Feminist Thought, Organization and Action, 1970-1983
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Wesleyan University The Honors College On the Edge of All Dichotomies: Anarch@-Feminist Thought, Process and Action, 1970-1983. by Lindsay Grace Weber Class of 2009 A thesis submitted to the faculty of Wesleyan University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts with Departmental Honors in History Middletown, Connecticut April, 2009 2 CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE Note on Terminology ................................................................................................. 3 Preface ...................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction................................................................................................................ 9 Contemporary Anarcha-Feminism............................................................................ 11 Anarch@-Feminism and Historiography .................................................................. 22 Historical Background.............................................................................................. 35 CHAPTER 1 – Anarch@-Feminist Thought, 1970-1974 .......................................... 59 CHAPTER 2 – Networking, Communications, Conferences, 1974-1979 .................. 90 CHAPTER 3 – Direct Action and Community, 1978-1983..................................... 124 CHAPTER 4 – Locating Anarch@-Feminism in the Local..................................... 164 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 184 Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 191 3 A Note on Terminology From 1970-1983, the coherent confluence of anarchism and revolutionary feminisms was referred to as ‘anarcho-feminism,’ ‘anarcha-feminism,’ ‘anarcha feminism,’ and ‘anarchist-feminism;’ such fluctuations in name do not signify any difference in meaning, relying mainly on an individual or group preference. The term ‘anarcho-feminism’ was more prevalent during the early and mid 1970s, though the terms remained interchangeable until the early 1980s, when ‘anarcha-feminism’ eclipsed alternative enunciations, remaining the dominant term to this day. In order to encapsulate the fluctuation of the terminology, I created the term ‘anarch@- feminism’ to refer to the corpus of thought, practice and action that were identified by the plethora of aforementioned terms. Where a specific choice of term was established by an individual, author, group or conference, I utilize the specified term contained within single quotations. Wesleyan student Amy Horowitz, for instance, uses ‘anarcha-feminist’ for herself, and the Wesleyan ‘anarcha-feminist’ affinity group in her discussion of how anarch@-feminism (generally) applied to Wesleyan. Additionally, in discussions where there have been multiple terms identified and used, I employ ‘anarch@- feminism’ for clarity and focus; where it is unclear which term is preferred, I also use ‘anarch@-feminism’ to reference all the possible nominal expressions. Contemporary anarcha-feminism consistently maintains the same term; as such, ‘anarcha-feminism’ without quotations will be used in discussing anarcha-feminism from 1990 onward. 4 ‘Revolutionary feminism(s)’ will also be used to refer to the radical, socialist, and anarchist feminisms that emerged in the ‘second wave’ of feminism in the late sixties. Likewise, ‘women’s liberation movement’ is used to express the mobilization and organization of these ‘revolutionary feminisms,’ whereas ‘women’s movement’ denotes the mobilization of feminism as a whole, inclusive of liberal and equality- seeking feminisms. All other specialized terms are explicated in text or citation. 5 Preface Finding History at Home There is nothing more satisfying to a novice feminist historian than discovering personal politics in a project close to home. When I first embarked on researching anarch@-feminist histories, I searched far and wide, traveled from coast to coast, and spent hours upon hours sifting through files in archives, infoshops, and libraries. In the beginning, the anarch@-feminist subjects of my research, and everything they had left behind, seemed distant, detached and obscure. I cast a wide net, gathering hundreds of pages of primary sources, and commenced the long journey of close reading, analysis and interpretation. At some point, however, I could progress no more; swimming in mountains of primary source material I became overwhelmed and lacked inspiration to move forward. Then, the Wesleyan anarch@-feminists entered my project through the side- door. Working on Wesleyan’s radical/progressive Hermes magazine (est. 1975) brought me into contact with a history of anarch@-feminist organizing and activism on the campus I have called my home for the past three years. The October 8, 1980, issue of the magazine, dedicated specifically to exploring anarchism, contained an article written by Wesleyan student Amy Horowitz describing campus ‘anarcha- feminist’ groups and organizing; the article also elucidated her own personal understanding of anarch@-feminist politics and theory. Like many anarch@-feminists in the 1960s and 1970s, Horowitz described the connection between anarchism and feminism as natural and instinctive. She wrote, The feminist movement, like the anarchist vision, is a process and revolution which demands individual freedom. Indeed, given the values and tradition of 6 ‘otherness,’ which characterize women because we have lived in the private sphere of the family, we can be seen as ‘intuitive’ anarchists.1 The notion that women, specifically more radically inclined feminists, were ‘intuitive’ anarchists was an important and common articulation for many anarch@- feminist writers in the United States. Moreover, identifying with anarchist organizing and theory provided early anarch@-feminists with the tools to criticize early feminist practices, while still offering concrete alternatives to hierarchical institutions. Horowitz specifically cited the Clamshell Alliance, an anti-nuclear confederal organization of local affinity groups in New England, in which Wesleyan students and Middletown activists participated. As well, she referenced the organization of anarchists and anarchist- feminists in 1930s revolutionary Spain, who “for sixty years comprised…a cultural and social revolution, [attesting] to the viability of a movement which is truly rooted in the customs and lives of people.”2 Prior to their suppression by Francisco Franco’s fascist forces, Spanish anarchists underwent a holistic transformation wherein men were forced to deal with their personal implication in women’s oppression. Facilitated by the founding of anarchist study groups, they engaged in a collective denunciation of religious heritage and other traditions that evoked self-destructive and oppressive behaviors. The concept of a simultaneous social and cultural revolution was integral to anarch@-feminist articulation and practices that emerged in the 1970s; the process of total transformation—social, political, economic, cultural and personal—was another feature of anarch@-feminism that distinguished it within the U.S. radical milieu. 1 Amy Horowitz, “Anarcha-Feminism,” Hermes, October 8, 1980. 2 Horowitz, “Anarcha-Feminism.” 7 Horowitz emphasized this point, contending, “An anarchist revolution, is a non- violent, personal, freely chosen one; each individual becomes aware and chooses to grow in such a way as to re-define her or his values.”3 Here Horowitz underscores feminist contributions to anarchism, which emphasized personal expression and transformation, nonviolence, and revolution as an ongoing process. Similarly, she pointed to the feminist “life-giving values of nurturance, co-operation and mutual aid” to underline the anarchistic tendencies inherent in feminist engagement in “direct, unmediated relationships and egalitarian processes.”4 To this point, Horowitz cited the local organizing of Wesleyan anarch@-feminists,5 concluding, “Women, then, in the anarchist tradition which is our own, are working where we live.”6 Such a statement speaks to the local emphasis of anarch@-feminist organizing, and to the abiding rhetoric of motherhood, nurturing, and intuition prevalent throughout the development of anarch@-feminist thought and practice. The Hermes ‘Anarchism Issue’ also contained a draft statement of the New England Anarchist Conference (NEAC), written by renowned anarchist, libertarian and social ecologist Murray Bookchin, with an addendum written by Wesleyan anarchists and [email protected] Entitled, “Anarchism: A Solution to Chaos,” the statement further highlighted the importance of local organizing and tradition, contending 3 Horowitz, “Anarcha-Feminism.” 4 Horowitz, “Anarcha-Feminism.” 5 A development I examine in chapter 4. 6 Horowitz, “Anarcha-Feminism.” 7 This addendum was most likely written by Hermes staff members Amy Horowitz (’82) and John Ely (’83), who were the most active contributors to anarchist/anarch@-feminist organizing, and the most prolific Hermes correspondents on anarchist issues. 8 The memory of our New England town meetings compromise the nascent forms for such a decentralized, direct, face-to-face democracy. We seek to revive this memory, to give it new life, to free it of its parochial and patriarchal trappings, and to raise it as a model for our country and our campus in contrast to omnipotent bureaucracies and elite dominated groups