Feminism, Futures Studies And The
Futures Of Feminist Research
by
Ivana Milojevic[1]
In 1995, we are part of thirty years of intensive feminist research. In
these thirty years, research conducted from a feminist perspective has gone
into many, sometimes even surprising, directions. Women's studies now deal with
women's issues from many different viewpoints, feminist writers and researchers
are coming from many different fields, traditions, and schools of thoughts. In
these article, I examine the relationship between feminist and future research
and also to contemplate how feminist research might possibly look in the
future.
FEMINIST RESEARCH IS FUTURE ORIENTED
In one respect, almost
every feminist research is inevitably futuristic. As feminism is a program for
social change, feminists are concerned with offering alternative visions of the
future. Change is also incorporated
into the feminist understanding of social reality. Seeing, for example, norms
of the objectivity, customs, law, religion, science, and other areas as
historically and socially constructed, gives greater opportunity for
redefinition, for reconstruction, for questioning givens, for more radical
transformation, for change. What is seen
as man made could be woman remade. Therefore, feminist research does not
only include extrapolation, forecasting, and analysis of current trends but
alternative visions, as well, even if these are seen by many as unfeasible
utopias.
However,
feminists tend to concentrate more on preferred visions and scenarios because
extrapolation does not give us much hope for the future. If the future is just
"a bit more of the same", then feminist goals would be achieved in
hundreds if not thousands (and hundred thousands) of years.
Of course, as there are many types of futures activities, the feminist
movement does not correspond to all of them. In terms of specializing for
different topics, or using different approaches there is a 'division of labor'
within futures field. Some believe that futures field should be filled with
analysis of trends, particularly analysis of technological developments or
predictions, and even one of the most potential futuristic areas, science
fiction, is predominantly derived from technological forecasting. Some
futurists still believe in the 'neutral' role of a scientist who merely stands
aside and marks, describes and predicts our nearby or distant future. On the
other hand, there are more and more futurists who believe in futurism which is
critical, value driven, and empancipatory, creating preferable futures.[2] It is as much an "academic field as it
is a social movement",[3] more concerned with creating instead of
predicting the future. One of the central techniques used in this type of a
futures work is empowerment. This technique is also used by many feminists.
Empowering is seen as something which "involves giving people the ability,
the power, to participate in the creation of their own futures".[4] Within this distinction feminism clearly
stands on the side of those who "study likely alternatives (the
probable)" and are more concerned about making 'choices to bring about a
particular future (the preferable)'.[5]
The main focus is in the area of social futures, with constant critical and
epistemological questioning about assumptions, paradigms, goals, values and
purposes. Feminists often reject different schemes, tables and other
'impersonal' tools, coming closer to ancient and even 'new age' futurism which
prefers intuition or imagination as specific subjective and qualitative
research methods.[6]
There
is also a clear distinction among futurists (in both approaches) who are more
in favor of pessimistic visioning, so called dystopias (or counter utopias)
concerned with catastrophes and decline and those who are incurably optimistic.
It is quite easy to locate feminism within these two traditions. As with most
other social movements (especially so called 'modern' ones) feminism promises
us a bright future if only we follow some of its main ideological principles.
Feminism not only chooses utopias consciously, it also needs them for many
futures are mostly redefined
ideological values and patterns, in accordance with short and long term
political, personal (with and linking relationship between the two) and social
goals. Without utopias, feminist ideology and activity would lose some of its
strength; while without ideology and praxis, feminist utopias would remain pure
ideals, inaccessible, out of history and social reality, more or less
irrelevant.[7]
In relationship to ideology, utopias, and movements, there is an
important question in front of feminists. How much is feminist research and
feminist output connected to the real world? And are feminist some sort of
women's elite, who actually don't represent anyone else but themselves? We know that there is sometimes a huge
discrepancy between most 'ordinary' women's and feminist's opinions and
attitudes. Here a few important points have to be made.
First,
since gender roles are one of the most strongly defined among all of our roles,
viewed as natural and not susceptible for a change, it is not surprising that a
perspective which challenges deeply rooted believes confronts so much
resistance, both by men and women (who have internalized basic patriarchal
values); Second, feminism defines itself in terms of having an open
approach, and feminist researchers do try and listen to the women they are
researching, such that in many cases the starting hypothesis is changed and
redefined (as with participatory action research); Third, most women do
agree with feminist goals and ideas, but resist defining themselves as feminist
since from the beginning of the feminist movement, there has been so much
condemnation and sneering at feminists.
However,
feminist research has proven to be 'successful' in uncovering hidden structural
phenomena, in inquiry that goes a step further from superficial reality. After
the first shock, feminism has proven to be capable of real futuristic research,
since with times more and more women have accepted feminist views partly
because of the positive feedback that has come through realized futures,
through societal changes. Issues like sexual harrassement have become common
place finding their space even in such traditional (patriarchal) areas like
women's magazines and talk shows. Apart from its roles in changing
consciousness some concrete measures have also occurred as a result of feminist
inquiry. After discussing ways of achieving desirable visions, feminist offer
propositions that can make a difference, that can be a stimulus for social
change. Some of those propositions have became property of many social
movements, parties, agendas, and even UN conventions. The results of research
to a certain extent has changed previous attitudes and the ways reality was
seen. It has therefore influenced policy makers as well, both on local and
global level. By showing the subordinated position women are in, "positive
discrimination", changes in representation quotas has resulted, thus
improving conditions in many areas. That is the reason that the knowledge and research are, within feminism,
repeatedly seen as means for altering facts, for altering data, for altering
conditions in human societies. Both production of theory and production of
knowledge are seen as political activities, moreover they are also seen as
power itself.
Feminist
research is supposed to be politically 'correct', and it is supposed to help us
achieve better society. Feminists want to understand and explain but moreover
they want to emancipate and transform. That is the reason that it is often
stressed that research must be designed in such a way to provide insights and
visions and to establish a dialogue with the future.
DIALOGUE BETWEEN FEMINISM AND FUTURES
STUDIES
This dialogue between
feminism and futures is something which is still missing although feminism has a futuristic
note and although future studies has became more gender conscious with years.
Feminists would be able to benefit largely from using some specific futures
methodological tools, mainly backcasting, where utopias, and current goals are
be connected more tightly, where strategy results not from means-end planning
but from envisioning a desired future, believing it has occurred and then
working backward to "anticipate" how it occurred. Of course, not just
backcasting but any futurist's ways of exploring future possibilities,
alternatives and choices, purposes, goals and intentions, their experience in
planning and decision-making, use of metaphors, emerging issues and layered
causal analysis, as well as constant critical and epistemological future
studies questioning of assumptions, paradigms and purposes, can only be
beneficial for the feminist research. What-if questions and scenarios could
help us move from the present even more dramatically and thus create the real
possibilities for new futures. Futurists involved in participatory and
emancipatory futures activities are concerned with the preparation of people
for changing the future, and even if the changes are through technological
development they are largely considered in the context of cultural goals,
generated from different spheres including grassroots activities. Many futurist
as well as many feminists believe that the real change begins at the grassroots
and that is the preferred change in contrast to directed one from the
government and power positions. This
focus on grassroots activities is a crucial point of convergence between
futurists and feminists.
Feminist should consider seriously getting involved in futures reasons
for some pragmatic reasons as well. Our time is characterized by increased
interest for future studies, whether because of the approaching
"mellinium" or because of the unprecedented nature of technological
change, the future has arrived. The number of publication and members in
futuristic societies are largely increasing every year, and furthermore, within
almost every separate scientific discipline, the futures approach is developing
either as separate area or continuumum of what has been researched.[8]
Through the future studies field feminism can spread its influence to many
different areas which could be otherwise closed. Through a dialogue both fields
can enrich themselves.
In
the next part of the article I discuss the feminist critique of the futures
field and argue that futures studies should include feminist perspective in its
dominant knowledge paradigm.
FUTURE FUTURE RESEARCH SHOULD BE
GENDER CONSCIOUS
Future
studies should have the most flexible, the most diverse, and sometimes even
surprising approach since their field of study exists in the unlimited human
mind rather then in already given events and data. But futrues studies also
generates and follows epistemological and methodological practices from already
existing social sciences. The work we are doing is inevitably limited not only
because of traditional opinions in science, notions and theories which rules
scientific thinking in certain periods, but also because of our own interests,
values, dreams and visions.
Critics
of the research in the field of future studies argues that this field is also
burdened with a male-centred bias. We could start with showing what is the
proportion of women and man in the field, for example, we could show their
participation in World Future Society, World Future Studies Federation, as well
as in government planning agencies, among policy makers and others who control
important political decision.[9]
We could also analyse the sexism in titles, constant use of pronoun 'he' and
noun 'man' when discussing 'universal' issues (though lately, language has
become more sensitive), lack of topics of concern to women, etc.
A
deeper approach would include a critique of current methodologies and
epistemologies in the field. Patricia Huckle, for example, stresses that much
of future research methodologies is controlled by man and male viewpoints.[10] She points out at the use of
"experts" and the way problems are chosen in methods like Delphi
technique or in developing future scenarios. Women would not chose experts but
would prefer small groups, working together in an egalitarian environment to
solve agreed upon problems. She further claims that not only methods closer to
"science fiction" (science-fiction writing is, as she points out,
also quite different when writting from feminist perspective) represents the
man point of view, but that trend extrapolation, cross impact matrices,
quantifiable data for identifying alternative future, simulation modeling,
simulation gaming and technological forecasting also "suffer from the
limits of available data and ideological assumptions". The questions
asked, the statistics collected, the larger framework of knowledge remain
technocratic--and thus male in the sense that they avoid issues central to
women.
However,
most assumptions futurists hold about the future, feminists share as well.
Those would be: that the future is not predetermined and thus not predictable;
that the range of alternative futures exists, and; that the future will be
(from minor to major changes) different in many respects from the present
world.
However,
among basic assumptions about the future belong another one which would be very
problematic seen from a feminist perspective. And that is that the notion that
future outcomes can be influenced by individual choices and that individuals
are solely responsible for the future.[11] While this is certainly true on one level,
this assumption has to be put into social context, reinforced with the concept
of power and the availability of the choices. Otherwise it would represent
typical Western and male way of looking at those enpoverished women bounded by
tradition, family, society, economy or politics. In its bare form it further
assumes position of power, stability, democratic and moderately rich environment.
Unfortunately, for the vast majority of people the future does just happen to
them. Black and white, aggressor/victim theory would not contribute much to the
discussion. But, for example, let us consider the future (or past which was
future once) of those who were colonized. Some people attempt to avoid or
resist colonization, but for most whatever they attempted to do, colonization
was a given, almost like a physical force in a form of tornado. The
unavailability of choices also implies to people in war zones, ordinary
citizens, children abused by adults, young women sold as sex slaves, and
unfortunately, many, many others. When looking at the metaphor for choices,
that one of using road map to get to particular destination, it is forgotten
that most people in our global world, and women especially, do not possess
neither map nor a car. Furthermore, put in the mentioned situation they would
not know how to read the map as it is a product limited to a particular culture
and particular class. To conclude, there are many things we, as humans, or as a
particular group of people, can do about the changing conditions of our lives,
about influencing our future. But, there are maybe even more things, we as a
particular group of people, individual or family unit, can do nothing about,
since we exist within given historical social and world structures (gender, of
course, being one of these historical structures).
There
is also one very specific area in which many feminists see the most danger in
having male-dominated future's research and that is the area of controlled
reproduction.[12] Man has
been trying to control and dominate women's participation in procreation at
least since the beginning of the patriarchy, and current development of medical
science might enable them to gain almost complete control over human
reproduction. This would totally marginalize women, as they would be enterily
removed from the reproductive biological cycle. Feminists argue that in this
crucial area of future of the humanity and human evolution women's approach
must be of extreme importance. This is so not only because these are our bodies
and genes involved, but as welll because women were largely responsible for
human reproduction from the beginning of our species existence, our identities
have become to a large extent based on this biological history. Of course,
cutting this responsibility could be by some seen as liberating for women's
destinies (they would escaped childbirth and possibly childrearing), but what
is worrisome is that it could further decrease woman's say in what would be our
common future. Developments in genetics are occuring without women's voices,
Bonnie Spanier argues in her Im/Partial Science: Gender Ideology in Moecular
Biology[13] nongendered
bacteria are described in gendered terms, often reinscribing
dominant/subordinate relationships. Even the building blocks of life (and they
are being transformed by new technlogies) are not immune from sexual ideology.
Unfortunately,
it is not only medicine and biology where women do not have control over the
research agenda. Women's participation in science in general is still very
limited, and so it is in the futures field.
However, there are many reasons why women should be included in this
field.
(1) Women's
role in many societies is changing rapidly, women are becoming more visible in
many public areas. Statistically, we represent at least half of the humanity,
and in the future women could significantly outnumber men (given the
improvement in health and the fact of longer life expectation). The importance
of physical force is decreasing with new technological changes so another
argument for women's subordinated position is disappearing.
(2) Eleonora
Masini argues that women can create alternatives for future better then men
because of certain individual (flexibility, rapid response to emergency
situations, superimposition of tasks, definite priorities and adaptability) and
social capacities (solidarity, exchange, overcoming of barriers). She also
shows the impressive range of women's activities in many social movements such
as peace, human rights and ecological movement. These activities will influence
the future, less in terms of obvious revolution and more in terms of "an
important, slow historical process of change",[14]
in creating a global civil society.
(3) Many
futurist perfer not to predict how the future would look like, seeing
prediction as a mere extension of present data. They would rather see futures
(and use such methods) which would bring better lives for the majority in the
world community. As for women, wherever we look, no matter how bad conditions
men are in, women's conditions are always worse. According to data
extrapolation, women will continue to suffer from poverty, violence,
malnutrition, physical and mental abuse. We will also continue to be
disadvantaged in employment, education, politics, health, law, and planning,
i.e. in "controlling" the future. Clearly, women have an important
say in how and what methods are used in understanding and creating the future,
particularly in exploring partnership visions of the futures.
(4) Most
social scientist agree that we are entering a new era. The names range from
'postindustrial' to 'information' or 'tourist, traveling' societies but what is
characteristic for the time we live in is that, like in all other major
transitions in the past, we witness huge changes in almost every aspect of our
lives. One of the main area where those changes are taking place is in our
systems of belief and ways of knowing. Many intellectual see this era as the
end of the domination of the Western civilization, which has reached its peak
and which could collapse or it could be qualitatively transformed. In many
respects, not only women's but the future of the humanity does not promise much
if we don't radically change our ways
of exploiting the nature, organizing society, treating the "other",
dealing with differences. Feminist visionaries could give important
contribution in making alternative ways of living and thinking, in describing the
transition into this new era.
(5) Even
while there is a visionary dimension to futures studies, at the same time, the
Future field is in some ways responsible for maintenance of the status quo. As
Slaughter argues: "Many of the major institutional centers of futures
activity have tended to maintain close links with the centers of social and
economic power. Future research, forecasting, and education appear to be
dependent upon government or corporate support and hence constrained to varying
degrees by given definitions, imperatives, and economic structures".[15]
Slaughter also points out that the field remains strongly associated with North
America and that many of the future studies institutionalized forums has became
associated with the needs of relatively powerful groups. This would represent
an artificial narrowing of vision, a closure rather than an expansion.[16]
Extending futures field by critical approaches, feminist and others, could help
remove these limitations.
PRINCIPLES FOR NON-SEXIST FUTURE RESEARCH[17]
Feminist researchers developed several epistemological principles for
gender conscious research. Cook and Fonow summarize them in five basic ones:[18]
(1) acknowledging
the pervasive influence of gender;
(2) focus
on consciousness-raising;
(3) rejection
of the subject/object separation and assumption that personal experience is unscientific;
(4) concern
for the ethical implications of research;
(5) emphasis
on the empowerment of women and transformation of
patriarchal
social institutions through research.
In
similar way Margrit Eichler gives four epistemological principles or rather
propositions which she derives from the basic postulate of the sociology of
knowledge. Those principles are:
(1) all
knowledge is socially constructed;
(2) the
dominant ideology is that of the ruling group;
(3) there
is no such thing as value-free science and the social
science
so far have served and reflected men's interests;
(4) and
because people's perspective varies systematically with their position in society, the perspectives of men and women differ.[19]
Besides this epistemological principles feminist have made few changes
within social science methodology. Methods used in feminist research are
actually ones which already exist and are recognizable tools in social
sciences. What is new is the way they
are applied, more precisely the thematic content they are used within. Thematic
content is changed in two main ways:
(1) already existing data and
"facts" are re-examined and reinterpreted from a new perspective, and
(2) previously non-existing phenomena
or those considered of no importance are analyzed (childbirth, housework, wife
abuse, rape, incest, divorce, widowhood, infertility, sexual harassment,
pornography, prostitution, women's thoughts from private letters, memoirs,
diaries, journals) and stress is given to some crisis situations which
demystify the assumed naturalness of patriarchy.
If futures research wants to be non-sexist or rather
feminist-gender-conscious it does not have to follow all of the principles but
at least a few. It is also important to pay attention and avoid sexism in
titles, in language, in concepts, in research designs, in methods, in data
interpretation and in policy evaluation.[20] Future feminist research (done by those who
share the values of feminism and futures studies) must take into account rapid
changes and rethink some of the methods used. For example, within futures field
topics such as future childbirth have been discussed but some of the very
important question have not been stressed enough. We know quite a bit about
possibilities for having children produced in artificial wombs, about genetic
engineering and choices enabled by technological developments; however,
questions such as: what would that mean for the babies and women, how would
their experience look like, what would artificial upbringing mean to the
relationship between mother and her children, are women still going to have the
right to breastfeed, who is going to decide about how many babies is particular
women going to have, and many others, have rarely been raised. Here, futures
research still stays in the secure domain of technological forecasting, unable
to reveal the circulation of power in particular futures.
Past and current feminist research rediscovered
women's history and their existence as people and persons rather then just in
terms of their relationship to men, mostly through women's private letters and
diaries. Some questions about the future would include, for example, how would
feminist research draw conclusion on women's thoughts in the time of
depersonalized personal computers, who has control over communication process
and is women's work going to disappear from hard drives and diskettes as it had
disappeared through other forms of written history? Or questions about the
future of the housework: If housework is going to be done with the help of
robots, who is going to make the software, whose priorities within the
household are going to be respected, those of men, women or children? Many other
have to be raised and that is where futures feminist research should channel
its energy.
THE FUTURE OF THE FEMINIST RESEARCH
In order to discuss what would be the future of feminist research I
would like to quickly skim through the history and main changes in research
done by feminist. When we talk about its relationship with science, feminist
research has gone through three main phases. In the first phase, feminist
authors discovered women's absence from the mainstream, or, how it is sometimes
called, malestream science, accusing it for being sexist, partial, biased, with
strong patriarchal values incorporated into "objective" theories and
data. In the second phase, the
inclusion (re)discovery of female voices, histories, thoughts, beliefs, lives
and visions resulted, mostly through qualitative approaches. So after the
initial deconstructionalist phase, we gained research about women done by women
and for women. The Third phase would
result in some kind of synthesis, in the incorporation of feminist research
into a transformed mainstream science and realization by feminists that only if
they research men as well as women can they develop a feminist science. [21]
In this phase deconstruction also becomes more radical by challenging the
category of women (and men) itself.
Following
the current efforts and inclinations we would expect that feminist research
would go even more towards interdisciplinary approach, and become more and more
diverse, and more future focused. In addition, to a more future focus, the last
decade has seen feminism become more civilizationally and cultural sensitive.
The feminist movement has become increasingly aware of overgeneralizations,
especially implementations of Western feminist positions to the other parts of
world. We, as women, do share similar destinies, but it has become obvious that
not the same solutions can apply everywhere. Aminata Traore, for example,
stresses that:
They
(Western feminist) have appropriated to themselves the right to interfere in
our affairs, to dissect and pass judgement on them and to draw conclusions that
have sometimes become action programs against which we can do nothing....
Together they want to liberate us from our cultural realities which they regard
as archaic, and from our governments which they consider to be corrupt... In
Africa the greatest impediments to women's advancement are economic and
political. But international thinking merely condemns our societies and our
cultures."[22]
She also points out that many African
women are determined to distinguish themselves from Western feminism, so many
women's associations insist on being regarded as "feminine" rather
than "feminist". The same implies to many other women, including
Muslim women, women from former socialist countries or Chinese women who also
coined a new term and would like to be seen as involved in
"feminology" instead in "feminism". Although the Western
approach has been predominant so far within the feminist movement, voices of
women from other traditions are increasingly heard, and are shaping the future
of the feminist movement, itself. It is interesting to notice the different
perception of Muslim and other women in the example of veiling. While, for most
Western feminists, veiling and other forms of women's covering could mean
nothing but the horror, the ultimate in women's oppression, for most Muslim
women, the experience is quite the opposite. For them, head scarves and long
sleeves may be experienced as a sensible way to dress in the hot climate, it
can mean a statement of support for their religious beliefs, or an economic way
to dress, the choice to live peacefully among neighbors, or the protection
against sexual harassment. Embrace of fundamentalism, so scary for Westerners
if it is not the fundamentalism of their own, could actually be the path to
liberation for many Muslim women. They could use religion as their protection
and a way of confronting men, seeing Western women as disadvantaged as they
could turn only to less confining abstract morality and concrete law. [23]
Inclusion of "the Other" has helped feminism see certain
contradictions, like, for example, "The contradiction between liberalism
(as patriarchal and individualist in structure and ideology) and feminism (as
sexual egalitarian and collectivist)". [24]
So while most Western feminists start "with a recognition of freedom of
choice, individuality, and 'rights'", these concepts are "specified
in terms of the way that Patriarchy organizes racial and economic
inequality". [25]
Feminism
has learned a great deal from the inclusion of other perspectives. This has been further encouraged by the
influence of postmodernism. While feminists have criticized many of the
malestream theories which would claim to speak universal truths,
"particularly in the early days of feminist theory, many accounts that
aimed for explanations of male/female relations across large sweeps of history
were proposed. Moreover, and this is a tendency that continues, many feminist
writings have included statements containing terms such as man, women, sex,
sexism, rape, body, nature, mothering, without any historical or societal
qualifiers attached." [26] "The production of grand social
theories, which by definition attempt to speak for all women, was disrupted by
the political pressures put upon such theorizing by those left out of it - poor
and working-class women, women of color, lesbians, differently-abled women, fat
women, older women".[27] For Linda Nicholson postmodernism then
"appeared as an important movement for helping feminists uncover that
which was theoretically problematic in much modern political and social theory.
Postmodernism was also useful in helping feminism eradicate those elements
within itself that prevented an adequate theorization of differences among
women". [28] She further
concludes, that what "postmodernism adds to feminism is an expansion of
the widely held feminist dictum "The personal is political" to
include the dictum "the epistemic is political", as well. [29]
It is interesting to point out that feminism through this embrace of
postmodernism stay critical, if not sometimes sarcastic, towards some of its
conceptions: "Surely it is no coincidence that the Western white male
elite proclaimed the death of the subject at precisely the moment at which it
might have had to share that status with the women and peoples of other races
and classes who were beginning to challenge its supremacy". [30]
While feminism might "use" postmodernism for its own purposes, it
tries to remain that critical note, which has been present from the very beginning
in feminist research.
Futures
studies, of course, have been involved in a similar broadening. While Mary Daly
argues that "patriarchy appears to be 'everywhere'", and that
"even outer space and the future have been colonized" [31],
it seems that "the future" as a category in itself is being
decolonized. Or at least, colonizers have been exposed. Instead of only being
concerned about technological forecasting, images of the future based on
discrete civilizational categories are increasingly being explored. [32] Moreover, the field in itself has been
challenged as being overly male, Western, not just in terms of its participants
but in terms of the knowledge categories used.
Thus more voices are entering "the future" as they are
entering "the feminism", at one level contesting these fields and
another level creatively re-making them based on different cultural histories.
The
need for expanding the feminist field so it can include non-Western
perspectives, Ann Curhoys has called 'the three body problem' of feminism
(class, race and gender analysis). Since there is an infinite complexity at any
level of analysis, many choose only one concept or at the most two. Trying to
incorporates all three concept into research makes analysis too complex to
handle. However, despite all the difficulties, incorporation of cultural and
ethnic diversity as central, rather than a marginal or "added on"
issue, becomes the basic task for future feminist research if it wants to form
the basis for an adequate social theory. [33]
Besides the need to
incorporate culture, religion, race, age and class analysis, future feminist
research has to consider technological and societal changes as well. Already
research by such writers as Donna Harraway in her excellent Simians,
Cyborgs, and Women [34]
has begun the process of locating feminism in the emerging new technologies.
More
research is needed on the feminist response to current world problems such are
energy crises, increase in unemployment and poverty, increase in social
differentiation, in pollution, in violence, to mention just the few areas of
research. How would feminism see the way out of these problem and what would be
its solutions for the future? In trying to give certain visions and preferable
scenarios for the future, futures feminist research would be increasingly
beginning with the experience of women as central, and the traditional
malestream approach as "the Other". Up till now feminist research
mostly began the other way around. For example, Kathy Ferguson titles her book,
The Man Question instead of phrasing
it in the traditional way ("The Women question" as socialists did).
The time has come for a change, since feminism have gained so much in its
strength. Even if the actual movement is not so present in the streets and mass
gathering, women's movement in West has became incorporated within most public
spheres, within the categories men and women use to see. Some believe that this
success means that feminism is dead, therefore we cannot speak about any future
feminist research. "I realized finally that feminism, as such, was
finished forever: a victim of its own success. Better that women get on with
it--with working, writing, teaching, driving taxis, whatever--and stop thinking
about themselves a s a special sub-species of the human race, in need of
special attention." [35]
My
opinion is that this is too good to be true and that while feminism has
achieved some things in some countries, as long as women continue to do two
thirds of the work on this planet, earning and owning less then 10% of world's
resources, and as long as women stay discriminated in almost every single area
of human life, we need a feminist research. Feminism gave us new vision on
gender issues, it has became one of the central tools in gender analysis and
there is no reason to abandon it at this point in history.
On
the contrary, feminism is becoming a world phenomenon with a growing feminist
consciousness in developing and poor countries. It does face a backlash all
over the world as well, but what is more important is that feminism is
increasingly becoming part of the dominant scientific paradigm, particularly in
Western societies (sexism is much easier to criticise and institutions are
forced to make gender changes to accomodate women). Because of its strength it
can now afford to be criticized, especially from the position of non-white,
non-western, non-middle/upper class women. Malestream universalism is then
challenged not with another universalism but with the approach which is
inherently open, more inclusive with true calls for diversity and difference.
Feminism then has only few 'givens' and everything else is to be open for
discussion and redefinition. Through all the differences, all feminist and vast
majority of women concerned with improving women's position within their
societies agree that it is necessary to understand women's subordination and to
emancipate us. Analysis of causes of subordination as well as how emancipation
is to be achieved vary, so we could expect to see different solution depending
on a position taken. Feminist research will be different if taken from liberal,
marxist, socialist, radical, reformist, black, lesbian, or anarchist feminism,
and it will go in quite different directions if taken by Muslim, feminologist
or within feminine approach. This diversity can only enrich current feminism
and help think about how to achieve more just societies.
When we talk about changes in feminist theory and epistemology we should
remember that feminist methods did not appear completely independently, out of
nowhere. They represent historical development within both science and society.
The stimulus from society came mostly through democratization
(industrialization) of Western societies in this century and feminist
movements. Within social sciences, feminist methods and principle of feminist
research follow several traditions such as: hermeneutics (inclusion of the
subjective into the research), critical theory (orientation towards action,
social change and emancipation), empiricism (partialities and biases are
correctable through methodological improvements), postmodern approach
(skepticism about universal "truths" and universalizing statements
based on inevitably partial knowledge), standpoint epistemology (in their view
that those who are less powerful have access to more complete knowledge through
so called double vision). In that sense, the future of feminist research will
also be connected with the changes both in science and in wider societies.
Riane Eisler sees questioning of sex roles and relations as a part of a broader
movement towards greater democracy and egalitarianism. This global movement for
change happens in both private and public spheres with attempts to create a
world in which the principles of partnership rather than domination and
submission are primary, "the world of greater partnership and peace, not
only between men and women but between the diverse nations, races, religions
and ethnic groups on our planet".[36] Most futurists, at least those within
critical and emancipatory tradition, are part of this global movement. So are
most feminists. In that sense it is extremely important to establish dialogue
between all of those who claim to be trying to achieve more just societies.
This concern, how to think and make an "ideal" society, has been
present for thousands of years. Throughout our recorded history different forms
of domination had been challenged. Priests and wizards, kings and chiefs, rich
and white, male and old, they all had seen at least some of their powers
diminished. At the same time, we are almost as far from society which would be
free from injustices, victims, oppressed and discriminated, as we have ever
been. There is enough data to support the view that, in terms of justice,
nothing had been and cannot be done.
At
least four different (philosophical) viewpoints crystallized on transformations
of human societies experienced since the beginning of our history, in terms of
discriminations and improvement of our societal organization:
(1) History
is linear in the sense that every new society represents
different but at the same time more developed and "better" way of organizing our lives.
(2)
History is linear in the sense that every new society represents further withdrawal of who we really
are. Eventually, this direction
will lead us to total distraction, humans
as a species will stop to exist.
(3) History
is cyclical: every new society is in some ways better
and
in some ways worst then the lost one. But there is no real
improvement
in our lives, nothing is forever, i.e. everything
is
susceptible to change and can go either way.
(4) History
is static: there had not been any improvement in human
lives,
there were and will always be oppressors and oppressed,
just
names are changing, and different groups are getting into
first
or second category.
So,
what could be the future of the dispowered half of the humanity that are women?
Our future is seen differently from feminist and non-feminist (all others)
perspective, and at the same time it will effect any research done in the
future, as part of the wider societal influence. Here I will look at the four
possible scenarios and what would each mean for futures feminist research.
history valued |
basic categories |
women |
future |
linear positive |
improvement |
changes in franchise, laws,
educa-tion, employ-ment, etc. |
women and men as equal partners |
linear negative |
decrease |
fall from matriarchy |
women fight back for lost empire |
cyclical |
no change or minor changes |
always oppressed,
but within different patterns |
possibility for positive change,
less oppressed in the future |
static |
no change |
destined by sex and biology |
women will continue to be
"second sex" |
(1) The
first scenario would be the most preferable one. It views history as the path
in which basic human rights are increasingly met, and those of women in
particular. Women are entering and changing most public areas, even those who
were for thousands of years reserved exclusively for man. This improvement,
although it could come under minor backlashes, will continue throughout our
future. Future will see women and man as equal partners, it will be realizing
of the utopia in which people would be seen primarily as individuals and not in
the terms of their belonging to certain gender, race, class, nation or
religion.
(2) The second scenario is one of
decline in which history is seen as the continuous lose from our real selves,
from nature and Goddesses. The last 5, 000 years represent the continuous
decline for women, their fall from matriarchy after they became the first
slaves. Female deities, reflecting women's culture and women's power,
universally accepted by humankind until the modern era of immediate
pre-industrial societies are forever lost. But women should not accept this
fall, they should appropriate the Amazon myth and exclude themselves from men,
which would be the only way to liberate ourselves.
(3) In
the third scenario, the cycle is the most powerful metaphor. Women had been
always oppressed, even in matriarchal societies, when the matriarchy purely
ment that genealogy was feminine. Women's oppression follows different
patterns, it varies in different societies and different period of times, so
that could give us some hope for the future. Even women will always be
dominated by man, their oppression could be lessen by appropriate government or
religious measures. It will also be influence by major societal changes in
which the quality of life for all will be improved. The cycle promises
temporary liberation, for the strong shall fall and the weak rise, but they too
fill fall.
(4) The
fourth scenario is one in which changes are perceived to be minor. Women are
destined by their sex and biology, and even if liberated from reproduction
through technology, their physics would never allow them to gain equal status.
Women's minds are still, and will always be, in the hands of their bodies, and
in that sense remaining 'second citizens' would be the just and only possible
future.
Depending
on a person's position different scenario would be chosen as a solution for the
future. Within the feminist field, different solutions would be chosen from
liberal or radical position. In the example of the scientific inquiry, while
liberal feminists would see futures feminist research see as incorporating a
better sample and a greater number of women researchers, radical feminist would
not be satisfied if every aspect of our lives is not challenged and questioned.
Certainly, the future will be different for different women, and that is
something futures feminist research will have to deal with. Feminism is
constantly testing, constantly destabilizing social relations, challenging
social conditions. Just as in emancipatory futures, the goal is to constant
recreate the future, recreate new visions, create new possibilities, never end
up with a utopia, since as Ashis Nandy writes, "today's utopia is
tomorrow's nightmare."[37].
However,
for feminists, there are concrete goals that must be realized, the day
to day life of girls and women (as well boys and men depend on it). Thus, to
conclude, we (feminist, women, people) should hope that the future will see the
realization of the first scenario. That would be of crucial importance for our
common future, women's future and the future of feminist research. As Sandra Harding
points out "we will have a feminist science fully coherent with its
epistemological strategies only when we have a feminist society".[38]
Futures feminist research will be shaped by its tradition and developments
within feminism, science and society. Of course, since since the future is an
open space, the real character of the futures feminist research is yet to be
seen.
[1]. Ivana
Milojevic is an assistant at the University of Novi Sad, Serbia, currently on
leave and living in Brisbane, Australia.
I would like to thank June Lennie and Sohail Inayatullah for providing
me with research materials and editorial assistance.
[2]. For
an analysis of the futurists field see, for example,
Roy Amara, "Searching for Definitions and Boundaries", The
Futurist, February 1981, pages 25-29; Roy Amara, "How to Tell Good
Work from Bad", The Futurist, April 1981, pages 63-71; Roy Amara,
"Which Direction Now", The Futurist, June 1981, pages 42-46;
Richard A. Slaughter, "Towards a Critical Futurism", three articles
in the World Future Society Bulletin, in following issues July/August
1984 (pages 19-25), September/October 1984 (pages 11-16 and 17-21); Somporn
Sangchai, Some Aspects of Futurism, (Honolulu, Hawaii Research Center
for Futures Study, 1974); and Richard A. Slaughter, editor, "The Knowledge
Base of Futures Studies", special issue, Futures, April 1993,
25(3).
[3]. Sohail
Inayatullah, "Epistemologies and Methods in Futures Studies" page 3
in Richard Slaughter, ed., The Knowledge Base of Futures Studies
(Melbourne, Futures Study Centre, 1995).
[4]. Martha
J. Garrett, "A Way Through the Maze: What futurists do and how they do
it", Futures, April 1993, 25(3), page 271
[5]. Roy
Amara, "Searching for Definitions and Boundaries", The Futurist, February
1981, page 26.
[6]. However,
some authors claim that since the feminism is a perspective and not a research
method, feminist scan use a multiplicity of research methods and they, in fact,
do so. See, for example, Shulamit Reinharz, Feminist Methods in Social Research,
(New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1992), page 240. Her analysis on
feminist use of different methods is as follows: "Some feminists argue
that there is no special affinity between feminism and a particular research
method. Other support interpretive, qualitative research methods; advocate
positivist, 'objective' methods; or value combining the two. Some imply 'use
what works', others 'use what you know', and others 'use what will
convince'." (page 14)
[7]. For
the relationship between utopias and ideology see Herbert Marcuse, "The
End of Utopia", and Karl Manhajm, "Ideology and Utopia", in
Miodrag Rankovic, Sociologija i futurologija (Sociology and Futurology),
(Belgrade, Institut za socioloska istrazivanja Filozofskog fakulteta u
Beogradu, 1995).
[8]. See,
for example, Richard Slaughter, ed., The Knowledge Base of Futures Studies
(Melbourne, Futures Study Centre, 1995).
[9]. A
glance at membership directors and the gender distribution of articles
published in futures journals and magazines quickly makes this point.
[10]. Patricia
Huckle, "Feminism: A Catalyst for the Future", in Jan Zimmerman,
editor, The Technological Woman (Praeger, New York, 1983).
[11]. See,
for example, Geofreey H. Fletcher, "Key Concepts in the Futures
Perspective", World Future Society Bulletin, January- February
1979, pages 25-31; Roy Amara, "Searching for Definitions and
Boundaries", The Futurist, February 1981, page 25; Richard A.
Slaughter, Futures: Tools and Techniques, (Melbourne, Futures Study
Centre, 1995).
[12]. See,
Susan Downie, Baby Making: The Technology and Ethics (London, The Bodley
Head, 1988).
[13]. Bonnie
Spanier, IM/Partial Science: Gender Ideology in Molecular Biology
(Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1995).
[14]. Eleonora
Masini, Women as Builders of Alternative Futures. Report Number 11,
Centre for European Studies, Universitat Trier, 1993.
[15]. Richard Slaughter, "Towards a
Critical Futurism", World Future Society Bulletin,
September/October 1984, pg 13.
[16]. Ibid, July/August 1984, page 19.
[17].
Feminist literature used for the article (besides books and articles
already mentioned in other footnotes): Helen Roberts, ed., Doing Feminist
Research, (London and New York, Routledge, 1990); Joyce McCarl Nielsen,
ed., Feminist Research Methods: Exemplary Readings in the Social Sciences,
(Boulder, San Francisco, & London, 1990); Ruth Bleir, ed., Feminist
Approaches to Science, (Pergamon Press, 1988); Pamela Abbott and Claire
Wallace, An Introduction to Sociology: Feminist Perspectives, (London
and New York, Routledge, 1992), particularly chapter 1 (Introduction: the
feminist critique of malestream sociology and the way forward) and 9 (The
production of feminist knowledge); Zarana Papic, Sociologija i feminizam,(Sociology
and Feminism) (IIC SSOS, Belgrade 1989), Jane Butler Kahle, ed., Women in
Science, (Philadelphia and London,
The Falmer Press, 1985); Margaret Alic, Hypatia's Heritage: A History of
Women in Science from Antiquity to the Late Nineteenth Century, (London,
The Women's Press, 1990); Cheris Kramarae and Paula A. Treichler, A Feminist
Dictionary, (London, Pandora, 1989); Maggie Humm, The Dictionary of
Feminist Theory, (London, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1989).
[18]. Judith
A. Cook and Mary Margaret Fonow, "Knowledge and Women's Interests: Issues
of Epistemology and Methodology in Feminist Sociological Research:, in Joyce
McCarl Nielsen, editor, Feminist Research Methods, (London, Westview
Press, 1990).
[19]. Margrit
Eichler, "And the Work Never Ends: Feminist Contributions", Canadian Review of Sociology and
Anthropology, 22, 1985, pages 619-644, from Liz Stanley, editor, Feminist
Praxis: Research, Theory and Epistemology in Feminist Sociology, (London,
Routledge, 1990).
[20]. Magrit
Eichler, Non-Sexist Research Methods, (London, Allen and Unwin, 1988),
from Pamela Abbott and Claire Wallace, An introduction to sociology:
feminist perspectives, (London, Routledge, 1992) pages 208-209.
[21]. Kathy E. Ferguson, The Man
Question: Visions of Subjectivity in Feminist Theory, (Berkeley, University
of California Press, 1993).
[22]. Aminata
Traore, "The South: A Joint Struggle", in The Unesco Courier,
September 1995, pages 9 and 11.
[23]. Christopher
Dickey, "The Islamic World: Bride, Slave or Warrior", in Newsweek,
September 12, 1994, pages 13-17.
[24]. Zillah
R. Eisenstein, The Radical Future of Liberal Feminism (Boston, USA,
Northeastern University Press, 1993), page 3.
[25]. Ibid.
[26]. Linda
Nicholson, 'Feminism and the Politics of Postmodernism', in Margaret Ferguson
and Jennifer Wicke, Feminism and Postmodernism, (Durhan and London, Duke
University Press, 1994), pages 69-86.
[27]. Patti
Lather, Getting Smart, Feminist Research and Pedagogy with/in the
Postmodern, (New York, London, Routledge, 1991), page 27.
[28]. Linda
Nicholson, ibid., page 76
[29]. Ibid. page 85.
[30]. Fox-Genovese, quoted in Patti Lather,
Ibid. page 28.
[31]. Mary
Daly, Gyn\Ecology, The Metaethics of Radical Feminism, (Boston, Beacon,
1978, page 1), quote from Zillah R. Eisenstein, The Radical Future of
Liberal Feminism (Boston, Northeastern University Press, 1993), page 18.
[32]. Eleonora
Masini and Yogesh Atal, eds., The Futures of Asian Cultures, Bangkok,
UNESCO, 1993, and Eleonora Masini and Albert Sasson, eds., The Futures of
Cultures, Paris, UNESCO 1994.
[33]. Ann
Curthoys, "The Three Body Problem: Feminism and Chaos Theory", Hecate,
17(1), 1991, pages 14-21.
[34]. Donna
Haraway, Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (New
York, Routledge, 1991).
[35]. Anne
Applebaum, "The Perils (yawn) of poor Naomi", The Courier-Mail,
Brisbane, Australia, October 18, 1995, page 15
[36]. Riane
Eisler, "A Time for Partnership", in The UNESCO Courier,
September 1995, pages 5-7.
[37]. Ashis
Nandy, Tyranny, Utopias and Traditions (Delhi, Oxford, 1987) page 13.
[38]. Sandra
Harding, The Science Question in Feminism, (Milton Keynes, England, Open
University Press, 1986), page 141.