French Feminisms

Gender And Violence In Contemporary Theory

Gill Allwood

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• Topic: Social Sciences
• eBook ISBN:
  9781135360238
• Subtopic: Gender Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

In this text, Gill Allwood explores theories of masculinity emerging from French feminist theories of gender and from French feminist practice concerning violence towards women, highlighting both the commonalities and the specificities of the French case. She discusses the particular concern of French theorists with seduction, their rejection of the term "gender" and the centrality of the difference debate.; In the first part of the book, Allwood separately examines feminist theories of gender and sexual difference and the problem of male violence. She goes on to consider the developments which are taking place on the borderline between the two, examining the way in which these developments have contributed to an understanding of masculinity. Readdressing problems and debates that will be familiar to English-speaking readers, the text exposes cultural differences and similarities in the ways in which these problems are approached and it provides a detailed account of the changes in both feminist action and theory in France in recent years.; This analysis of feminism in France should be of interest to student and scholars in French studies, European studies, gender studies and cultural studies.

1 French feminism: movement, theory and representation

The theories of masculinity discussed in this book have their origins in the French feminist movement. Their reception, however, is influenced not only by the characteristics of French feminist activism and research, but also by its representation in France and abroad. This chapter examines the production of French feminist theory and its relation to the movement. It then examines cultural representations of feminism, in particular the media construction of postfeminism. Finally, it examines the construction by Anglo-American academics of “French feminism”, a term which is applied to a group of theorists unrepresentative of feminism in France.

Le mouvement de libération des femmes (MLF)

This account of the development of feminism in France since 1968 pays particular attention to the production of theory and the relation between activism and research. In the early days of the MLF, the relation between theory and practice was intimate and direct. Theory emerged from women’s experiences, and the personal was political. However, when feminist research in the universities began to grow in the 1970s and received official recognition in the early 1980s, activists criticized the gap between the movement and research. Feminist researchers, for their part, were sometimes reluctant to advertise their feminism or pursue obviously feminist research. The relation between activism and theory has had an important effect in particular areas of feminist interest, including violence against women, which is examined in detail in Chapter 5.

A view which represents the movement in terms only of sites of theoretical production is, however, necessarily distorted. This chapter does not aim to provide a comprehensive or representative account of the history of the French women’s movement, a history which has been told in various ways elsewhere (Tristan & Pisan, 1977; Delphy, 1980; Picq, 1981; Duchen, 1986; Jenson, 1989, 1990; Remy, 1990; Picq, 1993). Instead, it focuses on some groups and developments more than others, pays more attention to written texts than events and discussions, and smoothes over many of the inconsistencies and contradictions of practical feminist politics. It concentrates, for example, more on the debates within the movement about the role of the institutions in feminism; whether feminists can work in academia and, if they do, what relationship exists between their research and activism; the “institutionalization” of feminism and the division between movement and theory, than on other questions central to the women’s movement such as the relative importance of struggles against patriarchy and capitalism; political lesbianism; and the role of separatism.

Although I am concentrating here on the women’s movement since 1968, it must not be forgotten that this was not the birth of feminism in France. Maïté Albistur and Daniel Armogathe’s history of French feminism (1977) devotes only one of its 25 chapters to the post-1968 period, the rest of the book covering feminism in the Middle Ages, during the Revolution, and numerous examples of individual feminists and feminist movements in the last 200 years. And when Simone de Beauvoir (1972: 13) wrote the introductory sentences to The second sex in 1949, she felt that “The subject … is not new. Enough ink has been spilt in quarrelling over feminism, and perhaps we should say no more about it.”

The student and workers’ revolt of May 1968 is often seen as the origin of French feminism. While feminist history has now gathered together a body of evidence which suggests that the MLF was a historically specific manifestation of a feminism which can take many forms, the spirit of the time was concerned more with revolution than with continuity. To the women involved in the emergence of the movement in the 1970s, it seemed that they were beginning something new. One of the reasons for this was the ignorance surrounding the struggles of the past. Women’s history was yet to be written. In fact, this became one of the projects of the second wave. In addition, the events of May 1968 were to have a profound effect on the evolution of the women’s movement, and played a vital role in the creation of the “new feminism”. The emerging women’s movement was closely linked with other new political movements of the time, and it shared with them an opposition to hierarchy, to the authoritarianism of de Gaulle’s France, and to party politics. The exciting new ideas of this period stimulated women into action, but at the same time they began to realize their lack of status in the events, and it was the anger at their treatment by male activists which led to the creation of an autonomous women’s movement. Many of them broke away from mixed organizations and organized separately around issues which had not previously been discussed.

During the 1970s, many women’s groups were created, and feminist publications began to appear. Most of this activity went unnoticed by the general public and the media, but what they did notice was a series of highly visible actions. For example, a group of women laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at the Arc de Triomphe in memory of one more unknown than him: his wife. In 1971, the “Manifeste des 343” was published in the centre-left intellectual weekly, Le nouvel observateur. This was a statement signed by 343 women, many of them public figures, to say that they had had illegal abortions. Reporting these events, the press, borrowing from the American, coined the phrase “mouvement de libération de la femme” (the women’s liberation movement).¹² The press also began to describe the movement as divided into tendencies, and these divisions are usually used in analyses of the movement, especially as it was in the 1970s.

However, even among activists involved from the very beginning, opinions vary on the extent to which a description of the movement in terms of tendencies is an accurate representation of it. For example, Françoise Picq (1981), in an account of how she experienced the early women’s movement in Paris, argues that, although activists disagreed and formed separate groups depending on their interests and priorities, between 1970 and 1972 the women’s movement could not be described as being divided into tendencies. According to Picq, women drifted in and out of groups at different times, or were involved in activities organized by different groups, and the notion of sisterhood was still strong enough to give them a sense of identity as “feminists”. Christine Delphy, another feminist activist since the beginning of the second wave, does not share this view (Delphy, personal correspondence). She sees the fluidity and exchange described by Picq as existing only within the confines of a “central” feminism, which was unaware of other feminist activity and therefore of divisions which might be visible from another standpoint. For example, Delphy claims that from as early as 1970 there was a clear split between “revolutionary” and “class struggle” feminists.

To write of tendencies, then, should not imply that these divisions were well-defined and fixed, or that all feminists and feminist groups could be categorized in this way.¹³ Many feminists were active in trade unions and political parties and involved in campaigns which did not fit into these categories. They campaigned on specific issues for specific groups of women, for example women workers or mothers. This type of feminism increased towards the end of the 1970s. However, there were splits within the movement and conflict between certain groups which should not be underestimated. The categories most often used in analyses of the movement are class struggle feminists, revolutionary feminists, and Psychanalyse et politique (Jenson, 1990; Duchen, 1986; Remy, 1990).¹⁴

Class struggle tendency

One of the major divisions within the movement was the relative importance accorded to the struggle against capitalism and against patriarchy. For the class struggle tendency, the destruction of capitalism was the priority. Many women in the MLF had come from the extreme left, and brought with them its theoretical frameworks and its conflicts. The “class struggle tendency” was heavily influenced by the Ligue communiste révolutionnaire (LCR), the French section of the Fourth International, and the Organisation communiste des travailleurs. Heated arguments took place between the class struggle and revolutionary feminists, and the conflict between them began to die down only in about 1980, when the ideological divisions between them were weakened as a result of increasing feminist involvement in mainstream politics.

Conflicts between class struggle and revolutionary feminists also concerned the organization of the movement. Whereas the former demanded a structured organization, the latter were opposed to vertical power structures and traditional forms of political organization. They were proud of the movement’s informal and flexible structure and objected to any attempts to make it more rigid. But there were also problems on an individual level. The women who entered the MLF from the extreme left often experienced intense conflict between their activities within the movement and those within their political organizations, a conflict which, for many women, became debilitating. Neither trusted nor fully recognized by either, they were fighting a difficult battle. By 1976, the pull of these divided loyalties had forced many of them to make a decision to go one way or the other, and the tendency as such disappeared (Duchen, 1986: 28–30). However, the feminists in the LCR are probably the most active today and the review which they publish, Les cahiers du féminisme, has appeared regularly without a break since 1977.

Féministes révolutionnaires

Revolutionary, or radical, feminists, as they would probably be called today (Duchen, 1987: 22n), constituted the most active tendency of the MLF in the early 1970s, and were responsible for the highly visible actions which brought feminism into the public eye. However, they are also the most difficult to define. Françoise Picq (1993: 198) writes, “Strictly speaking, there is no revolutionary feminist ’tendency’. There is not even a group which meets regularly. It is rather a collection of ideas, whose boundaries are variable and difficult to define.” The first revolutionary feminist group, Les petites marguerites, formed in November 1970, but lasted only three months. After that, groups formed, split and re-formed with some of the same women and some new ones, especially during important campaigns, such as the one against rape, when it appeared necessary to present a radical feminist position represented by a specific group (Delphy, personal correspondence).

Revolutionary feminism was influenced by American radical feminism, and had much in common with it. It saw gender as the primary dividing factor in society; women were seen to constitute a sex class; patriarchy, not capitalism, was the main enemy; and separatism was seen as the only effective political strategy (Jenson, 1990: 131). The revolutionary feminists were in constant conflict with the class struggle tendency. Les petites marguerites formed as a means of escaping the “incessant quarrels” with the women who held the “capitalism first” position, who were, at the time, grouped around Antoinette Fouque (see below) (Delphy, personal correspondence). However, they were divided on many questions, including the issue of sexual difference: whereas some revolutionary feminists wanted sexual difference eliminated, others wanted to accentuate it. They were also divided on the question of sexuality, with lesbian feminists accusing heterosexual feminists of collaborating with the enemy.¹⁵

Revolutionary feminists produced many publications, reflecting the plurality of the tendency. QF (1977–80), which, with its successor, NQF (1981–), will be examined in detail in Chapter 4, was among these. In contrast to British radical feminists, French “revolutionary feminists” have been good at theorizing, although relatively incapable of organizing and sustaining campaigns. However, there are exceptions, and a variety of groups and projects have emerged from this tendency. These include the Ligue du droit des femmes, which, among other activities, formed women’s aid collectives, including SOS femmes-alternatives (offering support to battered women) and SOS femmes violées (Remy, 1990: 43–3). The AVFT is in the same radical feminist tradition, as are the women who are currently organizing the campaign for parity between men and women in political institutions.

Psychanalyse et politique

One of the first feminist groups to form in Paris, Psychanalyse et politique, also known as Psych et po, maintained a high profile throughout the 1970s. Part of its influence was due to its creation of a publishing house, magazine and bookshops (all called des femmes). Another reason for its influence was its charismatic founder and leader, psychoanalyst Antoinette Fouque.

Psych et po was intellectually influential. Luce Irigaray, Hélène Cixous and Julia Kristeva all passed through the group, although Cixous was the only one to maintain any long-term relations with them, publishing all her work with des femmes between 1976 and 1982 (Moi, 1987: 4). However, the group was attacked by other feminists for being politically divisive. It was criticized for using inaccessible language which excluded the majority of women. Other feminists also objected to Psych et po’s repeated public claims to be representative of the women’s movement, the MLF, claims which culminated in 1979 when Psych et po registered the name Mouvement de libération des femmes and the initials MLF as company trademarks, thus preventing anyone else from using them.¹⁶ Naturally, this enraged the women in the movement. They joined together to denounce this behaviour, writing to the press and subtitling all their reviews “du mouvement de libération des femmes”, thus challenging Fouque to take them all to court (Delphy, 1991a: 145).

Their anger was aggravated by the fact that at the same time as writing in the name of the MLF, Psych et po considered themselves “anti-feminist”, and their review Des femmes en mouvements – hebdo constantly attacked the rest of the movement (Kandel, 1980). According to Fouque, feminism was a reformist compromise with the patriarchy. What she advocated was a complete overthrow of “phallogocentrism”, the entire masculine tradition of thought. A couple of years later, the media were talking of the “MLF-déposé” (the registered or official MLF) and the “MLF-non-déposé” (the unofficial MLF), and the issue died down for a while (Delphy, 1991a: 145).

1978–81: A period of change

The period around 1978–81 was one of change, uncertainty and reflection for the women’s movement in France. The Left was on the decline and had suffered defeat in the legislative elections in March 1978; the effects of the economic crisis were worsening and this brought a move from collective struggle to individualism, a search for security and a rising anti-feminism. Although many women remained active within the parties and the unions, many feminist groups disappeared, and there was a move from radical activism to feminist research (Remy, 1990: 103–4). In 1979 Psych et po appropriated the name of the movement and, with the name, its actions and visibility. In 1980 a number of articles appeared reflecting on the ten years of feminism which had passed (Delphy, 1980; Picq, 1981). The arrival in power of the Left in 1981 posed further problems for the women’s movement, with regards to its relationship to institutions and strategies for achieving short-term reforms (NQF, 2, 1981, 5). The women who had been involved in the movement from the beginning also began to worry about the new generation of young women who, they felt, were taking the gains of ten years of hard struggle for granted (Delphy, 1980; Picq, 1981).

While denying that feminism was dead, feminists were nevertheless aware of the changes taking place in the movement. A frequent declaration by feminists was that feminism had been “institutionalized”. For many, the most potent symbol of this institutionalization was the creation of the Ministry for Women’s Rights when the Socialists came to power in 1981. Francoise Picq (1993: 332) goes so far as to write that “the Ministry for Women’s Rights has replaced the women’s movement”. During its short period of existence (1981–6), the ministry achieved a number of reforms. Abortions were reimbursed by social security; women’s centres were established with ministry funding; projects were set up; and feminist research was introduced into the CNRS. However, it is clear that these would not have happened had it not been for the preceding decade of feminist struggle, and feminist criticisms of the ministry continued.

The existence of the ministry, the (very limited) insertion of women’s studies into universities, the success of some reforms and the ways in which political parties and trade unions took on a number of feminist ideas all contributed to the changes that took place in the movement. Feminists remained active, but the revolutionary fervour of the 1970s was replaced by longer-term projects, such as setting up refuges for women and children and doing feminist research. As these long-term, low-profile projects began to replace the highly visible actions of the early years, media attention waned (Remy, 1990: 117).

The term “postfeminism” was increasingly used by the media to refer to the social climate in which these changes took place. The meaning of “postfeminism” varies according to the author and the context. Two of the most common meanings are that feminism has achieved its aims and is no longer necessary, or that it has given up and is no longer relevant. Although feminism in France had been accompanied almost from the beginning by media suggestions that it was already over, this opinion was reinforced in 1978 when Maria Antoinetta Macciochi, an Italian politician and writer who lived and taught in Paris, published a book entitled Les femmes et leurs maîtres, in which she declared that feminism was dead. This was echoed by the media over the next few years (Duchen, 1987: 44n).¹⁷ An example of the cultural expression of the notion of “postfeminism” was the launch of F Magazine, a women’s magazine appearing for the first time in January 1978. It was aimed at the “new woman”, the intelligent, successful career woman, who can juggle the demands of home and the office while still maintaining a smart professional, yet unerringly sexy, appearance.

Feminist research

One of the major changes which took place in French feminism in the 1980s was its introduction into academic institutions. Student demand and the commitment of individual lecturers had led to the creation of some feminist courses in the early 1970s,...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Series editor’s preface
• Acknowledgements
• List of acronyms
• Introduction
• 1 French feminism: movement, theory and representation
• 2 French theories of masculinity
• 3 Difference
• 4 Gender
• 5 Feminism and male violence
• 6 Gender and violence
• Conclusion
• Notes
• References
• Index