Title: "Expanding Feminism: Benefits, Risks, and Cultural Implications"

Class: Political Science 401

 

Feminism, being described as both analytical and prescriptive in Mahmood’s essay, “Feminist Theory, Embodiment, and the Docile Agent: Some Reflections on the Egyptian Islamic Revival,” suggests that the concept offers both a description of feminist theory and a plan of action for future feminist movement. Historically, feminism has only focused its action on Western women and a more modernized culture, with very little literature or analysis of the non-westernized woman and how she can be incorporated into the progression of social change. While there has been very little research or analysis on developing countries, recently there has been attention on the expansion of feminism to a range of women and what that would entail as far as utilities and potentially good outcomes, with risks and arguments against this expansion. Throughout this essay, I will probe some of the complex challenges that the “dual character” of feminism involves, including the risks and debates of the “political project” while exploring and analyzing the possibly unique benefits associated with the expansion of feminism beyond the westernized woman and enhancing the movement toward a range of women around the world. I argue that while the benefits outweigh the negative aspects, there must be gradual changes to both the analysis and prescription so that feminism is accessible and relative to different sexualities, cultures, traditions, and religions and not just the ideals and desires of westernized women.

 

 

Feminism has, over the past decades, grown from being a way of analyzing the suppression of women to challenging the male-dominated relationships and enacting progressive social change for women in the Western and modernized world. Literature on this subject has classically focused its attention on the desires and struggles of women who are white, heterosexual, middle class, western, and educated. It is important, however, to acknowledge that there are other ranges of women who are also marginalized, subordinate, and oppressed and can benefit from the expansion of feminism. As this feminist theory evolves, questions surrounding whether it should be more inclusive of these ‘other types’ of women, for example, lesbian feminists and sexual deviants that have not normally been incorporated in the political project or social aspects of feminism. Gayle Rubin, in her essay on “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality,” explores different concepts of feminism and the productive utilities that could possibly come from the expansion to different ranges of women. Simply stating a main point that Rubin makes, she describes pro-sex feminism and the idea of multiple feminisms and by taking these into account we acknowledge the fact that there is a need to open up the definition of a “feminist.” Discussing sexuality as a branch of “radical feminist theory,” as Rubin does throughout her essay, is useful and beneficial for future political projects and expansion to a wider array of feminist theory that would be more open, more pluralist, and less of a sense that sexuality needs to be organized into distinct categories.

 

 

A critique of Rubin’s piece is that she “complicates who is a proper feminist.” By expanding feminism and not having distinct categories of sexuality and femininity, or even distinct interests of women, it weakens future political action and the strength of the theory. Cheshire Calhoun, author of “Separating Lesbian Theory from Feminist Theory,” explores the intersection of different types of oppression and argues that while a better version of feminism would be broad enough to include both heterosexual and lesbian identity, there are problems that lie within this expansion. For example, Calhoun explains “the movement required lesbian feminists to assert their allegiance to feminist aims and values rather than calling attention to lesbians’ differences from their heterosexual sisters” (561). Here, Calhoun shows again that even though expansion is useful for the overall feminist theory and political project, it has not properly accounted for the different ideas, desires, sexual orientation, or other defining factors of women who define themselves as feminists. A danger of expanding feminism is the fear that it will only be focused on white, westernized feminists and not encompass or even acknowledge different sexualities, or even different cultures and religion as I will discuss later in this essay. Another concern that has been debated is that classic feminist theory does not specify who feminism serves or what its purpose is for other “types” of feminists. It also does not address whether if feminism is expanded, if it will still have a strong political project or will it be weakened by the different interests of the different ranges of feminism? As stated earlier, the benefits of expanding feminist theory completely outweigh the risks or problems involved with it. By exploring different types of feminism and furthering the analysis of lesbianism and the idea of “sexual deviance,” we can restructure the feminist theory so that it embraces and is relative to other sexualities and cultures, and not just white, heterosexual, middle class, educated, westernized women.

 

 

Saba Mahmood in her essay, “Feminist Theory, Embodiment, and the Docile Agent: Some Reflections on the Egyptian Islamic Revival,” describes Islamic women’s growth within their culture and how they are resisting and setting limits to domination. As the basis of this essay, Mahmood has lent her ideas as feminism being both an analytical and politically prescriptive project and has offered an articulation of conditions that suppress women under traditions, cultures, and social norms. She suggests that the feminism concept needs to be restructured more as a “capacity for action” against the historic relations of subordination that have been enabled and created in these cultures rather than a distinct resistance against relations of dominance. Mahmood describes that through the religious ceremonies and practices that they organize and stage, and individually in the context of their marriages, this is in itself a means of resisting and setting limits to domination relative to their tradition and what they are able to achieve as agents of feminism. In non-Western countries, feminism and freedom are relative to long histories of submission. While they have been described and seen by Western writers as caricatures of submission to male-dominated relations, their “resistant” actions against dominance have been relatively large steps toward freedom and politicized feminist movement. Analytic writings of women in these parts of the world, specifically in regards to Islam practices, have not truly encompassed the “complex and rich” past narratives, and instead portray these women as submissive beings, “shackled by structures of male authority” (205). By restructuring the current analysis of feminist theory and making future prescriptions accessible and relative to culture and tradition, the expansion of feminism holds great benefits for not only Western women but for suppressed women around the world.

 

 

A possible counterargument, however, that has been presented in response to the idea of expanding feminism is that feminist theory should not be restructured to enhance other types of feminism and that women in non-western countries would be better suited to adopt westernized feminist practices and defy suppression in that way. Susan Moller Okin, author of “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?” argues that if women in these male-dominated cultures with religions that hold women in an oppressed state continue practicing these traditions, then they will continue to be in a state of subservience. She explains, “they too have elaborate patterns of socialization, rituals and other cultural practices...aimed at bringing women’s sexuality and reproductive capabilities under men’s control (5).” Many such practices make it impossible for women to choose to live independently of men, to be celibate or lesbian, or not to have children. Okin encourages women to leave behind these cultures that further the suppression of feminists and to adopt the westernized feminist political movement. She argues that women in these cultures would be better off if “the culture into which they were born in would become extinct.” If all women do this, then the political project will be much stronger and the expansion of feminist theory will be able to occur without restructuring or weakening the initial theory.

 

 

While the above discussion that Okin presents is a valid counterargument, it still does not fully address the complexities and issues that non-western women face that feminist theory should seek to ameliorate, not ignore the culture and tradition all together. Part of being free, regardless of religion, race, or sexuality, is having the ability for self-respect and to promote your own desires and interests without guidelines. For some women, that freedom and flourishing occurs through their religious beliefs and allows them to grow as a person and, in turn, this influences and promotes feminist ideals. The argument that Okin presents does not take that into account and does not analyze the differences of culture and how those traditions can still be important to women, it just must be their decision to participate in the culture. “Having the ability to realize the desire’s of one’s true will or self-interest is important for an individual to be free, instead of being dictated on how to be free, [Mahmood] describes as negative freedom” (207). Islamic women, for example, have reconfigured the gendered practices that have kept them submissive for centuries in the past. These women in developing countries seem to be further behind in the movement for equal rights, but it must be understood that the action taking place by non-westernized women is relative to their cultures, traditions, and religions.

 

 

Through the exploration of feminism and how it is being applied, or lacking in being applied, I mainly argue that feminist theory not only needs to expand to be more inclusive of women around the world and different sexualities, but also needs to expand its analysis and prescription for future political action. It is nearly impossible for Western writers and feminists to fully understand or critique the movement in non-westernized countries because there is so much that cannot be universally understood or applied. The current narrow-minded feminism cannot be the definition or plan of action for change for all women. Feminist theory needs to seek to be accessible to women of all sexualities and also be relative to traditions and cultures around the world that utilize feminist ideals in ways that further their well-being that may not make sense for white, heterosexual women in westernized countries. By expanding feminism to be more inclusive and relative, it will become stronger and allow for future political projects and action against suppression that will further the interests of women in all ranges.