- Email: [email protected]
Towards a reassessment of feminist history
Women’~ Studies Int. Forum, Vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 519-524, 1982. Prmted in Great Bnta~n.
0277-5395~82/06051906$3.00/0 ‘? Pergamon Press Ltd.
EDITORIAL
TOWARDS A REASSESSMENT
OF FEMINIST
HISTORY
As the use of parenthesis (‘. . .‘) suggests, feminist exploration of ‘first wave’ feminism is a complicated business. On the one hand, we all know what we mean by ‘first wave’ feminism, ‘early’ feminism, and other terms which combine vagueness with a high degree of specificity. On the other hand, we are aware that the meanings we attach to our feminist past are fairly arbitrary and not at all obvious and certain. The articles in this issue share a common historical focus-roughly the period from the midnineteenth century to the first two decades of the twentieth century’-and consequently, a common working assumption: that what distinguishes this chunk of feminist history from feminism before and immediately after is that it involved the emergence, development, struggle, and finally, the demise of feminist movements around the globe. Since feminist examination of feminist history’ has concentrated overwhelmingly on these movements, we may further assume that they are crucial to our understanding of our feminist past as a whole. However, this does not explain entirely why feminist movements have been singled out for enquiry. In her contribution to this issue, Marilyn Boxer states-with reference to French feminist history-that in the face of the ‘variety of opinions and actions’ which have been labelled ‘feminist’, she will use the term: ‘to include advocacy of equal rights for women coupled with organized and sustained action for the purpose of achieving them’, recognizing that this definition ‘excludes prescriptions drafted by isolated thinkers as well as the actions of groups spurred primarily by other aspects of social protest’ (Boxer, 1982; p. 552). It is on the basis of this definition that Boxer is able to select her area of study-‘first wave’ feminism in France : ‘In France this particular form of feminism emerged in the late 1860’s, after the relaxation of censorship in Louis Napoleon’s Second Empire, and reached its height in the Belle Epoque, the two decades which preceded the First World War. This period includes the activity which will seem most familiar to students of the English and American movements, and which most appropriately fits under the general rubric of ‘first wave’ feminism (Boxer, 1982; p. 552). Boxer offers a practical rationale for focusing on the last French feminist movement-and it is very important. However, practical considerations apart, there is no doubt that our
1 The ‘first wave’ in India extended from the 1880s to the 1940s (see Forbes, 1982). z Feminist history-the history of feminism, is not the same thing as women’s history-the study of women’s lives, as the varying research focuses of feminist historians indicate. However, many feminist historians use these terms interchangeably-see Alexander and Davin (1976; pp. 46). 519
520
EDITORIAL
decision, as investigators of feminist history, to select feminist movements for special examination is determined by additional factors. Perhaps one of the most important influences on feminist history has been malestream history. Look at any European ‘political’ history text and what do we find-movements and revolutions. And the influence of malestream history doesn’t end with our preoccupation with movements (and revolution?); we also share a number of the malestream’s assumptions about movements as embodiments of collective action and galvanizers of social change. The distinction that feminist historians make between feminists involved in feminist movements and ‘the prescriptions drafted by isolated social thinkers’ rests on a very questionable assumption concerning the context in which collective identity is formed and social change is made. Given what movements seem to represent to us, it is hardly surprising that we view pre-‘first wave’ feminists as ‘isolated’ and bringing the problem closer to home, that we think of the period from the third decade of the twentieth century to the late 1960s-when feminism lucked a movement-as one in which feminism disappeared. Do we really believe that when all the movements subsided, all the feminists who were involved with them vanished? Or do we just assume that with the collapse of the ‘first wave’ feminist movements, women necessarily went their separate ways and stopped being feminists? The evidence to the contrary is slowly being gathered (Spender, 1982; forthcoming 1983), and it is likely to have a profound effect on the way in which we examine our feminist past. The study of feminist movements, not only fixes our attention on discrete entities which rise and fall, at the expense of our awareness of the continuity of feminism, but it prevents us from identifying feminist ideas and activities which co-existed with feminist movements, but were not specifically part of them (or so it seems). It is sometimes difficult to remember, for example, that Virginia Woolf (born 1882) was acontemporary ofchristabel Pankhurst (born 1880). In my head, Woolf belongs to the period after the ‘first wave’in Britain, because she was not visibly involved in that movement. Certainly, Woolfs flowering as a feminist writer came in the late 1920s when the movement had evaporated.3 Nevertheless, we are left with the indisputable fact that Virginia Woolf, and other ‘outsiders’ to the feminist movement like her, lived in England during the ‘first wave’. Do we simply resolve this problem by saying that these women weren’t feminists at that time? Elaine Showalter points out that Woolf ‘always depicted suffragists as incomplete and marginal people seeking in the process and violence of the movement a passion that was lacking in their own lives’ (Showalter, 1978; p. 238). Does Woolfs rejection of the movement (as she saw it) suggest that she was anti-feminist or that she lived her feminism differently? May be the difficulty lies with our definition (and Woolf’s) of what constitutes participation in feminist movements. Perhaps women like Woolf were part of the movement, but not in the same way that we are accustomed to identify as participation, namely, membership in feminist groups and involvement in feminist activities. The study of feminist history is the study of feminist movements-the latter phenomenon being defined in very specific terms. Unfortunately, such clarification is not the end of the matter. Throughout this editorial, I have referred to the ‘first wave’-what is implied by the word ‘first’? Clearly, if we believed that there were feminist movements before the nineteenth century, we wouldn’t depict pre-nineteenth century feminists as ‘isolated’. Are we justified in saying that the ‘first’ feminist movements emerged in the nineteenth century? If we use a very
3 To the Lighthouse (1927); Orlando (1938bsee Rose (1978).
(1928); A Room
ofOn&s Own
(1929); The Waoes (1931); Three Guineas
EDITORIAL
521
precise definition of movement, perhaps. But we don’t have to go far back in time to come up against the mass extermination of witches in Europe and North America in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. What does the brutal murder of nine million witches suggest to us about the scale offeminist resistance at this time? Similarly, are we justified in fixing the ‘first wave’between the mid-nineteenth century and the first two decades of the twentieth century? Timing the ‘first wave’in this way, presupposes a particular political and economic contextthe development of liberalism, capitalism and socialist movements in this period-which is only relevant for the feminist movements which developed in the western world. India, for example, subjected to British colonial rule and characterized by a different set of political and economic factors, experienced the ‘high point’ of her ‘first wave’ later (see Forbes, 1982). The example of India raises a lot of questions about how west/wasp4-centered our categories and definitions are. How would an examination of feminism in the non-western world transform our knowledge of feminist history and feminist movements? Does our existing west/wasp-made understanding of what constitutes feminism in theory and practice prevent us from identifying feminist resistance when it doesn’t conform with our criteria? And this not only applies to Third World countries, but also to the resistance of women who inhabit a ‘third world’ in the First and Second World countries. The question is, do we only recognize feminist resistance when it most closely resembles feminism as we know it? Perhaps that explains why I was able to find an article on India for this issue. As Forbes reveals, notable differences apart, the ‘first wave’ in India was similar in many respects to the movements which developed in the west. One of the principal factors which has determined the contours of feminist historical enquiry-the focus on ‘first wave’ feminist movements in the west-is the feminist context in which feminists in the western world are working today. Engaged as we are in the ‘second wave’, it is to a similar phenomenon-the ‘first wave’-that we look for comparisons and contrasts; to see where we were and what we have become. And it is our investment in the current feminist movement which forces us to address another problem in our approach to feminist history-the implications, not only of the word ‘first’, but also of ‘wave’. Do we still regard the earlier movements ‘as the first wave of a tide on which we expect(ed) to sweep to victory’? (Boxer, 1982; p. 552). Do we still consider ourselves more advanced and ‘honour our foremothers while, at the same time, correcting their mistakes’? (Boxer, p. 552). Feminists today do seem less confident of the superiority of the ‘second wave’ over the ‘first’, than feminists were in the late 60s and early 7Os, but assumptions about ‘progress’ are not easily disposed of. And how many feminists today would be prepared to countenance the thought that, possibly, in certain crucial areas, the ‘first wave’ exceeded our current efforts? That we are prompted to excavate our feminist past by our participation in the feminist present is perfectly valid as long as we acknowledge the extent to which our current experiences and preoccupations influence what we look for. The purpose of the foregoing discussion has not been to invalidate the focus of feminist historical enquiry today, but rather to indicate the parameters of existing research and to emphasize that the exploration of ‘first wave’ feminism is not synonymous with the study of feminist history-it is one aspect of that study. That said, there is little doubt that even the examination of ‘first wave’ feminism with its
4 Wasp or WASP: White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. The use of this term originating in the United States of America, it is used to refer to an elite which is also distinguishable by its access to, and control of, wealth.
522
EDITORIAL
limited terms of reference is far from complete. If we just think about the written evidence that hasn’t been explored yet-let alone the oral testimony that we have lost-we soon realize that there is much we still don’t know about ‘first wave’ feminist movements. To take my personal experience as an example: when I began to study the ‘first wave’ feminist movement in England, I ‘accidentally’ came upon a huge, largely untapped source of information-the feminist periodicals. There were over 100 weekly and monthly periodicals published in England between 1850 and 1930, and many of these may be found ‘complete’-several volumes thick-on the shelves at the Fawcett Library in London (Sarah, 1982). However, despite the wealth of this ‘primary’ source of information-further enhanced by the fact that the periodicals provide insight into on-going debates and activities that cannot be matchedthe existing secondary sources on the ‘first wave’ in England, make very little use of this material. And the periodicals are only one example; and England is only one country. Given the relative ‘newness’ of the study of feminist history, it is of course not surprising that so much of the evidence remains ‘undiscovered’. By far the biggest hindrance to our knowledge of ‘first wave’ feminist movements is not the lack of sufficient research, but the rule of men and male interests, then and now, which triumphed over the movements in the first place, then banished the evidence of feminist resistance, and today, continues to make sense of the world in terms which exclude the struggles of women past and present. Against this background, the work of feminist historians in the last two decades is a mammoth achievement. The determination with which feminist historians have grappled with the legacy of his-story-with the concepts and constructs, lies and simple prejudices which have obscured our view of our past-is remarkable. This special issue on Reassessments of‘First Wave’ Feminism, reflects both the achievement of current feminist historical research and the obstacles which stand in the way of the full development of such research in a patriarchal world in which feminists are not only divided from our past but also from one another. When I first embarked on the task of collecting contributions, I was both inspired and daunted by the prospect of finding and bringing together a wide spectrum of material. I wanted the issue to have as broad a geographical base as possible; I wanted it to examine as many connections and disconnections as possible-within movements, between movements in different countries, between past and present. And all in one issue-impossible. And yet, despite space restrictions and the enormous problems involved in chasing material, many of my hopes for the issue have been fulfilled. The geographical base is fairly narrow (although wider than in similar texts); many issues and questions are not raised; the exploration of connections and disconnections is restricted. But these are the limitations of the current state of feminist historical enquiry, and although they must be kept in mind, the collection is rich and varied nonetheless. And now, a few words about the organization of the issue. To draw attention to the problems of west/wasp domination, both in terms of the movements which are selected for study and the criteria which govern our examination of ‘first wave’ feminism, the first section, Feminist Movements: Some Case Studies, opens with Caged Tigers: ‘First Wave’ Feminists in India by Geraldine Forbes. The article is a token; but as such, it does remind us just how huge the gaps in our knowledge and understanding are. The remainder of the section is fixed in the west, but it does include articles on two countries that rarely get a mention-Norway and Canada; and the possibility of a more international perspective is increased by the fact that four of the seven articles are written by women whose subject of study is not their home country. What this small selection shows us more than anything else, is that ‘first wave’ feminism was not an homogeneous phenomenoneven in the west. The articles also provide
EDITORIAL
523
some insight into the varying perceptions and priorities which ensure that the ‘second wave’is fairly heterogeneous as well. The second section, Feminist Issues: The Politics of Motherhood and Sexuality, evolved from happy chance. Since these issues are of such prime importance to feminists today, it is hardly surprising that research is being undertaken into the treatment of motherhood and sexuality by ‘first wave’ feminists. Again, in this section an attempt has been made to look at the work of ‘first wave’ feminists who are little known-Cheri Register takes a new feminist look at a ‘fallen’ Swedish feminist and Marion Kaplan discusses Jewish feminists in Germany-as well as to reassess better known movements in new terms. I have included a section entitled, Feminist Connections despite the lack of material (two articles), in order to emphasize the importance of: studies which compare ‘first wave’ movements in different countries; approaches to the subject which explore the connections which actually existed between ‘first wave’ feminists around the world; research which examines the internationalist consciousness of feminists in the increasingly ‘international’ climate of the early twentieth century. The two contributions to this section focus on aspects of these issues. The two articles in the fourth section, Feminists Observed, draw attention to (among other things) how ‘first wave’ feminists were perceived and presented by those in power-men (Rosamund Billington) and the divergence in interests and priorities between women in a particular locality and those active in the mainstream of feminist politics (Lindy Moore). The final section, Studying ‘First Wave’ Feminism, looks at some of the less well known material-‘old’ and ‘new’-which is available for research. Since this group of articles includes references to a large number of books and articles, the number of book reviews at the end of the issue has been kept to a minimum. Taken as a whole, Reassessments of ‘First Wave’ Feminism makes a very stimulating contribution to the growing store of knowledge about the feminist movements which immediately preceded the movements that we are currently involved in. Perhaps one of the most important issues which emerges from the collection and is relevant for us today, revolves around the intersection of ‘public’ and ‘private’ concerns during the ‘first wave’. ‘First wave’ feminists were sometimes divided in their work between ‘suffragism’ and ‘moral campaigning’; between the task of seeking women’s equal participation in the administration and work of the world, and that of liberating women from sexual slavery on the streets and in the marriage bed, as a fundamental step towards the achievement of equality in all other areas of social, economic and political life. However, it is also true that the ‘public’ and ‘private’ dimensions of women’s oppression were often confronted together: ‘Votes for Women and Chastity for Men’ (see Sheila Jeffrey? article). The basic commitment for ‘first wave’ feminists, as it remains for us today, was to expose the system of male power and to do something about it. As the articles in this issue indicate, there were then and there are now different theories about the ‘root cause’ of women’s oppression and different strategies for liberating the female sex. But despite the wealth of information offered here, the picture we have of the ‘first wave’ movements is far from complete. We need more time. We also need look in places we haven’t looked before. Perhaps an enlargement of our task-the investigation offeminist historywill lead us to a fuller understanding of the ‘first wave’feminist movements we know so muchand so little-about. ELIZABETH SARAH
524
EDITORIAL REFERENCES
Alexander, Sally and Davin, Anna. 1976. Feminist History. History Workshop. J. 1 (Spring): 4~6. Boxer, Marilyn J. 1982. ‘First wave’ feminism in nineteenth-century France: class, family and religion. Women’s Studies Int. Forum 5(6): 551-559. Forbes, Geraldine H. 1982. Caged tigers: ‘first wave’ feminists in India. Women’s Studies Int. Forum 5(6): 525-536 Rose, Phyllis. 1978. Woman qfLetters. A Life of’ Virginia Woo& Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Sarah, Elizabeth. 1982. Female performers on a male stage: the first women’s liberation movement and the authority of men, 1890-1930. In Friedman, Scarlet and Sarah, Elizabeth, eds, On the Problem qf Men: Two Feminist Conferences. The Women’s Press, London. Showalter, Elaine. 1978. A Literature ofTheir Own. British Women Nouelist.s,fiom BrontEto Lessing. Virago, London. Spender, Dale. 1982. Women of Ideas und What Men Have Done to Them. From Aphra Behn to Adrienne Rich. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Spender, Dale. Forthcoming 1983. There’s Always Been a Women’s Motirment. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
0277-5395~82/06051906$3.00/0 ‘? Pergamon Press Ltd.
EDITORIAL
TOWARDS A REASSESSMENT
OF FEMINIST
HISTORY
As the use of parenthesis (‘. . .‘) suggests, feminist exploration of ‘first wave’ feminism is a complicated business. On the one hand, we all know what we mean by ‘first wave’ feminism, ‘early’ feminism, and other terms which combine vagueness with a high degree of specificity. On the other hand, we are aware that the meanings we attach to our feminist past are fairly arbitrary and not at all obvious and certain. The articles in this issue share a common historical focus-roughly the period from the midnineteenth century to the first two decades of the twentieth century’-and consequently, a common working assumption: that what distinguishes this chunk of feminist history from feminism before and immediately after is that it involved the emergence, development, struggle, and finally, the demise of feminist movements around the globe. Since feminist examination of feminist history’ has concentrated overwhelmingly on these movements, we may further assume that they are crucial to our understanding of our feminist past as a whole. However, this does not explain entirely why feminist movements have been singled out for enquiry. In her contribution to this issue, Marilyn Boxer states-with reference to French feminist history-that in the face of the ‘variety of opinions and actions’ which have been labelled ‘feminist’, she will use the term: ‘to include advocacy of equal rights for women coupled with organized and sustained action for the purpose of achieving them’, recognizing that this definition ‘excludes prescriptions drafted by isolated thinkers as well as the actions of groups spurred primarily by other aspects of social protest’ (Boxer, 1982; p. 552). It is on the basis of this definition that Boxer is able to select her area of study-‘first wave’ feminism in France : ‘In France this particular form of feminism emerged in the late 1860’s, after the relaxation of censorship in Louis Napoleon’s Second Empire, and reached its height in the Belle Epoque, the two decades which preceded the First World War. This period includes the activity which will seem most familiar to students of the English and American movements, and which most appropriately fits under the general rubric of ‘first wave’ feminism (Boxer, 1982; p. 552). Boxer offers a practical rationale for focusing on the last French feminist movement-and it is very important. However, practical considerations apart, there is no doubt that our
1 The ‘first wave’ in India extended from the 1880s to the 1940s (see Forbes, 1982). z Feminist history-the history of feminism, is not the same thing as women’s history-the study of women’s lives, as the varying research focuses of feminist historians indicate. However, many feminist historians use these terms interchangeably-see Alexander and Davin (1976; pp. 46). 519
520
EDITORIAL
decision, as investigators of feminist history, to select feminist movements for special examination is determined by additional factors. Perhaps one of the most important influences on feminist history has been malestream history. Look at any European ‘political’ history text and what do we find-movements and revolutions. And the influence of malestream history doesn’t end with our preoccupation with movements (and revolution?); we also share a number of the malestream’s assumptions about movements as embodiments of collective action and galvanizers of social change. The distinction that feminist historians make between feminists involved in feminist movements and ‘the prescriptions drafted by isolated social thinkers’ rests on a very questionable assumption concerning the context in which collective identity is formed and social change is made. Given what movements seem to represent to us, it is hardly surprising that we view pre-‘first wave’ feminists as ‘isolated’ and bringing the problem closer to home, that we think of the period from the third decade of the twentieth century to the late 1960s-when feminism lucked a movement-as one in which feminism disappeared. Do we really believe that when all the movements subsided, all the feminists who were involved with them vanished? Or do we just assume that with the collapse of the ‘first wave’ feminist movements, women necessarily went their separate ways and stopped being feminists? The evidence to the contrary is slowly being gathered (Spender, 1982; forthcoming 1983), and it is likely to have a profound effect on the way in which we examine our feminist past. The study of feminist movements, not only fixes our attention on discrete entities which rise and fall, at the expense of our awareness of the continuity of feminism, but it prevents us from identifying feminist ideas and activities which co-existed with feminist movements, but were not specifically part of them (or so it seems). It is sometimes difficult to remember, for example, that Virginia Woolf (born 1882) was acontemporary ofchristabel Pankhurst (born 1880). In my head, Woolf belongs to the period after the ‘first wave’in Britain, because she was not visibly involved in that movement. Certainly, Woolfs flowering as a feminist writer came in the late 1920s when the movement had evaporated.3 Nevertheless, we are left with the indisputable fact that Virginia Woolf, and other ‘outsiders’ to the feminist movement like her, lived in England during the ‘first wave’. Do we simply resolve this problem by saying that these women weren’t feminists at that time? Elaine Showalter points out that Woolf ‘always depicted suffragists as incomplete and marginal people seeking in the process and violence of the movement a passion that was lacking in their own lives’ (Showalter, 1978; p. 238). Does Woolfs rejection of the movement (as she saw it) suggest that she was anti-feminist or that she lived her feminism differently? May be the difficulty lies with our definition (and Woolf’s) of what constitutes participation in feminist movements. Perhaps women like Woolf were part of the movement, but not in the same way that we are accustomed to identify as participation, namely, membership in feminist groups and involvement in feminist activities. The study of feminist history is the study of feminist movements-the latter phenomenon being defined in very specific terms. Unfortunately, such clarification is not the end of the matter. Throughout this editorial, I have referred to the ‘first wave’-what is implied by the word ‘first’? Clearly, if we believed that there were feminist movements before the nineteenth century, we wouldn’t depict pre-nineteenth century feminists as ‘isolated’. Are we justified in saying that the ‘first’ feminist movements emerged in the nineteenth century? If we use a very
3 To the Lighthouse (1927); Orlando (1938bsee Rose (1978).
(1928); A Room
ofOn&s Own
(1929); The Waoes (1931); Three Guineas
EDITORIAL
521
precise definition of movement, perhaps. But we don’t have to go far back in time to come up against the mass extermination of witches in Europe and North America in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. What does the brutal murder of nine million witches suggest to us about the scale offeminist resistance at this time? Similarly, are we justified in fixing the ‘first wave’between the mid-nineteenth century and the first two decades of the twentieth century? Timing the ‘first wave’in this way, presupposes a particular political and economic contextthe development of liberalism, capitalism and socialist movements in this period-which is only relevant for the feminist movements which developed in the western world. India, for example, subjected to British colonial rule and characterized by a different set of political and economic factors, experienced the ‘high point’ of her ‘first wave’ later (see Forbes, 1982). The example of India raises a lot of questions about how west/wasp4-centered our categories and definitions are. How would an examination of feminism in the non-western world transform our knowledge of feminist history and feminist movements? Does our existing west/wasp-made understanding of what constitutes feminism in theory and practice prevent us from identifying feminist resistance when it doesn’t conform with our criteria? And this not only applies to Third World countries, but also to the resistance of women who inhabit a ‘third world’ in the First and Second World countries. The question is, do we only recognize feminist resistance when it most closely resembles feminism as we know it? Perhaps that explains why I was able to find an article on India for this issue. As Forbes reveals, notable differences apart, the ‘first wave’ in India was similar in many respects to the movements which developed in the west. One of the principal factors which has determined the contours of feminist historical enquiry-the focus on ‘first wave’ feminist movements in the west-is the feminist context in which feminists in the western world are working today. Engaged as we are in the ‘second wave’, it is to a similar phenomenon-the ‘first wave’-that we look for comparisons and contrasts; to see where we were and what we have become. And it is our investment in the current feminist movement which forces us to address another problem in our approach to feminist history-the implications, not only of the word ‘first’, but also of ‘wave’. Do we still regard the earlier movements ‘as the first wave of a tide on which we expect(ed) to sweep to victory’? (Boxer, 1982; p. 552). Do we still consider ourselves more advanced and ‘honour our foremothers while, at the same time, correcting their mistakes’? (Boxer, p. 552). Feminists today do seem less confident of the superiority of the ‘second wave’ over the ‘first’, than feminists were in the late 60s and early 7Os, but assumptions about ‘progress’ are not easily disposed of. And how many feminists today would be prepared to countenance the thought that, possibly, in certain crucial areas, the ‘first wave’ exceeded our current efforts? That we are prompted to excavate our feminist past by our participation in the feminist present is perfectly valid as long as we acknowledge the extent to which our current experiences and preoccupations influence what we look for. The purpose of the foregoing discussion has not been to invalidate the focus of feminist historical enquiry today, but rather to indicate the parameters of existing research and to emphasize that the exploration of ‘first wave’ feminism is not synonymous with the study of feminist history-it is one aspect of that study. That said, there is little doubt that even the examination of ‘first wave’ feminism with its
4 Wasp or WASP: White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. The use of this term originating in the United States of America, it is used to refer to an elite which is also distinguishable by its access to, and control of, wealth.
522
EDITORIAL
limited terms of reference is far from complete. If we just think about the written evidence that hasn’t been explored yet-let alone the oral testimony that we have lost-we soon realize that there is much we still don’t know about ‘first wave’ feminist movements. To take my personal experience as an example: when I began to study the ‘first wave’ feminist movement in England, I ‘accidentally’ came upon a huge, largely untapped source of information-the feminist periodicals. There were over 100 weekly and monthly periodicals published in England between 1850 and 1930, and many of these may be found ‘complete’-several volumes thick-on the shelves at the Fawcett Library in London (Sarah, 1982). However, despite the wealth of this ‘primary’ source of information-further enhanced by the fact that the periodicals provide insight into on-going debates and activities that cannot be matchedthe existing secondary sources on the ‘first wave’ in England, make very little use of this material. And the periodicals are only one example; and England is only one country. Given the relative ‘newness’ of the study of feminist history, it is of course not surprising that so much of the evidence remains ‘undiscovered’. By far the biggest hindrance to our knowledge of ‘first wave’ feminist movements is not the lack of sufficient research, but the rule of men and male interests, then and now, which triumphed over the movements in the first place, then banished the evidence of feminist resistance, and today, continues to make sense of the world in terms which exclude the struggles of women past and present. Against this background, the work of feminist historians in the last two decades is a mammoth achievement. The determination with which feminist historians have grappled with the legacy of his-story-with the concepts and constructs, lies and simple prejudices which have obscured our view of our past-is remarkable. This special issue on Reassessments of‘First Wave’ Feminism, reflects both the achievement of current feminist historical research and the obstacles which stand in the way of the full development of such research in a patriarchal world in which feminists are not only divided from our past but also from one another. When I first embarked on the task of collecting contributions, I was both inspired and daunted by the prospect of finding and bringing together a wide spectrum of material. I wanted the issue to have as broad a geographical base as possible; I wanted it to examine as many connections and disconnections as possible-within movements, between movements in different countries, between past and present. And all in one issue-impossible. And yet, despite space restrictions and the enormous problems involved in chasing material, many of my hopes for the issue have been fulfilled. The geographical base is fairly narrow (although wider than in similar texts); many issues and questions are not raised; the exploration of connections and disconnections is restricted. But these are the limitations of the current state of feminist historical enquiry, and although they must be kept in mind, the collection is rich and varied nonetheless. And now, a few words about the organization of the issue. To draw attention to the problems of west/wasp domination, both in terms of the movements which are selected for study and the criteria which govern our examination of ‘first wave’ feminism, the first section, Feminist Movements: Some Case Studies, opens with Caged Tigers: ‘First Wave’ Feminists in India by Geraldine Forbes. The article is a token; but as such, it does remind us just how huge the gaps in our knowledge and understanding are. The remainder of the section is fixed in the west, but it does include articles on two countries that rarely get a mention-Norway and Canada; and the possibility of a more international perspective is increased by the fact that four of the seven articles are written by women whose subject of study is not their home country. What this small selection shows us more than anything else, is that ‘first wave’ feminism was not an homogeneous phenomenoneven in the west. The articles also provide
EDITORIAL
523
some insight into the varying perceptions and priorities which ensure that the ‘second wave’is fairly heterogeneous as well. The second section, Feminist Issues: The Politics of Motherhood and Sexuality, evolved from happy chance. Since these issues are of such prime importance to feminists today, it is hardly surprising that research is being undertaken into the treatment of motherhood and sexuality by ‘first wave’ feminists. Again, in this section an attempt has been made to look at the work of ‘first wave’ feminists who are little known-Cheri Register takes a new feminist look at a ‘fallen’ Swedish feminist and Marion Kaplan discusses Jewish feminists in Germany-as well as to reassess better known movements in new terms. I have included a section entitled, Feminist Connections despite the lack of material (two articles), in order to emphasize the importance of: studies which compare ‘first wave’ movements in different countries; approaches to the subject which explore the connections which actually existed between ‘first wave’ feminists around the world; research which examines the internationalist consciousness of feminists in the increasingly ‘international’ climate of the early twentieth century. The two contributions to this section focus on aspects of these issues. The two articles in the fourth section, Feminists Observed, draw attention to (among other things) how ‘first wave’ feminists were perceived and presented by those in power-men (Rosamund Billington) and the divergence in interests and priorities between women in a particular locality and those active in the mainstream of feminist politics (Lindy Moore). The final section, Studying ‘First Wave’ Feminism, looks at some of the less well known material-‘old’ and ‘new’-which is available for research. Since this group of articles includes references to a large number of books and articles, the number of book reviews at the end of the issue has been kept to a minimum. Taken as a whole, Reassessments of ‘First Wave’ Feminism makes a very stimulating contribution to the growing store of knowledge about the feminist movements which immediately preceded the movements that we are currently involved in. Perhaps one of the most important issues which emerges from the collection and is relevant for us today, revolves around the intersection of ‘public’ and ‘private’ concerns during the ‘first wave’. ‘First wave’ feminists were sometimes divided in their work between ‘suffragism’ and ‘moral campaigning’; between the task of seeking women’s equal participation in the administration and work of the world, and that of liberating women from sexual slavery on the streets and in the marriage bed, as a fundamental step towards the achievement of equality in all other areas of social, economic and political life. However, it is also true that the ‘public’ and ‘private’ dimensions of women’s oppression were often confronted together: ‘Votes for Women and Chastity for Men’ (see Sheila Jeffrey? article). The basic commitment for ‘first wave’ feminists, as it remains for us today, was to expose the system of male power and to do something about it. As the articles in this issue indicate, there were then and there are now different theories about the ‘root cause’ of women’s oppression and different strategies for liberating the female sex. But despite the wealth of information offered here, the picture we have of the ‘first wave’ movements is far from complete. We need more time. We also need look in places we haven’t looked before. Perhaps an enlargement of our task-the investigation offeminist historywill lead us to a fuller understanding of the ‘first wave’feminist movements we know so muchand so little-about. ELIZABETH SARAH
524
EDITORIAL REFERENCES
Alexander, Sally and Davin, Anna. 1976. Feminist History. History Workshop. J. 1 (Spring): 4~6. Boxer, Marilyn J. 1982. ‘First wave’ feminism in nineteenth-century France: class, family and religion. Women’s Studies Int. Forum 5(6): 551-559. Forbes, Geraldine H. 1982. Caged tigers: ‘first wave’ feminists in India. Women’s Studies Int. Forum 5(6): 525-536 Rose, Phyllis. 1978. Woman qfLetters. A Life of’ Virginia Woo& Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Sarah, Elizabeth. 1982. Female performers on a male stage: the first women’s liberation movement and the authority of men, 1890-1930. In Friedman, Scarlet and Sarah, Elizabeth, eds, On the Problem qf Men: Two Feminist Conferences. The Women’s Press, London. Showalter, Elaine. 1978. A Literature ofTheir Own. British Women Nouelist.s,fiom BrontEto Lessing. Virago, London. Spender, Dale. 1982. Women of Ideas und What Men Have Done to Them. From Aphra Behn to Adrienne Rich. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Spender, Dale. Forthcoming 1983. There’s Always Been a Women’s Motirment. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.