Credo, ergo Sum: What I Call Radical Feminism

[alixtii]

Liberal feminism provides for us a measure of just how far we have come.

Radical feminism provides for us a measure of just how far we have left to go.

Both measures are equally important, and losing track of either can be dangerous.

I do believe:

• That racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism, etc. are systemic, subtly and ubiquitously embedded in our society in places both obvious and invisible, and about as deeply as one can get, in our language(s) (and in our unconsciouses which are structured like a language), in a superstructure which I alternately may call "patriarchy" or "systemic injustice." Remember the word radical comes from a word meaning "root": systemic injustice infects society at its very foundations.
• Thus, that most if not all economies, governments, cultural forms, languages, etc. do in some way flow from this patriarchal root.
• That racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism, and many but possibly not all other forms of systemic injustice are, if not quite equiprimordial, at least so deeply interconnected that it's never quite clear where one starts and the others end. This is a change in position from my teens when I saw all other forms of injustice as symptoms of sexism in a very second-wave sort of way.
• As a corollary, that it is extremely unlikely that racism could exist in a truly non-sexist society (since there is a sense in which racism is always-already inherently misogynistic), and vice versa. It's even harder to imagine sexism existing in a non-heterosexist society or vice versa. This doesn't mean that once we stop sexism, racism will magically fix itself so much as that we won't be able to stop sexism until we've cleaned up our act on race issues as well. On the same pattern, stopping sexism won't heal the ozone layer, but I have no doubt that the anti-environmentalist urge which impels us to harm the Earth in first place is linked in some way to and motivated by misogyny.
• That the various brands of privilege--white privilege, male privilege, heterosexual privilege, cisgendered privilege, etc.--exist even as they are so often invisible and taken for granted.
• That while men are the beneficiaries of male privilege and have certain responsibilities as a result of that, they cannot be "blamed" for patriarchy in any unproblematic way. Indeed, that the urge to blame is itself a patriarchal logic.
• That talk of reverse sexism or other "reverse discriminations" ignores the systemic character of real sexism, racism, etc.
• That male and female are not essential categories but instead the complex interaction of self-identification, behavior, and social interpellation; that the division into male and female is ultimately the result of patriarchal logics.
• That traditionally female values, behaviors, and spheres have been artificially devalued by systemic injustice and need to be reclaimed.
• That being anti-sex (and this includes the passive-agressive "sacralization" of sexuality sometimes found in some religious traditions) is always-already being anti-female and misogynistic.
• That pornography and sex work, while prone to abuse, are not inherently evil, and to view them as such can be misogynistic.
• That there are radically liberatory possibilities in female writing and female pleasure. (Cf. pretty much any French feminist.)
• That there is value in female safe spaces.
• That in a fallen world "pretty good" sometimes has to be good enough; heterosexual sex (or, for that matter, homosexual sex) as practiced by most couples may not be immune to patriarchy or be radically egalitarian and consensual but that's hardly a reason to abstain so long as one is giving it the college try. That even problematic instances of autonomy must be encouraged and celebrated from within the patriarchy, and that to erase this trace of autonomy is to be cooperative with the patriarchal logic.
• That one must use the master's tools to take down the master's house; i.e. patriarchy can only be dismantled from within, and it is possible to use its structures (e.g., "Christianity" or "the romantic comedy genre") against it. This will always necessarily require temporary compromises and cooptations, but can result in demonstrable improvements in both the short- and long-term (at least using the liberal feminist measuring stick). But there is no other choice: il n'y a pas de hors-texte.
• That government legislation is a sometimes necessary but rarely if ever sufficient remedy to systemic injustice.
• That the works of mercy needed to improve the lives of women under patriarchy are important as well as the social action needed to end it. (Cf."the two feet of justice" in Catholic social teaching.)
• Silencing the voices of women and other members of other oppressed groups is never a good thing.

I have, in the past, referred to this complex of positions as "radical feminism," and may well do so again in the future.

The following positions are not ones that I particularly associate with radical feminism, not even my own unique brand of such, but which I think are compatible with it and good to hold in general:

• That dissent, discussion, and dialectic are healthy. Many objections are not stupid and showing that one can respond to them can be a powerful persuasive tool.
• Not getting things completely wrong is almost always a useful and valuable endeavor.

Also, I like slash.

Comments

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

A few thoughts on your thoughts:

Although you say in #3 that systemic injustices are equiprimordial, in #1 and #2 you summarise them all as "patriarchal". Doesn't that choice of word imply that you still see sexism as the root of all the other forms of oppression?

(Or at least "the dominance of the father", since patriarchy taken literally is as much about control by the older generation of the younger as it is purely male-female relationships. But that's a linguistic quibble.)

If I were stating my own views in a similar fashion, I'd argue that the urge to categorise people, and then to fear or hate those who fall into different categories to yourself, are truly at the root of all the problems. Perhaps once it was simply "my family" and "everybody else", but more complex societies gave rise to even more methods of categorising people, and then Othering them. Hence racism, sexism, classism, religious prejudice, and so on. Social organisation also gives people tools for enforcing and institutionalising their prejudices, strengthening the position of their in-group at the expense of the Other. And, of course, those excluded categorise and Other people just as much, except that they only get the moral comfort and solidarity and not the practical benefits of being an oppressor. It's still the same psychological mechanism, though, which is while I feel it's over-optimistic to believe that a society without, say, sexism would also be without heterosexism; or any other form of category-based prejudice.

Does that mean I think all improvement is hopeless, that we're stuck with prejudice forever? No. Lack of knowledge and unfamiliarity strengthen prejudice, because strangers are to be feared. The more we can communicate with people from other groups and discover that actually, there're not all that much different to ourselves, means that we can start to regard them as Us instead of Them. I'm left handed, and in living memory that means I would be part of a persecuted sub-group. Nowadays nobody cares. Hopefully one day the same will be true of all other forms of prejudice, and nobody will need to be Othered.

Well, apart from Buffy/Angel shippers. They're just weird.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Although you say in #3 that systemic injustices are equiprimordial, in #1 and #2 you summarise them all as "patriarchal". Doesn't that choice of word imply that you still see sexism as the root of all the other forms of oppression?

In short: yes. Which is why I tend not to use it as much anymore.

(Although I'm not sure that looking at the difference between the rule of men and the rule of [the name of] the father is purely a linguistic quibble. And as far as I know, there aren't that many other names for the superstructure I call systemic injustice. Other than patriarchy, the main one I've heard put forth was "kyriarchy.")

Because I was responding in large part to a particular second-wave radical feminist viewpoint, and casting my own position as a third-wave postmodernist type of radical feminism, I used explicitly feminist/anti-patriarchal language in this post to emphasize that connection. Without that context, I would have made a larger effort to use neutral language.

It's still the same psychological mechanism, though, which is while I feel it's over-optimistic to believe that a society without, say, sexism would also be without heterosexism; or any other form of category-based prejudice.

Well, I guess I see it as that psychological mechanism is itself what feminists call "sexism" and what anti-racists might call "racism"; this is why the impulse to think that the form of systemic injustice one is studying is primordial. If the psychological mechanism is still in place, I don't think it's possible to say that sexism or racism has ended, because it's still possible to analyze the injustice left in the world as a sublimated form of racism or sexism, respectively.

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

Well, I guess I see it as that psychological mechanism is itself what feminists call "sexism" and what anti-racists might call "racism"

Surely they're only examples of it at work? Like your example of the moss growing on the side of a tree as opposed to the genre of a book, it's only because we see gender as an important category that we perceive oppression-based-on-gender to be so important that it deserves its own name.

this is why the impulse to think that the form of systemic injustice one is studying is primordial. If the psychological mechanism is still in place, I don't think it's possible to say that sexism or racism has ended, because it's still possible to analyze the injustice left in the world as a sublimated form of racism or sexism, respectively.

This would be an example of the "if all you have is a hammer..." phenomenon, yes? If you're passionately committed to fighting sexism, then it's natural to assume that other forms of prejudice are redirected sexism, or sublimated sexism, or whatever.

I suspect that the need to distinguish between me, you and them is inherent in humanity... not even a product of linguistic thought, but essential to self-awareness at all. What we can do is broaden the "we/you" category at the expense of the "them" one.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Radical feminists and anti-racists clearly think of themselves as talking about a disease, though, and not a symptom. Is it the most enlightened usage? Possibly not. But in the name of a sympathetic treatment, I'm trying to retain as much of their self-understanding as possible.

I'm not sure I can distinguish linguistic thought and self-awareness. Indeed, I'm quite certain that when linguistic thought breaks down, such as in mystical experience, so does self-awareness.

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

Indeed, I'm quite certain that when linguistic thought breaks down, such as in mystical experience, so does self-awareness.

Not necessarily... at least, assuming I'm interpreting "linguistic" in the same way as you are. A sexual fantasy, for example, can frequently involve pure imagination without verbalised thoughts at all, but the distinction into "myself" and "the other person" is utterly fundamental to it. (I'm assuming that 'linguistic' means 'using language' - if it has some other more technical meaning in philosophy, I'm afraid I don't know about it.)

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm assuming that a sexual fantasy still relies on concepts (the basic unit of language), which is what I mean by "linguistic." A sexual fantasy which is completely conceptless--well, I'm not sure what would make it a "fantasy" as opposed to any other type of experience.