2005 Archer & Huffman

S&S Quarterly, Inc.
Guilford Press
The Decentering of Second Wave Feminism and the Rise of the Third Wave
Author(s): Susan Archer Mann and Douglas J. Huffman
Source: Science & Society, Vol. 69, No. 1, Marxist-Feminist Thought Today (Jan., 2005), pp. 56-
91
Published by: Guilford Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40404229 .
Accessed: 10/06/2014 16:44
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
S&S Quarterly, Inc. and Guilford Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Science &Society.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 62.122.72.16 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:44:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Scienceàf Society,
Vol. 69, No. 1,January2005, 56-91
/'
V
The Decenteringof Second WaveFeminism

and theRise of theThirdWave*
SUSAN ARCHER MANN

DOUGLAS J. HUFFMAN
ABSTRACT: Thirdwavefeminism is a newdiscourseforunder-
standingandframing gender relationsthataroseoutofa critique
ofthesecondwave.Fourmajorperspectives thatsharea common
focusondifference,deconstructionanddecentering contributed
to thisnewdiscourse:intersectionality
theory;postmodernism/
posts feminist
tructuralism; postcolonialtheory;and theagenda
ofyoungfeminists.A Marxist-feminist perspectivegroundsthis
newperspective in socialand historicalconditionsand makes
possiblea materialist
analysisoftheriseofthethirdwave.
DEVELOPMENTS IN SOCIAL THOUGHT have

heightened ourawareness ofhowtheoriesofemancipation
.can be blindto theirowndominating, and restric-
exclusive
tivetendenciesand howfeminism is notinnocentofsuchtenden-
cies (Foucault,1984;Grimshaw, 1993). Indeed,withinmovements
foremancipation, resistancecantaketheformofcounterdiscourses
thatproducenewknowledges, speaknewtruths, new
and constitute
powers. Wearguethatthisprocesshasoccurredin theUnitedStates
overthelastfewdecades,as witnessed bythedecentering ofsecond
wavefeminism by the riseof a new discourseon genderrelations:
thirdwavefeminism.
Ouranalysis ofthethirdwaveis quitedifferent fromtheprevail-
ingview thatitreferstoa new of
generation young whocame
feminists
* The authorsthankJeanneCashen,LindaColeman,SaraCrawley, MarthaGiménez,
and
LiseVogelfortheircomments earlierdrafts
forrevising
andsuggestions ofthismanuscript.
56

SECOND AND THIRD WAVE FEMINISM 57
ofadultagein the1980sand 1990sandwhointroduced a numberof

novelinterests,concernsand strategies forpoliticalaction.Rather,
we arguethatthephenomenonofthirdwavefeminism shouldbe
viewedas a moreprofound development: theriseofa newdiscourse
or paradigmforframing and understanding genderrelationsthat
grew out ofa critiqueof the inadequacies of the secondwave.Our
hereismoreakintothose
analysis scholars who view thirdwavefemi-
nismas thevisions andvoicesoffeminists whopositioned themselves
"against,"ratherthan necessarily "after,"the second wave (Koyama,
2002). Thisnewdiscoursedid notseekto undermine thefeminist
movement, butrathertorefigure andenhanceitso as tomakeitmore
diverseand inclusive.
We use thetermdiscourseto referto historically variableways
ofspecifying knowledge and truth that both constrain and enable
writing,speaking andthinking. Likethesecondwave,thethirdwave
isnota uniform perspective, rather
but includesa numberofdiverse
and analyticallydistinct to
approaches feminism; theseapproaches
sharegeneralproperties that have fundamentally transformed our
understanding ofgendertoday.Commonthreadsrunning through
thediversefeminisms ofthethirdwaveare theirfocion difference,
deconstruction, and decentering. To date,fourmajorperspectives
have contributed the most to thisnew discourseofthirdwavefemi-
nism:intersectionality theory as developedbywomenofcolorand
ethnicity; and
postmodernist poststructuralist feminist approaches;
feminist postcolonialtheory, often referred to as globalfeminism;
and theagendaofthenewgeneration ofyounger feminists.
The purposeofthisarticleis to critically examinesomeofthe
major contributions of each of these strandsof thirdwavefeminism.
We willhighlight features ofthisnewdiscoursethatare compatible
witha Marxist-feminist criticaltheory, as wellas areasthatremain
contestedterrain. We also groundthisnewdiscoursein changing
social,economic,and politicalconditionsto providea materialist
analysisoffactorsthatinfluencedtheriseof thethirdwave.This
analysisishistorically
specifictotheUnitedStatesandwedo notmean
to suggestor portendthatdevelopments in feminist thoughtwill
occurin thesamewayin otherlocales.
Beforewe begin,we wouldbe remissnotto acknowledge that
seriouscritiqueshave been leveled against wave approaches tounder-
standingthehistory offeminism (Ruth,1998;Guy-Sheftall, 1995;

58 SCIENCE à? SOCIETY
Springer, 2002). We recognize, forexample,thatwaveapproaches

too oftendownplaythe importanceof individualand small-scale
collectiveactions,as wellas indirect and covertacts.We also agree
thatthereis a tendency forattention to be drawnto thecommon
themesthatunify eachwave,and thisoftenobscuresthediversity of
thecompeting feminisms thatactually exist.Thistendency isparticu-
larlylikelytoobscurethecontributions madebymoreradicalcamps
and bymoremarginalized members in eachwave.
Whilewearesensitive to theseissues,we thinka waveapproach
hasmerit whenitisusedtodescribetheexistence ofmass-based femi-
nistmovements. Thisdoesnotmean that there were no feminists or
feminist activism beforeorevenafter thesewaves, butsimply thattheir
ideasand actionsdidnotmaterialize intoa mass-based, socialmove-
ment.Indeed,wethinkthewavemetaphor onlymakessensewhenit
isusedtodescribemass-based movements ebbandflow,
that riseand
decline,and crestin someconcrete, historical accomplishments or
defeats. Thus,we are notsuggesting thatthewavesoffeminism are
equivalent withthehistory offeminism. Rather, wavesaresimply those
historicaleraswhenfeminism had a massbase.
For theentireperiodwe are examining in thisarticle,a mass-
basedfeminist movement existedintheUnitedStatessincethethird
wavearosefromwithin thesecondwave,as opposedtoafter it.Chro-
nologically, wearguethattheinitialchallenges tosecond wave femi-
nismshareda focuson difference, but resultedin twoopposing
politicalcamps: one thatembraced identity politicsas thekeytolib-
eration; and a second that saw freedom in resistance toidentity. The
former is bestillustratedbyfeminists ofcolorand ethnicity, whose
identity and
politics intersectionality theory critiqued thesecondwave
foritsallegedessentialism, whitesolipsism, andfailuretoadequately
addressthesimultaneous andmultiple oppressions theyexperienced.
Thelatter isexemplified bypostmodernist andpost-structuralist femi-
nistswhocritically questionedthenotionofcoherentidentities and
viewedfreedomas resistance to categorization or identity.
We first examinethesetwoinitialchallenges tothesecondwave
tohighlight theircommonground,as wellas thecrossroads thatled
themdowndivergent pathsintheirpolitics ofgender.Later,weshow
howtheothermajorperspectives thatcontributed to thirdwavedis-
-
course feminist postcolonialtheory and the agendaofthenew

generation- grewout ofsyntheses

oftheseearlierchallengesposed
byintersectionality
theoryand postmodernism/poststructuralism.
THE EARLY THIRD WAVE: INTERSECTIONALITY AND

POSTMODERNISM/POST-STRUCTURALISM
byWomenofColar and Ethnicity

Contributions
Whilewomen of color and ethnicity had been notable activists

and writersthroughoutboth the firstand second waves,theywere
trulythepioneersof the thirdwavein thattheywerethefirstto pro-
vide an extensivecritiqueof second wavefeminismfromwithinthe
feministmovement.Theywere also the firstto use the term"third
wave" (Springer,2002, 1063).
The cruxof thisnewdirectionin feminismwas a critiqueof the
woman"ofthesecond wave,whichtheyclaimedignored
"essentialist
or downplayeddifferences among women (Spelman, 1988). Audre
Lorde capturesthe essence of thiscritiquein the followingquote:
Byandlargewithin thewomen'smovement today,whitewomenfocusupon

theiroppression as womenand ignoredifferences ofrace,sexualprefer-
ence,class,and age. Thereis a pretenseto a homogeneity ofexperience
coveredbythewordsisterhood thatdoesnotin factexist.(2000,289.)
"we"or "sisterhood"
Hence, whilethe essentialist of the second wave
wasostensibly meanttounifythewomen'smovement, insteaditproved
- whatElizabethSpelman
to be a painfulsourceof factionalization
called the "Trojanhorseof feministethnocentrism" (1988, x).
A relatedcritiquebyfeministsofcolor and ethnicity centeredon
theissueofhowthesecondwavedealtwith"multipleand simultaneous
oppressions"(Smith,1983,xxxii).Here twotendencieswithinthesec-
ond wavewere mostfrequently attacked.The firsttreatedmultiple
as
oppressions separate and distinctor whatthesecriticscalled a pop
bead or additiveapproach to multipleoppressions(Spelman, 1988;
King,1988). The secondhierarchized oppressionsor treatedone form
as morefundamental thananother.Neitheroftheseapproachesade-
quatelyconceptualizedmultipleoppressionsas simultaneous,insepa-
rable,and interlocking.

60 SCIENCE & SOCIETY
One oftheearliest
piecestoarticulate andnon-
thesimultaneous
hierarchical
natureofoppressionswastheCombaheeRiver Collective's
"BlackFeminist
Statement,"publishedin 1978.Thiswasfollowedin
the 1980sbysuch classicsas All theWomen
AreWhite,All theBlacksAre
Men,butSomeofUsAreBrave(Hull, Bell-Scottand Smith,1982); This
BridgeCalledMyBack:RadicalWritings byWomen ofColor(Moragaand
Anzaldua,1983); Home Girls:A BlackFeminist
Anthology (Smith,1983);
and Feminist FromMargintoCenter
Theory: (hooks,1984). Viewingthem-
selvesas "outsiders" withinthefeminist movement, thesepioneersof
thethirdwavecreateda feminism oftheirown(Lorde,2000).
Importantly, theirnewfeminism highlightedtheneedforfemi-
nistsnotonlyto addressexternalformsofoppression, butalso to
examineforms ofoppression anddiscrimination thattheythemselves
had internalized. Thisrequiredall feministsto paymoreseriousat-
tentionto thedifficult processofbuildinga movement connected
bydifference, examinehowthepoliticsofthepast
and to critically
suffered from"thelossofeach other"(Breines,2002,1127).
Deeplytroubled bythefailuretobuilda unifiedfeminist move-
ment,a numberofwhite,secondwavefeminists delveddeeperinto
ourpasthistory, seekingreasonsforthisfailure. Theyknewthatthe
secondwavehadnotignoreddifferences among women, eventhough
thisviewwaswidespread. Indeed,many second wave feministswere
acutelyawareofissuesofrace,classandimperialism, having their
cut
politicalteeththroughtheirinvolvement in theCivilRightsMove-
ment,theNewLeft,and theanti-Vietnam Warmovement before
joining the feminist movement. Lise for
Vogel, example,challenged
theconsensusthathad developedbythe 1990sthatraceand class
werenotofinterest to feministsuntilthe 1980s.She admonished
thosewhohadsimplified thecomplicated historyofthesecondwave
and seriously how
questioned participants in thesecond wavecould
haveforgotten thesaliencyofissueslikeraceand class,whichwere
an integralpart ofthe feminism ofthe1960sand1970s(Vogel,1991).
Another secondwaveactivist, WiniBreines, recentlyprovidedan
interestinganswer to thisquestion. Basedon documents byand in-
terviewswithsocialistfeminists whowereactiveduringthe1960sand
1970s,she arguesthat"an abstract characterized
anti-racism much
ofthetheorizing and politicsofwhitefeminism" (2002,1122).That
is,whilemanywhite, second wave feministswroteabout andanalyzed
differences byrace and class,theyseldominteracted sociallywith

Blackwomen.Theirabstract theoretical and analytical comprehen-

sionofracismprovedinsufficient. Breineswrites: "Without knowing
one another,theycould not makea movement together"(2002,
1123). Sheconcludesthatfeminists needbotha political understand-
ing ofracism and a personal-political understanding howracism
of
affectsoureveryday lives.Thislinkbetweenpersonalinteraction and
politicalactionsuggests that the second wave's notion that the per-
sonalispoliticalhasevenmoreimplications forfeminist practice than
wasinitially understood.
the
Yet, politics derived from thisnewfeminist discourse bywomen
ofcolorandethnicity madetheprocessofbuilding connections based
on difference difficult.Thispoliticsis oftenreferred to as identity
politicsbecauseit rootedpoliticsin groupidentities or socialloca-
tions.AsLindaAlcoff puts it:"The idea here is that one's identity is
taken(anddefined)as a politicalpointofdeparture, as a motivation
foraction,and as a delineation ofone's politics"(1988,412). Given
themultiplicity anddiversity ofoppressedgroups,coalitionbuilding
isthemajormeansforfostering effectivepoliticalaction(Combahee
RiverCollective, 1978). However,sinceidentities placedexclusive
boundaries on groupmembership, thesepoliticsalsoembodiedthe
negative potentialtorevert tofragmentation or"tribalism" (Touraine,
1998,131).
Identity politicsnotonlyaffected political
practice; italsoaffected
thewayfeminist theoretical perspectives came to be defined or dis-
tinguished. In the 1980s, itwas common tosee the perspective delin-
eatedabovecalledbyvariousnamessuchasAfricana feminism, Black
feminist thought, or thewomenofcolorand ethnicity perspective.
Thisshiftfromfeminist perspectives distinguished by their politics
(suchas Marxist feminism orliberalfeminism) todesignations based
on identity was,itself, essentialist and misleading, since it lumped
together womenofcolororethnicity, ignoring theirowndiversity of
politicalpersuasions. Yet most feminists this
ignored change, as men-
tionofitwasrare(Jaggar and Rothenberg, 1993,xxii-xiv).
the
During 1990s, theorythis of simultaneous and multiple op-
pressions wasrearticulated, largely as a resultofthetheoretical writ-
ingsof PatriciaHill Collins.Collinsmovedfromfirstcallingthis
perspective Blackfeminist thought(1990) to renamingit inter-
sectionalitytheory(Andersen and Collins,1994;Collins,1998)- a
designation thatenableditstheoretical and politicalassumptions to

62 SCIENCE ùf SOCIETY
prevailoverstandpointor identity.Collinsalso createda new femi-

nistepistemology thathas had a profoundeffecton feministthought.
Here she developed a social constructionist
viewof knowledgethat
standpointsand sociallocationsin a matrixofdomi-
linkedidentities,
nation.She writes:
The overarching matrixofdominationhousesmultiple groups,eachwith

varying with and that
experiences penalty privilege producecorresponding
[and]situated
partialperspectives . . . No onegrouphasa clear
knowledges.
angleof vision.
No one the
grouppossesses theory or methodology that
allowsittodiscovertheabsolute"truth"
or,worse its
yet,proclaim theories
and methodologies as theuniversal
normevaluating othergroups'experi-
ences.(1990,234-235.)
This new epistemologyshared withpostmodernism/poststruc-

turalismcertainkeyassumptionsthathad significant implicationsfor
the thirdwave'sanalysesof powerand knowledge.However,as the
quote abovesuggests,thepoliticsembracedbyintersectionalitytheory
focusedon groupsexploitingothergroupsand maintainedan analy-
sis of oppression thatwas relational,oppositional and structural,
In contrast,the critiqueofsecond wavefemi-
despiteitsmultiplicity.
nismleveledbypostmodernists used difference
and poststructuralists
to deconstructall group categoriesand to rejectoppositionalthink-
ing,as we discussbelow.
and Post-Structuralists
ofFeministPostmodernists
Contributions
This challengeto thesecondwavewasled byfeminists whobased

theiranalyseson theworksofFrenchsocial thinkers, such asJacques
Lacan, Michel Foucault,and Jacques Derrida,who argued thatall
group categoriescould and should be deconstructedas essentialist.
As JudithGrantnoted, groups based on difference- such as the
workingclassor womenof color - have no singlevoice or visionof
reality,but ratherare made up of people withheterogeneousexpe-
riences(Grant,1993,94). Hence, whiletheadvocatesofidentity poli-
ticshad called intoquestiontheunitarycategoryofwomenas having
commonor essentialexperiences,a similarcritiquecould be leveled
againsttheirowngroupconceptsbased on race,ethnicity, class,and
sexual orientation.Clearly,whentakingthe postmodernist turn,the
focus on differenceproved to be a slipperyslope that led froma

politicsbasedon identity to itsnegation- a politicsbasedon non-

identity(Mann,2000).
Thisdeconstruction ofgroupcategories usheredin a full-scale
critiqueofbinary ordualistic thinking thatundermined oppositional
of
analyses oppression. The central idea is that identity is simplya
construct oflanguage,discourse, and culturalpractices. The goalis
to dismantle thesefictions and,thereby, to undermine hegemonic
regimes of discourse. To affirm identities, as identity politics does,
merely reproduces and sustains dominant discourses and regulatory
power(Foucault, 1984). To breakoutoftheseoppositional structures
and subvert themwasto asserttotaldifference.
A number offeminist theorists embraced theseideas.Ratherthan
viewing affirmations of as
identity liberating, theyrefigured themas
disciplinary,restrictive and regulatory. Today, such an approachis
characteristicofperformance theorists
likeJudith Butler(1992;1993)
and queertheorists likeEve Sedgwick(1990). As one notedqueer
theoriststates:"Ifqueertheory speaksto a seriousepistemic shift,I
thinkitis to thisrefigured conceptual scheme. ... I take as central
toqueertheory itschallengetowhathasbeenthedominant founda-
tionalconceptof bothhomophobicand affirmative homosexual
theory: theassumption ofa homosexualsubjector identity" (Seid-
man,2000,440). Similarly, Butlerarguesthattherifts and resistance
togroupidentities oughttobe "safeguarded and prized"as emanci-
pation from restrictive ontologies and as sites of"permanent open-
ness"to multiple significations (1992,15-16).Viewingidentities as
multiple, fluid and unstable was seen as presenting more possibili-
tiesforthesurfacing ofdifferences. Here,freedomis resistance to
categorization; it consists in "the happy limbo of nonidentity" (Fou-
cault,quotedin Grant,1993,131).
LindaAlcoff hascalledthis"theidentity crisisinfeminist theory"
(1988,403). Indeed,in academiccircles, theterm"postfeminism" re-
ferrednottothesmugmediaclaimsthatfeminism wasno longernec-
essary,butrather toa seriesofdebatesaboutwhether feminism could
withstand thedeconstructive critiquesmounted bypostmodernism and
post-structuralism (Siegel,1997,53). Whileintegrally involving iden-
theunderlying
tities, issuewashowfeminists couldretaincollective
categories andsimultaneously avoidessentialism. Becausecollective
are
categories integral to structural and relational analyses ofpower,
theyalso affecthow powerand oppressionare conceptualized.

Postmodernistsandposts
trueturalists viewsof
tendtorejectstructural
oppressionand treat
power as more and
ephemeral ubiquitous. This
view
latter is in
exemplified the followingquotefrom Foucault:
Poweriseverywhere;notbecauseitembraces butbecauseitcomes
everything
. . . Powercomesfrombelow;thatisthereisnobinary
fromeverywhere. and
all-encompassing
opposition betweenruler
and ruledat therootofpower
andserving
relations - no suchduality
as a generalmatrix extendingfrom
thetopdownand reacting on moreand morelimitedgroupsto thevery
depthsofthesocialbody.(Quotedin McHouland Grace,1993,39.)
have attackedsuch conceptionsofpower
A numberoffeminists
as "robbing theterms ofoppression oftheircritical andoppositional
importance" (Collins,1998,136) or as the"resuscitation ofan offi-
cialpluralism whichultimately deniesthehierarchies associatedwith
difference" (Vogel, 1991, 97). With thisconceptual shift,
hierarchy
was"recast as flattened geographies ofcenters andmargins" (Collins,
1998,129),and powerrelations becameanalyzedat the
increasingly
local,individual level,ratherthanat theleveloflarge-scale, social
structures (Fraser and Nicholson, 1997; Giménez, 2001).
Whilewe concurwiththesecritiques, we findotherfeatures of
Foucault's analysis -
ofpowerto be compelling especially his focus
on subjection and howwe internalize oppressions. In hisanalysis of
he
subjection, exposes how the riseof democratic republics with their
newconceptions ofpoliticallibertywereaccompanied bya darker side:
theemergence ofa newandunprecedented discipline directed against
thebody.Thesenew"surveillance" societiesusedmoresubtledisci-
plinaryandregulatory practices,suchasself-policing, thatreplacedthe
needformoreobvious, externalforms ofsocialcontrol (Foucault, 1977,
217). Suchinsights fostered greater understanding of women's collu-
sionin theirownsubordination and meshedwellwithfeminist views
ofbodiesasbattlefields 1993,
(Ramazanoglu, 6) . Feminists who applied
Foucault's insights to an analysisofbodypoliticshavecontributed
immensely torapidly growing newareasofinquiry, suchas theanthro-
pologyand sociology ofbodies(Bordo,1993;Bartky, 1990).
Ground
CommonEpistemological
Despitemuchcontestedterrain, shares
theory
intersectionality
commongroundwithpostmodernism not
andpoststructuralism,only

intheiruseofdifference todeconstruct andtodecenter

essentialism
dominantdiscourses,but also in theirnew epistemological ap-
proaches.Bothembracetheviewthatknowledgeis sociallycon-
structed and sociallysituated,suchthateveryknowledge producer
notonlyshapesknowledge, butalsohasa partialor limited vantage
point.No one viewis inherently superiorto anotherand anyclaim
to havinga clearerviewofthetruthis simply a masternarrative- a
partialperspective thatassumesdominanceand privilege. In place
ofsuchmasternarratives, they call forpolyvocalityand more local-
ized mini-narrativesto givevoiceto themultiplerealitiesthatarise
fromdiversesociallocations.
Thisepistemological approachhelpsto recoverand elevatethe
of
importance marginalized voicesthathad been buriedor muted
by dominant groups.Accordingly, itmovesthesesubjugated voices
fromthe marginsto the center,thusdecentering dominant dis-
courses.It alsoelevatestypesofknowledge thatpreviouslyhad been
treatedas inadequateor lesser,suchas thesocially livedknowledge
ofeveryday life.Conversely,itdemotestheprivilege formerly given
to theory and scienceas morerelativist viewsoftruth prevail.Bythe
1990s,manyfeminist textstreatedtheory and empiricalsciencewith
morehesitancy andsuspicion,oftenviewing themas masternarratives
(Jaggarand Rothenberg, 1993;Ruth,1998;Kirkand Okazawa-Rey,
2001). Such epistemological assumptions led thethirdwaveonto
moreidealistterrain as discoursereceivedontological primacy and
realitybecame and
multiple subjective.
LATER CHALLENGES TO THE SECOND WAVE
we arguethatfeminist
In thissection, postcolonial as wellas
theory,
theagendaofthenewgeneration ofyounger grewoutof
feminists,
syntheses tothesecondwaveposedbyinter-
oftheearlierchallenges
theory
sectionality andpostmodernism/post-structuralism.
Bysaying
thattheselaterchallengesare synthetic
derivations,we are notsug-
Rather,it is thecomplexand,at
gestingthattheylackoriginality.
times, ofthesetheoretical
curiousfeatures syntheses thatmakethem
novel.
These newsyntheses differfromeach otherin severaldistinct
ways.While thefeminist perspectives
postcolonial weareexamining
drawfrompostmodernism/poststructuralism, theyaremoreakinto

66 SCIENCE àf SOCIETY
theintersectionality
theory createdbywomenofcolorand ethnicity
in theUnitedStates,in thattheyoftenembracea macro-structural
and relationalanalysisof oppression.Thiscommonthreadis not
botharoseoutofhis-
giventhatthesesisterperspectives
surprising,
toriesofcolonialismand imperialism (Lewisand Mills,2003,2-6).
In contrast,
thenewgeneration on micro-level
focusesmoreheavily
concerns,exposing how both external
and internalized
oppressions
on theirlives.This,coupledwiththeirresistance
place restrictions
andidentity,
tocategorization theideasofpost-
morecloselymirrors
modernism/post-structuralism.
ofFeministPostcolonialTheory
Contributions
In the1980s,a newcategory offeministthought - globalfemi-

nism- wasbecominga regularfeature offeminist discoursein the
UnitedStates.Initially,thisratherdubiouscategory encompassed
boththeoriesand purelydescriptive accountsofhowrelationsbe-
tweenlocal and globalprocessesaffect womenin different social
locationsacrosstheglobe. While these were
writings worthy endeav-
attention
ors,insufficient wasgiveneitherto therangeofpolitical
perspectivesincludedor to whatexactly wasmeantbyglobalfemi-
nism.Overtime,thisperspective wasgivenmoretheoretical coher-
encyand politicalpotency by the influenceof feminist postcolonial
theory (Minh-ha, 1989;Spivak, 1990; Lewisand Mills,
2003).
A majorcontribution of thesewritings was to transform the
macro-unit ofanalysisfroma societalto a globallevel.In contrast,
manysecondwavefeminists treated thenation-stateorsocietyas their
macro-unit ofanalysis.Clearly, in a worldwhereour everyday lives
are increasinglyaffected a the
by globaleconomy, rapidgrowth of
transnationaleconomicand politicalunits,and an unprecedented
flowof people and information acrossinternational borders,our
levelsofanalysesmustreflect thesenewrealities.In turn,feminist
postcolonialtheoryused difference, deconstruction anddecentering
toprovidea numberofnewinsights intotheseglobaldevelopments
(Spivak,1987;Mohanty, 2000;Narayan,1997).
ChandraTalpadeMohanty'scritique ofcolonialdiscourses (first
in
published 1991)provides a fine example ofhow a new theoretical
perspectivethatdrawsfrompostmodernism, post-structuralism and
theory
intersectionality transcends dilemmas encountered in these

Like her predecessors,Mohantybeginsbyusing

earlierperspectives.
differenceto deconstructessentialism.She pointsto howwomenin
the thirdworldoftenhave been essentializedin Westernfeminist
thought:
The applicationof thenotionofwomenas a homogeneouscategory to
womenin thethirdworldcolonizesand appropriatesthepluralitiesofthe
simultaneous locationofdifferentgroupsofwomeninsocialclassandeth-
nicframeworks; in doingso itultimately
robsthemoftheirhistoricaland
politicalagency. (2000,349.)
Like the proponentsof intersectionality theory,Mohantyde-

mandsrecognitionoftheheterogeneity ofwomenin thethirdworld
in termsof theirmultipleand diversesocial locationsto undermine
essentialism.
She also discusseshowtheproblemofessentialism arises:
Thus,thediscursively consensualhomogeneityof"women"as a groupis

mistakenforthehistorically material
specific ofgroupsofwomen.
reality
Thisresultsin an assumption ofwomenas an alwaysalreadyconstituted
group,one whichhas been labeled "powerless," "exploited,""sexually
harassed,"etc.,byfeminist economic,legal,and sociological
scientific,
discourses.
(346.)
Similarly,Urna Narayanargues that the "colonial encounter"

resultedin "problematicpictures"or "totalizations" ofbothWestern
and non-Westernculturesthatconcealed theirdiversity and made
themappear as naturalgivensratherthanas inventionsor construc-
tions (1997, 14-15). GayatriSpivakputsit slightly refer-
differently,
ring to the tendency to confuseessentialism with empiricism (1987,
68-69). To combatsuch discursiveessentialism, thesefeminists call
forhistoricalspecificity,
making clear that"these are
arguments not
againstgeneralizationas much as theyare forcareful,historically
specificgeneralizationsresponsiveto complex realities"(Mohanty,
2000,349). Byhighlighting thepotencyofhistoricalspecificity,these
postcolonial theorists
simultaneously rescue collective
categoriesand
avoid essentialism.
Spivak also focuses attentionon the issue of how ontological
commitments tohistoricalagents,suchas working-classor third-world
women, must be seen as structurallynegotiable.There is nothing
essential about such categories or collectivities.People in these

categories mustrecognize themselves as agentsofchangerather than

as
simply victims, and there is no historicalnecessityto the rise of such
consciousness or politicalaction(Spivak,1987, 65). Thus,historical
specificitycanalsoprovide a moreaccurate analysisofpolitical agency.
Using one of the more progressive featuresof postmodernism,
Mohantydrawsout theimplications of interrogating "alterity" or
otherness (Agger,1998,57). This criticalinquiry reveals how binary
thinking implicitly entails"secrethierarchies" - a dominant group
anda marginalized group,where the latterisviewed not as
only other,
butas lesser(Agger, .
1998,57) Examples ofthisinclude such dichoto-
miesas male/female; or
heterosexual/homosexual;white/black.
Mohanty showshowwomenin thethirdworldare oftenportrayed
notonlyas a singular oressentialized other, butalsoimplicitly aslesser
- as ignorant, tradition-bound, and victimized. This portrayal is
contrasted withan equallysingular representation of Western women
as educated,modernand havingcontrolof theirbodiesand lives
(Mohanty, 2000,346). Whilesuchcriticism is notnewto feminism
de
(Cooper,1892; Beauvoir,1952),Mohanty's use oftheseideasto
deconstruct colonialdiscourses offersconstructive critiques ofwest-
ernanalysesofcolonialism and imperialism.
Although she demonstrates thevalueofpostmodernist insights,
Mohanty does not callfor an end tooppositional orrelational analy-
sesofoppression. Rather,sheis quiteexplicitthat"colonization al-
mostinvariably impliesa relationofstructural domination" (1991,
345). Hence, a macro-structural and oppositional of
analysis oppres-
sionis retained, alongwiththeuse ofhistorically specific,collective
categories to highlight politicalagency.In contrast, agendaof
the
thenewgeneration ofyoungerfeminists entailsa fargreaterfocus
on micro-politics, as wellas a stronger resistance tocollective catego-
ries,as we discuss below.
oftheYounger
Contributions ThirdWaveAgenda
Generation's
ofwhathasbeen called
We pointin thissectionto keyfeatures
theyounger "third
generation's waveagenda"(HeywoodandDrake,
1997).However, we do notmeanto suggestthatall youngfeminists
oruniform
sharea singular Rather,
perspective. as wediscussbelow,
therearemanyareasofdisagreement among theseyoungfeminists.

Moreover, clearlydemarcating whois includedin thisnewgen-

erationis notwithout problems. These youngfeminists havebeen
referred in
to variousways, from usingspecific datesofbirthtousing
morecollective imagery, suchas "Generation X"ora "mother-daugh-
tertrope"to depicttherelationship betweenthesecondand third
waves(Heywoodand Drake,1997,47; Quinn,1997).We preferto
usewhatvariouswriters havecalleda "political generation,"whichis
notmerely a product ofchronological ageandmayincludeevenmore
thanone chronological generation (Whittier,1995,15). The keyto
suchpoliticalgenerations is thattheyreflect thelifeexperiences ofa
particularhistoricalmoment (Henry, 2003). Hence,whenweusethe
termnewgeneration, wearereferring tofeminists whocametoadult-
hood duringor afterthelastdecadesofthe20thcentury in an era
thatmanysocialtheorists today describeas postmodernity or late
capitalism(Featherstone, 1991;Giddens,1990;Agger,1998).
Whileothermembersofthisgeneration havebeen decriedas
"themostpolitically in
disengagedgeneration Americanhistory"
(Halstead,1999,33), theseyoungfeminists havebeen immensely
active.TheirThirdWaveFoundationis a strongnationalorganiza-
tionwithover5,000members. Theirconferences, teach-insandskills-
sharing have
workshops croppedup across
the nation, and theyhave
createdhundredsoffeminist and
zines,webzines, magazines.For
example, within itsfirstfive years,Bustmagazine'sdistribution in-
creasedfrom1,000to 32,000- quitea featfora publication whose
first
issuewasxeroxedandstapled(KarpandStoller, 1999,xiv).Young
feministsalso havesignificantly influenceddiverseareasofmusic
culture,fromPunkto Rock'n' Rollto Rap and Hip Hop (Cashen,
2002;Morgan,1999).
Whiletheyoftenexpresstheirindebtedness to theirpredeces-
sors(Baumgardner and Richards, 2000,3-9; Henry,2003),rather
ubiquitous in theirwritings is a viewofthesecondwaveas toojudg-
mentaland restrictive. For example,in ListenUp:Voices oftheNext
Generation (1995), BarbaraFindlendescribeshowyoungwomen
oftenthinkthat"ifsomethingor someoneis appealing,funor
popular,it or she can'tbe feminist" (1995,xiv).In theanthology,
To Be Real: TellingtheTruthand ChangingtheFaceofFeminism
(1995) ,
GinaDentusesreligiousmetaphorsto arguethatthesecondwave
wascharacterized
by an austere feminism"
"missionary thatentailed

self-policing,confession through consciousness-raising groups,and

salvation through politicalaction (Dent,1995,64). such,it"puts
As
forth itsprogram so stridently,guardsitsbordersso closely, and leg-
islatesitsbehaviorso fervently thatmanyare afraidto declareits
name"(Dent,1995,64).
Whilethenewgeneration has produceda numberofquestion-
able stereotypesofthesecondwave,wedo notthinktheirdisciplin-
aryviewofsecondwavefeminism issimply an imagined feminist status
quo, as othershave claimed (Davis, in Walker, 1995, 281). The sec-
ond wave'snotionthatthepersonalis politicalwasa double-edged
swordthathighlighted notonlyhowpersonalissueswerepolitical,
butalso howpersonallifestyle choicesshouldnotundermine femi-
nistpolitics.Hence,itwasbothdisciplinary andtransformative inthat
itrequiredthatsocialchangewaspartofone's everyday life.Bycon-
trast,thenewgeneration, initsattempt toopenup andbroadenfemi-
nism,introduced a number oflessrestrictiveideas,strategiesandways
ofconceptualizing feminism thatsparked condescension, controversy
andratherhostilecritiques fromtheirsecondwavesisters (Kaminer,
1995;Baumgardner and Richards, 2000,224-234).
It is precisely
suchfeelings ofcondescension and exclusion, ex-
perienced by women of color and ethnicityhere and abroad, and now
feltbya newgeneration, thatfostered thedecentering ofthesecond
wave.Perhapsthisis why, whenyounger feminists discusstheworks
oftheirelders,thewritings byglobal feministsand bywomenofcolor
and ethnicity are theworkstheymostadmire(Heywoodand Drake,
1997,9; Brooks,quotedin Hernandezand Rehman,2002,117).Yet,
whilethisnewgeneration clearlyembracesthefocuson difference
and multiculturalism foundin thesewritings, we agreewiththose
writers whoarguethattheirpoliticalstrategies morestrongly reflect
theinfluence ofpostmodernism andpoststructuralism (Siegel,1997;
Brunsand Trimble,2001; Huffman, 2002; Dickerand Piepmeier,
2003).
One strategy thatreflects thepostmodernist preference forlo-
calized, mini-narratives over theory is evidentin what one observer
called the new generation's"penchantforpersonalnarratives"
(Springer, 2002,1060).Indeed,theanthologies bytheseyoungfemi-
nistsincludea plethoraofsuchpersonalnarratives aboutthecon-
tradictions, uncertainties,and dilemmas they face in theireveryday
lives.Similarly, -
manyoftheirzinesare personal muchlikejour-

nais writtento ventanger and frustration (Cashen, 2002, 17). Such

personal narratives have been denigrated too confessional,whiny
as
or subjectivebytheircritics(Pollitt,1999). Yet,whilea carefulreview
of thisgeneration'swritings suggeststhattheyuse a varietyof forms
ranging from the to
personal the more theoretical,personalnarra-
tivesand whatBordohas calledlessabstract"embodiedtheory" clearly
predominate(1993, 184-185). Moreover,some oftheirmorerecent
writingshavemade concertedefforts to moreexplicitly "use personal
experience as a to
bridge largerpolitical and theoretical
explorations
of the thirdwave" (Dicker and Piepmeier,2003, 13).
This media-sawy generationhas also used newtechnologies, such
as theinternet, desk-toppublishing,and xeroxing,to expand theven-
ues fortheirvoices (Alfonsoand Trigilio,1997). Zines in particular,
have provideda formof interactionwhere"youthsare the initiators
and producersoftheirownsocialagendasand representations ... an
undergroundwithno center,builtof paper" (Cashen,2002, 18).
Anothermajor strategy of theseyoungfeminists, whichmirrors
certainpostmodernist and post-structuralist
techniquessuchas decon-
structionand therejectionofbinarypolarities,is theiruse ofcontra-
dictionsto expose thesocialconstruction ofreality.Cashen describes
how Riot Grrrls,a groupwho reclaimedspace forwomen in punk
rock,adopted a feminine"girlie"kindof dressjuxtaposedwithcom-
bat boots or wordslike "slut"writtenon theirbodies to critiqueand
deflatetheconstruction ofthefeminine(Cashen,2002,13-14). Simi-
larly,Heywood and Drake discusshow the newgenerationembraces
"hybridity" (1997, 7) or what theyreferto in the followingquote as
"thelivedmessiness"of the thirdwave:
The livedmessiness
characteristic
ofthethirdwaveiswhatdefinesit:girls
whowanttobe boys,boyswhowanttobe girls,
boysandgirlswhoinsistthey
are both,whites
whowantto be black,blackswhowantto or refuseto be
white,peoplewhoarewhiteandblack,gayandstraight,
masculineandfemi-
nine, whoarefinding
or waystobe andnamenoneoftheabove.(1997,8.)
Indeed, manyyoungerfeministscelebrate contradictionsas a

means of resistanceto identityof categorization,
much in the spirit
of performancetheoriesand queer theorists.Here, embracingflu-
idityis seen as fostering and exposingthecategoriesofrace,
diversity
genderor sexualityas simplysocial constructions.

Thisgreaterresistance to identity byyounger womenhas been

empiricallydocumented in a recent doctoral dissertation bySaraL.
Crawley(2002),whofounddistinct age differences in lesbians' re-
sponsestobutchandfemme identities. In herstudy, younger lesbians
(thoseunder30) weremorelikely toproducethestereotypical butch
andfemme appearances, but were lesslikely than older lesbians (those
over30) toidentify themselves as butchorfemmein termsofa core
senseofself.Theseyounger womenresisted morepermanent identi-
tiesbecausetheyfavored morefluidity or havingmanydifferent ways
ofbeing.Theyalsofrequently embracedperformance politics.
Thepredominance ofpostmodernist performance politics within
thethird wavehasbeenthesubjectofmuchcontroversy amongfemi-
nistsinrecentyears.Someolderfeminists ofcolorandethnicity have
beenparticularly criticalofperformance politics,viewing itas naive
- as playingpoliticsand notrecognizing theseriousness and dan-
gerofthispoliticalgame.Theyalsoviewitas a superficial andvolun-
taristic
form ofresistancethatignores thematerial basesofoppression
(Collins,1998).AsJuneJordanwrites: "Thisinfantile andapparently
implacable trustinmassindividuality isabsurdand destructive" (Jor-
dan,quotedin Collins,1998,150).
Youngfeminists alsoaremorelikely toembracethepostmodern
of
politics queertheory, especially on issues relatedtosexuality. Asa
consequence,theypromotea feminism thatis more inclusive ofa
profusion ofgenderedsubjects, likebutch,femme, transsexuals, and
transgendered people.They also tend to view the second wave as a
prudish feminism that "hasputup more restrictionsthan greenlights
whenitcomesto sexuality" (Alfonsoand Trigilio,1997,12). There
isa gooddeal oftruth in theseaccusations. Forexample,theradical
lesbianpoliticsofthesecondwavevieweditselfas woman-oriented,
womyn-born and a "profoundly femaleexperience" thatwasanalyti-
callyand politicallydistinguished from"othersexuallystigmatized
existences" (Rich,1980,306). These politicswereoftenexplicitly
criticalofvariousgenderedsubjectsand sexualpractices, suchas
butch/femme, "trans women," and S&M in
(DeLombard, Walker,
1995;Koyama,2003,246-247).Whilesomecritics continuetoview
thepostmodern turnto queerpoliticsas simplyanotherguisefor
patriarchy (Jeffreys,2003),we findtheinclusiveness ofqueerpoli-
ticstobe morecompelling thanitstendency toviewanyandall sub-
versiveactsas formsoffreedom.

Indeed forus, the mostseriouspoliticalfaultline betweenthe

second and thirdwave is evidentwhen the openness and freedom
embraced by members of the younger generation include what
RebeccaWalkerrefersto as "anti-revolution activities"
(1995,xxxviii).
In her anthology,To Be Real: TellingtheTruthand Changing theFaceof
Feminism (1995), one can findauthors who engage in such acts as vigi-
lante violence,eroticizingviolentrape, or being supermodels.For
Walker,such"courageousreckoning" withcontradictions ispartofwhat
shemeansbychangingthefaceoffeminism (1995,xxxviii) . She writes:
Ratherthanjudgingthemas unevolved, unfeminist, or hopelesslyduped

bypatriarchy, I hopeyouwillsee thesewriters as yetanothergroupofpio-
neers,outlawswhodemandto existwholeand intact,without cuttingor
censoringpartsofthemselves;an instinct
I consider tobe thevery bestlegacy
offeminism. Thesevoicesareimportant becauseiffeminism is tocontinue
to be radicaland alive,itmustavoidreordering theworldin termsofany
be itfemale/male,
polarity, good/evil.. . ." (1995,xxxv.)
A ratherbenign formof thisreckoningwithcontradictionsis

exemplifiedby the "Girlie-girlpersona" or the "Girlie feminist"
(Baumgardnerand Richards,1997,164-165). Girlies,whoshouldnot
be confusedwiththe more radical Riot Grrrls,reclaimedthe word
"girl"to addresswhattheysawas the anti-feminine, antijoyfeatures
of the second wave.For them,wearingpink,using nail polish,and
celebratingprettypowermake feminismfun.Yet,as Baumgardner
and Richardspointout, criticswerequick to attackthisnew face of
feminismas "lighton issuesand heavyon vanity," labelingit dispar-
aginglyas "babe feminism"or "lipstickfeminism"(2000, 255). In
contrast,to manyin theyoungergeneration,"whatGirlieradiatesis
theluxuryofselfexpressionthatmostSecond Waversdidn'tfeelthey
could or shouldindulgein" (Baumgardnerand Richards,2000,161).
Less benign are the politicsof power feministslike Elizabeth
Wurtzel,whostates:"Thesedaysputtingoutone's pretty power,one's
pussypower, one's sexual for
energy popularconsumptionno longer
It
makesyou a bimbo. makesyou smart"(Wurtzel,quoted in Baum-
gardnerand Richards,2000, 141). In thewritingsofthisnewgenera-
tion,itis notunusualtofindcelebrities,
likeMadonna or MissyElliott,
who have "parlayedtheirsexual selvesintopower,"used as "positive
examplesofwomen'ssubjectification," ratherthantheirobjectifica-
tion (Baumgardnerand Richards,2000, 103). Here, Audre Lorde's

warningthat"the master'stools will neverdismantlethe master's

house" (2000, 292) clearlygoes unheeded.
However,not all youngfeminists share such viewsof empower-
ment.For example,in a scathingcritiqueof powerfeminism, Danzy
Senna describesit as "a cloak forconservatism,consumerism,and
evensexism"(Senna, in Walker,1995,18). Similarly, manycontribu-
torsto the anthologyAdiosBarbierejectprettypowerand obsessions
withbody image (Edut, 1998). Other youngfeministsvoice more
mixedmessages.In herintroduction to TheBustGuidetotheNewWorld
Order(1999), Marcelle Karp not onlyencourageswomen to reject
internalizednegativebodyimages,but also ralliesthemto viewour
bodies - "our titsand hips and lips"- as "powertools" (1999, 7).
Indeed, it appears thatmanyin thisnew generationappreciatethe
rebelliousdesire to reclaimwhathas previouslybeen used against
them,while some recognize how thiscan entail political dangers
(Baumgardnerand Richards,2000, 138).
Whatis common among theseyoungvoicesis thatthereseems
to be a strongstrainof individualismwithinthisnew generation.As
Heywoodand Drake admit:"Despite our knowingbetter,despiteour
knowingitsemptiness,the ideologyof individualismis stilla major
motivating forcein manythirdwavelives"(1997, 11). Otheryoung
feminists likeMarcelleKarp,
moreclearlycelebratethisindividualism,
who writes:
We'veentered an eraofDIYfeminism - sistah, - andwehave

do-it-yourself
do-me
all kindsof namesforourselves:lipsticklesbians, even
feminists,
postfeminism. ... No matter we're
whattheflavais, Your
feminists.
still femi-
nismiswhatyouwantittobe andwhatyoumakeofit.Defineyouragenda.
(1999,310-311.)
To us,DIY feminism is politically and presentsa major

regressive
faultline betweenthe second and the thirdwave.Indeed, it reverses
thesecond wave'snotionthatthepersonalis politicalas thepolitical
becomes totallypersonal.One of the bestcritiquesbyyoungerfemi-
feminismis providedbyDickerand Piep-
nistsof thisindividualistic
meierin theiranthologyCatching a Wave:ReclaimingFeminism forthe
21stCentury (2003), where they call thistypeof feminisma "feminist
free-for-all"thatemptiesfeminismof anycore set ofvaluesand poli-
tics (2003, 17). Theyargue that,whileit is fineto challengepercep-

tionsofwhatfeminism is or to engagetheworldin a playful and in-

dividualistic
way, feminist engagement has to take intoaccount the
powerrelationssurrounding and
gender,race,class, sexualorienta-
tion.Hence,feminism mustentaila politicsthatis transformativeof
boththeindividual and society(Dickerand Piepmeier,2003,19).
Otheryoungfeminists, likeBaumgardner and Richards, makethe
samepointmoreplayfully whentheywrite:"Without a bodyofpoli-
tics,thenailpolishis reallygoingtowaste"(2000,166).
toPolishIt Red?Marxist
Better and theThirdWave
Feminism
Havingdiscussed keyfeatures ofthefourmajorperspectives that

contributed themostto thenewdiscourseofthirdwavefeminism,
wenowexaminehowMarxist feminism (MF) compares andcontrasts
withthisnewdiscourse.Giventhatthereare as manyMarxisms as
thereare feminisms, we shouldfirst statethatthefeatures ofMarx-
ismthatshapeourfeminism aremoreakinto theMarxism referred
to as CriticalTheory(Agger,1998).
thediscourseofthirdwavefeminism
Politically, shareswithMF
a commitment tohumanemancipation. Bothseethepastandpresent
as characterized byvariousformsofoppression, justas theysee the
as the for
future holding possibility greater human Both
liberation.
alsorecognizetheroleofhumanagencyin history and holdpeople
for
responsible working toward a future thatisfreefrom oppression.
However, unlikepostmodernist and post-structuralist feminisms, as
wellas manyspokespersons for the new generation, MF does not
equatehumanagencywithvoluntarism. Indeed,thesestrands ofthe
thirdwavehavea facileviewof resistance thatassumesan almost
infiniteabilityto transform one's life.Theyalso entaila moreindi-
vidualistic
politicsthatiscentered on self-making orthathasa subject-
centeredethics.
Bycontrast, MF neither viewsindividuals as freetomakehistory
as theypleasenorequatesfreedomwithindividuals doingas they
MF the
please.Rather, views relationship between human agencyand
socialstructure as morecomplex.It recognizes thereare structural
constraintson peopletransforming themselves and theworldas they
please.Italsorecognizes thatstructuralinequalitiesenablesomepeople
to shapesocialrealitymoreeasily than others. turn,whileMF ac-
In
knowledges thetensionbetweenindividual freedomand collective

politics,itrejectsnotionsofindividual freedom thattakeplaceatthe

expense of others.MF sees and
mutuality collectivity as crucialorga-
nizingprinciples ofindividual lives.
Thesepoliticaldifferences flow,in part,fromMF'sgreater focus
onsocialrelations as opposedtoatomistic individuals. HereMFshares
withpostcolonial and intersectionality theories a viewofpowerthat
is basedin socialstructural relations, ratherthanin individual gra-
dationsofprivilege and penalty. In contrast, themoreindividualis-
ticstrands ofthethirdwavehavean unanchored viewofpowerthat
flattens hierarchies and obscuresthesystemic natureofoppression.
Yet,weappreciatethethirdwave'sgreater emphasison internalized
formsofoppression.Recognizing suchinternalized oppressions in
theory and in practice reveals how feminists themselves can repro-
duce relationsofrulingand ignorethedifferences amongwomen
thatthe thirdwavehave so aptlyhighlighted(Hernandezand
Rehman,2002).
The third wave'sfocuson difference alsocallsintoquestionMF's
viewofmass-based socialmovements. MFmustforgoitsearlier, more
universalistic notionsofsocialmovements wherecommonalities of
oppression were the basis for unity. We have to better understand
howacknowledging difference intheory andineveryday has
practice
thepotentiality to enhance,ratherthanto divide,a movement. In-
deed,all ofthestrands ofthirdwavefeminism see buildingconnec-
tionsbasedon difference as centralto an effective politicstoday.
Becausethisnewviewofsocialmovements is a morepluralist
imagethanwe harboredin thepast,Marxistfeminists tendto be
suspicious ofitspoliticalefficacy, and forgood reason.The old plu-
ralism,oftensupportedbypoliticalliberals,notonlywasproneto
tribalism, butalsowasvulnerable tothetyranny ofthemajority. Such
tyranny isfarmore if
likely political demands simply involvedemands
forpolyvocality or havingvoice,ratherthanformaterialresources.
Hence,thisnew,moreradicalpluralist imageofsocialmovements
mustgeneratea new,moreradicalpoliticsthatrecognizes themate-
rialbasesofpower,ratherthansimply in
locatingpower discourse,
as is thetendency ofpostmodernists and post-structuralists.
Yetmaterialism seemsto be passéin muchofthethirdwave.A
criticalanalysis ofcapitalism and materiallifeseemsoutoffashion
- particularly inthewritings bypostmodernist andpost-structuralist
feminists, and onlysomewhat lessso in thewritings ofthenewgen-

eration.An explicitanti-capitalist politicsis moreevidentin inter-

sectionality theory and most evident in feminist postcolonial theory.
A similar pattern isfound in terms of thosethirdwavefeminisms that
ignoreordownplay classdifferences amongwomen.Whiletheman-
traofrace,genderandclassisfrequently invoked inthisnewdiscourse
ofdifference, classisoftenthelastandtheleastaddressedinthistril-
ogy(Kandal,1995).
We acknowledge thatMF has oftenerredin theoppositedirec-
tionbyhierarchicalizing oppressions andprivileging classoppression
as themostfundamental form.Bycontrast, we thinkthata critical
MFshouldrecognize thesimultaneity andmultiplicity ofoppressions
discussed bythethirdwave.However, wedo notthinkthatall forms
ofoppression are equallyimportant at anygiventimeand placein
history. Rather, weview this as a historicallyspecific questionthatmust
be analyzedcarefully ifsocialchangeand thealliancesformedto
foster socialchangeare to be successful. As somepostcolonial writ-
ershaveargued:"whilst will
gender always be imbricated in the ma-
trixofpower... itis notalwaysthepredominant factorin people's
consciousness norisitalways themosteffective rallying point"(Lewis
and Mills,2003,20).
Indeed,MFshareswithfeminist postcolonial theorists an appre-
ciationforhistorically specific analysis.Like these contributors tothe
thirdwave,someMarxist feminists havelongarguedthathistorical
specificity can avoidessentialism bytreating collective categories not
as a priori
givens, but rather as historicallyspecific formations (Mitchell,
1966,90,100).We alsothinkitcan resolvesomeofthedebatesover
politicalstrategies and issuesthathavedividedfeminists today.For
example,somepoliticalstrategies, likeperformance politics,may
workbetterincertainhistorically specific socialcontexts thaninoth-
ers.Eventhesameactcan be regressive in somesituations and pro-
gressive inothers, as themultiple meanings andusesoffemaleveiling
hasrevealed(LewisandMills,2003,14-18).In short, historical speci-
is as for
ficity important politicalpractice as it is fortheory.
Whilewe thinkthewomen'smovement is spaciousenoughto
incorporate a multiplicity ofdiversestrategies forfostering eman-
cipation, we draw the line on issues like "power feminism" or the
"anti-revolution" activities discussedbysomethirdwavers. Herethe
free-to-be-me feminisms ofsomespokespersons forthethirdwave
transgress our notionthatmutuality and collectivewell-being are

78 SCIENCE ò5 SOCIETY
lynchpins ofan emancipatory feminism. We alsothinkthis"anything

goes"politics mirrors the "anything goes"methodologies and relativ-
ismoftheepistemological assumptions of most thirdwave perspectives
(Rosenau,1992,192).Consequently, itis totheissueofepistemology
thatwenowturn.
Epistemologically, thethirdwavehas done an immenseservice
to feminism byexposingtheintegral relations betweendiscourses,
knowledge andpower.Itsnewepistemology shareswithMFtheview
thatknowledge is sociallyconstructed, sociallysituated, and shaped
by one'ssocial location. These features of knowledge undermine any
claimstovalueneutrality andposea seriousthreat topositivist forms
ofknowledge and science.Theyalsoentaila reflexive viewofknowl-
edge that should make us ever vigilant to the vantagepointofthe
knower, as well as to who may benefit or suffer from suchknowledge.
Yet,whileMF is anti-positivist, it is not anti-empirical. Rather, it
embraces empirical analysisinitsattempt togainevermoreaccurate
understandings of socialreality that can be appealedto as grounds
forjustice or to guide social movements. In contrast, certainstrands
ofthird wavefeminism demotetheempirical just as one ofmanyways
ofvalidating knowledge claims.In doingso,theymoveontothemore
idealistand relativist terrain ofmultiplerealities thatare subjective
and discourse-dependent. Here adjudicatingamongknowledge
claimsisproblematic becauseanynotionsofgreater truth arelostin
a vicioushermeneutical circlethatopensa Pandora'sboxforanyand
every viewpoint to claim legitimacy (Harding1993,61).
The third wave's suspicion ofboth theory and empirical science
as master narratives orveiledattempts bydominant to
groups impose
theirviewson othersfailsto makeimportant distinctions between
and
positivist non-positivist approaches understanding world.
to the
Thesetwinepistemological assumptions cripplepolitical action,since
formulating an analysis ofthestructural implications ofsocial condi-
tionsto guidepoliticalactionbecomesa difficult, ifnotimpossible
task(Fraserand Nicholson,1997;Touraine,1998;Smith,1996).
In contrast, MF embracestheory and givesita keyrolein guid-
ing politicalaction.However,in doingso, MF oftenignoreshow
emancipatory theories canbe dominating, exclusive anddisciplinary.
In thisregard, MFcanbenefit fromtheinsights ofpost-structuralists
whohighlight howknowledges are also formations of powerthat
delineatespecific inclusions andenforce overtandcovert exclusions.

MF can alsolearnfromthosethirdwavefeminists whohavefeltlike

outsiderswithin thefeministmovement and whohavestressed how
an overlyrestrictive feminism
anddisciplinary canlead tointernecine
battles.
The nextsectionofthisarticlegroundssomeofthekeyideasof
thirdwavefeminism in changingsocial,economicand politicalcon-
ditionsandhighlightsyetanothermajordifference betweenMFand
thenon-materialiststrandsofthethirdwave.Thatis,whilethelatter
howdiscourse
takean idealisttackthathighlights shapessocialreal-
ity,MF views material or
reality socialconditionsas providing the
groundfortheriseofnewdiscourses.
ofThirdWaveFeminism
theDiscourse
Grounding
Whennewrecruits enteredthewomen'smovement inthe1980s,
theyfaceda world that wasimmensely differentfrom the worlden-
counteredby their second wave sistersin the 1960s. Politically these
newrecruitswere confronted with a highlymobilized and vocal New
Right,whichhad a significant voicein nationalpoliticsthrough the
Sr.
Reagan/Bush years.Economically, they faced the worst job mar-
ketsinceWorldWarII andwerethefirst postwar generation expected
to fareworsethantheirparents(Sidler,in Heywoodand Drake,
1997).Thisperiodofpolitical backlashandeconomicrecession con-
trasts
sharplywith the progressivesocialmovements and post-World
WarII prosperitythatmanysecondwavers encountered uponreach-
ingadulthood.Belowweexaminesomeofthemajorfactors thattrans-
formed boththewomen'smovement and theworldinwhichwelive
overthelastfewdecades.Thisanalysis highlights howchangesin the
realmofideasreflect changing social and material conditions.
One ofthe most important that
developments heightened our
senseofdifference anddecentering wastherapidgrowth intheglobal
economy and itsimpactlocally on the United States. Indeed, between
1960and 1980,directforeign investments by U. S. corporations in-
and
creasedmorethanten-fold, manycompanies flocked across inter-
nationalbordersto reap higherprofits fromcheap laborabroad
(Thurow, 1996, 42). While capital was decentered in thesenseof
being relocated globally,it was not weakened, becamemore
but
powerfuland anarchicas national-level controlsovereconomicbe-
haviorweakened(Touraine,1998).Thisprocessintensified during

the1980sand 1990swiththederegulation oftheReagan/Bush Sr.

years and the riseof transnational like
units, NAFTA, which reduced
nationalbarriers to thefreeflowoflabor,capitaland commodities.
In turn,othertechnological and politicalbarriers to globalcapital-
ismweretranscended as thegrowth ofsatellite,computer and other
electronictechnologies virtuallyannihilated barriers of timeand
space, while the fallof the Soviet Union significantly reduced politi-
cal barriers to freeenterprise (Giddens,1990;Touraine,1998).
As a consequenceofthesedevelopments, theUnitedStatesex-
a of
perienced period rapid deindustrialization anddeclining wages.
Between1965and 1985, manufacturing oftotalemploy-
the share
mentdroppedfrom60% to 26%,whiletheshareofemployment in
lower-paying servicejobs rosefrom 40% to 74% (Stacey, 1991, 18).
Real malewagesconsistently fell- a reductionthathad neverbe-
foreoccurred inU. S. historyovera two-decade periodwhenrealper
capitaGDP wasadvancing(Thurow,1996,24). In turn,thegender,
race,andethnicity oftheAmerican laborforcedramatically changed.
Womenenteredtheworkforce in recordnumbers, in largepartto
buttress theirhouseholdsagainstthefallofmalewages,whilethe
increasein service jobs openedthedoorsto theemployment ofim-
migrants and minorities. Moreover, immigration into the United
Statesduringthe1980sand 1990sentailedmuchmoreracialdiver-
sity,particularly fromAsiaand LatinAmerica,thandid thelargely
Europeanimmigration ofthe19thcentury.
Hence,itisnotsurprising thattheoretical discourses duringthis
less
periodplaced emphasis on socialclassand more on other forms
ofdifference, suchas race,ethnicity and gender.While the former
mirrors thedecentering ofthefirst worldindustrial proletariat, the
lattermirrors thechangingcomposition ofthelaborforceat home
andtheincreasingly globalnatureofthedivision oflabor.Sincethese
processes areintegrally interwoven, "a fullunderstanding ofgender,
raceand ethnicity in theU. S. mustbe relatedto thetotality ofcapi-
talaccumulation on a worldscale"(Kandal,1995,156).
Otherfeatures ofglobalization also fostered awareness ofthese
formsof difference and identity. Some observers havenotedhow
peopletendto retreat to themicroworldsofcommunity and iden-
tityin theface offinancial andjobinsecurity (Touraine, 1998) . Others
havediscussedhowthehomogenizing tendencies ofglobalcapital-

ismtoward cultural conformity, secularism andconsumerism sparked

rediscovered ethno-histories thatstrove tomaintain culturalandeth-
nicdistinctions (Smart,1993).Examplesofthisathomeandabroad
range from the ongoingstruggles ofvariousracial,ethnic,and na-
tionalliberationmovements to theresurgenceof fundamentalist
religions and whiteethnicity. Hence,identity politicsofnumerous
-
politicalpersuasions progressive and regressive - werespawned
bytheseglobaldevelopments.
Yet,just as marginalized identities movedto thecenterofthe
politicalarena, a new of
politics non-identity emergedwithpost-
modernism's and post-structuralism's call fora blurring of racial,
ethnic,andgenderlines.Somecritics viewthesenewpoliticsofnon-
identity as offering a placeatthishistorical juncturefordecentered
intellectuals fromdominant groups to still
have a voice.Forexample,
Christine de Stefano arguesthatpost-structuralism wasdeconstructing
thecategory ofhumanagency "atthemoment inWestern history when
previously silenced populations have to
begun speak forthemselves
and on behalfoftheirsubjectivities" (de Stefano, quotedin Messer-
Davidow,2002,209). Similarly, in hercritiqueofpostmodernism,
PatriciaHillCollinsdescribeshowthemovement ofpeopleofcolor
and ethnicity intothespacesofthedominantgroup"shattered the
illusionof insidersecurity" previously byheld radicalintellectual
voiceswithdominantgroupprivilege(1998,131). These newdis-
coursesofnon-identity offered safehavensforsuchintellectuals by
the
supporting impulse to difference through theirdistrust ofessen-
tialism and unitary thought, whileremaining ratherexclusive, given
theirhighly abstract and inaccessible language(Collins,1998, 142).
Otherobservers viewpostmodernist ideasas surfacing fromthe
disjunctures and uncertainty thathaveaccompaniedtheglobaldif-
fusionofmodernWesterneconomic,politicaland culturalforms.
Herethecomplexcontests, conflictsand accommodations between
thehomogenizing effectsofWestern imperialism and the effortsby
diversecultures to maintain theirintegrity haveundermined thein-
ternal coherence oftheEuro-American masternarratives ofmodernity,
andhaveincreased awareness ofhowother,non-Western, civilizations
areexercising influence overglobaleconomic,politicalandcultural
life(Smart,1993,148-149).Fromthisperspective, postmodernism
is a productoftheactualdecentering oftheWest.

Featuresofpoststructualist thoughtare mirrored in theforms

ofworkthathavecometo characterize thenewglobaleconomyas
worksitesbecamemoreorganizedalongpost-Fordist lines.Forex-
ample,a cornerstone of post-Fordist management practiceis the
beliefthatloosenetworks aremoreopentoinnovation thanarethe
morestructured, pyramidal hierarchies that ruled the Fordist era.A
deceptive featureofthisteam-work is thatlinesofauthority appear
tobe flattened,eventhoughcontrol fromthetopstillexists(Sennett,
1998,43,57). Authority is further diffused as theselooselyorganized
teamsshift andchangewiththedemandsofwork.Moreover, because
theseteamsare constantly breaking apartor continually beingrede-
they
signed, require a more flexible, elasticand chameleon-like orien-
tationtowork(Sennett, 1998,110).Thesefeatures ofthepost-Fordist
workplace echotheblurred linesofauthority andthenon-hierarchical
viewofpowerespousedbypost-structuralism, as wellas itsmorefluid
and chameleon-like viewsofidentity.
Massculturealsohasbeensignificantly transformed through the
enormousgrowth in thenewelectronictechnologies and thenew
meansofconsumption thathavecharacterized thelastfewdecades.
Indeed,someobservers argue that mass culture hasintertwined with
consumerism to becomethecognitive and moralfocusofcontem-
porarysociallife(Featherstone, 1991). Culturecritics viewtheide-
ologiesembeddedin massculturetodayas farmorecomplexand
subtlethaninthepast,appearing almostas "silent argument" (Agger,
1998,125). The new electronic media dramatically quickenand in-
tensifythedistribution ofideologiessuchthattheyflashbywitha
speedthatmakesthemevenmoredifficult tounpack.In sucha swirl-
ing sea of signsand symbols, it is not surprising thatdiscourseap-
pears to haveinordinate power, or that a major device usedtodecode
suchmessages - deconstruction - hasbecomea newbuzzword in
socialthought(Agger,1998,125). In a worldwheresimulations in-
creasinglyblur the line between artifice and reality,it also is notsur-
prising thatcertainstrands ofthird wavefeminism havetakena more
idealisttackthatlosessightofthesocial and material conditions that
createda worldwheredifference, decentering and deconstruction
becameevermoreprominent. Yet,as we discussbelow,socialand
materialconditions also transformed thewomen'smovement dur-
ingtheera thatwitnessed theriseofthird wave feminism.

Movement
oftheWomen's
Transformations
Wefocusedaboveon howsecondwavefeminism waschallenged
fromwithinbythevoicesand visionsof thethirdwave.However,
duringthe1970sandearly1980sthesecondwavewasalsochallenged
fromwithout as thefusionofChristian fundamentalism andtheNew
Rightfueledsuccessful conservative backlashes toboththewomen's
movement and theCivilRightsmovement. The successofthiscon-
backlash
servative resounded inthedefeatoftheEqualRights Amend-
has
mentin 1982.As SusanMartin argued, thisdefeat had a serious
classcomponent in thatitreflected thesecondwave'sfailuretogar-
nersupportfromworking-class women.Here again,whiletheirab-
stracttheoreticalwritingsdidnotignoreclass,theirconcrete political
practicefailedto adequately addresstheeveryday concernsofthese
women.In contrast, right-wingandfundamentalist conservatives were
at
superior mobilizing these women at a grass-roots level and turn-
ingtheanxiety ofthisdecenteredclassintoa backlashagainstthe
gainswonbyfeminists andtheCivilRights Movement (Martin, 1989).
Although the women's movement entered a tough period of
retrenchment aftertheERAwasdefeated, itdid notentera period
ofabeyance, as occurredafterthefirst waveattainedthevotein 1920
(Taylor,1989).Newrecruits continuedtoenterthewomen'smove-
ment,despiteor tospitemediaclaimsthatwe had entereda "post-
feminist"era (Siegel,1997,52). Indeed,somewriters havediscussed
howsuchpostfeminist claims, as well as various caricatures offemi-
nismby"dissenting daughters" likeKatieRoipheor ReneDenfeld,
actuallytriggered the mobilization ofyounger feminists (Siegel,in
and
Heywood Drake,1997,58). any In event, new recruits entered
a feminist movement thatwas under attack from opponentsthat
crossedthe politicalspectrumand thatincludedanti-feminists,
postfeminists,and feminist dissenters.
this
Despite backlash, some segments ofthewomen'smovement
actuallygainedground in the 1980s and 1990s,suchas thelarge,
formally organized, liberalfeminist organizations - NOW,theNa-
tionalAbortion Rights ActionLeagueandtheWomen'sEquity Action
In
League. contrast, manycommunity-based, feminist organizations
thathadbeenthestronghold ofthemoreradicalwingofthesecond
wavefeminist movement declined(Whittier, 1995,195).

Whilethismoreradicalwingembracedthesocial-change strate-
giestheyhad learned in the social movements of the 1960s,neither
theNewLeftnortheradicalwingofthewomen'smovement ever
developedtheinfrastructures at thegrassroots levelattainedbythe
CivilRightsMovement or theNewRight,suchas thenetworks of
schoolsand churchesthatprovidedstructure and continuity over
time.Rather,thecommunity-based organizations of thewomen's
movement thatdependedlargely on volunteers, likerapecrisiscen-
tersorbattered women'sshelters, wereplaguedbychronicresource
deprivation.In thefaceoftherecession ofthe1980s,theseorganiza-
tionswereforcedtoseekgovernment tosurvive.
funds Thisnotonly
miredthemdownin grantwriting and donorsolicitation, butalso
transformed themfromactivist organizations into more professional-
ized,socialserviceagencies(Messer-Davidow, 2002,163).
The recessionand fierceeconomiccompetition ofthisera also
affectedotheractivitiesofthewomen'smovement. Movement peri-
flourished
odicalsthatinitially wereunableto endurein thefaceof
resourceshortages. Bookstores failediftheydid notmasterthefis-
calandmarketing techniques usedbytheirmainstream competitors.
Independentpresses were swallowed up by media empires as the
publishingindustry wastransformed between 1970 and 1990(Messer-
Davidow,2002, 133, 163). Hence, commercialization and profes-
sionalizationwenthand-in-hand toundermine more activist-oriented
and grassroots organizations.
Women'sstudies alsofollowed thispathofprofessionalization and
Whiletheburgeoning
deradicalization. women'sstudiesprograms of
theearly1970shadfewoftheresources thatexisttoday, theydid have
a moreradicalvisionofbreaking downtheboundaries thatseparated
scholarshipfrom activism,theacademy fromthecommunity, andvari-
ous disciplinesfromeach other.In the1980sand 1990s,thisradical
visionwasthwarted, notbyoutright suppression, butrather bymore
subtleprocesses inherent in theinstitutionalizationand intellectual-
izationofacademicknowledge 2002,
(Messer-Davidow, 165).
Indeed, rather than beingsuppressed, women'sstudiesgrew
immensely duringthelastdecadesofthe20thcentury. Thisgrowth
wasfacilitated bythesteadyflowofwomenintohighereducation;
withwomenoutnumbering meninenrollments bythe1990s(Messer-
Davidow, 2002,79). Financially strapped universitiesseekingtuition
revenuesupped theirfundingofwomen'sstudiescoursesbecause

theyattractedhigh enrollments.This, in turn,meant thatdepart-

mentshired more women's studiesfacultyand commercialpresses
competedto wringprofitsfromthisniche marketin feministpubli-
cations.Ellen Messer-Davidowdiscussesat lengthhowthetrajectories
of both disciplinarygrowthand commodification workedtogether
to intensifythe productionof specializationsand differencewithin
women'sstudiesdiscourse.She writes:
drovetheproliferation
and commodification
Specialization ofparticular-
izedknowledges,whichinvited whichsparkedthemeta-
criticisms,
specialist
discourseabouthowto producemoreadequateknowledges, which,once
theywereproduced, wentspinning
through thesameroutines.
(2002,207.)
Hence,ironically, theproductionofdifference withinfeminist thought

was,in part,a productof the movementof feminismfromactivism
to academic discourse.
One would have expectedaffirmative actionprogramsto playa
in
largerole theproduction of differences. Yet,changesin theracial
and ethnicprofilesofboththefaculty and thestudentbodyin higher
education were meager. Between 1970 and 1990, the number of
doctoratesawardedto non-whites increasedby onlythreepercent.
From1980to themid-1990s, percentageofAfrican-American
the and
Hispanic-American highschoolstudentsenrollingin collegeactually
declined,whilethatofwhitesrose (Messer-Davidow, 2002,193). Main-
streampublicationvenuesand feminist journals were also slowtoopen
theirdoorsto marginalized in
voices.Only the 1980sdid theymakea
serious commitmentto disseminatingAfrican-American women's
scholarship and criticism(Messer-Davidow 2002, 197). These slow
in
developments changing the racial and ethnic profile of women's
studiesmayalso go some waytowardexplainingthewidespreadview
thatrace and ethnicity wereignoredbeforethe 1980s.
One of thefewareas of thewomen'smovementthatbothflour-
ished and remainedtrueto itsradicalrootsduringthisperiod of re-
trenchment waswomen'sculture.Nationalculturaleventsproliferated,
as did morelocal concerts,festivals,and artist's/writer's
workshops. It
has been arguedthatwomen'sculturemaintaineditsradicalrootsto
thepast,largelybecause itwas organizedbylesbianfeminists who,of
had builttheirowncommunities
necessity, and whowerelesslikelyto
trustliberalfeministorganizationsthathad eschewed themin the

86 SCIENCEàfSOCIETY
past. These lesbian feministscontinued to build on the strategies

of the 1970s radical women's movementand theirculturalevents
reflectedthis,whethertheywere aimed at lesbian-onlyor broader
audiences (Whittier,1995, 212). Given the paucityof radical sec-
torsofthewomen'smovement,itis understandablewhycultureand
sexualitybecame major sitesof struggleformanyyoungrecruitsto
thewomen'smovements in the1980sand 1990s(Heywoodand Drake,
1997,4).
Other arenas of growthin the 1980s and 1990s were self-help
groups,feministtherapies,and feministspirituality. While these
activitiesexistedduringthe second wave,theybecame largersectors
of the women's movementin these later decades (Whittier,1995,
196). Their growthsuggestsan increasingfocuson personal trans-
formationas a means of social change and mayhelp explain why
manystrandsof the thirdwave focused more on internalizedop-
pressionsand whysome appeared primarily as a "revolutionof the
self" (Pineros,2002).
Overall,duringthelastdecades ofthe20thcentury, thewomen's
movementin the United States became more mainstream,more
professionalized,morecommercialized, and lessradical.Liberalfemi-
nistorganizationson the national level grew,while more radical,
grassrootsfeministorganizationsdeclined or became more profes-
sionalizedand service-oriented.Women'sstudieswitnessedimmense
growthboth in itssize and in itsproductionof difference, but it too
becamemoreinstitutionalized The women's
and lessactivist-oriented.
movementalso experienceda turninwardtofocuson self-growth and
transformation. It maintainedits radicalismprimarilythroughthe
effortsof lesbian feministsin the realm of women's culture.Given
these transformations, it is not surprisingthatthe foci of the new
generation recruits, enteredthewomen'smovement
of who inthel980s
and 1990s,differedfromtheirsecond wavesisterson severalimpor-
tantdimensions.Theyfocusedmore on the individualthansociety;
moreon internalizedthanexternaloppression;and moreon culture
than on materiallife.
CONCLUSION
We began thisarticlenotinghow theoriesofemancipationare often

tendencies.
blind to theirown dominating,exclusiveand restrictive

The secondwaveofAmerican feminism wasoftenblindto theways

itstheoriesandpolitical praxis failedtoadequately addresstheevery-
dayconcernsofwomenof color and ethnicity in theUnitedStates
and abroad.It was also blindto howit appearedto manyin the
youngergenerationas an austereand disciplinary feminism. As a
consequence ofsuch blind spots,itbred counter discoursesthateven-
tuallyundermined itshegemony. Bycontrast, thenewdiscourseof
thethirdwaveembraceda morediverse andpolyvocal feminism that
appealed to those who feltmarginalized or restrictedwithin the sec-
ondwave.Builton difference, thisnewdiscourse deconstructed and
decentered theideas of thesecondwave,producingnewwaysof
understanding and framing genderrelations.
Weuseda materialist analysistogroundthekeyideasofthisnew
discourse in changing socialconditions. Herewe discussedhowthe
thirdwave'scommonfocion difference, deconstruction and decen-
tering,as well as their of and were
analyses power identity, mirrored
in macro-level processes likeglobalization, thechanging composition
oftheU. S. laborforce, newpost-Fordist forms ofwork, andthemore
complexandpervasive natureofmassculture. Wealsoexamined how
transformations oftheU. S. women'smovement, suchas itsderadicali-
zationand theriseand demiseofcertainofitssectors, helpexplain
themajorsitesofstruggle ofthenewgeneration ofthirdwavefeminists.
We pointedto a numberofnewinsights and politicalstrategies
developedby the thirdwave thatwe think arecompatible witha criti-
cal Marxist feminism and thatshouldbe takenseriously byall femi-
nistswhowanttobe engagedin ongoingdevelopments in feminism
today.Thereare bothprogressive and regressive pathswithinthe
thirdwaveand we mustnavigatethemwitha greateropennessto
difference and to thevariousstrategies thatmayprovefruitful to
fostering emancipatory goals.
SusanArcherMann:
ofSociology
Department
ofNewOrleans
University
NewOrleans,LA 70148
samann@uno.edu
DouglasJ.Huffman:
1549 PlacentiaAve.#221
NewportBeach,CA 92663
dougman 74@yahoo.com

REFERENCES
Agger,Ben. 1998. CriticalSocialTheories: NewYork:WestviewPress.

An Introduction.
Alcoff,Linda. 1988. "CulturalFeminismVersus Post-Structuralism: The Identity
Crisisin FeministTheory."Pp. 403-414 in Kolmarand Bartkowski, eds.
Alfonso,Rita,and Jo Trigilio.1997. "Surfingthe ThirdWave:A Dialogue Between
Two Third Wave Feminists."Hypatia,12:3 (Summer), 8-16.
Andersen,Margaret,and PatriciaHill Collins,eds. 1994. Race,Classand Gender: An
Anthology. New York:Wadsworth.
Bartky,Sandra. 1990. Femininity and Domination:Studiesin thePhenomenology ofOp-
pression. New York:Routledge.
Baumgardner,Jennifer,and AmyRichards.2000. Manifest A: YoungWomen, Femi-
nism,and theFuture.New York:Farrar,Strausand Giroux.
Bordo,Susan. 1993. Unbearable Weight:Feminism,WesternCulture,and theBody.Berke-
ley,California:University of CaliforniaPress.
Breines,Wini.2002. "What'sLove Got to Do withIt?WhiteWomen,BlackWomen,
and Feminismin the MovementYears." Signs:JournalofWomen in Cultureand
Society,27:4, 1096-1133.
Bruns,CindyM.,and Collen Trimble.2001. "RisingTide: TakingOur Place as Young
FeministPsychologists." Pp. 19-36 in TheNewestGeneration: ThirdWavePsycho-
therapy, ed. Ellen Kaschak. Binghamton, New York: The Haworth Press.
Butler,Judith.1993. BodiesThatMatter.New York:Routledge.
. 1992. "ContingentFoundations: Feminism and the Question of Post-
modernism."Pp. 3-21 in Feminists thePolitical,ed. JudithButlerand
Theorize
Joan W. Scott.New York: Routledge.
Cashen,Jeanne. 2002. "The RevolutionIs Mine: GrrrlResistancein a Commodity
Culture."Unpublishedmanuscript,University of New Orleans.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1998. Fighting Words:Black Women and theSearchforJustice.
Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
. 1990. BlackFeministThought:Knowledge, Consciousness, and thePoliticsof
Empowerment. Boston,Massachusetts:Unwin,Hyman.
Combahee RiverCollective. 1978. "A Black FeministStatement."Pp.121-124 in
Jaggerand Rothenberg,eds.
Cooper, Anna Julia. 1982 (1892). A Voice¡romtheSouth,boston, Massachusetts:
Unwin,Hyman.
Crawley,Sara L. 2002. Narratingand Negotiating Butchand Femme:Storying Lesbian
Selvesin a Heteronormative World.Doctoral Dissertation,Departmentof Sociol-
ogy,University of Florida,Gainesville,Florida.
De Beauvoir,Simone. 1952. TheSecondSex.New York:AlfredA. Knopf.
Dent, Gina. 1995. "MissionaryPosition."Pp. 61-76 in To Be Real: TellingtheTruth
and Changing theFaceofFeminism, ed. Rebecca Walker.NewYork:AnchorBooks.
Dicker,Rory,and AlisonPiepmeier.2003. Catching a Wave:Reclaiming Feminism for
the21stCentury. Boston,Massachusetts:NortheasternUniversity Press.
Edut, Ophira, ed. 1998. AdiósBarbie:YoungWomenWrite aboutBodyImageand Iden-
Seattle,
tity. Washington: Seal Press.
Featherstone,Mike. 1991. Consumer Cultureand Postmodernism. London: Sage.

Findlen,Barbara,ed. 1995. ListenUp: Voices fromtheNextFeministGeneration.Seattle,

Washington:Seal Press.
Foucault, Michel. 1984. TheHistoryofSexuality,Vol. 1: An Introduction. London:
Penguin.
. 1977. Disciplineand Punish:TheBirthofthePrison.London: Allen Lane.
Fraser,Nancy,and Linda Nicholson. 1997. "Social CriticismWithoutPhilosophy:
An EncounterBetweenFeminismand Postmodernism." Pp. 131-146 in Femi-
nistSocialThought: A Reader,ed. Diana TietjensMeyers.NewYork:Routledge.
Giddens,Anthony.1990. TheConsequences Stanford,
ofModernity. California:Stanford
University Press.
Giménez,MarthaE. 2001. "Marxism,and Class,Gender,and Race: Rethinkingthe
Trilogy."Race,Genderàf Class,8:2, 23-33.
Grant,Judith.1993. Fundamental Feminism: theCoreConcepts
Contesting ofFeminist
Theory. New York:Routledge.
Grimshaw, Jean. 1993. "Practicesof Freedom."Pp. 51-72 in Ramazanoglu,ed.
Guy-Sheftall,Beverly.1995. WordsofFire:An Anthology ofAfrican-American Feminist
Thought. New York:New Press.
Halstead,Ted. 1999. "A PoliticsforGenerationX." Atlantic Monthly,284:2 (August),
33-42.
Harding, Sandra. 1993. "RethinkingStandpoint Epistemology:What Is Strong
Objectivity?" Pp. 49-82 in Feminist ed. L. Alcoffand E. Potter.
Epistemologies,
New York:Routledge.
Henry,Astrid.2003. "Feminism'sFamilyProblem:FeministGenerationsand the
Mother-DaughterTrope." Pp. 209-231 in CatchingaWave:Reclaiming Feminism
forthe21stCentury, ed. RoryDicker and AlisonPiepmeier.Boston,Massachu-
setts:NortheasternUniversity Press.
Hernandez,Daisy,and Bushra Rehman. 2002. ColonizeThis!YoungWomen ofColor
on Today'sFeminism. New York:Seal Press.
Heywood,Leslie, and JenniferDrake,eds. 1997. ThirdWaveAgenda:BeingFeminist,
DoingFeminism. Minneapolis,Minnesota:University of MinnesotaPress.
hooks,bell. 1984.Feminist Theory:FromMargintoCenter.Boston,Massachusetts: South
End Press.
Huffman,D. J. 2002. "MakingSense ofThirdWaveFeminism."MA Thesis,Univer-
sityof New Orleans,New Orleans,Louisiana.
Hull, Gloria,PatriciaBell-Scott,and Barbara Smith,eds. 1982. All theWomen Are
White, All theBlacksAreMen,butSomeofUsAreBrave.NewYork:Old Westbury.
Jaggar,Alison, and Paula Rothenberg,eds. 1993. Feminist Frameworks:Alternative
Theoretical Accounts oftheRelationsBetween Women and Men.3rd ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Jeffreys,Sheila. 2003. UnpackingQueerPolitics.Cambridge,England: PolityPress.
Kaminer,Wendy.1995. "Feminism'sThirdWave:WhatDo Young WomenWant?"
NewYorkTimesBookReview, Tune4, 8-9.
Kandal, Terry.1995. "Gender,Race and Ethnicity:Let's Not ForgetClass." Race,
Genderàf Class,2:2, 139-162.
Karp,Marcelle,and Debbie Stoller,eds. 1999. TheBustGuidetotheNewGirlOrder.
New York:Penguin.

King,Deborah. 1988. "MultipleJeopardy:The Contextof a Black FeministIdeol-

ogy."Pp. 220-236 in Jaggarand Rothenberg,eds.
Kirk,Gwyn,and Margo Okazawa-Rey.2001. Women's Lives:Multicultural
Perspectives.
2nd ed. New York:McGraw-Hill
Kolmar,Wendy,and FrancesBartkowski, eds. 2000. FeministTheory:A Reader.Moun-
tainView,California:Mayfield.
Koyama,Emi. 2003. "The TransfeministManifesto."Pp. 244-259 in Dicker and
Piepmeier.
. 2002.Discussionof"thirdwave"on Women'sStudiesListserv WMST-L@listserv.
umd.edu,June 7.
Lewis,Reina, and Sara Mills,eds. 2003. Feminist Postcolonial
Theory: A Reader.New
York: Routledge.
Lorde, Audre. 2000. "Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women RedefiningWomen."
Pp. 288-293 in WendyKomarand FrancesBartkowski, eds., Feminist A
Theory:
Reader.MountainView,California:Mayfield.
Mann,SusanA. 2000. "The ScholarshipofDifference: A ScholarshipofLiberation?"
SociologicalInquiry,70:4, 475-498.
Martin,Susan. 1989. "Keep Us on the Pedestal: Women AgainstFeminismin
Twentieth-Century America."Pp. 547-560 in Women: A Feminist ed.
Perspective,
Jo Freeman. Mountain View, California:Mayfield.
McHoul, Alec, and WendyGrace. 1993. A FoucaultPrimer: Discourse,Powerand the
Subject.New York:New YorkUniversity Press.
Messer-Davidow, Feminism:
Ellen. 2002. Disciplining FromSocialActivism toAcademic
Discourse. Durham,NorthCarolina: Duke University Press.
Minh-ha,T. T. 1989. Women NativeOther:Writing andFeminism.
Postcoloniality Bloom-
ington,Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Mitchell,Juliet.1966. Woman'sEstate.New York:Pantheon.
Mohanty,Chandra Talpade. 2000 (1991). "UnderWesternEyes:FeministScholar-
ship and Colonial Discourses."Pp. 344-351 in Kolmar and Bartkowski, eds.
Moraga,Cherrie,and GloriaAnzaldua, eds. 1983. ThisBridgeCalledMyBack: Writ-
ingsbyRadical Women ofColor.Latham,New York:KitchenTable Press.
Morgan,Joan. 1999. When Chickenheads ComeHometoRoost:MyLifeas a Hip Hop
Feminist. New York:Simon & Schuster.
Narayan,Uma. 1997. Dislocating and Third-World
Traditions,
Cultures/Identities, Femi-
nism.New York:Routledge.
Pineros,Marcela.2001. "The ArtofBeingThirdWave:ColoringOutsidetheLines."
Unpublishedpaper, Florida InternationalUniversity.
Pollitt,Katha. 1999. "Solipsisters,"TheNewYorkTimesBookReview, April18, 25-29.
Quinn, Rebecca. 1997. "An Open Letterto InstitutionalMothers."Pp. 174-182 in
Generations:Academic FeministsinDialogue,ed. DevoneyLooser and AnnKaplan.
Minneapolis,Minnesota:University of MinnesotaPress.
Ramazanoglu,Caroline,ed. 1993. UpAgainstFoucault:Explorations ofSomeTensions
Between Foucaultand Feminism. New York:Routledge.
Rich, Adrienne. 1980. "CompulsoryHeterosexualityand Lesbian Existence."
Pp. 304-312 in Kolmarand Bartkowski, eds.

Rosenau,Pauline Marie. 1992. Post-Modernism and theSocialSciences: Inroads,

Insights,
and Intrusions.Princeton,New Jersey:PrincetonUniversity Press.
An Introduction
Ruth,Sheila. 1998. Issuesin Feminism: toWomen's Studies.Mountain
View,California:Mayfield.
Sedgwick,Eve. 1990. Epistemology oftheCloset.Berkeley,California:Universityof
CaliforniaPress.
Seidman, Stevan. 2000. "Queer-ing Sociology, Sociologizing Queer Theory."
Pp. 434-455 in SocialTheory:
Rootsand Branches, ed. PeterRivisto.Los Angeles,
California:Roxbury.
Sennett,Richard. 1998. TheCorrosion ofWork:ThePersonalConsequences ofWorkin
theNewCapitalism. New York:W. W. Norton.
Siegel,DeborahL. 1997."TheLegacyofthePersonal:Generating TheoryinFeminism's
Third Wave." Hypatia,12:3, 46-75.
Smart,Barry.1993. Postmodernity:KeyIdeas.New York:Routledge.
Smith,Barbara,ed. 1983. HomeGirls:A BlackFeminist Anthology.NewYork:Kitchen
Table/Womenof Color Press.
Smith,Dorothy.1996. "Telling the TruthafterPostmodernism."Symbolic Interac-
tion,19:3, 171-202.
Spelman,ElizabethV. 1988. Inessential
Woman. Boston,Massachusetts: Beacon Press.
Spivak,Gayatri. 1990. The Critic:
Post-Colonial Interviews, Dialogues.London:
Strategies,
Routledge.
. 1987. In OtherWorlds: Essaysin CulturalPolitics.London: Methuen.
Springer,Kimberly.2002. "ThirdWave Black Feminism?"Signs:JournalofWomen
in Cultureand Society,21A, 1059-1082.
Stacey,Judith. 1991. BraveNewFamilies.New York:Basic Books.
Taylor,Verta. 1989. "Social MovementContinuity:The Women's Movementin
Abeyance."American Review,54, 761-775.
Sociological
Thurow,Lester. 1996. TheFutureofCapitalism. New York:W. Morrow.
Touraine,Alain. 1998. "SociologyWithoutSociety."Current 46:2 (April),
Sociology,
119-143.
Vogel, Lise. 1991. "TellingTales: Historiansof Our Own Lives."JournalofWomen's
History, 2 (Winter),89-101.
Walker,Rebecca, ed. 1995. To Be Real: TellingtheTruthand ChangingtheFaceofFemi-
nism.New York:AnchorBooks.
Whittier,Nancy. 1995. FeministGenerations: ThePersistenceoftheRadical Women's
Movement. Philadelphia,Pennsylvania:Temple University Press.
Wurtzel,Elizabeth. 1998. Bitch:In PraiseofDifficultWomen. New York:Doubleday.


2005 Archer &amp; Huffman

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2005 Archer &amp; Huffman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

S&S Quarterly, Inc.

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.16 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:44:26 PM

The Decenteringof Second WaveFeminism

SUSAN ARCHER MANN

DEVELOPMENTS IN SOCIAL THOUGHT have

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.16 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:44:26 PM

ofadultagein the1980sand 1990sandwhointroduced a numberof

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.16 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:44:26 PM

Springer, 2002). We recognize, forexample,thatwaveapproaches

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.16 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:44:26 PM

generation- grewout ofsyntheses

THE EARLY THIRD WAVE: INTERSECTIONALITY AND

byWomenofColar and Ethnicity

Whilewomen of color and ethnicity had been notable activists

Byandlargewithin thewomen'smovement today,whitewomenfocusupon

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.16 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:44:26 PM

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.16 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:44:26 PM

Blackwomen.Theirabstract theoretical and analytical comprehen-

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.16 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:44:26 PM

prevailoverstandpointor identity.Collinsalso createda new femi-

The overarching matrixofdominationhousesmultiple groups,eachwith

This new epistemologyshared withpostmodernism/poststruc-

This challengeto thesecondwavewasled byfeminists whobased

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.16 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:44:26 PM

politicsbasedon identity to itsnegation- a politicsbasedon non-

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.16 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:44:26 PM

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.16 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:44:26 PM

intheiruseofdifference todeconstruct andtodecenter

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.16 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:44:26 PM

In the1980s,a newcategory offeministthought - globalfemi-

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.16 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:44:26 PM

Like her predecessors,Mohantybeginsbyusing

Like the proponentsof intersectionality theory,Mohantyde-

Thus,thediscursively consensualhomogeneityof"women"as a groupis

Similarly,Urna Narayanargues that the "colonial encounter"

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.16 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:44:26 PM

categories mustrecognize themselves as agentsofchangerather than

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.16 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:44:26 PM

Moreover, clearlydemarcating whois includedin thisnewgen-

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.16 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:44:26 PM

self-policing,confession through consciousness-raising groups,and

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.16 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:44:26 PM

nais writtento ventanger and frustration (Cashen, 2002, 17). Such

Indeed, manyyoungerfeministscelebrate contradictionsas a

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.16 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:44:26 PM

Thisgreaterresistance to identity byyounger womenhas been

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.16 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:44:26 PM

Indeed forus, the mostseriouspoliticalfaultline betweenthe

Ratherthanjudgingthemas unevolved, unfeminist, or hopelesslyduped

A ratherbenign formof thisreckoningwithcontradictionsis

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.16 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:44:26 PM

warningthat"the master'stools will neverdismantlethe master's

We'veentered an eraofDIYfeminism - sistah, - andwehave

To us,DIY feminism is politically and presentsa major

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.16 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:44:26 PM

tionsofwhatfeminism is or to engagetheworldin a playful and in-

Havingdiscussed keyfeatures ofthefourmajorperspectives that

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.16 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:44:26 PM

politics,itrejectsnotionsofindividual freedom thattakeplaceatthe

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.16 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:44:26 PM

eration.An explicitanti-capitalist politicsis moreevidentin inter-

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.16 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:44:26 PM

lynchpins ofan emancipatory feminism. We alsothinkthis"anything

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.16 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:44:26 PM

2005 Archer & Huffman

2005 Archer & Huffman