DOCUMENT RESUME ED 237 431 SO 015 187 AUTHOR McFadden, Maggie TITLE ' Aatomy of Difference: Toward a Classification of Feminist Theory. PUB DATE 83 NOTE 31p.; Paper presented at the National Women's Studies Association Conference (Columbus, OH, June 26-30, 1983). PUB. TYPE Information Analyses (070): Speeches/Conference rapers (150) EDRS PRICE MF01 Plus Postage; PC Not Available from EDRS-. DESCRIPTORS *Classification; *Cross Cultural Studies; Cultilral Differences, *Feminism;.*Sex Differencesl Social Attitudes; Social Differences IDENTIFIERS Frawce; Germany; Great Britain, Netherlands; United States ABSTRACT In an atteMpt to understand differences and commonalities in international feminism, a typology is presented and discussed. The study deals with feminist theork in the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Britain, the Netherlands, and/the United States. The typology is based on the concept of difference. Two groups are used in the classifibation scheme:. maximizers,'those'who .,believe -that the differences between men and women are radical and should be emphasized and celebrated, and minimizers, those who-would minimize the-differences Separating men and women and are concerned with integration. A spectrum of attitudes (both, historical and contemporary) for each group, on the basis of their position on sex /gender difference and the ultimate goal each advocates for society is then examined. Connecting links between-these two groups are discussed. One example of a link is the contemporary black and Third World feminism which-mediates between the struggle for socialist revolution (minimizers) 'and the specifitity of the positive valuei and characteristics of women of color (maximizers). (RM) ***** ** ********************** *********** Reproductions suplied by EDRS are .the best that can be made * rem the original document. r*********** ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * ** US. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL RES04tRCES INFORMATION CENTER IERICI This dOCurneht 'has bean l'aprOdUCCd as fectilved from Thuperson cif orrianizaiion pginaungn. Minot Oranges haw beeR made ID irriprOyo Agri AthiCAMI quality. Point5 01 yieN... Of gpiniCA5 51a1.)0 en INS aget.). menu GO AO! necilsAlAly remorm otfloatNIE po$4101'. or no;CV. "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL IN MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY ANATOMY OF DIFFERENCE: TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)," TOWARD A CLASSIFICATION OF FEMINIST THEORY 983Maggie McFadden Women's Studies/ Interdisciplinary Studies Appalachia) State University Boone, North Carolina I. Introduction The present European-American feminist dialogue is often limited, partly because oflanguage, partly because of a kind of native American chauvinism, and partly because the cultural traditions and background essential to a good understanding and very subtle and hard to translate. At the same time Ameri- cans are all too prone to assume that there are no essential differences(or that the feminist debate in Europe will be "jutst like" what goes on in the U.S.). As Renate Duelli-Klein noted in a recent review, "We need translators: f6mi- nists who because of lived experiences in-different contexts and different femi- nisms are able to make accessible our thinking and feeling-and the context in which we act,-live, and theorize to each otherbArr--- n working through European feminist theory I sought for away o'ordering the disparate variety 6f material that is there. Inevitably in order to come to terms with European feminism I brought American feministthought intopldy 4P as abasinLoTcompa on and was then drawn to the strategy oftypological analysis. A scheme began to suggest itself from-looking at both European and American thought. I began to be totally-dissatisfied with any schema which made artificial national distinctions, coming to believe that allthe positions are represented in all the cultures that I looked at Each has differing em- phases, to be sure, but the tendencies are there, Wet Germany, France, Britain, the Netherlands, and in the U.S. as well. My original intention was to discuss fiends and tendencies in European feminist theory will be offering instead a new typology of feminist theory *Renate Mein-Klein, "Report on Feminism in France Presentation,"" Women's Research and Resources Centre Newsletter (London), No. 2(1983), p. _ 2 based on the concept of difference. I shOuld make crystal clear that I dealing only with-the Federal: Republic of Germany, France, Britain, the Nether- lands,' and the U.S. in this study. I did not visit feminists in souther5 Europe nor in Scandinavia, and although I have some materials from those ricultures, I have not incorporated- them specifically into my classification` I would be grateful if others could point me to'relevant material:- J show where various theorists would fit (or would not fit) into my. scheme .inally, I want to emphasize that this is a work in progress= a typologi covers a great deal of material, and-each position- embracing variations we should be awarepfruns the risk of oversimplifying a complexity. Ci tical dialogue -is essential and I welcome it Classifying Feminist. T de- 601,1 Critique of the LiteratuT, Ever since the begin( of send wave of feminism in the mid-siXties, womeu ,te--mined pot only to resurrect our hi-story, but also .L0 d save our contemporary exper- . ience, so that."never.a. we be fad with the numbingeffects of a silent and monolithicpast . Thus, the NeW York Redstockins Collective began the "Notes from the Year" 'series in 1969, a prac- . tice taken,up by the British movement with itsFeMinist Practice: Notes from the 10th Year (1979) . All along there have been attempts- to name and sort out the different theoretital perspectives emerging,froM the wide spectrum of feminist groupings. In her What Women Want: The'Id4s _ provided_ an early schema of Yates_ ofthe Movement(1975)-_ , Gayle Graham 0 this kind.' She divided-women's,meVement ideologies into three groUps, on the basil of their attitude toward men: 1)The feminists regard women' ,asrextual to men; 2) the women's liberationists separatefr6m Men or at least arrive at their. principles "over-against",men;3) the androgyRiAtA would say that women and men should be equal 'to each other.Lln each case. Yatescarefully delineates the source of the standard,. thei7dent fi'at.un of the enemy, techniques for Change, ategy, an4 goals. On goals, for inAance, feminist_ ideology opts for "integration(collapse of diversity into unity)"; women's _liberationist position demands "segregation (diversity at expense of unity)" and androgyny ideology advocates "pluralism (diversity withinunity)." Yates' explanation and classification is clear and helpful for Americanfeminists, but its use of the term "feminist"for only the reform or equal rights groups misleading. .She does not, -course, attempt to explicate European feminism, ahli the categories she uses ire not totally transportable. " In the same year (19 5).Barbara Deckard published her The Women Movement which ihcludes.'a,,chaoter on "Theories of Women's Liberation. -'NN . * Tedkard identifies three major thruSts:'of*tte newmomen..'s mOvement and 4,, these have by now become-the standard way of laong he differences within the movement socialist feminisw, radical femjnisM, and women's rights feminism. in heW description she explains sensitively the disc tinctions, and she takes pains not to makaartificia ly precise a split between the socialist feminists:and the radical feminists. ,She-quite clearly understands that even for radical feminists, soi list revolu- k. tion is necessary, yet because of the terminology that s and others adopt, many are led to believe that radical feminists arenot socialists. _ = Both groups. "agree that to free women a revolution.that Is both socialist and feminist is necessary; but, differing in their prior ,analysis, they' E plaCe differinTemphases on the two elements- "3 Thy deal society for the two groups, she says, is very.slmi,lar; a society in.which sex roles would be destroyed, and,in which "creativity, independence, nu'rturance A and sensitivy" would come to be'dominant traits, for all humanbeings.' The greatest difficulty with Deckard's analysis is her slighting'of that strand of feminism Which rejects androgyny and looks to-exaltthe female ,,and,"feminine'". racteristics; Deckardpasses:off thii part of feminism by saying "a few women" hive these beliefs. By now of course we witness all sorts of .groups which seek to "make much of" sex /gender differences matriarchy groups',.Self-h'elp grgups, women's communes, women hea1Tt care- and motherhood groups, women artists, lesbian separatists, witch covens, etc. Neither_ in thisountry nor in Europe are these only "a few women." - 6 Deckard's explanations ere; Fgwever, helpful, and her chronology and documentatiOn of the second wave of American feminism (chapter 12) is invaluable. Gerda Lerner has recently divided the new American femirism into five groups:,WbMen's. Rights FeminiSm, Socialist. Feminism, Radical Feminism, Lesbian Fernipism (to include separatist and non- separtist), and - Third World and. Black Feminism. The classification is based on .the 4 varying beliefs about the cause of women's oppression, the practice of feminiSm, the goal of feminism, and the nature of Woman.- Her scheme is not meant to be limiting, and she notes that there are many overlaps and change: over de. By its language, however,, it still 1 suggests a larger: diviet6n 'between socialist feminists