45

2

Section A.

Feminist Theory

In late-nineteenth-century France, the word féminisme, meaning women’s liberation was first used in political debates. The most generic way to define feminism is to say that it is an organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and common interests and based on the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. Some initial forms of feminism were criticized for considering the perspective of only white, middle-class and educated people.

Ethnically specific or multiculturalists forms of feminism were created as a reaction to this criticism. Most feminists believe that inequality between men and women are open to change because they are socially constructed. Many consider feminism as theory or theories, but some others see it as merely a kind of politics in the culture. Feminist theory aims to understand gender inequality and focus on sexuality, gender politics, and power relations. To achieve this, it has developed theories in a wide range of disciplines. Feminist theory is the extension of feminism into fields of theory or philosophy. Since in academic institutions ‘theory’ is often the male standpoint and feminists have fought hard to expose the fraudulent objectivity of male ‘science’,

(for example, the Freudian theory of female sexual development) some feminists have not wished to embrace theory at all. Raman Selden, Widdowson and Brooker argue “Feminism and feminist criticism may be better termed a cultural politics than a theory or theories” (116).

However, much recent feminist criticism wants to free itself from the ‘fixities and definites’ of theory and to develop a female discourse which is not considered as a belonging to a recognized conceptual position (and, therefore, probably male produced). It has found theoretical support in poststructuralist and postmodernist thinking because these seem to refuse the (masculine) notion 46 of authority or truth. Also, some feminist critics, by using psychoanalytic theories, have also powerfully deployed a subversive ‘formless’ resistance of women writers and critics to male- formulated literary discourse.

History of Feminist Movement:

Feminism in Waves

The history of the modern western feminist movements is divided into three “waves”, each having dealt with different aspects of the same feminist issues. This is not to say that there were no feminists or feminism activism before or even after these waves, but simply that their ideas and actions did not materialize into a social movement among the masses. First-wave feminism is connected to both the liberal women’s rights movement and early socialist feminism, and it arose in the context of industrial society and liberal politics in the late 19th and early 20th century in the United States and Europe. The first wave continued to influence feminism in both the Western and Eastern societies throughout the 20th century, as it was concerned with access and equal opportunities for women. The second wave of feminism was seen in the 1960s and

1970s in the post-war Western welfare societies. This happened when other “oppressed” groups such as Blacks and homosexuals and the New Left were on the rise. Second-wave feminism is closely linked to the radical voices of women’s empowerment and differential rights. During the

1980s and 1990s, it was also linked to a crucial differentiation of second-wave feminism itself which was initiated by women of color and third-world women. The third feminist wave, from the mid-1990s onward, in the context of information society and neoliberal, global politics, emerges from a new postcolonial and post-socialist world order. Third-wave feminism presents itself in “grrl” rhetoric. It attempts to overcome theoretical question of equity or difference while 47 challenging “universal womanhood”. It encompasses ambiguity, diversity, and multiplicity in transversal theory and politics. (Krolokke 2)

The First Wave of Feminism

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, an environment of urban industrialism and liberal, socialist politics set the stage for the first wave of feminism. The goal of this wave was to open up opportunities for women, with a focus on ‘right to vote’. The wave was formally initiated at the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848. At the time, more than 300 men and women rallied to the cause of equality for women. The Seneca Falls Declaration outlining the new movement’s ideology and political strategies was drafted by Elizabeth Cady Stanton (d.1902). This declaration gave rise to the suffrage movement.

At the beginning, feminism in the United States was linked with other reform movements, such as abolition and temperance and initially, closely involved working class women. However, it was also supported by Black women abolitionists, such as Maria Stewart (1803–1879),

Sojourner Truth (1797–1883), and Frances E. W. Harper (1825–1911), who campaigned for the rights of women of color. As Charlotte Krolokke and Anne Scott Sorensen argue “although women of color continued to participate and representatives such as Ida B. Wells (1862–1931) and Mary Church Terrell (1868–1954) also strove to show how the linkage of sexism and racism functioned as the main means of White male dominance, the first wave of feminism consisted largely of White, middle-class, well-educated women” (4).

In those days, it was considered most unwomanly to engage in public persuasion. So, women’s true place was in the home, meeting the needs of husband and children. Therefore, their very activity challenged the “cult of domesticity”. Furthermore women were expected to be modest and to wield only indirect influence, also certainly not engage in public activities. 48

Discussions about suffrage and women’s participation in politics led to claim that women should be given equal status as men. In addition women should be given the same opportunity to use the resources and positions as men and also be acknowledged for their contributions and competencies. Thus denying women the right to vote was as good as denying them full citizenship and the society have to liberate half of its citizens.

Characterized by the lack of distinction between sex and gender, this concept is often referred to as “equal-opportunities feminism” or “equity feminism” (Krolokke 6). Though it is well understood that biological differences form the basis of social gender roles, these differences were not considered a threat to the ideal of human equity. From then on, biological differences were not accepted as theoretically or politically valid reasons for discrimination. Finally, in 1920, when the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was confirmed, women in the United

States won the right to vote.

The liberal feminist movement began with Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1799). Her work, A

Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) is one of the earliest manifestations of liberal first- wave feminism in Europe. It was written in the aftermath of the French Revolution and is still read as a seminal text. In her book she states that to enable women to grow up to be moral and autonomous human beings, they need to be educated just as well as men. Virginia Woolf’s A

Room of One’s Own (1929) and Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex (1949) are central to the canon. Both authors were also laying the groundwork for radical second wave feminism. The concept of female bisexuality (androgyny) and a unique woman’s voice and writing was introduced by Woolf. She claimed that men have influenced literature over history and have treated the woman as inferior. She also maintained that economical, social and political issues were determined by men. Selden, Widdowson and Brooker mention “Woolf’s general 49 contribution to feminism, then, is her recognition that gender identity is socially constructed and can be challenged and transformed” (118). The renowned French feminist and activist for women’s rights, Simone de Beauvoir, in her book The Second Sex asserts that, while men are considered as human beings, women are considered as woman or the other. She believed that women are not born women but become women when they are subjected to social pressure caused by men. Her book elucidates the difference between sex and gender and she insists on a freedom from biological differences. Simon De Beauvoir is a ‘first wave’ feminist who distrusts

‘feminity’ and she has marked herself off the body. Like other ‘first wave’ feminists she wants the social enfranchisement of women’s rational abilities and exemption from biological difference.

Hence, Beauvoir created an authoritative definition of patriarchy. A distinct socialist/ Marxist feminism side by side to liberal first-wave feminism, developed in reformist social-democratic parties in Europe, in workers’ unions in the United States, and during the rise of communism in the former Soviet Union. Marxist feminism focused on working-class women and their participation in class struggle and socialist revolution. However, both, Liberal and socialist/Marxist feminism believed in equity and equal opportunities for women and men. Rosa

Luxemburg, Alexandra Kollontai and Emma Goldman, were the social feminists who led the way for second-wave feminism. In their private lives as well as in the political sphere they agitated for women’s right to abortion, divorce, and non-legislative partnership—and against sexual discrimination within the socialist movements and also in bourgeois society. Liberal feminism as well as socialist/Marxist feminism persisted in developing and exerting strong voices in 20th-century feminism, though they were disputed by other types of feminism. The notion of equal opportunity formulated a particular type of equity research, which arose outside 50 the academy in the first half of the 20th century, and steadily provided the basis for a growing field of research in “the women issue” (Krolokke 7).

The Second Wave of Feminism

The second-wave feminism started in the late 1960s and early 1970s mostly by the radical feminists of the women’s liberation movement. The protests against the Miss America pageant in

Atlantic City in 1968 and 1969 mark the onset of this phase. Radical second-wave feminists were inspired by the strategies of the more activist parts of liberal feminism, used performance (e.g, underground or guerilla Theater) to elucidate what came to be known as “women’s oppression.”

The New York Radical Feminists namely, The Redstockings, mocked the pageant competition to

“cattle parade” which they regarded as demeaning because it diminished the true worth of women to objects of beauty dominated by a patriarchy that aimed at keeping them in the home or, in low-paying jobs. They foreground the premise that the appearance of women is more important than the deeds and thoughts of women.

Radical second-wave feminism stemmed from leftist movements in post-war Western societies and so it cannot be discussed separately from other movements of the 1960s and 1970s i.e. the student protests, the anti–Vietnam War movement, the lesbian and gay movements, and the civil rights and Black power movements in the United States. According to Krolokke and

Sorensen “These movements criticized “capitalism” and “imperialism” and focused on the notion and interests of “oppressed” groups: the working classes, Blacks, and in principle, also women and homosexuals” (Krolokke 9).

Even so, in the New Left, women realized that they were detached from real influence and reduced to merely servicing the revolution. Thus they were exposed to sexism yet again. To add 51 to racism, and ‘classicism,’ women now had to deal with a new, separate form of oppression;

‘heterosexism’. As a consequence, Feminists reacted by creating women-only organizations

(such as NOW) and “consciousness raising” groups who attempted to empower women both collectively and individually by using techniques of sharing and contesting, Sisterhood is

Powerful, (edited by Robin Morgan in 1970) which was the first second-wave publication, is an instance. Such kind of expression and actions was the distinguishing mark of women-only groups in the second-wave movement. This style was particularly attributed to one short-lived, radical but influential feminist group of the 1960 to 1970s; the Redstockings. It produced many of the expressions that have become household words in the United States: “Sisterhood is powerful,” “The personal is political,” “the politics of housework,” “consciousness raising,” the

“prowoman line,” and more. (Krolokke 9) This branch of feminism strongly believed that women could collectively empower one other.

Based on a fusion of neo-Marxism and psycho-analytical theory, Radical second wave was increasingly theoretical. It associated the oppression of women with broader critiques of capitalism, patriarchy, normative heterosexuality, and the role of woman as mother and wife. It was made clear that sex is biological, and gender is a social construct that diverges from one culture to another and over a span of time. Feminist scholars such as Juliet Mitchell in The

Subjection of Women (1970) and Shulamith Firestone in The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for

Feminist Revolution (1970) represent Radical second wave feminism.

While the first wave of feminism was generally driven forward by middle class white women, the second phase encompassed women of color and women from developing nations. It sought sisterhood and solidarity and claimed that “Women’s struggle is class struggle.” Feminists discussed of women as a social class and coined phrases such as “the personal is political” and 52

“identity politics” to explain and demonstrate that race, class, and gender oppression are all connected. They started to concentrate on society’s salvation of sexism.

Sexual Politics, by Kate Millett (1969) was another significant book at the core of this new movement. In her book, Millett, emphasized that women should have right to their own bodies and sexuality, a sexuality that is separated from the obligation of marriage and motherhood.

According to Selden “Millett borrows from social science the important distinction between

‘sex’ and ‘gender’ where sex is determined biologically but ‘gender’ is a psychological concept which refers to culturally acquired sexual identity” (Selden, Widdowson and Brooker 123).

Women’s liberation arises of the New Left, and also provides coalitions with socialist/Marxist feminisms. They shared common ground in areas such as the criticism of the dual work load for women working outside as well as inside the home, the demand of equal pay for equal work, and a breakdown of the gendered division of the educational system and the labor market.

Betty Friedan was an important leader in the liberal feminist movement. Her landmark book, The

Feminine Mystique (1963) was an inspiration to liberal feminists in all the Western countries.

Some other books of significance written by her are, The Second Stage, and The Fountain of

Age. Each of these books documented the advancement of liberal feminist thought from the

1960’s to present times. Despite many ideas in these books and in liberal feminism, the climax has been to support the humanist ideal of androgyny where women and men adopt both feminine and masculine traits thereby improving themselves and becoming better human beings. Their recommended solution was not necessarily paid work outside the domestic sphere. In fact, their demands included payment for housewives—a kind of citizen’s income—along with representation in public institutions, and so on. “Typical liberal feminist concerns during the 53 second wave, however, were documenting sexism in private as well as public life and delivering a criticism of gendered patterns of socialization” (Krolokke 11).

One of the strains of this diverse “wave” was the development of women-only spaces. Liberal and socialist/Marxist feminists strived to access as well as influence the institutions of society.

Radical feminists saw these same institutions as more profit-driven and patriarchal.

Consequently, though they did not entirely reject these institutions, they were quite critical and skeptical of them. Mary Daly in Gyn/Ecology (1978) was a symbol of the spiritual and ecofeminist parts of the movement which engaged themselves in developing independent enterprises. They eventually created corporations and zones that were for women only. For decades this particular feminist perspective remained on the periphery of the feminist movement.

However, in recent times it has been brought back to life in a number of ways. Everything from sustainable development to simple living, from corporate feminism to separatist women-only spaces on the internet, for example “SAPPHO” serves as evidence of this revival.

A basic shift from an equity approach to a difference approach was heralded by the dispute between integration and separation. Nancy Hartsock (1983) wrote a paradigmatic article “The

Feminist Standpoint” and a range of subsequent works. Outlined on a theoretical level by these literary works, the new framework evolved into “difference second-wave feminism,” during the

1980s. “Standpoint feminism” expresses a specifically feminist theory and practice that elaborated the criticism of patriarchy and capitalism with complex analysis of postwar welfare societies and their consequences for women on different levels and in different situations. It was necessary to address the differences among women simultaneously which lead to different standpoints theory and the divergences between them. The result was that “difference feminism” gradually grew into what we now commonly refer to as “identity politics.” Identity second-wave feminism was distinguished by a growing criticism from Black, working class and lesbian 54 feminists. Bell Hooks Ain’t I A Woman: Black Woman and Feminism (1981) is an instance among others.

In the context of the power relations of a postcolonial but still imperial and capitalist world, what were seen as a predominantly White, middle-class, and heterosexual feminist agenda was interrogated. They “raised the issue of a differentiated-identity politics, based on the contingent and diversified but no less decisive intersections of class, race/ethnicity, gender and sexuality”

(Krolokke 13). Successively, identity feminism created a new interest in the lives and voices of women. This was at once more empirical and historical, and more mythical and spiritual and came to be known as “gyno-criticism.” Elaine Showalter pioneered this method in A Literature of Their Own (1977). The method indicated an interest in understanding differences constitutive among women. It also signaled a search for legitimacy and continuity in women’s cultures. At about the same time there was a change in the outlook of Black Feminism, which now began to branch out into standpoints and identities. Third-world women and women of colour began addressing themselves as “inappropriate others” and “other Others”. Western feminism was criticized for speaking naively on behalf of women from third-world countries by Gayatri Spivak in her writings, In Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics (1987). European authors like

Hélène Cixous, Luce Irigaray, and Julia Kristeva articulated a different mode of identity feminism- l’écriture feminine. Editors Elaine Marks and Isabelle de Courtivron in New French

Feminisms (1981) presented this to the United States. French feminists explored Western universalism and its paradoxical articulation through dualisms (binary oppositions). Indeed,

Dualism is a concept in which two elements like white/black, mind/body or man/woman are viewed in such a way that one element is different from as well as inferior to the other. In doing so, they developed a thesis of the “phallogocentrism” of Western thinking. Their point of debate 55 was that the very foundation of (Western) language(s) is established through a binary logic that makes the phallus the master sign and the father the origin of symbolic law. French feminists, subsequently, appealed for a feminine writing that was deconstructive. In addition, they quested after another semiotic logic-the revolutionary potential of woman’s bodies as the productive site of multiple desires and a plenitude of jouissance.

Second-wave feminists distinguished between gender and sex and thus provided a cultural or sociological reasoning. Initially, it seems to dissolve the dilemma between sameness and difference, however, many questions related to the sexed body, as well as differences among women are left unanswered. As Krolokke confirms: “Second-wave feminism is not one, but many” (15). Furthermore she says that “As expressed by feminist communication scholar Julia

Wood (1994), the question may not be whether you are a feminist, but which kind of feminist you are (p. 106). This question is multiplied by the emergence of third-wave feminism” (15). The second-wave feminisms have had strong affiliations with the academy as a consequence of being highly theoretical. Since the 1970s, Second-wave feminisms have generated an outburst of research and teaching on women’s issues. So, women’s gender or feminist studies has grown into a diverse disciplinary field.

The Third Wave of Feminism

Shaped by post-colonial and post-modern thinking, the mid 1990s saw the start of the third phase of feminism. In this phase, many constructs like body, sexuality, “universal womanhood”, and heteronormativity have destabilized. At the same time, they purport different politics which disputes the notions of universal womanhood. It is also enunciates ways by which women can confront complex intersections of gender, race, class, sexuality and age related concerns. In an attempt to draw the attention of another generation, young feminists have now reclaimed the 56 term “girl”. They are involving themselves in a new kind of feminism that is more self-assertive, and at times even aggressive. All the same, it is a less pompous but more playful kind of feminism. In general, third wave feminists regard themselves as strong, capable and assertive social agents. Girlie feminism, cybergrrl feminism, riot grrl feminism, transfeminism, or just grrl feminism—feminism is vigorous and going strong. They have more opportunities in the present times as they are born with the privileges that first- and second-wave feminists fought for.

The new information technologies were used by some riot grrls as the primary point of departure for their activism. These technologies were introduced to other girls and women by cybergrrls or

Netgrrls in books like The Cyberpunk Handbook (1995), Friendly Grrls Guide to the Internet–

Introduction (1996), and Cybergrrl! A Woman’s Guide to the World Wide Web (1998). While the movement criticized sexist language, appropriated derogatory terms for girls and women, it invented new forms of communication and self-celebrating words. It did not decry the stereotypes used against them but instead they exaggerated them, beginning with the very word girl.

The need to develop a feminist theory and politics that deconstructed categorical thinking and simultaneously honoured contradictory experiences is what motivated third-wave feminists. To some of the older feminists it seems like the younger generation is ignorant of and to some extent even disregard the struggles and achievements of the early movements. Krolokke debates that in

To Be Real: Telling the Truth and Changing the Face of Feminism (1995), Rebecca Walker states that it is a difficult experience for younger feminists who find themselves forced to think in separate categories of “Us “ and “ Them” as also when they are forced to assume specific identities as women or feminists. She explains that this is not because they lack knowledge of feminist history or because of the media’s horrific one-sided portrayal of feminism. Walker 57 offers further support by exerting that, in fact, the younger feminists honor the work of earlier feminists while criticizing them. Contrary to what the older feminists believe, they struggle to bridge contradictions that they experience in their own lives. They engage in multiple positions, practice a strategy of inclusion and exploration, and also embrace ambiguity rather than certainty.

Third-wave feminism is also inspired by and bound to a generation of the new global world order. This new world is shaped by the fall of communism, new threats of religious and ethnic fundamentalism, and the dual risks and promises of new info- and biotechnologies. In America third-wave feminism is popularly called “grrl feminism,” while Europeans refer to it as “new feminism.” A defining trait of “new” feminism is that it is active at local, national, and transnational levels. It raises its voice in areas like violence against women, trafficking, body surgery, self-mutilation, and the overall “pornofication” of the media. The new global order poses new threats to women’s rights; this is a matter of concern to them. They criticize earlier feminist waves for presenting universal definitions or answers of womanhood and for developing their particular interests into almost static identity politics. The third-wave feminism is diverse, and chaotic and as a result multiple in itself. The desire to redefine feminism by combining an interest in traditional and stereotypically feminine issues, but at the same time continuing to be critical of both narratives of true femaleness as well as of victimization and liberation serves as a common denominator. Third-wave feminists simultaneously embrace ambiguity and form new alliances. They want to avert mutually oppressive static categories and request acceptance of a chaotic world. Thus, the use of performance, mimicry, and subversion as rhetorical strategies is what defines third-wave feminism and not common theoretical and political standpoint(s). Judith

Butler, a gender theorist, indicated this paradigmatic shift in feminism in her books Gender 58

Trouble (1990) and Bodies That Matter (1993). She stimulated new emerging movements which take an interest in the intersections of gender and sexuality; like queer and transgender politics.

Butler also helped to articulate “performance third-wave feminism” as a theoretical framework of the politics of transgression. Butler states that “within the inherited discourse of the metaphysics of substance, gender proves to be performative - that is, constituting the identity it is purported to be. In this sense, gender is always a doing, though not a doing by a subject who might be said to preexist the deed” (Gender Trouble 24, 25). Donna Haraway’s (1987/1991)

Cyborg, inspired the development of cyberfeminism which is another significant perspective that has contributed to third-wave feminism. Haraway obscures the differences between human, animals and machines by her posthuman acknowledgment of the interaction between humans and nonhumans. This lends uniqueness to her perspective. In addition, like Butler, Haraway functions without the essential division between society and subject, materiality and sociality, structure and agency, or flesh and soul. In Haraway’s opinion there is great potential for feminism and it continues to be explored by a range of feminist thinkers.

The third-wave feminism is linked up with the effects of globalization and the complex redistribution of power, which interrogate feminist theory and politics. Moreover, it reflects the diversification of interests and perspectives of women as well as the breakdown of master stories of oppression and liberation. For example, postcolonial, third-wave feminism is involved in instituting a new critical global perspective and creating alliances between Black, diasporic, and subaltern feminisms. On the other hand, queer theory and politics create a platform for what is now divided into the lesbian, gay, bi-, and transsexual and transgender movements. Queer and transgender feminists assault ‘heteronormativity’ as they see it as the crux of the problem. They call for recognition of queers, not only gays and lesbians, also transsexuals, drag queens, drag 59 kings, masculine women, and feminine men. Some of these interests are summarized by Emi

Koyama (2003) in “The Transfeminist Manifesto.” Transfeminists believe that neither the medical establishment nor cultural institutions at large should interfere with the individuals’ freedom to construct their own gender identities as they see fit. They especially resist essentialist ideas of identity.

Feminist Thought:

Various Types of Feminist Theories

Almost immediately after the birth of the feminist movement many different forms of feminist ideology came into existence. Today, there are as many definitions of feminism as there are feminists. However, some feminists identify themselves with several branches of feminist thought. Their strategies and aims are basically different from each other but they overlap at some points. In the 1970s, women started developing theories to explain the suffering and oppression they experienced. It is not possible to give one standard definition of feminism as it depends on several factors such as one’s own beliefs, history and culture. Here I present some of the types of feminist theories that have been discussed the most.

Liberal Feminism

In 18th and 19th centuries liberal feminism started and it has grown through the years to the present time. Elimination of female subordination has always been and still is the focus of the liberal feminist movement “rooted in a set of customary and legal constraints blocking women’s entrance to and success in the so-called public world” (Tong 2). In the 1950s and 1960s, about the time when many civil rights movements were taking place, the liberal feminist movement was most popular. Liberal feminists are mainly of the opinion that all the people deserve equal rights. These types of feminists believe that men and women are raised in such a way that it has 60 led to the oppression of women which encourages patriarchy and keeps men in positions of power. The belief of liberal feminists is that women are mentally as capable as their male counterparts and, therefore, deserve equal opportunities in political, economic and social spheres.

It is no surprise that there are several critiques of liberal feminism. One criticism is that liberal feminism lays so much on emphasis on women becoming like men that it overlooks the importance of traditional female roles. Another critical attack on liberal feminism is because it gives a place of importance to the rational above the emotional when in reality, humans need both equally. Its focus on the individual as opposed to focus on the community is another trait of liberal feminism that has been criticized. A critique of liberal feminism is that in the past it has neglected race, class and homosexuality. Liberal feminists admit that at one time liberal feminism was racist, classist, and heterosexist. However, they believe that it has overcome these issues and that their philosophy positively answers each of these critiques.

Radical Feminism

Radical feminists are divided into two groups namely- the radical-libertarian feminists and the radical-cultural feminists, and each have very diverse views. Rosemary Tong closely inspects the stark differences and multiple conflicts of two parties with the same basic theory and goal. In her words, they insist that the sex/gender system is the fundamental cause of women’s oppression.

While the liberal feminists work to change the existing system, the radical feminists aim to create a new system altogether. The present scenario promotes a sexism which is the first, most widespread, or deepest form of human oppression, so it is necessary to change it. Radical feminists highlight their difference from men. The key differences are discrimination on the basis of gender and the oppression which results from this discrimination. 61

Janelle Reinelt believes, “Radical feminists had theorized a trans-historical subjection of women to men in the patriarchy as the central problem and fact of reality. This view encouraged socialist women to abandon alliances with men, even for purposes of class struggle; men were seen as the fundamental enemy, regardless of class affiliation” (Beyond Brecht 155).

Unfortunately, this type of feminism got a backlash as it attracted a lot of negative media attention. Critics point out that Radical feminism is blind to the flaws of women but portrays them as being subjected to stereotypes and trapped in rigid roles. Some social feminists also describe it as ahistorical.

Radical-Libertarian Feminism

The radical-libertarian feminists want to eliminate the concept of femininity and its accompanying roles: reproduction, motherhood and sexual roles. Radical-libertarian feminists believe that these roles hinder a woman’s capacity to contribute to society. Their opinion is that women should be androgynous. Their aim is to build a society which combines both masculine and feminine characteristics for the individual as well as for society- an androgynous society.

Radical-libertarian feminists like to defy sexual norms to support their belief that women should have complete control of their sexuality. They also promote and support artificial means of reproduction so that more time is devoted to things that are more worthwhile than pregnancy.

They are highly in favor of abortion, contraceptives and other forms of birth control. The radical- libertarians advocate all forms of sexual freedom and expression that ensure sexual pleasure for all parties involved. Both heterosexual and lesbian relationships are acceptable to them and they deem all forms of sexual restrictions as cruel. They see pornography as a way for females to own and control their sexuality. Radical-libertarian feminists see reproduction and mothering as 62 women’s main weakness. They prefer artificial reproductive methods over biological motherhood.

Radical-Cultural Feminism

The radical-cultural feminists encourage women to embrace femaleness only. They reject masculinity as a desirable quality. According to them, women should emphasize the traits culturally associated with women and deemphasize traits which are culturally associated with men. Radical-cultural feminists advocate natural procreation as they believe that reproduction is a woman’s true source of power (this is why men are always trying to control it). They believe that men try to control reproduction through means of technology because they are jealous of women. It is the institution of motherhood as controlled by men that is bad and not motherhood in itself. If women could be mothers on their own terms, everything would be perfect. They believe that women should embrace their femininity with pride because it is better than masculinity. Radical-cultural feminists see a link between sex, female subordination, porn, rape and abuse and so these must be eliminated.

Marxist Feminism

Marx believes that society consists of two classes: those who own the means of production

(factories, tools, capital) and the laborers who are exploited to produce the items demanded by the ruling classes. As such, this exploitation is extended to the female with the addition of sexism and gender inequality. The focus of Marxist feminists is the division of labour that keeps women in the domestic sphere and men in the workplace. To add to this, when women do enter the workforce, they are only assigned to jobs that are deemed appropriate for women and are usually underpaid for their work. Another issue was the wages-for-housework movement. This purports 63 the idea that women must receive wages for domestic labor either from the husband’s income or from a tax intended to support women’s work. It is no surprise that Marxist feminism and socialist feminism share common ground. Sexist oppression is a type of class oppression.

Marxist feminists have usefully analysed how production is gendered, saying that women take on a larger share of domestic labor which means that women do more producing but get fewer rewards. As Ruth Robbins asserts “Marxism argues that human subjects are formed by economic conditions of competition and oppression” (50). Tong mentions that Alison Jaggar takes a critical approach against Marxist feminism because it says less than enough about how women are oppressed by all in general and by men in particular. Alison states that Marxist feminist thought puts men and women in the same bracket, as both are oppressed by the capitalist system.

Prostitution and marriages of convenience, according to Jagger, are both forms of economic oppression against women in particular.

Socialist Feminism

Socialist feminism came into existence as a response to the gender-blind Marxist thought which views oppression of women as far less important than worker’s oppression. Raman Selden defines, “some feminists believe that woman’s oppression can be understood only within a large understanding of class operation” (Theory of Criticism 520). This kind of feminism had its maximum influence in the 60s and 70s. Socialist feminists believe that there is a direct link between the oppression of women and class structure. In western societies, working men are rewarded for producing tangible, tradable goods. Women, on the other hand who work in the domestic sphere, do not produce tangible, tradable goods. Hence, their work is not valued by western societies. Thus men gain power and control over women. Socialist feminists reject the 64 idea that one’s gender is determined by biology. However, social roles are not inherent and women’s status must change in public as well as private spheres. Socialist feminists enjoy challenging capitalist and patriarchal ideologies. Radical feminists and socialist feminists share a common belief that although women are divided by class, race, ethnicity and religion, they all experience the same oppression simply because they are women. Socialist feminists argue that the only way to eradicate this oppression is to put an end to class and gender. Women must work side by side with men even in the political sphere. In order to achieve anything, women must work alongside men, as equals in all walks of life, as opposed to ostracizing them. There must be a coalition between them. The socialist feminist theory extends its focus to the broader context of social relations in the community by including aspects of race, ethnicity and other differences.

This contrasts with the ideals of liberal feminism, which tend to focus on the woman as an individual.

Psychoanalytic Feminism

Psychoanalytic and gender feminists believe “women’s way of acting is rooted deep in women’s

psyche.” According to the psychoanalytic feminists, the ideal “human person is a blend of

positive feminine and positive masculine traits” (Tong 131). The origins of psychoanalytic

feminism are found in the theories of Sigmund Freud. The popular belief in his days was that children are “sexless” (sexuality-less). Freud contradicted this belief by stating that children were

quite sexual. He explained that children experienced three sexual stages of infancy: oral, anal, and phallic. It was during the last of these stages that the “child discovers the pleasure potential

of the genitals and either resolves or fails to resolve the so-called Oedipus and castration complexes” (Tong 132). Freudian theory proposes that a male child desires his mother sexually, 65 but he notices that she and other creatures like her have no penis. So, he assumes that they have been castrated by his father and fears that he himself will be castrated. Submitting to this fear, he chooses not to compete with his father and act upon his desire. Instead, he detaches himself from

his mother. He then begins to develop a “superego … the son’s internalization of his father’s values, it is a patriarchal, social conscience” (Tong 133). The first love object of a female child is also her mother. But she soon realizes that she herself doesn’t have a penis and neither does her mother. This makes her envious of the penis. “Disgusted by the sight of her mother, the girl turns

to her father to make good her lack. The girl tries to take her mother’s place with her father. At first, the girl desires to have her father’s penis, but gradually she begins to desire something even more precious - a baby, which, for her, is the ultimate penis substitute” (Tong 133). According to

Freud, this penis envy is what leads woman to shame, vanity, narcissism and other such immoralities. This directly contradicts the male “superego, which gives rise to the traits marking a civilized person” (Tong 134, 135). Thus a woman’s lack of penis causes her to feel that she is sexually inferior in a society which is driven by men’s fear of castration. This in turn motivates his tendency to civilize and “become obedient rule-followers whose ‘heads’ always control their

‘hearts’” (Tong 135). This Freudian notion has been criticized by many critiques. They “argued

women’s social position and powerlessness relative to men had little to do with female biology

and much to do with the social construction of femininity”(Tong 135). As Karen Horney says,

“Women’s feelings of inferiority originated not in women’s recognition of their “castration” but

in realization of their social subordination” (Tong 139). Clara Thompson argues that “male

authority causes women to have weaker egos than man do” (Tong 139). Women’s self-hatred

and inferiority gained impetus due to the cross-cultural tendency of societies to favor male 66

superiority. “Thus, the transformation of legal, political, economic, and social structures that constitute culture is a necessary step in the transformation of women’s psychology” (Tong 139).

Gender feminism

Gender feminism inspects the psychomoral development of boys and girls rather than their psychosexual development. Gender feminists believe that boys and girls grow into men and women with gender-specific values and virtues which serve two purposes. In a patriarchal society this upbringing empowers men while it disempowers women. In addition, it reflects the importance of separateness in the lives of men and of connectedness in the lives of women. As Tong mentions, Carol

Gilligan’s theory is based on the notion that men and women are led to different styles of moral reasoning as a consequence of their different emphasis. She explains that men emphasize separation and autonomy that stresses on justice, fairness and rights. Women, on the other hand, emphasize connections and relationships that lay stress on needs, wants, and interests of particular people. Gilligan’s claim is that most moral development theorists have made use of male norms instead of human norms to measure moral development. The result is that women have routinely “failed”. Subsequently, in “Mapping the

Moral Domain” Gilligan suggested that the ideal moral thinker may favor an ethics of care more than an ethics of justice. Girls who grow into women who put other people first (as opposed to boys who grow into men who put themselves first) “is not a sign of women’s moral inferiority but of women’s moral depth” (Tong 158).

Like Gilligan, gender feminist Nel Noddings claimed that the moral language of women is different from that of men and our culture favors the masculine ethics of justice over the feminine ethics of care.

Women are “emotional” in their moral reasoning while men are “rational” in theirs. She says human relationships are not about persons’ abstract rights but about particular individuals’ concrete needs”

(Tong 159). Associating women with an ethics of care has a negative consequence. It promotes the 67 notion that women care by nature and that they should always care regardless of the price they have to pay. Women who are paid to care-Sandra Lee Bartky quotes Jill Tweedie’s In the Name of Love:

‘“Behind every great man is a woman, we say, but behind every monster there is a woman too, behind each of those countless men who stood astride their narrow worlds and crushed other human beings, causing them hideous suffering and pain. There she is in the shadows, a vague female silhouette, tenderly wiping blood from their hands’”(qtd. in Tong 167).Tong asserts: “As long as society remains patriarchal, women will not be able to strike an appropriate and abiding balance between rights and responsibilities in their moral lives” (168).

Existential Feminism

Rosemary Tongs argues that Simon de Beauvoir views Freud’s explanation for woman having a feeling of “otherness”, (feelings of being the other sex, instead of one of the two sexes), as incomplete. Beauvoir believes that both, lack of a penis and lack of power have led to woman’s low social status. Tong asserts that Simon de Beauvoir rejects the Marxist notion that men represented the class of ‘bourgeois’ and woman represented the ‘proletariat’ simply because woman performs tasks such as cleaning, cooking and child bearing and men perform tasks of hunting and fishing. She says that a move from capitalism to socialism cannot guarantee that the relationship will change for better. The original aspiration of the male sex to dominate over the female sex results in a condition where women are just as likely to remain in the lower strata of society. Beauvoir is of the opinion that men have created myths about women. He states that men view the ideal woman as one who believes it is her duty to sacrifice herself for her man. She believes what makes the myth so horrible is that many women come to internalize this thought as an accurate reflection of what it means to be a woman. She goes on to talk about how this sense of “otherness” is actualized in the institution of marriage and motherhood. According to her, 68 marriage transforms freely given feelings into forced duties. According to de Beauvoir the prostitute, the narcissist, and the mystic are three kinds of women who role-play the woman to an extreme. Worst of all is that all of the roles played out by women, (mother, wife, prostitute, narcissist and mystic), are the creation of man.

Beauvoir mentions four ways by which women can overcome this oppression. Women should: get education, get a job, work towards social reform, and refrain from internalizing the

“otherness” that has been created. Beauvoir presents some critiques about this idea of existential feminism. It was mentioned that the book is not accessible to the majority of women in the world. Also, the difficult words and ideas used in this book are not real life experiences but the creation of abstract thoughts of an educated mind. She is also criticized about the negative attitude she represents of the female body. She was also criticized for celebrating the male norm and referring to woman as passive and submissive. In conclusion, the issues are brought up about whether transcendence or immanence is more important for women to overcome sexism. In addition, these ideas raise the question of whether feminism should be embraced or rejected. She requests women to throw aside the burdens which bar their progress toward authentic selfhood.

Postmodern Feminism

It was probably at some time in the early 1980s that ‘postmodern feminism’ originated and the term ‘postmodern feminism’ was coined. Postmodern feminists took a critical look at the different feminist theories of the past, especially those from the second wave feminism. It also happens to coincide with the third-wave feminism which began in the early 1990s. Postmodernist thought is that “woman” is a topic of debate which is made complex by her class, ethnicity, sexuality, and other facets of identity. The outcome of this debate is the conclusion that there is 69 no single cause for women’s subordination and no permanent way to completely resolve the issue. Postmodern feminism has a wide variety of views from even wider number of sources of thought or thoughts. In the texts written by someone who is influenced by these theories, it is almost impossible to point out exactly which theory the writer believes. “Postmodern feminists invite each woman who reflects on their writings to become the kind of feminist she wants to be.

There is no single formula for being a “good feminist” (Tong 193). Authorship, identity, selfhood and otherness are some of the focuses. Its aim is to bring to light the gendered reality of social relations, especially where there is a patriarchal influence on women’s lives. It also aims at revealing and deconstructing gendered assumptions of the dominant discourses. Guarantee of equal access to power and recognition of the diversity of women are some of the new generalizations that it strives to produce. It regards women as gendered beings who interact in a social-cultural environment where class, race and sexual identity are social realities that have different effects on women at different times. Its ultimate goal is to find ways to empower marginalized people through political action.

However, the feminist label is rejected by many postmodern feminists because they believe that any term that ends with an “ism” reflects an essentialist conception. Its focus on multiple truths, multiple roles, and multiple realities has made postmodern feminism the ultimate acceptor of diversity. By their emphasis on concepts such as “difference”, “deconstruction” and

“identity”, theorists such as Julia Kristeva, Hélène Cixous, Laura Mulvey and Judith Butler can be labeled as postmodern feminists. Helene Cixous and other writers like her have examined the different style of writing between men and women (writing with the body). Luce Irigaray looks at feminist writing from a psychoanalytic perspective, while Julia Kristeva analyzes the relation between the semiotic and symbolic elements. Due to their contribution, French feminism from 70 the 1970s onwards, has forged specific routes in postmodern feminism and in feminist psychoanalysis. There are some criticisms, however, about the opacity of postmodern feminist theory.

Ecofeminism

Ecofeminism inspects the close relationship between nature and women. In her argument,

Rosemarie Tong states that, in patriarchal culture, “women have been ‘naturalized’ and nature has been ‘feminized’”(246). Tong debates, “Warren emphasized that women are ‘naturalized’ when they are described in animal terms such as ‘cows, foxes, chicks, serpents, bitches, beavers, old bats, cats, bird-brains and hare brains. Similarly, nature is ‘feminized when ‘she’ is raped, mastered, conquered … or when ‘she’ is venerated … as the grandest ‘mother’ of all” (247). If women, and nature are symbolic and they can be interchanged, it follows that what man does to nature, he may also do to woman. Francoise d’Eaubonne, one of the first ecofeminists, saw a direct link between the exploitation of women and the exploitation of nature. Her claim is that one could not gain freedom without the other also becoming free. The intertwining of the feminist and the ecology movements are the cornerstone of the theories of ecofeminism.

According to Tong, ecofeminists are often deep ecologists. Deep ecologists believe that in addition to the values that humans place on it nature has its own intrinsic value. Deep ecologists are of the belief that the root cause of earth’s degradation is human centeredness

(androcentrism). Eco-feminists, however, believe that the problem is not human-centeredness but actually male-centeredness, or androcentrism. Humans are only concerned with what the earth’s contribution is to own comfort and welfare. 71

Tong asserts that ecofeminists agree that both sexism and naturism result from woman-nature association. However, they are unsure about whether the connection is biological, cultural, psychological or social. They are also struggling with the way to connect to nature. Should they de-emphasize, emphasize, or reconceive their connection to nature? Simone de Beauvoir (not considered an ecofeminist) says that the only way for women to master their social positions for them is to transcend their links to nature. She viewed a woman’s biology as “fundamentally alienating, as an energy drain leaving women too tired to participate in the kind of creative activity that men enjoy” (Tong 253). The consequence of taking de Beauvoir’s view literally would be that women join with men in exploiting the earth’s resources. The general intention of ecofeminists is to strengthen women’s ties to nature and not to weaken them. Caring, nurturing, and intuitiveness are traits that come naturally to women from their physiological experiences but in a male dominated society these traits are undervalued. Tong states that they believe

“traditional female virtues, not traditional male virtues, can foster improved social relations and less aggressive, more sustainable ways of life” (Tong 256). Mary Daly was a particularly fiery proponent of this belief. She strongly felt that men loved death and destruction whereas women were life-giving and life-loving. Daly claims that nature can be saved only if women take action.

Another ecofeminist, Susan Griffin, emphasized that humans needed to rise above the dualistic and linear thinking of patriarchy and embrace the passionate, subjective voice of female culture.

Griffin feels that the only way to transcend the dualistic thinking that deems women and nature as inferior is for women to vocalize themselves. She encouraged women to integrate their unique perspective of life into the cultural dialogue. Ynestra King is yet another feminist who believes in transcending the dualism of patriarchal thinking. Tong writes: “Implicit in King’s understanding of true ecofeminism is the postmodern feminist belief that ultimately all forms of 72 human oppression are rooted in those dichotomous conceptual schemes that privilege one member of a dyad over another (e.g., male over female, nature over culture, science over magic)”

(252).

Global Feminism

‘Multicultural Feminism’, ‘World Feminism’, and ‘International Feminism’ are the other names of global feminism, a movement for women’s rights that was started on a global scale in the postcolonial era. The bedrock of global feminism is the concept of intersectionality. This concept came from black feminist thought and emphasis on race, postcolonial feminism, and emerging postmodern and poststructuralist thought. It is thought of as a part of the Third wave feminism which comprises cultural, postcolonial, and postmodern feminism. These three major characteristics of third wave feminism are applicable to global feminism as well. Issues which have affected women across all cultures of the globe were brought under one umbrella by this movement. It has unified the framework of feminist thoughts that emerged from countries within as well as outside the western hemisphere.

Global feminism breaks all the barriers of caste, creed, class, race, ethnicity, and geographical and political boundaries. Thus feminism is faced by challenges of multicultural and global feminism: of having to unite woman in and through, despite their differences. Although women’s issues and concerns cut across all of these, the fact remains that cultural and ethnic factors play a major role in discrimination against women. Different women face different challenges due to these local factors because equality means different things to different women across different societies. Global feminism deals with the local and specific challenges posed by such systems as well as the universal challenges faced by women because of patriarchal social establishments. As 73 a movement, global feminism aims to reach a harmonious and unifying consensus by addressing all issues, across all spectrums. 74

Section B.

Feminist Theatre

Woman must write her self: must write about women and bring women to writing, from

which they have been driven away as violently as from their bodies—for the same reasons,

by the same law, with the same fatal goal. Woman must put herself into the text—as into

the world and into history—by her own movement”. (Cixous 875)

Though it is not known exactly when and where it started, the 1980s saw feminist theatre at its pinnacle. As Aston mentions, “Playwright David Edgar signals ‘the explosion of new women’s theatre’ in the 1980s, and theatre critic Benedict Nightingale, endorsing Edgar’s view, cites women’s drama as the ‘most positive aspect’ of the 1980s, an otherwise ‘barren decade for new drama’.”(Aston, Feminist Views I)

Feminism and Theatre History

In theatre departments, especially in the American context, the focus of theatre studies was more on history rather than its criticism as feminist theatre academic Sue-Ellen Case defines.

This was due to re-location of the study of plays within their historico-theatrical contexts in

Theatre studies. Theatre was disassociated from the context of its production and studied by

English departments as dramatic literature. However, the history of performance conditions, playing spaces, audience compositions, and the various artistic, social, and political functions assigned to theatre at different times were analyzed by theatre studies. Historical stages were, until that time, viewed as unworthy of study on the basis that they had no ‘great’ dramatic literature to offer (For instance, the nineteenth century British stage of the popular traditions). 75

Understanding the cultural and material conditions of theatre past (and present) is important to a feminist re-framing of theatre history, which brings this question up to ask, how and why women’s work has been marginalized or ‘hidden’. Feminists reexamined different periods of theatre history from the Renaissance to the nineteenth century with feminist approaches. The methodologies used to form the historical material were a combination of the ‘old’ and the

‘new’. From a traditional point of view, these included the images of women in male-authored drama approach derived from feminist literary studies. The history of male domination of the stage was being exposed by the ‘new direction’ in theatre history. This new approach also began the recovering of women’s performance. So, it was similar to much of women’s culture that had been ‘hidden’ and silenced by a body of conservative, male criticism.

Aston argues that literary criticism was affected in two ways by the feminist concept of women ‘hidden from history’. The first is that feminist critics were prompted to question why and how women were kept hidden by man-made history. The second was that they began the recovery of their ‘lost’ female ancestors. In terms of literary criticism this meant two courses of action. One was to explain the oppressive representation of women in literature. The other was to find a tradition of women’s writing. In theatre studies an analogous approach to the re-reading of male-made images of women (pioneered by Kate Millett in the context of literary criticism) started with the development of feminist approaches to the ‘classic’ periods of Western theatre history which, by definition, excluded women. The critical apparatus which encompassed the canon and the definition of ‘great’ or ‘classic’ literature were seen as part of the same patriarchal value-system which governed society and its cultural production. Hence, it was no longer considered value-free. For instance, it critiqued those definitions of ‘greatness’ which depended on the appeal to the ‘universal’, or to ‘everyman’. Under these conditions, a more complex 76 procedure of reading theatre from an image base has developed. Feminism has, in turn, captured this to re-read the gender bias of the canon.

Feminist Views on Stage

According to Aston, history, theory and practice are three main areas of study involved in theatre studies. Though history of theatre has the longest pedagogic ‘tradition’, the most exciting impact on approaches to plays and performance in both critical and practical modes of study came with the explosion of critical theory in the 1980s. Feminism began to change lives of women from the 1970s onward. Women were encouraged to gain a political understanding of how they had been either oppressively positioned, or completely left out of, the ‘malestream’ of political, social and cultural activity. Aston further says that “Lizabeth Goodman highlights how, as an academic subject, feminist theatre is ‘informed by’ a number of disciplines, including, for example, women’s studies, media studies or politics, at the same time as it is marginalized

‘even within otherwise ‘liberal’ institutions.”(Theatre Practice 3) Goodman distinguishes between feminist theatre as an academic area of study and feminist theatre as an art form which is primarily performed in public, in other words, outside academic institutions. “To situate the practice of feminist theatre as primarily ‘outside’ of the academy, however, in turn threatens to marginalize what has, since the late 1980s and early 1990s, become one of the most exciting areas of study: feminist theatre practice”(Aston, Theatre Practice 3). According to Elaine Aston, finding ways of making theatre feminist or making feminist theatre “has evolved principally

(although not exclusively) out of two spheres of activity: feminist critical theory and feminist performance” (Theatre Practice 3). In an earlier phase of feminist theatre (1970s to early 1980s) feminist performance happening outside of the academy in the professional practice/s of women making theatre in the context of the 1970s Women’s Liberation Movement and feminist critical 77 theory evolving inside the academy. By the late 1980s, through workshops, performances and talks by practitioners, professional feminist practice found its way into academic institutions.

Some feminist playwrights and practitioners became interested in theory. This led to an increasing exchange of cultural ideas on theory and practice.

As women began to demand equal rights with men, they made use of agit-prop techniques in street demonstrations. They campaigned specifically on four basic issues (equal pay; equal education and opportunity; twenty-four-hour nurseries; and free contraception and abortion on demand). Women were objectified in dominant social and cultural systems of representation, so

Feminists made ‘spectacles’ of themselves to object to this practice. For example, at the Miss

World beauty contests in the late 1960s and early 1970s, feminist protesters staged counter spectacles. They adorned their own bodies with flashing lights attached to clothing at their breasts and crotches. At times they paraded a dummy draped in an apron, a stocking, and a shopping bag - all symbols of domestic oppression. As Michelene Wandor puts it:

The demonstrations against the ‘Miss World’ contests in 1970 and 1971 literally ‘disrupted

spectacle’ of the consumerist exploitation of femininity. Part of the demonstration included

street theatre, caricaturing the trappings of feminine appearance, and seeking to provoke

questions about the economic base which underpinned mere ‘appearance’. (The Impact 77)

Feminist theatre, theory and practice in the 1980s was dominated by this kind of street protest which were the early stages of body-centred critique of gender representation. In the meantime, beginning of the street theatre and theatre festivals stirred a desire among feminist practitioners for a more substantiated approach to theatre-making. To achieve this, feminist practitioners started setting up their own ‘spaces’ or companies where they could explore women’s issues in a more developed way. Mainstream playhouses, and even some of the newly formed left-wing 78 socialist companies, either in the hierarchical structures of male dominated theatre work or as a dramatic subject, did not give women an equal platform. As a result, women claimed a counter- cultural ‘space of their own’ by forming their own company. In practice, for women, this meant greater control over the organization, content and style of their theatre work. In line with the consciousness-raising model of the Women’s Liberation, they consequently organized their work non-hierarchically and democratically. For instance, theatre companies such as Monstrous

Regiment and the Joint Stock Theater came into existence as a result of women’s need for a woman-centered and sexually differentiated theatre.

According to Helene Keyssar in Feminist Theatre and Theory, “The earliest critical and historical writings on feminist theatre drew their bearings from non-gendered theories and approaches to drama-that is from Aristotelian traditions of drama criticism, with an occasional use of Brechtian theory and performance theory”(4). She contends that there are two sets of conventions or styles that stand out within the diverse form of feminist criticism and theories which are Realism and Brechtian non-realism. She mentions that, in reality, the argument in favor of realism within feminist theatre goes back almost a decade to the plays and critical writings of Michelene Wandor. Realism is almost identical to Wander’s writings of naturalism.

Realism is simultaneously a matter of style and content. It represents the characters, settings and events which were made recognizable because they were re- accentuated by the newness of the material to the stage. Realism is represented by juxtaposition along with uninterrupted connection of incidents from scene to scene, and references to popular culture. It encourages us to forget the dividing line between stage and audience. So, the world of the play could just as well be a part of our world. We come to care about it almost as much as we would care about our own communities and lives. Critics who are not in favour of realism argue that realism obscures 79 and disguises the way the world is constructed, everything appears perfectly consistent, coherent and ‘natural’, and therefore appropriate. But Wandor believes that this is potentially a political good as it allows an audience of ordinary working–class and middle class people to be comfortable with the theater which, as a result, makes them more receptive to political and social ideas and behaviors that they might otherwise avoid. Helene Keyssar states that both Michelene

Wandor and Jeanie Forte believe anti-realism can be so alienating that its meanings are entirely lost. Moreover, Janelle Reinelt, debates for a modified Brechtian approach to feminist dramaturgy, although she talks elsewhere about the possibility that any kind of feminist statement could be expressed in theatre in ‘traditional realistic term’.

However, feminist playwrights and practitioners wanted to explore other theatrical forms and acting styles to represent their experiences, themes as they felt anomic by the realist structures of

“women-belonging-to-men” (Aston, Theatre Practice 7). According to Aston, “Feminist theorization of stage practice has been critical of those realist traditions of performance which work in tandem with dominant and oppressive representations of gender, and ‘glorify the phallus’ centre stage.”(An Introduction 6) For feminist, it was more important to focus on re- working old or established styles and forms in the interest of feminist dramatic and stage practice/s, than to create new forms. Women, in mainstream theatre, were shown as ‘belonging’ to men; however, counter-cultural feminist theatre-making desired to place women’s issues, experiences and stories centre stage. Their aim was to re-present women as subjects in their own right. Women hoped that they would be ‘seen’ as women and not as mere displays of a masculinist imagination. For example, Caryl Churchill speaks about a recognition of “the

‘maleness’ of the traditional structure of plays, with conflict and building in a certain way to a climax.” (Fitzsimmons, File On 90). 80

Some feminist critics attempted to challenge how women were ‘seen’ in the cultural spheres, especially those which were concerned with image making—art, theatre, advertising, television or film. In “Feminist Theater Practice”, Elaine Aston cites that in an innovational essay on film

“Visual pleasure and narrative cinema” (1975), Laura Mulvey, explored what is now commonly known as the male gaze. In doing so, she drew attention to the binary heterosexual of polarization “woman as image, man as bearer of the look” (qtd. in Aston, Theatre Practice 6).

Mulvey’s criticism of the active/male and passive/female’ mainstream (Hollywood film) conventions of looking and narrative organisation has remained important to theorizing gender in visual forms of culture, regardless of subsequent critiques of her proposal, including her own self critique.( disputed the oversimplification of the gaze as male ‘singular’). In terms of theatre,

Mulvey’s concept of the gaze assisted with an understanding of the ways in which the convention of the dominant tradition of domestic realism could be seen to preserve the structure of narrative and agency of ‘active/male and passive/female’. Though many feminists took objection to the objectification of women in the realist tradition, both in the academy and in the profession, some others adopted a bourgeois or liberal feminist position and were prepared to argue for a greater representation of women in the theatrical ‘malestream’ on ‘malestream’ terms.

By the late 1980s there was a committed body of feminist theatre scholarship which worked towards re-visioning theatre history, theory and practice. For their representation of women, feminists took the issues with ‘canonical’ texts, written mostly by men. They also searched for

‘lost’ works by women which had been buried beneath the male tradition of ‘great’ literature. As a consequence of such actions, the dramatic syllabus began to change. Feminist theatre scholarship has drawn our attention to those ‘stages’ in theatre history when the male actor 81 mimed the ‘feminine’: when women did not have bodies at all. Consequently, a chief concern for many feminist practitioners has been the re-appropriation of their own bodies. The return to the

‘female’ body or to ‘female’ culture is definitive of the feminist position which was originally termed as radical feminism, but is now more commonly designated cultural feminism. This stance sees patriarchy as the root of inequality between men and women. It, therefore, addresses oppression by giving priority to experiences peculiar to women: mothering, menstruating, and so on. The reclamation of the ‘female’ body from patriarchal victimization was highlighted by radical feminist performances. However, the essentialist premise of radical-feminist performance has made it the object of much feminist criticism. The “woman-identified model” was faced with the exceptional difficulty of urging the spectator to ‘see’ differently. (Aston, Theatre practice 9)

Aston argues that many women performance artists in the 1970s appeared naked in reclamation of their bodies, for themselves, and for other women but this did not guarantee that the naked body in this “woman-identified model” would subvert the sign of the ‘feminine’ in dominant systems of gender representation.

An important ‘stage’ in the evolution of feminist ideas and practice was when the woman’s body became a means of giving ‘voice’ to experiences repressed by the logocentrism of a patriarchal culture. The European ‘body’ of French feminist theory, represented by Hélène

Cixous, Luce Irigarary and Julia Kristeva is a theoretical model most commonly identified as cultural feminism. The work of these women is different from each other in many ways; however, it is generally identified with a psychoanalytic, Lacanian exploration of women as

‘other’ in relation to the symbolic ordering of social and cultural representation and communication. In this model, it is understood that subjectivity is problematic for women as they are expected to participate linguistically, socially, culturally, etc, in a system that constructs them 82 as marginal and alien. Cixous invites the women to ‘write herself’ in order to resist and transform their ‘place’ as marginalized ‘Other’. This appeal to the body as the site and practice of écriture féminine made it appear particularly attractive to feminist theatre practice. In fact, for a moment in the 1980s, (though essentialist this may appear in retrospect), it appeared as though the future of feminist practice might depend on the possibility of staging a ‘feminine’ language that would ‘speak’ differently as women. As Aston asserts: “Cixous proposed a transformation of the stage so that a woman’s voice could be heard for the first time” (Theatre Practice 10).

But re-viewing women’s experiences rooted/routed in and through the body was not enough for other feminists as they believed this model did not pay attention to the material conditions that produce and determine gender, class, race or sexuality. Materialist - feminist practice through the alienation of the gender sign-system make more radical intervention in the apparatus of representation, which is in contrast to the revisionist aims of a body-based cultural - feminist practice. The theatrical field of materialist feminism is extremely significant in terms of both political objectives and the domain in which a feminist practice has extensively collaborated with theory. This model merges feminist re-visioning of a Brechtian-based materialist practice with materialist—feminist theorisation of representation. As opposed to the ‘method’ of ‘getting into character’, Brecht’s theorisation of alienation can be brought into play in a feminist theatre context to alienate gender as a sign-system. The alienation effect can be used to demonstrate gender by incorporating his practical suggestions to performers on how to demonstrate systems of social oppression through the medium of performance. Feminist theorisations of gender when fused with a Brechtian-based practice, has provided a means of making a materialist intervention into the framing of the ‘feminine’. Elaine Aston argues that theatre historians resist the study of

‘new’ critical theory in theatre studies. She claims that critical theory has continued to gain 83 ground despite resistance from within the theatre academy. If we follow this controversial

‘theory explosion’, both in general terms and specifically in relation to feminism, it may lead us to the development of theatre studies as a discipline.

Another filed which is central to theatre was and still is the field of theatre semiotics.

Semiotics not only provided a ‘language’ for the study of plays in performance but also offered an understanding of the theatrical text as a sign-system. In the 1980s, there were several other spheres of critical theory, in addition to semiotics, which provided important frameworks and methodologies for the study of plays and performance. The field of theatre was associated with other disciplines such as anthropology, sociology, and psychoanalysis. Theatre was re-examined within the contexts of post-modernism, post-structuralism and deconstruction. In addition to this, it was cross-examined by Marxist scholars, cultural materialists, the new historians, and by the theory and practice of feminism.

Feminist critical theory in theatre commenced with ‘borrowing’ from feminist projects in related disciplines since theatre studies was a late developer and the effect of feminism came much later than in other studies. Aston argues that the deconstructive approaches to male- authored images of women in the canon of ‘classics’ were established by pioneering feminist approaches to literature in English studies. In contrast to its literary ‘sister’, the feminist study of theatre ‘resist’ or re-read the written text, moreover, it needed to find ways of ‘reading’ the performance context.

Theatre studies turned their interests towards film and media studies, while the focus of feminist scholarship was the structuring of ‘woman’ as sign. It was an approach which used and continues to use, feminism, psychoanalysis, and semiotics as a method to understand the representation of women in cinematic text as well as other cultural contexts. However, the 84 primary emphasis to understand construction of ‘woman’ as sign in mainstream (male) production contexts gradually was replaced by a field which was more specifically concerned with the theory and practice of women’s texts and performance contexts. However, feminist theatre studies have tried to set feminist drama in its performance context, theorizing both text and practice.

Hence, from the onset, feminist playwrights have aimed to challenge and change the rigid distinction between man and woman. Some of the important subjects they attempted to deal with included patriarchy, race, gender roles and class struggle. The fact that Brechtian techniques of dramaturgy influenced much of this new form of theatre cannot be overlooked. Brecht’s non- realistic style provides a method to explore the material situation of gender activities, the way women are internalized, resisted and modified, and socio-political elements as class. Elaine

Aston writes:

Brecht’s own preoccupations were class- rather than gender-based. His theatre sought to

revolutionise an oppressed proletariat, but failed to see gender difference as an issue in the

struggle of the working classes. The potential of the Brechtian model for a materialist-

feminist practice, comes, therefore, not directly from Brecht, but from the work of feminist

scholars and practitioners who have harnessed Brechtian theory and practice to the

feminist project. (Theatre Practice 12, 13) 85

Section C.

Incredulity Toward Metanarrative:

Postmodernism and Feminism

A crucial problem in trying to assess the relations between postmodernism and feminism is

that, although feminism can be broadly defined as a political movement whose objectives

are ultimately emancipatory, postmodernism cannot be described so easily. (Waugh 177)

As I have explained postmodernism and feminism theory before, here I would like to explain postmodernism and feminism interaction. Postmodernism and feminism have emerged as two of the most important political cultural currents of the last decade. There are various and few extended discussions of how one relates to the other. A part of feminism’s project is, the development of an independent female subject who is capable of speaking in her own voice within a culture which has persistently reduced her to the status of an object. Feminism wanted to change women’s position from that of object of knowledge to knowing subject, from subjection to subjecthood state as Rosalind Delmar argues. So, some feminists believe that feminism belongs to ‘emancipatory metanarrative’ of Enlightenment Modernism. This is indeed the perspective of many feminist theorists. These feminists have a skeptical attitude towards the likely political consequences of a total abandonment of the enlightenment project. Yet some other feminists have been absorbed into that postmodern critique which blames Enlightenment thinkers of creating so called ‘universal’ categories of knowledge and value which, in fact, ignore entire communities or groups of people. These feminists go on to say that Enlightenment thinkers claim ‘objectivity’ for knowledge which actually reflects vested interests. Patricia

Waugh claims: “The crisis in knowledge – the idea that all knowledge is constructed and reflects 86 relations of power – is seen to entail a crisis in the political orientation of the Enlightenment”

(179).

Indeed, Women were not accidently excluded from dominant theoretical discourses like political theory, Marxism, philosophy, psychoanalysis etc; in fact it was a fundamental structuring principle of all patriarchal discourses. Even if women were to be included within these discourses, it would be in terms of sameness and not difference. Thus, women could be discussed not specifically as women but in terms of a common, male-referenced humanity.

Knowing this, as a subject of these knowledges, women could occupy only a range of pre-given positions. So, women thinkers and writers could write only as a surrogate man. Far from being ungendered and ‘transcendent’, it was apparent that the ‘universal subject’ of

Enlightenment modernism was not only gendered but very specific: a western, bourgeois, white, heterosexual man. Patricia Waugh argues: “Feminists have shown how Enlightenment discourses universalize white, western, middle-class male experience and have thus exposed the buried strategies of domination implicit in the ideal of objective knowledge.”(179). Hence when feminists recognized that there is no universal ‘woman’ for whom feminism can speak, also feminism need to embrace differences between women and accept a position of partial knowledge(s), it would seem that feminist thought has strayed from Enlightenment beginnings, and now has much in common with postmodern theory.

There is seeming intersection between the two groups at a number of points. It is the argument of both, feminism and postmodernism that the ‘grand’ or ‘master’ narratives of the

Enlightenment have lost their power of legitimizing. ‘Universality’ in fact proved to be valid only for men of a particular culture, class and race. Both believe that Western representations are the result of advantages of power and not of truth, be it in art or in theory. Craig Owens 87 points out that throughout Western culture, women have been represented in innumerable images (and metaphors), and often as symbols of nature, truth, the sublime or even sex - but they have seldom seen their own representations granted legitimacy. He further argues that

Western representational systems have accepted only one vision- that of the constitutive male subject. Both criticized “binarism, that is, thinking by means of oppositions, in which one term of the opposition must always be devalued” (Thornham 44). This critique is very fundamental to feminist thought that have been seen in the discussion of many feminists’ work like Simon de

Beauvoir and Judith Butler. Also, both groups insist on “difference and commensurability”

(Thornham 44). Lastly, they both desire to bridge the gap between theory and practice as well as between the subject of theory/knowledge and its object.