The Politics of Third Wave Feminisms

Neoliberalism, Intersectionality, and the State in Britain and the US

E. Evans

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781137295279
• Topic: Sozialwissenschaften
• Subtopic: Genderforschung

The past twenty years have witnessed a renewal of interest in feminist activism on both sides of the Atlantic. In part this has been a response to neoliberal and neoconservative attacks, both implicit and explicit, on the gains made by feminists during the 1960s and 70s. This study adds a comparative dimension to the ongoing analysis of feminism and feminist activism by mapping, analysing and theorising third wave feminisms in the US and Britain. A key addition to Gender and Politics literature, it explores third wave feminisms by situating them within a specific political context, neoliberalism, and in relation to feminist theories of intersectionality, both of which present radical opportunities and practical challenges for feminism and the feminist movement.

Elizabeth Evans is Lecturer in Politics at the University of Bristol. Her research focuses on gender and politics, including engagement with formal processes and political activism. She has published widely on aspects of feminism, gender and politics, and her previous book, Gender and the Liberal Democrats, was published in 2011.

Part I

1

Understanding Third Wave Feminisms

The term ‘third wave feminism’ has been interpreted in multiple and often contradictory ways. It has been viewed as both a neoliberal brand of feminism (Wlodarczyk, 2010) and as a more explicit feminist engagement with global social justice agendas (Heywood and Drake, 1997). Some note that third wave feminism seeks to reclaim and subvert traditional notions of femininity (Groeneveld, 2009) whilst others consider it a polemical defence of girlieness (McRobbie, 2009). It is frequently associated with women of color and intersectionality (Labaton and Lundy Martin, 2004) and yet the dominance of white, middle-class heterosexual voices has also been observed (Henry, 2004). The anti-academic nature of the third wave (Hernández and Rehman, 2002; Bobel, 2010) is at odds with the obvious anti-essentialist influence of post-structuralism and post-colonialism (Hines, 2005; Dean, 2010; Budgeon, 2011). Finally, it has been used generally to describe post-1970s, or second wave, feminist activism (Zack, 2005; Redfern and Aune, 2010) and as a way of signalling a specific generation of feminist activists who constitute Generation X (Baumgardner and Richards, 2000; Shugart, 2001). The confusion surrounding what constitutes third wave feminism is in some respects its defining feature (Walker, 1995; Siegal, 2007; Finley and Reynolds Stringer, 2010); hence, the need to avoid presenting the third wave of feminism as monolithic.

This chapter sets out a typological framework for interpreting the third wave; it then applies this framework to the interview data collected with feminists in Britain and the US in order to evaluate its ‘fit’ as an explanatory model. The central aim of this chapter is to explore the various interpretations of third wave feminisms and to consider the extent to which similar frames and discourses are used in the US and Britain. Whilst the wave narrative is the overarching frame for historical and contemporary analysis of feminism and feminist activism, competing ideologies and approaches have also been a staple part of the feminist story. Divergent views and tactics have meant that ideological strands within feminism have been central both to individual feminist subjectivities but also to the framing of issues. The importance and particular dominance of the liberal, radical, and socialist strands has been central to readings of the second wave; this chapter argues through empirical analysis that such categories still have purchase with activists. Third wave feminisms are diverse, and using it as shorthand to refer to one particular strain or theme is both inaccurate and misleading. As such, typological approaches to the third wave narrative should be read alongside ideological strands.

Typological approaches to the third wave

Identifying and fleshing out what constitutes the third wave is an important task, not least because so many feminists define themselves in relation to the second/third wave (even if this is simply to reject the wave narrative altogether). Those who identify as/with third wave feminism have themselves sought to provide various definitions:

We define feminism’s third wave as a movement that contains elements of second wave critique of beauty culture, sexual abuse, and power structures whilst it also acknowledges and makes use of the pleasure, danger and defining power of those structures.

(Heywood and Drake, 1997: 3)

For us ‘third wave’ feminism simply meant young women and men doing social justice work whilst using a gender lens.

(Labaton and Lundy Martin, 2004: 13)

Since the start of the millennium, a staggering number of feminist organisations and campaigning groups have formed in the UK. A name has even been coined for all this new activity: ‘third wave feminism’.

(Redfern and Aune, 2010: 10)

It is clear from the above quotations that there are a number of different themes and ideas expressed in connection to the third wave. Indeed the variety of ways of defining the third wave (explored in greater detail below) lends weight to the claims of Dicker and Piepmeier that the third wave has ‘not coalesced into a larger, easily definable movement’ (2003: 11). Thus, it is clear to see why scholars such as Jonathan Dean, drawing on Laclau, have considered the third wave to be an ‘empty signifier’ (Dean, 2009: 335). The polymorphic nature of the third wave is, in and of itself, something that many self-identified third wavers embrace, resisting attempts to provide concise definitions of the term. In short, there is no monolithic third wave feminism, something many consider to be a ‘good thing’ (Kaplan, 2003: 47).

Second wave feminism was ideologically diverse, and as with the second, so with the third. Given that there is any number of competing, overlapping, and complementary strands of feminist thought (Lorber, 2010), it would be incorrect to suggest that the third wave is driven by one political agenda or that it speaks to one homogenous set of ideas. The multiplicity of feminist approaches evidenced within the second wave (which went well beyond the social, liberal, and radical typology), shows that it is not always ‘easy or desirable’ to differentiate between different ideological strands of feminism (Whelehan, 1995: 2). The third wave has been charged with being synonymous with neoliberal individualism, with feminists defending porn, prostitution, and femininity on the grounds of individual choice (Wlodarczyk, 2010). It is true that all these positions can be identified within the third wave, however to suggest that those positions are the only positions within the third wave is to provide a rather narrow and unhelpful interpretation of what constitutes a ‘wave’. As such, it is a mistake simply to dismiss the third wave as promoting a neoliberal agenda, even whilst it has to operate within such a context.

In order to think through how we might analyse feminist waves, it is useful to think about the various interpretive themes that tend to be associated with them. Table 1.1 below sets out a typology of the main ways in which the third wave narrative tends to be approached; to suggest, however, that academics and activists use just one of these approaches for understanding feminist history (and indeed for understanding their own feminist subjectivity) is too simplistic. Furthermore, each approach should necessarily also be understood in terms of specific geographical, historical, and cultural situatedness.

From a scholarly perspective, some of these approaches are more helpful than others are in thinking through the various ways in which we might characterise third wave feminism. Whilst academics may write about oppositional approaches, it is worth remembering that view is not always reflected in popular non-academic feminist texts. Thus, in addition to their scholarly value, it is also important to evaluate the heuristic value of the approaches to feminist activists in determining their own feminist subjectivity. The approaches set out in the table above are intended to be broad enough to interact with one another. For instance, an African American woman identifies as third wave, she does not consider herself to be a young woman, nor was she born into the ‘right’ generation (i.e. between 1961 and 1981) but she does note the following: how her own feminism differs from what she understands to be second wave feminism; she engages predominantly with online-based activism; and she takes a specific interest in developing an intersectional feminist lens. All these different factors help shape her feminist subjectivity, although she does not necessarily ‘fit’ with some people’s understanding of what constitutes a third waver. Likewise, a white lesbian British woman aged 25 who considers herself to be a socialist feminist, sympathetic to intersectionality and keen to engage with wider social justice issues, but who also rejects the idea of generational divides and an emphasis on individualism, might find herself seeking to identify on some issues and approaches with the second wave and on others with the third. The point is that it is neither easy nor obvious how feminists (particularly those who were not active in the second wave) situate themselves within the wave matrix (Graff, 2003; Reger, 2012). Before exploring feminist views on third wave feminisms, the chapter now briefly fleshes out the key ideas associated with each approach as set out in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 Approaches to third wave feminisms

Approach	Characteristics
Chronological	• Starting in the early 1990s in the US and the early 2000s in Britain; • Resurgence of feminism, attempts to reclaim the term from post second wave ‘backlash’; • Such an approach stresses continuity.
Oppositional	• Attempts to resist the perceived ‘dogmatism’ of the second wave (more evident in US popular texts); • Heralds the ‘newness’ of the third wave; • Greater emphasis on inclusion and diversity.
Generational	• Appeal to younger feminists, especially those too young to have taken an active part in the second wave; • Association with Generation X, although cross-generational identification occurs.
Conceptual	• Intersectionality as a defining concept that recognises multiple and overlapping points of identity; • More evident in US feminist praxis than in Britain where it has only relatively recently gained traction; • Understanding and practising feminism through a lens of diversity and with a sharper focus on social justice issues.
Activist	• Emphasis on speaking to women of color, all self-identified women and inclusion of men; • Focus on inclusive discourse and praxis; • Greater use of online campaigning and networking.

Chronological: Such an approach can be considered to be neutral, in that it indicates a moment in time when feminist activism is resurgent. As such, the emphasis tends to be on continuity rather than on opposition from that which has gone before. In other words, each new wave builds upon the previous one; this is a theme that can be identified in both US and British popular feminist texts (Heywood and Drake, 1997; Redfern and Aune, 2010). Although the third wave of feminism took off at different times in the US and Britain, they both emerged within a neoliberal context. This is important, as it provided both opportunities and challenges for collective resistance (discussed in further detail in Chapter 2).

Oppositional: As the name suggests, an oppositional approach seeks to highlight what is different about the new wave and how such a difference addresses the shortcomings of the previous wave(s). The oppositional framing is particularly popular amongst those US feminists who write as self-declared third wavers (Dicker and Piepmeier, 2003); whereas British popular feminist texts typically emphasise continuity over differentiation (Banyard, 2010; Redfern and Aune, 2010). There has been much written about the apparent tensions between the second and third wave generation, not least because of the ‘temporal overlap’ (Budgeon, 2011: 6), with some second wavers rejecting third wave characterisations of their politics as dogmatic and exclusive (Zack, 2005: 6; Bobel, 2010: 18). One of the key charges levelled at second wave feminism has been its apparent lack of attention to diversity; hence, the development of intersectionality has been central to third wave subjectivities and politics.

Generational: As with an oppositional approach, the emphasis on younger women has been a key feature of US feminist texts, with authors linking the third wave to Generation X (Baumgardner and Richards, 2000; Shugart, 2001; Dicker and Piepmeier, 2003). Although in some respects a focus on age chimes with a chronological approach (in that it addresses those who were too young to have been involved with the second wave), it also contradicts the focus on inclusivity that is central to an oppositional framework. Indeed, a focus on generation has for some created unnecessary divisions between activists which in many instances simply reinforces a perceived authority on the part of second wavers (Henry, 2004).

Conceptual: The rejection of essentialist and white heteronormative assumptions has been key to the development of the third wave, which has been conceptualised through the development of intersectional theory (Davis, 2008). For many, the theory and discourse of intersectionality has been central to establishing the need for a third wave of feminism. Although such framing could be used to pursue an oppositional approach, it can also be cited as an example of continuity, developing the work of second wave feminists such as Angela Davis. Although it has been argued that the US and Britain do share an approach to intersectionality, one that is grounded in a rejection of essentialist notions of identity (Prins, 2006: 278), as a conceptual approach, it is more advanced in the US than in Britain; this may, at least in part, be due to the greater provision and inclusion of women’s studies programmes in US colleges and universities, now largely absent from Britain. Furthermore, intersectionality as feminist praxis has been a source of much tension within British feminist circles in recent years.¹

Activist: We can break down the activist approach into two separate areas: who is included within feminist activism and how those forms of activism have changed. Many third wave texts and online sites have put inclusivity at the heart of the third wave of feminism (Hernández and Rehman, 2002; Redfern and Aune, 2010). Whilst there is broad agreement on the issue, the inclusion of specific groups (notably trans women and men) continues to be controversial amongst feminists, particularly in Britain. In part, a shift towards online activism has also changed the nature of those debates as virtual spaces have, for some, opened up feminist dialogue (Shaw, 2013). The use of and increasing power of online activism is also something associated with the emerging fourth wave feminism and it is perhaps this part of the typology where there is most scope for overlap between the third and fourth waves.

Activists on third wave feminisms

During the interviews, participants were asked to reflect upon the term ‘third wave feminism’. Interviewees were not presented with a list of the approaches; subsequent analysis of the qualitative data was undertaken in order to explore the extent to which they engaged with the frames. During the interviews, it became apparent that participants were more frequently referencing the chronological, conceptual, and generational approaches. Chronology was an important approach for feminists in the US and Britain, although the US participants had a much clearer sense of when the third wave emerged, with interviewees regularly citing Rebecca Walker’s book (To Be Real, 1995). Whilst British interviewees also sought to frame the third wave in terms of chronology, there was some uncertainty regarding when it actually emerged, for instance one interviewee from Glasgow discussed how she associated it with ‘contemporary feminism’ whilst another from London referred to third wave feminism as ‘emerging during the 2000s’. Such a difference is unsurprising given that the term ‘third wave’ is not as widely used in Britain as it is in the US.

The conceptual framing was also frequently cited as a way of defining third wave feminism; indeed, many interviewees named intersectionality specifically as a core element of the third wave. As one interviewee from New York put it: ‘To me the third wave speaks to a specific agenda that prioritises intersectionality, it’s about diversity and recognising how our multiple identities oppress us.’ Participants also regularly linked third wave feminism to a younger generation of feminists and in particular, to those who were too young for the second wave; the reference to younger women was not perceived to be negative. Indeed, many highlighted how important it was that this third wave was engaging a younger generation. The interviewees engaged with those five approaches to varying degrees, with British and US feminists stressing slightly different aspects. The responses of the 73 interviewees to the question of third wave feminism were coded according to the categories in order to see which of the ways of defining third wave feminism were most useful. Table 1.2 below captures the extent to which interviewees referenced specific approaches in defining the third wave.

Table 1.2 Interviewees’ definition of the third wave by category

Approach	US feminists	British feminists
Chronological	28	23
Oppositional	4	7
Generational	14	22
Conceptual	23	19
Activist	11	13

Many definitions crossed more than one category.

Table 1.2 above indicates that a chronological approach was the category most frequently used by US feminists in defining third wave feminism; interviewees regularly noted the media backlash against the second wave of feminism and specifically identified the early 1990s as the key starting point for the third wave. For US feminists it was a clear way of defining the third wave, even whilst some went on to explain it further through the use of different categories. British feminists also primarily used the chronological approach, but they were also more likely to note the generational characteristic of third wave feminism; in part, this is linked to chronology, but for many British feminists without a clear sense of whe...