Gender Communication Theories and Analyses

From Silence to Performance

Charlotte Kroløkke, Anne Scott Sorensen

• Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc
• Year: 2005
• ISBN:
  9781506319216
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Gender Communication Theories and Analyses: From Silence to Performance surveys the field of gender and communication with a particular focus on feminist communication theories and methods - from structuralism to poststructuralism. In this text, authors Charlotte Krolokke and Ann Scott Sorensen help readers develop analytic focus and knowledge about their underlying assumptions that gender communication scholars use in their work.

1

Three Waves of Feminism

---

From Suffragettes to Grrls

We now ask our readers to join us in an exploration of the history of feminism or, rather, feminisms: How have they evolved in time and space? How have they framed feminist communication scholarship in terms of what we see as a significant interplay between theory and politics? And how have they raised questions of gender, power, and communication?

We shall focus our journey on the modern feminist waves from the 19th to the 21st century and underscore continuities as well as disruptions. Our starting point is what most feminist scholars consider the “first wave.” First-wave feminism arose in the context of industrial society and liberal politics but is connected to both the liberal women’s rights movement and early socialist feminism in the late 19th and early 20th century in the United States and Europe. Concerned with access and equal opportunities for women, the first wave continued to influence feminism in both Western and Eastern societies throughout the 20th century. We then move on to the second wave of feminism, which emerged in the 1960s to 1970s in postwar Western welfare societies, when other “oppressed” groups such as Blacks and homosexuals were being defined and the New Left was on the rise. Second-wave feminism is closely linked to the radical voices of women’s empowerment and differential rights and, during the 1980s to 1990s, also to a crucial differentiation of second-wave feminism itself, initiated by women of color and third-world women. We end our discussion with the third feminist wave, from the mid-1990s onward, springing from the emergence of a new postcolonial and postsocialist world order, in the context of information society and neoliberal, global politics. Third-wave feminism manifests itself in “grrl” rhetoric, which seeks to overcome the theoretical question of equity or difference and the political question of evolution or revolution, while it challenges the notion of “universal womanhood” and embraces ambiguity, diversity, and multiplicity in transversal theory and politics.

We could start much earlier. In fact, we could go as far back as antiquity and the renowned hetaera of Athens, or we could go even further back to prehistoric times in Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean regions and discuss goddess religions and matriarchy. Or we could examine the European Middle Ages and the mystical rhetoric of holy women like Hildegard von Bingen (1098–1179). We could also highlight the Renaissance tradition of learned women such as Leonora d’Este (1474–1539) or Enlightenment beaux esprits such as Madame de Rambouillet (1588–1665) or Germaine de Staël (1766–1817). Another obvious start would be the struggles of bourgeois European women for education and civic rights in the wake of the French Revolution. These were eloquently phrased by Olympes de Gouges (1748–1793), who drafted a Declaration of the Rights of Women (1791) analogous to The Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789).

The First Feminist Wave: Votes for Women

Germany has established “Equal, universal, secret direct franchise,” the senate has denied equal universal suffrage to America. Which is more of a Democracy, Germany or America?

— Banner carried during picketing of the White House, October 23, 1918

Imagine: During World War I, members of the National Women’s Party (NWP) protest outside the White House with confrontational banners accusing the government of undemocratic practices. Germany had already granted women suffrage, but the United States—the proponent of freedom and democracy for all—had yet to enfranchise half of its citizens. The banner created an outrage, the police received orders to arrest the picketers, and onlookers destroyed the banner (Campbell, 1989). Comparing Germany to the United States was treachery. However, the picketers did receive some sympathy—after all, well-dressed, well-educated, White, middle-class women were going to jail. This was no way to treat ladies!

The demonstrators knew what they were doing: Dressed in their Sunday best, they offered no resistance to the police and thus both appalled and appealed to the public. They personified White, middle-class femininity, while engaging in very unfeminine and less-than-bourgeois practices. The action was inspired by radical agitator Alice Paul (1885–1977), who introduced militant tactics to the NWP: parades, marches, picketing (mainly the White House) as well as watch fires to burn President Wilson’s speeches (Campbell, 1989). Alice Paul’s tactics were confrontational but also clever, and they were a thorn in the side of President Wilson, who much preferred the less radical tactics of the National American Women’s Suffrage Association (NAWSA).

Parliaments have stopped laughing at woman suffrage, and politicians have begun to dodge! It is the inevitable premonition of coming victory.

— Carrie Chapman Catt (1859–1947)

The first wave of feminism in the United States was characterized by diverse forms of intervention that have continued to inspire later feminist movements. But despite the activist talents of Alice Paul, the organizational skills of Carrie Chapman Catt (1859–1947), president of NAWSA, and the splendid oratory of Anna Howard Shaw (1847–1919), also a former president of NAWSA, it was a long struggle before women won the vote in 1920 (Campbell, 1989). The struggle went as far back as the Seneca Falls Convention in New York in 1848, during which more than 300 men and women assembled for the nation’s first women’s rights convention. The Seneca Falls Declaration was outlined by Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815–1902), claiming the natural equity of women and outlining the political strategy of equal access and opportunity. This declaration gave rise to the suffrage movement (see Stanton, 1948).

I always feel the movement is a sort of mosaic. Each of us puts in one little stone, and then you get a great mosaic at the end.

— Alice Paul (1885–1977)

In the early stages, the first wave of feminism in the United States was interwoven with other reform movements, such as abolition and temperance, and initially closely involved women of the working classes. 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 agitated for the rights of women of color. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and several others from the more radical parts of the women’s rights movement appeared as delegates to the National Labor Union Convention as early as 1868, before any successful attempts to organize female labor (Firestone, 1968).

Dat man ober dar say dat women needs to be helped into carriages and lifted ober ditches, and to hab de best place everywhar. Nobody eber helps me into carriages, or ober mud-puddles, or gibs me any best place! And ain’t I a woman! Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed, and planted and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain’t I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seem ‘em mos’ all sold into slavery, and when I cried out my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain’t I a woman?

— Sojourner Truth (1797–1883)

When women’s rights activists gradually realized that disenfranchisement severely hampered reformatory efforts, they became determined to rectify this obvious injustice. Still, for women to gain the vote was a highly controversial issue. Even well-meaning skeptics feared that it would mean a setback for men of color, who were also at that time campaigning for enfranchisement, not to mention southerners’ fears that the thousands of illiterate women of color would also claim their rights. Thus, 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 (Campbell, 1989). This tendency was only reinforced by the counterstrikes of both the abolitionist movement and the working unions to also keep women involved in these movements. Furthermore, the Civil War in the United States and, later on, both World War I and World War II meant a severe backlash for women’s rights, as the focus then became demands of national unity and patriotism.

Resolved, that the women of this nation in 1876, have greater cause for discontent, rebellion, and revolution than the men of 1776.

— Susan B. Anthony (1820–1906)

Suffragists confronted stereotypes of women and, in particular, claims of proper female behavior and talk. First, they engaged in public persuasion, which in those days was considered most unwomanly. Campbell (1989) put it this way: “No ‘true woman’ could be a public persuader” (pp. 9–10). Second, their very activity challenged the “cult of domesticity,” which in those days dictated that a true woman’s place was in the home, meeting the needs of husband and children. Women were further required to be modest and to wield only indirect influence, and certainly not engage in public activities. So, when a woman spoke in public, she was, by definition, displaying masculine behaviors. She was even ignoring her biological weaknesses—a smaller brain and a more fragile physique—which she was supposed to protect in order to ensure her reproductive abilities. Such claims led some women’s rights activists to argue that women should indeed gain the right to vote from an argument of expediency (Campbell, 1999). This argument was based on the claim that women and men are, in fact, fundamentally different and that women have a natural disposition toward maternity and domesticity. However, the argument ran that it would therefore be advantageous to society to enfranchise women, so they would then enrich politics with their “innately” female concerns. Furthermore, if women had the vote, the argument ran, they would perform their roles as mothers and housewives even better. On the other hand, we find another well-used argument: justice (Campbell, 1989). Following this argument, women and men are, at least in legal terms, equal in all respects; therefore, to deny women the vote was to deny them full citizenship (Campbell, 1989, p. 14).

I would have girls regard themselves not as adjectives but as nouns.

—Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815–1902)

Some first-wave feminists pursued the argument of women’s innate moral superiority, thus embracing what might be called “difference first-wave feminism.” This argument was part of a sophisticated rhetoric of equity, developed simultaneously in Europe and in the United States, which shared the modern, Western political framework of enlightenment and liberalism, anchored in universalism. From this point of view, patriarchy was understood as a fiasco that was both nonrational and nonprofitable and thereby illegitimate, but nevertheless reinforced women’s marginal societal status and domination and made women a cultural emblem of deficiency. Politically, this view led to the claim that women and men should be treated as equals and that women should not only be given access to the same resources and positions as men but also be acknowledged for their contributions and competencies. This concept is often called “equal-opportunities feminism” or “equity feminism,” and it is characterized by the lack of distinction between sex and gender. Even though biological differences were understood to form the basis of social gender roles, they were not considered a threat to the ideal of human equity, and biological differences were therefore not accepted as theoretically or politically valid reasons for discrimination.

No race can afford to neglect the enlightenment of its mothers.

— Frances E. W. Harper (1825–1911)

One of the earliest manifestations of liberal first-wave feminism in Europe, Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), was written in the wake of the French Revolution and is still read as a seminal text. Virginia Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own (1929) and Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex (1949) are central to the canon as well, even though both authors were also laying the groundwork for radical second-wave feminism. Woolf introduced the notion of female bisexuality and a unique woman’s voice and writing, Beauvoir the notion of women’s radical otherness or, rather, the cognitive and social process of “othering” women as the second sex in patriarchal societies. We would say that Beauvoir thereby produced an authoritative definition of patriarchy.

The woman who strengthens her body and exercises her mind will, by managing her family and practising various virtues, become the friend, and not the humble dependent of her husband.

— Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797)

Parallel to this strand of liberal first-wave feminism, a distinct socialist/ Marxist feminism developed in workers’ unions in the United States, in reformist social-democratic parties in Europe, and during the rise of communism in the former Soviet Union. It was initiated by, among others, Rosa Luxemburg (1870–1919) in Germany, Alexandra Kollontai (1873–1952) in Russia, and anarchist Emma Goldman (1869–1940) in the United States. Liberal and socialist/Marxist feminism shared a basic belief in equity and equal opportunities for women and men, but the latter focused particularly on working-class women and their involvement in class struggle and socialist revolution. Socialist feminists such as Rosa Luxemburg and, in particular, Alexandra Kollontai and Emma Goldman, paved the way for second-wave feminism, fighting both politically and in their own private lives for women’s right to abortion, divorce, and nonlegislative partnership—and against sexism both in bourgeois society and within the socialist movements.

We will be victorious if we have not forgotten how to learn.

— Rosa Luxemburg (1871–1919)

Both liberal and socialist/Marxist feminism continued to develop and maintain strong voices in 20th-century feminism, though they were soon challenged by other types of feminism, as we are going to see below. The concept of equal opportunity framed a particular type of equity research, which arose outside the academy in the first half of the 20th century, and gradually provided the basis for a growing field of research in “the women issue.” Following the scientific paradigm of structuralism as a set of ways and means of knowing, equity research initially took the basic format of muted group theory (see Chapter 2). In Chapter 3, we further relate this particular body of work to the methodology of conversation analysis, and in Chapter 4, we explore its manifestation as the dominance and deficit approach in terms of communication and present you with an example of conversation analytic communication work.

As a woman, I have no country. As a woman, I want no country. As a woman, my country is my world.

— Virginia Woolf (1882–1941)

The Second Feminist Wave: “The Personal Is Political”

The revlon lady tells her to put on a mask. “be a whole new person” and “get a whole new life.”

— Protest sign carried durin...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Introduction
• Acknowledgments
• 1. Three Waves of Feminism: From Suffragettes to Grrls
• 2. Feminist Communication Theories
• 3. Feminist Communication Methodology
• 4. Sexist Discourse, Deficit and Dominance
• 5. Discourses of Difference and Identity
• 6. Gender and Performance
• 7. Conclusion
• References
• Index
• About the Authors