Feminism Friday: Utopian Visions and Feminist Theory

So, this might be an odd post to come up on a blog that’s at least partly a space for talking about how I want the world to be. But I started tossing this idea around a little over a year ago (and much of this post is mined from a locked post over on LJ from around then, in case stuff looks familiar to some folks), and I’m still mulling it over.

You see, in my undergraduate degree, I did a subject entitled ‘Feminism and Ethics’, which I actually quite enjoyed, lest this post lead you to believe otherwise. My lecturer (Who we’ll call C) was rather tops and I enjoyed her classes, and well, I’m currently doing a Masters in Professional and Applied Ethics, so that should tell you something.

However, shortly into aforementioned subject, C made the claim that any feminist theory requires a clear, measurable vision of what a society with gender equality or without sexism would look like. Her stated intention was to makes us think about what we believed that vision to be (or, for those in the class who believed sexism of over, of which there were a few, on what basis they could declare that vision presently realised). And initially, I sort of did, but then I kind of stopped, and realised that I found the very notion of ‘measurable feminist utopia’ as a requirement for feminist theory rather strange.

I suspect some folk might believe me a little pessimistic, or overreaching, when I say that I’m just not sure I’m capable of so clearly and comprehensively imagining a world where feminism is no longer required. For one, the needs of feminism are (or should be) tied up far too closely with the needs of various other social and political movements; anti-racism and anti-imperialism to name just a couple of examples. For another, I do actually think that the historical roots just go too deep (and I’m not optimistic enough about the likelihood of revolution) – I honestly think there’s too much kyriarchal history, and too much tendency to try and isolate the present from that history, to try and obscure the present’s investment in that history for its foundations, for feminism to be rendered irrelevant and unnecessary in a world that I can imagine. Also, perhaps I’m simply insufficiently imaginative, and I’m okay with that possibility, but there it is.

And I guess part of my skepticism is linked to the fact that much of a feminist utopia I see, which is often in sci-fi/fantasy, not only often fails in that the women in them tend to be remarkably similar in other status markers, but tends to (and this isn’t a flaw so much as part of what makes them sci-fi/fantasy and not handbooks for social change) hand-wave past the historical problems by bypassing our history altogether (i.e, the alien feminist utopia).

I suspect this sort of ‘figure out vision -> build theory to get there’ concept comes from (particularly Western) philosophy’s origins in mathematics, because it really does read like “We should have 5 apples. We have 2. So we need another 3.” This works fine (most of the time), provided you assume society is really analogous to a mathematical equation. However, part of the reality of a theory of society and social change is that a theory requiring social change needs to take other changes into account. Whilst you’re working on something, other things change, and that alters the present and often makes visible other issues that may not have been visible in the original formulation.

On top of that, such a conception of theory requires an assumption that it’s possible to take a view of society from outside of it. Perhaps objectivity is a noble goal, but it’s rooted in the idea of striving for something that’s not actually possible. Part (and a rather large part, in my opinion) of our investment in social change comes from the fact that we are embedded in societies; imagining that we can step outside of them and completely strip ourselves of those investments is rather strange, to me. Even a hermit is a product of sets of social relationships that acknowledge and allow for their hermit status; a society that is ordered in such a way that allows them to take to some remote area and never speak to other people. And we can’t stand outside others’ societies, because our view of them is shaped by the societies we’re embedded in. So, in a bit of tangent, I think we can safely say that I’m rather uncomfortable with objectivity.

But lest, dear readers, you think I’m not fond of feminist utopia at all, I wish to be clear that my objection is to the idea of a ‘measurable’ utopia. Thinking about how you think the world would look if the kinds of goals you have are achieved isn’t a bad idea; it’s a motivating force, and a way of thinking through whether your goals are really what you thought they were. But that view needs to be flexible, and very much so, for a number of reasons. Firstly, because each of us alone is not an expert on the world. There will be things we miss; privilege that obscures our visions, so we need to be flexible to have those discussions with each other. And secondly, because so much of the world we’re trying to change is contingent on so much else. That’s actually something I’m rather fond of about the world, so I like to keep it in mind, because it’s something that’s a feature of my vague and fuzzy utopian vision.

I suppose, after all that long-windedness, you could wonder whether my issue is with theory in general, or at least with theory about social change, and perhaps that’s true. Maybe I want ethics and philosophy to look too much like activism. I’m not sure – I still love a good brain-wrenching theory, I’m just not sure it needs to look like this, and I wonder if changing its shape, even just sometimes, will help us change the world with it.