- Email: [email protected]
Liberty, equality, sorority: Contradiction and integrity in feminist thought and practice
H’om~n’r Srudrer In, Forum Prrnted I” Great Bntam
Voi
9. No 5. pp C-529.
0277-5395184 s3.00+.00 Pergamon Journals Ltd
19hh
LIBERTY, EQUALITY, SORORITY: CONTRADICTION AND INTEGRITY IN FEMINIST THOUGHT AND PRACTICE ELIZABETH University
Ah’h: BARTLE~
of Minnesota.
Duluth.
MN.
U.S.A.
Synopsis-This paper provides an analysis of the inherent contradictions in and the essential integrit! of feminist thought and practice. It is argued that three of the central concepts in femmlst thought are liberty. equality. and sororit!. By their ver! nature. these concepts conflict with each other and it is argued that the divisions within feminist thought and practice have specific roots in the Inherent contradIctIons of these three concepts. It is also argued. paradoxically. that while these concepts tend to contradict each other. the! are each necessary for the definition and integrit! of the others The! act as llmlts touards each other. It IS suggested that it is the balanced juxtaposition of 1k5e three concepts which malntalns the integrity of femimsm. Finall!. it is suggested that the balancing of these three concepts provides the framework for a femimst ethic.
‘What
framework which separates the spectrum of feminist thought according to underlying politlcal ideologies into liberal feminism. Marxist feminism. socialist feminism. radical feminism and the feminism of women of color (Jag&r and Rothenberg. 1984j Within the feminist academic community. the current discussion of feminist difference focuses on the minimalist/maximalist debate-minimalist5 arguing that women and men are essentially alike. and that what differences do exist are structural]\ imposed and should be minimized. versus maximalists who argue there are significant inheren: differences between men and women which should be recognized. appreciated. and developed to their maximum potential. I have found Maggie McFadden’s classification of feminist theor! into minimalist and maximalist spectrums to be most helpful in making sense of the dIversIt> of feminist thought (McFadden. 1984). She divides feminist thought into minimalist and maximalist categories. and then subdivides these two categories along a linear spectrum of change (status quo to radical transformation). However. she expresses dissatisfaction with the dichotomy and the linear structure of her classification scheme and suggests the double helix as a model which more adequately expresses the fluidity of the categories and the links between the maximalist and minimalist positions. She charges the feminist community to discover and create connections between the two positions. M!, intention here is not to provide yet another
do
feminists want? Do the! want equal oi wtomen with men or do the! warn to turn the tables and have women exercise power and control over men? Do the! n’ant to elimmate an! differences between women and men or do the! want to emphasize the differences?‘ I am often asked such questions and just as often find it difficult to answer definitively one wa! or the other. It seems ansuer to such dichotomous the appropriate questions is simpl! ‘!es.’ in part because feminists are so di\,ided on these questions. but also because in m; own feminist interpretation 1 posit these seemlngl!, contradictor! positions simultaneous]!. This paper examines some of the reasons wh! feminisr thought is so divided. as well ac u,hy the simultaneous claims of seeming11 conrradictori feminist values are both possible and nscessar!. Many have provided careful and thoughtful analyses of the dl\,islons in feminist thought. Comparing feminist theories with respect to such characteristics as ordering principles. goals. and strategies. Gayle Graham b’ates formulates three basic categories of feminist thought-feminist (which seeks the integration of women into the existing male-defined system. i.e. women-equal-tomen): women’s liberationist (which regards men as the enem! and thus seeks a woman-defined reality. separate and apart from men): and andrognous (which seeks a redefinition of male and female roles by women and men together. i.e. women and men equal to each other) (Yates. 1Y73: 21). Alison Jagpar and Paula S. Rothenberg developed a treatment
5’1
522
ELIZABETH ANN BARTLE~
framework for classifying feminist theories. but rather. picking up McFadden’s challenge. lo provide a conceptual explanation for both the inherent divisions and the necessary connecrions in feminist thought. Specifically. I suggest that the sources of both the division and the unity in feminism are one and the same, namely the juxtaposition of three concepts which I regard to be central to feminist thought-liberry, equality, and sorority. After defining the terms, and their significance in feminist thought. I first examine how the contradictions between these concepts lead to divisions in feminist thought. Second. I argue that these same concepts, in limiting and defining each other, provide the basis for an integrated model of feminism. Finally. I propose this conception of feminism as a meaningful way to define not only feminist thought and belief. but also feminist action. I suggest it as a way to begin to define a feminist ethic. LIBERTY, EQUALITY, SORORITY: CENTRAL TENETS OF FEMINISM DEFINED My argument focuses on three concepts which I regard to be central to feminist thought-liberty. equality. and sorority. To say that they are central is not to say they are the sole important concepts in feminist theory, but rather to suggest that nearly all theories of feminism posit at least one of these three concepts as a central thesis, and that feminist theories vary primarily according lo their emphasis on one or more of these three. For example. liberal feminism stresses liberty of the individual and equality of opportuniry. Radical feminism stresses the sorority of women-identified women. The focus in socialist feminism is upon equality of condition. In the rest of the article I examine the varying emphases and juxtapositions of the concepts of liberty, equality. and sorority in feminist thought. so it is important to define the terms as clearly as possible. The specific meanings of these terms var! significantly within the contexts of the different theories. It is possible. however. 10 provide a general notion of the scope and meaning of the terms. Libeq
First, liberty, in general. is the ability to think or to act or to express oneself autonomously--that is. without coercion or constraint. 11 is the ability lo make and to act upon reflective. uncoerced. authentic choices. It is to be both free from certain obstacles of expression and constraint and free to pursue and achieve one’s goals.’ Feminists disagree ’ The clearest analysis Gerald MacCallum who many meanings and uses being one concept --that agent, the obstacle. and
of the concept of liberty is that Of points out that while there are of the term liberty. there is onl! the triadic relation between the the purpose (MacCallum. 1973)
as to the specific nature of these choices and constraints and goals. For example. the same free market economy which is an obstacle to freedom for the socialist feminist is one of the main vehicles of freedom for the liberal feminist. Or, the maximalist seeks the freedom of women to define ourselves and our spheres in terms of our sex whereas the minimalist seeks the freedom of women not to be defined in terms of our sex. The meanings are varied-but whether the claim for liberty be that of Frances Wright for free inquiry (Wright. 1936). or of the 19th century suffragists for the vote, or the 19th and 20th century birth control and pro-choice advocates for reproductive freedom. or Margaret Fuller’s and Simone de Beauvoir’s quest for self-definition and authenticity (Fuller. 1978; de Beauvoir. 1953)-most feminists recognize that liberty is the ability of women to overcome oppression and to pursue and achieve mental. moral. physical, spiritual. political, and social autonomy. Equalirj
The second concept. equality. entails the recognition of the same or equivalent value or worth of two or more distinct entities. It does not claim that the entities are the same. (for example, 2 = 2. or saying that I am equal to myself are meaningless statements) but rather that separate and distinct entities. while different. are of similar value. The implication is that the basis of their difference is not an appropriate basis upon which to determine their value. Thus. in the context of feminist theory. equality is the recognition of the fact that. thouih different from each other on the basis of sex. females and males are of the same worth. Not all feminists value equality. For those who would seek to abolish all distinctions between females and males.? equality on the basis of sex is not really an issue. If women and men are no longer distinguishable on the basis of sex. then it makes no sense to speak of equality (like 2 = 2 has no meaning). Nor is equality regarded to be desirable for those who claim the superiorit!, of u’omen to men. Among those feminists who do value equalit!. there is disagreement as to the specific nature of that equality. Liberal feminists are primarily concerned with equal political and legal rights and equal opportunities for women and men in education and the job market and pay scales. Socialist feminists. on the other hand. seek an equality of economic condition. upon which other aspects of equalit!’ This IS represented by thinkers such as Shulamlth Firestone. who would eliminate not onl! sex role dlstinctlons. but reproductive dIstinctIons as uell (Firestone. 1971)
Liberty, Equality, Sorority legal. political, social-are contingent. Feminists espousing an androgynous conception of the human personality claim the equal worth of ‘femaleness’ and ‘maleness.’ While there are differences in the specific application of the concept of equality. the central theme of equality is that women and men. ‘femaleness’ and ‘maleness.’ while distinct, are of the same worth and should be awarded the same respect, value. and treatment by society. Sorority
The third and final concept, sorority.J encompasses both the idea and experience of female bonding in sisterhood and the self-affirmation and identity discovered in a woman-centered vision and definition of womanhood. In emphasizing female uniqueness and female bonding. maximalist thinkers place sororitv at the core of their thought. The specific meaiing of sorority varies within the broad context of maximalist thought, being incorporated in such diverse theories as Catharine Beecher’s idea of separate spheres for women and men in an essentially male-defined world (Beecher. 1970). as well as the maternalists’ affirmation and celebration of the unique qualities and contributions of female experience (Rich, 1976; Ochs. 1983). and the visions of women-centered separatists (Daly. 1978; Gearhart, 1979; Solanis. 1970). Notions of sisterhood and redefinitions of femaleness are present in some minimalist--i.e. androgynous. socialist, and liberal feminist thought as well. For these minimalists. sorority is often viewed as a means -a step toward full equality of women and men and inclusion of women in a more broadly defined humanity; whereas for maximalists, sorority is both means and end--the desired socity itself. Whether means or end, the central idea of sorority is of female affirmation, identity. and bonding. In sum, the three central tenets of feminist thought are defined as: Merry-the ability lo overcome obstacles and lo act on one’s autonomous choices; equalit) -the recognition that females and
males are of the same value and worth in society: and sororitv-female affirmation. identity. and bonding. Th;e specific feminist ideologies are shaped
3 The term sorority is fraught with anti-feminist connotations. It suggests images of women divided from and competing with other women. rather than of women united. Yet. taken in its original meaning. ‘a body or company of women united for some common object.’ (Oxford English Dictionary) the term sorority is both appropriate and compelling. It incorporate the notion of ‘sisterhood’ bur goes bevond it. incorporating as well the ideas of female affirmatjon and unity.
523
by the emphasis placed upon and the juxtaposition
of these three concepts. LIBERTY, EQUALITY, SORORITY: THE CONTRADICTIONS The claims for liberty. equality. and sorority are at the very core of feminism. Yet, paradoxically. b> their inherent nature. the very claims which give birth to feminism are those which may undermine feminism through a divisiveness which renders us incapable of listening to one another. The seeds of division are sown in the very conceptual ground of feminism. Taken to extremes. the concepts of liberty, equality, and sorority are contradictory to each other. Liberty and equality
The inherent antagonism between liberty and equality has been widely discussed (Camus. 1956; Rousseau. 1960). Given competing claims to limited resources and individual variation with regard lo natural talents and abilities, or systemic privileges, unrestrained absolute liberty would result in a condition of inequality with those possessing greater strengths, intelligence. abilities. gaining privileges of status. power. or property over those less fortunate. ultimately resulting in greater liberties for some than others. By the same token. a condition of absolute equality restrict< liberty. The control of the distribution of rights. privileges, and resources necessitated by absolute equality of condition implies a lack of individual autonomy in decisions concerning one’s life. For example. affirmative action policies, implemented to insure equality of opportunity. necessitate restrictions and regulations with regard to hiring practices which employers ma) regard as a threat to their freedom of choice and employees may regard as a threat to their freedom of achievement and reward. In its extreme form. equality would deny to the individual the liberty to choose whether to work longer, harder, less, or more leisurely; whether to spend one’s allotted income on a house, a car. and symphony tickets rather than holidays, gourmet food, and hockey tickets; whether lo give birth to three, five, ten or no children. And in a system of equality of condition. to the degree that equality of condition dictates sameness, the freedoms of self-definition and selfexpression might also be sacrificed. The question of equality versus liberty divides the feminist community in many ways. Socialist feminists argue that the free market economv of liberal feminism renders a true equality impossible. because capitalism requires a marginal and exploited labor force. most frequently women, or people of color. Liberal feminists insist the
524
ELIZABETH ANN BARTLE~
economic equality demanded by socialist feminism impinges on the natural liberties of women. as well as men. to compete. to achieve. to succeed or to fail. to accumulate and distribute property. to define and express one’s being. Finally, maximalists might find the kind of equality and integration of roles, choices. opportunities. and conditions of the lives of women and men demanded by the minimalists to be inhibiting of the freedom of woman to define her own self and her own sphere as a woman-separate and perhaps superior to man. Liberty and sorority
Again, in their extremes. liberty and sorority are also antagonistic. In emphasizing the commonality and the solidarity of women. sorority threatens the liberty of the individual, especially the liberty not to be defined by or in any, way to be bound by one’s sex. Certainly this issue IS at the heart of much of the division between maximalists. For example. minimalists who are liberal feminists argue that it is precisely being categorized by one’s sex which prevents equal opportunity based upon individual merit. Minimalists who seek a more androgynous human personality and society. as well as those who seek to eliminate all gender and/or reproductive distinctions between males and females. would find such affirmation of a distinct womanhood to be threatening to the individual’s liberty of selfdefinition regardless of sex. And the point has been made by women of color. who call for an appreciation of difference and diversit)’ among women’s lives and experiences and truths. that the unity invoked in the name of sisterhood is often a unity defined by white women. a unity in ignorance of and oppression of the lives of women of color. This concern was given eloquent voice by Audre Lorde:
and opportunity takes precedence over the identity of women with other women and the obligation of women towards women. liberty undermines sorority. For example, certainly those who affirm the unique contributions and insights of women as mothers would regard Firestone’s scheme to eliminate sex differences by eliminating the reproductive function of humans altogether (Firestone. 1971) or even Frances Wright’s plan to raise all children in national nurseries (Wright, 1830) with a certain alarm. Another striking example of the antagonism between liberty and sorority is the liberal feminist who. claiming the right to freedom and equal opportunity of women. climbs over anyone, especially her sisters. in order to achieve personal. political, financial power and status-who denies all women and her own self-definition as a woman in order to prove that she is ‘as good as a man’-who having achieved a certain level of power in society continues to use that power in a way the oppresses other women, e.g. using the hard-won vote to continue to endorse discriminatory policies. Equaliry and sororir!
Finally, in their extremes, equality and sororit!, are contradictory. In it emphasis upon the differences between women and men. sorority undermines equality. If women and men are so different as to be beyond comparison. then no basis for equality exists. It would be like comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. Furthermore. within the notion of difference is often contained an assumption of superiority/inferiority, Affirmations of femaleness often carry with them implicit or explicit assumptions of female superiority. For example. many suffragists based their arguments for women’s suffrage on women’s moral superior+. such as this statement by Sarah Grimke: ‘The acquaintance which women naturall! acquire of the workings of the human heart. of the unfoldings of the passions. of the affectional nature. by virtue of their office as mothers render them peculiarly fit to select those who are to represent and watch over the interests and legislate for a Christian community.’ (Grimke. n.d.: 6).
‘As women we have been taught to either ignore our differences or to view them as causes for change. Without community. there is no liberation But community must no[ mean a shedding of our differences. nor the pathetic pretense that these differences do not exist. Poor and third world women know there is a difference between the daily manifestation and dehumanization of marital slavery and prostitution. because it is our daughters who line 42nd Street if white American feminist theory need not deal with the differences between us. and the resulting difference in aspects of our oppressions. then what do vou do with the fact that women who clean yo& houses and tend your children while you attend conferences on feminist theory are. for the most part, poor and third world women?’ (Lorde, 1981: 99-100).
Another example of the implicit assumptions of female superiority is in the writings of Adrienne Rich. who, though focusing on female identity and community, sometimes asserts femaleness over maleness. as in this appeal to female educators: ‘Nor does this mean we should be training women students to “think like men.” Men in general think badly: in disjunction from their personal lives.’ (Rich. 1979: 244). More blatant are the claims of such groups as SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) that:
By the same token, when individual liberty of choice
‘Life in this society being. at best. an utter bore
Liberty. Equality, Sorority and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded. responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex . . . the male is an incomplete female a walking abortion, aborted at the gene state . . .’ (Solanis, 1970: 577). Obviously, sorority in its extreme threatens equality. Similarly. equality of women and men. achieved or imposed. undermines sorority. If such an equality of roles and conditions were, as maximalists would argue, artificially imposed on women and men. the unique strengths. abilities. wisdom, and experiences of women would be minimized. Indeed, separatists. arguing that men’s nature is oppressive of women’s nature, fear that such ‘equality’ would result in a negation of women altogether, and that “‘Equal Rights” devours sisterhood. converting it into copied comradeship. and splitting it from its deep source. which is female friendship.’ (Daly. 1978: 376). Also. within the notion of female bonding is a notion of female bondage-of a solidarity arising from oppression. Ironically. to a certain degree. inequality creates sorority. So the question must be asked, would sisterhood disappear if equality were achieved-and is the achievement of equality worth the price of the loss of sisterhood? Such questions
and concerns form the crux of the division between maximalists and minimalists. Maximalists assert a unique female nature and woman-centered vision which minimalists find too reminiscent of the sexrole stereotyping which has so long limited human choices and potential, and has been used by powerful men to oppress women by defining those positions of power and status and influence in society as ‘male.’ Minimalists assert a male/female equality and sameness which maximalists find too reminiscent of the invisibility of woman throughout the history of male culture. The maximalistiminimalist split is essentially that of sorority versus equality. In sum. the essential elements of feminismliberty. equality, and sorority-are ultimately contradictory. Thus it can be said, as Rousseau said of the body politicq4 that feminism carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction.
4 The reference is to: ‘This is the inherent and inevitable vice of the body politic which, from the moment of its birth. tends consistently to its destruction, just as old age and death ultimately destroy the human.’ (Rousseau. 1960: 251).
525 LIBERTY, EQUALITY, SORORITY: THE CONNECTlONS
While these three core concepts of liberty, equality, and sorority necessarily contradict each other. I would argue that it is equally true that each one is necessary for the other two. Equality without liberty loses its meaning, unless there be some value in recognizing that we are all equally enslaved. And without equality. liberty is only the liberty of a few while the bulk of the people are enslaved and oppressed. The same can be said of liberty void of sorority-that it is the liberty of a few, usually white women, while the bulk of women remain oppressed. Indeed, sorority makes the liberty of women to think and act autonomously possible. On a very concrete level. quite often it is only with the support of other women-be this a crisis shelter, a consciousness-raising group. or a Women’s Studies class-that women begin to take steps toward our liberation. Emotionally and spiritually. sorority makes freedom possible by enabling us to affirm ourselves as women, rather than denying and being oppressed by that womanhood. It enables us to choose ourselves. It is in this context of equal affirmation of female and male. made possible by the affirmation of femaleness in sorority. that we can begin to talk about the equality of the sexes. rather than the equal rights of women to the privileges and rights of men. Similarly, liberty and equality provide a context in which sorority is made possible. The ability to find one’s center and one’s identity as a woman requires a certain solitude-an aloneness independent of external influences. Any type of dependence-physical. emotional. economic. spiritual. intellectual-inhibits this process. For women. this dependence has most often been upon men. Margaret Fuller’s words to nineteenth century women still hold true: ‘It is therefore that I would have woman lay aside all thought. such as she habitually cherishes. of being taught and led by men . . . I would have her free from compromise. from complaisance. from helplessness. because I would have her good and strong enough to love one and all beings. from the fullness, not the poverty of being. and women must leave off asking them (t&j and being influenced by them. but retire within themselves and explore the groundwork of life till they find their peculiar secret.’ (Fuller. 1978: 164-165). In gaining more equality of rights and privilegesbe these educational opportunities, or political access. or equal pay-women in turn gain the economic. physical, social. intellectual, spiritual independence and autonomy which make sorority possible. The paradoxical relationship of the core concepts
526
Euzaeml
ANN BARTLETT
of liberty. equality, and sorority is that while they are. in their absolute assertion, contradictory of each other, so, in moderation, are they mutually enhancing and supportive of each other. The key phrase is that they are contradictory in their extreme-in their absolute expression. In other words, they contradict only when one or two are posited without the balancing positions of the other. I suggest that the three elements. posited simultaneously, act not to undermine each other, but rather to balance and define each other. I suggest that they act. in the Camusian sense (Camus, 1956) as limits towards each other and co-exist in a dynamic. creative tension (see Fig. 1). Sorority
/\
It is the mutual affirmation of all three elements at once which maintains the balance and prevents any one or two of the terms from becoming so extreme that it negates the other. Paradoxically. it is the inherent contradiction which creates the tension and it is the tension which prevents the contradiction. Like the spokes of a wheel. they pull in opposite directions. creating the very tension which strenpthens and supports the wheel. All three are necessary and the tension on each must be equal if the wheel is not to crack and bulge and eventually collapse (see Fig. 2). Soror Ity
To say that liberty, equality, and sorority act as limits to each other is to suggest that without the balancing effect of equality and sorority, liberty negates itself-is no longer liberty; as does equality unbalanced by liberty and sorority; as does sorority unbalanced by liberty and equality. In exploring this, I have found it helpful to examine some of the dilemmas and inadequacies-some of the cracks and bulges-that develop when the tension on one of the spokes is decreased or destroyed. And each time the question must be asked, does the concept, taken in its extreme negate itself? Liberty and equality withour sorority
The model raises the question-without the demands of sorority, are liberty and equality possible? Take, for example, the liberal feminist who while claiming freedom and equality of opportunity, denies the importance, if not the existence, of any sense of identity with women. If. in the process of exercising her freedom. a woman denies her own identity as a woman, is she truly free? I would argue that she is not. If for example, she has gained a certain status and power in the corporate structure by playing ‘the games mother never taught you.’ by denying her choice to be a mother. by silencing her feelings, by ‘selling out.’ then she has done so not by acting on her choices but rather by acting against them; not by expressing herself but rather by censoring herself. The result is often a destructive self-hatred and a lack of selfesteem. The freedom to deny oneself is not a desired freedom. Such freedom is partial at best; inauthentic and self-defeating at worst. To deny oneself is to become an obstacle to one’s own freedom. Similarly one must ask. what kind of equality is obtained apart from sorority? If a woman gains equality with men witout maintaining the sisterhood and identity of women, the equality is illusory. If, as in the case of the token female. a woman has equal rights and privileges with men because she is a woman. then that equality rests on her membership in a group which is still regarded as subordinate. and the equality is false. Or, if a woman is regarded as men’s equal ‘in spite of the fact that she is a woman, then that equality rests on her denial of part of herself and is not true equality. If. in order to be considered equal to men, a woman must deny the woman in her and her connection to other women. then she is affirming the inequality of women. Because she is a woman. her denial of the equality of women is a denial of her own equality. Liberty and sorority without equalit)
Or what of a separatism that claims liberty and sorority but abandons equality, arguing instead that female nature is superior to male? Without the
527
Liberty. Equality, Sorority
demands of equality, do the values of liberty and sorority retain their meaning and integrity or do they collapse? The immediate danger of such theories lies in the potential for abuse. In reviving the ‘anatomy is destiny’ argument-that one’s nature, functions, roles, and future are determined by one’s sex- they legitimize continued or even heightened discrimination against women into particular functions and roles, thus subverting rather than affirming women. Neither are separatist demands respectful of women with significant, mutually affirming relationships with men. especially as mothers of sons (and many of the maximalist writers are matemalists). A sorority which insists upon the erosion of male/female relationships, especially mother/son relationships. as a condition of sorority, or which conveniently ignores these relationships, negates itself by denying the truth. realities, and experiences of women’s lives. It is also a racist and thus oppressive separatism which: ‘accuse[s] us [black lesbians] of being ‘maleidentified’ because we are concerned with issues that affect OUTwhole race. They [white lesbians) express anger at us for not seeing the light. That is another aspect of how they carry on their racism . . . . They are so narrow and adamant about that that they dismiss lesbians of color and women of color who aren’t lesbians because we have some concern about what happens to the men of our race. And it’s not like we like their sexism or even uap~t ;O sleep with them. You c2.n cert~~nl! he concerned as we are living here this summer in Boston when on Black man after another ends up dead.’ (Smith and Smith. 1981: 121-122). Furthermore, such separatism is made possible in practice only by an oppressive privilege. . white-skinned privilege. class privilege. Women who don’t have those kinds of privilege have to deal with this society and with the institutions of society. They can’t go to a harbor of many acres of land. a farm. and invite the goddess.’ (Smith and Smith, 1981: 121). Again, such sorority negates itself by denying the realities of women’s lives. Finally, I would question whether a group which affirms its own superiority is acting from an honest solidarity of that group or from an imposed totalit! and closedness which mask not strength but rather insecurity and fear. Camus makes the distinction between totality and unity-totality being a system of thought and practice which externally imposes a false harmony and ‘Truth’ upon a much more complex reality-unity being the harmonious tapestry which is created by the interweavings of those complex realities (Camus. 1956: 246). Totality begins with a particular vision of Truth. and forces
the realities of human existence to fit that vision. Unity is a truth given shape by the interplay of the concrete realities of human existence. In a Hobbesian world of insecurity and fear, there is a need to protect oneself by building walls and defense policies; unquesother defenses -nuclear tioning, unreflective loyalty to a leader; personal ‘toughness.’ Totality imposes such a wall, protecting the group from external attacks by providing a united front, and from internal doubts by providing an answer to every question. A sorority of unity, rather than totality, would be one that is open to many truths, which recognizes the conflicting complexities of women’s lives, which exposes rather than imposes, which does not need to claim its superiority vis-ti-vis others but rather is secure in its own worth in and of itself. With regard to a separatist supremacist liberty, the question must be asked, what of the liberty of men? Given the history and reality of men’s oppression of women this may seem an insignificant or even offensive question. Yet I question liberty which lies in being an oppressor and would argue instead that liberty comes in at once refusing to be oppressed and in refusing to oppress. The question must also be asked whether one is free if one must separate in order to guarantee that freedom. One might ask. isn’t the very necessity of separation dictated by the oppression of women and women’s nature? I recognize and fully support that a time of separation into the safety and freedom of ‘woman’s space’ is essential both to women’s freedom from physical and emotional abuse and to women’s self-definition. growth. and maturit! (Bartlett, 1984; Griffin. 1979). Nevertheless. a time comes for claiming rather than escaping the world. for creating the world as we envision it, for making of fhe world, rather than outside the world. a safe space. Freedom must include the ability to live in our own homes. to walk alone and at night. to have the truths of our bodies and our souls respected and heard in a world of women and men. Sorority
and equality
without
libert!,
Finally. what of a separatism which affirms sorority and equality. but not liberty? I would argue that sorority without liberty becomes little more than feminist tascism-an unreflective loyalty to the group above all else: a group-think and a group norm: a totalitarian definition of womanhood irrespective of difference. In practice this has meant a sorority of ‘white solipsism’ (Rich. 1979: 299) which in defining the women-centered vision and setting the agenda of feminist priorities. denies the realities. the needs. and the voices of women of color. As such. it is the denial rather than the affirmation of women and negates itself. Similarly. the model for equality proposed bq
528
ELIZABETH ANN BARTLETT
such a separatism is that of separate but equal. The persistent inequalities between the races from years of segregation convinced social scientists, jurists, and civil rights activists that separate but equal was a contradiction in terms-that such rigid separation enhanced existing inequalities. I would argue that such a model of equality of women and men would similarly undermine itself. Thus in a feminist context liberty, equality. and sorority do in fact act as limits to each other. Without the balancing effect of each other, each concept negates itself. The integrity of each of the concepts of liberty, equality, and sorority necessitates its juxtaposition with the other two. CONCLUSION The arguments have shown that the divisions in feminist thought and practice have specific roots in the inherent contradictions of three concepts central to feminism -liberty, equality, and sorority. While providing an explanation for the divisions among feminists, I have also suggested that it is the balanced juxtaposition of these three concepts which maintains the integrity of feminism. That integrity applies not only to feminist thought. but also to feminist action. I would like to conclude by offering a direction for further inquiry. that is, by suggesting that the juxtaposition of liberty. equality, and sorority provides a framework for a feminist ethic. That is to say that acting responsibly as a feminist involves balancing the demands of liberty, equality. and sorority. For example. while liberty and equal opportunity enable some women to acquire positions of power in economic or political hierarchies. sorority demands an obligation to each other which recognizes the collective nature of privilege-that privilege comes not solely through our individual efforts but also through the efforts and at the expense of others-and which uses that privilege in ways that affirm. rather than oppress, each other. Or. to take another example, I believe the mode1 of liberty/equality/sorority can be instructive with regard to the question of honesty. Rich has stated that ‘we have a profound stake. beyond the personal. in the project of describing our reality as candidly and full as we can to each other.’ (Rich. 1979: 190). This is the obligation of sorority. Its fulfilment is made possible by that very sorority in that sorority creates the safe spaces, the nonjudgmental speech situations in which such truthtelling can occur. Beyond this, from the position of integrity and strength which grow from the respectful sharing of truths, liberty and equality demand that we also describe our reality as candidly and as fully as possible even to the men who have power over us. I would suggest that until we do, we
acquiesce in the fact that men have power over us. Our silence becomes our complicity in oppression and inequality. Liberty and equality lie in expression which raises the possibility of transforming those power dynamics and the institutions which support them. As Audre Lorde has said: ‘My silences had not protected me. Your silence will not protect you. But for every real word spoken, for every attempt, I had ever made to speak those truths for which I am still seeking. I had made contact with other women while we examined the words to fit a world in which we all believed, bridging our differences.’ (Lorde, 1980: 20). The model of liberty/equality/sorority provides a working definition of feminist thought and action. It is a feminism which recognizes that a woman’s sense of identity and integrity comes in part through an acceptance and affirmation of oneself as female, yet which respects the diversity of what it means to be female in different cultures, races, classes, ages. and life experiences. It is a feminism which recognizes that it is meaningless to speak of and difficult to act on defining oneself and one’s choices without basic equalities of opportunity and condition in standards of living. health care, education. legal and political power. It is a feminism that does not seek liberation either in abandoning our identities as women and our commitments to women nor in retreating from the world of men altogether. but rather uses the values found in sorority-women-centered values of care and connection and commitment-to affirm ourselves and our integrity and to transform our world. Acknow,ledgements-My thanks to Craig Grau and Susan Coultrap-McQuin for their help tn providing therr insights and support in writing this article. Thanks also to Bonnie Turk for her patience and efforts in typing and revising the arttcle.
REFERENCES Bartlett. Elizabeth Ann. 1984. A time apart: Metaphysical celibacy and the process of feminist self-definition. Paper delivered at National Women’s Studies Association, Rutgers University. de Beauvoi;. Simone. 1953. The Second Sex. Trans. and ed. H. M. Parshlev. Alfred Knonf. New York. Beecher. Catharine: 1970. A ?reatise on Domestic Economy. Source Books Press, New York (First published 1841). Camus, Albert. 1956. The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Rev& with a Foreword by Sir Herbert Read. Trans. Anthony Bower. Vintage. New York (First published 1951). Daly, Mary. 1978. GynIEcology: The Meraerhics of Radical Feminism. Beacon Press. Boston.
Liberty. Equality. Sorority Firestone. Shulamith. 1971. The Dialectic of&x: The Case for Feminist Revolurion. Bantam. New York. Fuller. Margaret. 1978. Woman in the nineteenth century. In Joel Myerson. ed.. Margarer Fuller: Essays on American Life and Lerrers. Colleee and Universitb Press. New Haven (First published c844). Gearhart. Sallv Miller. 1979. The Wanderground: Stories of the Hillwomen. Persephone Press. Witertown. MA. Griffin. Susan. 1979. Rape: The Power of Consciousness. Harper & Row. San Francisco. Grimke. Sarah. n.d. Condition of woman. Theodore Dwight Weld Collection. Unpublished manuscript. Box 23. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor. Jaggar, Alison M. and Paula S. Rothenbera. 1984. Feminist Frameworks: Ahernarive Accounrs- of the Relations Between Women and Men. 2nd edn. McGrau-
Hill. New York. Lorde, Audre. 1980. The Cancer Journals. 2nd edn. Spinsters Ink. San Francisco. Lorde. Audre. 1981. The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. In Moraga. Cherrie and Gloria Anzaldua. eds. This Bridge Called My Back: Wrirings by Radical Women of Color. Persephone Press. Watertown, MA. MacCallum. Gerald C., Jr. 1973. Negative and positive freedom. In Flathman. Richard E.. ed.. Conceprs in Social and Polirical Philosoohv. MacMillan. New York , (First published 1967). McFadden. Maggie. 1984. Anatomy of difference. Toward a classification of feminist theory. M’omen’s Srud. Inr.
529
Forum 7 (6): 495-504
Ochs. Carol. 1983. Women and Spiritualiy. Rowan 6: Allenheld. Totowa. NJ. Rich, Adrienne. 1976. O_f Woman Born: Morherhood as Experience and Instirution. Norton. New York. Rich. Adrienne. 1979. On Lies. Secrers. and Silence. Selecred Prose: 19661978. Norton. New York. Rousseau. Jean-Jacques. 1960. The Social Contracr. In Social Conrracr: Essays by Locke. Hume. and Rousseau
Introduction by Sir Ernest Barker. Oxford University Press. London (First published 1762). Smith. Barbara and Beverly) Smith.’ 1981. Across the kitchen table: A sister-to-sister dialogue. In Moraga. Cherrie and Gloria Anzaldua. eds. This Bridge Called My
Back:
Writings
by
Radical
Women
07
Color.
Persephone Press. Watertown. MA. Solanis. Valerie. 1970. Excerpts from the SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto. In Morgan. Robin. ed.. Sisrerhood is Powerful: An Anrhologv Gf Wrirings from rhe Women‘s Liberarion Movemen!. Vintage. New, York. Wright. Frances. 1830. Popular Tracts, No. ‘3. An Address 10 the Industrious Classes. A Sketch of a Sysrem of National Educafion. Free Enquirer. New York. Wright. Frances. 1836. Course of Popular Lecrures with all her Addresses on Various Publrc Occasrons and a RepI! IO rhe Charges Againsr rhe French Republic of 1789. 6th
edn. G. W. & A. J. Matsell. New York. Yates. Gayle Graham. 1975. Whar Women Wanr: The Ideas of the Mo\,emenr. Harvard University Press. Cambridge. MA.
Voi
9. No 5. pp C-529.
0277-5395184 s3.00+.00 Pergamon Journals Ltd
19hh
LIBERTY, EQUALITY, SORORITY: CONTRADICTION AND INTEGRITY IN FEMINIST THOUGHT AND PRACTICE ELIZABETH University
Ah’h: BARTLE~
of Minnesota.
Duluth.
MN.
U.S.A.
Synopsis-This paper provides an analysis of the inherent contradictions in and the essential integrit! of feminist thought and practice. It is argued that three of the central concepts in femmlst thought are liberty. equality. and sororit!. By their ver! nature. these concepts conflict with each other and it is argued that the divisions within feminist thought and practice have specific roots in the Inherent contradIctIons of these three concepts. It is also argued. paradoxically. that while these concepts tend to contradict each other. the! are each necessary for the definition and integrit! of the others The! act as llmlts touards each other. It IS suggested that it is the balanced juxtaposition of 1k5e three concepts which malntalns the integrity of femimsm. Finall!. it is suggested that the balancing of these three concepts provides the framework for a femimst ethic.
‘What
framework which separates the spectrum of feminist thought according to underlying politlcal ideologies into liberal feminism. Marxist feminism. socialist feminism. radical feminism and the feminism of women of color (Jag&r and Rothenberg. 1984j Within the feminist academic community. the current discussion of feminist difference focuses on the minimalist/maximalist debate-minimalist5 arguing that women and men are essentially alike. and that what differences do exist are structural]\ imposed and should be minimized. versus maximalists who argue there are significant inheren: differences between men and women which should be recognized. appreciated. and developed to their maximum potential. I have found Maggie McFadden’s classification of feminist theor! into minimalist and maximalist spectrums to be most helpful in making sense of the dIversIt> of feminist thought (McFadden. 1984). She divides feminist thought into minimalist and maximalist categories. and then subdivides these two categories along a linear spectrum of change (status quo to radical transformation). However. she expresses dissatisfaction with the dichotomy and the linear structure of her classification scheme and suggests the double helix as a model which more adequately expresses the fluidity of the categories and the links between the maximalist and minimalist positions. She charges the feminist community to discover and create connections between the two positions. M!, intention here is not to provide yet another
do
feminists want? Do the! want equal oi wtomen with men or do the! warn to turn the tables and have women exercise power and control over men? Do the! n’ant to elimmate an! differences between women and men or do the! want to emphasize the differences?‘ I am often asked such questions and just as often find it difficult to answer definitively one wa! or the other. It seems ansuer to such dichotomous the appropriate questions is simpl! ‘!es.’ in part because feminists are so di\,ided on these questions. but also because in m; own feminist interpretation 1 posit these seemlngl!, contradictor! positions simultaneous]!. This paper examines some of the reasons wh! feminisr thought is so divided. as well ac u,hy the simultaneous claims of seeming11 conrradictori feminist values are both possible and nscessar!. Many have provided careful and thoughtful analyses of the dl\,islons in feminist thought. Comparing feminist theories with respect to such characteristics as ordering principles. goals. and strategies. Gayle Graham b’ates formulates three basic categories of feminist thought-feminist (which seeks the integration of women into the existing male-defined system. i.e. women-equal-tomen): women’s liberationist (which regards men as the enem! and thus seeks a woman-defined reality. separate and apart from men): and andrognous (which seeks a redefinition of male and female roles by women and men together. i.e. women and men equal to each other) (Yates. 1Y73: 21). Alison Jagpar and Paula S. Rothenberg developed a treatment
5’1
522
ELIZABETH ANN BARTLE~
framework for classifying feminist theories. but rather. picking up McFadden’s challenge. lo provide a conceptual explanation for both the inherent divisions and the necessary connecrions in feminist thought. Specifically. I suggest that the sources of both the division and the unity in feminism are one and the same, namely the juxtaposition of three concepts which I regard to be central to feminist thought-liberry, equality, and sorority. After defining the terms, and their significance in feminist thought. I first examine how the contradictions between these concepts lead to divisions in feminist thought. Second. I argue that these same concepts, in limiting and defining each other, provide the basis for an integrated model of feminism. Finally. I propose this conception of feminism as a meaningful way to define not only feminist thought and belief. but also feminist action. I suggest it as a way to begin to define a feminist ethic. LIBERTY, EQUALITY, SORORITY: CENTRAL TENETS OF FEMINISM DEFINED My argument focuses on three concepts which I regard to be central to feminist thought-liberty. equality. and sorority. To say that they are central is not to say they are the sole important concepts in feminist theory, but rather to suggest that nearly all theories of feminism posit at least one of these three concepts as a central thesis, and that feminist theories vary primarily according lo their emphasis on one or more of these three. For example. liberal feminism stresses liberty of the individual and equality of opportuniry. Radical feminism stresses the sorority of women-identified women. The focus in socialist feminism is upon equality of condition. In the rest of the article I examine the varying emphases and juxtapositions of the concepts of liberty, equality. and sorority in feminist thought. so it is important to define the terms as clearly as possible. The specific meanings of these terms var! significantly within the contexts of the different theories. It is possible. however. 10 provide a general notion of the scope and meaning of the terms. Libeq
First, liberty, in general. is the ability to think or to act or to express oneself autonomously--that is. without coercion or constraint. 11 is the ability lo make and to act upon reflective. uncoerced. authentic choices. It is to be both free from certain obstacles of expression and constraint and free to pursue and achieve one’s goals.’ Feminists disagree ’ The clearest analysis Gerald MacCallum who many meanings and uses being one concept --that agent, the obstacle. and
of the concept of liberty is that Of points out that while there are of the term liberty. there is onl! the triadic relation between the the purpose (MacCallum. 1973)
as to the specific nature of these choices and constraints and goals. For example. the same free market economy which is an obstacle to freedom for the socialist feminist is one of the main vehicles of freedom for the liberal feminist. Or, the maximalist seeks the freedom of women to define ourselves and our spheres in terms of our sex whereas the minimalist seeks the freedom of women not to be defined in terms of our sex. The meanings are varied-but whether the claim for liberty be that of Frances Wright for free inquiry (Wright. 1936). or of the 19th century suffragists for the vote, or the 19th and 20th century birth control and pro-choice advocates for reproductive freedom. or Margaret Fuller’s and Simone de Beauvoir’s quest for self-definition and authenticity (Fuller. 1978; de Beauvoir. 1953)-most feminists recognize that liberty is the ability of women to overcome oppression and to pursue and achieve mental. moral. physical, spiritual. political, and social autonomy. Equalirj
The second concept. equality. entails the recognition of the same or equivalent value or worth of two or more distinct entities. It does not claim that the entities are the same. (for example, 2 = 2. or saying that I am equal to myself are meaningless statements) but rather that separate and distinct entities. while different. are of similar value. The implication is that the basis of their difference is not an appropriate basis upon which to determine their value. Thus. in the context of feminist theory. equality is the recognition of the fact that. thouih different from each other on the basis of sex. females and males are of the same worth. Not all feminists value equality. For those who would seek to abolish all distinctions between females and males.? equality on the basis of sex is not really an issue. If women and men are no longer distinguishable on the basis of sex. then it makes no sense to speak of equality (like 2 = 2 has no meaning). Nor is equality regarded to be desirable for those who claim the superiorit!, of u’omen to men. Among those feminists who do value equalit!. there is disagreement as to the specific nature of that equality. Liberal feminists are primarily concerned with equal political and legal rights and equal opportunities for women and men in education and the job market and pay scales. Socialist feminists. on the other hand. seek an equality of economic condition. upon which other aspects of equalit!’ This IS represented by thinkers such as Shulamlth Firestone. who would eliminate not onl! sex role dlstinctlons. but reproductive dIstinctIons as uell (Firestone. 1971)
Liberty, Equality, Sorority legal. political, social-are contingent. Feminists espousing an androgynous conception of the human personality claim the equal worth of ‘femaleness’ and ‘maleness.’ While there are differences in the specific application of the concept of equality. the central theme of equality is that women and men. ‘femaleness’ and ‘maleness.’ while distinct, are of the same worth and should be awarded the same respect, value. and treatment by society. Sorority
The third and final concept, sorority.J encompasses both the idea and experience of female bonding in sisterhood and the self-affirmation and identity discovered in a woman-centered vision and definition of womanhood. In emphasizing female uniqueness and female bonding. maximalist thinkers place sororitv at the core of their thought. The specific meaiing of sorority varies within the broad context of maximalist thought, being incorporated in such diverse theories as Catharine Beecher’s idea of separate spheres for women and men in an essentially male-defined world (Beecher. 1970). as well as the maternalists’ affirmation and celebration of the unique qualities and contributions of female experience (Rich, 1976; Ochs. 1983). and the visions of women-centered separatists (Daly. 1978; Gearhart, 1979; Solanis. 1970). Notions of sisterhood and redefinitions of femaleness are present in some minimalist--i.e. androgynous. socialist, and liberal feminist thought as well. For these minimalists. sorority is often viewed as a means -a step toward full equality of women and men and inclusion of women in a more broadly defined humanity; whereas for maximalists, sorority is both means and end--the desired socity itself. Whether means or end, the central idea of sorority is of female affirmation, identity. and bonding. In sum, the three central tenets of feminist thought are defined as: Merry-the ability lo overcome obstacles and lo act on one’s autonomous choices; equalit) -the recognition that females and
males are of the same value and worth in society: and sororitv-female affirmation. identity. and bonding. Th;e specific feminist ideologies are shaped
3 The term sorority is fraught with anti-feminist connotations. It suggests images of women divided from and competing with other women. rather than of women united. Yet. taken in its original meaning. ‘a body or company of women united for some common object.’ (Oxford English Dictionary) the term sorority is both appropriate and compelling. It incorporate the notion of ‘sisterhood’ bur goes bevond it. incorporating as well the ideas of female affirmatjon and unity.
523
by the emphasis placed upon and the juxtaposition
of these three concepts. LIBERTY, EQUALITY, SORORITY: THE CONTRADICTIONS The claims for liberty. equality. and sorority are at the very core of feminism. Yet, paradoxically. b> their inherent nature. the very claims which give birth to feminism are those which may undermine feminism through a divisiveness which renders us incapable of listening to one another. The seeds of division are sown in the very conceptual ground of feminism. Taken to extremes. the concepts of liberty, equality, and sorority are contradictory to each other. Liberty and equality
The inherent antagonism between liberty and equality has been widely discussed (Camus. 1956; Rousseau. 1960). Given competing claims to limited resources and individual variation with regard lo natural talents and abilities, or systemic privileges, unrestrained absolute liberty would result in a condition of inequality with those possessing greater strengths, intelligence. abilities. gaining privileges of status. power. or property over those less fortunate. ultimately resulting in greater liberties for some than others. By the same token. a condition of absolute equality restrict< liberty. The control of the distribution of rights. privileges, and resources necessitated by absolute equality of condition implies a lack of individual autonomy in decisions concerning one’s life. For example. affirmative action policies, implemented to insure equality of opportunity. necessitate restrictions and regulations with regard to hiring practices which employers ma) regard as a threat to their freedom of choice and employees may regard as a threat to their freedom of achievement and reward. In its extreme form. equality would deny to the individual the liberty to choose whether to work longer, harder, less, or more leisurely; whether to spend one’s allotted income on a house, a car. and symphony tickets rather than holidays, gourmet food, and hockey tickets; whether lo give birth to three, five, ten or no children. And in a system of equality of condition. to the degree that equality of condition dictates sameness, the freedoms of self-definition and selfexpression might also be sacrificed. The question of equality versus liberty divides the feminist community in many ways. Socialist feminists argue that the free market economv of liberal feminism renders a true equality impossible. because capitalism requires a marginal and exploited labor force. most frequently women, or people of color. Liberal feminists insist the
524
ELIZABETH ANN BARTLE~
economic equality demanded by socialist feminism impinges on the natural liberties of women. as well as men. to compete. to achieve. to succeed or to fail. to accumulate and distribute property. to define and express one’s being. Finally, maximalists might find the kind of equality and integration of roles, choices. opportunities. and conditions of the lives of women and men demanded by the minimalists to be inhibiting of the freedom of woman to define her own self and her own sphere as a woman-separate and perhaps superior to man. Liberty and sorority
Again, in their extremes. liberty and sorority are also antagonistic. In emphasizing the commonality and the solidarity of women. sorority threatens the liberty of the individual, especially the liberty not to be defined by or in any, way to be bound by one’s sex. Certainly this issue IS at the heart of much of the division between maximalists. For example. minimalists who are liberal feminists argue that it is precisely being categorized by one’s sex which prevents equal opportunity based upon individual merit. Minimalists who seek a more androgynous human personality and society. as well as those who seek to eliminate all gender and/or reproductive distinctions between males and females. would find such affirmation of a distinct womanhood to be threatening to the individual’s liberty of selfdefinition regardless of sex. And the point has been made by women of color. who call for an appreciation of difference and diversit)’ among women’s lives and experiences and truths. that the unity invoked in the name of sisterhood is often a unity defined by white women. a unity in ignorance of and oppression of the lives of women of color. This concern was given eloquent voice by Audre Lorde:
and opportunity takes precedence over the identity of women with other women and the obligation of women towards women. liberty undermines sorority. For example, certainly those who affirm the unique contributions and insights of women as mothers would regard Firestone’s scheme to eliminate sex differences by eliminating the reproductive function of humans altogether (Firestone. 1971) or even Frances Wright’s plan to raise all children in national nurseries (Wright, 1830) with a certain alarm. Another striking example of the antagonism between liberty and sorority is the liberal feminist who. claiming the right to freedom and equal opportunity of women. climbs over anyone, especially her sisters. in order to achieve personal. political, financial power and status-who denies all women and her own self-definition as a woman in order to prove that she is ‘as good as a man’-who having achieved a certain level of power in society continues to use that power in a way the oppresses other women, e.g. using the hard-won vote to continue to endorse discriminatory policies. Equaliry and sororir!
Finally, in their extremes, equality and sororit!, are contradictory. In it emphasis upon the differences between women and men. sorority undermines equality. If women and men are so different as to be beyond comparison. then no basis for equality exists. It would be like comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. Furthermore. within the notion of difference is often contained an assumption of superiority/inferiority, Affirmations of femaleness often carry with them implicit or explicit assumptions of female superiority. For example. many suffragists based their arguments for women’s suffrage on women’s moral superior+. such as this statement by Sarah Grimke: ‘The acquaintance which women naturall! acquire of the workings of the human heart. of the unfoldings of the passions. of the affectional nature. by virtue of their office as mothers render them peculiarly fit to select those who are to represent and watch over the interests and legislate for a Christian community.’ (Grimke. n.d.: 6).
‘As women we have been taught to either ignore our differences or to view them as causes for change. Without community. there is no liberation But community must no[ mean a shedding of our differences. nor the pathetic pretense that these differences do not exist. Poor and third world women know there is a difference between the daily manifestation and dehumanization of marital slavery and prostitution. because it is our daughters who line 42nd Street if white American feminist theory need not deal with the differences between us. and the resulting difference in aspects of our oppressions. then what do vou do with the fact that women who clean yo& houses and tend your children while you attend conferences on feminist theory are. for the most part, poor and third world women?’ (Lorde, 1981: 99-100).
Another example of the implicit assumptions of female superiority is in the writings of Adrienne Rich. who, though focusing on female identity and community, sometimes asserts femaleness over maleness. as in this appeal to female educators: ‘Nor does this mean we should be training women students to “think like men.” Men in general think badly: in disjunction from their personal lives.’ (Rich. 1979: 244). More blatant are the claims of such groups as SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) that:
By the same token, when individual liberty of choice
‘Life in this society being. at best. an utter bore
Liberty. Equality, Sorority and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded. responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex . . . the male is an incomplete female a walking abortion, aborted at the gene state . . .’ (Solanis, 1970: 577). Obviously, sorority in its extreme threatens equality. Similarly. equality of women and men. achieved or imposed. undermines sorority. If such an equality of roles and conditions were, as maximalists would argue, artificially imposed on women and men. the unique strengths. abilities. wisdom, and experiences of women would be minimized. Indeed, separatists. arguing that men’s nature is oppressive of women’s nature, fear that such ‘equality’ would result in a negation of women altogether, and that “‘Equal Rights” devours sisterhood. converting it into copied comradeship. and splitting it from its deep source. which is female friendship.’ (Daly. 1978: 376). Also. within the notion of female bonding is a notion of female bondage-of a solidarity arising from oppression. Ironically. to a certain degree. inequality creates sorority. So the question must be asked, would sisterhood disappear if equality were achieved-and is the achievement of equality worth the price of the loss of sisterhood? Such questions
and concerns form the crux of the division between maximalists and minimalists. Maximalists assert a unique female nature and woman-centered vision which minimalists find too reminiscent of the sexrole stereotyping which has so long limited human choices and potential, and has been used by powerful men to oppress women by defining those positions of power and status and influence in society as ‘male.’ Minimalists assert a male/female equality and sameness which maximalists find too reminiscent of the invisibility of woman throughout the history of male culture. The maximalistiminimalist split is essentially that of sorority versus equality. In sum. the essential elements of feminismliberty. equality, and sorority-are ultimately contradictory. Thus it can be said, as Rousseau said of the body politicq4 that feminism carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction.
4 The reference is to: ‘This is the inherent and inevitable vice of the body politic which, from the moment of its birth. tends consistently to its destruction, just as old age and death ultimately destroy the human.’ (Rousseau. 1960: 251).
525 LIBERTY, EQUALITY, SORORITY: THE CONNECTlONS
While these three core concepts of liberty, equality, and sorority necessarily contradict each other. I would argue that it is equally true that each one is necessary for the other two. Equality without liberty loses its meaning, unless there be some value in recognizing that we are all equally enslaved. And without equality. liberty is only the liberty of a few while the bulk of the people are enslaved and oppressed. The same can be said of liberty void of sorority-that it is the liberty of a few, usually white women, while the bulk of women remain oppressed. Indeed, sorority makes the liberty of women to think and act autonomously possible. On a very concrete level. quite often it is only with the support of other women-be this a crisis shelter, a consciousness-raising group. or a Women’s Studies class-that women begin to take steps toward our liberation. Emotionally and spiritually. sorority makes freedom possible by enabling us to affirm ourselves as women, rather than denying and being oppressed by that womanhood. It enables us to choose ourselves. It is in this context of equal affirmation of female and male. made possible by the affirmation of femaleness in sorority. that we can begin to talk about the equality of the sexes. rather than the equal rights of women to the privileges and rights of men. Similarly, liberty and equality provide a context in which sorority is made possible. The ability to find one’s center and one’s identity as a woman requires a certain solitude-an aloneness independent of external influences. Any type of dependence-physical. emotional. economic. spiritual. intellectual-inhibits this process. For women. this dependence has most often been upon men. Margaret Fuller’s words to nineteenth century women still hold true: ‘It is therefore that I would have woman lay aside all thought. such as she habitually cherishes. of being taught and led by men . . . I would have her free from compromise. from complaisance. from helplessness. because I would have her good and strong enough to love one and all beings. from the fullness, not the poverty of being. and women must leave off asking them (t&j and being influenced by them. but retire within themselves and explore the groundwork of life till they find their peculiar secret.’ (Fuller. 1978: 164-165). In gaining more equality of rights and privilegesbe these educational opportunities, or political access. or equal pay-women in turn gain the economic. physical, social. intellectual, spiritual independence and autonomy which make sorority possible. The paradoxical relationship of the core concepts
526
Euzaeml
ANN BARTLETT
of liberty. equality, and sorority is that while they are. in their absolute assertion, contradictory of each other, so, in moderation, are they mutually enhancing and supportive of each other. The key phrase is that they are contradictory in their extreme-in their absolute expression. In other words, they contradict only when one or two are posited without the balancing positions of the other. I suggest that the three elements. posited simultaneously, act not to undermine each other, but rather to balance and define each other. I suggest that they act. in the Camusian sense (Camus, 1956) as limits towards each other and co-exist in a dynamic. creative tension (see Fig. 1). Sorority
/\
It is the mutual affirmation of all three elements at once which maintains the balance and prevents any one or two of the terms from becoming so extreme that it negates the other. Paradoxically. it is the inherent contradiction which creates the tension and it is the tension which prevents the contradiction. Like the spokes of a wheel. they pull in opposite directions. creating the very tension which strenpthens and supports the wheel. All three are necessary and the tension on each must be equal if the wheel is not to crack and bulge and eventually collapse (see Fig. 2). Soror Ity
To say that liberty, equality, and sorority act as limits to each other is to suggest that without the balancing effect of equality and sorority, liberty negates itself-is no longer liberty; as does equality unbalanced by liberty and sorority; as does sorority unbalanced by liberty and equality. In exploring this, I have found it helpful to examine some of the dilemmas and inadequacies-some of the cracks and bulges-that develop when the tension on one of the spokes is decreased or destroyed. And each time the question must be asked, does the concept, taken in its extreme negate itself? Liberty and equality withour sorority
The model raises the question-without the demands of sorority, are liberty and equality possible? Take, for example, the liberal feminist who while claiming freedom and equality of opportunity, denies the importance, if not the existence, of any sense of identity with women. If. in the process of exercising her freedom. a woman denies her own identity as a woman, is she truly free? I would argue that she is not. If for example, she has gained a certain status and power in the corporate structure by playing ‘the games mother never taught you.’ by denying her choice to be a mother. by silencing her feelings, by ‘selling out.’ then she has done so not by acting on her choices but rather by acting against them; not by expressing herself but rather by censoring herself. The result is often a destructive self-hatred and a lack of selfesteem. The freedom to deny oneself is not a desired freedom. Such freedom is partial at best; inauthentic and self-defeating at worst. To deny oneself is to become an obstacle to one’s own freedom. Similarly one must ask. what kind of equality is obtained apart from sorority? If a woman gains equality with men witout maintaining the sisterhood and identity of women, the equality is illusory. If, as in the case of the token female. a woman has equal rights and privileges with men because she is a woman. then that equality rests on her membership in a group which is still regarded as subordinate. and the equality is false. Or, if a woman is regarded as men’s equal ‘in spite of the fact that she is a woman, then that equality rests on her denial of part of herself and is not true equality. If. in order to be considered equal to men, a woman must deny the woman in her and her connection to other women. then she is affirming the inequality of women. Because she is a woman. her denial of the equality of women is a denial of her own equality. Liberty and sorority without equalit)
Or what of a separatism that claims liberty and sorority but abandons equality, arguing instead that female nature is superior to male? Without the
527
Liberty. Equality, Sorority
demands of equality, do the values of liberty and sorority retain their meaning and integrity or do they collapse? The immediate danger of such theories lies in the potential for abuse. In reviving the ‘anatomy is destiny’ argument-that one’s nature, functions, roles, and future are determined by one’s sex- they legitimize continued or even heightened discrimination against women into particular functions and roles, thus subverting rather than affirming women. Neither are separatist demands respectful of women with significant, mutually affirming relationships with men. especially as mothers of sons (and many of the maximalist writers are matemalists). A sorority which insists upon the erosion of male/female relationships, especially mother/son relationships. as a condition of sorority, or which conveniently ignores these relationships, negates itself by denying the truth. realities, and experiences of women’s lives. It is also a racist and thus oppressive separatism which: ‘accuse[s] us [black lesbians] of being ‘maleidentified’ because we are concerned with issues that affect OUTwhole race. They [white lesbians) express anger at us for not seeing the light. That is another aspect of how they carry on their racism . . . . They are so narrow and adamant about that that they dismiss lesbians of color and women of color who aren’t lesbians because we have some concern about what happens to the men of our race. And it’s not like we like their sexism or even uap~t ;O sleep with them. You c2.n cert~~nl! he concerned as we are living here this summer in Boston when on Black man after another ends up dead.’ (Smith and Smith. 1981: 121-122). Furthermore, such separatism is made possible in practice only by an oppressive privilege. . white-skinned privilege. class privilege. Women who don’t have those kinds of privilege have to deal with this society and with the institutions of society. They can’t go to a harbor of many acres of land. a farm. and invite the goddess.’ (Smith and Smith, 1981: 121). Again, such sorority negates itself by denying the realities of women’s lives. Finally, I would question whether a group which affirms its own superiority is acting from an honest solidarity of that group or from an imposed totalit! and closedness which mask not strength but rather insecurity and fear. Camus makes the distinction between totality and unity-totality being a system of thought and practice which externally imposes a false harmony and ‘Truth’ upon a much more complex reality-unity being the harmonious tapestry which is created by the interweavings of those complex realities (Camus. 1956: 246). Totality begins with a particular vision of Truth. and forces
the realities of human existence to fit that vision. Unity is a truth given shape by the interplay of the concrete realities of human existence. In a Hobbesian world of insecurity and fear, there is a need to protect oneself by building walls and defense policies; unquesother defenses -nuclear tioning, unreflective loyalty to a leader; personal ‘toughness.’ Totality imposes such a wall, protecting the group from external attacks by providing a united front, and from internal doubts by providing an answer to every question. A sorority of unity, rather than totality, would be one that is open to many truths, which recognizes the conflicting complexities of women’s lives, which exposes rather than imposes, which does not need to claim its superiority vis-ti-vis others but rather is secure in its own worth in and of itself. With regard to a separatist supremacist liberty, the question must be asked, what of the liberty of men? Given the history and reality of men’s oppression of women this may seem an insignificant or even offensive question. Yet I question liberty which lies in being an oppressor and would argue instead that liberty comes in at once refusing to be oppressed and in refusing to oppress. The question must also be asked whether one is free if one must separate in order to guarantee that freedom. One might ask. isn’t the very necessity of separation dictated by the oppression of women and women’s nature? I recognize and fully support that a time of separation into the safety and freedom of ‘woman’s space’ is essential both to women’s freedom from physical and emotional abuse and to women’s self-definition. growth. and maturit! (Bartlett, 1984; Griffin. 1979). Nevertheless. a time comes for claiming rather than escaping the world. for creating the world as we envision it, for making of fhe world, rather than outside the world. a safe space. Freedom must include the ability to live in our own homes. to walk alone and at night. to have the truths of our bodies and our souls respected and heard in a world of women and men. Sorority
and equality
without
libert!,
Finally. what of a separatism which affirms sorority and equality. but not liberty? I would argue that sorority without liberty becomes little more than feminist tascism-an unreflective loyalty to the group above all else: a group-think and a group norm: a totalitarian definition of womanhood irrespective of difference. In practice this has meant a sorority of ‘white solipsism’ (Rich. 1979: 299) which in defining the women-centered vision and setting the agenda of feminist priorities. denies the realities. the needs. and the voices of women of color. As such. it is the denial rather than the affirmation of women and negates itself. Similarly. the model for equality proposed bq
528
ELIZABETH ANN BARTLETT
such a separatism is that of separate but equal. The persistent inequalities between the races from years of segregation convinced social scientists, jurists, and civil rights activists that separate but equal was a contradiction in terms-that such rigid separation enhanced existing inequalities. I would argue that such a model of equality of women and men would similarly undermine itself. Thus in a feminist context liberty, equality. and sorority do in fact act as limits to each other. Without the balancing effect of each other, each concept negates itself. The integrity of each of the concepts of liberty, equality, and sorority necessitates its juxtaposition with the other two. CONCLUSION The arguments have shown that the divisions in feminist thought and practice have specific roots in the inherent contradictions of three concepts central to feminism -liberty, equality, and sorority. While providing an explanation for the divisions among feminists, I have also suggested that it is the balanced juxtaposition of these three concepts which maintains the integrity of feminism. That integrity applies not only to feminist thought. but also to feminist action. I would like to conclude by offering a direction for further inquiry. that is, by suggesting that the juxtaposition of liberty. equality, and sorority provides a framework for a feminist ethic. That is to say that acting responsibly as a feminist involves balancing the demands of liberty, equality. and sorority. For example. while liberty and equal opportunity enable some women to acquire positions of power in economic or political hierarchies. sorority demands an obligation to each other which recognizes the collective nature of privilege-that privilege comes not solely through our individual efforts but also through the efforts and at the expense of others-and which uses that privilege in ways that affirm. rather than oppress, each other. Or. to take another example, I believe the mode1 of liberty/equality/sorority can be instructive with regard to the question of honesty. Rich has stated that ‘we have a profound stake. beyond the personal. in the project of describing our reality as candidly and full as we can to each other.’ (Rich. 1979: 190). This is the obligation of sorority. Its fulfilment is made possible by that very sorority in that sorority creates the safe spaces, the nonjudgmental speech situations in which such truthtelling can occur. Beyond this, from the position of integrity and strength which grow from the respectful sharing of truths, liberty and equality demand that we also describe our reality as candidly and as fully as possible even to the men who have power over us. I would suggest that until we do, we
acquiesce in the fact that men have power over us. Our silence becomes our complicity in oppression and inequality. Liberty and equality lie in expression which raises the possibility of transforming those power dynamics and the institutions which support them. As Audre Lorde has said: ‘My silences had not protected me. Your silence will not protect you. But for every real word spoken, for every attempt, I had ever made to speak those truths for which I am still seeking. I had made contact with other women while we examined the words to fit a world in which we all believed, bridging our differences.’ (Lorde, 1980: 20). The model of liberty/equality/sorority provides a working definition of feminist thought and action. It is a feminism which recognizes that a woman’s sense of identity and integrity comes in part through an acceptance and affirmation of oneself as female, yet which respects the diversity of what it means to be female in different cultures, races, classes, ages. and life experiences. It is a feminism which recognizes that it is meaningless to speak of and difficult to act on defining oneself and one’s choices without basic equalities of opportunity and condition in standards of living. health care, education. legal and political power. It is a feminism that does not seek liberation either in abandoning our identities as women and our commitments to women nor in retreating from the world of men altogether. but rather uses the values found in sorority-women-centered values of care and connection and commitment-to affirm ourselves and our integrity and to transform our world. Acknow,ledgements-My thanks to Craig Grau and Susan Coultrap-McQuin for their help tn providing therr insights and support in writing this article. Thanks also to Bonnie Turk for her patience and efforts in typing and revising the arttcle.
REFERENCES Bartlett. Elizabeth Ann. 1984. A time apart: Metaphysical celibacy and the process of feminist self-definition. Paper delivered at National Women’s Studies Association, Rutgers University. de Beauvoi;. Simone. 1953. The Second Sex. Trans. and ed. H. M. Parshlev. Alfred Knonf. New York. Beecher. Catharine: 1970. A ?reatise on Domestic Economy. Source Books Press, New York (First published 1841). Camus, Albert. 1956. The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Rev& with a Foreword by Sir Herbert Read. Trans. Anthony Bower. Vintage. New York (First published 1951). Daly, Mary. 1978. GynIEcology: The Meraerhics of Radical Feminism. Beacon Press. Boston.
Liberty. Equality. Sorority Firestone. Shulamith. 1971. The Dialectic of&x: The Case for Feminist Revolurion. Bantam. New York. Fuller. Margaret. 1978. Woman in the nineteenth century. In Joel Myerson. ed.. Margarer Fuller: Essays on American Life and Lerrers. Colleee and Universitb Press. New Haven (First published c844). Gearhart. Sallv Miller. 1979. The Wanderground: Stories of the Hillwomen. Persephone Press. Witertown. MA. Griffin. Susan. 1979. Rape: The Power of Consciousness. Harper & Row. San Francisco. Grimke. Sarah. n.d. Condition of woman. Theodore Dwight Weld Collection. Unpublished manuscript. Box 23. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor. Jaggar, Alison M. and Paula S. Rothenbera. 1984. Feminist Frameworks: Ahernarive Accounrs- of the Relations Between Women and Men. 2nd edn. McGrau-
Hill. New York. Lorde, Audre. 1980. The Cancer Journals. 2nd edn. Spinsters Ink. San Francisco. Lorde. Audre. 1981. The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. In Moraga. Cherrie and Gloria Anzaldua. eds. This Bridge Called My Back: Wrirings by Radical Women of Color. Persephone Press. Watertown, MA. MacCallum. Gerald C., Jr. 1973. Negative and positive freedom. In Flathman. Richard E.. ed.. Conceprs in Social and Polirical Philosoohv. MacMillan. New York , (First published 1967). McFadden. Maggie. 1984. Anatomy of difference. Toward a classification of feminist theory. M’omen’s Srud. Inr.
529
Forum 7 (6): 495-504
Ochs. Carol. 1983. Women and Spiritualiy. Rowan 6: Allenheld. Totowa. NJ. Rich, Adrienne. 1976. O_f Woman Born: Morherhood as Experience and Instirution. Norton. New York. Rich. Adrienne. 1979. On Lies. Secrers. and Silence. Selecred Prose: 19661978. Norton. New York. Rousseau. Jean-Jacques. 1960. The Social Contracr. In Social Conrracr: Essays by Locke. Hume. and Rousseau
Introduction by Sir Ernest Barker. Oxford University Press. London (First published 1762). Smith. Barbara and Beverly) Smith.’ 1981. Across the kitchen table: A sister-to-sister dialogue. In Moraga. Cherrie and Gloria Anzaldua. eds. This Bridge Called My
Back:
Writings
by
Radical
Women
07
Color.
Persephone Press. Watertown. MA. Solanis. Valerie. 1970. Excerpts from the SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto. In Morgan. Robin. ed.. Sisrerhood is Powerful: An Anrhologv Gf Wrirings from rhe Women‘s Liberarion Movemen!. Vintage. New, York. Wright. Frances. 1830. Popular Tracts, No. ‘3. An Address 10 the Industrious Classes. A Sketch of a Sysrem of National Educafion. Free Enquirer. New York. Wright. Frances. 1836. Course of Popular Lecrures with all her Addresses on Various Publrc Occasrons and a RepI! IO rhe Charges Againsr rhe French Republic of 1789. 6th
edn. G. W. & A. J. Matsell. New York. Yates. Gayle Graham. 1975. Whar Women Wanr: The Ideas of the Mo\,emenr. Harvard University Press. Cambridge. MA.