Anne M. Valk. Radical Sisters: Second-Wave Feminism and Black Liberation in Washington, D.C

Anne M. Valk. Radical Sisters: Second-Wave Feminism and Black Liberation in Washington, D.C.. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2008. xiv + 253 pp.p Plates $40.00, cloth, ISBN 978-0-252-03298-1. Reviewed by Anne Enke Published on H-Urban (September, 2008) Commissioned by Sharon L. Irish (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) Was the so-called second wave of feminism and disunity, historian Anne M. Valk shows that one movement or many? Did it borrow from oth‐ diversity, dissent, and unity all comprised the er concurrent movements, or was it integrally re‐ movement. The book details the ways that the his‐ lated to them? Was it a white women’s movement, torical roots and evolution of feminist activism, or were the concerns and activism of poor people even just within one urban area, owed everything and women of color at the heart of the move‐ to continuous adaptation, redefinition, overlap, ment? Did feminism’s mission grow ever more and cross-fertilization with movements for racial broad or did it dissolve into ineffective factions? liberation and economic justice, as well as gender Political parties, organizations, and also academic equality. In so doing, Valk convincingly argues studies of social movements commonly assume that second-wave feminism both grew out of and that a movement’s success is related to the move‐ also dramatically influenced other contemporane‐ ment’s apparent internal unity or disunity and to ous movements. This is a refreshing and timely the quality of its relations to other contemporane‐ perspective on social movement dynamics as well ous movements. Studies of 1960s and 1970s social as a vital contribution to the historiography of movements across many disciplines often portray feminism in the United States. a movement starting from a common cause and Radical Sisters focuses on diverse but related then devolving as differences of strategy, focus, grassroots movements as they emerged in Wash‐ and purpose emerge through internal conflict, a ington DC during the 1960s and 1970s. While pro‐ watering-down of radical origins, and uneasy, if viding insights into feminism and social move‐ not also separatist, relations with other move‐ ments for the country as a whole, DC plays a sig‐ ments. Engaging these conundrums, Radical Sis‐ nificant role in Valk’s analysis. From the con‐ ters turns the lens to great effect: instead of mea‐ straining as well as inspiring aspects of being the suring the strength of feminism on relative unity H-Net Reviews country’s political capital, to the predominance of fectively working together across differences of African American residents, Washington offered race and class; in DC, this was thoroughly exem‐ its activists a distinct mix of local and national plified by the movement for reproductive rights. perspectives, and of grassroots, legislative, and Valk then moves specifically to women within policy-oriented strategies. Within this city, cam‐ Black Power movements, such as the Black Pan‐ paigns for black liberation and economic equality ther Party and other African American organiza‐ converged as well as diverged with demands to tions, showing the ways that women organized to end gender oppression. While DC offered activists advance gender equality not only within such or‐ several different channels for addressing such ganizations but also as part and parcel of ending concerns, Valk devotes the book to “radicals” or racist oppression. This is followed by a close look women who sought to use grassroots methods to at the lesbian separatist collective, the Furies, a transform rather than reform society. Given the small group that gained its notoriety by virtue of porous definition of movements in DC, Valk exam‐ being divisive and alienating while also contribut‐ ines a feminism comprised of “both women who ing useful critique of homophobia within feminist explicitly defined themselves as feminists and ac‐ organizations and in society at large. Finally, Valk tivists for whom the elimination of sexual or gen‐ brings the book’s trajectory to a close around the der oppression did not constitute a primary goal, movement against sexual violence that emerged but who fought to elevate women’s status in their in the early 1970s. As a movement involved in own communities and in the larger society building clear services as well as lobbying and through movements for economic justice and public education, the anti-sexual violence move‐ black liberation” (p. 5). ment brought together frameworks seen in the Radical Sisters begins by showing how poor welfare rights, women’s liberation, black libera‐ and black people mobilized around direct action tion, and lesbian separatist movements, effective‐ civil rights and antipoverty movements, in part ly broadening and transforming feminism as a spurred on by such organizations as the Congress perspective, an approach, and a mass movement. on Racial Equality, the Student Nonviolent Coordi‐ Ultimately, then, the book shows that feminism nating Committee, and the federally funded War was comprised of multiple campaigns, even multi‐ on Poverty. Some of the women involved in that ple movements; in its conception as well as its activism then effectively constituted a welfare practice, it was always multifaceted and diverse, rights movement, joined by public assistance re‐ alternately narrowly focused and enormously cipients who campaigned to shape welfare poli‐ wide reaching. cies, the nature and extent of the state’s involve‐ Valk offers a useful example of historical ment in reproduction, the meanings of mother‐ methodology that combines oral history inter‐ hood, and the economic status of women. Picking views (largely conducted by the author) with up on these efforts, radical feminism, represented meticulously researched archival sources. The in part by the DC Women’s Liberation Movement framework of the book emphasizes organizations (WLM), took shape around the belief that patriar‐ (albeit grassroots and radical organizations), chal conditions were common to and therefore which is not surprising since documents are gen‐ united women as a sex. In so doing, WLM invigo‐ erally archived according to organizations. But rated debate around the significance of race and this is no simple organization-based narrative, class within social justice movements. When in‐ thanks in large part to the indispensable oral his‐ volved in specific campaigns, however, these ten‐ tories that lend themselves to Valk’s sense of nu‐ uously related organizations were capable of ef‐ ance and fuidity among activist groupings. If the 2 H-Net Reviews recent proliferation of online archives has led and Separatism,” the only chapter to directly ad‐ young historians of twentieth-century social dress feminist lesbian activism, is largely devoted movements to doubt the necessity of conducting to the Furies.) We learn that the Furies consisted oral histories, Valk’s work should reaffirm and in‐ of twelve white women (all under thirty years spire the continued use of oral history methods. old), and that this small separatist collective lasted less than two years. Although the Furies intended Through the combination of the emphasis on to provide “intellectual leadership” to the wom‐ organizations and the sensitive reliance on ac‐ en’s movement (in part through their publication, tivists’ own oral narratives, Valk’s analysis makes The Furies), their goal, Valk argues, “was undercut abundantly clear that feminist activism did not by the effort to conform action to theory,” and this proceed according to clearly delineated organiza‐ limited the group’s influence and impact (p. 136). I tion trajectories; instead, movements, causes, find myself repeatedly wondering about the role groupings, and organizational trajectories fed and the Furies keep playing in the historiography of leaked into one another and, indeed, far exceeded second-wave feminism, for if they were rather in‐ identity and definitional limits suggested by orga‐ effective at the time, we should question their nizational parameters. This is, perhaps, the book’s growing influence on the ways we narrate femi‐ greatest contribution, as it counters both declen‐ nist history. Historians from Alice Echols to Wini sion narratives of sixties and seventies activism Breines have emphasized the divisive impact of and, more importantly, fnally shows us how vari‐ explicitly lesbian activism in the second wave, ous movement strands were woven together even and they rely almost exclusively on the Furies to as they were constantly fraying. One may still make their point. Surely, the Furies collective was wish to talk about groupings of white feminists among the arrogant and divisively separatist and groupings of black feminists and compare groups of the era, and they must be considered their concerns, or research the impact of class dis‐ part of the DC feminist story. But was this small parity on activist strategies; one might still see group really the only example of lesbian femi‐ strands appropriately termed “black feminism” nism and lesbian separatism? Were they emblem‐ and “white feminism.” But, while attending to atic of lesbian separatism or of the women’s racist power structures and fuid movement dy‐ movement? If they were representative, there namics even in the face of many instances of race- should be additional examples to draw on; if they or gender- or sexuality-based separatism, the were not, we might well ask ourselves why we book, above all, shows their interconnectedness like to focus on them to explain lesbian-centered and mutual reliance (along with movements not feminism. Valk suggests one reason, in keeping named “feminist”), and thus should effectively put with her movement analysis (in addition to the to rest the tired trope that “feminism was white Furies’ necessary critique of homophobia): “the and middle class.” Valk offers new ways of seeing Furies offer an instructive example of the way activism and describing movements, adding to that feminism was driven forward by energies our increasingly rich perspective on a unique pe‐ and experiments that also limited the movement’s riod in U.S.

Load more