Weiler - - flarvardlithicational - v.61 n'o.4'pp.449~474' ....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–21. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 8
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 10
Background image of page 11

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 12
Background image of page 13

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 14
Background image of page 15

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 16
Background image of page 17

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 18
Background image of page 19

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 20
Background image of page 21
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: - flarvardlithicational - v.61 n'o.4'pp.449~474' . @1991 Harvard Education Publishing Group ' I Freire and a Feminist Pedagogy of Difference KATHLEEN WEILER In this article, Kathleen Weiler presents a feminist critique that challenges traditional Western knowledge systems. As an educator, Wetter is interested in the implications of this critique forhoth the theory and practice of education. She begins with a discussion of the liberatory pedagogy of Paulo Freire and the profound importance of his work. She then questions Preire’s assumption of a single kind of experience of oppression and his abstract goals for liberation. A feminist pedagogy, she claims, ofi‘ers a more complex vision of liberatory pedagogy. Weiler traces the growth of feminist epistemology from the early consciousness raising—groups to current women’s study programs. She identifies three ways that a feminist pedagogy, while reflecting critically on Freire’s ideas, also builds on and enriches his pedagogy: in its questioning of the role and authority of the teacher; in its recognition of the importance ofpersonal experience as a source of knowledge; and in its exploration of the perspectives of people ofdifierent races, classes, and cultures. We are living in a period of profound challenges to traditional Western epistemology and political theory. These challenges, couched in the language of post-modernist theory and in postcolonialist critiques, reflect the rapid transformation of the economic and political structure of the world order: the impact of transnational capital; the ever more comprehensive integration of resources, labor, and markets; the pervasiveness of media and consumer images. This interdependent world system is based on the exploitation of oppressed groups, but the system at the same time calls forth oppositional cultural forms that give voice to the conditions of these groups. White male bourgeois dominance is being challenged by people of color, women, and other oppressed groups, who assert the validity of their own knowledge and demand social justice and equality in numerous political and cultural struggles. In the intellectual sphere, this shifting world system has led to a shattering of Western metanarratives and to the variety of stances of postmodernist and cultural—identity theory. A major theoretical challenge to traditional Western knowledge systems is emerging from feminist theory, which has been increasingly influenced by both postmodernist and cultural-identity theory. Feminist theory, like other contemporary ap- proaches, validates difference, challenges universal claims to truth, and seeks to create social transformation in a world of shifting and uncertain meanings. In education, these profound shifts are evident on two levels: first, at the level of practice, as excluded and formerly silenced groups challenge dominant approaches to learning and to defini- tions of knowledge; and second, at the level of theory, as modernist claims to universal truth are called into question.1 These challenges to accepted truths have been raised not only to the institutions and theories that defend the status quo, but also to the critical or liberatory pedagogies that emerged in the 19605 and 19703. Feminist educational critics, like other theorists influenced by postmodernism and theories of difference, want to retain the vision of social justice NOTICE: THIS MATERIAL MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW (TITLE 17 U.S. CODE) ' 295 296 .Revisioning Curriculum in Higher Education ' and transformation that underlies liberatory pedagogies, but they find that their claims to uniVer— sal truths and their assumptions of a collective experience of oppression do not adequately address the realities of their own confusing and often tension~filled classrooms. This conscious- ness of the inadequacy of classical liberatory pedagogies has been particularly true for feminist educators, who are acutely aware of the continuing force of sexism and patriarchal structures and the power of race, sexual preference, physical ability, and age to divide teachers from students and students from one another. Paulo Freire is without question the most influential theorist of critical or liberatory educa- tion. His theories have profoundly influenced literacy programs throughout the world and what has come to be called critical pedagogy in the United States. His theoretical works, particularly Pedagogy of the Oppressed, provide classic statements of liberatory or critical pedagogy based on uniVersal claims of truth.2 Feminist pedagogy as it has developed in the United States provides a historically situated example of a critical pedagogy in practice. Feminist conceptions of education are similar to Freire’s pedagogy in a variety of ways, and feminist educators often cite Freire as the educational theorist who comes closest to the approach and goals of feminist pedagogy.3 Both feminist pedagogy as it is usually defined and Freirean pedagogy rest upon visions of social transformation; underlying both are certain common assumptions concerning oppression, con— sciousness, and historical change. Both pedagogies assert the existence of oppression in people's material conditions of existence and as a part of consciousness; both rest on a view of conscious-' ness as more than a sum of dominating discourses, but as containing within it a critical capacity— what Antonio Gramsci called ” good sense”; and both thus see human beings as subjects and actors in history and hold a strong commitment to justice and a vision of a better world and of the potential for liberation.‘ These ideals have powerfully influenced teachers and students in a wide range of educational settings, both formal and informal. But in action, the goals of liberation or opposition to oppression have not always been easy to understand or achieve. As universal goals, these ideals do not address the specificity of people’s lives; they do not directly analyze the contradictions between conflicting oppressed groups or the ways in which a single individual can experience oppression in one sphere while being privileged or oppressive in another. Feminist and Freirean teachers are in many ways engaged in what :5 Teresa deLauretis has called " shifting the ground of signs,” challenging accepted meanings and relationshipsthat occur at what she calls “political or more often micro political” levels, groupings that “produce no texts as such, but by shifting the ’ground of a given sign. . . effectively intervene upon codes of perception as well as ideological codes."5 But in attempting to challenge dominant values and to "shift the ground of signs,” feminist and Freirean teachers raise conflicts for themselves and for their students, who also are historically situated and whose own subjectivities are often contradictory and in process. These conflicts have become increasingly clear as both Freirean and feminist pedagogies are put into practice. Attempting to‘irrrplement these pedagogies without acknowledging the conflict not only of divided consciousnessmwhat Andre Lorde calls "the oppressor within us”—but also the conflicts among groups trying to work together to name and struggle against oppression—among teachers and students in classrooms, -* or among political groups working for change in very specific areas—can lead to anger, frustra— tion, and a retreat to safer or more traditional approaches .5 The numerous accounts of the tensions of trying to put liberatory pedagogies into practice demonstrate the need to reexamine the assumptions of the classic texts of liberatory pedagogy and to consider the various issues that i have arisen in attempts at critical and liberatory classroom practice? As a White feminist writing and teaching from the traditions of both critical pedagogy and - feminist theory, these issues are of particular concern to me. in this article, I examine and critique . the classic liberatory pedagogy of Paulo Freire, particularly as it is presented in Pedagogy of fit ' Oppressed, his most famous and influential text. I then examine the development and practice 0 , feminist pedagogy, which emerged in a particular historical and political moment in the United-f States, and which as a situated pedagogy, provides an example of some of the difficulties puttin ' these ideals into practice and suggests at the sametime some possible theoretical and practica directions for liberatory pedagogies in general. I argue that an exploration of the conflicts and; concerns that have arisen for feminist teachers attempting to put into practice their visions of ' 7 Listening to Dissenting Voices 297 =___._,‘fe_minist pedagogy can help enrich and re—envision Freirean goals of liberation and social firpgress. This emerging pedagogy does not reject the goals of justice-the end of oppression, and ' ' ___1iberation——~but frames them more specifically in the context of historically defined struggles and __ ails for the articulation 'of interests and identity on the part of teacher and theorist as well as trident. This approach questions whether the oppressed cannot act also as oppressors and ’ : challenges the idea of 'a commonality of oppression. It raises questions abOut common experience ‘ asasource of knowledge, the pedagogical authority of the teacher, and the nature of political and pedagogical struggle. Pedagogy of Paulo Freire if -' -Freire’s pedagogy developed in particular historical and political circumstances of neocolonial- 3' ism and imperialism. As is well known, Freire’s methods developed originally from his work with "'.'._'peasants in Brazil and later in Chile and Guinea-Bissau.8 Freire’s thought thus needs to be grinderstood in the context of the political and economic situation of the developing world. In f Freire’s initial formulation, oppression was conceived in class terms and education was viewed in the context of peasants’ and working people’s revolutionary struggles. Equally influential in ' L -Freire's thOught and pedagogy were the influence of radical Christian thought and the revolution- _ ary role of liberation theology in Latin America. As is true for other radical Christians in Latin America, Freire's personal knowledge of'extreme poverty and suffering challenged his deeply felt Christian faith grounded in the ethical teachings of Jesus in the Gospels. Freire’s pedagogy is thus ' 3 founded on a moral imperative to side with the oppressed that emerges from both his Christian faith and his knowledge and experience of suffering in the society in which he grew up and lived. Freire has repeatedly stated that his pedagogical method cannot simply be transferred to other ' settings, but that each historical site requires the development of a pedagogy appropriate to that setting. In his most recent work, he has also addressed sexism and racism as systems of oppres— sion that must be considered as seriously as class oppression.9 Nonetheless, Freire is frequently read without consideration for the context of the specific settings in which his work developed ' and without these qualifications in mind. His most commonly read text still is his first book to be published in English, Pedagogy of the Oppressed. In this classic text, Freire presents the epistemo- logical basis for his pedagogy and discusses the concepts of oppression, conscientization, and dialogue that areat the heart of his pedagogical project, both as he enacted it in settings in the developing world and as it has been appropriated by radical teachers in other settings. Freire organizes his approach to liberatory pedagogy in terms of a dualism between the oppressed and the oppressors and between humanization and dehumanization. This organiza- tion of thought in terms of opposing forces reflects Freire’s own experiences of literacy work with the poor in Brazil, a situation in which the lines between oppressor and oppressed were clear. For 'Freire, humanization is the goal of liberation; it has not yet been achieved, nor can it be achieved so long as the oppressors oppress the oppressed. That is, liberation and humanization will not occur if the roles of oppressor and oppressed are simply reversed. If humanization is. to be realized, new relationships among human beings must be created: Because it is a distortion of being more fully human, sooner or later being less human leads the oppressed to struggle against those who made them so. In order for this struggle to have meaning, the oppressed must not, in seeking to regain their humanity (which is a way to create it), become in turn oppressors of the oppressors, but rather restorers of the humanity of both.” The struggle against oppression leading to humanization is thus utopian and visionary. As Freire says elsewhere, "To be utopian is not to be merely idealistic or impractical but rather to engage in denunciation and armunciation."“ By denunciation, Freire refers to the naming and analysis of existing structures of oppression;by annunciation, he means the creation of new forms of relationships and being in the world as a result of mutual struggle against oppression. Thus. Freire presents a theoretical justification for a pedagogy that aims to critique existing forms of oppression and to transform the world, thereby creating new ways of being, or humanization. 298 Revisioning CurriCulurn in Higher Education Radical educators throughout the world have used Pedagogy of the Oppressed as the theoretical justification for their work. As an eloquent and impassioned statement of the need for and possibility of change through reading the world and the word, there is no comparable'contempo- rary text.12 But when we look at Pedagogy of the Oppressed from the perspective of recent feminist theory and pedagogy, certain problems arisethat-Inay reflect the difficulties that have sometimes arisen when Freire’s ideas are enacted in specific settings. The challenges of recent feminist theory do not imply the rejection of Freire’s goals for what he calls a pedagogy for liberation; feminists certainly share Freire's emphasis on seeing human beings as the subjects and not the objects of history. A critical feminist rereading of Freire, however, points to ways in which the project of Freirean pedagogy, like that of feminist pedagogy, may be enriched and re—envisioned. From a feminist perspective, Pedagogy of the Oppressed is striking in its use of the male referent, as usage that was universal in the 19605, when this book was written.“ Much more troublesome, however, is the abstract quality of terms such as humanization, which do not address the particular meanings imbued by men and women, Black and White, or other groups. The assump- f tion of Pedagogy of the Oppressed is that in struggling against oppression, the oppressed will move toward true humanity. But this leaves unaddressed the forms of oppression experienced by j, different actors, the possibility of struggles among people oppressed differently by different " groups—what Cameron McCarthy calls "nonsynchrony of oppression.”14 This assumption also presents humanization as a universal, without considering the various definitions this term may bring forth from people of different groups. When Freire speaks of the oppressed needing to fight the tendency to become “sub—oppreSSors,” he means that the oppressed have only the pattern of oppression before them as a way of being in a position other than the one they are in. As Freire writes, “Their ideal is to be men; but for them, to be men is to be oppressors. This is their model of humanity.”15 What is troubling here is not that “men” is used for human beings, but that the model of oppressor implied here is based on the immediate oppressor of menu-in this case, bosses over peasants or workers. What is not addressed is the possibility of simultaneous contradictory positions of oppression and dominance: the man oppressed by his boss could at the same time oppress his wife, for example, or the White woman oppressed by sexism could exploit the Black woman. By framing his discussion in such abstractterms, Freire slides over the contradictions and : tensions within social settings in which overlapping forms of oppression exist. _ This Usage of "the oppressed” in the abstract also raises difficulties in Freire’s use of experi- ence as the means of acquiring a radical literacy, “reading the world and the word.” At the heart of Freire’s pedagogy is the insistence that all people are subjects and knowers of the world. Their political literacy will emerge from their reading of the world—that is, their own experience. This reading will lead to collective knowledge and action. But what if that experience is divided? What if different truths are discovered in reading the world from different positions? For Freire, education as the practice of freedom "denies that men are abstract, isolated, independent, and unattached to the world. . . . Authentic reflection considers neither abstract man nor the World without men, but men in their relations with the world."16 But implicit in this vision is the ' assumption that, when the oppressed perceive themselves in relation to the world, they will act together collectively to transform the world and to move toward their own humanization. The nature of their perception of the world and their oppression is implicitly assumed to be uniform for all the oppressed. The possibility of a contradictory experience of oppression among the oppressed is absent. As Freire says: ' Accordingly, the point of departure must always be with men in the "here and now,” which constitutes the situation within which they are submerged, from which they emerge, and in which they intervene. Only by starting from this situation—which determines their percep- tion of it-ucan they begin to move.” ' The assumption again is that the oppressed, these men, are submerged in a common situation of oppression, and that their shared knowledge of that oppression will lead them to collective action. _ Central to Freire's pedagogy is the practice of conscientization; that is, coming to a conscious- ness of oppression and a commitment to end that oppression. Conscientization is based on this common experience of oppression. Through this reading of the world, the oppressed will come to ' Listening to Dissenting Voices 299 knowledge. The role of the teacher in this process is to instigate a dialogue between teacher and student, based on their common ability to know the world and to act as subjects in the world. But the question of the authority and power of the teacher, particularly those forms of power based on ‘I the teacher's subject position as raced, classed, gendered, and so on, is not addressed by Freire. =j.'-'_There is, again, the assumption that the teacher is "on the same side" as the oppressed, and that as teachers and students engage together in a dialogue about the world, they will uncover together the same reality, the same oppression, and the same liberation. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, the teacher is presented asa generic man whose interests will be with the oppressed as they mutually 1 “discover the mechanisms of oppression. The subjectivity of the Freireanteacher is, in this sense, i _- what Gayatri Chacravort'y Spivak refers to as “transparent.”13 In fact, of course, teachers are not é; abstract; they are women or men of particular races, classes, ages, abilities, and so on. The teacher ‘ . will be seen and heard by students not as an abstraction, but as a particular person'with a certain " defined history and relationship to' the world. In a later book, Freire argues that the teacher has to _' '. aSSume authority, but must do so without becoming authoritarian. In this recognition of the . teacher’s authority, Freire acknowledges the difference between teacher and'students: The educator continues to be different from the students, but, and now for me this is the central question, the difference between them, if the teacher is democratic, if his or her political dream is a liberating one, is that he or she cannot permit the necessary difference between the teacher and the students to become "antagonistic/’19 . In this passage, Freire acknowledges the power of the teacher by virtue of the structural role ' of "teacher" within a hierarchical institution and, under the best of circumstances, by virtue of the ' teacher’s great experience and knowledge. But Freire does not go on to investigate what the other _ sources of “antagonism” in the classroom might be. Hewever much he provides a valuable guide to the use of authority by the liberatory teacher, he never addresses the question of other forms of power held by the teacher by virtue of race, gender, or class that may lead to antagonisms. Without naming these sources of tension, it is difficult to address or build upon them to challenge ‘ existing structures of power and subjectivities. Without recognizing more clearly the implicit power- and limitations of the position of teacher, calls for a collective liberation or for opposition to oppression slide over the surface of the tensions that may emerge among teachers and students as subjects with conflicting interests and histories and with different kinds of knowledge and power. A number of questions are thus left unaddressed in Pedagogy of the Oppressed: How are we to situate ourselves in relation to the struggles of others? How are we to address our own contradic— tory positions as oppressors and oppressed? Where are we to look for liberation when our collective "reading of the world” reveals contradictory and conflicting experiences and struggles? The Freirean vision of the oppressed as undifferentiated and as the source of unitary political action, the transparency of the subjectivity of the Freirean teacher, and the claims of universal goals of liberation and social transformation fail to provide the answers to these questions. . Calling into question the universal and abstract claims of Pedagogy of the Oppressed is certainly not to argue that Freire’s pedagogy should be rejected or discarded. The ethical stance of Freire in terms of praxis and his articulation of people’s worth and ability to know and change the world are an essential basis for. radical pedagogiesin opposition to oppression. Freire’s thought illumi- nates the central question of political action in a world increasingly without universals. Freire, like liberation theologians such as Sharon Welch, positions himself on the side of the oppressed; he claims the moral imperative to act in the world. As Peter McLaren has commented in reference to Freire’s political stand, “The task of liberating others from their suffering may not emerge from some transcendental fiat, yet it nevertheless compels us to affirm our humanity in solidarity with victims.”20 But in order better to seek the affirmation of our own humanity and to seed to end suffering and oppression, I am arguing for a more situated theory of oppression and subjectivity, and for the need to consider the contradictions of such universal claims of truth or process. In the next section of this article, I explore feminist pedagogy as an example of a situated pedagogy of liberation. Like Freirean pedagogy, feminist pedagogy is based on assumptions of the power of consciousness raising, the existence of oppression and the possibility of ending it, and the desire for social transformation. But in its historical development, feminist pedagogy has revealed the shortcomings that emerge in the attempt to enact a pedagogy that assumes a 300 Revisioning Curriculum in Higher Education universal experience and abstract goals. In the attempt of feminist pedagogy to address these iSSues, a more complex vision of liberatory pedagogy is being developed and explored. Feminist Pedagogy, Consciousness Raising, and Women’s Liberation Feminist pedagogy in colleges and universities has developed in conjunction with the growth of women's studies and what is inclusiver called "the new scholarship on women." These develop- ments within universities—the institutionalization of women’s studies as programs and depart- ments and the challenge to existing canons and disciplines by the new scholarship on women and by feminist theorym—are reflected in the classroom teaching methods that have come to be loosely termed feminist pedagogy. Defining exactly what feminist pedagogy means in practice, however, is difficult. It is easier to describe the various methods used in specific women’s studies courses and included by feminist teachers claiming the term feminist pedagogy than it is to provide a coherent definition? But common to the claims of feminist teachers is the goal of providing students with the skills to continue political work as feminists after they have left the university. Nancy Schniedewind makes a similar claim for what she calls “feminist process,” which she characterizes as “both feminist vision of equalitarian personal relations and societal forms and the confidence and skills to make their knowledge and vision functional in the world.”22 The pedagogy of feminist teachers is based on certain assumptions about knowledge, power, and political action that can be traced beyond the academy to the political activism of the woman’s movement in the 19605. This same commitment to social change through the transformative potential of education underlay Preire's pedagogy in Brazil during the same period. Women’s studies at the university level have since come to encompass a wide variety of political stances and theoretical approaches. Socialist feminism, liberal feminism, radical feminism, and postmodern feminism all view issues from their different perspectives. Nonetheless, feminist pedagogy con— tinues to echo the struggles of its origins and to retain a vision of social activism. Virtually all women’s studies courses and programs__ at least partially reflect this critical, oppositional, and activist stance, even within programs now established and integrated into the bureaucratic . structures of university life. As Linda Gordon points out: Women’s studies did not arise accidentally, as the product of someone’s good idea, but was created by a social movement for women's liberation with a sharp critique of the whole structure of society. By its very existence, women’s studies constitutes a critique of the university and the body of knowledge it imparts?" Despite tensions and splits within feminism at a theoretical level and in the context of women’s studiesprograms in universities, the political comrnitrnent of women’s liberation that flGordon refers to continues to shape feminist pedagogy. Thus, like Freirean pedagogy, feminist pedagogy rests on truth claims of the primacy of experience and consciousness that are grounded in historically situated social change movements. Key to understanding the methods and episte- mological claims of feminist pedagogy is an understanding of its origins in more grassroots political activity, particularly in the consciousness-raising groups of the women‘s liberation movement of the late 19605 and early 19705. ' - 5 Women’s consciousness-raising groups began to form more or less spontaneously in north- , eastern and western US. cities in late 1967 among White women who had been active in the civil - --3 rights and new left movements.24 In a fascinating parallel to the rise of the women's suffrage ' movement out of the abolitionist movement in the mid-nineteenth century, these activist and politically committed women came to apply their universal demands for equality and justice of T the civil rights movement to their own situation as women.25 While public actions such as the Miss America protest of 1968, mass meetings, and conferences were organized in this early period, the unique organizational basis for the women's liberation movement was grounded in the small" groups of women who came together for what came to be known as consciousness raising. Early ' consciousness-raising groups, based on friendship and common political commitments, focused _‘ on the discussion of shared experiences of sexuality, work, family, and participation in the male- '. ‘ Listening to Dissenting Voices 301 dominated left political movement. Consciousness raising focused on collective political change rather than on individual therapy. The groups were unstructured and local—they could be formed anywhere and did not follow formal guidelines—but they used the same sorts of methods because these methods addressed common problems. One woman remembers the first meeting of What became her con5ciousness-raising group: The flood broke loose gradually and then more swiftly. We talked about our families, our mothers, our fathers, our siblings; we talked about our men; we talked about school; we talked about the "movement" (which meant new left men). For hours we talked and unburdened our souls and left feeling high and planning to meet again the following week.26 ' Perhaps the clearest summary of consciousness raising from this period can be found in Kathie Sarachild’s-essay, "Consciousness Raising: A Radical Weapon?” In this article, Sarachild, a veteran of the civil rights movement in the South and a member of Redstockings, one of the earliest and most influential women's groups, presents an account that is both descriptive and prescriptiver She makes it clear that consciousness raising arose spontaneously among small ' groupsef women and that she is describing and summarizing a collective process that can be used by other groups of women. Fundamental to Sarachild’s description of consciousness raising is in its grounding in the need for political action. She describes the emergence of the method of consciousness raising among a group of women who considered themselves radicals in the sense of demanding fundamental changes in society. As Sarachild comments: We were interested in getting to the roots of problems in society. You might say we wanted to pull up weeds in the garden by their roots, not just pick off the leaves at the top to make things look good momentarily. Women’s liberation was started by women who considered themselves to be radicals in this sense.” ' A second fundamental aspect of consciousness raising is the reliance on experience and feeling. According to Sarachild, the focus on examining women's own experience came from a profound distrust of accepted authority and truth. These claims about what was valuable and true tended to be accepting of existing assumptions abOut women’s "inherent nature” and “proper place.” In order to call those truths intoquestion (truths we might now call hegemonic and that Foucault, for example, would tie to structures of power), women had nowhere to turn except to their own experience. Sarachild describes the process of her group: In the end the group decided to raise its consciousness by studying women’s lives like childhood, jobs, motherhood, etc. We’d do any outside reading we wanted to and thought was important. But our starting point for discussion, as well as our test of the accuracy of what any of the books said, would be the actual experience we had in these areas?‘0 The last aspect of consciousness raising was a common sharing of experience in a collective, leaderless group. As Michele Russell points out, this sharing is similar to the practice of "testify— ing" in the Black church, and depends upon openness and trust in the group.31 The assumption underlying this sharing of stories was the existence of commonality among women; as Sarachild puts it, "we made the assumption, an assumption basic to consciousness raising, that most women were like ourselves—not different."32 The model for consciousness raising among the Redstockings, as with other early groups, came from the experiences of many of the women as organizers in the civil rights movement in the South. Sarachild, for instance, cites the example of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Commit— tee, and quotes Stoker Carmichael when she argues for the need for people to organize in order to understand their own conditions of existence and to fight their own struggles. Other sources cited by Sarachild include the nineteenth-century Suffragist Ernestine Rose, Mao Zedong, Malcolm X, and the practice of "speaking bitterness” in the Chinese revolution described by William Hinton in Fenshen.” Both the example of the civil rights movement and the revolutionary tradition of the male writers that provided the model for early consciousness raising supported women’s com- mitment to political action and social changer“4 As Sarachild comments: 302 Revisioning Curriculum in Higher Education We would be the first to dare to say and do the undareable, what women really felt and wanted. The first job now was to raise awareness and understanding, our ownand others“ awareness that would prompt people to organize and to act on a mass scale.35 Thus consciousness raising shared the assumptions of earlier revolutionary traditions: that understanding and theoretical analysis were the first steps to revolutionary change, and that neither was adequate alone; theory and practice were intertwined as praxis. As Sarachild puts it, “Consciousness raising was seen as both a method for arriving at the truth and a means for action and organizing."35 What was original in consciousness raising, howeVer, was its emphasis on experience and feeling as the guide to theoretical understanding, an approach that reflected the realities of women’s socially defined subjectivities and the conditions of their lives. Irene Peslikis, another member of Redstockings, wrote, "When we think of what it is that politicizes people it is not so much books or ideas but experience.”37 Whfle Sarachild and other early feminists influenced by a left political tradition explored the creation of theory grounded in women’s feelings and experiences, they never lost the commit- ment to social transformation.38 In their subsequent history, however, consciousness raising and feminist pedagogy did not always retain this political commitment to action. As the women's movement expanded to reach wider groups of women, consciousness raising tended to lose its commitment to revolutionary change. This trend seems to have been particularly true as the women’s movement affected women with .a less radical perspective and With little previous political involvement. Without a vision of collective action and social transformation, conscious- ness raising held the possibility of what Berenice Fisher calls "a diversion of energies into an exploration of feelings and ’private' concerns to the detriment of political activisrri.”3 The lack of structure and the local nature of consciousness-raising groups only reinforced these tendencies _ toward a focus on individual rather than collective change. The one site in which the tradition of . ' ' consciousness raising did find institutional expression was in academia, in the growth of _ women’s studies courses and programs stimulated by the new scholarship on women. The H ' founders of these early courses and programs tended to be politically committed feminists who themselves had experienced consciousness raising and who, like Friere, assumed that education could and should be a means of social change. . The first women's studies courses, reflecting the growth of the women’s movement in what -' - has come to be called the second wave of feminism, were taught in the late 19605.” In 1970, Paul Lauter and Florence Howe founded The Feminist Press, and important outlet for publishing early " feminist scholarship and recovering lost texts by women writers.’n In 1977, the founding of the- National Women’s Studies Association provided a national organization, a journal, and yearly- conferences that gave feminists inside and outside of academia a forum to exchange ideas and experiences. By the late 19805, respected journals such as Signs and Feminist Studies were well established, and wo—rnm studies programs and courses were widespread (if not always enthusi- astically supported by administrations) in colleges and universities.42 At the same time, feminist research and theory—what has come to be called-"the new scholarship on women”—put fortha - profound challenge to traditional disciplines.“ The growth of women‘s studies programs and . feminist scholarship thus provided and institutional framework and theoretical underpinning for ' 'p feminist pedagogy, the attempt to express feminist values and goals in the classroom. But while feminist scholarship has presented fundamental challenges to traditional androcentric knowl- edge, the attempt to create a new pedagogy modeled on consciousness raising has not been as ., successful or coherent a project. Serious challenges to the goal of political transformation through ' the experience of feminist learning have been raised in the attempt to create a feminist pedagogy -: in the academy. The difficulties and contradictions that have emerged in the attempt to create a feminist pedagogy in traditional institutions like universities raise serious questions for all, liberatory pedagogies and echo some of the problems raised by the unitary and universal - j' approach of Pedagogy of the Oppressed. But in engaging these questions, feminist pedagogy j suggests new directions that can enrich Freirean pedagogies of liberation. - __ ' " Feminist pedagogy has raised three areas of concern that are particularly useful in consider— ing the waysin which Freirean and other liberatory pedagogies can be enriched and expanded The first of these concerns the role and. authority of the teacher; the second addresses the - ' Listenin to Dissentin Voices 303 epistemological question of the source of the claims for knowledge and truth in personal experi- 'ence and feeling; the last, emerging from challenges by women of color and postmodernist feminist theorists, raises the question of difference. Their challenges have lead to a shattering of " the unproblematic and unitary category "woman," as well as of an assumption of the inevitable ' . unity of “women.” Instead, feminist theorists have increasingly emphasized the importance of - recognizing difference as a central category of feminist pedagogy. The unstated assumption of a r universal experience of “being a woman” was exploded by the critiques of postmodern feminists ' and by the growing assertion of lesbians and women of color that the universal category “woman” in fact meant "White, heterosexual, middle»class woman,” even when used by White, heterosexual, socialist feminists, or women veterans of the civil rights movement who were committed to class or race struggles.“ These theoretical challenges to the unity of both "woman" and "women? have in turn called into question the authority of women as teachers and students in the classroom, the epistemological value of both feeling and experience, and the nature of political strategies for enacting feminist goals of social change. I turn next to an exploration of these key issues of authority, experience, feeling, and difference within feminist pedagogy and theory. The Role and Authority of the Teacher In many respects, the feminist version of the teacher’s authority echoes the Freirean image of the teacher who is a joint learner with students and who holds authority by virtue of greater knowledge and experience. But as we have seen, Freire fails to address the various forms of powar held by teachers depending on their race, gender-and the historical and institutional settings in which they work. In the Freirean account, they are in this sense "transparent." In the actual practice of feminist pedagogy, the central issues of difference, positionality, and the need to recognize the implications of subjectivity or identity for teachers and students have become central. Moreover, the question of authority in institutional settings makes problematic the possibility of achieving the collective and nonhierarchiCal vision of early consciousness—raising groups—and emphasis on feeling, experience, and sharing, and a suspicion of hierarchy and authority—continue to influence feminist pedagogy in academic settings. But the institutional- ized nature of women’s studies in the hierarchical and bureaucratic structure of academia creates tensions that run counter to the original commitment to praxis in consciousness-raising groups. Early consciousness~raising groups were homogeneous, antagonistic to authority, and had a commitment to political change that had directly emerged from the civil rights and new left movements. Feminist pedagogy within academic classrooms addresses heterogeneous groups of students within a competitive and individualistic culture in which the teacher holds institutional power and responsibility (even if she may want to reject that power)“5 As bell hooks comments, “The academic setting, the academic discourse [we] work in, is not a known site for tru’chtellirig.”“°‘5 The very success of feminist scholarship has meant the development of a rich theoretical tradition with deep divisions and opposing goals and methods.” Thus the source of the teacher’s authority as a "woman" who can call upon a “common woman’s knowledge" is called into question; at the same time the feminist teacher is “given” authority by virtue of her role within the hierarchical structure of the university. ‘ The question. of authority in feminist pedagogy seems to be centered around two different conceptions. The first refers to the institutionally imposed authority of the teacher within a hierarchical university structure. The teacher in this role must give grades, is evaluated by administrators and colleagues in terms of expertise in a body of knowledge, and is expected to take responsibility for meeting the goals of an academic course as it is understood within the wider university. This hierarchical structure is clearly in opposition to the collective goals of a common women’s movement and is miles from the early structureless consciousness-raising groups in which each woman was an expert on her own life. Not only does the university structure impose this model of institutional authority, but students themselves expect it. As Barbara Hillyer Davis comments: "The institutional pressure to [impart knowledge] is reinforced by the students' well—socialized behavior. If I will tell them ’what I want,’ they will deliver it. They in. ——~.-._.~‘~ 43 . i 304 Revisioning Curriculum in Higher Education are exasperated with my efforts to depart from the role of dispense of wisdom/’48 Feminist educators have attempted to address this tension between their ideals of collective education and the demands of the university by a variety of expedients: group assignments and grades, contracts for grades, pass/ fail course, and such techniques as self-revelation and the articulation of the dynamics of the classroom:19 { Another aspect of institutionalized authority, however, is the need for women to claim authority in a society that denies it to them. As Culley and Portugues have pointed out, the authority and poWer of the woman feminist teacher is already in question from many of her students precisely because she is a woman: i As women, our own position is precarious, and the power we are supposed to exercise is given grudgingly, if at all. For our own students, for ourselves, and for our superiors, we are not clearly “us” or ”them." The facts of class, of race, of ethnicity, of sexual preference-u as well as gender—“may cut across the neat divisions of teacher/student.50 Thus the issue of institutional authority raises the contradictions of trying to achieve a democratic and collective ideal in a hierarchical institution, but it also raises the question of the meaning of authority for feminist teachers, whose right to speak or hold power is itself under attack in a patriarchal (and racist, homophobic, classist, and so on) society. The question of asserting authority and power is a central concern to feminists precisely because as women they have been taught that taking power is inappropriate. From this perspective, the feminist teacher’s acceptance of authority becomes in itself liberating to her and to her students. It becomes a claim to authority in terms of her own value as a scholar and a teacher in a patriarchal society that structurally denies or questions that authority as it is manifest in the organization and bureau— cracy of the university. Women students, after all, are socialized to be deferential, and both men and women students are taught to accept male authority. It is instructive for students to see ' women assert authority. But this use of authority will lead to positive social change only if those teachers are working also to empower students in a Freirean sense.51 As Susan Stanford Friedman argues: What I and other women have needed is a theory of feminist pedagogy consistent with our . needs as women operating at the fringes of patriarchal space. As we attempt to move on to academic turf culturally defined as male, we need a theory that first recognizes the androcentric denial-of all authority to women and, second, points out a way for us to speak with an authentic voice not based on tyranny.52 These concems lead to a conception of authority and power in an positiVe sense, both in terms of women asserting authority as women, and in terms of valuing intellectual work _ and the . ' ' creation of theory as a means of understanding and, thus, of changing the world. . The authority of the intellectual raises isSues for feminists in the Wide—my that are similar to those faced by other democratic and collective political movements, such as those faced by other - democratic and collective political movements, such as those described by Freire. There is a contradiction between the idea of a women's movement including all women and a group of what Berenice Fisher calls "advanced Women.“1 Feminists who question the Whole tradition of androcentric thought are deeply suspicious of women who take a position of “expert” who can translate and interpret other women’s experiences. Fisher articulates these tensions well: ' Who are intellectuals in relation to the women’s movement? . . . Are intellectuals sorts of leaders, sage guides, women who give voice to or clarify a broader urge toward social change? Is intellectual work essentially elitist, a matter of mere privilege to think, to write, to create? Is it simply a patriarchal mode of gaining and maintaining power, a way of negating women’s everyday experience, a means of separating some women from the rest of the “cornrrlunity?”5‘1 Fisher argues that feminist intellectuals are struggling with these questions in their scholar—'_ ship, teaching, and roles within the universities and the wider women’s movement. She does not -' reject the authority of the feminist intellectual, but she also does not deny the need to address and " clarify these contradictions. She, like Charlotte Bunch, is an embodiment of this attempt to accept ‘ - Listening to Dissenting Voices 305 " both the authority and responsibility of the feminist intellectual who is creating theory. _ In terms of feminist pedagogy, the authority of the feminist teacher as intellectual and theorist . finds expression in the goal of making students themsalves theorists of their own lives by ' . interrogating and'analyzing their own experience. In an approach very similar to Freire's Concept of conscientization, this strategy moves beyond the naming or sharing of experience to the i I creation of a critical understanding of the forces that have shaped that experience. This theorizing is antithetical to traditional views of women. As Bunch points out, traditionally 'women are supposed to worry about mundane survival problems, to brood about fate, and to fantasize in a personal manner. We are not meant to think analytically about society, to question the ways things are, to consider how things could be different. Such thinking involves an active, not a passive, relationship to the world.55 . Thus feminist educators like Fisher and Bunch accept their authority as intellectuals and theorists, but they consciously attempt to construct their pedagogy to recognize and encourage the capacity of their students to theorize and to recognize their own power.56 This is a conception of authority not in the institutional terms of a bureaucratized university system, butrather an attempt to claim the authority. of theorist and guide for students who are themselves potential theorists. Feminist concerns about the authority of the feminist teacher address questions of classroom practice and theory ignored by Freiremin his formulation of the teacher and student as two "knowers" of the world, and inhis assertion that the liberatory teacher should acknowledge and , claim authority but not authoritarianism. The feminist exploration of authority is much richer and V addresses more directly the contradictions between goals of collectivity and hierarchies of knowl- edge. Feminist teachers are much more conscious of the power of various subject positions than is I, represented in Freire’s "transparent" liberatory teacher. An acknowledgment of realities of con- flict and tensions based on contradictory political goals, as well as of the meaning of historically ' experienced oppression for both teachers and students, leads to a pedagogy that respects differ- , . ence not just as significant for students, but for teachers as well. 33s"? .t, Personal Experience as a Source of Knowledge and Truth As feminists explore the relationship of authority, theory, and political action, they raise questions about the categories and claims for truth underlying both consciousness raising and feminist pedagogy. These claims rest on categories of experience and feeling as guides to theoretical understanding and political change. Basic to the Freirean method of conscientization is the believe in the ability of all people to be knowers and to read both the word and the world. In Freirean pedagogy, it is through the interrogation of their own experiences that the oppressed will come to an understanding of their own power as knowers and creators of the world; this knowledge will contribute to the transformation of their world. In consciousness-raising groups and in feminist 3; pedagogy in the university, a similar reliance on experience and feeling has been fundamental to the development of a feminist knowledge of the world that can be the basis for social change. 1 Underlying both Freirean and early feminist pedagogy is an. assumption of a common experience as the basis for political analysis and action. Both experience and feeling were central to conscious- ness raising and remain central to feminist pedagogy in academia; they are claimed as a kind of “inner knowing," shaped by society but at the same time containing an oppositional quality. Feeling is looked to as a guide to a deeper truth than that of abstract rationality. Experience, which is interpreted through ideologically constructed categories, also can be the basis for an opposition to dominant schemes of truth if what is experienced runs counter to what is set forth and accepted as “true.” Feminist educators, beginning with women in the early consciousness-raising groups, have explored both experience and feeling as sources of knowledge, and both deserve closer examination. - In many ways, feeling or emotion has been seen traditionally as a source of women's knowledge about the world. As we have seen, in the early consciousness-raising groups, feelings were looked to as the source of a “true” knowledge of the world for women living in a society that 306 Revisioning Curriculum in Higher Education denied the value of their perceptions. Feelings or emotions were seen as a way of testing accepted claims of what is universally true about human nature or, specifically, about women. Claims such as Freud’s theory of penis envy, for example, were challenged by women first because these theoretical descriptions of women’s psychology did not match women’s own feelings about their lives. As feminist pedagogy has developed, with a continued emphasis on the function of feelings as a guide to knowledge about the world, emotions have been seen as links between a kind of inner truth or inner self and the outer worldwincluding ideology, culture, and other discourses of power.” However, as feminist educators have explored the uses of feeling or emotion as a source of knowledge, several difficulties have become clear. First of all, there is a danger that the expression of strong emotion can be simply cathartic and can deflect the need for action to address the underlying causes of that emotion. Moreover, it is not clear how to distinguish among a wide range of emotions as the source of political action. At a more theoretical level, there are contradic» tions involved in claiming that the emotions are a source for knowledge and at the same time arguing that they are manipulated and shaped by dominant discourses. Both consciousness— raising groups and feminist theorists have asserted the social construction of feelings and their manipulation by the dominant culture; at the same time, they look to feelings as a source of truth. Berenice Fisher points to the contradiction implicit in these claims: In theoretical terms, we cannot simultaneously claim that all feelings are socially condi- tioned and that some feelings are "true." We w0u1d be more consistent to acknowledge that society only partly shapes Our emotions, leaving an opening where we can challenge and change the responses to which we have been socialized. That opening enables the con~ sciousness—raising process to take place and gives us the space in which to reflect on the new emotional responses that our process evokes.53 In this formulation, Fisher seems to be arguing for a kind of Gramscian ” good sense,” a locus of knowing in the self that is grounded in feeling as a guide to theoretical understanding. Feelings thus are viewed as a kind of cognition—a source of knowledge. Perhaps the most eloquent argument for feelings as a source of oppositional knowledge is found in the work of 'Audre Lorrie. Lorde, a Black lesbian feminist theorist and poet, writes from the specificity of her own socially defined and shaped life. For her, feeling is the source of poetry, a means of knowing what challenges White, Western, androcentric epistemologies. She specifi- cally ties her own feelings as a Black woman to a non—Western way of knowing. She writes: As we come more into touch with our own ancient, non-European consciousness of living as a situation to be experienced and interacted with, we learn more and more to cherish our feelings, to respect those hidden sources of power from where true knowledge and, therefore, lasting action comes.” ' ' I. Lorde is acutely aware of the ways in which the dominant society shapes our sense of who we are and what we feel. As she points out, "Within living structures defined by profit, by linear power, by institutional dehumanization, our feelings were not meant to survive!“ Moreover, Lorde is conscious of theoppressor within us: "For we have, built into all of us, old blueprints of expectation and response, old structures of oppression, and these must be altered at the same time as we alter the living conditions which are the result of those structures.”61 But although Lorde does not deny what she calls "the oppressor within,” she retains a belief in the power of deeper _ _ feeling to challenge the dominant definitions of truth and to point the way to an analysis that can ' lead to an alternative vision: ' ' As we begin to recognize our deepest feelings, we begin to give up, of necessity, being satisfied With suffering and self-negation, and with the numbness which so often seems like their only alternative in society. Our acts against oppression'become integral with self, motivated and empoweredfrom within."z ' ' For Lorde, then, feelings are a guide to analysis and to action. While they are shaped by society and are socially constructed in that sense, Lorde insists on a deeper reality of feeling closer 3 in touch with what it means to be human This formulation echoes the Freirean vision of, humanization as a new way of being in the world other than as oppressor and oppressed. Both .ji I - Listening to Dissenting VoiCes 307 1. ‘Ereire and Lorde retain a Utopian faith in the possibility that human beings can crate new ways of 151;} ~1'being in the world out of collective struggle and a human capacity to feel. Lorde terms this the " ."poWer of the erotic; she speaks of the erotic as "a measure between the beginnings of our sense of ",3. ' self .and the chaos .of our strongest feelings,” a resource "firmly rooted in the power of our unexpressed or unrecognized feeling.”"3 Because the erotic can challenge the dominant, it has I - been denied as a source of power and knowledge. But for Lorde, the power of the erotic provides 5' ;. the basis for visionary social change. ' _ y ' In her exploration of feelings and of the erotic as a source of knowledge about the world, . Lorde does not reject analysis and rationality. But she questions the depth of critical understand— _ .' ing of those forces that shape our lives that can be achieved using only the rational and abstract __ methods of- analysis given to us by dominant ideology. In Foucault’s terms, she is seeking a 1 ': perspective from which to interrogate dominant regimes of truth; central to her argument is the claim that an analysis framed solely in the terms of accepted discourse cannot get to the root of . " structures of power. That is what her well-known phrase, “The Master‘s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House," implies. As she argues: . Rationality is nomcessary. It serves the chaos of knowledge. It Serves feeling. It serves to get from this place to that place. But if you don‘t honor those places, then the roadie meaningless. Too often, that‘s what happens with the worship of rationality and that circular, academic analytic thinking. But ultimately, I don’t see feel I think as a dichotomy. I see them as a choice of ways and combinations.“ I _ Lordefs discussion of feeling and the erotic as a source of power and knowledge is based on the assumption that human beings have the capacity to feel and know, and can engage in self- critique; people are not completely shaped by dominant discourse. The oppressor may be within ' us, but Lorde insists that we also have the capacity to challenge our own ways of feeling and ' knowing. When tied to a recognition of positionality, this validation of feeling can be used to develop powerful sources of politically focused feminist education. For Lorde and Fisher, this kind of knoWing through an exploration of feeling and emotion requires collective inquiry and constant reevaluation. It is a contingent and positioned claim to truth. Similar complexities arise in the use of experience as the basis for feminist political-action. Looking to experience as the source of knowledge and the fOCus of feminist learning is perhaps the most fundamental tenet of feminist pedagogy. This is similar to the Freirean call to "read the world” to seek the generative themes that codify power relationships and social structures. The sharing of women’s experiences was the touchstone of early consciousness—raising groups and continues to be fundamental method of feminist pedagogy. That woman need to examine what . they have experienced and lived in concrete ways, in their own bodies, is a_ materialistic concep— tion of experience. In an early essay, Adrienne Rich pointed to this materiality of experience: “To think like a woman in a man’s World means . .- . remembering that every mind resides in a body; remaining accountable to the female bodies in which we live; constantly retesting given hypoth— eses against lived experience.”65 As became clear quite early in the women’s movement, claims about experience as a source of women’s knowledge rested on certain assumptions about com- monalities in women’s lives. Women were conceived of as a unitary and relatively undifferenti— ated group. Sarachild, for example, spoke of devising “new theories which . . . reflect the actual experience and feelings and necessities of womengr’I5 Underlying this approach was the assump- tion of a common woman’s experience, one reflecting the world of the White, middle-class, heterosexual women of the early feminist movement. But as the critiques of lesbians, women of color, and postmodernist feminist theorists have made clear, there is no single woman’s expedi- ence to be revealed. Both experience and feeling thus have been called into question as the source of an unproblematic knowledge of the world that will lead to praxis. As Diana Fuss comments: ” ’female experience' is never as unified, as knowable, as universal, and as stable as we presume it to be.”67 Challenges to the concept of a unitary women’s experience by both women of color and by postmodern critics has not meant the abandonment of experience as a source of knowledge for feminist teachers. Of course experience, like feeling, is socially constructed in the sense that we J... has 308 Revisioning Curriculum in Higher Education can only understand it and speak about it in ideas and terms that are part of an existing ideology and language. But in a stance similar to that of Lorde in her use of the erotic, feminist teachers have explored the ways in which women have experienced the material world through their bodies. This self~examination of lived experience is then used as a source of knowledge that can illuminate the social processes and ideology that shape us. As Fuss suggests, "Such a position permits the introduction of narrativas of lived experience into the classroom while at the same time challenging us to examine collectively the central role social and historical practices play in shaping and producing these narratives.”6H One example of this approach is found in the work of Frigga Haug and the group of German feminists of which she is a part.69 Haug and this group use what they call collective memory Work to explore their feelings about their own bodies in order to uncover the social construction of their selves: Our collective empirical work set itself the high—flown task of identifying the ways inwhich individuals construct themselves into existing structures, and are thereby themselves formed; the way in which they reconstruct social structures; the points at which change is possible, the points Where our chains chafe most, the point where accommodations have been made?0 _ This collection exploration of "the point where . chains chafe most” recalls the Freirean culture circles, in which peasants would take such examples as their personal experiences with the landlord as the starting point for their education or conscientization. Basic to their approach is a belief in reflection and a rejection of a view of people as “fixed, given, unchangeable." By working collectively on "memory wor ,” a sharing and comparison of their own lives, Haug and her group hope to uncover the workings of hegemonic ideology in their own subjectivities. Another ex- ample of such collective work can be found in the Jamaican women’s theater group, Sistren. Founded in 1977, Sistren is a collaborative theater group made up of working-class Jamaican women who create and write plays based on a collaborative exploration of their own experiences. The life histories of the women of Sistren have been collected in Lionheert Girl: Life Stories of Jamaican Women. In the compilation of this book, the Sistren collective used the same process of the collective sharing and analysis of experience that is the basis for their theater work. As the company's director Honor Ford—Smith writes: ,, We began meeting collectively at first. Starting with our childhood, we made drawings of images based on Such themes as where we had grown up, symbols of oppression in our lives, our relationships with men, our experience with race and the kind of work we had done.”1 i For Hang and her group, the Sistren collective, the early consciousness—raising groups, and the. Freirean culture circles, collective sharing of experience is the source of knowledge of the forces that have shaped and continue to shape them. But their recognition of the shifting meaning-—— l of experience as it is explored through memory insists on the profoundly social and political :- nature of who we are. The Question of Difference Both women of color writing from a perspective of cultural feminism and postmodernist feminist theorists converge in their critique of the concept of a universal "women’s experience.” While the idea of a unitary and universal category "woman" has been challenged by women of color for its racist assumptions, it has also been challenged by recent analyses of feminist theorists influenced by postmodernism, who point to the social construction of subjectivity and who emphasize the “unstable” nature of the self. Postmodernist feminist critics such as Chris Weedon have argued that socially given identities such as “woman” are "precarious, contradictory, and in process, constantly being reconstituted in discourse each time we speak."72 This kind of analysis considers the ways in which "the subject" is not an object; that is, not fixed in a static social structure, but constantlybeing created, actively creating the self, and struggling for new ways of being in the world through new forms of discourse or new forms of social relationships. Such analysis calls for Listening to Dissenting Voices 309 a recognition of the positionality of each person in any discussion of what can be known from experience. This calling into question the permanence of subjectivities of what Jane Flax refers to as the "unstable self?” If we view individual selves as being constructed and negotiated, then we can begin to consider what exactly those forces are in which individuals shape themselves and by which they are shaped. The category of “woman” is itself challenged as it is seen more and more as a part of a symbolic system of ideology. Donna Haraway calls all such claims of identity into question: ' ' 1 With the hard-won recognition of their social and historical constitution, gender, race, and class cannot provide the basis for belief in “essential” unity: There is nothing about being "female" that naturally binds women. There is not even such a 'state as "being" female, itself a highly complex category constructed in contested sexual discourses and other social practices. Gender, race, or class consciousness is an achievement forced on us by the terrible historical experience of the contradictory social realities of patriarchy, colonialism, and . capitalism?4 - TheSe analyses support the challenges to assumptions of an essential and universal nature of women and women’s experience that have come from lesbian critics and women of color."5 Both women of color and lesbian critics have pointed to the complexity of socially given identities. Black women and other women of color raise challenges to the assumption that the sharing of experience will create solidarity and a theoretical understanding based upon a com- mon women’s standpoint. Lesbian feminists, both White and of color, point to the destructive nature of homophobia and what Adrienne Rich has called compulsory heterosexuality. As is true of White, heterosexual, feminist educators, these theorists base their analysis upon their own experiences, but those experiences reveal not only the workings of sexism, but of racism, homophobia, and class oppression as well. This complex perspective underlies the Combahee River Collective Statement, a position paper written by a group of African—American feminists in Boston in the 19705. This statement makes clear what a grounded theory of experience means for women whose value is denied by the dominant society in numerous ways. The Women in the Combahee River Collective argue that “the most profound and potentially most radical politics come directly out of our owrr identity, as opposed to working to end somebody else’s oppres- sion/’75 For AfricanwArnerican women, an investigation of the shaping of their own identities reveals the ways in which sexism and racism are interlocking forms of oppression: As children we realized that we were different from boys and that we were treated differently. For example, we were told in the same breath to be quiet both for the sake of being "ladylike" and to make us less objectionable in the eyes of white people. As we grew older we became aware of the threat of physical and sexual abuse from men. However, we had no way of conceptualizing what was so apparent to us, what We knew was really happening.” When African—American teachers like Michele Russell or Barbara Omolade describe their feminist pedagogy, they ground that pedagogy in an investigation of experience in material terms. As Russell describes her teaching of an introductory Black studies class for women at Wayne County Conununity College in Detroit: “We have an hour together. . . . The first topic of conversation—among themselves and with me—is what they went through just to make it in the door, on time. That in itself became a lesson.”73 And Omolade points out in her discussion of her teaching at Medgar Evers College in New York, a college whose students are largely African- American women: No one can each teach students to “see,” but an instructor is responsible for providing the coherent ordering of information and content. The classroom process is one of information~ sharing in which students learn to generalize their particular life experiences Within a community of fellow intellectuals.” Thus the pedagogy of Russell and Omolade is grounded in experience as a source of knowl- edge in a particular materialistic way; the knowledge generated reveals the overlapping forms of oppression lived by women of color in this society. The investigation of the experiences of women RA. athM may. Jam-muse- 3'10 Revisioning Curriculum in Higher Education I M of color, lesbian women, women whose very being challenges existing racial, sexual, hetero- sexual, and class dominance leads to a knowledge of the world that both acknowledges differ ences and points to the need for an "integrated analysis and practice based upon the fact that the major systems of oppression are interlocking.”30 The turning to experience thus reveals not a universal and common women’s essence, but, rather, deep divisions in what different women have experienced, and in the kinds of knowledge they discover when they examine their own experience. The recognition of the differences among women raises serious challenges to feminist pedagogy by calling into question the authority of the teacher/ theorist, raising feelings of guilt and shame, and revealing tensions among students as well as between teacher and students. In classes of African-American women taught by African—American teachers, the sharing of experi- ence can lead to the same sense of commonality and sharing that was true of early consciousness- raising groups. But in settings in which students come from differing positions of privilege or oppression, the sharing of experience raises conflicts rather than building solidarity. In these circumstances, the collective exploration of experience leads not to a common knowledge and solidarity based on sameness, but to the tensions of an articulation of difference. Such exploration raises again the problems left unaddressed by Freirean pedagogy: the overlapping and multiple forms of oppression revealed in "reading the world” of experience. Conclusion Both Freirean and feminist pedagogies are based on political commitment and identification with subordinate and oppressed groups; both seek justice and empowerment. Freire sets out these goals of liberation and social and political transformation as universal claims, without exploring his own privileged position or existing conflicts among oppressed groups themselves. Writing from within a tradition of Western modernism, his theory rests on a belief of transcendent and universal truth. But feminist theory influenced by postmodernist thought and by the writings of women of color challenges the underlying assumptions of these universal claims. Feminist theorists in particular argue that it is essential to recognize, as Juliet Mitchell cements, that we cannot "live as human subjects without in some sense taking on a history. "31 The recognition of our own histories means the necessity of articulating our own subjectivities and our own interests as we try to interpret and critique the social world. This stance rejects the universalizing tendency of much "malestream” thought, and insists on recognizing the power and privilege of who we are. As Biddy Martin and Chandra Mohanty comment: The claim to a lack of identity or positionality is itself based on privilege, on the refusal to accept responsibility for one’s implication in actual historical or social relations, or a denial that positionalities exist or that they matter, the denial of one‘s own personal history and the claim to a total separation from it.“ - Fundamental to recent feminist theory is a questioning of the concept of a coherent subject moving-through history with a single essential creation and negotiation of selves within struc— tures of ideology and material constraintsl—l3 This line of theoretical analysis calls into question assumptions of the common interests of the oppressed, whether conceived of a women or peasants; it challenges the use of such universal terms as oppression and liberation without locating these claims in a concrete historical or social context. The challenges of recent feminist theory and, in particular, the writings of feminists of color point to the need to articulate and claim a particular historical and social identity, to locate ourselves, and to build coalitions from a recognition of the partial knowledges of our own constructed identities. Recognizing the stand- point of subjects as shaped by their experience of class, race, gender, or other socially defined identities has powarful implications for pedagogy, in that it emphasizes the need to make conscious the subject positions not only (if students but of teachers as well. These lines of theoretical analysis have implications for the ways in which we can understand pedagogy as contested, as a site of discourse among subjects, teachers, and students whose identities are, as Weedon puts it, contradictory and in process. The theoretical formulation of the "unstable self,” the complexity of subjectivities, what Giroux calls “multi-layered subjects,” and the need to ' Listening to Dissenting Voices 31] position ourselves in relation to our own histories raise important issues for liberatory pedagogies. If all people’s identities are recognized in their full historical and social complexity as subject positions that are in process, based on' knowledges that are partial and that reflect deep and conflicting differences, how can we theorize what a liberatory pedagogy actively struggling against different forms of Oppression may look like? How can we build upon the rich and complex analysis of feminist theory and pedagogy to work toward a Freirean vision of social justice and liberatitins? - ' In the complexity of issues raised by feminist pedagogy, we can begin to acknowledge the reality of tensions that result from different histories, from privilege, oppression, and power as / they are lived by teachers and students in classrooms. To recognize these tensions and differences v" does not mean abandonment of the goals of social justice and empowerment, but it does make 5 clear the need to recognize contingent and situated claims and to acknowledge our own histories / and selves in process. One significant area of feminist work has been grounded in the collective analysis of experience and emotion, as exemplified by the work of Haug and her group in Germany or by the Jamaican women's theater group, Sistren. In many respects, these projects look back to consciousness raising, but with a more developed theory of ideology and an acute consciousness of difference. As Berenice Fisher argues, a collective inquiry "requires the slow unfolding of layers of experience, both the contradictory experiences of a given woman and the conflicting experiences of a different woman. "5“ Another approach builds on what Bernice Reagan calls the need for coalition building, a recognition and validation of difference. This is similar to What has come to be known as identity politics, exemplified in what Minnie Bruce Pratt-is seeking in her discussion of trying to come to terms with her own identity as a privileged Southern lNhite woman.85 Martin and Mohanty speak of this as a sense of “home,” a recognition of the difficulties of coming to terms with privilege or oppression, of the benefits of being an oppressor, or of the rage of being oppressed.“ This is a validation of both difference and conflict, but also an attempt to build coalitions around common goals rather than a denial of differences.” It is clear that this kind of pedagogy and exploration of experiences in a society in which privilege and oppression are lived is risky and filled with pain. Such a pedagogy suggests a more complex realization of the Freirean vision of the collective conscientization and struggle against oppression, one which acknowledges difference and conflict, but which, like Freire's vision, rests on a belief in the human capacity to feel, to know, and to change. Notes 1. See as representative Henry Giroux, ed., Postmodernism, Feminism and Cultural Politics (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991); Cleo Cherryholmes, Power and Criticism: Poststructural investiga- tions in Education (New York: Teachers College Press, 1988); Henry Giroux and Roger Simon, eds., Popular Culture, Schooling and Everyday Life (Westport, CT: Berg-in :5: Garvey, 1989); Deborah Britzman, Practice Makes Practice (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991); Patti Lather, Getting Smart: Feminist Research and Pedagogy Withjin the Postmodern (New York: Routledge, 1991). 2. Paulo Freire, Pedagogy ofthe Oppressed (New York: Herder dc Herder, 1971), 28. 3. Margo Culley and Catherine Portugues, “Introduction,” in Gendered Subjects (Boston: Routledge &: Kegan Paul, 1985). For comparisons of Freirean and feminist pedagogy, see also Frances Maher, "Classroom Pedagogy and the New Scholarship on Women,” in Gendered Subjects, pp. 29-418, and "Toward a Richer Theory of Feminist Pedagogy: A Comparison of Liberation and 'Gender' Models for Teaching and Learning,” journal of Education, 169, No. 3 (1987), 91—100. 4. Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks (New York: International Publishers, 1971). 5. Teresa deLauretis, Alice Doesn’t: Feminism, Semiotics, Cinema (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984}, P- 178. 6. Audre Lorde, Sister Outsider (Trumansburg, NY: The Crossing Press, 1984). 7. See, for example, Elizabeth Ellsworth, “Why Doesn’t This Feel Empowering? Working Through the Repressive Myths of Critical Pedagogy," Harvard Educational Review, 59 (1989), 297—324; Ann Berlak, "Teaching for Outrage and Empathy in the Liberal Arts,” Educational Foundations, 3, No. 2 (1989), 69—94; Deborah Britzman, "Decentering Discourses in Teacher Education: Or, the Unleashing of Unpopular 312 Revisioning Curriculum in Higher Education W Things,” in What Schools Can Do: Critical Pedagogy and Practice, ed. Candace Mitchell and Kathleen Weller (Albany: State University of New York Press, in press). 8. Freire’s method of codifications and generative themes havebeen di5cussed frequently. Perhaps the best introduction to these concrete methods can be found in Paulo Freire, Education for Critical Consciousness (New York: Seabury Press, 1973). 9. See, for example, Paulo Freire, The Politics of Education (Westport, CT: Bergin 8.: Garvey, 1985); Paulo Freire and Donaldo Macedo, Literacy: Reading the Word and the World (Westport, CT: Bergin it: Garvey, 1987); Paulo Freire and Ira Shor,A Pedagogy for Liberation (London: Macmillan, 198?); Myles Horton and Paulo Freire, We Make the Road by Walking: Conversations on Education and Social Change, ed. Brenda Bell, John Gaventa, and John Peters (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990). 10. Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, p. 28. 11. Paulo Freire, "The Adult Literacy Process as Cultural Action for Freedom, " in The Politics of Education, p. 57. 12. Freire and Macedo, Literacy: Reading the Word and the World. 13. See Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York: Knopf, 1953), for a more striking use of the male referent. 14. Cameron McCarthy, "Rethinking Liberal and Radical Perspectives on Racial Inequality in Schooling: Making the Case for Nonsynchrony,” Harvard Educational Review, 58 (1988), 265—280. 15. Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, p. 30. 16. Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, p. 69. 1?. Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, p. 73. 18. - Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, "Can the Subaltern Speak?,” in Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, ed. Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988), pp. 271—313. 19. Freire and Shor, A Pedagogy for Liberation, p. 93. 20. Peter McLaren, "Postmodernity and the Death of Politics: A Brazilian Reprieve,” Educational Theory, 36 (1986), p. 399. - 21. When definitions of feminist pedagogy are attempted, they sometimes tend toward generalization and such a broad inclusiveness as to be of dubious usefulness. For example, Carolyn Shrewsbury character- izes pedagogy as follows: - . It does not automatically preclude any technique or approach. It does indicate the relationship that specific techniques have to educational goals. It is not limited to any specific subject matter but it does include a reflexive element that increases the feminist scholarship component involved in the teaching ,1 learning of any subject matter. It has close ties with other liberatory pedagogies, but it cannot be ' subsumed under other pedagogical approaches. It is transformative, helping us revision the educational enterprise. But it can also be phased into a traditional approach or alternative pedagogical approach. (Shrewsbury, "What Is Feminist Pedagogy?,”-Women’s Studies Quarterly, 15, Nos. 3—4 [1987], p. 12) . Certain descriptions of feininist pedagogy show the influence of group dynamics and interactionist approaches. See, for example, Nancy Schniedewind, "Feminist Values: Guidelines for Teaching Meth- - - odology in Women’s Studies," Radical Teacher, 1‘8, 25—28. Methods used by feminist teachers include cooperation, shared leadership, and democratic process. Feminist teachers describe such techniques as keeping journals, soliciting students’ responses to reading and to the classroom dynamics of a course, the use of role playing and theater games, the me of self—revelation on the part of the teacher, building leadership skills among students byrequiring them to teach parts of a course, and contracting for grades. For accounts of classroom practice, see the articles in the special issue on feminist pedagogy of Women ’5 Studies Quarterly, 15, Nos. 3-4 (1987); Culley and Portugues, Gendered Subjects,- Charlotte Bunch and Sandra Pollack, eds., Learning Our Way (Trumansburg, NY: The Crossing Press, 1983) ; Gloria Hull, _- Patricia Bell Scott, and Barbara Smith, eds., But Some of Us Are Brave (Old Westbury, NY: The Feminist - ' Press, 1982); and numerous articles in Women’s Studies Newsletter and Radical Teacher. 22. Nancy Schniedewind, "Teaching Feminist Prooess,” Women’s Studies Quarterly, 15, N 05. 3—4 (1987), p. 29; 23. Linda Gordon, "A Socialist View of Women’s Studies: A Reply to the Editorial, Volume 1, Number 1,” Signs, 1 (1975), p.559. . 24. A discussion of the relationship of the early women’s liberation movement to the civil rights movement ' and the new left can be found in Sara Evans, Personal Politics (New York: Vintage Press, 1980). Based on extensive interviews as well as pamphlets and private documents, Evans shows the origins of both ' Listening to Dissenting Voices 313 political goals and methods in the earlier male-dominated m0vement, particularly the mode] of Black student organizers and the Black church in the South. 25. While mid-nineteenth century suffra gist developed their ideas of human equality and justice through the abolitionist movement, by the late nineteenth century, White suffragists often demonstrated racist attitudes and employed racist strategies in their campaigns for suffrage. This offers another instructive parallel to the White feminist movement of the 19605. Here, once again, feminist claims emerged out of an anti‘racist struggle for civil rights, but later too often took up the universalizing stance that the experiences and issues of White women represented the lives of all women. See bell hooks, Ain’t I a Woman? (Boston: South End Press, 1981) and Feminist Theory for Margin to Center (Boston: South End Press, 1984) for powerful discussions of these issues. 26. Nancy Hawley as quoted in Evans, Personal Politics, p. 205. 27. Kathie Sarachild, "Consciousness Raising: A Radical Weapon," in Feminist Revolution, ed. Redstockings (New York: Random House, 1975). 28. Redstockings included a number of women who were influential in the women's movement) Shulamith Firestone, Rosalyn Baxandall, Ellen Willis, and Robin Morgan were among a number of other significant feminist writers and activists who participated. 29. Sarachild, "Consciousness Raising,” p. 144. 30. Sarachild, "Consciousness Raising,” p. 145. 31. Michele Russell, “Black-Eyed Blues Connection: From the Inside Out,” in Bunch and Pollack, Learning Our Way, pp. 272-284. Sarachild, “Consciousness Raising,” p. 147. William Hinton, Fanshen (New York: Vintage Books, 1966}. See Berenice Fisher, "Guilt and Shame in the Women's. Movement: The Radioal Idea of Political Action and Its Meaning for Feminist Intellectuals," Feminist Studies, 10 (1984), 185—212, for an extended discussion of the impact of the methods and goals of the civil rights movement on consciousness raising and the early women’s liberation movement. $83 35. Sarachild, "Consciousness Raising,” p. 145. 36. Sarachild, "Consciousness Raising," p. 147. 37. Irene Peslikis, "Resistances to Consciousness," in Sisterhood is Powetfiil, ed. Robin Morgan (New York: Vintage-Books, 1970), p. 339. ‘ 38. See, for example,Kathy McAfee and Myrna Wood, “Bread and Roses,” in Voices from Women 's Liberation, ed. Leslie Tanner (New York: New American Library, 1970) for an early socialist feminist analysis of the need to connect the women’s movement with the class struggle. 39. Berenice Fisher, "What is Feminist Pedagogy?," Radical Teacher, 18, 20-25. See also bell hooks, "on self— recovery," in talking back, thinking feminist, thinking black (Boston: South End Press, 1989). ‘ 40. Marilyn Boxer, "For and about Women: The Theory and Practice of Women’s Studies in the United States," in Reconstructing the Academy: Women’s Education and Women’s Studies, ed. Elizabeth Minnich, Jean O’Barr, and Rachel Rosenfeld (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 71. - 41. See Florence Howe, Myths of Coeducation (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1984), for a collection of essays documenting this period. 42. Boxer estimates there were over 300 programs and 30,000 courses in women’s studies given in 1982. See "For and about Women,” p. 7'0. 43. The literature of feminist challenges to specific disciplines is by now immense. For general discussions of the impact of the new scholarship on women, see Ellen DuBois, Gail Kelly, Elizabeth Kennedy, Carolyn Korsmeyer, and Lillian Robinson, eds., Feminist Scholarship: Kindiing in the Groves of Academe (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985), and Christie Farnhum, ed., The Impact of Feminist Research in the Academy (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987). 44. See, for example, Diana Fuss, Essentially Speaking (New York: Routledge, 1989); hooks, talking back,- Britzman, Practice makes Practice. 45. Susan Stanford Friedman, "Authority in the Feminist Classroom: A Contradiction in Terms?," in Culley and Portugues, Gendered Subjects, 203—208. 46. hooks, talking back, p. 29. 314 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 6t]. 61. 62. 63. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 7’0. 72. 73. 174. 75. Revisioning Curriculum in Higher Education See Alison Iaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature (Sussex, Eng.: The Harv-ester Press, 1983), for an excellent discussion of these perspectives. Barbara Hillyer Davis, "Teaching the Feminist Minority," in Bunch and Pollack, Learning Our Way, p. 91. See, for example, Eveylyn Torton Beck, "Self-disclosure and the Commitment to Social Change,” Women’s Studies International Forum, 6 (1983), 159—164. - Margo Culley and Catherine Portugues, "The Politics of Nurturance,” in Gendered Subjects, p. 12. See also Margo Culley, "Anger and Authority in the Introductory Women’s Studies Classroom," in Gendered Subjects, pp. 209—217. See Davis, “Teaching the Feminist Minority,” for a thoughtful discussion of the contradictory pressures on the feminist teacher both to nurture and challenge women students. Friedman, “Authority in the Feminist Classroom," p. 207. Fisher, "What Is Feminist Pedagogy?,” p. 22. Fisher, "Guilt and Shame in the Women’s Movement,” p. 202. Charlotte Bunch, "Not by Degrees: Feminist Theory and Education,” in Bunch and Pollack, Learning Our Way, p. 156. ' See Berenice Fisher, "Professing Feminism: Feminist Academics and the Woman’s Movement,” Psychot— cgy of Women Quarterly, 7 (1982), 55—69, for a thoughtful discussion of the difficulties of retaining an activist stance for feminists in the academy. - See Arlie Russell Hochsehild, The Managed Heart (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), for a discussion of the social construction of emotions in contemporary society. Hochschild argues that emotion is a "biologically given sense . . . and a meansby which we know about our relation to the world ” (p. 219). At the same time she investigates the ways in which the emotions themselves are manipulated and constructed. Berenice Fisher, "The Heart Has Its Reasons: Feeling, Thinking, and Community Building in Feminist Education," Women’s Studies Quarterly, 15, Nos. 3—4 (198?), 48. Lorde, Sister Outsider, p. 37. Lords, Sister Outsider, p. 34. Lorde, Sister Outsider, p. 123. Lorde, Sister Outsider, p. 58. Lords, Sister Outsider, p. 53. Lorde, Sister Outsider, p. 100. Adrienne Rich, "Taking Women Students Seriously,” in On Lies, Secrets, and Silence, ed. Adrienne Rich (New York: W. W. Norton, 1979), p. 243. Sarachild, "Consciousness Raising,” p. 148. Fuss, Essentially Speaking, p. 114. Fuss, Essentially Speaking, p. 118. Fn'gga Hang, Female Sexualization (London: Verso Press, 1987). Hang, Female Sexualization, p. 41. Sistren Collective with Honor Ford—Smith, Lionheart Girl: Life Stories ofjamaican Women (London: The Women’s Press, 1986), p. 15. Chris Weedon, Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987), p. 33. Jane Flax, "Postmodernism and Gender Relations in Feminist Theory,” Signs, 12, (1987), 621—643. Donna Haraway, "A Manifesto for Cyborgs," Socialist Review, 80 (1985), 72. As representative, see Johnnella Butler, “Toward a Pedagogy of Everywoman’s Studies,” in Culley and Portugues, Gendered Subjects; hooks, talking back; Hull, Scott, and Smith, But Some of Us Are Brace; Gloria Joseph and Jill Lewis, Common Dyferences: Conflicts in Black and White Perspectives (New York: Anchor Books, 1981); Chierrie Moraga and Gloria Anzaldua, eds, This Bridge Called My Back (Watertown, MA: Persephone Press, 1981); Barbara Ornolade, “A Black Feminist Pedagogy,” Women’s Studies Quarterly, 15, Nos. 3—4 (1987), 32-40; Russell, "Black~Eyed Blues Connection,” pp. 272—284; Elizabeth Spelrnan, “Combating the Marginalization of Black Women in the Classroom," in Culley and Portugues, Gendered Subjects, pp. 240—244. - ' Listening to Dissenting Voices 315 76. Combahee River collective, "Combaéhee River Collective River Statement,” in Home Girls, ed. Barbara Smith (New York: Kitchen Table—~Women of Color Press, 1983), p. 275. 77. Combahee River Collective, "Combahee River Collective River Statement," p. 274. 78. Russell, “Black—Eyed Blues Connection,” p. 155. 79. Omolade, "A Black Feminist Pedagogy,” p. 39. 80. Combahee River Collective, “Combaltee River Collective River Statement," p. 272. 81. Juliet Mitchell, Women: The Longest Rienolution (New York: Pantheon Books, 1984). 82. Biddy Martin and Chandra Mohanty; "Feminist Politics: What’s Home Got to Do With It?,” in Feminist Studies/Critical Studies, ed. Teresa deLaurentis (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1986), p. 208. 83. See, for example, Flax, "Postmodemism and Gender Relations in Feminist Theory”; Sandra Harding, The Science Question in Feminism (Ithaca: University of Cornell Press, 1986); Dorothy Smith, The Everyday World as Problematic (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1987); Haraway, "A Manifesto for Cy- borgs,” Socialist Review, 30 (1985), 64w107; Nancy Hartsock, Money, Sex, and Powar (New York: Longman, 1983); Mary O’Brien, The Politics ofRepjroduction (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981); Irene Diamond - and Lee Quinby, eds, Feminism and Foucault (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1988); Linda Alcott, "Cultural Feminism versus Post StrudturalismLIthdentity Crisis in Feminist Theory,” Signs, 1 3 (1988), 405—437,- Special Issue on Feminism and Deconstruction, Feminist Studies, 14, No. 1 ( 1988); Judith Butler, Gender Trouble (New York: Routledge, 1990), Linda Nicholson, ed, Feminisnn’Postmodemism (New York: Routledge, 1990). = ' 84. Fisher, "The Heart Has Its Reasons/5p. 49. 85. Minnie Bruce Pratt, "Identity: Skin Bldod Heart," in Yours in Stmggle, ed. Elly Bulkin, Minnie Bruce Pratt, and Barbara Smith (Brooklyn, NY: Long Hand Press, 1984). 86. Martin and Mohanty, "What’s Home Got to Do With It?” 87. Bernice Reagon, “Coalition Politics: Turning the Century," in Smith, Home Girls, pp. 356—369. ...
View Full Document

Page1 / 21

Weiler - - flarvardlithicational - v.61 n'o.4'pp.449~474' ....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 21. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online