institute for Development Eco- Tremonti, A. CBC Radio One. The Current. nomics Research of the United Nations Uni-
Mohanty, C. Feminism Without Borders: De- Vickers, J. “Surviving Political Science…and colonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity. Lon- Loving It,” Minds of Our Own: Inventing don: Duke University Press, 2003. Feminist Scholarship and Women’s Studies
42 www.msvu.ca/atlantis ■□ 36.1, 2013 in Canada and Quebec, 1966–76, W. Rob- Webber, M. “‘Don’t Be So Feminist’: Ex- bins, M. Luxton, M. Eichler, and F. Des- ploring Student Resistance to Feminist Ap- carries, eds. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier proaches in a Canadian University,” Women’s University Press, 2008, pp. 217–225. Studies International Forum. 28.2/3 (2005): 181–196.
www.msvu.ca/atlantis ■□ 36.1, 2013 43