How academic feminism set back women's liberation

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

H-NET BOOK REVIEW
Published by H-Women@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (June, 2002)

Ellen Messer-Davidow. _Disciplining Feminism: From Social Activism to
Academic Discourse_. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2002. ix +
413 pp. Notes, bibliography, index. $64.95 (cloth) ISBN 0-8223-2829-1;
$21.95 (paper), ISBN 0-8223-2843-7.

Reviewed for H-Women by Susan Stein-Roggenbuck <steinrog@xxxxxxx>,
Department of American Thought and Language, Michigan State University

Reconnecting with Social Activism: Women's Studies as an Intellectual Endeavor

The development of women's studies programs, and the need to reorient those
programs toward activism, is the focus of Ellen Messer-Davidow's book,
_Disciplining Feminism: From Social Activism to Academic Discourse_.
Messer-Davidow, a professor of English, centers her argument around a key
question about the development of the field of women's studies in
institutions: "how did it happen that a bold venture launched thirty years
ago to transform academic and social institutions was itself transformed by
them?" (p. 1). Her position is that women's studies has become a part of
the institutional system, largely engaged in intellectual scholarship too
removed from its activist components. The point of her book, she writes in
her introduction, is to determine "what deflected our academic initiatives
and speculate on how we might redirect them now" (p. 13). A reorientation
is needed, she argues, to reach the goals originally set in the movements
of the 1960s and 1970s, and to achieve those goals (and preserve the gains
made) now requires new thinking about strategies, tactics and organization.

Messer-Davidow raises large questions in her book, and seeks not only to
document the narrative of events but also to explain why the programs
evolved as they did. At times a "top-view" analysis, _Disciplining
Feminism_ also includes case-study examples of specific programs informed
by participants' viewpoints to illustrate the larger arguments presented.
Interviews as well as observations of specific classes and programs are
critical sources in her ethnographic study. The author effectively crosses
disciplines to illuminate why women's studies has evolved as it has, and
offers suggestions on new routes to combat an increasing backlash against
many of the gains secured before 1980. Although not a study of history, it
is an important examination of feminist studies relevant to all interested
in the field's future and those seeking to find ways to connect, or
reconnect, to community activism.

The book is organized into three parts. The first details the state of
academia and institutions (its "sex patterns") before the 1970s, and how
women experienced, challenged and sought to reshape the system. The first
chapter focuses on four key disciplines, including physics, art history,
sociology and literary studies, and analyzes the effects of two
disciplinary functions, including the "socialization of disciples and the
ordering of discourse" (p. 21). Messer-Davidow emphasizes the importance of
disciplines (and the departmental organization) in universities and how
their individual discourses shaped the experiences of women in those
disciplines. None were friendly to women, but some, such as sociology,
offered theoretical ideas that enabled feminists to understand their
position within that discipline more effectively. Not surprisingly, the
disciplines' discourses left little room for women's experiences or voices,
and in different ways silenced women. In the case of literary studies,
argues Messer-Davidow, the discourse actually obscured women's identity:
"to be regarded as capable, the female student would have to endure the
obliteration of her female identity that resulted from performing its
male-centered, female-negating practices" (p. 39).

Messer-Davidow analyzes the institutional structure of academia, and how
both the universities and disciplines created and sustained "sex patterns"
that limited women's abilities to advance and succeed. This "systemic
discrimination" resulted in both sex segregation (women ghettoized in
certain disciplines) and sex stratification (women rarely found in the
higher ranks of academia). The organization of the university by
discipline, and the courts' acceptance of that organization as independent
of higher university administration, limited women's ability to use
affirmative action laws to gain access to the higher reaches of academia.
Judges often saw the departments and disciplines as the core decision
makers, and refused the see the university administration as party to that
decision-making process. Too often, Messer-Davidow argues, courts viewed
each woman as an individual rather than as a member of a group, in part due
to a departmental vision of the university structure, and thus rarely would
certify class action suits. The author later connects this trend to current
affirmative action decisions. The courts refused to see decision-making
operating at all levels of the university, and instead limited it to the
department/discipline, which often was where the process returned disputed
decisions about tenure or promotion. The result, she continues, was
"discursive gymnastics" with little opportunity for women to break through.
It was not until a 1978 decision on a University of Minnesota case, when a
judge questioned the lack of responsibility of the wider university
administration (including the Regents), that the tide began to turn.

The second part of _Disciplining Feminism_ describes the rise of feminist
studies, with the key dilemma centered on whether the field would focus on
activism or intellectual pursuits. Messer-Davidow argues that while it
should not have been an either/or choice, in practice it was. Feminist
studies scholars increasingly emphasized the production of scholarship and
knowledge about women, and de-emphasized, although not consciously, direct
community activism. She parallels the development of women's studies and
its institutionalization with the feminist activism in both the American
Sociological Association and the Modern Language Association to gain
attention to women's issues and to reshape the discipline. Feminists in
both associations used institutionalization--gaining access to the
organizational structure--to achieve change. Messer-Davidow does not fault
this strategy, and argues that with hindsight this was likely the only
practical way to develop a women's studies program. Developing one outside
the academy would not have been possible, as education was not a key
priority of the 1960s movement, and the resources and structure to maintain
such a program were not available.

While feminist scholars changed the decision-makers in the associations and
gained access to decision making in the academy, however, they did not
alter the decision-making structure, which limited the change they were
able to make. The promise was not realized, she argues, and documents the
inability to bridge the activism/academy divide in three programs and
conferences. Messer-Davidow points to discipline discourses and identity
politics as the key reasons for the splintering and fracturing in these
programs. "The feminist groups ... had failed to manage two interactive
processes--project formation and collective identity formation--that are
required to launch a venture in any already structured arena" (p. 123).

Too many activists used a discourse that presumed a fixed identity to each
individual, capable of "accommodating only one allegiance and one agenda.
When feminists deployed it in their own groups, they typed the speakers,
bent the meaning of their statements, and thereby generated the differences
that thwarted their work of building the collective agent of activism" (p.
122). The discourse divide limited the different viewpoints from congealing
into an effective organization to launch programs and projects. "[B]y using
the divisive discourses of the movement and the academy feminists could not
form the collective identity and action they needed to launch the hybrid
projects they had envisioned" (p. 124). The author does not claim that this
occurred everywhere, but does point to the key role discourse played in
fracturing some of these efforts.

Women's studies became more entrenched in academia and more separated from
community activism in part because of an increasing emphasis on scholarship
on the part of academic feminists. Messer-Davidow points to several factors
in this trend, including the academic tenure review system. Publications
(journals, monographs and edited anthologies) were the measure of academic
"success" at many institutions, and also were "proof" that the field held
academic and intellectual value. Much feminist work appeared (and still
does appear) largely in feminist journals, such as _Signs_ and _Feminist
Studies_, since mainstream disciplinary publications were slow to publish
feminist work. Both journals turned to more traditional academic writing in
their publications, and in the case of _Feminist Studies_ drew heavily on
women's history. Although different from the more mainstream publications,
"they had similar effects on the formation of feminist studies. On the one
hand, these venues functioned as the instruments of change by publishing
the new work that in turn constituted the authority of the practioners. On
the other hand, they functioned as the instruments of discipline by etching
the scholarly conventions into the published work that in turn was used (as
Foucault would have said) for the correct training of practioners" (p.
143). These feminist journals articulated and defined, at least in part,
the discourse of the discipline, and that discourse increasingly became
separated from community activism.

Disciplinary divides again come into play in this part of Messer-Davidow's
book. She points to the structure of many women's studies programs, which
even today are often department-based. Faculty in the different departments
teach women's studies courses, but are not solely assigned to women's
studies. Often feminist faculty gained little professional credit for
teaching women's studies courses, and the uneven availability of feminist
scholars also affected the ability of women's studies programs to expand.
They held little leverage in the 1970s to dictate and establish programs as
they envisioned, and worked within the framework given. Disciplinary
alliances also tended to divide feminist scholars, as most operated within
their disciplinary discourse. Often that position exacerbated divisions,
further fracturing the program. Messer-Davidow argues that the structure of
women's studies has changed little since 1976. Some offered internships in
activism, but activism training was not found in many courses. Social
change was often integrated into courses about specific topics, such as
women's movements or organizations, but was rarely centered on the practice
of social change. In hindsight, Messer-Davidow sees this trend as a result
of institutionalization, particularly given the resources available at the
time. The hope of meshing the intellectual with activism was not realized,
she writes, "but not for the reasons anticipated" (p. 165). Feminists
understood the power of institutions to limit and exclude, but "what we did
not understand was the power they could exercise by letting us go forward
with our projects" (p. 165). The processes of academic institutions played
a key role in the formation of women's studies and are in large part
responsible for their structure today.

Identity politics also played a role. Despite the three decades of
affirmative action, the racial make-up of faculties has remained
frighteningly static. As with feminist work, publications often ignored
work by and about African-American women. If published, such works often
went quickly out of print. This trend did not change until the mid-1980s.
Messer-Davidow does assess the criticism that feminists ignored race,
class, ethnicity and sexuality. She concludes that while it did not happen
instantly, several feminist scholars, including Gerda Lerner, Gayle Rubin,
and Pauli Murray, did begin to interrogate the complexities of those
categories and theorize how to address them. The demand for a more nuanced
discourse continued, but this resulted in specialization and fragmentation.

In addition, while attempting to reconcile their drive for inclusiveness
and equality with difference (and the multiplicity of perspectives),
feminist scholars operated within the rules of academic institutions. Such
rules often limited their ability to have an inclusive and equal faculty
that reflected the differences they tried to analyze. Conservative "equal
rights" feminists also criticized the programs and sought to recapture
feminism from those engaged, they argued, solely in identity politics. Many
began to lament the disunification of the field, and historians will find
this theme familiar. Peter Novick's _That Noble Dream_, of a decade ago,
echoes similar themes of division in the field of history. Messer-Davidow
does not lament the differences, but does argue that difference needs to be
addressed in more effective ways.

In the book's final section, Messer-Davidow turns to the contemporary and
shifts her focus to analyze the training practices of both conservative and
liberal/progressive leadership as well as policy programs attended by some
young activists. She does this in part because of the intensely successful
conservative backlash of the 1980s. The backlash is the result of not
connecting feminist intellectual thought to reality and action, according
to Messer-Davidow. She argues that there is no returning to the 1970s and
that new modes of activism are needed. Feminist organizations lack the
funding of conservative groups, as well as a "long-range vision" and
"robust purposefulness" (p. 222). Conservative fundraising has far outpaced
feminist and liberal/progressive groups, and the numbers she presents are
staggering. Conservative groups are better able to cross sectors or
organizations and build links and coalitions in ways that feminist groups
are not. In her analysis of the varied groups, she finds that while all
experienced multiple viewpoints and diverse experiences, they differed in
the ways they responded to them. Some (conservative) programs simply
obscured or minimized such difference, while others (progressive/liberal)
sought to teach ways to manage difference and conflict. She does not
advocate adopting conservative tactics to address difference, but does see
a need to build bridges between academia and activism.

An analysis of decisions affecting affirmative action, largely through the
court system, closes out _Disciplining Feminism_. In this chapter, the
author seeks to examine the world in which we now live, and the
consequences of the ineffective action by feminist and progressive groups.
American society is moving toward "that hegemonic moment when patterned
injustice can no longer be seen and said" (p. 269). The key is the laws and
policies that distribute resources as well as access to resources and
opportunities. She traces the history of affirmative action and the
backlash that began in the 1980s. This chapter builds on her earlier
discussion of feminists' use of affirmative action laws to gain entry into
academia in the 1970s. A key problem she points to is one she raises
earlier: the tendency of judges to focus on individual rights rather then
groups and to attempt to make "group discrimination disappear" (p. 275).

She analyzes the decisions and comparisons made, and provides a
comprehensive discussion of recent decisions and laws that have sought to
dismantle affirmative action. Messer-Davidow argues that the problem was
that feminists, liberals and progressives, "made ourselves vulnerable by
internalizing to academic discourses what we set out to analyze and change
in society" (p. 287). In the process, they lost sight of the reality of
societal transformation. She closes her study with a brief discussion (and
list) of possible changes to reorient feminist studies in the hopes of
effecting more significant alterations. Although brief, her suggestions
offer a starting point for departments, feminist scholars, and community
activists to begin to rethink their strategies and to consider methods of
change. She believes the price of not changing is too high. The
construction of knowledge is well under way, but the question she asks is
"knowledge for what?" (p. 289).

This study is a thought-provoking read for any scholar engaged in feminist
studies or university administration. Messer-Davidow's effective
cross-disciplinary study includes a useful theoretical framework for
understanding the development and organization of women's studies. This
review only scratches the surface of the details in her book. Her position
is clear; she obviously sees women's studies as activist-oriented and
provides examples of programs--at varying levels of success--to bridge the
divide between activism and academia. She does not seek to blame those who
established these programs. The author was on the forefront of the
development of women's studies and opens her book with a narrative of those
experiences in the late 1960s and early 1970s when she was a female
graduate student contending with the existing academic structure. Rather,
she seeks to redirect the focus of women's studies programs toward
activism, both in training and content.

The practicality of this trend for some programs is questionable. The
commitment of universities and colleges to women's studies is varied, and a
more direct emphasis on feminism and activism may threaten an already
precarious acceptance on the part of university administrators and
departments. Funding is of course an issue, and without resources the
programs will not exist. But Messer-Davidow's redirection also invites
explorations into new ways of funding through non-academic sources. If not
relying solely on university funding, women's studies programs could then
gain autonomy to pursue the avenues their faculty wishes, rather than
abiding by the rules of academia. Such questions are for scholars to
consider in the context of their departments, programs and universities,
and Messer-Davidow's book provides a starting point to think and debate the
future of women's studies.

Copyright (c) 2002 by H-Net, all rights reserved. H-Net permits the
redistribution and reprinting of this work for nonprofit, educational
purposes, with full and accurate attribution to the author, web location,
date of publication, originating list, and H-Net: Humanities & Social
Sciences Online. For other uses contact the Reviews editorial staff:
hbooks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.