Blogs Cliopatria Purity and Popularity, thinking about feminisms

Oct 17, 2005

Purity and Popularity, thinking about feminisms

by Cliopatria

I'm quite happy with the thoughtful discussion beneath this post at my own blog about why some young women shy away from the label "feminist." I've been thinking about the various ways I've tried, over the years, to "win" both young men and women over to the feminist cause.

At times, I confess I've used the ultimately unsatisfactory strategy of broadening the definition of the feminism to the point of near-meaninglessness. It's relatively simple, and temporarily satisfying, to say that feminism is simply the belief that women are entitled to dignity and respect in both their public and private affairs. With that definition, virtually everyone can come into the feminist camp, regardless of their views on women's political, social, economic, and sexual equality! On more than one occasion in the past, I used the language of "respect and dignity" rather than "rights and equality" in order to bring my most socially conservative students in under the banner of feminism. I've come to believe that a "big tent definition" inevitably "dumbs down" feminism, but it has the pleasant result of enabling the prof to say that he has an entire classroom full of feminists!

I often think of my role as a pro-feminist professor as analogous to my role as a progressive evangelical. In both my political and religious commitments, I do sometimes feel an urge, even a duty, to proselytize. I'm careful, of course, not to do so obviously from the front of a classroom. And I'm also aware that for any number of reasons, it's easier to get away with teaching a women's history course from an avowedly feminist perspective than it is to teach a Western Civ course from a Christian one! Yet is there really a difference?

When I was first teaching my women's history course at PCC, now over a decade ago (Jeepers, time flies), one of my senior colleagues expressed some concern about a man teaching a class she had helped develop years earlier. "Hugo", she told me, "when you teach women's history, remember that you aren't just teaching a course -- you're raising up young feminists. That's the vital part of the job." I assured her that that "raising up young feminists" (and their male pro-feminist allies) was very much part and parcel of my pedagogy. In what I hoped would be an intellectually and emotionally appealing narrative, I did my best to construct a history of American society that would arouse the passions of my students. I wanted to make them angry, I wanted to make them proud, I wanted to make them grateful, and above all else, I wanted to inspire them to devote at least part of their abundant free time (hah!) to doing feminist work.

I am very clear about this goal. I don't hide my pro-feminist leanings from my students. At the same time, I often reassure them that there are many "feminisms." Pro-life Christianity and feminism are not, I proclaim,inherently irreconcilable; neither is feminism incompatible with the personal desire to be a stay-at-home mom. Virtually no future aspiration or set of theological positions thus precludes a student from labeling himself or herself a feminist.

But sometimes, I wonder if this "big tent" feminism is healthy for the broader movement. And thus, more recently, I've been offering up a more challenging view of what it means to be a feminist, recognizing that I will alienate some students as I do so. Perhaps, I wonder, it's better to emphasize the more openly activist elements of what it means to be a feminist, as well as to stress that the belief in women's physical, spiritual, intellectual and sexual autonomy is an essential tenet of feminism that ought never, ever, be ignored simply for the sake of avoiding a quarrel! So some semesters I do push a loftier, narrower definition of the term. When I do this, I'm always careful to create safe space for those students whose beliefs will not allow them to embrace feminism; indeed, I'm eager to give them opportunities to offer counter-arguments. Sometimes, having honest discussion about our disagreements is infinitely more satisfying than painting a winsome, but ultimately insubstantial vision of unity.

This whole debate parallels a debate I hear in churches all the time: do we want to emphasize quality or quantity? Some churches are eager to bring in as many folks as possible, and as part of working towards that ultimate goal of growth, cheerfully eliminate teachings that might alienate prospective believers. (Both left and right wing churches do this. Liberal churches often are reluctant to challenge people's private sexual arrangements, conservative churches are often equally reluctant to challenge consumerism and knee-jerk patriotism.) Other churches would rather remain small, and perhaps even shrink, if seeking growth means compromising indispensable theological truths. These "faithful remnant" Christians often make an idol out of theological purity, and some (I've seen this more than once) even take pride in the diminishing number of folks in the pews. They take their own unpopularity as evidence of the brokenness of the world, and sometimes are smugly satisfied to remain among the few "true believers." Feminist groups do it too. There's something almost delicious, isn't there, about feeling like a member of a misunderstood, shrinking and persecuted minority that nonetheless has a special and unique insight on the truth? Heck, I've seen some small churches, and some feminist outfits, come close to revelling in their own unpopularity!

I've spent years and years with secular feminist organizations, and years and years around both liberal and conservative Christian churches. Both groups have the same debate over and over again: should we seek to expand our influence, and possibly compromise our commitments., or should we remain pure (or "radical"), and risk ever-diminishing relevance? I know this will shock regular readers who admire me for my consistency (!), but I've argued both sides of that debate in both spiritual and political settings many times. Indeed, I always try and bring up the debate in class. Whether I'm lecturing about the "Constantinian compromise" of fourth-century Christianity, or whether someone can be both anti-abortion and a feminist, I do enjoy asking my students to wrestle with the age-old argument that goes on between purists and popularizers.

I think it's healthy for Christians and feminists alike to have that argument, over and over again. I'm just not sure that the fact that I change sides with seasonal regularity (but no dampening of conviction) is necessarily a virtue. Oh well, at least it makes for entertaining teaching!

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

David Nicholas Harley - 10/19/2005

Historians, like other academics, are conformists. This may seem an odd way to describe those who are often seen as rebels or mavericks by society at large, but academics are not usually obliged to operate much within the wider society, except in other social roles.

They have managed to get through their education without offending those with power over their careers. They have internalized the rules of their discipline or subdiscipline to a sufficient extent to be accepted as makers of truth, within the constraints of the discipline. They have managed to create a suitable professional persona to be accepted as colleagues and teachers.

Many historians do not give much thought to how their discipline constrains them. It seems entirely natural to demand particular styles of argumentation. That is how historical truth is created.

Unless one gives a great deal of thought to how disciplines and subdisciplines differ from one another, one is unlikely to perceive the extent to which one's own way of thinking is a social artefact. To see this, one has only to watch historians debating the suitability for tenure of a colleague whose field of research is remote from their own, or adjudicating the awarding of a prize to an undergraduate essay from a subdiscipline other than their own. There is often an assumption that one can simply know quality, by some undefined intuitive process.

One has to wonder just how competent any of us really are at recognizing good work that conflicts with our underlying assumptions. The stricter the standards of evidence are within a discipline, the easier it should be to recognize good but nonconformist work, but studies of peer-reviewing in the natural sciences suggest that even there that is not the case.

History falls somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, as far as explicit standards of evidence are concerned. It is hard for historians, whatever their own political or historiographical standpoint, to avoid giving credit to students who produce the "right" answer, by using the "right" methods of argumentation.

The profession of history, as a whole, is not in the business of encouraging heresy from its own collective norms. However, there are other disciplines where the standards are so subjective that there is almost no space for dissent and the pressuse of advocate academics can be stifling.

Ralph E. Luker - 10/18/2005

I agree that it isn't, but I also think it is more difficult than you do to fire "racists and sexists" without engaging in a process that might be a witch hunt.

Adam Kotsko - 10/18/2005

Chris,

There's a difference between coersion and persuasion. Using grading standards that require people to parrot certain views would obviously be coersion, and I'd be opposed to that. Persuasion, though -- totally in bounds.

Ralph,

That is a real injustice. I was thinking racism/sexism in terms of overt discrimination, not in terms of some kind of vague "attitude." People can harbor their opinions, but I wouldn't call someone a racist or a sexist without witnessing some kind of concrete practice (parallel to a "faith without works is dead" thing).

My intention here is not to go on a witch hunt.

Ralph E. Luker - 10/18/2005

Adam, I am one of those former faculty members who was denied tenure (fired) in the midst of charges that he was a racist and a sexist. I suspect that you have no idea how mindless, how impervious to contrary evidence, a howling mob of righteous lynchers on the Left can be. I had, after all, paid dues that none of my accusers had paid. I'd been shot at, fire bombed, and jailed in the movement; and, subsequently, I had devoted my scholarship to writing African American history. And I was subsequently blacklisted -- just when I needed to pay for my daughter's college education. Those who accused me made no contribution to the promotion of women's rights, when they made it excruciatingly difficult for me, working mimimum wage jobs, to pay for the education of my daughter. I'm sure that you believe you know what a "racist" or a "sexist" is. I'm not so sure.

Dennis R. Nolan - 10/18/2005

I didn't suggest that the only way to teach was through a purely neutral presentation. Nor did I suggest that a teacher had to hide his or her beliefs. Quite the contrary. Classroom discussion should be challening and, like other commentators, I found that some of my best teachers had very obvious preferences.

There is an enormous difference, however, between discussing an issue openly, even when the teacher indicates a preference, and openly proselytizing for a particular cause. Take the latter course, as you say you do, and the students will very quickly conclude that the safest way to respond is to agree with the professor or remain silent. That is true even if you are scrupulously fair: the message you send may not be as mild as the one you have in your head. Their conclusion, sadly, is likely to be motivated by their experiences with other vigorous proselytizers who do not have your ability to set aside your preferences when grading students.

In any event, you and they might well benefit from some variations. Try playing devil's advocate, for instance, and advocate some position that you really oppose. One of the best classroom teachers I ever had (and one of the most annoying people outside of class) was Alan Dershowitz. He could introduce a controversial subject, then proceed to take what we would regard as a conter-intuitive position on it. He stirred up great intellectual and moral debates --- often leaving us wondering after it was all over just what he really believed. Had he come in and tried to "convert" us to anything, he might have intimidated those who disagreed, but he would have been far less effective as a teacher.

Christopher Newman - 10/18/2005

The number of racist and sexist professors that are out there is, I'm sure, miniscule compared to the number of "racist" and "sexist" professors that students accuse of being out there. My question was related to Rebbeca's rather dismissive comments about students who "yammer" about "liberal profs." The implication was that they are a bunch of lazy, whiny conservatives who can't stand having their beliefs "challenged." I wondered whether she dismissed students who, say, "yammered on" about being forced by their "sexist" biology professors to consider that some traits might be linked to a particular sex. I think that kind of "table turning" question works quite well and takes account of reality.

But let me ask again. Why do you, Adam, think professor should be subtly seductive advocates of their ideologies? Are you entirely comfortable, given the biased commitments you allude to, with the notion that professors should be getting students to "believe" what they themselves "believe"? How much, in your opinion, does or should "belief" have to do with it?

Adam Kotsko - 10/18/2005

Are there even that many sexist and racist profs out there? No -- precisely because of the "biased" commitments of the overwhelming majority of educational institutions. So just turning the tables is ridiculous and ignores reality. Yes, I think racist and sexist professors should be fired if they were hired in the first place, and no, I don't think that that is at all inconsistent with anything I've said so far.

And just for the sake of clarity, I am a mere grad student, with no power at all.

Rebecca Anne Goetz - 10/18/2005

here:

http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2005/10/a_brief_teachin.html#comments

Rebecca Anne Goetz - 10/18/2005

Christopher, I will tell you, without hesitation, that one professor cannot be all things to all students. It is a matter of fact that not all students will leave my classroom challenged in some way. My hope is to reach as many as possible, to get them to look at things in a different light, or to make them understand, if not adopt, a particular viewpoint. Hard to do, on an individual basis, especially if you face a lecture hall of 200 students.

Let me put it this way: if I'm teaching, say, American History to 1865, I'll have a couple of goals in mind. It's a survey course, so ultimately I want my students to be able to do four things: 1. learn how to function in a college environment (how to study, read, etc.) 2. understand what history means as a discipline (that history as a methodology is different from, say anthropology or the cultural studies folks you don't seem to like) 3. get a general sense of important dates and places (I want them to have a solid chronological and conceptual foundation to build on) and 4. if I'm really lucky, I'll get to teach them something about basic research and writing skills. There are days, Christopher, when I spend more time knocking elementary grammar into students' heads than I spend even *thinking* about trying to challenge their core beliefs. In any case, I'm trying to teach them to be successful students, and accepting discomfort is only one of the things they need to learn to do.

If I'm teaching an upper-level seminar, the story is entirely different. There, I'm more likely to be teaching a course based on my particular interests and research. That's an argument driven class. The entire course is organized thematically around an historical argument I'm developing. Let's say I am teaching my research. I'll be shaking up a lot of students' core beliefs about the role of religion in justifying slavery. I'm using that as a vehicle not only to shake students up a bit but also to help them hone fundamental skills--research, analysis, writing, argumentation.

You see, whatever agenda of advocacy I or Hugo might have, there's always a skill base being taught underneath it too. I don't want to speak for Hugo, but I will say, however much he agonizes about advocacy of feminism, I'll bet that in addition to thinking hard about how to frame the course and how to challenge students' beliefs, he's also constantly thinking about other skills he teaches. It's all a part of the package. I like to think that students will someday remember the moment that they, say for example, suddenly started thinking about under what conditions they might call themselves feminists and what that might mean--the moment they stopped thinking about feminism in black and white terms and learned to see shades of gray--than they'll remember my how to write an essay sections. :) But hopefully both the stretched brain and the learned skills will be of benefit to them.

As for the gender or ethnic studies profs. The whole purpose of those methodologies is to introduce subalterns, as you put it, and to learn to analyze society to show how those subalterns came into existence. It is a methodology the same way I teach history or someone else might teach the scientific method. Now, you might have an argument with the method, that's true. I myself find the methods of gender studies useful sometimes and sometimes just annoying and not useful at all. A professor teaching a gender studies class is teaching that methodology. If students disagree, or see limits to the method, I bet that makes for great discussions. It is a "new" approach and it makes a lot of people uncomfortable, and often departments of gender and ethnic studies (or even just women's studies, discounting the gender part) catch political flack, and that's unfortunate. They are, after all, representing just one more way of looking at the world, and what's wrong with that?

The moral of the story: students with an open mind will always get something out of the process, regardless of what's being advocated.

Christopher Newman - 10/18/2005

Thanks, Hugo. I'll go out check out the follow up on your blog.

Rebecca, as I said in an earlier comment, I think it's possible for a great professor to advocate a particular viewpoint without shoving it down a student's throat.

I wasn't objecting to Hugo's post so much as to what I saw as your (and Adam's) rather reflexive defense of "advocacy." I certainly understand your frustration with the "victim culture" among undergraduates, but don't you think it's at least partly the spawn of gender/ethnic/etc. studies that sometimes make the inclusion of "subaltern" voices an explicit project/goal of instruction? Are youi suprised that "anti-feminists" now want in on the action?

I know I'm being rather flip, but I thought that you and Adam were letting professors off the hook a little too easily. To be honest, I think you *still* are. I'm sure you had great experiences with the professors who challenged your beliefs as an undergraduate -- I had similar experiences. But I'm not sure that you've quite convinced me that "challenging beliefs" should be an explicit goal of pedagogy or that it necessarily results in great teaching. Isn't an outstanding liberal education bound to challenge one's beliefs, whatever the particular ideology of one's professors? And what are the political implications of "valorizing" the challenging of beliefs as a good in itself? Do you have a duty to make sure that students' beliefs are challenged equally? Are you doing a disservice to students who don't have their beliefs challenged? How does it work, exactly?

Hugo Schwyzer - 10/17/2005

Thanks, Rebecca -- I did try and answer the sort of questions Christopher is asking over at my blog in a followup to this.

Rebecca Anne Goetz - 10/17/2005

Christopher--When I was in college I took two political science classes, one from an openly and avowedly Marxist professor, and the other from an openly and avowedly conservative professor. Both classes were phenomenal, not because I am Marxist or conservative, but because I am NOT either of those things. Never have my core beliefs been more challenged. Those classes were amazingly stimulating and sometimes uncomfortable. Discomfort is the logical reaction when everything you've grown up with is questioned, and convincingly questioned.

Unfortunately, and this is what my "yammering" comment was directed at, students today do not want to be made uncomfortable in class. They want their opinions reaffirmed, not challenged. So when, say, a professor Bush-bashes (or Bush-supports, as the case may be) students now tend to adopt a victim mentality. They "yammer" to the administration or the press about how unfair it is that they've had their core beliefs interfered with. That defeats the purpose of higher education (which I think, fundamentally, is Adam's point, but I'll let him speak to that if he wishes).

THe "antifeminist" or maybe "unfeminist" young woman Hugo wrote about in his first post on this topic, is precisely the student who should take a class that focuses on women's history and/or feminism. I bet her brain would be stretched by what Hugo has to offer, regardless of what her opinions are by the end of the class.

And it is folks like that young woman that Hugo is ruminating about in this post, which if you read it, Christopher, you will see it is quite self-reflective. He's trying to think out loud about what his goals are and what his purpose is. How he defines feminism for the purpose of his class sets the tone. And he's trying to decide what kind of tone is most beneficial to the people he teaches.

It isn't appropriate, of course, to grade a student down for their opinions. But Hugo already dealt with that point, clearly and convincingly.

Christopher Newman - 10/17/2005

Frankly, Adam's query and Rebecca's response strike me as the academic version of the "Heh. Indeed." maneuver. I mean, can you really not think of any reason *why not* indoctrinate, Adam? I suspect you can, but that wasn't the point of the question, was it? The point was to get us to cup our chins between thumb and forefinger and say, "Hmmmmm. Bravo, Adam. Why not, indeed."

Why indoctrinate? Are professors really in the business of gaining disciples -- of getting people to "believe" what they "believe"? Why should they be?

Christopher Newman - 10/17/2005

"Why not indoctrinate? Why not teach in a subtly seductive way, hoping that students will come to believe what one believes? What is dangerous about doing so?"

-- Would you say the same if the majority of professors were "anti-feminist" (as Rebecca puts it, though I'm not sure how she defines that)?

Your responses seem rather remarkably un-self-critical and unwilling to engage with the question of power relations in an institution where you have most of the power -- witness Rebecca's dismissal of student concerns as "yammering" about "liberal profs." Do you react the same way when a student expresses concerns about "sexist" or "racist" profs?

Rebecca Anne Goetz - 10/17/2005

Bravo Adam. Students seem to go to college now with the expectation that all their viewpoints and opinions will be represented in class. When they're confronted with something they disagree with or don't like, they start yammering about how unfair it is and how those terrible liberal profs are out to get them.

I think Hugo's fundamental point is that there are a lot of different ways of defining feminism, and one of the challenges he faces as a teacher is how inclusive or exclusive to make that definition as a teacher. The more inclusive the definition, the less likely that some student's anti-feminist viewpoint will be challenged. A more exclusive definition changes the tone of the class. It's an interesting trade-off for a teacher to have to think about.

Adam Kotsko - 10/17/2005

Why not indoctrinate? Why not teach in a subtly seductive way, hoping that students will come to believe what one believes? What is dangerous about doing so? If people don't want to face the possibility of their minds being filled with different things, they shouldn't go to school at all.

Christopher Newman - 10/17/2005

But, notwithstanding your admirable inclusion of dissenting "voices," doesn't it give you pause to consider that your "advocacy" is in line with prevailing academic orthodoxy? The whole idea of professorial advocacy doesn't exist in a vacuum, does it? It's a bit naive, especially for professors of ethnic and gender studies, to ignore the power relations that come into play here. The powerless (the students who disagree with you) are constructed as "dissenters" and the powerful (the faculty) as "advocates."

I *do* think it's possible for professors to advocate a particular point of view without indoctrinating, but perhaps it's a lot trickier than many professors are willing to admit.

Rebecca Anne Goetz - 10/17/2005

Hugo--I was just responding to that first comment myself. I'll delete what I just wrote, since you just said it better than I can.

I'll add this: teaching in the college classroom does not simply entail presenting some facts and arguments and leaving it at that. It's part of our job to have opinions and perspectives and share them with our students.

Your students are lucky to have such an enthusiastic and thoughtful teacher.

Hugo Schwyzer - 10/17/2005

Dennis, I've mentioned many times here that I don't think good teaching must always come in the form of an "objective view from nowhere." As long as dissenting views are permitted and not punished, good teaching and political advocacy can go hand in hand -- especially in courses like women's studies and ethnic studies, when we're confronting forces of reaction that oppose the very existence of such classes.

Dennis R. Nolan - 10/17/2005

From your reference to a "classroom full of feminists," I assume you're talking about your classroom activities rather than extra-class advocacy. If so, why in the world do you think it's appropriate to try to "'win' both young men and women over to the feminist cause" -- or to any cause, for that matter. Your post makes it sound like you're trying to tell your students WHAT to think rather than HOW to think.