Citation
Toward a peminist critical theory in women's studies

Material Information

Title:
Toward a peminist critical theory in women's studies
Alternate title:
Academic ideology and the challenge of Filipina feminism
Creator:
Nunag-Hicks, Candace ( author )
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 electronic file (104 pages) : ;

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Women's studies -- Philippines ( lcsh )
Women's studies -- United States ( lcsh )
Feminism -- Philippines ( lcsh )
Feminism -- United States ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Review:
Women’s Studies as an academic discipline was won through hard fought battles of feminist activism in the United States in 1960’s and 70’s. Though the intention of many feminist activists upon entering the academe was to simultaneously produce scholarship and critique the structure of American universities, in many ways their plans were frustrated as the demands of the academy were largely incommensurable with social and political activism. This study approaches the primary qualm of the disciplining of feminism into Women’s Studies, and asserts that academic structure and ideology has indeed changed feminism with a unique set of pedagogical and structural implications for the Women’s Studies discipline. ( , )
Review:
Investigating Women’s Studies’ mainstays of the wave metaphor, hegemonic feminism, and intersectionality theory, this study casts a critical eye upon these tropes’ manifestations, and argues that they they serve a power-driven agenda supplanted by academic institutional demands. The purpose of this study is to use Filipina and Filipina-American feminism as a case study to investigate the ways that the institutionalization of feminism into Women’s Studies has affected how the origin story of this movement has been crafted. Using a historical materialist lens to observe the connection between feminism in the Philippines and Filipina-American feminism in the United States, this thesis highlights the difference between institutionalized disciplinary iterations of pinayism and the activist praxis of feminists in the Philippines. With an alternate chronology of the women’s movements of the Philippines, paired with a critique of academic hierarchy, this thesis will ultimately ask: How and why do women’s movements form outside of the purview of institutionalization?
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.Sc.) - University of Colorado Denver.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographic references.
System Details:
System requirements: Adobe Reader.
General Note:
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences
Statement of Responsibility:
by Candace Nunag-Hicks.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
945987732 ( OCLC )
ocn945987732
Classification:
LD1193.L582 2015m Db N96 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
TOWARD A PEMINIST CRITICAL THEORY IN WOMENS STUDIES:
ACADEMIC IDEOLOGY AND THE CHALLENGE OF FILIPINA FEMINISM
by
CANDACE NUNAG-HICKS
B.A., University of Colorado Boulder, 2010
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado Denver in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Social Science
Humanities and Social Science Program
2015


This thesis for the Master of Social Science degree by
Candace Nunag-Hicks
has been approved for the
Humanities and Social Science program
by
Omar Swartz, Chair
Margaret Woodhull
Gillian Silverman
Date: December 11, 2015


Nunag-Hicks, Candace (M.S.S., Humanities & Social Science)
Toward a Peminist Critical Theory in Womens Studies: Academic Ideology and the
Challenge of Filipina Feminism.
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Omar Swartz
ABSTRACT
Womens Studies as an academic discipline was won through hard fought battles
of feminist activism in the United States in 1960s and 70s. Though the intention of
many feminist activists upon entering the academe was to simultaneously produce
scholarship and critique the structure of American universities, in many ways their plans
were frustrated as the demands of the academy were largely incommensurable with social
and political activism. This study approaches the primary qualm of the disciplining of
feminism into Womens Studies, and asserts that academic structure and ideology has
indeed changed feminism with a unique set of pedagogical and structural implications for
the Womens Studies discipline.
Investigating Womens Studies mainstays of the wave metaphor, hegemonic
feminism, and intersectionality theory, this study casts a critical eye upon these tropes
manifestations, and argues that they they serve a power-driven agenda supplanted by
academic institutional demands. The purpose of this study is to use Filipina and Filipina-
American feminism as a case study to investigate the ways that the institutionalization of
feminism into Womens Studies has affected how the origin story of this movement has
been crafted. Using a historical materialist lens to observe the connection between
feminism in the Philippines and Filipina-American feminism in the United States, this


thesis highlights the difference between institutionalized disciplinary iterations of
pinayism and the activist praxis of feminists in the Philippines. With an alternate
chronology of the womens movements of the Philippines, paired with a critique of
academic hierarchy, this thesis will ultimately ask: How and why do womens
movements form outside of the purview of institutionalization?
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication.
Approved: Omar Swartz
IV


TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION...................................1
II. ACADEMIC IDEOLOGY AND THE DISCIPLINING OF FEMINISM
...................................................23
III. THE WAVE METAPHOR AND HEGEMONIC FEMINISM......44
IV. PIN AYISM PROBLEMATIZED.......................61
V. AN ALTERNATIVE CHRONOLOGY FOR PEMINISM........74
VI. CONCLUSION....................................89
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................94
v


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Research Project
Womens Studies as an academic discipline is relatively young in comparison to
the long histories of liberal arts disciplines like anthropology, political science, or
sociology. Bom out of radical political and social movements in the United States during
the 1960s and 70s, Womens Studies has found itself in a precarious place in the
academy, as the concomitant development of feminist critique and academic
disciplinarity have, at many points in time, come in direct conflict with one another.
Though Womens Studies has come to be embraced as a fully-fledged academic
discipline, it has undergone many changes, from feminist praxis and activism, to
academically rigorous research and theorization. For better or worse, the transition of
feminism into Womens Studies has been changed by academia. This thesis aims to
investigate the changes in Womens Studies in the United States over time, and
moreover, critically analyze the ways in which academic structure has influenced and
demanded Womens Studies theorization, as well as how academia has precipitated
specific pedagogies from this discipline.
In the midst of this growing discipline, specific iterations of feminisms have had
the challenge of academically legitimizing themselves as a means of fitting into the
preexisting mold of Womens Studies. Over time, hostilities and in-fighting have come to
plague Womens Studies, so much so that the scholarship being produced from this
discipline is clouded by frustrated claims of objectivity, ad hominem indictments of
1


identity claims, as well as scathing accusations that seemingly blight the feminist
movement as a whole. It is precisely within this plagued history of in-fighting that
Filipina feminism has attempted to iterate its origins and claims to feminist theorization.
Filipina feminism, or peminism finds itself in a liminal place within American
academia, as the development of peminist critical theory is managed within the confines
of preexisting Womens and Gender Studies, as well as Asian-American Studies
pedagogies and curricula. The descriptions of the peminist movement are often
improperly categorized, if not ignored, in many Womens Studies classrooms and
textbooks. This erasure prompts a need to address several pressing questions: Why is
peminism left out of the larger scholarly discourse surrounding anti-colonial and
transnational feminisms? What about American or Western feminist discourse lends itself
to overlooking feminist movements like peminism? How do peminist scholars craft a
narrative about the origin and relevance of the peminist movement in light of its erasure?
This study aims to approach these questions, and ultimately ask: What are the
origins of peminism and peminist critical theory? Does this movements history aid in
falsifying or subverting dominant narratives that explain why and when feminist
movements initiate? And, perhaps most importantly: How has Womens Studies as an
academic discipline developed and influenced how feminisms are iterated and
understood?
The goals of this study are two fold: (1) to critique academic structure, ideology,
and Womens Studies pedagogies and their construction of the wave metaphor and
hegemonic feminism, and (2) to juxtapose hegemonic feminism with the Filipina
womens movements in order to demonstrate that peminism is a free-standing, non-
2


reactionary movement. The significance of this study lies not solely in the uncovering of
the details about peminisms past and evolution, but rather in the suggestion that closer
observations into non-western feminisms can strengthen Womens Studies scholarship.
Thesis Statement
Academia as an ideological apparatus has structured Womens Studies in a way
that its scholarship is perpetually a response to a hegemonic center; this ideology is
embedded in Womens Studies pedagogy and in turn has influenced how Filipina
feminist scholars iterate their origin story. Contrary to Filipina feminist scholars
definitions of their own origin story, I claim that Filipina-American feminism can trace
its lineage away from academic feminism and directly to the anti-colonial womens
movement in the Philippines.
Methodological and Theoretical Statement
This thesis will be structured and informed by Karl Marxs iteration of historical
materialist theory. Further, the methodology that I will utilize in this thesis is also one of
historical materialism. I utilize this theory and methodology in order to argue that the
systemic power that has changed feminism into an academic discipline functions much
like colonial imperialism; two forces that circumscribe how Filipina feminism is both
carried out and theorized.
With a historical materialist methodology, this thesis will iterate and critique the
origins and lineage of hierarchy in the Womens Studies discipline. Further, this
methodology allows me to highlight the nuances of the internalization of the hegemonic
3


narrative of feminism which has been absorbed by Filipina feminist theory. Historical
materialist methodology will also be utilized in this thesis to analyze the growth and
change of Filipina womens movements (in both the United States and the Philippines)
over time.
To a lesser extent, I will also utilize feminist critical theory to address some of the
shortcomings of Marxs historical materialist theory; however, I will continually use a
dialectical model. That is to say, after using a historical materialist framework, it will be
necessary for me to cast a critical eye upon the lack of accommodation for the
consideration of womens issues that is sometimes implicit in historical materialism.
Further, feminist critical theory will allow me to demonstrate that peminism is not in
opposition to hegemonic feminism, but a movement in opposition to patriarchy in the
context of the Philippines history. In this sense, it will be continually helpful to approach
my topic through a dialectical model.
Definition of Key Terms
Throughout this thesis I make a distinction between Womens Studies as an
academic discipline, and between feminism and feminist activism. This distinction is not
to neglect the connection between Womens Studies and feminism, but rather to indicate
that over time these two phenomena have grown in different directions.
Womens Studies. This key term is specifically used to describe the academic discipline
Womens Studies. Implicit in this definition is Womens Studies initiation into the
academy, as well as its feminist activist roots. Also implicit in this term is the
4


institutionalization of Womens Studies, and its functioning within a system of
knowledge making.
Feminism. First, I acknowledge that this term is used in many ways and many contexts to
describe womens movements, activism, theories, and praxis. Though the term has many
uses, I will specifically use the word feminism to describe non-institutionalized
grassroots activism that is centered around ending or precluding the sexist oppression of
women. Here, I specifically indicate non-institutionalized as there are many forms of
feminism that are not within the academic structure that are institutionalized, such as
organizations like Planned Parenthood or Girls Inc. Examples of non-institutionalized,
grassroots feminist movements include the groups like the New York Radical Women,
the Combahee River Collective, or the Riot Grrl punk rock movement. In this thesis when
I refer to political or social feminisms, I am referring specifically to groups and
movements such as these.
Project Summary and Scope
The scope of this thesis is focused upon three main themes: academic ideology,
Womens Studies pedagogies (including hegemonic feminism and the use of the wave
metaphor), and Filipina feminism. This thesis will address these themes in this order to
demonstrate their intimate relationship to one another. The thesis will be divided into
seven chapters; since this introduction is the first chapter, my analysis will begin in
chapter two.
5


Chapter two will outline the theoretical facets of the thesis, including materialist
theory and state apparatuses. The chapter will begin with a brief history of the United
States Womens Liberation movement, its practices and activism, and its transition into
the academe. In this chapter I will analyze what greeted the womens movement in the
academy, and iterate my primary argument that the academy functions as an ideological
state apparatus, which has disciplined feminism into Womens Studies. Further, this
chapter will expand upon the change from feminist praxis to academically condoned
knowledge making. I will proceed to discuss the manifestations of academic ideology in
Womens Studies scholarship and pedagogy, specifically calling into question the
function and use of intersectional theory.
Chapter three will expand upon the pedagogical trope the wave metaphor, and
how it is an example of academic ideologys presence and permeation in Womens
Studies. This chapter includes a detailed literature review of the commonly held critiques
of this metaphor and its usage. Using the wave metaphor as a focal point, I will describe
and critique the concept of hegemonic feminism, and how it is utilized in contemporary
Womens Studies.
In chapter four, I will begin a case study of Filipina feminism and its theorization
in the United States academe. This section of my thesis will illustrate the ways in which
academic ideology and Womens Studies pedagogy play a part in the formulation of
theory about pinayism or Filipina American feminism. Further, this chapter will highlight
the specific ways in which intersectional theory, the wave metaphor, as well as
hegemonic feminism have come in direct contact with the theorization of Filipina
American feminism.
6


In chapter five, continuing with my case study of Filipina feminism, I will posit
an alternate chronology for the origin of Filipina feminism while arguing that Filipinas
find their own way to feminism due to their unique circumstances. In this section, I will
discuss the anti-colonial origins of the Filipina womens movement as well as connect
these movements with contemporary pinayism. This critical chronology will demonstrate
that Filipina feminism has not grown out of a response to a hegemonic feminist center.
Chapter six is the conclusion of the thesis, wherein I discuss my final thoughts on
the findings of my research of peminism. The conclusion will also include a brief reverse
outline, in order to reiterate that peminism is a unique womens movement whose history
has been unnecessarily obscured by an academic ideology and precedent that demands
that feminist scholarship look and function in a certain way. Finally, I will close the study
with a discussion the significance of this project for the future of Womens Studies
theorization.
Literature Review
The scholarly discourse surrounding peminism and other multiracial feminisms in
the United States is typically focused not on organization, genealogy, or visibility of
these movements, but on periodization as exemplified by the wave metaphor. In line
with the wave metaphor, scholars corroborate that the feminist movement precipitated a
need to regard multiple oppressions, as feminism (not Womens Studies) neglected to
take into account the intersections of identities like race, sexuality, or class.
Subsequently, Womens Studies scholars have crafted feminist pedagogies that
marginalize the histories of multiracial feminisms. Due to the erasure of a large piece of a
7


shared feminist history, peminist scholars theorizing about Filipina feminism and
identity is contextualized in a way that makes the peminist movement seem both
reactionary and incomplete.
This literature review addresses the scholarly discourse surrounding the
phenomenon of multiple feminisms and the establishment of Filipina American
feminism. Implicit in the discussion of multiple feminisms is the concept of hegemonic
feminism and its role and influence over how feminisms are developed. Further, this
literature review critically engages a chronology of feminist movements and Womens
Studies pedagogy. Finally, this literature review will establish an overarching and
ongoing discussion about the commonly held notions of how and why womens
movements and activism come about, with the ultimate aim to complicate and examine
both the wave metaphor and hegemonic feminism by juxtaposing them with Filipina
feminism as a case study.
Academic Ideology. The literature that discusses academic ideology and culture is
primarily focused on the structure and function of the university in a bureaucratic,
pedagogical, and economic sense. Instead of specifically discussing academic disciplines,
much of the literature focuses on universities structural fluctuations that serve external
interests. In relationship to Womens Studies and its growth in the academe, the literature
surrounding academic ideology that plainly avoids the topic of academic disciplinarity is
a testament to how to the internal critique of academic structure is not only frowned
upon, but serves to efface the challenges of fledgling disciplines in the face of the
academic structure.
8


The literature that regards academic ideology is largely born out of a federal and
academic shift that took place in the 1980s. This shift was brought about by federal
policies to fill university funding gaps with private industries funds, with the ultimate
goal of creating a more solidified connection between industries and academia to keep
the United States competitive in global markets (Campbell & Slaughter, 1999; Slaughter
& Leslie, 1997; Slaughter and Rhoads, 2004; Berger & Mendoza, 2008). Contemporary
scholars argue that from this relationship with private industries, academic structure and
culture has changed, and begun to reflect a capitalist structure (with unfortunate
consequences for the traditional academic culture) (Gumport, 2002, 2005; Newman,
Couturier, & Scurry, 2004; Mendoza & Berger, 2008).
Comparing university structural fluctuation to changes in industrializing societies,
scholars suggest that the ideology that informs the functions of universities has switched
from faculty engagement to a bureaucratic structure that has transferred power away from
faculty members and into the hands of university administrators (Levinson, 1989, p. 23;
Anderson, 1983, p. 3; Austin & Gamson, 1984, p. 18). To some scholars, academic
ideology and the ideology of for-profit business are one in the same, and that the shift in
the principles by which the university is governed has seeped into all parts of the
university, including pedagogy (Rollin, 1989; Bleich, 1995).
Scholars critical of this shift assert that the power transfer within universities from
faculty to administrators not only robs universities of their unique historical legacies, but
also compromises their primary function as learning institutions. Instead of a learning
institution, universities become beholden to political, business, and philanthropic bodies
of interest, and thusly are operated much like a business, with university administrators at
9


the helm. Largely concerned with the growing isomorphism of the academy, scholars
regard universities mimicry of top-down business-like hierarchies with both skepticism
and concern (Levinson, 1989; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).
Other authoritative voices on the issue of academic ideology assert that academic
ideology is less a change in university structure and more a phenomenon pertaining to a
set of rules that are internalized by college students. Students in the classroom are
believed to operate under an invisible set of rules that are never overtly indicated; this
internalized authority is further baited by the prospect of good grades and, ultimately, a
higher standard of living. The abstract and covert set of rules by which students abide is
indicated as academic ideology (Lemke, 1989, p. 236). Instead of looking at the structure
of the modem day university, the scope and understanding of academic is narrowed
and focused specifically on a classroom ideology, but an academic ideology nonetheless.
Whereas Lemke asserts that academic ideology is found in the internalized
authority of college students, David Bleich (1995) asserts that academic ideology is
largely predicated upon academic pedagogy, or the lack thereof. Positing that university
professors and instructors are constrained by how their ability to teach has always been
congruent with their abilities to create scholarship, Bleich suggests that the mechanism of
testing and grading implemented to off-set teaching responsibilities is precisely what
constitutes academic ideology. For Bleich, academic ideology is neither specifically
structure or student behavior, but a pedagogical practice wielded by those who teach at
the university level. Bleich also asserts that the practices of grading and testing are
ideological vectors that are directly informed by militarism, technocracy, and corporate
practice and structure (1995, p. 567).
10


Ultimately, scholars who investigate academic ideology are primarily concerned
with the internal affairs of academia, and they maintain that its ideology is sustained and
mitigated within itself. The authoritative voices who posit that academic ideology is
reproduced inside of university walls neglect to observe how this ideology forms new
academic disciplines, or how this ideology is predicated upon the university structure as
separate from society as a whole. Finally, the literature defining and discussing academic
ideology largely dismisses the functions of the ideology, as well as the outcome for new
academic disciplines (such as Womens Studies) attempting to blaze their own trails in
scholarship.
Feminism, Womens Studies, and the Politics of Exclusion. Contemporary Womens
Studies scholarship regarding multiple oppressions (including sexist oppression of
women) argues that the feminist movement was exclusionary, and thusly elicited a need
for multiple feminisms. Describing what induced divisions in feminism, Baca Zinn,
Hondagneu-Sotelo, and Messner (2004) assert that Gender was treated as a generic
category, uncritically applied to women.. .this analysis, which was meant to unify
women, instead produced divisions between and among them (p. 168). From the
assumption that a singular feminism is responsible for different feminist factions,
scholars maintain that the feminist movement was not concerned with issues of race,
class, sexuality, etc., but, rather, privileged gender above all other categories of identity.
In doing so, feminism as a movement both alienated and galvanized multiple feminisms.
When the feminist movement came into academia as a new discipline, scholars
maintain that the effacement of multiple oppressions paired with sex and gender
11


oppression was brought in as well. Leslie McCall (2005) validates this by suggesting that
when feminism came into its academic being it began with a critique of existing fields
for not incorporating women as subjects of research..and culminated in critiques by
feminists of color of white feminists use of women and gender as unitary and
homogeneous categories reflecting the common essence of all women (pp. 1775-6). The
homogenization of gender and all other oppressions is indicated as the primary trespass
of privileged feminists and Womens Studies scholars alike. Notably, the conflation of
Womens Studies as an academic discipline and feminism as a social movement is
typically overlooked, if not taken for granted (Ginsburg, 2008; Beck, 2008).
Womens Studies scholars assert that the homogenization of oppressions into
gender was once the status quo of their discipline, whereas the study of multiple
oppressions has been theorized and named intersectionality. Intersectionality is a term
coined by law scholar Kimberle Crenshaw (1989) used to shine light upon the
marginalization of Black womens issues in both feminist and critical race related spaces.
Critiques of intersectional theory have coded Crenshaws idea as Black womens
particularism, and buttressed it against a dominance theory that is more commonly
iterated by radical factions of feminists and anti-racist activists (Crenshaw, 2011).
Critiques of intersectionality aside, this theory reigns supreme in Womens
Studies classrooms, largely due to the assumption that feminism, put bluntly, was a racist
endeavor and needed improvement. The notion of feminism as exclusionary and
Womens Studies as being equally exclusive is ubiquitous even in wide swaths of the
Womens Studies discipline. The concern of neglecting to address race when gender is
theorized has ironically elicited negligence in scholarship, iterated by Zillah Eisentein
12


(2010) when describing womens movements in the United States:
... [Wjomen are assumed to be white if not specified otherwise, especially if you
are speaking about gender inequities, rights, or feminism. Forget the reality that
Black women in the United States, first as slaves, and then as domestic laborers,
factory workers, working mothers, and civil and human rights activists have long
been the trailblazers for women of all colors, (p. 80)
Eisensteins claim that woman can be uncritically applied solely to white women, and
that Black women are singular trailblazers of all women of color in the United States, is
utilized here to demonstrate the great lengths to which Womens Studies scholars have
internalized a concern of being exclusionary of race. Eisensteins claims are indicative of
a scholar going out of her way to indicate that she recognizes both the critique of
feminism as homogenized oppression into gender and that Black womens marginality
must be brought to center in Womens Studies theorization.
Eisensteins claim that black women are trailblazers for all women of color, while
uncritically embracing intersectionality, serves to diminish and homogenize the unique
contributions of other feminisms of color. With this rhetoric, Eisenstein would credit
Black women in America for Chicana feminists standing up to the rampant and
repressive machismo of the Brown Power movement in the 1970s (Roth, 2004).
Furthermore, Eisensteins rhetoric would suggest that the activist work that Asian Pacific
American women undertook to develop leadership and entrepreneurial skills among
immigrant women would be unduly credited to another group of women of color (Yip,
1997). Though Eisenstein is justified in wanting to negate the marginalization of Black
women in scholarship, she does so at the expense of other feminisms of color by effacing
and conglomerating their efforts as though all of these groups had the same challenges
and goals.
13


Feminism and Womens Studies as exclusionary and in need of amendment is a
widespread belief in Womens Studies scholarship (Labaton & Martin, 2009; Walker,
1995; hooks, 1994). Subsequently, intersectional theory has filled the void in Womens
Studies methodologies and theorization in order to quell the marginality of multiple
feminisms. Though this marginality is recognized, it is often approached in such a way
that not only glorifies non-normative feminisms, but also serves to efface some of the
nuances of plural feminisms in an attempt to pacify the claim that Womens Studies and
feminism as a whole are exclusionary.
The Wave Metaphor and Hegemonic Feminism. Closely related to the concerns of
exclusionary feminism, current Womens Studies pedagogies support the use of the
wave metaphor for discussing periods of high-visibility feminist activism in the West,
and more specifically, in Anglo-American history. The wave metaphor is discreetly used
to categorize different historical feminist movements and then to admonish these
movements for their shortcomings related to class, sexuality, and most notably race.
Further, embedded in this metaphor is a narrative that constructs a hegemonic feminism
that erases or diminishes feminisms of color.
Most of the scholarly discussion pertaining to the wave metaphor does not regard
the metaphor itself, but rather regards the divide between the waves. Though much of the
contemporary scholarship is concerned with the ideological differences between the
second and third waves, scholarship concerning itself with the first wave of feminism in
the United States has focused much attention upon the overt racism and classism of the
womens suffrage movement. Establishing womens suffragist leaders like Elizabeth
14


Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony as nationalists and racists with a vested and sole
interest in specifically white womens enfranchisement has been the priority of the
scholarship developed around the first wave (Cohen, 1996; Sneider, 1994). Though other
Womens Studies scholars and historians research nuanced phenomenon such as the New
Woman and gender liminality in what is coded as the first wave of feminism (Smith-
Rosenberg, 2001), it should be noted that the first wave is largely understood as only
concerning suffrage, and moreover, deeply problematic for its racist overtones.
Discussions of first wave feminism seem to corroborate the qualms between the second
and third waves in their accusations of the implicit racism in homogenizing into a
singular feminism (Davis, 1981).
Within the construction of the wave metaphor, the second wave of feminism is
typically cast as the aforementioned narrative of gender as the ultimate and unifying
oppression. United States feminism of the 1960s and 70s, or second wave feminism,
is typically referred to in both Sociology and Womens Studies textbooks and
classrooms. That is to say, the authoritative voices in these fields create and maintain a
feminist history that makes activism focused solely on gender the focal point of what they
call the second wave. Though the way this history is told is ostensibly unproblematic,
this narrative lends itself to the assumption that only one group is responsible for
feminisms in their multiple and concurrent forms in the 1960s and 70s. Propagating a
feminist history that is fixated upon gender as a point of unification proves to be one of
the defining factors the construction of hegemonic feminism.
Hegemonic feminism is a termed coined by Chela Sandoval (2000) in the book
The Methodology of the Oppressed. Sandoval asserts that hegemonic feminism has come
15


about due to feminist theorization that has ignored women of colors experience of
gender, race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, etc. Hegemonic feminism can be understood as a
feminism which treats gender as the sole and ultimate oppression, whose activism is
typically centered around American, white, heterosexual, educated women with middle to
upper class backgrounds (pp. 41-2). Like the name suggests, Sandovals hegemonic
feminism lords power over all other feminisms, in that its core is constituted of the most
privileged feminists who presumably have an interest in only the sexist oppression of
women. Sandovals definition of hegemonic feminism can be regarded as the prototypical
explanation of both how and why multiple feminisms arise in response to a privileged
and homogenized center.
Although many authoritative voices in Womens Studies scholarship assert that
hegemonic feminism is a cause of multiple feminisms, there are other outlying scholars
who take this into question. Becky Thompson (2002) asserts the most significant
problem with [hegemonic feminist history] is that it does not recognize the centrality of
the feminism of women of color in Second Wave history (p. 337). Though continually
utilizing the wave metaphor, Thompson is adamant about expanding feminist history of
what is deemed the second wave to accommodate for all of the activism of women of
color, and the anti-racist militant activism of white feminists. In the same vain as
Thompson, Beverly Guy-Sheftall (2008) pushes back against the assertion that multiple
feminisms spring from a hegemonic feminism. Guy-Sheftall challenges the stereotype
that Black women either disregarded feminism or were only responding to white
feminists racism. Instead, Guy-Sheftall asserts that African and African-American
women have a long history of womens resistance that neither fits plainly in the wave
16


metaphor nor hegemonic feminism (pp. 106-107).
Further, whereas scholars assert that race-based feminisms are precipitated from
racism in the white womens movement, other scholars push back against this claim in
asserting that womens resistance arises from within social movements that disregard
gender oppression. In Benita Roths book Separate Roads to Feminism (2004), her
central point is that the commonplace historiography and chronicling of the second wave
of American feminism makes Black, Chicana, and Womens Liberationist feminism seem
as though they are variants or reactions to mainstream white feminism. Roth argues that
while these feminisms emerged around the same time, they were not variants or solely
related to mainstream feminism. Like Thompson, Roth recognizes the multiple and
concurrent feminisms of the 1960s and 70s, but asserts that Womens Liberationist
feminism (the white womens radical movement) came about due to the sexism and
gendered division of labor within the student, anti-war, and civil rights movements.
Further, Roth counters assumptions that second wave feminism at its core ignored race
by positing that the Chicana and Black womens movements arose in response to the
masculinist politics and sexually repressive agendas of the Brown and Black Power
movements respectively (Roth, 2004).
Peminism, Pinayism and the Filipina American Experience. The authoritative voices that
describe Filipina feminist theory typically operate in the disciplines of Asian American
cultural studies and Womens Studies. The state of the literature that describes this
movement separates out what is called pinayism (Filipina American feminism) and
peminism (Filipina feminism, pronounced with a p to emphasize its grounding in the
17


Philippines national language, Tagalog, which does not organically include a phonetic
f sound) (de Jesus, 2005). The scholarly authorities who create and maintain definitions
of theories of Filipina feminism both implicitly critique the notion of feminist
proliferation due to hegemonic feminism, yet, paradoxically, they also iterate a history of
Filipina feminism that is inextricably tied to the internal politics of United States
Womens Studies, including intersectionality.
In the introduction to Pinay Power, Melinda de Jesus (2005) speaks to the notion
of identity and history erasure, specifically about Filipinos in the United States.
Pertaining to the colonial mentality of Filipinos, de Jesus says, many hegemonic cultural
and political forces conspire to transcribe [Filipinos] within narratives of amnesia or
forgetfulness (p. 3). Here, de Jesus is insinuating that peminism is a social movement
that is trapped within the strictures of hegemony, including hegemonic feminism. De
Jesus is also implying that within the fold of hegemony is a tacit inclination to blame
Filipino/as for the erasure of their culture. De Jesus is implicitly problematizing a
Filipino/a colonial mentality, while, at the same time, alluding to the nature of hegemony
and its ubiquitous will to homogenize histories. She goes on to point out that
Filipino/American identity is rooted in the United States imperial nationality, which
demands that [Filipino/as] forget [their] own colonization... (p. 3). In essence, de Jesus
is complicating the argument that peminism is a response to hegemonic feminism by
suggesting that peminism is a response to imperial hegemony, which includes hegemonic
feminism under its umbrella.
Along the same lines as de Jesus, when describing Filipina feminism, pinayist
scholar Allyson Tintiangco-Cubales (2005) points to hegemony as the discerning factor
18


between itself and what is presumably understood as a singular monolithic feminism.
Echoing aforementioned intersectional theory, Tintiangco-Cubales posits that
[Pinayism] is beyond looking at gender politics as the major focus. Pinayism aims to
look at the complexity of the intersections where race/ethnicity, class, gender, sexuality,
spirituality/religion, educational status, age, place of birth, diasporic migration,
citizenship, and love cross (p. 141). Tintiangco-Cubales iterates Filipina feminism as
intrinsically intersectional, and implicitly opposed to hegemonic feminism.
Whereas scholars such as de Jesus and Tintiangco-Cubales point to hegemonic
feminism and imperial hegemony as primary factors in galvanizing Filipina feminist
thought, other scholars maintain that Filipina feminism comes from the fact that Filipina
Americans inhabit distinct social locations that mediate their experiences of oppression
and also inform their modes of resistance (Samson, 2005, p. 151). In other words, some
scholars assert that contemporary Filipina womens resistance and organization is
galvanized by their experience of sexist oppression from Filipino men (Lacsamana,
2012). This is not to rest the blame of Filipina womens oppression solely on the
shoulders of their male counterparts, but is to say that Filipina feminism comes in
response to the sexism and oppression that is most present in their ethnic and race-based
communities. Further, this is not to essentialize all men as oppressors; on the contrary,
scholars such as Samson would assert that the sexism that is exercised over Filipina
women can be attributed to a unique history of imperial and colonial control, but modern
day Filipino men happen to be the vector by which this oppressive history is brought to
Filipina womens material realities. In conversation with other scholarly authorities on
Filipina feminism, assertions such as Samsons present themselves not as contrary to the
19


literature, but rather, more nuanced than attributing all of Filipina womens oppressions
to just colonial hegemony broadly speaking.
As this literature review elucidates, the discourse surrounding Womens Studies
and feminist theorization is fraught with the concern that its theorization will continually
mimic a hegemonic feminism that is predicated upon exclusion. This concern, and
arguably fear of being exclusionary of issues of race plagues Womens Studies
scholarship so much so that it has manipulated the ways in which feminist movements
origin stories are crafted and understood. In other words, the authoritative voices in
Womens Studies who define and utilize hegemonic feminism, the wave metaphor,
intersectionality, or Filipina feminism have absorbed into their rhetoric a meta-narrative
that already presumes multiple feminisms as marginal.
The authoritative voices who address the academic ideology and the development
of Womens Studies, feminist pedagogies, the construction of hegemonic feminism, and
the theorization of Filipina feminism all contribute to creating a narrative about peminism
and its origin. Whether this narrative is rooted in the development of educational
structures like the wave metaphor, or if it is derived from the historical legacy of
colonialism, the scholars addressing multiple feminisms agree that peminism (or any
feminism, for that matter) can be understood as in response to something. The more
pertinent question about peminism then becomes: What is this movement in response to?
And how does one construct a peminist history that precludes homogenization with other
feminist historical narratives, as well as resists being taken into the fold of hegemony?
20


Conclusion
This thesis will uncover a narrative that challenges the normative explication of
how and why feminist movements are initiated and carried out. Critiquing the
shortcomings of pedagogical and chronological frameworks, as well as an academic
ideology that enables and encourages such frameworks, will provide me with a starting
point for positing the argument that peminism, as a movement and critical theory, is
developed in response to colonial and imperial hegemony, as well as specifically sexist
oppression present in modem day Filipina/o society.
Utilizing a historical materialist framework will provide a transparent and concise
way to challenge the argument that feminist movements are created largely in response to
hegemonic feminism. Further, a methodological strategy that encompasses historical and
dialectical materialism provides a way to uncover the academic agenda that directly
informed the growth and structure of contemporary Womens Studies as a discipline.
This strategy will also aid in clarifying how peminist scholars conceive of a transmission
of power, and how, overtime, the dialectical relationship of Filipina/os opposing
colonialism (or imperialism) has turned into Filipinas opposing sexist oppression.
Ultimately, this thesis will point to peminism as a case study of how academic
ideology, Womens Studies theory, and the change in United States feminism over time
have greatly influenced how feminisms of color conceive of themselves and their
theorization. By juxtaposing an alternate narrative and origin story of Filipina womens
movements with academic ideology and its subsequent effects on feminism and
Womens Studies, this thesis will work to both reveal and unravel a long-standing belief
that womens movements are developed solely in response to hegemonic feminism.
21


On a larger scale, reinvestigating the chronology and history of peminist thought
and activism will be invaluable to Womens Studies scholarship, as it is a necessary and
overdue critique of how academia has served only a select few in its demands for theory
and knowledge making. I do not intend this work to be an indictment of the oversights of
Womens Studies scholarship and pedagogy, but rather an expansion and a galvanization
to broaden the scope of how feminism and feminist movements are understood. In this
sense, my study will ultimately be useful to those seeking to expand feminist critical
discourse inside and outside of the classroom, as well as to those who seek nuanced
understanding of how feminist movements come about outside of and in spite of
hegemonic influence.
22


CHAPTER II
ACADEMIC IDEOLOGY AND THE DISCIPLINING OF FEMINISM
In this chapter, I will discuss and analyze how political feminist movements in the
United States came to be an academic discipline. Both historical and critical, I aim to
forge and showcase a narrative of feminism and Womens Studies that clarifies the
academys relationship with the growth and change of United States feminism over time.
Broadly speaking, I intend to exhibit this critical chronology as a testament to the
confines in which feminism has come to be taught and learned, not only in university
classrooms, but in social and casual contexts as well. From this history, I will indicate the
ways in which the scope of Womens Studies scholarship has been limited, but also the
ways in which some feminist scholarship has proliferated under the constraints of
academia.
I will highlight the meta-pedagogical materials that I argue are utilized in order to
construct and maintain an academic ideology that has both informed and changed
feminism. Further, I will elucidate upon materialist theory that both underpins my
critique of academic ideology, while at the same time provides a lens through which the
rest of this study can be observed. The scope of this chapter will be narrowed and fixed
upon three themes: feminism as a political movement, academic structure and ideology,
and the resulting scholarship of a disciplined Womens Studies.
23


The Birth of Womens Studies
Womens Studies is both an academic discipline and, at the same time, an
interdisciplinary paradigm with a far-reaching breadth. Womens Studies as a specific
academic discipline in American universities has a relatively brief history, dating back to
its roots in the 1960s and 70s, brought about by the many upheavals of various
womens movements. It is necessary to examine the structure and the history of Womens
Studies as an academic discipline, as the interrogation of its legacy and origin allows for
a clarification of why and how the voices and experiences of Filipina feminists have been
left out of academia.
The first Womens Studies program began at San Diego State University in 1970,
and it is commonly held that these became classes due to the demands of feminist
consciousness raising groups (Buhle, 2007, p. xv). Although the radical feminist groups
in many of the urban centers in the United States brought consciousness raising to the
forefront of social justice activism in the 1960s and 70s, they were not the first, nor the
last, to utilize this method for conceptualizing and understanding their lived experiences
in the context of gender and oppression. In terms of what and how consciousness raising
works, sociologist Rose Weitz (1982) describes feminist consciousness raising simply as
regular meetings in which women discuss and search for similarities among their
personal experiences (p. 231). From a psychological perspective, consciousness raising
is a personal, face-to-face interaction which appears to create new psychological
orientations for those involved in the process (Cheseboro, Cragan, & McCullough 1973,
pp. 136-137). Kathie Sarachild (1978), an outspoken member of the New York Radical
Women group, defined consciousness raising as a radical weapon (p. 144). For the
24


New York Radical Women, they decided to raise [their] consciousness by studying
womens lives by topics like childhood, jobs, motherhood etc. (Sarachild, 1978, p. 146).
For the radical womens group, this study consisted of reading outside texts, but more
than anything, it consisted of grounding their ideas in their own experience. That is to
say, the radical groups study of womens oppression looked less like an empirical study
of other women specimens, and instead was an internal endeavor into their memories and
personal histories of how they had experienced what ultimately came to be understood as
sexist oppression.
In practice, consciousness raising can be understood as what I deem a proto-
theoretical exercise. In other words, consciousness raising is an activity that lends itself to
making feminist theory, and with its activist implementation, a form of praxis.
Consciousness raising and its subsequent praxis directly informed the political rhetoric of
the Womens Liberation movement in the United States, which eventually led to the
creation of Womens Studies as an academic discipline. Somewhat paradoxically,
consciousness raising lent itself to making Womens Studies into an academic discipline
that was necessarily tethered to a political and activist core. Ostensibly, this connection is
useful and beneficial, particularly if it is the intention of Womens Studies to continually
aid in overt social change through activism. However, in the academy, the duality of
politics and scholarship has a legacy that is both fraught and ongoing (Buhle, 2000, p.
xxv).
From the tradition of consciousness raising, a unique feminist pedagogy was
created, and Womens Studies classes in the academy were structured very differently
than traditional courses. When a Womens Studies department was created at SUNY
25


Buffalo, one of the founders noted that [t]his education will not be an academic
exercise; it will be an ongoing process to change the ways in which women think and
behave. It must be part of the struggle to build a new and more complete society (Buhle,
2000, p. xxv). This quote is a testament to the specifically un-academic agenda of
feminists entering the academy. This is not to say that the feminist activists and scholars
who are largely responsible for the development of the Womens Studies discipline were
uncommitted to producing rigorous scholarship, but it is to say that they set out to
establish Womens Studies as a new, unique, and somewhat contrary discipline vested in
an equally contrary curriculum that was often informed by activism. Describing the
development of a Womens Studies program at Portland State University, Nancy
Hoffman (2000) notes, ... .We enabled students to build a womens studies program, one
of the first in the country.... Ours was a grassroots movement... not a program but an
action. I can see now that we applied community-organizing skills to the student
community (p. 23). Here, Hoffmans reflection of the development of the PSU
Womens Studies program is telling; with support from activist skill set that Hoffman and
her colleagues came to academia, students did not ask for permission for a Womens
Studies program, they organized and made it. Fledgling Womens Studies programs
coming up in universities, in many ways, had to include an element of activism, as some
of these programs were met with hostility or dismissal (Buhle, 2000, xxii). Nonetheless,
Womens Studies classes, curriculum, pedagogies, programs, and syllabi were initially
and intimately tied to a political and activist core. Alas, this core was subject to a new set
of rules in academia, and it was not long until the critical and political agendas of
feminists were stifled in the academe.
26


Upon entering and growing in the academic sphere, Womens Studies has had to
conform to academic standards, rigor, empiricism, and an ideology very different than the
radical and political agendas to which feminists were previously accustomed. Describing
the widely held belief about the academy, Taylor and Conrad (1992) suggest that the
structure of the university as an institution has been conditioned by popular images of its
pastoral innocence, and of its highly cognitive and theoretical workersseemingly
disinterested intellectuals (p. 405). In other words, when Womens Studies was
channeled into academia, there was (and is) an expectation of its scholarship to be
disinterested, objective, and theoretical, all of which are standards that political feminism
had never been held to before, nor considered.
While solidifying as a discipline, Womens Studies not only had to be acculturated
to an academic paradigm, but to an academic ideology as well. One constituent part of
academic ideology is the dual concept of academic freedom and duty. In his instructional
book Academic Duty (with a targeted audience of new university faculty), Stanford
University president, Donald Kennedy (1997) describes academic freedom as the
insulation of professors and their institutions from political interference (p. 20).
Kennedy goes on to describe the books namesake academic duty, as mysterious and
representative of a confusion about what is owed: by the university to society, by faculty
to students, by administrators to both (p. 3). Kennedy's assertion that the concept of
academic duty is mysterious reigns true in many ways, but the description of the breadth
of this mystery is where we can observe the earmarking of ideology. Kennedy describes
academic duty as a process of exchange and debts without first questioning why we see
the university as different from society, or perhaps why we see faculty as different from
27


students. The duality of the categories which Kennedy puts forth are indicative of an
academic ideology that renders the university as separate and exceptional from society;
the faculty from students as well.
One of the salient issues elicited by Kennedy's assertions about academic freedom
and its binary of university and society is the objectivity that is demanded of faculty.
Kennedy suggests that it is the faculty members responsibility to [retain] some
detachment and objectivity about highly partisan issues in which it might be possible to
exert an unfair influence over students (p. 19). Here, Kennedy is still basing his
assertions upon binary models of student and teacher, and society and university, in that
he believes that the university and the faculty member are placed above society and the
student respectively. The implication of this facet of academic ideology is that it is only
those in power who are able to be objective, and if they are not objective, then they have
effectively abused their power. The consequences of Kennedy and other academics
outlook on the tacit hierarchy sustained by the concept of objectivity is that
individuality, emotion, and personality in academia are not only unscholarly, but frowned
upon.
The demand for objectivity in faculty and university practice is an expectation so
ubiquitous that it is frequently overlooked. Further, the conception of academic
objectivity is partnered, albeit tenuously, with the idea of neutrality and together with
scholarly research, they create a trinity of knowledge making or truth finding. Ostensibly,
scholarship, objectivity, and neutrality together is the ideal way to research, but, as
Haskell (1990) argues, neutrality does little to nothing to push scholarship forward, nor is
28


it necessarily an admirable goal, especially when objectivity can be easily compatible
with political commitments (p. 5). Haskell warns of scholarly detachment saying
Detachment functions in [a] manner not by draining us of passion, but by helping
to channel our intellectual passions in such a way as to insure collision with rival
perspectives.... Objectivity is so much a product of social arrangements that
individuals and particular opinions scarcely deserve to be called objective, yet the
social arrangements that foster objectivity have no basis for existence apart from
individual striving for detachment. Only insofar as the members of the community
are disposed to set aside the perspective that comes most spontaneously to them,
and strive to see things in a detached light, is there any likelihood that they will
engage with one another mentally and provoke one another through mutual
criticism to the most complete, least idiosyncratic, view that humans are capable
of. When the ascetic effort of detachment fails, as it often does, we talk past one
another, producing nothing but discordant soliloquies, each fancying itself the
voice of reason, (p. 5)
Haskell lauds detachment as an important means for furthering scholarship and thinking
more generally, but stops short commending objectivity, as he sees it as both a
construction and a road block to the seemingly great potential of intellectual work. Alas,
Haskell also asserts that objectivity, or at least the notion of it, is precipitated directly
from the individual attempting to be detached. Notably, Haskell does not conflate the
term neutrality with detachment, nor does he assume that objectivity and detachment
are happy bedfellows. On the contrary, Haskell aims to indicate that detachment is the
key ingredient for an intersubjective understanding of both the world around us and our
own place among many. In conversation with Kennedys assertions about objectivity, and
its tacit implications about emotion and passion, Haskell prioritizes detachment above
objectivity, as his goal is to further intellectual practice, as opposed to maintaining a
hierarchy between academy and society. In sum, Haskells privileging of detachment
serves to diminish commonly held notions of objectivity and neutrality in the sense that it
goes against the grain of academic ideology in a hierarchy. Haskells detachment, paired
29


with his sense of political commitment, serve to bridge the gap between the university
and society; a gap that has been happily cultivated and maintained by academics like
Kennedy, in the service of objectivity.
The hierarchy implicit in Kennedys definitions of academic freedom and duty
represent a primary point of inquiry not only for the inception of Womens Studies, but
for any fledgling discipline in the academy. If academic ideology would dictate that the
work that occurs at the university is separate and disconnected from society, then this
puts Womens Studies in a precarious place, as the discipline itself is part and parcel of
social and political activism. Put into context with Kennedys suggestion that academic
freedom is an insulation from political interference, it makes it seem as though the
intention of the academy is to research and work with impunity; and in the case of
Womens Studies in particular, it is the function of the academy to not be scrutinized, but
rather left to do its work. Why this is so troublesome for Womens Studies is that when
the university as an institution is not a subject of critique or research, and when it sees
itself as apart from society, all of the interpersonal discrimination and prejudice which
occurs inside of the university is, in practice, ignored or justified. In this sense,
Kennedys description of academic freedom seems ironic, as the compulsion to protect
universities and their faculty from harmful political ideologies (like McCarthyism and the
communist scare) seems to stretch too far, as if to insulate the university from politics at
all. Hereafter, when I refer to the political and academic divide in Womens Studies, I am
referring to precisely the insulation from society and its politics that the academy has
made for itself. For Womens Studies, the disconnect between politics and academia is
where it found its home, albeit through a trial by fire.
30


Academic Ideology as State Apparatus
Here, I will use Louis Althussers (2009) theories of Ideological State
Apparatuses (ISA) to analyze the academys role in changing feminism from a political
movement to an academic discipline. Bom from historical materialism, Althussers
description of the apparatuses of state power illuminate a history of Womens Studies not
vested in the history of feminist movements, but, rather, a history of mimicry as a means
to acquiescence to academic structure.
Before describing Althussers IS As, I aim to clarify the historical materialist
platform from which Althusser begins his theory; namely Karl Marxs iteration of
materialism, and to a lesser extent, Erich Fromms perspective of Marxs ideas of
consciousness and human history. In Marxs Concept of Man, Fromm (1961) suggests:
...Marx... believed that most of what men consciously think is false
consciousness, is ideology and rationalization; that the true mainsprings of mans
actions are unconscious to him. ... According to Marx, they are rooted in the
whole social organization of which directs his consciousness in certain directions
and blocks him from being aware of certain facts and experiences, (pp. 20-1)
Here, Marx by way of Fromm, is suggesting that consciousness is produced as a means of
interaction with the social organization, or, put simply: being around other people. In his
early work, Marx notes, Consciousness is therefore from the very beginning a social
product, and remains so as long as men exist at all (1947, p. 51). That is to say,
consciousness is necessitated by social contact and will be with us as long as we are
around other people. From Marx and Fromms descriptions, one can observe that
consciousness can, at the very least, be manipulated by those with power in the social
31


organization. This manipulation is implicated in the creation of false consciousness or
alienation, and for Althusser, ideology.
Marx and Fromms analyses in mind, Althussers description of IS As can be
directly applied to my aforementioned suppositions about the academy. Althusser begins
by discerning between Marxs state apparatuses and his own ideological state
apparatuses. Whereas Marxs state apparatuses (such as the military or prisons) are
considered by Althusser to be repressive (functioning by means of violence), the
ideological state apparatus may elicit similar results, but with a different function and
implementation than the repressive state apparatus. Examples of the ideological state
apparatus (ISA) include religious, cultural, and educational ISAs. I assert that in the
matter of academic structure and ideology, and how these phenomenon weigh upon
Womens Studies, Althusserian iterations of both cultural and education ISAs must be
observed very closely.
As implied by their name, ISAs function primarily by ideology, but like Marxs
RSA, they function secondarily by repression. The two part function of the ISA is vital
for understanding the phenomenons manifestation: there is no such thing as a purely
ideological apparatus for Althusser (p. 81). This in mind, ideology and repression are
necessary for the exercise and maintenance of state power. I argue that the academy is a
site of this exercise of power and Womens Studies as an academic discipline has been
subject to exactly that: discipline. Althusser even makes a point to note that Schools...
use suitable methods of punishment, expulsion, selection, etc., to discipline not only
their shepherds, but also their flocks (p. 81).
32


Speaking specifically to Althusserian ISAs and the disciplining of feminism into
Womens Studies, Ellen Messer-Davidow (2002) asserts that individual internalization of
academic ideology has occurred in the disciplining of feminism:
...the subjects... work by themselves... with the exception of the bad subjects
who on occasion provoke the intervention of one of the detachments of the
(repressive) State apparatus. But the vast majority of (good) subjects work all
right all by themselves. ... The are inserted into practices governed by the
rituals of the ISAs. (p. 19; Althusser, 2009)
Of this epigraph, Messer-Davidow goes on to analyze ISAs hand in Womens Studies in
analyzing specifically academic disciplines:
... disciplines endure through practice, the continuation of practice depends upon
reproduction, and reproduction is accomplished by socializing practitioners.
When a discipline trains future practitioners, it [does not] just teach them its
knowledge contents; it exercises them in its ways of perceiving, thinking, valuing,
relating, and actingthereby, as Althusser notes in the second epigraph, inserting
them into its schemes of practice, (p. 20)
Messer-Davidows point here is that academic ideology as a repressive apparatus relies
heavily upon its individual subjects internalizing the disciplines practices. In other words
(hearkening back to Fromm and Marxs ideas of consciousness and materialism),
feminists entering academia were, and continue to be, inculcated with academic ideology
that manifests in material practice and eventually internalization. What is implicit in this
internalization is alienation; in the case of feminism to Womens Studies, the price of this
alienation is effacing the political legacy of feminism and replacing it with academically
condoned and controlled knowledge making.
I argue that the academic ideology serves a purpose that is a reflection of a
commonly critiqued, but frequently overlooked phenomenon: capitalism. As an
Althusserian ISA, the academy works in a way that systematically inculcates its
constituents in an attempt to create capital in the form of knowledge. Though authorities
33


on academic culture and ideology have argued that the spawning of administrative culture
and the academys overt connection to privatized industrial interests are to blame for
academic capitalism, their critiques fall short in addressing the academys
internalization of the superstructure of capitalism (Levinson, 1989; Anderson, 1983;
Austin & Gamson, 1984; Gumport, 2002, 2005; Newman, Couturier, & Scurry, 2004;
Mendoza & Berger, 2008). That is to say, the academy has not only monetarily profited
from its business-like isomorphism, it has internalized the practices of capitalism, and
uses the incentive of managing a surplus of knowledge to discipline and inculcate
prospective scholars and new forms of scholarship (Levinson, 1989).
Academic ideology does not solely exist in the culture built up inside of
universities and their administration; it also manifests on the individual level. Speaking
candidly of her experience as an academic, Delia Aguilar (2000) highlights a subtlety of
academic work in saying
I just wasnt hip enough to appreciate newfangled theoretical angles as they were
taking shape in the academy. Perhaps I was not grasping the fact that in academic
life, as in the world of capitalist production, survival dictates compliance with the
principle that built-in obsolescence or shelf life inheres in ideas as in goods, (p.
8)
Though Aguilars insight in to the speed at which theory takes shape in the academy
should not be overlooked, it is her description of ideas that I aim to highlight. Aguilars
description of knowledge is the epitome of the circumstances elicited by academic
inculcation and ideology: ideas are commodities. Like commodities, ideas can be turned
into surplus; knowledge can and does become capital.
The implications of academic knowledge production and its relationship with
feminism and, subsequently, Womens Studies seem to answer Messer-Davidows
34


question head on: How was academic feminism formed by the dynamic structures it set
out to transform? It is my argument that academic feminism is the embodiment of radical
and political feminist thought, disciplined and inculcated by an academic ideology and
structure with the greater goals of collecting a surplus of ideas, knowledge, and theories.
For the remainder of this thesis, I will use the term academic ideology as a
summation of three key attributes: a belief, a function, and a locus. The belief attribute of
academic ideology is constituted by the conclusion that academic work is objective and
neutral, and is thusly separate and distinct from society and its politics. The functional
attribute of academic ideology is specifically capitalist; the academy manages the surplus
of theories, knowledge, and knowledge making. Finally, academic ideology as a locus
refers simply to the disciplinary power of the academic structure; the academy is a locus
of power, or an ISA. So then, when I use the term academic ideology it is intended to be a
summation of these three attributes.
Womens Studies Disciplined
Academic ideology in mind, the individual experiences of those who initiated Womens
Studies into the university system paint a different, more hopeful view of the seeming
duality between politics and academia. Discussing the climate in which she entered the
Womens Studies classroom, Nancy Hoffman (2000) says
My mothering of Womens Studies began on the West coast, instigated not by
academic intellectuals but by radical student activists, of whom I was one. Our
goal was to open up the university to scrutiny, to challenge institutional power,
and to take some for our own purposes. Although many of us were students and
young faculty members, we were also outsiders whose prior political activities
have been off campus. We saw the youth on campus as ripe for radicalizing and
organizing. For me, the womens studies classroom because the place where
politics and intellectual interest could come together... (p. 17)
35


Though Hoffmans account is just one experience of the political and intellectual facets
of Womens Studies, we can observe the initial tension that was both perceived and
resented with the introduction of feminism to the university campus. Hoffman points out
that an initial goal of feminists in the academy was to scrutinize and challenge the power
exercised by universities. Hearkening back to Kennedys iteration of academic duty, we
can see the immediate qualm with which feminism was introduced into academia. For
some feminist activists, the primary subject of feminist critical theory was set out to be
the academy itself. Feminists penchant for critiquing the universitys institutionalized
patriarchal hierarchy has occurred from Womens Studies onset to this day, and it is
frequently met with hostility, if not outright ignored.
Addressing the masculinist ideology of the academy, Carole Blair, Julie Brown,
and Leslie Baxter (1994), in their highly controversial piece Disciplining the Feminine,
set out to indict the ostensible empiricism of a sociological study of women in the
academe, specifically in the Communication discipline. Blair et al. begins the piece by
showcasing the many trials of getting published, including pointing out that our writings
suppress our convictions, our enthusiasm, our anger, in the interest of achieving an
impersonal, expert distance and tone (p. 383). This assertion hearkens back to the
academic ideology that demands objectivity of researchers and instructors, but in
exchange for, perhaps, personal connections with academic writing. Blair et al. goes on to
describe their idea of scholarship as vouchsafed by academic freedom and intellectual
ethics (p. 383). However, even though their idea of scholarly liberties seems self-
evidently justified, they point out that issues of institutional or professional power are
deemed superfluous to the substance and character of our scholarly efforts (p. 383). In
36


other words, for Blair et al., the downside of academic freedom is that the academic
aspect makes it so one is not free at all, but perpetually confined. Blair et al.s findings
not only indicate the tenuousness of the invisibility of academic ideology, but they also
point out how disappointing and hollow scholarship can be for those who make it.
Considering the emotional journeys through consciousness raising and activism that gave
feminism and Womens Studies its start, acquiescing to academic standards seems that
much more compromising for feminists in the academe.
Here, I note that scholars such as Hoffman and Blair et al. are testaments to the
resistance to academic ideology and practice that can be found among feminists in the
academe. Though I argue that academic ideology has changed feminism into Womens
Studies with some unfortunate consequences, I also wish to highlight that resistance to
institutionalization remains an important part of the scholarly work done in Womens
Studies. By indicating the initial goals of feminists, as well as the masculinist climate of
the academy, feminist academics do indeed posit resistance to academic ideology and the
institutionalization of feminism and Womens Studies.
Womens Studies and the Academic Paradigm
In response to academic ideology, structure, and expectation, I argue that
Womens Studies and its pedagogy have been formulated in a way that has attempted to
restructure social and political feminist ideas and movements into a top-down power
model favored by academia. In other words, when feminism found its home in academia,
it was coerced into adopting the same methods of teaching, learning, and knowledge
making that was already institutionalized in the university system. In doing so, feminism
37


turned Womens Studies has, from its onset, been in a confined space, not to mention a
completely different territory from its activist and non-institutionalized heritages. Here, I
want to stress that even though feminists had high hopes of critiquing and changing the
structure of the academe, it was actually the academy that changed feminism, for better or
for worse.
In their analysis of the political and academic discord in Womens Studies,
Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge (1994) chronicle some of the challenges that have
haunted this academic discipline. Describing the development of the political and
intellectual split in Womens Studies, Patai and Koertge note, From the outset,
Womens Studies occupied an unusual position in academe. It was not just
multidisciplinary but had a dual agenda: educational (the study first of women and then
of gender) and political (the correction of social injustice) (p. 4). Patai and Koertge go
on to note that
Inevitable tensions have resulted from this grand, not to say grandiose, vision. A
brave new field that sprang up from grassroots efforts.... Womens Studies faced
many obstacles within the university. The legitimation of any new academic field
is long process, but feminists believed that the challenges they faced were
invariably manifestations of sexism. This sense of vulnerability contributed to the
development of a siege mentality, (p. 5)
The vulnerability and siege mentality within Womens Studies can be directly
connected to its primary initiation through consciousness raising and activism. That is not
to say that these activities delegitimize Womens Studies as an academic discipline, but
that the social and political goals of feminists have fueled, and continue to fuel, the
academic standpoint of Womens Studies. The political roots of Womens Studies are in
glancing conflict with the demands of scholarship. Though scholarship can certainly have
political applications, academic work created with political intentions can stray far from
38


the scholarly standard of empiricism without bias. That in mind, the defensive attitude
incubated by the initial political intentions of Womens Studies remains a contributing
factor of how Womens Studies classes are taught, how its pedagogy is developed, and
how it is widely received.
A manifestation of the aforementioned vulnerable mentality is the crafting of
genealogical narrative of Womens Studies that prioritizes a legitimization of a discipline
ahead of a fortification or expansion of scholarship and inquiry. Here, I posit that the
disciplining of feminism into Womens Studies as an academic discipline has resulted in
a horizontal hostility that ultimately privileges the study of certain feminisms, and
subsequently marginalizes and suppresses the study of others. In other words, in an
attempt to make Womens Studies more palatable in the academe, the facts, theories, and
narratives of particular feminisms and womens movements are either ignored or effaced;
suppression begets suppression in this case.
Due to Womens Studies precariousness in the threshold between education and
politics, and the subsequent effort to academatize the discipline, feminist theory itself
has been building upon a narrow and uneven foundation. In a statement addressing the
issue of feminist theory and Womens Studies in academia, Maxine Baca Zinn (1986)
remarks:
Practices that exclude women of color and working-class women from the
mainstream womens studies have important consequences for feminist theory.
Ultimately, they prevent a full understanding of gender and society. The failure to
explore fully the interplay of race, class, and gender has cost the field the ability to
provide a broad and true complex analysis of womens lives and of social
organization. It has rendered feminist theory incomplete and incorrect, (p. 195)
The idea expressed in Baca Zinns critique here has been widely regarded by feminists
and academics (and academic feminists), but I argue that this rhetoric is tacitly aimed at
39


academic practice and Womens Studies. In regards to Baca Zinn and other scholars who
have called for a broader and more inclusive analysis of feminisms (Crenshaw, 1989;
Thompson, 2002; Roth, 2004), the response has been fruitful, but not without its
shortcomings, particularly in regards to cultivating a belief that feminism has always
been exclusionary.
The Institutionalization of Intersectionality
Described as the single most important contribution that womens studies has
made so far, the concept of intersectionality is an open ended notion that encompasses
an analysis of gender simultaneously with other points of difference (race, class,
sexuality, etc.) (Davis, 2008, p. 68; McCall, 2005). The term was originally coined by
Kimberle Crenshaw (1989) in the piece Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and
Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and
Antiracist Politics and refers to the marginalization of black women in feminist critical
theory, as well as critical race theory. Crenshaws intersectionality has been described as
a theory, a heuristic, a descriptor, an analytical lens, and a buzzword. Though it could be
any and all of these things at once, intersectionality is largely regarded as an individual-
level experience or embodiment of multiple forms of oppression. In Crenshaws case,
intersectionality is a term to describe her marginalization as a woman in male-dominated
spaces dedicated to critical race theory and the experience of racial oppression she felt in
feminist circles, constituted primarily by white women. Crenshaws experience in mind, a
constituent part of the theory of intersectionality is the belief that it is impossible to talk
40


about gender without considering dimensions of social structure/social identity that play a
formative role in genders operation and meaning (Shields, 2008, p. 303).
Describing the popularity of intersectionality, Kathy Davis (2008) notes that [a]t
this particular juncture in gender studies, any scholar who neglects difference runs the
risk of having her work viewed as theoretically misguided, politically irrelevant, or
simply fantastical (p. 68). Davis summation of the utilization of intersectionality
demonstrates not only the diversity of this phenomenons application, but also the
precedent which has been set for considering intersectionality in all academic work.
Here I note that it is not my intention to suggest that intersectionality should be
overlooked or disregarded; on the contrary, I argue that intersectionalitys ubiquitousness
merits a critical inquiry not only into its heritage, but the implications of its
implementation, especially in Womens Studies. I strive to highlight that the way that
Crenshaws theory of intersectionality has been used is explicitly a reaction to academic
feminism and knowledge making, and not of non-institutionalized feminist movements.
Crenshaws original iteration of intersectionality is an important theoretical
device for the analysis of multiple feminisms. Instead of parsing out different identity
phenomenon in individual level experiences, an intersectional analysis allows for the
consideration of how multiple structures of oppression and privilege result in different
experiences on both an individual and a systemic level. Regarding multiple feminisms,
intersectional theory can be utilized to observe and critique the different and concurrent
systems and structures of power (i.e., white supremacy, imperialism, patriarchy, etc.) that
galvanize womens resistance and activism.
41


Alas, intersectional theory, though popular in Womens Studies scholarship, is
seldom used as an analytical lens to observe and askrr/zy multiple feminisms come about.
Rather, intersectionality in the context of academic institutionalization has been
understood as a corrective lens, and utilized in such a way that it is not turned to critique
academic ideology, but is instead an addendum to Womens Studies scholarship.
Intersectionality has been utilized as a way to add (not analyze) multiple feminisms into
the fold of scholarship, but its use is continuously predicated upon the belief that there
was only one kind of feminism and a singular feminist movement. Of course, the way
this theory is utilized is not Crenshaw or the theorys fault or shortcoming; rather,
intersectionalitys use as a corrective device for Womens Studies scholarship comes as a
direct reaction to academic ideology and structure.
Ultimately, what has occurred is an academic turned pedagogical quagmire in
which the efforts to put marginal womens experiences at the forefront of feminist
scholarship has led to a presupposition that it is middle class, white, heterosexual
feminisms hegemony that has elicited the plurality of feminisms. Perhaps the direst
consequence of this presupposition is that students taking Womens Studies courses are
coming to understand plural feminisms as a response to, essentially, white womens
feminism. The belief that a privileged form of feminism has turned the inquiry into
feminisms of color into an imperial endeavor by which women of color are specimens,
not subjects, and it is a foregone conclusion that their feminism is spawned from a
hegemonic source.
Herein lies a significant though overlooked problem in Womens Studies: the
predominant narrative of feminisms of non-white women seem to suggest that they were
42


created in response to white womens feminism. This comes as no surprise, considering
that overt activism of feminism seems to have trailed off into academia, which has
subsequently become the host to the problem of ideological conflicts within Womens
Studies. In other words, the belief that feminisms are created solely by reaction to a
mainstream (white, middle class, heterosexual, able, etc.) feminism could only be
precipitated by feminism within the structure of the academy.
The political and academic divide in Womens Studies has led to a slew of
problems that have become embedded in the way that Womens Studies and the history
of womens movements is taught through texts and in classrooms. One of the most
commonly used pedagogical tools in Womens Studies today is the Wave Metaphor.
The next chapter will define and analyze the wave metaphors usage and popularity, as
well as cast a critical glance at the wave metaphors seeming innocuousness in Womens
Studies.
It is my assertion that the wave metaphor, paired with the fraught academic
paradigm in which feminism has become Womens Studies, has resulted in the
construction of what Chicana feminist theorist Chela Sandoval calls hegemonic
feminism. The following chapter can be understood as an investigation of the nuanced
way in which academic ideology has disciplined Womens Studies, and in turn, informed
how its scholarship is substantiated specific to different identity categories and multiple
feminisms.
43


CHAPTER III
THE WAVE METAPHOR AND HEGEMONIC FEMINISM
In this chapter, I analyze and critique a commonly utilized pedagogical trope
known as the wave metaphor. This metaphor is used to describe a history of feminist
movements and activism in the United States. For example, the first wave of feminism
is said to have commenced in 1848 with the Seneca Falls Convention, and concluded in
1920 with the enactment of womens suffrage in the United States. The second and
third waves of United States feminism have less clear dates associated with them. They
are established as occurring in the 1960s and 70s along side the many social movements
occurring concomitantly, and again in the 1990s with a movement toward the
reclamation of girl power (Bailey, 1997). Other scholars maintain that waves of feminism
are still being created and that we are currently in a fourth wave and a fifth may be
imminent (Munro, 2013; Wrye, 2009). Though the casual use of the wave metaphor
makes it seem innocuous, this trope is not without its problems. I aim to illuminate the
already established critiques of the wave metaphor that have come from varying
academic disciplines, namely History and Womens Studies.
This chapter includes a literature review of contemporary critiques of the wave
metaphor, as well as my own analysis of how these critiques and the wave metaphor itself
serve a covert purpose in light of the academic ideology discussed in the previous
chapters. My analysis will culminate in a critique of hegemonic feminism. This chapter
aims to indicate the nuances of how feminist historiographies are crafted in academia,
44


while at the same time critique the ways that these historiographies are sometimes labeled
unbiased and objective.
The Wave Metaphor: Literature Review
The wave metaphor is a commonly used trope in Womens Studies teachings
and readings, though it is infrequently examined. Allegedly posited by Womens
Liberationists in the late 1960s, describing womens movements and feminist activism in
historiographical terms by way of the wave metaphor, has been both a convenience and a
thorn in the side of Womens and Gender Studies scholarship for quite some time. A
convenience in the sense that the metaphor provides a simple way of talking about
historical feminist activism, and a nuisance as the wave description of feminisms leaves
out a multitude of histories, as well as lends itself to the creation and maintenance of
what is called hegemonic feminism.
Although the use of the wave metaphor seems to be ubiquitous in both casual and
academic discourse, it has been the subject of some scholarly scrutiny. Academics from
an array of liberal arts disciplinary perspectives (not just Womens Studies) have weighed
in on the utility of the wave metaphor (Laughlin, Gallagher, Cobble, Boris, Nadasen,
Gilmore, & Zamow, 2010; Nicholson, 2010; Hewitt, 2012). This literature review aims to
define the wave metaphor, while historically situating its implementation and use in both
feminist and broader social contexts. It is my intention to highlight that scholarship that
critiques or at least calls in to question the utility of the wave metaphor presupposes
feminist in-fighting. In light of this, these critiques neglect to address a greater question
that is not why bother using the wave metaphor? but rather What limitations has the
wave metaphor already set for the way educators and students understand the chronology
45


of women's movements? The literature review will thematically categorize the
contemporary critiques of the wave metaphor, as well as synthesize some of the disparate
scholarship that responds to this problematic at best pedagogical trope.
To begin, the wave metaphor more simply is a way of historically categorizing and
describing feminist activism. Casually, the first wave implied by the metaphor, points
to everything from the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848 all the way to the autumn of
1920 when American women casted their ballots for the first time after their
enfranchisement. The second wave is largely understood as feminist activism broadly
associated with the many other social movements in the 1960s and 70s. Martha Weinem
Lears article The Second Feminist Wave was published in New York Times Magazine
in 1968, and its title is assumed to set the precedent for what we now regard as the second
wave of feminism. Finally, the third wave refers to activism vaguely situated in a
timeline that begins around 1990 and could be continually occurring as I write this in
2015. In her piece Becoming the Third Wave, Rebecca Walker (2001) makes the
statement, I am not postfeminism. I am the Third Wave, as a proclamation of the
difference between the end of feminism and the second wave of feminism; Walkers
statement is both a rekindling and a continuation of the feminisms that came before her
(p. 80). Further, Walkers claim to embody the third wave is an exemplification of the
already entrenched idea of feminism occurring in waves.
Feminism in waves is a widely used metaphor, so much so that the Library of
Congress has now adopted First Wave, Second Wave, and Third Wave as topical
categories, entrenching them further in academic and popular discourse (Hewitt, 2012,
p. 659). As Hewitt points out, the wave metaphor is a ubiquitous descriptor that is now
46


casually used to indicate everything from womens suffrage, to intersectionality, to the
development of NOW (the National Organization for Women). Popularity, ease of use,
and mutual intelligibility aside, there are still problems and ideas to be problematized
embedded in the use of the wave metaphor, particularly in its academic and pedagogical
implementations.
The most recognizable and widely critiqued constituent of the wave metaphor is
the belief in definitive beginnings and ends of the three aforementioned waves. This
assumption about the wave metaphor is the easiest to unpack, as we find womens
movements organizing almost constantly, within or outside of the chronology of the
waves. Further, these womens movements overlap and weave into other womens
movements as well as other social movements, such as the labor movement, the Black
Power movement, or the movement against the Vietnam War (Roth, 2004).
Closely related to the critique that the wave metaphor situates a story that has
clear beginnings and ends is the critique that the metaphor collapses concurrent
feminisms into a chronology that maintains that only one wave is occurring at single
point in time. Scholars suggest that the wave metaphor lends itself to painting a narrative
of womens movements that implies feminism is a united and singular occurrence, thus
negating a nuanced understanding of womens movements that situates them inside of
gendered imagination of a particular generation and a particular historical moment
(Gallagher, 2010, p. 89). In other words, the wave metaphor tacitly supposes that only
one feminism is occurring during one wave, without consideration of the different
contexts in which womens movements arise.
47


Another more subtle critique of the wave metaphor is the supposition that the
wave metaphor, as a device, is a reflection of an ideology that favors a sophomoric
narrative of winning and losing. That is to say, describing feminism in waves makes it
seem as though the only feminist activism considered in the waves chronology is the
feminism that has succeeded in meeting its goals; feminism that has won, so to speak.
Further, this oversimplified narrative of feminism leads to a slew of multiple feminisms
being not only effaced, but placed in a hierarchy of victors and the defeated. Addressing
the exclusions of the wave metaphor, Julie Gallagher and Kathleen Laughlin (2010) note
that
[The wave metaphor] construct celebrates the stories of hard-won victories by
women who were able to compel power elites to address their demands. However,
in these time-specific and narrowly focused accounts, the multidimensional
aspects of feminism too often are excluded, (p. 82)
Here, Gallagher and Laughlin are indicating a problematic aspect of the narrative of
feminism in waves: the wave metaphor only privileges feminism whose struggle was
ostensibly resolved, as well as liberal feminism, whose agendas could be met by those
already in power. Elucidating on this point, Gallagher and Laughlin suggest that
White middle-class women, by nature of their race and class privilege, were able
to gamer media or political attention more readily than women of color or
working class women. As a result we can follow their activism through to some
kind of conclusionoften to a victorious one. Narratives of struggle and victory
are appealing and fairly simple to tell. (p. 84)
In other words the wave metaphor has become a descriptor that follows in the footsteps
of stereotypical narratives of success, competition, and winning. Accordingly, Gallagher
and Laughlins critique is vested in the fact that multiple feminisms exist and have
different criteria for success; winning white middle class feminism would have no
comparison to buttress itself against if other feminisms did not occur. Alas, the stories of
48


multiple feminisms are erased in lieu of the convenience of the wave metaphor descriptor
as a catch-all for feminist victory.
One of the most prominent critiques of the wave metaphor is closely related to
both the former and latter critiques, though it is arguably the most controversial in light of
the current state of academic feminism: the assumption that each wave is an improvement
upon the last wave (Hewitt, 2012, p. 661). Specifically, the critique is that the use of the
wave metaphor lends itself to letting contemporary feminists believe that they are
superior or improving upon, specifically, the lack of inclusivity of the prior waves of
feminism. So, for example, self-declared Third Wave feminists Dawn Lundy Martin and
Vivien Labaton (2009) remark, [o]ne of the luxuries that our generation has enjoyed is
that weve reaped the benefits of all of the social justice movements that have come
before us (p. xxvii). In a critique of this work, Hewitt (2012) again points out that
Martin et al. explication of the roots of social movements of the past hardly seem worth
watering (p. 664). Martin et al. describe the second wave of feminism (notably, they
do not describe any of the other concurrent social movements which they esteem as part
of their heritage) as having placed a select few issues at the center of what is thought of
as feminist activism, neglecting the full range of experiences that inform womens lives.
They go on to note that the second wave was [inattentive] to racial cultural, sexual, and
national differences (p. xxxi).
I argue that Martin et al.s explanation of the second wave of feminism represents
the epitome of what is both understood and taught as feminist historiography through the
wave metaphor. Their ideological standpoint would suggest that the feminist movement
during the second wave was exclusive to white, upper-middle class, and heterosexual
49


women, and the subsequent backlash to this was a proliferation of plural feminisms in
order to address the presumed racism, homophobia, and classism of the mainstream
womens movement. In other words, the feminisms that came after the second wave
were, in a sense, presumably better than and more inclusive than the singular feminism
that is believed to have existed during this time period.
Martin et al.s supposition that third wave feminism is an improvement upon the
shortcomings of the second wave is tacitly supported by many other third wavers,
though not without a respective critique. Self-declared third wave feminist, and co
founder and president of the feminist organization Third Wave, Rebecca Walker
created the anthology To Be Real: Telling the Truth and Changing the Face of Feminism
(1995). The anthology compiles work from feminists who struggle to formulate a
feminism they can call their own (Bailey, 1997, p. 21). Walkers implication here is that
the feminism of the past (second wave) has been unaccommodating to young feminists
and that they not only have no stake in it, but are actively working to transform, re-
define, improve, and possess a new kind of feminism. Though this is a visionary and
forward-thinking sentiment about the fate of feminism, what should be highlighted about
the third wave assumption of the lacking of the second wave, is that it paints earlier
feminism as a monolithic force (Bailey, 1997, p. 21). To be frank, Walker, along with
many other third wave feminists are fighting against a wave or idea of feminism that
never existed. In other words, third wave feminist description and understanding of
second wave feminism is largely predicated on the hollowness of the wave metaphor; the
belief in a fictional, singular, monolithic feminism that has been constructed into a
hegemonic phantom that haunts the history of womens movements.
50


The most salient critique specific to my research is this: the wave metaphor erases
feminist activism and work in non-gender based organizations for social justice, as well
as effaces the anti-racist, socialist, and non-heteronormative activist endeavors of
feminists of the past. Becky Thompson (2002) says this more eloquently when she
asserts, the most significant problem with [hegemonic feminist history] is that it does
not recognize the centrality of the feminism of women of color in Second Wave history
(p. 337). Although Thompson is utilizing the wave metaphor here, it is somewhat
ironically, in the sense that she is reiterating its shortcomings. Other Womens Studies
scholars, as well as academics involved in critical race theory and ethnic studies, argue
that feminism has always taken place in race and class-based organizations, and that the
wave metaphors collapsing of multiple feminisms into a singular hegemon serves to
define feminism as singular and based only in issues of sex or gender (Nadasen, 2010, p.
99). This is not to say that only one feminism existed or has ever existed at one time;
rather, it is to point out that the wave metaphor itself necessitates an erasure of multiple
feminisms for the sake of simplicity.
The critique that the wave metaphor itself erases plural feminisms is in direct
conflict with the latter critique that suggests that third wave feminism supposes itself an
improvement upon the second wave of feminism. The wave metaphor is a tool that erases
the nuanced history of feminisms, which have already encompassed and accommodated
issues of race, class, and sexuality. So then it stands that the assertion that second wave
feminism was exclusionary and centered only on the activism of affluent, heterosexual,
white women is, in a way, a self-fulfilling history; the second wave as a descriptor
51


makes it so multiple feminisms are erased anyway, despite their obvious concomitant
presence alongside of more visible feminisms in the mainstream.
It is exactly here where the critiques of the wave metaphor begin to diminish in
terms of their scope and relevance; the disputes between third and second wave feminism
predicated upon the misplaced assumption that feminism belonged to a singular and
monolithic group of privileged women. I am not, however, arguing that the
aforementioned critiques of the wave metaphor are toothless or in vain; they are a
necessary and important infrastructure and lens through which we see how feminist
historiographies are created. Further, these critiques reveal just how porous and unsteady
the widely held history of womens movements has become. That in mind, I argue that
the implications of the narrow view of the history of womens reform has much larger
implications, especially in the academic and pedagogical contexts where they seem to be
most cherished and yet most problematized.
The implications of the shortcomings of the wave metaphor (and the subsequent
feminist infighting) plays out in Womens Studies pedagogy is that the second wave is
taught and understood as a wave dedicated to a singular feminism. In describing the
second wave of feminism in United States history, Baca-Zinn et al. (2004) suggest that
Gender was treated as a generic category, uncritically applied to women.. .this
analysis, which was meant to unify women, instead produced divisions between and
among them (p. 168). This narrative of gender as the ultimate and unifying oppression
as dictating the shortcomings of US feminism of the 1960s and 70s is typically illustrated
in both Sociology and Womens Studies textbooks and classrooms (Anderson & Hill-
Collins, Race, Class, and Gender, 2004). That is to say, the authoritative voices in these
52


fields create and maintain a feminist history that makes activism focused solely on gender
the focal point of what they call the second wave (Evans, 2010). Though the way this
history is told is ostensibly unproblematic, this narrative lends itself to the assumption
that one group is responsible for feminisms in their multiple and concurrent forms in the
1960s and 70s.
A significant oversight caused by the pedagogical use of the wave metaphor is that
its simple description of womens movements makes it seem as though women of color,
lesbian women, and working class women had no feminist or political movements during
the already vague timeline of what is considered the second wave. Similarly, we are led
to believe that the first wave of feminism in the United States was fixated solely upon
suffrage, when the concurrent womens movements of this time encompassed issues such
as labor rights, racial justice, and domestic abuse (Hewitt, 2012, p. 665). Ultimately,
utilizing the wave metaphor makes it so some scholars have consciously and other have
inadvertently weighed in on the question of who and what deserves to be covered in the
history of feminism, and in doing so have excluded the work and struggles of many
women (Laughlin, 2010, p. 82). The result of this oversight is that when the history of
womens movements and feminism is taught and learned, a predetermined narrative of
the wave metaphor tacitly proscribes the notion of multiple and concurrent feminisms.
It seems that each self-identified wave of feminists intends to capitalize on the
marked difference between their wave and last, but in indicating themselves as waves,
have committed an offense in the form of omission. Particularly noticeable in the change
between self-identified second and third wave feminists is the need for improvement
upon prior feminist ideas. Striving for inclusivity trumps looking critically at the
53


mechanisms by which these feminist scholars observe the perceived transgressions and
wrong-doings of the prior wavenamely the wave metaphor as a descriptive and
analytical mechanism. Put simply, feminist scholars are more concerned with critiquing
the wave and not the wave metaphor. Herein lies an irony; it is the wave metaphor
specifically that paints a picture of lack of inclusivity in prior feminist movements, and
not the other way around.
I argue that the wave metaphor is far more insidious than it appears. Use of the
wave metaphor dictates how we learn and think about feminism, particularly in the
context of Womens Studies classes. Further, the wave metaphor aids in manipulating
what feminism is or is largely understood as, stated more clearly by Linda Nicholson
(2010) when she writes: [T]he wave metaphor suggests the idea that gender activism in
the history of the United States has been for the most part unified around one set of ideas,
and that set of ideas can be called feminism (p. 1). With such a casual and omnipresent
pedagogical tool like the wave metaphor in Womens Studies, we must ask ourselves: Is
it any wonder that intersectionality is a corrective priority of Womens Studies today?
Instead of observing womens movements through a lens of inquiry into why they
formed, the current precedent for understanding feminism looks more like an indictment
of past womens movements, with an implicit assumption that contemporary womens
movements are doing better and more important work. This progressive chronology of
feminism is a happy bedfellow to the pre-existing political and academic divide in
Womens Studies discussed in the previous chapters.
To conclude, the limits and issues elicited and propagated by the wave metaphor
as a pedagogical and historicization tool have a distinct implication and manifestation in
54


contemporary feminist scholarship, teaching, practice, and belief. It is not enough to say
that the wave metaphor is outdated or no longer has utility; the time has come for
scholars and feminists to look at the divisions that the wave metaphor has aided in
creating, namely the split between the waves and the erasure of the stories of multiple
feminisms. Premilla Nadasen et al. (2010) provides an eloquent summation of the precise
problem for feminism that the wave metaphor elicits:
Our definition of feminism is intimately tied to our adherence to the waves
metaphor. By framing the womans suffrage campaigns and the womens
liberation movements as the waves of feminist activism, this metaphor
established boundaries on womens activism, re-inscribing gender as the primary
category of analysis that defines feminism... Privileging some womens activism
pushes to the margins other women who organized in a different time period or
around a different set of issues, (p. 98)
Even though the wave metaphor seems to be an unobjectionable descriptor for womens
activism through history in the United States, it is not exempt from scrutiny. The wave
metaphor as a pedagogical trope in Womens Studies is closely related to the concept of
hegemonic feminism; together, these two concepts often times circumscribe how the
histories of feminist movements are understood. As the next section will show, to critique
the consequences of the use of the wave metaphor is to critique the construction of
hegemonic feminism.
Hegemonic Feminism
The most troublesome implication of the wave metaphor and its complicity in
Womens Studies pedagogies is that it has created a Zeitgeist of reaction to a hegemonic
form of feminism. Eileen Boris et al. (2010) makes this point more eloquently in saying
that [attacking the second wave as white and middle class ironically reinforces the very
55


history that excludes the theory and praxis of those who reject such identities by
highlighting the hegemonic as subject to debate (p. 92; Pollitt, 2001). This in mind,
when hegemonic feminism is created and defined by Chela Sandoval (2000) in the
piece Methodology of the Oppressed, it appears that a myth is being constructed around
the origins of womens movements.
Before closely examining Sandovals iteration of hegemonic feminism, we must
first venture to ground some of Sandovals terminology. Vaguely subscribing to the
chronology of the wave metaphor, Sandoval coins the term U.S. third world feminism,
as a descriptor for womens movements in colonized communities in the United States.
Sandoval suggests that U.S third world feminists created a theoretical structure exclusive
of the so-called mainstream of feminism in the 1970s (2000, p. 41). The term U.S. third
world feminism is deeply relevant in Sandovals iteration of hegemonic feminism, as it
can be understood as the precise manifestation of resistance to hegemonic feminism.
Sandovals hegemonic feminism is an epithet directed at what she would call
scholarly or academic feminist theory. Sandoval suggests that feminism as we know
it has been largely influenced by scholars such as Elaine Showalter (1985), who iterate a
three-phase taxonomy... of feminist criticism (p. 128). Sandoval situates this three-
pronged analysis within an arbitrary historiography which she calls the 1980s text of
hegemonic feminist theory and criticism (p. 47). Continually alluding to both the wave
metaphor and ivory tower politics of Womens Studies, Sandoval asserts that feminist
theory like Showalters ignores U.S. third world feminism, and instead looks only to
intellectualized feminist phases: liberal feminism (establishing women are the same as
men); feminist history of consciousness (womens lives were different from mens); and
56


female autonomy (men as Other) (pp. 47-48). Sandoval asserts that Showalters third
feminist phase has been coded under the categories cultural or radical feminisms, and
further iterations of these feminisms are categorized as socialist feminisms. Together,
these four phases of feminism are considered by Sandoval to be liberal, Marxist, cultural,
and socialist feminisms. Of these four phases, Sandoval summarizes:
During the 1968-90 period, the four-phase hegemonic typology just outlined was
commonly utilized and cited (self-consciously or not) by social theorists across
disciplines as the way to understand oppositional praxis. But this conceptual
model, this typology for organizing history, identity, criticism, and theory, is
useful for oppositional actors, insofar as it is understood as the mental map of a
given time and place, in this case, the cultural territory that U.S. feminists of color
ironically renamed the white womens movement. From the perspective of a
differential U.S. third world feminist criticism, this four-category structure of
consciousness interlocked into a symbolic container that had its own political
purposesboth hoped for and achievedbut that also set limits on how feminist
consciousness could be conceptualized and enacted, (p. 52)
In other words, Sandovals second wave of feminism had power that was in the hands
of already privileged women who circumscribed and precluded oppositional thinking or
consciousness from fitting under the feminist umbrella. Though this assertion could be
seen as groundbreaking, Sandoval is vesting much of her argument into the assumption
that her U.S. third world feminisms would be oppositional to the white womens
movement. Further, Sandoval has situated all of this within a tight chronology between
1968 and 1990, tacitly understood as the second wave, without casting a critical eye at
why this particular time period would elicit such feminist strife. Chronology aside,
Sandoval goes on to note that
[Hegemonic feminisms] four-phase structure obstructed what could be perceived
and even imagined by agents thinking within its constraints. What must be
remembered is that each position in this typology in an imaginary space that,
when understood and enacted as if self-contained and oppositional to one another,
rigidly circumscribes what is possible for social activists who want to work across
their boundaries. Movement activists became trapped within the rationality of its
57


structure, which sublimated and dispersed the specificity of a differential U.S.
third world feminist theory, method, and practice, (p. 52)
Sandoval is asserting that feminist theory produced by white feminists directly influenced
or trapped U.S. third world feminists. This trap set by privileged feminists, in Sandovals
argument, precluded alternate methodologies for praxis. Embedded in Sandovals
rhetoric is an assumption that feminisms of color neglected to work across or transcend
the boundaries of white womens feminist theories; Sandoval provides little to no
evidence that suggests otherwise, and her description of hegemonic feminism suffers for
it.
Though the claim that privileged white womens feminism placed limitations on
feminisms of color is resonant in Womens Studies pedagogies currently, I argue that
Sandovals idea of hegemonic feminism is not only tautological and unsubstantiated, but
it is also even more damaging to her U.S. third world feminisms argument. The first
reason is that Sandoval has already adopted a model of institutionalized intersectionality
that, as mentioned before, is directly elicited from the academic structure of Womens
Studies and not political feminist activism. That is to say, Sandoval has conflated
Womens Studies with feminist political and social movements, and made the assumption
that the ivory tower in which Womens Studies sits is not in fact part of the ideology of
the academy. Here, I am not arguing that Womens Studies does not have feminist
elements; instead, I am saying feminist theorizing and knowledge making and non-
institutionalized feminist praxis are two different phenomenon that Sandoval has
mistaken as one. Hearkening back to chapter two, feminist activism could in no way stay
the same once it became an academic discipline.
58


What this means for Sandovals argument about hegemonic feminism is that she
points to academic womens studies as producing a hegemon of theory, yet neglects to
dig deeper into the what and the why of her construction. It is my contention that when
we scratch the surface of Sandovals hegemonic feminism, we find that it is not a
hegemon at all; rather, it is a rigid structure that is not unique to Womens Studies. In
fact, the scaffolding of Sandovals hegemonic feminism is not feminism at all, it is
academic ideology. That is to say, the academic precedent of knowledge making and
scholarship has in effect put a limit on the way Womens Studies does exactly that; in
doing so, hegemonic feminism becomes a placeholder for a space in a dialectical model
which, prior to its construction, was held by other structures of power, such as patriarchy,
the bourgeoisie, or white supremacy. In other words, hegemonic feminism is a fictitious
monster, constructed by the limitations of Womens Studies, which are and always have
been the limitations of academic structure. Sandovals hegemonic feminism is not only a
red herring, it is also a self-fulfilling prophecy and construction; the more salience our
scholarship lends to this concept, the more true it becomes.
To problematize this narrative of feminist history and the placement of hegemonic
feminism, I argue that hegemonic feminism is a placeholder; an ideological apparatus of
power that exists to be a false center of feminism that can be looked at like the dialectical
opposite of U.S. third world feminisms. It is my supposition that hegemonic feminism is
a theoretical abstraction that works to continually diminish the legitimacy and presence of
multiple feminisms; their oppositional consciousness (contrary to Sandovals claims) is
not in opposition to hegemonic feminism, but in opposition to misogyny, patriarchy, or
colonialism inside of the race-based movements of which they were already apart. In
59


other words, hegemonic feminism is created and fortified by the feminist in-fighting of
the academy, and instills itself in feminist Zeitgeist by being that which all feminisms
oppose. I argue that feminisms grow more naturally than this, and to give credence to
Sandovals aeteological narrative of feminisms is to lend more power to a structure that
was made to abuse it. We do no justice to plural feminisms by suggesting that they
oppose a hegemonic feminist center; by painting them as a reaction to a singular
feminism, scholarship is continually marginalizing multiple feminisms by erasing the
nuanced and complex ways that women come to activism and reform.
In the next chapter, I will highlight the disparities between scholars iterations of
Filipina feminism qua hegemonic feminism. It is my intention to demonstrate that the
construction of hegemonic feminism has embedded itself in the descriptive aitos of
pinayism, and has subsequently lent itself to the discount or outright dismissal of
alternate histories describing the birth and chronology of this vibrant womens
movement. Reflecting on not only hegemonic feminism, the following chapter will also
highlight the connections between pinayism and the aforementioned institutionalized
intersectionality, and how scholars unconsciously adopt this corrective lens without
recognizing that it does little to accommodate for the rich history of Filipina womens
resistance. Ultimately, I aim to reveal the inner machinations of the construction of
hegemonic feminism, to demonstrate that the idea of feminist hegemony has spiraled into
an apparatus of power that is both hollow and unsubstantiated by the reality of feminist
movements.
60


CHAPTER IV
PINAYISM PROBLEMATIZED
Considering the academic constraints upon how students and scholars understand
and make knowledge about feminism and womens movements, it is no wonder that a
transnational movement such as peminism would come up against many challenges for
substantiating its narrative and the study of Filipina women. I posit that the Filipina-
American or pinay experience of feminism is directly informed by the United States-
centered iteration and construction of hegemonic feminism. In other words, pinay
feminism is influenced by the wave metaphor narrative that elicits a sentiment of other-
ness to feminisms that do not fit the mold of hegemonic feminism. Moreover, taking up
the arms of an American othered feminism has functioned in a way that limits the
paradigm of pinayism, in that it reinforces the notion that hegemonic feminism is the
standard, as well as paints pinayism as both reactionary and concerned only with pre-
existing feminist in-fighting.
In this chapter, I will demonstrate that pinayist scholars iteration of the
beginnings of Filipina-American feminism falls directly under the umbrella of already
established Womens Studies scholarship. I aim to underscore that pinayism, as it has
been substantiated in American academia, is directly influenced by institutionalized
pedagogical tropes such as the wave metaphor, hegemonic feminism, and
intersectionality. Further, this chapter will define semantic differences between pinayism,
peminism, and feminism, as well as indicate the earmarks of academic and political
division that underpin how pinayism is largely understood. Finally and foremost, this
chapter can be understood as a case study of how academic ideology and its subsequent
61


disciplining of Womens Studies has resulted in scholarship that not only insists upon a
political and academic separation, but obscures and hides the radical roots of feminisms,
while at the same time encourages scholars to do the same.
Filipina-American feminism is directly informed by feminism from the
Philippines, but has been cultivated state-side in a manner that presupposes its
participation in specifically American feminisms. Though I do not intend to discount the
challenges that pinayism faces in the United States, I do aim to problematize its
connection to the construction of hegemonic feminism. Further, I posit that, unlike other
transnational feminisms or race or ethnicity-based feminisms, pinayism is part and parcel
of the feminist movement based in the Philippines. Again, this is not to say that they are
the same; rather they are connected in a unique way due to colonialism and
neocolonialism, which has precipitated a transnational relationship, with an implicit push-
pull dynamic.
Before elucidating the nuances of pinayism and peminism, I will clarify some
terminology. I use the term pinayism to describe Filipina-American feminism; Filipina
womens movements in the United States, more specifically. The term pinay refers to a
Filipina American; I intend to keep this definition loose, as a pinay is both an identity
category and a descriptor for any Filipino woman or girl in the United States. Likewise,
pinoy is the masculine version, and the term pin@y is sometimes used as a gender-
neutral term.
Although in some contexts, pinayism and peminism could be used interchangeably,
I will use the term peminism to describe womens movements in the Philippines. Of
course, I will demonstrate how pinayism and peminism are connected, though I find it
62


essential to make a distinction between the two, as they are both addressing different
issues, though their roots are be the same.
Defining Pinayism
Pinayism is a term substantiated, defined, and honed meticulously by scholar
Allyson Goce Tintiangco-Cubales (2005). I will critically examine her piece Pinayism,
while highlighting the ways Tintiangco-Cubales defines pinayism in light of the
construction of hegemonic feminism and the aforementioned division between academia
and politics.
Notably, Tintiangco-Cubales does not begin her definition of pinayism with a
positive descriptor; in her definition, pinayism is immediately buttressed against several
different theoretical and identity-related phenomenon. Tintiangco-Cubales begins her
definition of pinayism by categorization. She notes that
First and foremost, here are some claims about what Pinayism is not. Pinayism is
not about one single epistemology..., nor does it have a set definition of or
rendition. Pinayism is not meant to divide Pinays from Pinoys, but Pinayism will
not ignore abuse from Pinoys. Pinayism is not just a Filipino version of feminism
or womanism; Pinayism draws from a potpourri of theories and philosophies,
including those that have been silenced or suppressed, (p. 139)
Here, I aim to indicate that the widely held definition of pinayism, as Tintiangco-Cubales
posits, immediately paints itself as reactionary to the different ideas that pinayism is
definitively not. I argue that this introductory view of pinayism should be critically
regarded, as a post-positivistic definition of pinayism unfortunately does little to
substantiate what Filipina American feminism is and how it functions. However, in
further defining pinayism, Tintiangco-Cubales goes on to say that
63


... we can look at Pinayism in these ways: Pinayism is a revolutionary action.
Pinayism is a self-affirming condition or conduct. Pinayism is a self-determining
system or belief... And by the opposition, colonizers, and by the colonized,
Pinayism can be viewed as a pathological condition, (p. 140)
In defining pinayism, I want to draw attention to the fact that Tintiangco-Cubales, as the
foremost scholar in substantiating this term, does not once describe pinayism as a
political movement. I aim to highlight this as a manifestation of the depoliticization of
feminism into Womens Studies inside of the academy. This description of pinayism,
thoroughly based in theory, is part and parcel of the academic expectation to not only
render revolutionary political action toothless, but to proliferate and capitalize upon
knowledge-making as a form of social capital. It is my contention that Tintiangco-
Cubales definition of pinayism falls plainly into this mold, as she is intent upon
definining Filipina American feminism as a semblance of epistemologies, theories, and
conditions, but never as a political movement both rooted and focused on the material
realities and conditions of Filipina women.
Tintiangco-Cubales definition of pinayism goes on to juxtapose Filipina feminism
with feminism and womanism. The question of pinayisms place in the scope of
womens movements is asked:
Is just a Pinay form of feminism and/or womanism? It is presumed that feminism
has been dominated by white, middle-class, liberal women and that womanism
has originated in black feminist thought. In submitting to the widely recognized
framework of feminism, the issues of Pinays may get buried under more dominant
and accepted voices, (p. 140)
Tintiangco-Cubales asks the pertinent question of the how of pinayism, yet she neglects
to consider the foundation upon which her assumption is set. Tintiangco-Cubales is
correct in asserting that feminism is presumed to be dominated by white, middle-class
women; however, it is but a presumption. Further she hints that black womens womanist
64


movement was precipitated from the exclusion of white feminism. Though Tintiangco-
Cubales points out that these are the dominant narratives of feminism, she overlooks how
she is placing pinayism within these same confines. She explores where pinayism fits into
this preexisting structure of feminism instead of asking what has elicited a need for
Filipina womens resistance in the first place.
Here, I stress that Tintiangco-Cubales iteration of pinayism has unconsciously
absorbed the mythology of hegemonic feminism into its origin story. This comes as no
surprise, as I asserted in chapter three, that hegemonic feminism as part and parcel of
academic structure functions like ideology: ubiquitous and unseen. This in mind, when I
describe pinayism as unconsciously adopting the mythos of hegemonic feminism, I place
no blame upon pinayist scholars; rather, I point to the academic power structure that both
creates and informs the theorization of this particular feminism. To put pinayism in
comparison with United States feminism and womanismwithout first considering its
connection to other Filipina womens movementsis a testament to the ubiquity of the
idea of hegemonic feminism and how it totalizes all narratives of feminism. This
totalizing effect, however, is exactly what I argue against: there are more complex and
nuanced pathways to womens movements and feminisms that have little or nothing to do
with pre-existing feminism or the construction of hegemonic feminism. In the case of
pinayism, I emphasize that Tintiangco-Cubales iteration of this womens movement is
vested wholly in the belief that pinayism is more closely related to United States
iterations of feminism than that of the womens movements in the Philippines.
As mentioned in the previous chapter, the notion of hegemonic feminism is fed by
the belief that it is a singular feminism that has lead to a proliferation of feminisms.
65


Defining pinayism within the confines of the myth of hegemonic feminism would be to
ignore the vast array of issues that have informed and shaped both pinays and pinayism.
In further defining pinayism, Tintiangco-Cubales borrows from bell hooks rhetoric and
cites,
Feminism in the United States has never emerged from the women who are most
victimized by sexist oppression.... White women who dominate feminist
discourse, who for the most part make and articulate feminist theory, have little or
no understanding of white supremacy as a racial politic, of the psychological
impact of class, of their political status within a racist, sexist, capitalist state, (p.
141; hooks, 1984, pp. 3-4)
Though there are certainly shortcomings to the brand of feminism, which suggests that all
women suffer the same oppression, bell hooks and Tintiangco-Cubales are, perhaps
inadvertently, propagating a shortsighted version of the womens movements in the
United States. Tintiangco-Cubales borrowing of bell hooks rhetoric about hegemonic
feminism is indicative of the aforementioned tendency to use intersectionality as a
corrective device to Womens Studies scholarship, rather than an analytical device. When
Tintiangco-Cubales answers her query of pinayisms roots and identity with the
supposition that it exists within a framework of hegemonic feminism, she is inadvertently
playing into all of the previously mentioned pedagogical tropes embedded in Womens
Studies due to academic ideology. Tintiangco-Cubales evocation of bell hooks here is a
prime example of how pinayist scholarship has become fixated on the preexisting
tendency within academia to make plural feminisms into an addition to a singular
privileged feminism. Instead of considering the other reasons why pinayism may have
come about, Tintiangco-Cubales places it within an already fraught framework that
supposes that feminist discourse has been exclusively produced by white, middle class,
heterosexual women.
66


I will note that it comes as no surprise that Tintiangco-Cubales iteration of
pinayism would play so closely into the hands of academic structured Womens Studies.
pinayism, as it is theorized in United States scholarship, would do itself a disservice by
not playing along with the infrastructure made for scholarship in the academy. That said,
pinayism, or at least Tintiangco-Cuables definition of it, can be understood as part and
parcel of the academic structure that institutionalizes intersectionality, as well as abides
by a pedagogical incentive to teach plural feminisms as related to hegemonic feminism.
In other words, in trying to set Filipina feminism apart, pinayist scholars have done the
opposite in bringing pinayism into the fold of academic ideology.
Aside from Tintiangco-Cubales definition of pinayism, other Filipina feminist
scholars have aimed to define a Filipina womens movement and theory, albeit with
varying terminology and a differing historical scope. For a more than surface
understanding of pinayism, we must endeavor to take a critical glance at the historical
turmoil that the Filipino people have experienced. As Melinda de Jesus (2005) describes
in the introduction of her anthology Pinay Power.
Many hegemonic cultural and political forces conspire to transcribe us within
narratives of amnesia and forgetfulness.. .The themes of lost identities and
histories dominate Filipino American cultural studies. Many critics delineate how
a heritage of dual colonizations (first by Spain, and then by the United States),
coupled with American cultural imperialism, has left an indelible mark on the
Filipino American psyche, (p. 3)
Referring to all Filipino Americans, and presumably Filipinos in the Philippines and
throughout the diaspora, de Jesus is implying that the construction of an identity for any
and all Filipinos is a radical and political endeavor, de Jesus description of the Filipino
identity in the wake of colonialism and imperialism taps into a bitter irony of Womens
Studies, the academe, and anticolonial womens movements in general; though scholars
67


like de Jesus are aware of the ubiquitous and hegemonic forces that attempt to efface and
oppress Filipinos (or any colonized people), she and other scholars are unaware of the
hand that academic hegemony has already played in terms of defining how womens
movements are formed. In other words, de Jesus is aware of oppressive hegemony in the
form of colonialism and imperialism, but does not extend this critical lens to observe the
academy and feminist historiography as sites of power and control. De Jesus can see how
colonization effaces Filipino culture and is internalized by Filipino people, but overlooks
how these same colonial forces circumscribe pinayist and peminist historiography in that
they sever the tie between feminist political praxis and academic knowledge making, and
replace the connection with a hegemonic center.
Though overlooking the connection between academic practice and colonialism,
and after iterating the ubiquitousness of colonial and imperial oppression of Filipinos, de
Jesus goes on to define and describe what peminism means to her, and how she uses it in
her work:
[Peminism\ describes a specific form of feminist theory rooted in the Filipina
American experiencean experience very different from the implicit (and thus
explicit) subject of white liberal feminism. Peminism describes Filipina American
consciousness, theory, and culture, with the p signifying specifically Pinay or
Pilipina, terms used in referring to ourselves as American-born Filipinas. It
demarcates the space for Filipina American struggles against the cultural
nationalist, and patriarchal narratives that seek to squash our collective voice in
the name of ethnic solidarity.... Peminism thereby signifies the assertion of a
specifically Filipina American subjectivity, one that radically repudiates white
feminist hegemony as it incorporates the Filipino American oppositional politics
inscribed by choosing the Pilipino over Filipino, (p. 5)
I want to note here that de Jesus is using peminism interchangeably with pinayism as
the way I use it: pinayism describes Filipina-American feminism. This description and
definition of peminism is ostensibly all inclusive; de Jesus elucidates upon both the
68


political practice and theoretical components implicit in just the name peminism. de Jesus
unabashedly calls out the sexism present in Filipino movements that are not organized
around gender, yet she uncritically (almost naturally) places peminism in conversation
with hegemonic feminism, or white liberal feminism.
Here, I highlight that de Jesus juxtaposition of peminism with hegemonic
feminism should be looked upon with a critical glance. It is my assertion that de Jesus, in
line with many mainstream pinayist scholars, has unconsciously integrated a hegemonic
narrative, implicitly tethered to hegemonic feminism. The narrative that de Jesus has
integrated suggests that hegemonic feminism has given rise to multiple feminisms. In
conversation with the origins of peminism and pinayism, this hegemonic narrative puts
these movements squarely in the pocket of hegemonic feminism. Though de Jesus is
careful to outline peminism as a subjectivity and an opposition to sexist oppression, her
link to hegemonic feminism is confusing, as it is unsubstantiated by a history of Filipina
political womens movements (see Lacsamana, 2012), which I will discuss in the next
chapter.
Perhaps the most troubling attribute of pinayist and peminist scholars
descriptions of Filipina American feminisms alleged connection to hegemonic feminism
is that it is, in some ways, a retelling of the colonial narrative. That is to say that by
casting pinayism as reaction to hegemonic feminism, pinayist scholars have inadvertently
stumbled into a well-established trope of colonial forgetfulness. Colonized people suffer
an erasure of their culture, and as a reflection of this, pinayist scholars have traced the
heritage of their womens movement not only to the wrong oppressor (hegemonic
69


feminism) but aided in the effacement of their own rich history of womens political
resistance.
Pinayist and peminist scholars have already treaded into the well-traveled
territory of hegemonic feminism, and, subsequently, have also fallen into the established
habit of identity politics awaiting them in Womens Studies scholarship. Addressing the
political and academic divide implicit in contemporary womens studies, as well as
critical race theory, Linda M. Pierce (2005) states that
[The] implied dichotomy between the politics of identity and a valid base of
theory and research invokes the classic divide between the personal and the
political. Although women's studies scholars first debunked this split decades ago,
this deconstructed knowledge needs to be consistently reiterated in order to
combat its hegemonic oppression. Feminist and critical race studies scholars
concerned with U.S. Decolonization must continue to emphasize the connection
between personal and cultural histories in order to underscore the notion of
privilege and accountability.... Ignoring the politics of my identity only exempts
me from social responsibility, prevents me from examining my own complicity in
status quo structures of imperialism, and slows the movement for change. And
theorizing the politics of my identity effectively initiates a process of
decolonization that is critical to my ability to survive and thrive in the United
States, (p. 31)
Pierces point here is informed directly by Womens Studies scholarship; within the
academy, theorizing the politics of identity is turned to as a form of political resistance,
and this seems to be no different to Pierce. Hearkening back to chapter two, theorizing
intersectional identities in Womens Studies as a manifestation not only of the
depoliticization of feminism inside the American academy, but also a mechanism by
which knowledge making is proliferated and capitalized upon by the structure of the
academe. This in mind, Pierces argument that theorizing identity politics as a means to
resistance is problematic; within depoliticized theorizing condoned and encouraged by
the academy, pinayist scholars are not only forgetting the roots of their revolutionary
70


history, they are creating knowledge that serves a hegemonic and homogenizing purpose:
to maintain the political status quo.
Despite pinayist scholars tendency to privilege identity politics, Pierces iteration
of what has galvanized her toward pinayism is an eloquent summation of Filipina-
American feminism ala Womens Studies. Pierce reiterates the same issues that Kimberle
Crenshaw cites in her theory of intersectionality: feminism and critical race theory were
unaccommodating to the simultaneous oppressions of race and gender. As I ascertained
earlier in chapter two, institutionalized intersectionality represents an academic location
that was elicited by a structure that favors an ideology of hierarchy and discipline. So
when Pierce hearkens back to this by indicating that pinayists have a foot in both
Womens Studies and critical race theory camps, she is tacitly indicating that pinayism is
subject to and resides within academic structure.
Crenshaw and intersectionality in mind, Pierces assertions here border on
paradoxical, as she is arguing that Filipino decolonization is an endeavor that requires its
participants to vest themselves in a praxis consistent of political resistance and
theorization of identity. Pierces arguments are paradoxical because academic ideology
has transformed feminism into Womens Studies, and has left little room for making
political commitments, while demanding neutrality and objectivity (which have
ultimately become associated with academic knowledge making). In other words,
Pierces call for political praxis facilitated by theories developed to be politically neutral
in the academy are not only toothless, they are tainted by an ideology that would suggest
that theorization is the only form of resistance to oppressive structures.
71


Alas, Pierces ideas should be heeded as part of the larger body of Filipina
feminism, if not critically regarded. Hearkening back to the stories of the women who
pioneered Womens Studies as an academic discipline, Pierce is bringing up the exact
same qualms that the founding mothers did: the personal is political. Alas, the women
who made this claim were not academics; the women who discerned that the seemingly
minute and personal experiences of gender oppression were indicative of a systemic
oppression of women were not professors, they were activists without an academic home.
When Pierce touches on the personal is political, she is in effect hinting at the political
companion to theory that culminates in praxis; she is hinting not at theorization condoned
by the academy, but at politicized activism.
In sum, Pierces vision of peminism and pinayism represents a surprising
hybridity of academic feminism and political feminism. Pierces assertions, though
underpinned with academic ideology, constitute a notable connection between pinayism
and peminism. By regarding the political activist portion of feminist praxis, Pierce
alludes to the phenomenon that connects Filipina-American theorization of pinayism with
the history of highly political activism of women in the Philippines: colonialism.
Conclusion
It is my supposition that Tintiangco-Cubales, as well as other pinayist scholars have
arrived at my very same argument: Peminism and pinayism are not accommodated or
substantiated by the widely accepted aeteological narrative of feminism, nor the
pedagogical structures of how feminism is understood to come about. However, it is here
that I posit where my argument and the contemporary pinayist scholars position splits: I
72


argue that pinayism and peminism are womens movements galvanized by the chafing
patriarchal structures that have trickled down through two waves of colonialism, and,
more recently, a neocolonial relationship with the United States. Whereas pinayist
scholars have come to consider the popular narrative of hegemonic feminism and have
questioned pinayisms role and place within the scheme of multiple feminisms, I
maintain that Filipina womens movements are started in response to the real world
material challenges that are experienced by Filipina women. That is to say, peminism,
and subsequently pinayism, are womens movements centered on the liberation of
Filipinas and their experiences of sexist oppression. In the next chapter, I will
substantiate an alternative narrative to the origins of the pinayism and peminism.
73


CHAPTER V
AN ALTERNATIVE CHRONOLOGY FOR PEMINISM
We have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed
their fields; burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out of
doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots;
subjugated the remaining ten million by Benevolent Assimilation, which is the
pious new name of the musket and so, by the Providences of God and this
phrase is the governments not minewe are a world power. (Twain quoted in
Zinn, 2001, p. 316)
The opening quote of this chapter is a lament by lauded American author Mark
Twain. A staunch anti-imperialist, Twain made this statement in critique of the United
States involvement in the Philippines, and more specifically about the Phillipine-
American war from 1899-1902.1 draw attention to this quote for two reasons: the first
reason is to be forthright about the cruelty and brutality of the colonization of the Filipino
people by the United States. Twain uncovers a hard-to-swallow truth when he so aptly
points out that the United States government, under the guise of the grace of god,
savagely robbed a state of its sovereignty and an entire people of their freedom.
The second reason I seek to draw attention to this quote is to highlight the place,
time, and means by which the Philippines and its people became entangled in an
asymmetrical power relationship with the United States. The Philippine-American war is
where my argument begins: Filipina feminism, or peminism, is not a response to
hegemonic feminism; peminism is a womens movement mobilized against the sexist
oppression wielded by colonialism, imperialism, and patriarchy.
In this chapter, I will elucidate a brief history of the Philippines, and its colonial
relationship with both the United States and Spain. Further, I will bring to light examples
of contemporary and historical womens movements in the Philippines, as well as some
74


of the critical political, material, and social issues facing Filipinas presently and
historically. I will conclude this chapter by analyzing and highlighting a transnational
connection between pinayism and peminism, all in order to underscore my argument that
Filipina feminism has come about as a response to anything but hegemonic feminism.
Before discussing the contemporary womens movements in the Philippines, I
venture to look backward at the history of the Filipina, marred by colonialism and
imperialism, but fueled by the radical possibilities of resistance. Womens movements in
the Philippines have a long and prolific history that begins near the very onset of
colonialism, not at the hands of the United States, but of Spain almost 400 years prior.
The Spanish conquest of the Philippines is pointed to as the source of sexist oppression in
the Philippines, and as Aida Santos (2004) suggests, prior to Spanish colonization,
production in the Philippines
was not predicated on exchange. There was no centralized system of the means of
production, and the family as a unit had to take charge of their own needs,
meeting only the requirements of family members patterns of consumption. Thus
there was no reason to create relations of either dependence or exploitation... the
roles allocated to women were as important as those given to men, and women
had rights equal to those of men. (p. 25)
This description of pre-conquest Philippines is privileged among Filipina feminist
scholars, as it allows for a forthright indictment of Spanish imperialism bringing not only
economic structures of exploitation, but also sexism, hierarchy, and injustice to the
women of the Philippines. Further explaining the imperial gender hierarchy process,
Santos (2004) writes:
Within the context of [Spanish imperialism], the transformation of women from
highly respected equals of men to objects of subjugation began. With the
introduction and imposition of institutions by the Spanish masters, the social
being of woman was invested with new meanings, new dimensions; or rather,
75


these were imposed on females, and their social consciousness... changed
accordingly, (pp. 25-6)
Brutal colonization in mind, it is important to point out that for Filipina feminists, the
heritage of their movement is vested in sexism brought by imperial force. Rather than
sexism existing inherently in their relationships with their male counterparts, sexism is a
phenomenon that is synonymous with colonization and imperial control.
The presence of the Catholic church is a unique component of the colonial control
wrought by the Spanish over the Filipino people. Filipino revolutionaries, both women
and men, have for a long time had a fraught relationship with this particularly insidious
and ubiquitous component of their colonization, but it is Filipinas that have always bared
the brunt of the suppression by the Catholic church. Describing the life of the Filipina
under Spanish colonial rule, Santos (2004) explains:
The woman of the Spanish period was a woman tied to the house, whose main
function was to bear children.... Women too, especially those of the peasant class,
have to serve the households of the senor, the landlord as pambayadutang (debt
settlement) while men continued their back-breaking farm activities as tenants. As
this was the usual lot for women there was no need for them to be educated,
except for the daughters of upper-class families whose education was limited
nevertheless to embroidery classes, catechisms, perhaps music and other related
activities, all geared to servicing, entertaining, or satisfying their husbands in their
married life. Marriage was seen as their final fate... Religion became womens
overwhelming concern and sole refuge, inspiring their live with the martyrdom of
male and female saints, (p. 27)
This example of the life and times of the Filipina woman of the Spanish period brings to
light many of the repressive and oppressive phenomenon that are echoed and reflected in
womens issues in contemporary Filipino politics. To this day, Catholic canon law and
ideology directly informs policies pertaining to womens access to family planning
resources. Women in the Philippines have little access to contraception, sterilization, or
abortion; this lack of access can be squarely attributed to the influence of the Catholic
76


church on Filipino law (Austria, 2004, pp. 96-98). Religion as a tool for gender
oppression surfaces time and again in the history of the Philippines womens
movements, and Santos description is vital for understanding why: Catholicism as a
repressive apparatus transcended even class-related concerns, and has become entrenched
in the Philippines law and political structure.
Further, I want to draw attention to Santos description of the peasant class of
Filipino males during Spanish colonization. Their back-breaking labor and servitude to
both the church and the state do not ostensibly seem like a womens or a gender issue, but
in the unique context of the Philippines, mens colonial exploitation is an important piece
of the puzzle of nationalist womens movements. Like Santos argued before, gender
inequity is a hierarchy brought to the Philippines by Spanish imperialism. Thusly, mens
laboring for the private colonial estates of Spanish conquerors represents a tacit blight not
only to the communal gendered division of labor prior to colonization, but to Filipinas
especially, as religion mixed with their colonialism dictated that the Filipina woman
shoulder the emotional labor and pain of this new imperial arrangement.
Though the imperial conquest of the Philippines brought a shift in gender roles
and class-related hierarchy, it also brought with it the vast potential for resistance. It is
exactly where colonialism begins that marks the same place that womens movements
find their start. During the initial Spanish conquest of the Philippine island Ilocos, we
find the woman who is arguably the first Filipina revolutionary: Gabriela Silang. She is
described as [carrying] on the leadership of a rebellion in the Ilocos after her husbands
death, and was executed by the Spanish authorities for doing so (Santos, 2004, p. 28).
77


Today, the prominent Filipino political womens organization, GABRIELA, is named for
her, as she is widely recognized as the premier revolutionary woman in Filipino history.
Though Gabriela Silang is regarded as the first and most recognizable figure in
the Philippines history of womens movements, other prominent women revolutionaries
include Melchora Aquino, Trinidad Tecson, and Gregoria de Jesus. Aquino is noted for
being the Mother of the Revolution for her close ties and support of Filipino rebellions
and revolutionaries. Tecson is praised for her weapon-wielding, as she both procured
weapons for the rebellions against the Spanish, as well as wielded a bolo or a short-blade
sword regarded as the weapon of choice for the Philippine revolutionaries. Gregoria de
Jesus, like Gabriela Silang, is another revolutionary Filipina who is frequently associated
with her husband Anderes Bonifacio, who was a fully-fledged member of the anti-
Spanish underground organization called Katipunan (Santos, 2004, p. 28).
What these women have in common is not only that colonial history has been
deeply unkind to their legacies in effacing their roles in revolution and the war against the
Spanish, but that they served dual roles: anti-imperialism and feminism together. Though
there is little scholarship on the subject of these women, Leonara C. Angeles (1989)
argues that the motivations of the aforementioned revolutionary women was not in pro-
women sentiments, but rather vested in their deep sense of patriotism or love of
country (p. 110). This sentiment is best expressed by Melchora Aquino when she
remarked I have no regrets and if Ive nine lives I would gladly give them up for my
beloved country (San Juan, 1998, p. 154).
The nationalistic motivations to expel Spanish colonial rule from the Philippines,
and the obvious defiance of colonial gender roles that these revolutionary women
78


undertook, are indicative of a thriving feminist movement that, by Western standards,
does not seem feminist at all. Again, Leonara C. Angeles (1989) summates this when
she says transcending the social role limitations imposed upon them as women was
proof enough that they had sharply perceived not only the economic and political evils of
colonialism, but also the sex inequalities engendered by the social order (p. 110).
For these revolutionary women and for contemporary Filipinas, colonialism is always
part and parcel of patriarchy; of sexism, gender inequality, of hierarchy and exploitation.
This is the precise reason why womens movements in the Philippines are nationalistic:
the independent state of the Philippines has become the holy grail of all Filipino peoples
liberation, regardless of their gender.
In terms of the union of nationalism and feminism, political science scholar
Cynthia Enloe critiques and dismisses the connection between these two political ideas,
as she deems the the nationalist project masculinist. Referring specifically to the
project of nationalist state building, Enloe (1990) says nationalism has typically sprung
from masculinized memory, masculinized humiliation, and masculinized hope (p. 44).
Though Enloes rhetoric has some merit in that she alludes to a subsuming of womens
issues in large scale social and political movements, I would argue that, contrary to
Enloe, the Filipino peoples movement toward an independent state is not exclusively
woman-centered and better for it. In other words, womens participation and leadership
roles in rebellion, war, and revolution in the Philippines is focused on a slew of social and
political issues that were predicated upon a historic gender equality that was assumed in
good faith to have existed prior to colonization. Women revolutionaries were not less
than for having nationalist sentiments, their male counterparts only tremendously
79


underestimated the ubiquity and the power of internalized colonialism and its companion:
patriarchy and male privilege.
I argue that these revolutionary women form the backbone of the women-centered
social and political movements of the Philippines during the last century and a half. All
throughout the Filipina revolutionaries fighting, hiding, executions, and exiles, the
nationalist project of making the Philippines an independent state subsumed the woman
question, as it was assumed that independence meant liberation for all Filipinos. Alas, in
1896 when the Philippines gained independence from Spain, only three years later was
their republic again under siege by the United States. I argue that the implications of this
dual colonization, first by the Spanish, then by the Americans, did not render the
nationalist sentiments of women revolutionaries obsolete or redundant; on the contrary,
the two waves of colonization and imperialism strengthened womens attachment to a
free and independent Philippines as the ultimate form of womens liberation, and
liberation for all Filipinos. Though womens movements continued to proliferate after the
Philippine-American war from 1899-1902, they took on a new revolutionary bent that
responded to the new colonizers, as well as carried with it the Philippines long history of
conquest and resistance.
This second onslaught of colonialism brought with it a new response, a new
opposition, but they all remained tethered to the material struggles of women, manifested
at all different levels of class and all modes of production. Elucidating upon the onset of
American colonization, Anne Lacsamana (2012) suggests that
[t]he defeat of the first Philippine republic and the institution of the U.S. rule
posed new challenges for Filipino women attempting to negotiate another set of
foreign occupiers. Though religious teachings continued to wield enormous
influence over womens sexuality it was the intensification and uneven
80


development of capitalist relations and the imposition of the U.S.-based education
system that had the most impact on women at the time. (p. 38)
Here, Lacsamana indicates the bind that Filipinas were in with the new colonizers: having
already been inculcated with the Spaniards religious precedent for the control of women,
Filipinas now had to compete with a changing political economy and a new educational
structure. This new countrywide school system took older children, traditionally
housekeepers and mother subsitutues, from the home, thus limiting, too the motions of
mothers to go into productive work (Eviota, 1992, p. 75).
This change not only precluded women from participating in productive labor on
a large scale, but capitalized on the colonized mentality that had been deeply internalized
by women over the last few centuries: a gender role with an infinite capacity for
forbearance, suffering, and forgiveness... (Santos, 1984, p. 3). Womens role in the new
economy dictated by the American occupiers was hastened by an already colonized
mentality that lent itself to women being forced to withdraw exclusively to reproductive
work (Eviota, 1992, p. 64).
Although many of the social, economic, and political conditions were ripe for the
acquiescence of Filipina women to these new power structures, the conditions were also
ripe for resistance, struggle, and revolution. Just like when the Spanish colonizers
occupied the Philippines, the radical potential for resistance was created and seized by
many women with a vested interest in a free and independent Philippine state. However,
not so radical potentials for resistance were also cultivated and condoned by a new
American colonialism, intent upon utilizing changing gender roles in their Filipino
subjects in order to maintain control of the population. Some scholars even allege that the
United States influence can be implicated in the Filipina movement for suffrage;
81


encouraging womens participation in their political enfranchisement in an attempt to
divert their attention away from the growing revolutionary movement for independence
(Lacsamana, 2012, p. 39; Santos, 1984, pp. 5-6). Paying special attention to the diverted
attentions of this womens political movement, Santos argues that U.S. colonial
encouragement of Filipina suffrage is an example of the recognition of womens ability
to turn the tide in Filipino political and social movements. In other words, the U.S.
involvement in encouraging the Filipina suffrage movement stands as a testament to the
fear of the power of womens resistance to colonial forces and ultimately the questioning
of U.S. presence in the Philippines.
Aside from the movement for suffrage, from the end of the Philippine-American
war to the present day, there has been a massive proliferation of womens movements in
the Philippines. These movements include communism, feminism, liberal reform, and
militarism. Common to each is anti-imperialism in their ideologies, manifestos, and
demands for change. Most all of these womens movements remain anti-colonial or anti-
imperial at their core, though unlike the revolutionary women resisting the Spanish, the
woman question is frequently brought up in tandem with the nationalist question
(Lacsamana, 2012, pp. 41-43).
Revolutionary women continued to organize in anti-colonial movements after the
Philippine-American war. Asymmetrical gender relationships within these movements
become more apparent, as women were assigned gender specific roles within the
organizations. The obvious gendered division of labor within anti-colonial organizations
[highlighted] the ideological schisms between womens liberation and national
liberation (Lacasmana, 2012, p. 40). Alas, even within leftist organizations, like
82


Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bay an (Huk, or Army of National Liberation) and Partido
Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP, or Communist Party of the Philippines), organizations who
were deeply cognizant of reproductive and productive labor as manifestations of imperial
oppression, womens liberation was continually subsumed into an overarching class
struggle. Lacsamana argues that the conflation of class and gender oppression in the early
Philippine left would continue to plague the revolutionary movement well after... the
eventual dissolution of the PKP and the establishment of the Communist Party of the
Philippines in 1968 (p. 41).
Contrary to the narrative that suggests that multiple feminisms come about as a
response to hegemonic feminism, it should be noted that leftist peminists actually have
much in common with other Marxist or leftist feminisms in their qualms with the
subsuming of the woman question in to the class question. Delia Aguilar (1981)
specifically addresses this when she indicates and utilizes the rhetoric of Marxist
feminists in saying
Just as some Marxist feminists err in the giving primacy to ideology in order to
call attention to the oppression of women, we have in the main paid little heed to
the ideological constructs that both reflect and intensify the concrete conditions of
womens subjugation, (p. 173)
Elucidating upon this issue, Heidi Hartmann (1979) directly critiques Marxs theories
through a feminist lens. Hartmann claims that though Marxism is a helpful and often
necessary way to observe the phenomenon of class oppression, it is an inadequate way to
understand the nuances of sexist oppression. Though Hartmann does concede that women
also bear the problems of the oppression of the proletariat, she also suggests that issues
specific to women are subsumed into issues of the proletariat. Hartmann claims that
83


the marriage of marxism and feminism has been like the marriage of husband
and wife depicted in English common law: Marxism and feminism are one, and
that one is Marxism. Recent attempts to integrate marxism and feminism are
unsatisfactory to us as feminists because they subsume the feminist struggle into
the larger struggle against capitalism, (p. 1)
So where Marx claims that sex and age discrimination are subsumed into proletarian
issues by the oppressive power of the bourgeoisie, Hartmann answers back by suggesting
that womens issues have always remained so long as there has been a dialectical class
opposition. Further, the subsuming of feminist issues into the issues of the proletariat
ignore the fact that even proletarian men benefit from the free reproductive labor that is
typically provided to them by wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters in the stereotypical
nuclear family household. In conversation with leftist feminisms, Hartmanns assertions
uphold the idea that sexist oppression is formed by material agency. Going even further,
Hartmann suggests that the alienation suffered by women specifically in Marxs epoch of
the bourgeoisie is distinctly different than that of the false consciousness or ideology
created and embedded in both proletarian and bourgeois men.
One of Hartmanns observations particularly relevant to Philippine womens
movements is the dialectic of sex. Hartmann describes the material base of patriarchy (as
opposed to, or in conversation with, capitalism) as the means by which women are
brought up or socialized to perform reproductive labor. Though the aforementioned
revolutionary women of Filipino anti-colonial movements frequently asserted this idea,
Hartmann brings these to light to show that the primary dialectic indicated by Marx and
Engels is, put simply, not enough to answer the woman question. By the same token,
Hartmann suggests that the happiest of bedfellows are not Marxism and feminism, but
rather they are capitalism and patriarchy, which she describes as overestimated and
84


underestimated by Marx, respectively (p. 17). Hartmann ultimately concludes that
patriarchy and capitalism present themselves as the vectors by which dual dialectical
hierarchies are created in society; they must be simultaneously critiqued and dismantled
in revolution.
I mention Hartmanns ideas here to underscore that peminism has little to no
relationship with United States iterations and constructions of hegemonic feminism, but
rather peminism has a distinct relationship with anti-colonialism and the sexism that has
become embedded in its social movement. Hartmanns assertions serve to illustrate leftist
womens movements in a different light than the widely accepted narrative that says that
feminism begets feminisms; they respond simultaneously to class and sexist oppression,
rather than to a constructed hegemonic feminist core. Understanding peminism as a
response to the patriarchy and sexism of colonization serves to critique and preclude the
notion that Filipina feminism comes as a response to hegemonic feminism. That is to say,
posing Filipina womens movements against the sexism of anti-colonial movements (and
the sexist oppression of colonialism itself) aids in dismantling an ideology that says that
feminisms cannot exist without a hegemonic feminist center.
Despite the hardship elicited from the simultaneous dialectical oppositions of
classism and sexism, peminist movements continued to thrive even after the granting of
formal independence in 1946. Arguably, the reason why social movements, including
womens movements, continued to proliferate after independence is due to the threadbare
economic and political structure left in the wake of colonialism. Describing the new post-
war and post-independence relationship with the U.S, in 1980 Senator Jose Diokno said:
When the Americans left, they left behind the same three basic problems [which
they found in the country: widespread poverty unequal distribution of wealth and
85


social exploitation] and added two more: a totally dependent economy and
military situation so tied to the U.S. that decisions on war and peace, in fact, rest
with the United States and not the Filipino people, (quoted in San Juan, Jr., 2009,
pp. 101-102)
Senator Dioknos words in mind, Philippine womens movements continually responded
to the neocolonial relationship implicit in the powerful but indirect control that the United
States continually wielded over the Philippines.
One of the ways that the United States continually exercised control in the
Philippines after formal independence was the supporting of the Ferdinand Marcos
dictatorship. In 1972, Marcos declared martial law, thusly driving many factions of
revolutionary movements in the Philippines underground. In response to this brutal
regime, militant sections of the womens movement became an integral part of the anti-
imperialist, anti-feudal, anti-capitalist, and anti-fascist movement advocating for the end
of the U.S.-supported Marcos dictatorship (Santiago, 1995, p. 121). So instead of
conceding, groups like MAKIBAKA (which in Tagalog means struggle) were
galvanized by their suppression, with the U.S.-backed Marcos regime as a means of fuel
for their revolutionary endeavors (Lacsamana, 2012, p. 42).
After martial law was lifted in the Philippines in 1981, a new democratic space
seemed to open up in Filipino politics, and with it a massive proliferation of womens
organizations came to the foreground in the fight for social justice. Organizations
opposed to the Marcos regime came out from the underground, such as WOMB (Women
for the Ouster of Marcos and Boycott) and AWARE (Alliance of Women for Action and
Reconciliation), while others had closer alignment with the new democratic movement
after the fall of the Marcos regime. Still, leftist organizations committed to the nationalist,
anti-colonial, and anti-sexist project carried on, and many groups came together to form
86


the federation GABRIELA (named for Gabriela Silang), made up of over 200 womens
organization, and is currently still considered the largest womens group in the
Philippines (Lacsamana, p. 44).
Though there have been many political shifts and changes in the Philippines
since the end of the Marcos regime, it is here that my history of Filipino womens
movements comes to a close. This is not to say that justice for women has been achieved
in the Philippines, nor is it to say that there is no longer revolutionary potential in
womens political activism in the Philippines. Rather, I end here as womens movements
in the Philippines are continuing the same anti-imperial struggle in its many different
forms today as they were fifty years ago. Further, I end here to highlight the
chronological relationship with the birth of Womens Studies in the American academe,
and the theorization of pinayism, which begins the wake of the new democratization of
the Philippines.
To conclude, I stress the connection between pinayism and peminism. Due to
neocolonial influence by the United States, I argue that the large Filipino American
population is exactly the product of a colonial relationship. Due to this, we can
understand the Pinay or Filipina American, not solely as a colonized and displaced
woman, but as a part of the long legacy of womens resistance in the Philippines. In other
words, it is the colonial relationship between the Philippines and the United States that
makes it so pinayist resistance, even if located geographically in the United States is a
part of the longer heritage of womens movements in the Philippines.
The neocolonial relationship with the United States is precisely why so many
Filipinos come to the United States; however, this does not mean that pinayism, though
87


located within the United States, automatically fits into and is a response to hegemonic,
white, or western feminism. Instead, I argue that pinayism is the organic off-shoot of the
multitude of anti-colonial, nationalist, and leftist feminist movements of the Philippines,
in that the Pinay is precipitated from a colonial relationship, and it is ostensibly
theorizing in an attempt to resist this relationships totalizing and oppressive agenda.
Even if pinayist scholars have unconsciously absorbed a hegemonic narrative, their
resistance, identity and material realities are informed and influenced by the very same
power structures that their revolutionary foremothers fought against.
88


CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
From 1898 to 1946, Filipinos in the United States... were not immigrants in the
conventional sense but colonial subjects whose bodies were transported or exiled
from the periphery to the metropolis, their physiognomies studied and their
cultures classified by the appropriate ideological apparatuses.... In order to
legitimate the supremacy of United States knowledge and power (San Juan Jr.,
1994, p. 119).
San Juan Jr.s quote opens my final chapter and conclusion to bring us full circle,
and highlights an unexpected finding in my research: academic structure and ideology
functions in a way that is similar to colonialism. Though I hesitate to compare the
violence of colonization to the disciplining of feminism, for pinayist scholars attempting
to draft their origin story, academic systems of power do indeed aim to oppress,
dominate, and play a role in how their scholarship is formed. The same way that Filipinos
have become transnational colonial specimens in the United States is the same way that
pinayist scholarship has classified itself: through Western and American eyes, and in San
Juan Jr.s words legitimates the supremacy of United States knowledge and power.
This study set out to answer the questions: What are the origins of Filipina
feminism? And in what way has academia and the Womens Studies discipline
influenced how Filipina feminism is researched and understood? With these primary
questions in mind, I will conclude this project by explicitly addressing these questions,
reiterating my findings, elucidating some unexpected findings in my study, as well as
positing my own assertions about the prospects of academic feminism and pinayism.
To conclude this study, I reiterate my initial argument: Academia as an
ideological apparatus has structured Womens Studies in a way that its scholarship is
89


perpetually a response a hegemonic center; this ideology is embedded in Womens
Studies pedagogy and in turn has influenced how Filipina feminist (pinayist) scholars
iterate their origin story. Contrary to pinayist definitions of their own origin story, I claim
that Filipina American feminism can trace its lineage away from academic feminism and
directly to the anti-colonial womens movements in the Philippines.
It is my assertion that the academy became the home of political and social
womens movements and that though these womens movements aimed to critique and
dismantle the power structures of the academy, they were instead taken into the fold of
academic culture, hierarchy, and most of all, ideology. Academic ideology consists of the
belief that scholarship and knowledge production is apolitical; subsequently, academic
disciplines, including Womens Studies are implicitly held to the standard of neutrality
and objectivity, in an attempt to disguise hierarchy. When Womens Studies was taken
into the fold, albeit with a fight, academic structure and ideology disciplined highly
political feminist thought into scholarship that was not only much narrower than the wide
breadth of womens movements that occurred outside of the academy, but into
scholarship that could be constantly produced, critiqued, proliferated, and most of all,
capitalized upon. It is in this way that academia as an ideological state apparatus assisted
in turning Womens Studies into a site of knowledge making from which it could
exercise both control, and in a way, profit. By the same token, academic ideology severed
a connection between political and social feminism and academic feminism.
Womens Studies in turn became the site of a host of ideological problems not
elicited from feminist movements, but from academia. In becoming an academic
discipline, the stories and voices of multiple feminist movements became homogenized
90


or effaced in an attempt to create a grand narrative of feminism that was conducive to
knowledge production and the demands of scholarship. So then, when a theory such as
intersectionality was produced, it became institutionalized and used in a way that it both
indicts Womens Studies for being exclusionary, while at same time allows for a
capitalization and proliferation of the scholarship of these marginalized identities as a
corrective addendum to the entire discipline.
I have argued that using intersectional theory to correct the belief in a singular
feminism has become embedded into Womens Studies pedagogy, further epitomized by
the wave metaphor. Though there have already been many scholarly critiques of the wave
metaphor, my contribution to this body of critique is that it does not reach far back
enough; the wave metaphor in Womens Studies pedagogy lacks a reflexivity about its
own power to contribute to the narrative of feminism that suggests that all feminisms
come from a hegemonic center.
The iteration of this hegemonic center, or hegemonic feminism, is predicated
upon an unsubstantiated belief in a monolithic feminist movement that has supposedly
galvanized multiple feminisms. This aeteological narrative, while allowing multiple
feminisms a buttress from which to set themselves apart, has ultimately served to limit
the scope of how multiple feminisms are understood. Moreover, the concept of
hegemonic feminism has painted multiple feminisms as reactionary and limited in their
intentions and goals. In propagating a narrative that says that feminism begets feminisms,
Sandovals (2000) concept of hegemonic feminism has not only found a way to
perpetually fortify itself, but also stifled further inquiry as to why race or ethnicity based
feminisms come about.
91


Peminism and pinayism have come into the tangled mess of academic discipline
and ideology, which has influenced how Filipina American scholars regard and study the
origins of their movement. Further, these same scholars have understood Filipina
feminism in its many forms not as political movements, but as identity politics, ideas, and
abstraction, thus validating my argument that scholars have internalized academic
ideology. Though pinayist scholars have crafted a narrative that fits into the accepted
paradigm of feminism and multiple feminisms, there exists another chapter to the story of
Filipina feminism that is erased by a belief in hegemonic feminism.
Connected to the womens movements in the Philippines by the diaspora elicited
from the asymmetrical neocolonial power relationship with the United States, pinayism
can be understood as a part of a larger body of activism that is not geographically or
historically limited to the United States. Peminist movements against two waves of
colonialism, religious oppression, and masculinist politics within nationalist movements
make up a rich history of womens resistance in the Philippines, all of which have little to
do with hegemonic feminism. Peminists nationalist and anti-colonial motivations are
testaments to the complexity of what galvanizes womens movements to begin. Further,
womens resistance in the Philippines can be traced back to when colonization by the
Spanish began, and not to when privileged white womens movements began in the West.
In analyzing peminism as a free-standing movement that is not in response to
hegemonic feminism, my most interesting finding in this research is that peminism and
Womens Studies have had similar experiences with institutionalized power structures.
Peminism is a response to a concomitant colonial and capitalist ideology supplanted into
the Philippines social, political, and economic structures. Similarly, this
92


colonial/capitalist ideology functions in a way that could be likened to the academic
disciplining and institutionalization of knowledge making communities such as Womens
Studies. In finding this, I do not want to conflate different oppressions and hardships;
rather, I hope that seeing the similarities between these systems of power will give
feminists, peminists, pinayists, activists, and scholars a clear view of the necessity of
ongoing resistance.
Though I have found a similarity between the functioning of the ideological state
apparatus and colonialism, I do not wish this study to be concluded in a manner that
stifles ideas and hopes for Womens Studies or radical political and social change. On the
contrary, I regard this study as a call for the return of a union of activism and theory; a
revival of praxis as a means to precluding in-fighting, and focusing on making positive
changes to marginalized womens material realities. To me, this means not only a critique
of the academic structure that has disciplined feminism, but also an elevation and
privileging of inquiry into why womens movements start at all. Ultimately, I propose we
use intersectional theory in its original iteration, as we observe womens movements
from where they start, instead of acquiescing to an academic ideology that says womens
movements respond to a hegemonic center. Finally, I argue that if we do not regard
womens movements as beginning from the different circumstances that women live in,
we will never come closer to changing womens material realities for the better.
93


BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aguilar, D. D. (1981). Some thoughts on the oppression of women In E. San Juan Jr. (Ed.),
Filipina Insurgency. Quezon City, Philippines: Giraffe Books.
Aguilar, D. D. (2000). Questionable claims: Colonialism redux, feminist style. Race & Class, 1-
12.
Aguilar, D. D. (2012). From triple jeopardy to intersectionality: The feminist perplex.
Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, 32(Number 2), 415-428.
Althusser, L. (2009). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (Notes toward an investigation).
In M.G. Durham & D.M. Kellner (Eds.), Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks. Malden,
MA, USA: Blackwell, (pp. 80-87)
Andersen, M. L. and Hill-Collins, P. (Eds.) (2004). Race, Class, and Gender: An Anthology
(Vol. 5). Belmont: Wadsworth.
Anderson, R. E. (1983). Finance and effectiveness: A study of college environments. Princeton:
Educational Testing Service.
Angeles, L. C. (1989). Feminism and nationalism: The Discourse on the woman question and the
politics of the women's movement in the Philippines. M. A. Thesis (unpublished).
Department of Political Science. University of the Philippines.
Austin, A. E., & Gamson, Z. F. (1984). Academic workplace: New demands, heightened
tensions. Washington DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Austria, C. S. R. (2004). The church, the state and women's bodies in the context of religious
fundamentalism in the Philippines. Reproductive health matters, 72(24), 96-103.
Baca-Zinn, M., Cannon, L. W., Higginbotham, E., and Dill, B. T. (1986). The costs of
exclusionary practices in women's studies. Signs, 77(2), 290-303.
Baca-Zinn, M., Hondagneu-Sotelo, P., and Messner, M. (2004). Gender through the prism of
difference. Race, Class, and Gender (5). Belmont: Wadsworth.
Bailey, C. (1997). Making waves and drawing lines: The politics of defining the vicissitudes of
feminism. Hypatia, 72(3), 17-28.
Beck, E. T. (2008). On being a pre-feminist feminist OR how I came to Womens Studies and
what I did there. In A. E. Ginsburg (Ed.), The Evolution of American Women's Studies:
Reflections on Triumphs, Controversies, and Change (pp. 117-131). New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
94


Blair, C., Brown, J., & Baxten, L. (1994). Disciplining the feminine. Quarterly Journal of
Speech, 50(4), 383-409.
Bleich, D. (1995). Academic ideology and the new attention to teaching. New Literary History,
26(3), 565-590.
Buhle, M. (2000). Introduction. In F. Howe (Ed.), The Politics of Womens Studies (Vol. 1) (pp.
xi-xxvi). New York: The Feminist Press at the City University of New York.
Campbell, T. I. D., & Slaughter, S. (1999). Faculty and administrators attitudes toward potential
conflicts of interest, commitment, and equity in university-industry relationships. Journal
of Higher Education, 70(3), 309-352.
Chesebro, J. W., Cragan, J. F., and McCullough, P. (1973). The small group technique of the
radical revolutionary: A synthetic study of consciousness raising. Communication
Monographs, 40(2), 136-146.
Cohen, P. N. (1996). Nationalism and suffrage: gender struggle in nation-building America.
Signs, 21(3), 707-727.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique
of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of
Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, 139-167.
Davis, K. (2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what
makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist theory, 9(1), 67-85.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional isomorphism
and collective rationalizing in organizational fields. American Sociological Review,
45(April), 147-160.
Eisenstein, Z. (2010). Hillary is White. In J. B. C. Beverly Guy-Sheftall (Ed.), Who Should Be
First?: Feminists Speak Out on the 2008 Presidential Campaign (pp. 79-85). New York:
SUNY Press.
Enloe, C. (1990). Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International
Politics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Evans, S. (2010). Tidal wave: How women changed America at century's end. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
Eviota, E. (1992). The political economy of gender: Women and the sexual division labor in the
Philippines. London: Zed Books.
Fromm, E. (1961). Marxs concept of man. New York: Continuum.
95


Full Text

PAGE 1

TOWARD A PEMINIST CRITICAL THEORY IN WOMEN'S STUDIES: ACADEMIC IDEOLOGY AND THE CHALLENGE OF FILIPINA FEMINISM by CANDACE NUNAG HICKS B.A., University of Colorado Boulder, 2010 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Social Science Humanities and Social Science Program 2015

PAGE 2

! ii This thesis for the Master of Social Science degree by Candace Nunag Hicks has been approved for the Humanities and Social Science program by Omar Swartz, Chair Margaret Woodhull Gillian Silverman Date: December 11, 2015

PAGE 3

! iii Nunag Hicks, Candace (M.S.S., Humanities & Social Science ) Toward a Peminist Critical Theory in Women 's Studies: Academic Ideology and the Challenge of Filipina Feminism The sis directed by Associate P rofessor Omar Swartz ABSTRACT Women's Studies as an academic discipline was won through hard fought battles of feminist activism in the United States in 1960's and 70's. Though the intention of many feminist activists upon entering the academe was to simultaneously produce scholarship and critique the structure of American universities, in many ways their plans were frustrated as the demands of the academy were largely incommensurable with social and political activism. This study approaches the primary qualm of the disciplining of femi nism into Women's Studies, and asserts that academic structure and ideology has indeed changed feminism with a unique set of pedagogical and structural implications for the Women's Studies discipline. Investigating Women's Studies mainstays of t he wave me taphor, hegemonic feminism, and intersectionality theory this study casts a critical eye upon these tropes manifestations, and argues that they they serve a power driven agenda supplanted by academic institutional demands. The purpose of this study is to use Filipina and Filipina American feminism as a case study to investigate the ways that the institutionalization of feminism into Women's Studies has affected how the origin story of this movement has been crafted. Using a historical materialist lens to observe the connection between feminism in the Philippines and Filipina American feminism in the United States, this

PAGE 4

! iv thesis highlights the difference between institutionali zed disciplinary iterations of p inayism and the activist praxis of feminists in the Philippines. With an alternate chronology of the women's movements of the Philippines paired with a critique of academic hierarchy, this thesis will ultimately ask: How and why do women's movements form outside of the purview of institutionalization? The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Approved: Omar Swartz

PAGE 5

! v TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION...1 II. ACADEMIC IDEOLOGY AND THE DISCIPLINING OF FEMINISM 23 III. THE WAVE METAPHOR AND HEGEM ONIC FEMINISM.44 IV. PINAYISM PROBLEMATIZED. .61 V. AN ALTERNATIVE CH RONOLOGY FOR PEMINISM...74 VI. CO NCLUSION..89 BIBLIOGR APHY..94

PAGE 6

! 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of the Research Project Women's Studies as an academic discipline is relatively young in comparison to the long histories of liberal arts disciplines like anthropology, political science or sociology. Born out of radical political and social movements in the United States during the 1960's and 70's, Women's Studies has fo und itself in a precarious place in the academy, as the concomitant development of feminist critique and academic disciplinarity have, at many points in time, come in direct conflict with one another. Though Women's Studies has come to be embraced as a fu lly fledged academic discipline, it has undergone many changes, from feminist praxis and activism, to academically rigorous research and theorization. For better or worse, the transition of feminism into Women's Studies has been changed by academia. This t hesis aims to investigate the changes in Women's Studies in the United States over time, and moreover, critically analyze the ways in which academic structure has influenced and demanded Women's Studies theorization, as well as how academia has precipitate d specific pedagogies from this discipline. In the midst of this growing discipline, specific iterations of feminisms have had the challenge of academically legitimizing themselves as a means of fitting into the preexisting mold of Women's Studies. Over time, hostilities and in fighting have come to plague Women's Studies, so much so that the scholarship being produced from this discipline is clouded by frustrated claims of objectivity, ad hominem indictments of

PAGE 7

2 identity claims, as well as scathing accusa tions that seemingly blight the feminist movement as a whole. It is precisely within this plagued history of in fighting that Filipina feminism has attempted to iterate its origins and claims to feminist theorization. Filipina feminism, or peminism finds itself in a liminal place within American academia, as the development of peminist critical theory is managed within th e confines of preexisting Women' s and Gender Studies, as well as Asian American Studies pedagogies and curricula. The descriptions of the peminist movement are often imprope rly categorized, if not ignored, in many Women's Studies classrooms and textbooks. This erasure prompts a need to address several pressing questions: Why is peminism left out of the larger scholarly discourse surrounding anti colonial and transnational feminisms? What about American or Western feminist discourse lends itself to overlooking feminist movements like peminism? H ow do peminist scholars craft a narrative about the origin and relevance of the peminist movement i n light of its erasure? This study aims to approach these questions, and ultimately ask: What are the origins of peminism and peminist critical theory? Does this movement's history aid in falsifying or subverting dominant narratives that explain why and w hen feminist movements initiate? And, perhaps most importantly: How has Women's Studies as an academic discipline developed and influenced how feminisms are iterated and understood? The goals of this study are two fold: (1) t o critique academic structure, ideology, and Women's Studies pedagogies and their construction of the wave metaphor and hegemonic feminism, and (2) to juxtapose hegemonic feminism with the Filipina women's movements in order to demonstrate that peminism is a free standing, non

PAGE 8

3 reactionary movement. The significance of this study lies not solely in the uncovering of the details about peminism's past and evolution, but rather in the suggestion that closer observations into non western feminisms can strengthen Women' s Studies schol arship. Thesis Statement A cademia as an ideological apparatus has structured Women's Studies in a way that its scholarship is perpetually a response to a hegemonic center; this ideology is embedded in Women's Studies pedagogy and in turn has influenced how Filipina feminist scholar s iterate their origin story. Contrary to Filipina feminist scholars definitions of their own origin story, I claim that Filipina American feminism can trace its lineage away from academic feminism and directly to the anti colonial women's movement in the Philippines. Methodological and Theoretical Statement This thesis will be structured and informed by Karl Marx's iteration of historical materialist theory. Further, the methodology that I will utilize in this thesis is also one of historical materiali sm. I utilize this theory and methodology in order to argue that the systemic power that has changed feminism into an academic discipline functions much like colonial imperialism; two forces that circumscribe how Filipina feminism is both carried out and t heorized. With a historical materialist methodology, this thesis will iterate and critique the origins and lineage of hierarchy in the Women's Studies discipline. Further this methodology allows me to highlight the nuances of the internalization of the he gemonic

PAGE 9

4 narrative of feminism which has been absorbed by Filipina feminist theory. Historical materialist methodology will also be utilized in this thesis to analyze the growth and change of Filipina women's movements (in both the United States and the Phi lippines) over time. To a lesser extent, I will also utilize feminist critical theory to address some of the shortcomings of Marx' s historical materialist theory; however I will continually use a dialectical model. That is to say after using a historical materialist framework, it will be necessary for me to cast a critical eye upon the lack of accommodation for the consi deration of women' s issues that is sometimes implicit in historical materialism. Further, feminist critical theo ry will allow me to demonstrate that peminism is not in opposition to hegemonic feminism, but a movement in opposition to patriarchy in the context of the Philippines' history. In this sense, it will be continually helpful to approach my topic through a di alectical model. Definition of Key Terms Throughout this thesis I make a distinction between Women's Studies as an academic discipline, and between feminism and feminist activism. This distinction is not to neglect the connection between Women's Studies and feminism, but rather to indicate that over time these two phenomena have grown in different directions. Women's Studies. This key term is specifically used to describe the academic discipline Women's Studies. Implicit in this definition is Women's Studies initiation into the academy, as well as its feminist activist roots. Also implicit in this term is the

PAGE 10

5 institutionalization of Women's Studies, and it's fu nctioning within a system of knowledge making. Feminism. First, I acknowledge that this term is used in many ways and many contexts to describe women's movements, activism, theories, and praxis. Though the term has many uses, I will specifically use the word "feminism" to describe non institutionalized grassroots activism that is centered around ending or precluding the sexist oppression of women. Here, I specifically indicate non institutionalized as there are many forms of feminism that are not within the academic structure that are institutionalized, such as organizations like Planned Parenthood or Girls Inc Examples of non institutionalized, grassroots feminist movements include the groups like the New York Radical Women, the Combahee River C ollective, or the Riot Grrl punk rock movement. In this thesis when I refer to political or social feminisms, I am referring specifically to groups and movements such as these. Project Summary and Scope The scope o f this thesis is focused upon three main themes: academic ideology, Women's Studies pedagogies (including hegemonic feminism and the use of the wave metaphor), and Filipina feminism. This thesis will address these themes in this order to demonstrate their intimate relationship to one another. Th e thesis will be divided into seven chapters; since this introduction is the first chapter, my analysis will begin in chapter two.

PAGE 11

6 Chapter two will outline the theoretical facets of the thesis, including materialist theory and state apparatuses. The chap ter will begin with a brief history of the United States Women's Liberation movement, its practices and activism, and its transition into the academe. In this chapter I will analyze what greeted the women's movement in the academy, and iterate my primary a rgument that the academy functions as an ideological state apparatus, which has disciplined feminism into Women's Studies. Further, this chapter will expand upon the change from feminist praxis to academically condoned knowledge making. I will proceed to d iscuss the manifestations of academic ideology in Women's Studies scholarship and pedagogy specifically calling into question the function and use of intersectional theory C hapter three will expand upon the pedagogical trope the wave m etaphor, and how it is an example of academic ideology's presence and permeation in Women's Studies. This chapter includes a detailed literature review of the commonly held critiques of this metaphor and its usage. Using the wave metaphor as a focal point, I will describe and critique the concept of hegemonic feminism, and how it is utilized in contemporary Women's Studies. In chapter four I will begin a case study of Filipina feminism and its theorization in the United States academe. This section of my thesis will illust rate the ways in which academic ideology and Women's Studies pedagogy play a part in t he formulation of theory about p inayism or Filipina American feminism. Further, this chapter will highlight the specific ways in which intersectional theory, the wave met aphor, as well as hegemonic feminism have come in direct contact with the theorization of Filipina American feminism.

PAGE 12

7 In chapter five continuing with my case study of Filipina feminism, I will posit an alternate chronology for the origin of Filipina femi nism while arguing that Filipinas find their own way to feminism due to their unique circumstances. In this section, I will discuss the anti colonial origins o f the Filipina women's movement as well as connect the se movements with contemporary p inayism. Th is critical chronology will demonstrate that Filipina feminism has not grown out of a response to a hegemonic feminist center. Chapter six is the conclusion of the thesis, wherein I discuss my final thoughts on the findings of my research of p eminism. The conclusion will also include a brief reverse outli ne, in order to reiterate that p eminism is a unique women's movement whose history has been unnecessarily obscured by an academic ideology and precedent that demands that feminist scholarship look and funct ion in a certain way. Finally, I will close the study with a discussion the significance of this project for the future of Women's Studies theorization. Literature Review The scholarly discourse surrounding peminism and other multiracial feminisms in the United States is typically focused not on organization, genealogy, or visibility of these movements, but on periodization as exemplified by the "wave metaphor." In line wit h the wave metaphor, scholars corrobora te that the feminist movement precipitated a need to regard multiple oppressions, as feminism (not Women's Studies) neglected to take into account the intersections of identities like race, sexuality, or class. Subsequently, Women's Studies scholars have crafted feminist pedagogies that marginalize the histories of multiracial feminisms. Due to the erasure of a large piece of a

PAGE 13

8 shared feminist history, peminist scholars' theorizing about Filipina feminism and identity is contextualized in a way that makes the peminist movement seem both reactionary and incomplete. This literature review addresses the scholarly discourse surrounding the phenomenon of multiple feminisms and the establishment of Filipina American feminism. Implicit in the discussion of multiple feminisms is the concept of hegemonic feminism and its role and influence over how feminisms are developed. Further, this literatu re review critically engages a chronology of feminist movements and Women's Studies pedagogy. Finally, this literature review will establish an overarching and ongoing discussion about the commonly held notions of how and why women's movements and activism come about, with the ultimate aim to complicate and examine both the wave metaphor and hegemonic feminism by juxtaposing them with Filipina feminism as a case study. Academic Ideology. The literature that discusses academic ideology and culture is primar ily focused on the structure and function of the university in a bureaucratic, pedagogical, and economic sense. Instead of specifically discussing academic disciplines, much of the literature focuses on universities' structural fluctuations that serve exte rnal interests. In relationship to Women's Studies and its growth in the academe, the literature surrounding academic ideology that plainly avoids the topic of academic disciplinarity is a testament to how to the internal critique of academic structure is not only frowned upon, but serves to efface the challenges of fledgling disciplines in the face of the academic structure.

PAGE 14

9 The literature that regards academic ideology is largely born out of a federal and academic shift that took place in the 1980s. This shift was brought about by federal policies to fill universi ty funding gaps with private industries' funds, with the ultimate goal of creating a more solidified connection between industries and academia to keep the United States competitive in global mark ets ( Campbell & Slaughter, 1999; Slaughter & Leslie, 1997; Slaughter and Rhoads, 2004; Berger & Mendoza 2008). Contemporary scholars argue that f rom this relationship with private industries, academic structure and culture has changed, and begun to reflec t a capitalist structure (with unfortunate consequences for the "traditional" academic culture) (Gumport, 2002, 2005; Newman, Couturier, & Scurry, 2004; Mendoza & Berger, 2008). Comparing university structural fluctuation to changes in industrializing soc ieties, scholars suggest that the ideology that informs the functions of universities has switched from faculty engagement to a bureaucratic structure that has transferred power away from faculty members and into the hands of university administrators (Lev inson, 1989, p. 23; Anderson, 1983, p. 3; Austin & Gamson, 1984, p. 18). To some scholars, academic ideology and the ideology of for profit business are one in the same, and that the shift in the principles by which the university is governed has seeped in to all parts of the university, including pedagogy (Rollin, 1989; Bleich, 1995). Scholars critical of this shift assert that the power transfer within universities from faculty to administrators not only robs universities of their unique historical legaci es, but also compromises their primary function as learning institutions. Instead of a learning institution, universities become beholden to political, business, and philanthropic bodies of interest, and thusly are operated much like a business, with unive rsity administrators at

PAGE 15

10 the helm. Largely concerned with the growing isomorphism of the academy, scholars regard universities' mimicry of top down business like hierarchies with both skepticism and concern (Levinson, 1989; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Other authoritative voices on the issue of academic ideology assert that academic ideology is less a change in university structure and more a phenomenon pertaining to a set of rules that are internalized by college students. Students in the classroom are believ ed to operate under an invisible set of rules that are never overtly indicated; this internalized authority is further baited by the prospect of good grades and ultimately a higher standard of living. The abstract and covert set of rules by which student s abide is indicated as academic ideology (Lemke, 1989, p. 236). Instead of looking at the structure of the modern day university, the scope and understanding of "academic" is narrowed and focused specifically on a classroom ideology, but an academic ideol ogy nonetheless. Whereas Lemke asserts that academic ideology is found in the internalized authority of college students, David Bleich (1995) asserts that academic ideology is largely predicated upon academic pedagogy, or the lack thereof. Positing that u niversity professors and instructors are constrained by how their ability to teach has always been congruent with their abilities to create scholarship, Bleich suggests that the mechanism of testing and grading implemented to off set teaching responsibilit ies is precisely what constitutes academic ideology. For Bleich, academic ideology is neither specifically structure or student behavior, but a pedagogical practice wielded by those who teach at the university level. Bleich also asserts that the practices of grading and testing are ideological vectors that are directly informed by militarism, technocracy, and corporate practice and structure (1995, p. 567).

PAGE 16

11 Ultimately, scholars who investigate academic ideology are primarily concerned with the internal aff airs of academia, and they maintain that its ideology is sustained and mitigated within itself. The authoritative voices who posit that academic ideology is reproduced inside of university walls neglect to observe how this ideology forms new academic disci plines, or how this ideology is predicated upon the university structure as separate from society as a whole. Finally, the literature defining and discussing academic ideology largely dismisses the functions of the ideology, as well as the outcome for new academic disciplines (such as Women's Studies) attempting to blaze their own trails in scholarship. Feminism, Women's Studies, and the Politics of Exclusion. Contemporary Women's Studies scholarship regarding multiple oppressions (including sexist oppression of women) argues that the feminist movement was exclusionary, and thusly elicited a need for multiple feminisms. Describing what induced divisions in femi nism, Baca Zinn, Hondagneu Sotelo, and Messner (2004) assert that Gender' was treated as a generic category, uncritically applied to womenthis analysis, which was meant to unify women, instead produced divisions between and among them" (p. 168). From t he assumption that a singular feminism is responsible for different feminist factions, scholars maintain that the feminist movement was not concerned with issues of race, class, sexuality, etc., but, rather, privileged gender above all other categories of identity. In doing so, feminism as a movement both alienated and galvanized multiple feminisms. When the feminist movement came into academia as a new discipline, scholars maintain that the effacement of multiple oppressions paired with sex and gender

PAGE 17

12 oppr ession was brought in as well. Leslie McCall (2005) validates this by suggesting that when feminism came into its academic being it began with a critique of existing fields for not incorporating women as subjects of research" and culminated in "critiques by feminists of color of white feminists' use of women and gender as unitary and homogeneous categories reflecting the common essence of all women" (pp. 1775 6). The homogenization of gender and all other oppressions is indicated as the primary trespass o f privileged feminists and Women's Studies scholars alike. Notably, the conflation of Women's Studies as an academic discipline and feminism as a social movement is typically overlooked, if n ot taken for granted (Ginsburg, 2008; Beck, 2008). Women's Studie s scholars assert that the homogenization of oppressions into gender was once the status quo of their discipline, whereas the study of multiple oppressions has been theorized and named "intersectionality." Intersectionality is a term coined by law scholar KimberlÂŽ Crenshaw (1989) used to shine light upon the marginalization of Black women's issues in both feminist and critical race related spaces. Critiques of intersectional theory have coded Crenshaw's idea as "Black women's particularism," and buttressed it against a dominance theory that is more commonly iterated by radical factions of feminists and anti racist activists (Crenshaw, 2011). Critiques of intersectionality aside, this theory reigns supreme in Women's Studies classrooms, largely due to the as sumption that feminism, put bluntly, was a racist endeavor and needed improvement. The notion of feminism as exclusionary and Women's Studies as being equally exclusive is ubiquitous even in wide swaths of the Women's Studies discipline. The concern of neg lecting to address race when gender is theorized has ironically elicited negligence in scholarship, iterated by Zillah Eisentein

PAGE 18

13 (2010) when describing women's movements in the United States: [W]omen are assumed to be white if not specified otherwise, esp ecially if you are speaking about gender inequities, rights, or feminism. Forget the reality that Black women in the United States, first as slaves, and then as domestic laborers, factory workers, working mothers, and civil and human rights activists have long been the trailblazers for women of all colors (p. 80) Eisenstein's claim that "woman" can be uncritically applied solely to white women, and that Black women are singular trailblazers of all women of color in the United States is utilized here to d emonstrate the great lengths to which Women's Studies scholars have internalized a concern of being exclu sionary of race. Eisenstein's claims are indicative of a scholar going out of her way to indicate that she recognizes both the critique of feminism as homo genized oppression into gender and that Black women's marginality must be brought to center i n Women's Studies theorization. Eisenstein's claim that black women are trailblazers for all women of color, while uncritically embracing intersectionality, serves to diminish and homogenize the u nique contributions of other feminism s of color With this rhetoric, Eisenstein would credit Black women in America for Chicana feminists standing up to the rampant and repressive machismo of the Brown Power movement in the 1970's (Roth, 2004). Furthermore, Eisenstein's rhetoric would suggest that the activist work that Asian Pacific American women undertook to develop leadership and entrepreneurial skills among immigrant women would be unduly credited to another group of women of color (Yip, 1997). Though Eisenstein is justified in wanting to negate the marginalization of Black women in scholarship, she does so at the expense of other feminisms of color by effacing and conglomerating their efforts as thoug h all of these groups had the same challenges and goals.

PAGE 19

14 Feminism and Women's Studies as exclusionary and in need of amendment is a widespread belief in Women's Studies scholarship (Labaton & Martin, 2009; Walker, 1995; hooks, 1994). Subsequently, interse ctional theory has filled the void in Women's Studies methodologies and theorization in order to quell the marginality of multiple feminisms. Though this marginality is recognized, it is often approached in such a way that not only glorifies non normative feminisms, but also serves to efface some of the nuances of plural feminisms in an attempt to pacify the claim that Women's Studies and feminism as a whole are exclusionary. The Wave Metaphor and Hegemonic Feminism. Closely related to the concerns of exclusionary feminism, current Women's Studies' pedagogies support the use of the wave metaphor for discussing periods of high visibility feminist activism in the West, and more specifically in Anglo American history. T he wave metaphor is discreetly used to categorize differen t historical feminist movements and then to admonish these movements for their shortcomings related to class, sexuality, and most notably race. Further, embedded in this metaphor is a narrative that constructs a hegemonic feminism that erases or diminishes feminisms of color. Most of the scholarly discussion pertaining to the wave metaphor does not regard the metaphor itself, but rather regards the divide between the waves. Though much of the conte mporary scholarship is concerned with the ideological differences between the second and third waves, scholarship concerning itself with the first wave of feminism in the United States has focused much attention upon the overt racism and classism of the wo men's suffrage movement. Establishing women's suffragist leaders like Elizabeth

PAGE 20

15 Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony as nationalists and racists with a vested and sole interest in specifically white women's enfranchisement has been the priority of the scholar ship developed around the first wave (Cohen, 1996; Sneider, 1994). Though other Women's Studies scholars and historians research nuanced phenomenon such as the New Woman and gender liminality in what is coded as the first wave of feminism (Smith Rosenberg, 2001), it should be noted that the first wave is largely understood as only concerning suffrage, and moreover, deeply problematic for its racist overtones. Discussions of first wave feminism seem to corroborate the qualms between the second and third wave s in their accusations of the implicit racism in homogenizing into a singular feminism (Davis, 1981). Within the construction of the wave metaphor, the "second wave" of feminism is typically cast as the aforementioned narrative of "gender as the ultimate and unifying oppression." United States' feminism of the 1960s and 70s, or "second wave feminism is typically referred to in both Sociology and Women's Studies textbooks and classrooms. That is to say the authoritative voices in these fields create and maintain a feminist history that makes activism focused solely on gender the focal point of what they call the "second wave." Though the way this history is told is ostensibly unproblematic, this narrative lends itself to the assumption that only one group is responsible for feminisms in their multiple and concurrent forms in the 1960's and 70's. Propagating a feminist history that is fixated upon gender as a point of unification proves to be one of the defining factors the construction of hegemonic feminis m. "Hegemonic feminism" is a termed coined by Chela Sandoval (2000) in the book The Methodology of the Oppressed Sandoval asserts that hegemonic feminism has come

PAGE 21

16 about due to feminist theorization that has ignored women of color's experience of gender, race, ethnicity, class sexuality, etc. H egemonic feminism can be understood as a feminism which treats gender as the sole and ultimate oppression, whose activism is typically centered around American, white, heterosexual, educated women with middle to upp er class backgrounds (pp. 41 2). Like the name suggests, Sandoval's hegemonic feminism lords power over all other feminisms, in that its core is constituted of the most privileged feminists who presumably have an interest in only the sexist oppression of w omen. Sandoval's definition of hegemonic feminism can be regarded as the prototypical explanation of both how and why multiple feminisms arise in response to a privileged and homogenized center. Although many authoritative voices in Women's Studies sch olarship assert that hegemonic feminism is a cause of multiple feminisms, there are other outlying scholars who take this into question. Becky Thompson (2002) asserts "the most significant problem with [hegemonic feminist history] is that it does not recog nize the centrality of the feminism of women of color in Second Wave history" (p. 337). Though continually utilizing the wave metaphor, Thompson is adamant about expanding feminist history of what is deemed the "second wave" to accommodate for all of the a ctivism of women of color, and the anti racist militant activism of white feminists. In the same vain as Thompson, Beverly Guy Sheftall (2008) pushes back against the assertion that multiple feminisms spring from a hegemonic feminism. Guy Sheftall challenges the stereotype that Black women either disregarded feminism or were only responding to white feminists' racism. Instead, Guy Sheftall assert s that African and African American women have a long history of women's resistance that neither fits plainly in the wave

PAGE 22

17 metaphor nor hegemonic feminism (pp. 106 107). Further, whereas scholars assert that race based feminisms are precipitated from raci sm in the white women's movement, other scholars push back against this claim in asserting that women's resistance arises from within social movements that disregard gender oppression. In Benita Roth's book Separate Roads to Feminism (2004) her central po int is that the commonplace historiography and chronicling of the second wave of American feminism makes Black, Chicana, and Women's Liberationist feminism seem as though they are variants or reactions to mainstream white feminism. Roth argues that while t hese feminisms emerged around the same time, they were not variants or solely related to mainstream feminism. Like Thompson, Roth recognizes the multiple and concurrent feminisms of the 1960's and 70's, but asserts that Women's Liberationist feminism (the white women's radical movement) came about due to the sexism and gendered division of labor within the student, anti war, and civil rights movements. Further, Roth counter s assumptions that "second wave" feminism at its core ignored race by positing that t he Chicana and Black women's movements arose in response to the masculinist politics and sexually repressive agendas of the Brown and Black Power movements respectively (Roth, 2004). Peminism, Pinayism and the Filipina American Experience. The authoritat ive voices that describe Filipina feminist theory typically operate in the disciplines of Asian American cultural studies and Women's Studies. The state of the literature that describes this movement separates out what is called pinayism (Filipina American feminism) and peminism (Filipina feminism, pronounced with a "p" to emphasize its grounding in the

PAGE 23

18 Philippines' national language, Tagalog, which does not organically include a phonetic "f" sound) (de Jesus, 2005). The scholarly authorities who create and maintain definitions of theories of Filipina feminism both implicitly critique the notion of feminist proliferation due to hegemonic feminism, yet, paradoxically, they also iterate a history of Filipina feminism that is inextricably tied to the internal p olitics of United States Women's Studies, including intersectionality. In the introduction to Pinay Power Melinda de Jesus (2005) speaks to the notion of identity and history erasure, specifically about Filipinos in the United States. Pertaining to the c olonial mentality of Filipinos, de Jesus says, "many hegemonic cultural and political forces conspire to transcribe [Filipinos] within narratives of amnesia or forgetfulness" (p. 3). Here, de Jesus is insinuating that peminism is a social movement that is trapped within the strictures of hegemony, including hegemonic feminism. D e Jesus is also implying that within the fold of hegemony is a tacit inclination to blame Filipino/as for the erasure of their culture. D e Jesus is implicitly problematizing a Filipi no/a colonial mentality, while at the same time, alluding to the nature of hegemony and its ubiquitous will to homogenize histories. She goes on to point out that "Filipino/American identity is rooted in the United States' imperial nationality,' which de mands that [Filipino/as] forget [their] own colonization" (p. 3). In essence, de Jesus is complicating the argument that peminism is a response to hegemonic feminism by suggesting that peminism is a response to imperial hegemony, which includes hegemonic feminism under its umbrella. Along the same lines as de Jesus, when describing Filipina feminism, p inayist scholar Allyson Tintiangco Cubales (2005) points to hegemony as the discerning factor

PAGE 24

19 between itself and what is presumably understood as a singular monolithic feminism. Echoing aforementioned intersectional theory, Tintiangco Cubales posits that "[Pinayism] is beyond looking at gender politics as the major focus. Pinayism aims to look at the complexity of the intersections where race/ethnicity, class gender, sexuality, spirituality/religion, educational status, age, place of birth, diasporic migration, citizenship, and love cross" (p. 141). Tintiangco Cubales iterates Filipina feminism as intrinsically intersectional, and implicitly opposed to hegemo nic feminism. Whereas scholars such as de Jesus and Tintiangco Cubales point to hegemonic feminism and imperial hegemony as primary factors in galvanizing Filipina feminist thought, other scholars maintain that Filipina feminism comes from the fact that "Filipina Americans inhabit distinct social locations that mediate their experiences of oppression and also inform their modes of resistance" (Samson, 2005, p. 151). In other words, some scholars assert that contemporary Filipina women's resistance and org anization is galvanized by their experience of sexist oppression from Filipino men (Lacsamana, 2012). This is not to rest the blame of Filipina women's oppression solely on the shoulders of their male counterparts, but is to say that Filipina feminism come s in response to the sexism and oppression that is most present in their ethnic and race based communities. Further, this is not to essentialize all men as oppressors; on the contrary, scholars such as Samson would assert that the sexism that is exercised over Filipina women can be attributed to a unique history of imperial and colonial control, but modern day Filipino men happen to be the vector by which this oppressive history is brought to Filipina women's material realities. In conversation with other s cholarly authorities on Filipina feminism, assertions such as Samson's present themselves not as contrary to the

PAGE 25

20 literature, but rather, more nuanced than attributing all of Filipina women's oppressions to just colonial hegemony broadly speaking. As this l iterature review elucidates, the discourse surrounding Women's Studies and feminist theorization is fraught with the concern that its theorization will continually mimic a hegemonic feminism that is predicated upon exclusion. This concern, and arguably fea r of being exclusionary of issues of race plagues Women's Studies scholarship so much so that it has manipulated the ways in which feminist movements origin stories are crafted and understood. In other words, the authoritative voices in Women's Studies who define and utilize hegemonic feminism, the wave metaphor, intersectionality, or Filipina feminism have absorbed into their rhetoric a meta narrative that already presumes multiple feminisms as marginal. T he authoritative voices who address the academic ideology and the development of Women's Studies, feminist pedagogies, the construction of hegemonic feminism, and the theorization of Filipina feminism all contribute to creating a narrative about peminism and its origin. Whether this narrative is rooted in the development of educational structures like the wave metaphor, or if it is derived from the historical legacy of colonialism, the scholars addressing multiple feminisms agree that peminism (or any feminism, for that matter) can be understoo d as in response to something The more pertinent question about peminism then becomes: What is this movement in response to? And how does one construct a peminist history that precludes homogenization with other feminist historical narratives, as well as resists being taken into the fold of hegemony?

PAGE 26

21 Conclusion T his thesis will uncover a narrative that challenges the normative explication of how and why feminist movements are initiated and carried out. Critiquing the shortcomings of pedagogical and chrono logical frameworks, as well as an academic ideology that enables and encourages such frameworks, will provide me with a starting point for positing the argument that peminism, as a movement and critical theory, is developed in response to colonial and impe rial hegemony, as well as specifically sexist oppression present in modern day Filipina/o society. Utilizing a historical materialist framework will provide a transparent and concise way to challenge the argument that feminist movements are created largel y in response to hegemonic feminism. Further, a methodological strategy that encompasses historical and dialectical materialism provides a way to uncover the academic agenda that directly informed the growth and structure of contemporary Women's Studies as a discipline. This strategy will also aid in clarifying how peminist scholars conceive of a transmission of power, and how over time, the dialectical relationship of Filipina/os opposing colonialism (or imperialism) has turned into Filipinas opposing sex ist oppression. Ultimately, this thesis will point to peminism as a case study of how academic ideology, Women's Studies theory, and the change in United States feminism over time have greatly influenced how feminisms of color conceive of themselves and t heir theorization. By juxtaposing an alternate narrative and origin story of Filipina women's movements with academic ideology and its subsequent effects on feminism and Women's Studies, this thesis will work to both reveal and unravel a long standing beli ef that women's movements are developed solely in response to hegemonic feminism.

PAGE 27

22 On a larger scale, reinvestigating the chronology and history of peminist thought and activism will be invaluable to Women's Studies scholarship, as it is a necessary and o verdue critique of how academia has served only a select few in its demands for theory and knowledge making. I do not intend this work to be an indictment of the oversights of Women's Studies scholarship and pedagogy, but rather an expansion and a galvaniz ation to broaden the scope of how feminism and feminist movements are understood. In this sense, my study will ultimately be useful to those seeking to expand feminist critical discourse inside and outside of the classroom, as well as to those who seek nua nced understanding of how feminist movements come about outside of and in spite of hegemonic influence.

PAGE 28

2 3 CHAPTER II ACADEMIC IDEOLOGY AND THE DISCIPLINING OF FEMINISM In this chapter, I will discuss and analyze how political feminist movements in the United States came to be an academic discipline. Both historical and critical, I aim to forge and showcase a narrative of feminism and Women's Studies that clarifies the academy's relationship with the growth and change of United States' f eminism over time. Broadly speaking, I intend to exhibit this critical chronology as a testament to the confines in which feminism has come to be taught and learned, not only in university classrooms, but in social and cas ual contexts as well. F rom this hi story, I will indicate the ways in which the scope of Women's Studies scholarship has been limited, but also the ways in which some feminist scholarship has proliferated under the constraints of academia. I will highlight the meta pedagogical materials th at I argue are utilized in order to construct and maintain an academic ideology that has both informed and changed feminism. Further, I will elucidate upon materialist theory that both underpins my critique of academic ideology, while at the same time prov ides a lens through which the rest of this study can be observed. The scope of this chapter will be narrowed and fixed upon three themes: feminism as a political movement, academic structure and ideology, and the resulting scholarship of a disciplined Wome n's Studies.

PAGE 29

24 The Birth of Women's Studies Women's Studies is both an academic discipline and, at the same time, an interdisciplinary paradigm with a f ar reaching breadth. Women's Studies as a specific academic discipline in American universi ties has a relatively brief history, dating back to its roots in the 1960's and 70's, brought about by the many upheavals of various women's movements. It is necessary to examine the structure and the history of Women's Studies as an academic discipline, a s the interrogation of its legacy and origin allows for a clarification of why and how the voices and experiences of Filipina feminists have been left out of academia. The first Women's S tudies program began at San Diego State University in 1970 and it is commonly held that these became classes due to the demands of feminist consciousness raising groups (Buhle, 2007, p. xv). Although the radical feminist groups in many of the urban centers in the United States brought consciousness raising to th e forefront of social justice activism in the 1960's and 70's, they were not the first, nor the last, to utilize this method for conceptualizing and understanding their lived experiences in the context of gender and oppression. In terms of what and how con sciousness raising works, sociologist Rose Weitz (1982) describes feminist consciousness raising simply as "regular meetings in which women discuss and search for similarities among their personal experiences" (p. 231). From a psychological perspective, co nsciousness raising is "a personal, face to face interaction which appears to create new psychological orientations for those involved i n the process" (Cheseboro, Cragan & McCullough 1973, pp. 136 137). Kathie Sarachild (1978), an outspoken member of the New York Radical Women group, defined consciousness raising as a "radical weapon" (p. 144). For the

PAGE 30

25 New York Radical Women, they "decided to raise [their] consciousness by studying women's live s by topics like childhood, jobs, motherhood et c." (Sarachild, 1978, p. 146). For the radical women's group, this study consisted of reading outside texts, but more than anything, it consisted of grounding their ideas in their own experience. That is to say the radical group's study of women's oppression looked less like an empirical study of other women specimens, and instead was an internal endeavor into their memories and personal histories of how they had experienced what ultimately came to be understoo d as sexist oppression. In practice, consciousness raising can be understood as what I deem a proto theoretical exercise. In other words, consciousness raising is an activity that lends itself to making feminist theory, and with its activist im plementation, a form of praxis. C onsciousness raising and its subsequent praxis directly informed the political rhetoric of the Women's Liberation movement in the United States, which eventually led to the creation of Women's Studies as an academic discipl ine. Somewhat paradoxically, consciousness raising lent itself to making Women's Studies into an academic discipline that was necessarily tethered to a political and activist core. Ostensibly, this connection is useful and beneficial, particularly if it is the intention of Women's Studies to continually aid in overt social change through activism. However, in the academy, the duality of politics and scholarship has a legacy that is both fraught and ongoing (Buhle, 2000, p. xxv). From the tradition of cons ciousness raising, a unique feminist pedagogy was created, and Women's Studies classes in the academy were structured very differently than traditional courses. When a Women's Studies department was created at SUNY

PAGE 31

26 Buffalo, one of the founders noted that [t] his education will not be an academic exercise; it will be an ongoing process to change the ways in which women think and behave. It must be part of the struggle to build a new and more complete society (Buhle, 2000, p. xxv). This quote is a testament to the specifically un academic agenda of feminists entering the academy. This is not to say that the feminist activists and scholars who are largely responsible for the development of the Women's Studies discipline were uncommitted to producing rigorous s cholarship, but it is to say that they set out to establish Women's Studies as a new, unique, and somewhat contrary discipline vested in an equally contrary curriculum that was often informed by activism. Describing the development of a Women's Studies pro gram at Portland State University, Nancy Hoffman (2000) note s, ".W e enabled students to build a women's studies program, one of the first in the country Ours was a grassroots movement not a program but an action. I can see now that we applied community organizing skills to the student community" (p. 23) Here, Hoffman's reflection of the development of the PSU Women's Studies program is telling; with support from activist skill set that Hoffman and her c olleagues came to academia, students did not ask f or permission for a Women's Studies program, they organized and made it. Fledgling Women's Studies programs coming up in universities, in many ways, had to include an element of activism, as some of these programs were met with hostility or dismissal ( Buhl e, 2000, xxii) Nonetheless, Women's Studies classes, curriculum pedagogies programs and syllabi were initially and intimately tied to a political and activist core. Alas, this core was subject to a new set of rules in academia, and it was not long until the critical and political agendas of feminists were stifled in the academe.

PAGE 32

27 Upon entering and growing in the academic sphere, Women's Studies has had to conform to academic standards, rigor, empiricism, and an ideology very different than the radical and political agendas to which feminists were previously accustomed. Describing the widely held belief about the academy, Taylor and Conrad (1992) suggest that the structure of the university as an institution has been "conditioned by popular images of its pastoral innocence, and of its highly cogn itive and theoretical workers seemingly disinterested' intellectuals" ( p. 405). In other words, when Women's Studies was channeled into academia, there was (and is) an expectation of its scholarship to be disinterested, objective, and theoretical, all of which are standards that political feminism had never been held to before, nor considered. While solidifying as a discipline, Women's Studies not only had to be acculturated to an academic paradigm, but to an academic ideology as well One constituent part of academic ideology is the dual concept of academic freedom and duty. In his instructional book Academic Duty (with a targeted audience o f new university faculty), Stan ford University pre sident, Donald Kennedy (1997) describes "academic freedom" as "the insulation of professors and their institutions from political interference" (p. 20). Kennedy goes on to describe the book's namesake "academic duty," as "mysterious" and representative of a "confusion about what is owed: by the university to society, by faculty to students, by administrators to both" (p. 3). Kennedy's assertion that the concept of academic duty is mysterious reigns true in many ways, but the description of the breadth of th is mystery is where we can observe the earmarking of ideology. Kennedy describes academic duty as a process of exchange and debts without first questioning why we see the university as different from society, or perhaps why we see faculty as different from

PAGE 33

28 students. The duality of the categories which Kennedy puts forth are indicative of an academic ideology that renders the university as separate and exceptional from "society"; the faculty from students as well. One of the salient issues elicite d by Kennedy's assertions about academic freedom and its binary of university and society is the objectivit y that is demanded of faculty. Kennedy suggests that it is the faculty member's responsibility to "[retain] some detachment and objectivity about hig hly partisan issues in which it might be possible to exert an unfair influence over students" (p. 19). Here, Kennedy is still basing his assertions upon binary models of student and teacher, and society and university, in that he believes that the universi ty and the faculty member are placed above society and the student respectively. The implication of this facet of academic ideology is that it is only those in power who are able to be objective, and if they are not objective, then they have effectively ab used their power. The consequences of Kennedy and other academics' outlook on the tacit hierarchy sustained by the concept of "objectivity" is that individuality, emotion, and personality in academia are not only unscholarly, but frowned upon. The demand for objectivity in faculty and university practice is an expectation so ubiquitous that it is frequently overlooked. Further, the conception of academic objectivity is partnered, albeit tenuously, with the idea of neutrality and together with scholarly research, they create a trinity of knowledge making or truth finding. Ostensibly, scholarship, objectivity, and neutrality together is the ideal way to research, but, as Haskell (1990) argues, neutrality does little to nothing to push scholarship forward, nor is

PAGE 34

29 it necessarily an admirable goal, especially when objectivity can be easily compatible with political commitments (p. 5). Haskell warns of scholarly detachment saying Detachment functions in [a] manner not by draining us of passion, but by helping to channel our intellectual passions in such a way as to insure collision with rival perspectives... Objectivity is so much a product of social arrangements that individuals and particular opinions scarcely deserve to be called objective, yet the social arrangements that foster objectivity have no basis for existence apart from individual striving for d etachment. Only insofar as the members of the community are disposed to set aside the perspective that comes most spontaneously to them, and strive to see things in a detached light, is there any likelihood that they will engage with one another mentally a nd provoke one another through mutual criticism to the most complete, least idiosyncratic, view that humans are capable of. When the ascetic effort of detachment fails, as it often does, we "talk past one another," producing nothing but discordant soliloqu ies, each fancying itself the voice of reason (p. 5) Haskell lauds detachment as an important means for furthering scholarship and thinking more generally, but stops short commending objectivity, as he sees it as both a construction and a road block to t he seemingly great potential of intellectual work. Alas, Haskell also asserts that objectivity, or at least the notion of it, is precipitated directly from the individual attempting to be detached. Notably, Haskell does not conflate the term neutrality w ith detachment, nor does he assume that objectivity and detachment are happy bedfellows. On the contrary, Haskell aims to indicate that detachment is the key ingredient for an intersubjective understand ing of both the world around us and our own place amon g man y. In conversation with Kennedy' s assertions about objectivity, and its tacit implications about emotion and passion, Haskell prioritizes detachment above objectivity, as his goal is to further intellectual practice, as opposed to maintaining a hierar chy between academy and society. In sum, Haskell's privileging of detachment serves to diminish commonly held notion s of objectivity and neutrality in the sense that it goes against the grain of academic ideology in a hierarchy. Haskell's detachment, paire d

PAGE 35

30 with his sense of political commitment serve to bridge the gap between the university and society; a gap that has been happily cultivated and maintained by academics like Kennedy, in the service of objectivity. The hierarchy implicit in Kennedy's definitions of academic freedom and duty represent a primary point of inquiry not only for the inception of Women's Studies, but for any fledgling discipline in the academy. If academic ideology would dictate that the work that occurs at the univ ersity is separate and disconnected from society, then this puts Women's Studies in a precarious place, as the discipline itself is part and parcel of social and political activism. Put into context with Kennedy's suggestion that academic freedom is an ins ulation from political interference, it makes it seem as though the intention of the academy is to research and work with impunity; and in the case of Women's Studies in particular, it is the function of the academy to not be scrutinized, but rather left t o do its work. Why this is so troublesome for Women's Studies is that when the university as an institution is not a subject of critique or research, and when it sees itself as apart from society, all of the interpersonal discrimination and prejudice which occurs inside of the university is, in practice ignored or justified. In this sense, Kennedy's description of academic freedom seems ironic, as the compulsion to protect universities and their faculty from harmful political ideologies (like McCarthyism a nd the communist scare) seems to stretch too far, as if to insulate the university from politics at all. Hereafter, when I refer to the political and academic divide in Women's Studies, I am referring to precisely the insulation from society and its politi cs that the academy has made for itself. For Women's Studies, the disconnect between politics and academia is where it found its home, albeit through a trial by fire.

PAGE 36

31 Academic Ideology as State Apparatus Here, I will use Louis Althusser's (2009) theories of "Ideological State Apparatuses" (ISA) to analyze the academy's role in changing feminism from a political movement to an academic discipline. Born from historical materialism, Althusser's description of the apparatuses of state powe r illuminate a histo ry of Women' s Studies not vested in the his tory of feminist movements, but, rather a history of mimicry as a means to acquiescence to academic structure. Before describing Althusser's ISAs, I aim to clarify the historical materialist platform from which Althusser begins his theory; namely Karl Marx's iteration of materialism, and to a lesser extent, Erich Fromm's perspective of Marx's ideas of consciousness and human history. In Marx's Concept of Man Fromm (1961) suggests: ...Marx... believed that mos t of what men consciously think is "false" consciousness, is ideology and rationalization; that the true mainsprings of man's actions are unconscious to h im. ... A ccording to Marx, they are rooted in the whole social organization of which directs his consc iousness in certain directions and blocks him from being aware of certain facts and experiences (pp. 20 1) Here, Marx by way of Fromm, is suggesting that consciousness is produced as a means of interaction with the social organization, or, put simply: be ing around other people. In his early work, Marx notes, "Consciousness is therefore from the very beginning a social product, and remains so as long as men exist at all (1947, p. 51). That is to say, consciousness is necessitated by social contact and wil l be with us as long as we are around other people. From Marx and Fromm's descriptions, one can observe that consciousness can, at the very least, be manipulated by those with power in the "social

PAGE 37

32 organization." This manipulation is implicated in the creat ion of false consciousness or alienation, and for Althusser, ideology. Marx and Fromm's analyses in mind, Althusser's description of ISAs can be directly applied to my aforementioned suppositions about the academy. Althusser begins by discerning between Ma rx's state apparatuses and his own ideological state apparatuses. Whereas Marx's state apparatuses (such as the military or prisons) are considered by Althusser to be "repressive" (f unctioning by means of violence ), the ideological state apparatus may elicit similar results, but with a different function and implementation than the repressive state apparatus. Examples of the ideological state apparatus (ISA) include religious, cultural, and educational ISAs. I assert that in the mat ter of academic structure and ideology, and how these phenomenon weigh upon Women's Studies, Althusserian iterations of both cultural and education ISAs must be observed very closely. As implied by their name, ISAs function primarily by ideology, but like Marx's RSA, they function secondarily by repression. The two part function of the ISA is vital for understanding the phenomenon's manifestation: "there is no such thing as a purely ideological apparatus" for Althusser (p. 81). This in mind, ideology and re pression are necessary for the exercise and maintenance of state power. I argue that the academy is a site of this exercise of power and Women's Studies as an academic discipline has been subject to exactly that: discipline. Althusser even makes a point to note that "Schools use suitable methods of punishment, expulsion, selection, etc., to discipline' not only their shepherds, but also their flocks" (p. 81).

PAGE 38

33 Speaking specifically to Althusserian ISAs and the disciplining of feminism into Women's Studies Ellen Messer Davidow (2002) asserts that individual internalization of academic ideology has occurred in the disciplining of feminism: ...the subjects "work by themselves"... with the exception of the "bad subjects" who on occasion provoke the intervent ion of one of the detachments of the (repressive) State apparatus. But the vast majority of (good) subjects work all right "all by themselves." The are inserted into practices governed by the rituals of the ISAs. (p. 19; Althusser, 2009) Of this epigrap h, Messer Davidow goes on to analyze ISAs hand in Women's Studies in analyzing specifically academic disciplines: ... disciplines endure through practice, the continuation of practice depends upon reproduction, and reproduction is accomplished by socializi ng practitioners. When a discipline trains future practitioners, it [does not] just teach them its knowledge contents; it exercises them in its ways of perceiving, thinking, valuing, relating, and acting thereby, as Althusser notes in the second epigraph, inserting them into its schemes of practice (p. 20) Messer Davidow's point here is that academic ideology as a repressive apparatus relies heavily upon its individual subjects internalizing the disciplines' practices. In other words (hearkening back to Fromm and Marx's ideas of consciousness and materialism), feminists entering academia were, and continue to be, inculcated with academic ideology that manifests in material practice and eventually internalization. What is implicit in this internalization i s alienation ; in the case of feminism to Women's Studies, the price of this alienation is effacing the political legacy of feminism and replacing it with academically condoned and controlled knowledge making. I argue that the academic ideology serves a purpose that is a reflection of a commonly critiqued, but frequently overlooked phenomenon: capitalism. As an Althusserian ISA, the academy works in a way that systematically inculcates its constituents in an att empt to create capital in the form of knowledge Though authorities

PAGE 39

34 on academic culture and ideology have argued that the spawning of administrative culture and the academy's overt connection to privatized industrial interests are to blame for "academic ca pitalism," their critiques fall short in addressing the academy's internalization of the superstructure of capitalism ( Levinson, 1989; Anderson, 1983; Austin & Gamson, 1984; Gumport, 2002, 2005; Newman, Couturier, & Scurry, 2004; Mendoza & Berger, 2008 ) T hat is to say, the academy has not only monetarily profited from its business like isomorphism, it has internalized the practices of capitalism, and uses the incentive of managing a surplus of knowledge to discipline and inculcate prospective scholars and new forms of scholarship (Levinson, 1989). Academic ideology does not solely exist in the culture built up inside of universities and their administration; it also manifests on the individual level. Speaking candidly of her experience as an academic, Delia Aguilar (2000) highlights a subtlety of academic work in saying I just wasn't hip enough to appreciate newfangled theoretical angles as they were taking shape in the academy. Perhaps I was not grasping the fact that in academic life, as in the world of c apitalist production, survival dictates compliance with the principle that built in obsolescence or "shelf life" inheres in ideas as in goods (p. 8) Though Aguilar's insight in to the speed at which theory takes shape in the academy should not be overlooked, it is her description of ideas that I aim to highlight. Aguilar's description of knowledge is the epitome of the circumstances elicited by academi c inculcation and ideology: ideas are commodities. Like commodities, ideas can be turned into surplus; knowledge can and does become capital. The implications of academic knowledge production and its relationship with feminism and, subsequently, Women's S tudies seem to answer Messer Davidow's

PAGE 40

35 question head on: How was academic feminism formed by the dynamic structures it set out to transform? It is my argument that academic feminism is the embodiment of radical and political feminist thought, disciplined a nd inculcated by an academic ideology and structure with the greater goals of collecting a surplus of ideas, knowledge, and theories. For the remainder of this thesis I will use the term "academic ideology" as a summation of three key attributes: a belie f, a function, and a locus. The belief attribute of academic ideology is constituted by the conclusion that academic work is objective and neutral, and is thusly separate and distinct from society and its politics. The function al attribute of academic ideo logy is specifically capitalist; the academy manages the surplus of theories, knowledge, and knowledge making. Finally, academic ideology as a locus refers simply to the disciplinary power of the academic structure; the academy is a locus of power, or an I SA. So then, when I use the term academic ideology it is intended to be a summation of these three attributes. Women's Studies Disciplined Academic ideology in mind, the individual experiences of those who initiated Women's Studies into the un iversity system paint a different, more hopeful view of the seeming duality between politics and academia. Discussing the climate in which she entered the Women' s Studies classroom, Nancy Hoffman (2000) says My "mothering" of Women's Studies began on the West coast, instigated not by academic intellectuals but by radical student activists, of whom I was one. Our goal was to open up the university to scrutiny, to challenge institutional power, and to take some for our own purposes. Although many of us were students and young faculty members, we were also outsiders whose prior political activities have been off campus. We saw the youth on campus as ripe for radicalizing and organizing. For me, the women's studies classroom because the place where politics and intellectual interest could come together... (p. 17)

PAGE 41

36 Though Hoffman's account is just one experience of the political and intellectual facets of Women's Studies, we can observe the initial tension that was both perceived and resented with the introductio n of feminism to the university campus. Hoffman points out that an initial goal of feminists in the academy was to scrutinize and challenge the power exercised by universities. Hearkening back to Kennedy's iteration of academic duty, we can see the immedia te qualm with which feminism was introduced into academia. For some feminist activists, the primary subject of feminist critical theory was set out to be the academy itself. Feminists' penchant for critiquing the university's institutionalized patriarchal hierarchy has occurred from Women's Studies onset to this day, and it is frequently met with hostility, if not outright ignored. Addressing the masculinist ideology of the academy, Carole Blair, Julie Brown, and Leslie Baxter (1994) in their hi ghly controversial piece "Disciplining the Feminine," set out to indict the ostensible empiricism of a sociological study of women in the academe, specifically in the Communication discipline. Blair et al begins the piece by showcasing the many trials of getting published, including pointing out that "our writings suppress our convictions, our enthusiasm, our anger, in the intere st of achieving an impersonal, expert distance and tone" (p. 383). This assertion hearkens back to the academic ideology that dem ands objectivity of researchers and instructors, but in exchange for, perhaps, personal connections with academic writing. Blair et al goes on to describe their idea of "scholarship" as "vouchsafed by academic freedom and intellectual ethics" (p. 383). Ho wever, even though their idea of scholarly liberties seems self evidently justified, they point out that "issues of institutional or professional power are deemed superfluous to the substance and character of our scholarly efforts (p. 383). In

PAGE 42

37 other words for Blair et al the downside of academic freedom is that the academic aspect makes it so one is not free at all, but perpetually confined. Blair et al 's findings not only indicate the tenuousness of the invisibility of academic ideology, but they also point out how disappointing and hollow scholarship can be for those who make it. Considering the emotional journeys through consciousness raising and activism that gave feminism and Women's Studies its start, acquiescing to academic standards seems that m uch more compromising for feminists in the academe. Here, I note that scholars such as Hoffman and Blair et al are testaments to the resistance to academic ideology and practice that can be found among feminists in the academe. Though I argue that academ ic ideology has changed feminism into Women's Studies with some unfortunate consequences, I also wish to highlight that resistance to institutionalization remains an important part of the scholarly work done in Women's Studies. By indicating the initial go als of feminists, as well as the masculinist climate of the academy, feminist academics do indeed posit resistance to academic ideology and the institutionalization of feminism and Women's St udies. Women's Studies and the Academic Paradigm In response to academic ideology, structure, and expectation, I argue that Women's Studies and its pedagogy have been formulated in a way that has attempted to restructure social and political feminist ideas and movements into a top down power model favored by academia. In other words, when feminism found its home in academia, it was coerced into adopting the same methods of teaching, learning, and knowledge making that was already institutionalized in the university system. In doing so, feminism

PAGE 43

38 turned Women 's Studies has, from its onset, been in a confined space, not to mention a completely different territory from its activist and non institutionalized heritages. Here, I want to stress that even though feminists had high hopes of critiquing and changing the structure of the academe, it was actually the academy that changed feminism, for better or for worse. In their analysis of the political and academic discord in Women's Studies, Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge (1994) chronicle some of the challenges that have haunted this academic discipline. Describing the development of the political and inte llectual split in Women's Studies, Patai and Koertge note, "From the outset, Women's Studies occupied an unusual position in academe. It was not just multidisciplinary but had a dual agenda: educational (the study first of women and then of gender) and pol itical (the correction of social injustice)" (p. 4). Patai and Koertge go on to note that Inevitable tensions have resulted from this grand, not to say grandiose, vision. A brave new field that sprang up from grassroots efforts. ... Women' s Studies fa ced many obstacles within the university. The legitimation of any new academic field is long process, but feminists believed that the challenges they faced were invariably manifestations of sexism. This sense of vulnerability contributed to the development of a siege mentality (p. 5) The vulnerability and "siege mentality" within Women's Studies can be directly connected to its primary initiation through consciousness raising and activism. That is not to say that these activities delegitimize Women's Studies as an academic discipline, but that the social and political goals of feminists have fueled, and continue to fuel, the academic standpoint of Women's Studies. The political roots of Women's Studies are in glancing conflict with the demands of scholarship. Though scholarship can cert ainly have political applications, academic work created with political intentions can stray far from

PAGE 44

39 the scholarly standard of empiricism without bias. That in mind, the defensive attitude incubated by the initial political intentions of Women's Studies r emains a contributing factor of how Women's Studies classes are taught, how its pedagogy is developed, and how it is widely received. A manifestation of the aforementioned vulnerable mentality is the crafting of genealogical narrative of Women's Studies th at prioritizes a legitimization of a discipline ahead of a fortification or expansion of scholarship and inquiry. Here, I posit that the disciplining of feminism into Women's Studies as an academic discipline has resulted in a horizontal hostility that ult imately privileges the study of certain feminisms, and subsequently marginalizes and suppresses the study of others. In other words, in an attempt to make Women's Studies more palatable in the academe, the facts, theories, and narratives of particular femi nisms and women's movements are either ignored or effaced; suppression begets suppression in this case. Due to Women's Studies precariousness in the threshold between education and politics, and the subsequent effort to "academatize" the discipline, femini st theory itself has been building upon a narrow and uneven foundation. In a statement addressing the issue of feminist theory and Women's Studies in academia, Maxine Baca Zinn (1986) remarks : Practices that exclude women of color and working class women f rom the mainstream women' s studies have important consequences for feminist theory. Ultimately, they prevent a full understanding of gender and society. The failure to explore fully the interplay of race, class, and gender has cost the field the ability to provide a broad and true complex analysis of women' s lives and of social organization. It has rendered feminist theory incomplete and incorrect. (p. 195) The idea expressed in Baca Zinn's critique here has been widely regarded by feminists and academics (and academic feminists), but I argue that this rhetoric is tacitly aimed at

PAGE 45

40 academic practice and Women's Studies. In regards to Baca Zinn and other scholars who have called for a broader and more inclusive analysis of feminisms (Crenshaw, 1989; Thompson, 2002; Roth, 2004), the response has been fruitful, but not without its shortcomings, particularly in regards to cultivating a belief that feminism has always been exclusionary. The Institutionalization of Intersectionality Described as the sin gle most im portant contribution that women' s studies has made so far," the concept of "intersectionality" is an open ended notion that encompasses an analysis of gender simultaneously with other points of difference (race, class, sexuality, etc.) (Davis, 2008, p. 68 ; McCall, 2005 ). The term was originally coined by KimberlÂŽ Crenshaw (1989) in the piece "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics" and re fers to the marginalization of black women in feminist critical theory, as well as critical race theory. Crenshaw' s intersectionality has been described as a theory, a heuristic, a descriptor, an analytical lens, and a buzzword. Though it could be any and all of these things at once, intersectionality is largely regarded as an individual level experience or embodiment of multiple forms of oppression. In Crenshaw's case, intersectionality is a term to describe her marginalization as a woman in male dominated spaces dedicated to critical ra ce theory and the experience of racial oppression she felt in feminist circles, constituted primarily by white women. Crenshaw's experience in mind, a constituent part of the theory of intersectionality is the belief that "i t is impossible to talk

PAGE 46

41 about gender without considering dimensions of social structure/social identity that play a formative role in gender' s operation and meaning" (Shields, 2008, p. 303). Describing the popularity of intersectionality, Kathy Davis (2008) notes that "[a] t this particular juncture in gender studies, any scholar who neglects difference runs the risk of having her work viewed as theoretically misguided, politically irrelevant, or simply fantastical" (p. 68). Davis' summation of the utilization of intersectionality demonstrates not only the diversity of this phenomenon's application, but also the precedent which has been set for considering intersectionality in all academic work. Here I note that it is not my intention to suggest that intersectionality should be ove rlooked or disregarded; on the contrary, I argue that intersectionality's ubiquitousness merits a critical inquiry not only into its heritage, but the implications of its implementation, espe cially in Women's Studies. I strive to highlight that the way that Crenshaw's theory of intersectionality has been used is explicitly a reaction to academic feminism and knowledge making, and not of non institutionalized feminist movements. Crenshaw's ori ginal iteration of intersectionality is an important theoretical device for the analysis of multiple feminisms. Instead of parsing out different identity phenomenon in individual level experiences, an intersectional analysis allows for the consideration of how multiple structures of oppression and privilege result in different experiences on both an individual and a systemic level. Regarding multiple feminisms, intersectional theory can be utilized to observe and critique the different and concurrent system s and structures of power (i.e. white supremacy, imperialism, patriarchy, etc.) that galvanize women's resistance and activism.

PAGE 47

42 Alas, intersectional theory, though popular in Women's Studies scholarship, is seldom used as an analytical lens to observe an d ask why multiple feminisms come about. Rather, intersectionality in the context of academic institutionalization has been understood as a corrective lens, and utilized in such a way that it is not turned to critique academic ideology, but is instead an a ddendum to Women's Studie s scholarship. I ntersectionality has been utilized as a way to add (not analyze) multiple feminisms into the fold of scholarship, but its use is continuously predicated upon the belief that ther e was only one kind of feminism and a singular feminist movement. Of course, the way this theory is utilized is not Crenshaw or the theory's fault or shortcoming; rather, intersectionality's use as a corrective device for Women's Studies scholarship comes as a direct reaction to academic ideo logy and structure Ultimately, what has occurred is an academic turned pedagogical quagmire in which th e efforts to put marginal women' s experiences at the forefront of feminist scholarship has led to a presupposition that it is middle clas s, white, heterosexual feminism' s hegemony that has elicited the plurality of feminisms. Perhaps the direst consequence of this presupposition is that students taking Women's Studies courses are coming to understand plural feminisms as a response to, essentially, wh ite women's feminism. The belief that a privileged form of feminism has turned the inquiry into feminisms of color into an imperial endeavor by which women of color are specimens, not subjects, and it is a foregone conclusion that their feminism is spawned from a hegemonic source. Herein lies a significant though overlooked problem in Women's Studies: the predominant narrative of feminisms of non white women seem to suggest that they were

PAGE 48

43 created in response to white women's feminism. This comes as no surprise, considering that overt activism of feminism seems to have trailed off into academia, which has subsequently become the host to the problem of ide ological conflicts within Women' s Studies. In other words, the belief that feminisms are create d solely by reaction to a mainstream (white, middle class, heterosexual, able, etc.) feminism could only be precipitated by feminism within the structure of the academy. The politic al and academic divide in Women' s Studies has led to a slew of problems tha t have become embedded in the way that Women's Studies and the history of women's movements is taught through texts and in classrooms. One of the most commonly used pedagogical tools in Women' s Studies today is the "Wave Metaphor." The next chapter will de fine and analyze the wave metaphor's usage and popularity, as well as cast a critical glance at the wave metaphor's seeming innocuousness in Women's Studies. It is my assertion that the wave metaphor, paired with the fraught academic paradigm in which fem inism has become Women's Studies, has resulted in the construction of what Chicana feminist theorist Chela Sandoval calls "hegemonic feminism." The following chapter can be understood as an investigation of the nuanced way in which academic ideology has di sciplined Women's Studies, and in turn, informed how its scholarship is substantiated specific to different identity categories and multiple feminisms.

PAGE 49

44 C HAPTER III THE WAVE METAPHOR AND HEGEMONIC FEMINISM In this chapter, I analyze and critique a commonly utilized pedagogical trope known as the wave metaphor. This metaphor is used to describe a history of feminist movements and activism in the United States. For example, the first wave of feminism is sa id to have commenced in 1848 with the Seneca Falls Convention, and concluded in 1920 with the enactment of women' s suffrage in the United States. The second and third waves of United States feminism have less cl ear dates associated with them. They are established as occurring in the 1960's and 70's along side the many social movements occurring concomitantly, and again in the 1990's with a movement toward the reclamation of girl power (Bailey, 1997). Other scholars maintain that waves of feminism are s till being created and that we are currently in a fourth wave and a fifth may be imminent (Munro, 2013; Wrye, 2009). Though the casual use of the wave metaphor makes it seem innocuous, this trope is not without its problems. I aim to illuminate the alr eady established critiques of the wave metaphor tha t have come from varyin g academic disciplines, namely History and Women's S tudies. This chapter includes a literature review of contemporary critiques of the wave metaphor, as well as my own analysis of how these critiques and the wave metaphor itself serve a covert purpose in light of the academic ideology discussed in the previous chapters. My analysis will culminate in a critique of "hegemonic feminism." This chapter aims to indicate the nuances of how feminist historiographies are crafted in academia,

PAGE 50

45 while at the same time critique the ways that these historiographies are sometimes labeled unbiased and objective. The Wave Metaphor: Literature Review The "wave metaphor" is a commonly u sed trope in Women's Studies teachings and readings, though it is infrequently examined. Allegedly posited by Women's Liberationists in the late 1960s, describing women's movements and feminist activism in historiographical terms by way of the wave metapho r has been both a convenience and a thorn in the side of Women's and Gender Studies scholarship for quite some time. A convenience in the sense that the metaphor provides a simple way of talking about historical feminist activism, and a nuisance as the wa ve description of feminisms leaves out a multitude of histories, as well as lends itself to the creation and maintenance of what is called "hegemonic feminism." Although the use of the wave metaphor seems to be ubiquitous in both casual and academic discou rse, it has been the subject of some scholarly scrutiny. Academics from an array of liberal arts disciplinary perspectives (not just Women's Studies) have weighed in on the utility of the wave metaphor ( Laughlin, Gallagher, Cobble, Boris, Nadasen, Gilmore, & Zarnow, 2010; Nicholson, 2010; Hewitt, 2012). This literature review aims to define the wave metaphor, while historically situating its implementation and use in both feminist and broader social contexts. It is my intention to highlight that scholarship that critiques or at least calls in to question the utility of the wave metaphor p resupposes feminist in fighting. I n light of this these critiques neglect to address a greater question that is not "why bother using the wave metaphor?" but rather "What l imitations has the wave metaphor already set for the way educators and students understand the chronology

PAGE 51

46 of women's movements?" The literature review will thematically categorize the contemporary critiques of the wave metaphor, as well as synthesize some of the disparate scholarship that responds to this problematic at best pedagogical trope. To begin, the wave metaphor more simply is a way of historically categorizing and describing feminist activism. Casually, the "first wave" implied by the m etaphor points to everything from the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848 all the way to the autumn of 1920 when American women casted their ballots for the first time after their enfranchisement. The second wave is largely understood as feminist activism broadly associated with the many other social movements in the 1960s and 70s. Martha Weinem Lear's article "The Second Feminist Wave" was published in New York Times Magazine in 1968, and its title is assumed to set the precedent for what we now regard as the second wave of feminism. Finally, the third wave refers to activism vaguely situated in a timeline that begins around 1990 and could be continually occurring as I write this in 2015. In her piece "Becoming the Third Wave," Rebecca Walker ( 2001 ) makes the statement, "I am not postfeminism. I am the Third Wave," as a proclamation of the difference between the end of feminism and the second wave of feminism; Walker s statement is both a rekindling and a conti nuation of the feminism s that came before her ( p. 80 ). Further, Walker's claim to embody the third wave is an exemplification of the already entrenched idea of feminism occurring in waves. Feminism in waves is a widely used metaphor, so much so that the L ibrary of Congress has now adopted First Wave, Second Wave, and Third Wave as topical categories, entrenching them further in academic and popular discourse" ( Hewitt, 2012, p. 659). As Hewitt points out, the wave metaphor is a ubiquitous descriptor that is now

PAGE 52

47 casually used to indicate everything from women's suffrage, to intersectionality, to the development of NOW (the National Organization for Women). Popularity, ease of use, and mutual intelligib ility aside, there are still problems and ideas to be problematized embedded in the use of the wave metaphor, particularly in its academic and pedagogical implementations. The most recognizable and widely critiqued constituent of the wave metaphor is the belief in definitive beginnings and ends of the three aforementioned waves. This assumption about the wave metaphor is the easi est to unpack, as we find women' s movements organizing almost constantly, within or outside of the chronology of the waves. Further, these women' s movements ove rlap and weav e into other women' s movements as well as other social movements such as the labor movement, the Black Power movement, or the movement against the Vietnam War (Roth, 2004) Closely related to the critique that the wave metaphor situates a story that has clear beginnings and ends is the critique that the metaphor collapses concurrent feminisms into a chronology that maintains that only one wave is occurring at single point in time. Scholars suggest that the wave metaphor lends itself to pain ting a narrati ve of women' s movements that implies feminism is a united and singular occurrence, thus negating a nuanced understanding of women' s movements that situates them inside of "gendered imagination of a particular generation and a particula r historical moment" (Gallagher, 2010, p. 89). In other words, the wave meta phor tacitly supposes that only one feminism is occurring during one wave, without consideration of the di fferent contexts in which women' s movements arise.

PAGE 53

48 Another more subtle cri tique of the wave metaphor is the supposition that the wave metaphor as a device is a reflection of an ideology that favors a sophomoric narrative of winning and losing. That is to say describing feminism in waves makes it seem as though the only femini st activism considered in the waves chronology is the feminism that has succeeded in meeting its goals; feminism that has won, so to speak. Further, this oversimplified narrative of feminism leads to a slew of multiple feminisms being not only effaced, but placed in a hierarchy of victors and the defeated. Addressing the exclusions of the wave metaphor, Julie Gallagher and Kathleen Laughlin (2010) note that [The wave metaphor] construct celebrates the stories of hard won victories by women who were able to compel power elites to address their demands. However, in these time specific and narrowly focused accounts, the multidimensional aspects of feminism too often are excluded. ( p. 82) Here, Gallagher and Laughlin are indicating a problematic aspect of the narrative of feminism in waves: the wave metaphor only privileges feminism whose struggle was ostensibly resolved, as well as liberal feminism, whose agendas could be met by those already in power. Elucidating on th is point, Gallagher and Laughlin suggest that White middle class women, by nature of their race and class privilege, were able to garner media or political attention more readily than women of color or working class women. As a result we can follow their activism throu gh to some kind of conclusion often to a victorious one. Narratives of struggle and victory are appealing and fairly simple to tell. ( p. 84) In other words the wave metaphor has become a descriptor that follows in the footsteps of stereotyp ical narratives of success, competition, and winning. Accordingly, Gal lagher and Laughlin's critique is vested in the fact that multiple feminisms exist and have different criteria for success; "winning" white middle class feminism would have no comparison to buttress itself against if other feminisms did not occur. Alas, the stories of

PAGE 54

49 multiple feminisms are erased in lieu of the convenience of the wave metaphor descriptor as a catch all for feminist victory. One of the most prominent critiques of the wave metaphor is closely related to both the former and latter critiques, though it is arguably the most controversial in light of the current state of academic feminism: the assumption that each wave is an improvement upon the last wave (Hewitt, 20 12, p. 661 ) Specifically, the critique is that the use of the wave metaphor lends itself to letting contemporary feminists believe that they are superior or improving upon, specifically, the lack of inclusivity of the prior "waves" of feminism. So, for ex ample, s elf declared Third Wave feminists Dawn Lundy Martin and Vivien Laba ton (2009) remark [o] ne of the luxuries that our ge neration has enjoyed is that we' ve reaped the benefits of all of the social justice movements that have come before us" ( p. xxvi i ). In a critique of this work, Hewitt (2012) again points out that Martin et al. explication of the roots of social movements of the past "hardly seem worth watering" ( p. 664). Martin et al. descri be the "second w ave" of feminism (notably, they do not des cribe any of the other concurrent social movements which they esteem as part of their heritage) as having "placed a select few issues at the center of what is thought of as feminist activism, neglecting the full range o f experiences that inform women' s lives ." They go on to note that the s econd wave was [inattentive] to racial cultural, sexual, and national differences" (p. xxxi). I argue that Martin et al.'s explanation of the second w ave of feminism represents the epitome of what is both understood and taught as feminist historiography through the wave metaphor. Their ideological standpoint would suggest that the feminist movement during the second wave was exclusive to white, upper middle class, and heterosexual

PAGE 55

50 women, and the subsequent backlash to this was a proliferation of plural feminisms in order to address the presumed racism, homophobia, and c lassism of the mainstream women' s movement. In other words, the feminisms that came after the second wave were, in a sense, presumably better than and more inclusive than the singular feminism that is believed to have existed during this time period. Martin et al.' s supposition that third w ave feminism is an improvement upon the shortcomings of the second w ave is tacitly supported by many other "third wavers," though not without a respective critique. Self declared third wave feminist, and co founder and president of the feminist organization Third Wave ," Rebecca Walker created the anthology To Be Real: Telling the Truth and Changing the Face of Feminism (1995) The anthology compiles work from feminists who "struggle to formulate a feminism they can call their own" (Bailey 1997, p. 21). Walker' s implication here is that the feminism of the past (second wave) has been unac commodating to young feminists and that they not only have no stake in it, but are actively working to transform, re define, improve, and possess a new kind of feminism. Though this is a visionary and forward thinking sentiment about the fate of feminism, what should be highlighted about the third wave assumption of the lacking of the second wave, is that it paints earlier feminism as a monolithic force (Bailey 1997, p. 21). To be frank, Walker, along with many other third wave feminists are fighting against a wave or idea of feminism that never existed. In other words, third wave feminist description and understanding of second wave feminism is largely predicated on the hollowness of the wave metaphor; the belief in a fictional, singular, mo nolithic feminism that has been constructed into a hegemonic phantom that haunts the hist ory of women' s movements

PAGE 56

51 The most salient critique specific to my research is this: the wave metaphor erases feminist activism and work in non gender based organizations for social justice, as well as effaces the anti racist, socialist, and non heteronormative activist endeavors of feminists of the past. Becky Thompson (2002) says this more eloquently when she asserts, "the most significant problem with [heg emonic feminist history] is that it does not recognize the centrality of the feminism of women of color in Second Wave history" ( p. 337 ). Although Thompson is utilizing the wave metaphor here, it is somewhat ironically, in the sense that she is reite ratin g its shortcomings. Other Women's S tudies scholars, as well as academics involved in critical race theory and ethnic studies, argue that feminism has always taken place in race and class based organizations, and that the wave metaphor's collapsing of multi ple feminisms into a singular hegemon serves to define feminism as singular and based only in issues of sex or gender (Nadasen, 2010, p. 99). This is not to say that only one feminism existed or has ever existed at one time; rather it is to point out that the wave metaphor itself necessitates an erasure of multiple feminisms for the sake of simplicity. The critique that the wave metaphor itself erases plural feminisms is in direct conflict with the latter critique that suggests that third wave feminism sup poses itself an improvement upon the second wave of feminism. The wave metaphor is a tool that erases the nuanced history of feminism s, which have already encompassed and accommodated issues of race, class, and sexuality. So then it stands that the asserti on that second wave feminism was exclusionary and centered only on the activism of affluent, heterosexual, white women is, in a way, a self fulfilling history; the "second wave" as a descriptor

PAGE 57

52 makes it so multiple feminisms are erased anyway, despite thei r obvious concomitant presence alongside of more visible feminisms in the mainstream. It is exactly here where the critique s of the wave metaphor begin to diminish in terms of their scope and relevance; the disputes between third and second wave feminism predicated upon the misplaced assumption that feminism belonged to a singular and monolithic group of privileged women. I am not, however, arguing that the aforemen tioned critiques of the wave metaphor are toothless or in vain; they are a necessary and important infrastructure and lens through which we see how feminist historiographies are created. Further these critiques reveal just how porous and unsteady t he wide ly held history of women' s movements has become. That in mind, I argue that the implications of the narrow view of the histo ry of women' s reform has much larger implications, especially in the academic and pedagogical contexts where they seem to be most ch erished and yet most problematized. The implications of the shortcomings of the wave metaphor (and the subsequent feminist infighting) plays out in Women' s Studies pedagogy is that the second wave is taught and understood as a wave dedicated to a singular feminism. In describing the second wave of feminism in U nited States history, Baca Zinn et al (2004) suggest that "Gender' was treated as a generic category, uncritically applied to womenthis analysis, which was meant to unify women, instead produced divisions between and among them" ( p. 168). This narrative of gender as the u ltimate and unifying oppression" as dictating the shortcomings of US feminism of the 1960s and 70s is typically illustrated in both Sociology and Women's Studies textboo ks and classrooms ( Anderson & Hill Collins, Race, Class, and Gender 2004) That is to say, the authoritative voices in these

PAGE 58

53 fields create and maintain a feminist history that makes activism focused solely on gender the focal point of what they call the second wave (Evans, 2010) Though the way this history is told is ostensibly unproblematic, this narrative lends itself to the assumption that one group is responsible for feminisms in their multiple and concurrent forms in the 1960s and 70s. A significant oversight caused by the pedagogical use of the wave metaphor is that it s simple description of women' s movements makes it seem as though women of color, lesbian women, and working class women had no feminist or political movements durin g the already vague timeline of what is considered the second wave. Similarly, we are led to believe that the first wave of feminism in the United States was fixated solely upon suff rage, when the concurrent women' s movements of this time encompassed issue s such as labor rights, racial justice, and domestic abuse (Hewitt 2012, p. 665). Ultimately, utilizing the wave metaphor makes it so "some scholars have consciously and other have inadvertently weighed in on the question of who and what deserves to be co vered in the history of feminism, and in doing so have excluded the work and struggles of many women" ( Laughlin, 2010, p. 82). The result of this oversight is that when the h istory of women' s movements and feminism is taught and learned, a predetermined na rrative of the wave metaphor tacitly proscribes the notion of multiple and concurrent feminisms. It seems that each self identified wave of feminists intends to capitalize on the marked difference between their wave and last, but in indicating t hemselves as waves have committed an offense in the form of omission Particularly noticeable in the change between self identified s econd and third wave feminists is the need for improvement upon prior feminist ideas Striving for inclusivity trumps looking critically at the

PAGE 59

54 mechanisms by which these feminist scholars observe the perceived transgressions and w ron g doings of the prior wave namely the wave metaphor as a descriptive and analytical mec hanism. Put simply feminist schol ars are more concerned with critiquing the wave and not the wave metaphor. Herein lies an irony; it is the wave metaphor specifically that paints a picture of lack of inclusivity in prior feminist movements, and not the other way around. I argue that the wave metaphor is far more insidious than it appears. Use of the wave metaphor dictates how we learn and think about feminism, parti cularly in the context of Women' s Studies classes. Further, the wave metaphor aids in manipulating what feminism is or is largely understood as, stated more clearly by Linda Nicholson (2010) when she writes: "[T] he wave metaphor suggests the idea that gender activism in the history of the United States has been for the most part unified around one set of ideas, and tha t set of ideas can be called feminism" ( p. 1). With such a casual and omnipresent pedagogical tool like the wave metaphor in Women's Studies, we must ask ourselves: Is it an y wonder that intersectionality is a corrective priority of Women's Studies today? Instead of observing women' s movements through a lens of inquiry into why they formed, the current precedent for understanding feminism looks more l ike an indictment of past women' s movements, with an implicit ass umption that contemporary women' s movements are doing better and more important work. This progressive chronology of feminism is a happy bedfellow to the pre existing politic al and academic divide in Women' s Studies discussed in the previous chapter s To conclude, the limits a nd issues elicited and propagated by the wave metaphor as a pedagogical and historicization tool have a distinct implication and manifestation in

PAGE 60

55 contemporary feminist scholarship, teaching, practice, and belief. It is not enough to say that the wave metap hor is outdated or no longer has utility; the time has come for scholars and feminists to look at the divisions that the wave metaphor has aided in creating, namely the split between the waves and the erasure of the stories of multiple feminisms. Premilla Nadasen et al. (2010) provides an eloquent summation of the precise problem for feminism that the wave metaphor elicits: Our definition of feminism is intimately tied to our adherence to the waves metaphor. By framing the woman's suffrage campaigns and the women's liberation movements as the "waves of feminist activism, this metaphor established boundaries on women's activism, re inscribing gender as the primary category of analysis that defines feminism Privileging some women's activism pushes to the mar gins other women who organized in a different time period or around a different set of issues ( p. 98) Even though the wave metaphor seems to be an unobjectionable descriptor for women's activism through history in the United States, it is not exempt from scrutiny. The wave metaphor as a pedagogical trope in Women's Studies is closely related to the concept of hegemonic feminism ; together these two concepts often times circumscr ibe how the histories of feminist movements are understood. As the next sectio n will show, t o critique the consequences of the use of the wave metaphor is to critique the construction of hegemonic feminism. Hegemonic Feminism The most troublesome implication of the wave metaphor and its complicity in Women's Studies pedagogies is that it has created a zeitgeist of reaction to a hegemonic form of feminism Eileen Boris et al. (2010) makes this point more eloquently in saying that "[a] ttacking the second wave as white and middle class ironically reinforces the very

PAGE 61

56 history that excludes the theory and praxis of those who reject such identities by highlighting the hegemonic as subject to debate (p. 92; Pollitt, 2001). This in mind, when "hegemonic feminism" is created and defined by Chela Sandoval (2000) in the piece Methodolog y of the Oppressed it appears that a myth is being constructed around the origins of women's movements. Before closely examining Sandoval's iteration of hegemonic feminism, we must first venture to ground some of Sandoval's terminology. Vaguel y subscribing to the chronology of the wave metaphor, Sandoval coins the term "U.S. third world feminism," as a descriptor for women's movements in colonized communities in the United States. Sandoval suggests that U.S third world feminists created a theor etical structure exclusive of the so called mainstream of feminism in the 1970s ( 200 0, p. 41). The term "U.S. third world feminism" is deeply relevant in Sandoval's iteration of hegemonic feminism, as it can be understood as the precise manifestation of resistance to hegemonic feminism. Sandoval's hegemonic feminism is an epithet directed at what she would call scholarly or academ ic feminist theory. Sandoval suggests that feminism as we know it has been largely influenced by scholars such as Elaine Showalter (1985) who iterate a three phase "taxonomy of feminist criticism" ( p. 128 ). Sandoval situates this three pronged analysis within an arbitrary historiography which she calls the "1980s text of hegemonic feminist theory and criticism" ( p. 47). Continually alluding to both the wave metaphor and ivory tower politics of Women's Studies, Sandoval asserts that feminist theory like S howalter's ignores U.S. third world feminism, and instead looks only to intellectualized feminist phases: liberal feminism (establishing women are the same as men); feminist history of consciousness (women's lives were different from men's); and

PAGE 62

57 female aut onomy (men as Other) ( pp. 47 48). Sandoval asserts that Showalter's third feminist phase has been coded under the categories "cultural" or "radical" feminisms, and further iterations of these feminisms are categ orized as "socialist feminisms." Together, th ese four phases of feminism are considered by Sandoval to be liberal, Marxist, cultural, and socialist feminisms. Of these four phases, Sandoval summarizes : During the 1968 90 period, the four phase hegemonic typology just outlined was commonly utilized an d cited (self consciously or not) by social theorists across disciplines as the way to understand oppositional praxis. But this conceptual model, this typology for organizing history, identity, criticism, and theory, is useful for oppositional actors, inso far as it is understood as the mental map of a given time and place, in this case, the cultural territory that U.S. feminists of color ironically renamed the "white women's movement." From the perspective of a differential U.S. third world feminist critici sm, this four category structure of consciousness interlocked into a symbolic container that h ad its own political purposes both hoped for and achieved but that also set limits on how feminist consciousness could be conceptualized and enacted (p. 52) In other words, Sandoval's "second wave" of feminism had power that was in the ha nds of already privileged women who circumscribed and precluded oppositional thinking or consciousness from fitting under the feminist umbrella. Though this assertion could be se en as groundbreaking, Sandoval is vesting much of her argumen t into the assumption that her U.S. third world feminisms would be oppositional to the white women's movement. Further, Sandoval has situated all of this within a tight chronology between 1968 an d 1990, tacitly understood as the second wave, without casting a critical eye at why this particular time period would elicit such feminist strife. Chronology aside, Sandoval goes on to note that [Hegemonic feminism's] four phase structure obstructed what could be perceived and even imagined by agents thinking within its constraints. What must be remembered is that each position in this typology in an imaginary space that, when understood and enacted as if self contained and oppositional to one another, rig idly circumscribes what is possible for social activists who want to work across their boundaries. Movement activists became trapped within the rationality of its

PAGE 63

58 structure, which sublimated and dispersed the specificity of a differential U.S. third world feminist theory, method, and practice ( p. 52) Sandoval is asserting that feminist theory produced by white feminists directly influenced or trapped U.S. third world feminists. This trap set by privileged feminists, in Sandoval's argument, precluded alter nate methodologies for praxis. Embedded in Sandoval's rhetoric is an assumption that feminisms of color neglected to work across or transcend the boundaries of white women's feminist theories; Sandoval provides little to no evidence that suggests otherwise and her description of hegemonic feminism suffers for it. Though the claim that privileged white women's feminism placed limitations on feminisms of color is resonant in Women's Studies pedagogies currently, I argue that Sandoval's idea of hegemonic femi nism is not only tautological and unsubstantiated, but it is also even more damaging to her U.S. third world feminisms argument. The first reason is that Sandoval has already adopted a model of institutionalized intersectionality that, as mentioned before, is directly elicited from the academic structure of Women's S tudies and not political feminist activism. That is t o say, Sandoval has conflat ed Women's S tudies with feminist political and social movements, and made the assumption that the ivory tower in which Women's Studies sits is not in fact part of the ideology of the academy Here, I am not arguing that Women's Studies does not have feminist elements; instead I am saying feminist theorizing and knowledge making and non institutionalized feminist pra xis are two different phenomenon that Sandoval has mistaken as one Hearkening back to chapter two feminist activism could in no way stay the same once it became an academic discipline.

PAGE 64

59 What this means for Sandoval's argument about hegemonic feminism is that she points to academic women's studies as producing a hegemon of theory, yet neglects to dig deeper into the what and the why of her construction. It is my contention that when we scr atch the surface of Sandoval's hegemonic feminism, we find that it is not a hegemon at all; rather, it is a rigid structure that is not unique to Women's Studies. In fact, the scaffolding of Sandoval's hegemonic feminism is not feminism at all, it is ac ade mic ideology. That is to say, the academic precedent of knowledge making and scholarship has in effect put a limit on the way Women's Studies does exactly that; i n doing so, hegemonic feminism becomes a placeholder for a space in a dialectical model which, prior to its construction, was held by other structures of power, such as patriarchy, the bourgeoisie, or white supremacy. In other words, hegemonic feminism is a fictitious monster, constructed by the limitations of Women's Studies, which are and always have been the limitations of academic structure. Sandoval's hegemonic feminism is not only a red herring, it is also a self fulfilling prophecy and construction; the more salience our scholarship lends to this concept, the more true it becomes. To problema tize this narrative of feminist history and the placement of hegemonic feminism, I argue that hegemonic feminism is a placeholder; an ideological apparatus of power that exists to be a false center of feminism that can be looked at like the dialectical opp osit e of U S third world feminisms. I t is my supposition that hegemonic feminism is a theoretical abstraction that works to continually diminish the legitimacy and presence of multiple feminisms; their oppositional consciousness (contrary to Sandoval's cl aims) is not in opposition to hegemonic feminism, but in opposition to misogyny patriarchy or colonialism inside of the race based movements of which they were already apart. In

PAGE 65

60 other words, hegemonic feminism is created and fortified by the feminist in fighting of the academy, and instills itself in feminist zeitgeist by being t hat which all feminisms oppose. I argue that feminisms grow more naturally than this, and to give credence to Sandoval's aeteological narrative of feminisms is to lend more pow er to a structure that was made to abuse it. We do no justice to plural feminisms by suggesting that they oppose a hegemonic feminist center; by painting them as a reaction to a singular feminism, scholarship is continually marginalizing multiple feminisms by erasing the nuanced and complex ways that women come to activism and reform In the next chapter, I will highlight the disparities between scholars iterations of Filipina feminism qua hegemonic feminism. It is my intention to demonstrate that the cons truction of hegemonic feminism has embedded itself in the descriptive aitos of p inayism, and has subsequently lent itself to the discount or outright dismissal of alternate histories describing the birth and chronology of this vibrant women's movement. Ref lecting on not only hegemonic feminism, the following chapter will also highlight the connections betw een p inayism and the aforementioned institutionalized intersectionality, and how scholars unconsciously adopt this corrective lens without recognizing that it does little to accommodate for the rich history of Filipina women's resistance. Ultimately I aim to reveal the inner machinations of the construction of hegemonic feminism, to demonstrate that the idea of feminist hegemony has spiraled into an app aratus of power that is both hollow and unsubstantiated by the reality of feminist movements

PAGE 66

61 CHAPTER I V PINAYISM PROBLEMATIZED Considering the academic constraints upon how students and scholars understand and make knowled ge about feminism and women' s movements, it is no wonder that a transnational movement such as peminism would come up against many challenges for substantiating its narrative and the study of Filipina women. I p osit that the Filipina American or pinay experience of feminis m is directly informed by the United States centered iteration and construction of hegemonic feminism. In other words, pinay feminism is influenced by the wave metaphor narrati ve that elicits a sentiment of "other ness" to feminisms that do not fit the mol d of hegemonic feminism. Moreover, taking up the arms of an Americ an "othered" feminism has functioned in a way that limits the paradigm of pinayism, in that it reinforces the notion that hegemonic feminism is the standard, as well as paints pinayism as both reactionary and concerned only with pre existing feminist in fighting In this ch apter, I will demonstrate that p inayist scholars' iteration of the beginnings of Filipina American feminism falls directly u nder the umbrella of already established Women's Studies scholar ship. I aim to underscore that p inayism as it has been substantiated in American academia is directly influenced by institutionalized pedagogical tropes such as the wave metaphor, hegemonic feminism, and intersectionality. Further, this chapter will define semantic differences between pinayism, peminism, and feminism, as well as indicate the earmarks of academic and political division that underpin how pinayism is largely understood. Finally and foremost, this chapter can be understood as a case study of how academic ideology and its subsequent

PAGE 67

62 disciplining of Women's Studies has resulted in scholarship that not only insists upon a political and academic separation, but obscures and hides the radical roots of feminisms, while at the same time encourages scholars to do the same. Filipina American feminism is directly informed by feminism from the Philippines, but has been cultivated state side in a manner that presupposes its participation in s pecifically American feminisms. Though I do not intend t o discount the challenges that p inayism faces in the United States, I do aim to problematize its connection to the construction of hegemonic feminism. Further, I posit that unlik e other transnational feminisms or race or ethnicity based feminisms, p inayism is part and parcel of the feminist movement based in the Philippines. Again, this is not to say that they are the same; rather they are connected in a unique way due to colonialism and neocolonialis m which has precipitated a transnational relationship, with an implicit push pull dynamic. Before elucidating the nuances of pinayism and peminism, I will clarify some terminology. I use the term pinayism to describe Filipina Am erican feminism; Filipina women' s movements in the United States, more specifically. The te rm "pinay" refers to a Filipina American; I intend to keep this definition loose, as a pinay is both an identity category and a descriptor for any Filipino woman or girl in the Unit ed States. Likewise, "pinoy" is the masculine version, and the term pin@y" is sometimes used as a gender neutral term. Although in some contexts, pinayism and peminism could be used interchangeably, I will use the te rm "peminism" to describe wom en' s movements in the Philippines. Of course, I will demonstrate how pinayism and peminism are connected, though I find it

PAGE 68

63 essential to make a distinction between the two, as they are both addressing different issues, though their roots are be the same. D efining Pinayism Pinayism is a term substantiated, defined, and honed meticulously by scholar Allyson Goce Tintiangco Cubales (2005) I will critically examine her piece "Pinayism," while highlighting the w ays Tintiangco Cubales defines p inayism in light of the construction of hegemonic feminism and the aforementioned division between academia and politics. Notably, Tintiangco Cubales do es not begin her definition of p inayism with a positive descriptor; in her definition, p inayism is immediately buttressed against several different theoretical and identity related phenomenon. Tintiangco Cu bales begins her definition of p inayism by categorization. She notes that First and foremost, here are some claims about what Pinayism is not. Pinay ism is not about one single epistemology..., nor does it have a set definition of or rendition. Pinayism is not meant to divide Pinays from Pinoys, but Pinayism will not ignore abuse from Pinoys. Pinayism is not just a Filipino version of feminism or woman ism; Pinayism draws from a potpourri of theories and philosophies, including those that have been silenced or suppressed ( p. 139) Here, I aim to indicate that the widely held definition of p inayism, as Tintiangco Cubales posits, immediately paints itself as reactiona ry to the different ideas that p inayism is definitively not. I argue that this introductory view of p inayism should be critically regarded, as a p ost positivistic definition of p inayism unfortunately does little to substantiate what Filipina American feminism is and how it functions. However, i n further defining p inayism, Tintiangco Cubales goes on to say that

PAGE 69

64 we can look at Pinayism in these ways: Pinayism is a revolutionary a ction. Pinayism is a self affirming condition or conduct. Pinayism is a self determining system or belief And by the opposition, colonizers, and by the colonized, Pinayism can be viewed as a pathological condition. ( p. 140) In defining p inayism, I want t o draw attention to the fact that Tintiangco Cubales, as the foremost scholar in substantiating thi s term, does not once describe p inayism as a political movement. I aim to highlight this as a manifestation of the depoliticization of feminism into Women's Studies inside of th e academy. This description of p inayism, thoroughly based in theory, is part and parcel of the academic expectation to not only render revolutionary political action toothless, but to proliferate and capitalize upon knowledge making as a form of social capital. It is my contention that Tintiangco Cubales definition of p inayism falls plainly into this mold, as she is intent upon definining Filipina American feminism as a semblance of epistemologies, theories, and conditions, but never as a political movement both rooted and focused on the material realities and conditions of Filipina women. Tin tiangco Cubales' definition of p inayism goes on to juxtapose Filipina feminism with "feminism" a nd "womanism." The question of p inayis m' s place in the scope of women' s movements is asked : Is just a Pinay form of feminism and/or womanism? It is presumed that feminism has been dominated by white, middle class, liberal women and that womanism has originated in black feminist thought. In submitting to the widely recognized framework of feminism, the issues of Pinays may get buried under mor e dominant and accepted voices ( p. 140) Tintiangco Cubales asks the pertinent question of the how of p inayism, yet she neglects to consider the founda tion upon which her assumption is set. Tintiangco Cubales is correct in asserting that feminism is presumed to be "dominate d" by white, middle class women; however it is but a presumption. Fur ther she hints that black women' s womanist

PAGE 70

65 movement was precipi tated from the exclusion of white feminism. Though Tintiangco Cubales points out that these are the dominant narratives of feminism, sh e overlooks how she is placing p inayism within these same confines. She explores where p inayism fits into this preexistin g structure of feminism instead of asking what has elicited a need for Filipina women's resistance in the first place. Here, I stress that Tintiangco Cubales' iteration of p inayism has unconsciously absorbed the mythology of hegemonic feminism into its origin story. This comes as no surprise, as I asserted in chapter three, that hegemonic feminism as part and parcel of academic st ructure functions like ideology: ubiquitous and unseen. This in mind, when I describe p inayism as unconsciously adopting the m ythos of hegemonic f eminism, I place no blame upon p inayist scholars; rather I point to the academic power structure that both creates and informs the theorization of this particular feminism. To put p inayism in comparison with Unite d States feminism and womanism without first considering its connection to other Filipina women's movements is a testament to the ubiquity of the idea of hegemonic feminism and how it totalizes all narratives of feminism. This totalizing effect, however, is exactly what I argue against : there are more complex and nuanced pathways to women's movements and feminisms that have little or nothing to do with pre existing feminism or the construction of hege monic feminism. In the case of p inayism, I emphasize that Tintiangco Cubales i teration of this women's movement is ve sted wholly in the belief that p inayism is more closely related to United States iterations of feminism than that of the women's movements in the Philippines. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the notion of hegemonic feminism is fed by the belief that it is a singular feminism that has lead to a proliferation of feminisms.

PAGE 71

66 Defining pi nayism within the confines of the myth of hegemonic feminism would be to ignore the vast array of issues that have infor med and shaped both pinays and pinayism. In further defining p inayism, Tintiangco Cubales borrows from bell hooks rhetoric and cites, Feminism in the United States has never emerged from the women who are most victimized by sexist oppression White women who dominate feminist discourse, who for the most part make and articulate feminist theory, have little or no understanding of white supremacy as a racial politic, of the psychological impact of class, of their political status within a racist, sexist, capitalist state (p. 141 ; hooks, 1984, pp. 3 4 ) Though there are certainly shortcomings to the brand of feminism, which suggests that all women suffer the same oppression, bell hooks and Tintiangco Cu bales are perhaps inadvertently propagating a sh ortsighted version of the women' s movements in the United States. Tintiangco Cubales borrowing of bell hooks rhetoric about hegemonic feminism is indicative of the aforementioned tendency to use intersectionality as a corrective device to Women's Studies scholarship, rather than an analytical device When Tintiangco Cubales answers her query of pi nayism's roots and identity with the supposition that it exists within a framework of hegemoni c feminism, she is inadvertently playing into all of the previously mentioned pedagogical tropes embedded in Women's Studies due to academic ideology. Tintiangco Cubales' evocation of bell hooks here is a prime example of how p inayist scholarshi p has becom e fixated on the pre existing tendency within academia to make plural feminisms into an addition to a singular privileged feminism Instead of con sidering the other reasons why p inayism may have come about, Tintiangco Cubales places it within an already fraught framework that supposes that feminist discourse has been exclusively produced by white, middle class, heterosexual women.

PAGE 72

67 I will note that it comes as no surprise that T intiangco Cubales iteration of p inayism would play so closely into the hands of academic structured Women's Studies p inayism as it is theorized in United States scholarship, would do itself a disservice by not playing along with the infrastructure made for scholars hip in the academy. That said, p inayism, or at least Tintiangco Cuables definition of it, can be understood as part and parcel of the academic structure that institutionalizes intersectionality, as well as abides by a pedagogical incentive to teach plural feminisms as related to hegemonic feminism. In other words, in trying t o set Filipina feminism apart, p inayist scholars have done the o pposite in bringing p inayism into the fold of academic ideology. Aside from Tintiangco Cubales definition of p inayism, other Filipina feminist scholars have aimed to define a Filipina women's movement and theory, albeit with varying terminology and a differing historical scope For a more than surface understanding of p inayism, we must endeavor to take a critical glance at the historical turmoil that the Filipino people have experienced. As Melinda de Jesus (2005) describes in the introduction of her anthology Pinay Power : Many hegemonic cultural and political forces conspire to transcribe us within narratives of amnesia and forgetfulnessThe themes of lost identities and histories dominate Filipino American cultural studies. Many critics delineate how a heritage of dual colonizations (first by Spain, and then by the United States), coupled with Amer ican cultural imperialism, has left an indelible mark on the Filipino American psyche ( p. 3) Referring to all Filipino Americans, and presumably Filipinos in the Philippines and throughout the diaspora, de Jesus is implying that the construction of an identity for any and all Filipinos is a radical and political endeavor. de Jesus' description of the Filipino identity in the wake of colonialism and imperialism taps into a bitter irony of Women's Studies, the academe, and anti colonial women's movements in general; though scholars

PAGE 73

68 like de Jesus are aware of the ubiquitous and hegemonic forces that at tempt to efface and oppress Filipinos (or any colonized people), she and other scholars are unaware of the hand that academic hegemony has already played in terms of defining how women's movements are formed. In other words, de Jesus is aware of oppressiv e hegemony in the form of colonialism and imperialism, but does not extend this critical lens to observe the academy and feminist historiography as sites of power and control. D e Jesus can see how colonization effaces Filipino culture and is internalized b y Filipino people, but overlooks how these sam e colonial forces circumscribe p inayist and peminist historiography in that they sever the tie between feminist political praxis and academic knowledge making, and replace the connection with a hegemonic center Though overlooking the connection between academic practice and colonialism, and a fter iterating the ubiquitousness of colonial and imperial oppression of Filipinos, de Jesus goes on to define and describe what peminism means to her, and how she uses it in her work : [ Peminism ] describes a specific form of feminist theory rooted in the Filipina American experience an experience very different from the implicit (and thus explicit) subject of white liberal feminism. Peminism describes Filipina American consciousness, theory, and culture, with the p signifying specifically Pinay or Pilipina, terms used in referring to ourselves as American born Filipinas. It demarcates the space for Filipina American struggles against the cult ural nationalist, and patriarchal narratives that seek to squash our collective voice in the name of "ethnic solidarity."... Peminism thereby signifies the assertion of a specifically Filipina American subjectivity, one that radically repudiates white femi nist hegemony as it incorporates the Filipino American oppositional politics inscribed by choosing the Pilipino over Filipino ( p. 5) I want to note here that de Jesus is using "peminism" interchangeably with pinayism" as the way I use it: p inayism descr ibes Filipina American feminism. This description and definition of peminism is ostensibly all inclusive; de Jesus elucidates upon both the

PAGE 74

69 political practice and theoretical components implicit in just the name peminism de Jesus unabashedly calls out the sexism present in Filipino movements that are not organized around gender, yet she uncritically (almost naturally) places peminism in conversation with hegemonic feminism, or "white liberal feminism." Here, I highlight that de Jesus' juxtaposition of pemi nism with hegemonic feminism should be looked upon with a critical glance. It is my assertion that de Jesus, i n line with many mainstream p inayist scholars, has unconsciously integrated a hegemonic narrative implicitly tethered to hegemonic feminism. The narrative that de Jesus has integrated suggests that hegemonic feminism has gi ven rise to multiple feminisms. In conversation with the origins of peminism and pinayism this hegemonic narrative puts these movements squarely in the pocket of hegemonic feminism. Though de Jesus is careful to outline peminism as a subjectivity and an opposition to sexist oppression, her link to hegemonic feminism is confusing, as it is unsubstantiated by a history of Filip ina political women's movements (see Lacsamana, 2012) which I will discuss in the next chapter. Perhaps the most troubling attribute of pinayist and p eminist scholars descriptions of Filipina American feminism's alleged connection to hegemonic feminism is that it is, in some ways, a retelling of the colonial narrative. That is to say that by casting p inayism as r eaction to hegemonic feminism, p inayist scholars have inadvertently stumbled into a well established trope of colonial forgetfulness. C olonized people suffer an erasure of their cul ture and as a reflection of this, p inayist scholars have traced the heritage of their women's movement not only to the wrong oppr essor (hegemonic

PAGE 75

70 feminism) but aided in the effacement of their own rich history of women's political r esistance. Pinayist and peminist scholars have already treaded into the well traveled territory of hegemonic feminism, and subsequently have also fallen into the established habit of identity politics awaiting them in Women's Studies scholarship. Addressing the political and academic divide implicit in contemp orary women' s studies, as well as critical race theory, Linda M. Pierce ( 2005 ) s tates that [The] implied dichotomy between the politics of identity and a "valid" base of theory and research invokes the classic divide between the personal and the political. Although women's studies scholars first debunked this split decades ago, this d econstructed knowledge needs to be consistently reiterated in order to combat its hegemonic oppression. Feminist and critical race studies scholars concerned with U.S. Decolonization must continue to emphasize the connection between personal and cultural h istories in order to underscore the notion of privilege and accountability.... Ignoring the politics of my identity only exempts me from social responsibility, prevents me from examining my own complicity in status quo structures of imperialism, and slows the movement for change. And theorizing the politics of my identity effectively initiates a process of decolonization that is critical to my ability to survive and thrive in the United States ( p. 31) Pierce's point here is informed directly by Women's St udies scholarship; within the academy, theorizing the politics of identity is turned to as a form of political resistance, and this seems to be no different to Pierce Hearkening back to chapter two, theorizing intersectional identities in Women's Studies as a manifestation not only of the depoliticization of feminism inside the American academy, but also a mechanism by which knowledge making is proliferated and capitalized upon by the s tructure of the academe. This in mind, Pierce's argument that theorizin g identity politics as a means to resistance is problematic ; within depoliticized theorizing condoned and encouraged by the academy, pinayist scholars are not only forgetting the roots of their revolutionary

PAGE 76

71 history, they are creating knowledge that serves a hegemonic and homogenizing purpose: to maintain the political status quo. Despite pinayist scholars' tendency to privilege identity politics Pierce's iteration of what has galvanized her to ward p inayism is an eloquent summation of Filipina American fe minism ala Women's Studies. Pierce reiterates th e same issues that KimberlÂŽ Crenshaw cites in her theory of intersectionality: feminism and critical race theory were unaccommodating to the simultaneous oppressions of race and gender. As I ascertained earli er in chapter two institutionalized intersectionality represents an academic location that was elicited by a structure that favors an ideology of hierarchy and discipline. So when Pierce hearkens back to this by indicating that pinayists have a foot in bo th Women's Studies and critical race theory camps, she is tacitly indicating that pinayism is subject to and resides within academic structure. Crenshaw and intersectionality in mind, Pierce's assertions here border on paradoxical, as she is arguing that F ilipino decolonization is an endeavor that requires its participants to vest themselves in a praxis consistent of political resistance and theoriz ation of identity. Pierce's arguments are paradoxical because academic ideology has transformed feminism into Women's Studies, and has left little room for making politi cal commitments, while demanding neutrality and objectivity (which have ultimately become associated with academic knowledge making). In other words Pierce's call for political praxis facilitated by theories developed to be politically neutral in the academy are not only toothless, they are tainted by an ideology that would suggest that theorization is the only form of resistance to oppressive struct ures.

PAGE 77

72 Alas, Pierce's ideas should be heeded as part of the larger body of Filipina feminism, if not critically regarded. Hearkening back to the stories of the women who pioneered Women's Studies as an academic discipline, Pierce is bringing up the exact s ame qualms that the founding mothers did: the personal is political. Alas, the women who made this claim were not academics; the women who discerned that the seemingly minute and personal experiences of gender oppression were indicative of a systemic oppre ssion of women were not professors, they were activists without an academic home. When Pi erce touches on the "personal is political," she is in effect hinting at the political companion to theory that culminates in praxis; she is hinting not at theorizatio n condoned by the academy, but at politicized activism. In sum, Pierce's vision of peminism and pinayism represents a surprising hybridity of academic feminism and political feminism. Pierce's assertions, though underpinned with academic ideology, constitu te a notable connection between pinayism and peminism. By regarding the political activist portion of feminist praxis, Pierce alludes to the phenomenon that connects Filipina American theorization of pinayism with the history of highly political activism o f women in the Philippines: colonialism. Conclusion It is my supposition that Tintia ngco Cubales, as well as other p inayist scholars have arrived at my ve ry same argument: Peminism and p inayism are not accommodated or substantiated by the widely accepted aeteological narrative of feminism, nor the pedagogical structures of how feminism is understood to come about. However, it is here that I posit where my argument and the contemporary p inayist scholars' position splits: I

PAGE 78

73 argue that p inayism and peminism are women's movements galvanized by the chafing patriarchal structures that have trickled down through two waves of colonialism, and more recently a neocolonial relationship w ith the United States. Whereas p inayist scholars have come to consider the popular narrative of hegemonic feminism and h ave questioned p inayism's role and place within the scheme of multiple feminisms, I maintain that Filipina women's movements are started in response to the real world material challenges that are experience d by Filipina women. That is to say, p eminism and subsequently p inayism are women's movements centered on the liberation of Filipinas and their experiences of sexist oppression. In the next chapter, I will substantiate an alternative n arrative to the ori gins of the pinayism and p eminism.

PAGE 79

74 CHAPTER V AN ALTERNATIVE CHRONOLOGY FOR PEMINISM We have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out of doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots; subjugated the remaining ten million by Benevolent Assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket and so, by the Providences of God and this phra se is the gover nment's not mine we are a world power ( Twain quoted in Zinn, 2001, p. 316 ) The opening quote of this chapter is a lament by lauded American author Mark Twain. A staunch anti imperialist, Twain made this statement in critique of the United States' involvement in the Philippines, and more specifically about the Phillipine American war from 1899 1902. I draw attention to this quote for two reasons: the first reason is to be forthright about the c ruelty and brutality of the colonization of the Filipi no people by the United States. Twain uncovers a hard to swallow truth when he so aptly points out that the United States government, under the guise of the grace of god, savagely robbed a state of its sovereignty and an entire people of their freedom. The second reason I seek to draw attention to this quote is to highlight the place, time, and means by which the Philippines and its people became entangled in an asymmetrical power relati onship with the United States. The Ph ilippine American war is where my argument begins: Filipina feminism, or p eminism, is not a r esponse to hegemonic feminism; p eminism is a women's movement mobilized against the sexist oppression wielded by colonialism, imperialism, and patriarchy. In this chapter, I will elucidate a brief history of the Philippines, and its colonial relationship with both the United States and Spain. Further, I will bring to light examples of contemporary and historical women's movements in the Philipp ines, as well as some

PAGE 80

75 of the critical political, material, and social issues facing Filipinas presently and historically. I will conclude this chapter by analyzing and highlighting a tr ansnational connection between pinayism and p eminism, all in order to u nderscore my argument that Filipina feminism has come about as a response to anything but hegemonic feminism. Before discussing the contemporary women's movements in the Philippines, I venture to look backward at the history of the Filipina, marred by col onialism and imperialism, but fueled by the radical possibilities of resistance. Women's movements in the Philippines have a long and prolific history that begins near the very onset of colonialism, not at the hands of the United States, but of Spain almos t 400 years prior. The Spanish conquest of the Philippines is pointed to as the source of sexist oppression in the Philippines and as Aida Santos (2004) suggests prior to Spanish colonization production in the Philippines w as not predicated on exchange. There was no centralized system of the means of production, and the family as a unit had to take charge of their own needs, meeting only the requirements of family members' patterns of consumption. Thus there was no reason to c reate relations of either dependence or exploitation the roles allocated to women were as important as those given to men, and women had rights equal to those of men ( p. 25) This description of pre conquest Philippines is privileged among Filipina feminist scholars, as it allows for a forthright indictment of Spanish imperialism bringing not only economic structures of exploitation, but also sexism, hierarchy, and injustice to the women of the Philippines. Further explaining the imperial gender hierarchy process, Santos (2004) writes : Within the context of [Spanish imperialism], the transformation of women from highly respected equals of men to objects of subjugation began. Wi th the introduction and imposition of institutions by the Spanish mast ers, the social being of "woman" was invested with new meanings, new dimensions; or rather,

PAGE 81

76 these were imposed on females, and their social consciousness changed accordingly (pp. 25 6 ) Brutal colonization in mind, it is important to point out that for Filipina feminists, the heritage of their movement is vested in sexism brought by imperial force. Rather than sexism existing inherently in their relationships with their male counterpart s, sexism is a phenomenon that is synonymous with colonization and imperial control. The presence of the Catholic church is a unique component of the colonial control wrought by the Spanish over the Filipino people Filipino revolutionaries, both women and men, have for a long time had a fraught relationship with this particularly insidious and ubiquitous component of their colonization, but it is Filipinas that have always bared the brunt of the suppression by the Catholic church Describing the life of the Filipina under Spanish colonial rule, Santos (2004) explains : The woman of the Spanish period was a woman tied to the house, whose main function was to bear children Women too, especially those of the peasant class, have to serve the households of the senor, the landlord as pambayadutang (debt settlement) while men continued their back breaking farm activities as tenants. As this was the usual lot for women there was no need for them to be educated, except for the daughte rs of upper class families whose education was limited nevertheless to embroidery classes, catechisms, perhaps music and other related activities, all geared to servicing, entertaining, or satisfying their husbands in their married life. Marriage was seen as their final fate Religion became women's overwhelming concern and sole refuge, inspiring their live with the ma rtyrdom of male and female saints (p. 27) This example of the life and times of the Filipina woman of the Spanish period brings to light m any of the repressive and oppressive phenomenon that are echoed and reflected in women's issues in contemporary Filipino politics. To this day, Catholic canon law and ideology directly informs policies pertaining to women's access to family planning resour ces. Women in the Philippines have little access to contraception, sterilization, or abortion; this lack of access can be squarely attributed to the influence of the Catholic

PAGE 82

77 church on Filipino law ( Austria, 2004, pp. 96 98 ) Religion as a tool for gender oppression surfaces time and again in the history of the Philippines' women's movements, and Santos' description is vital for understanding why: Catholicism as a repressive apparatus transcended even class related concerns and has become entrenched in the Philippines law and political structure. Further I want to draw attention to Santos' description of the peasant class of Filipino males during Spanish colonizat ion. Their back breaking labor and servitude to both the church and the state do not ostensibly seem like a women's o r a gender issue, but in the un ique context of the Philippines men's colonial exploitation is an important piece of the puzzle of nationalist women 's movements. L ike Santos argued before, gender inequity is a hierarchy brought to the Philippines by Spanish imperialism. T husly, men's laboring for the private colonial estates o f Spanish conquerors represents a tacit blight not only to the communal gendered division o f labor prior to colonization, but to Filipinas especially, as religion mixed with their colonialism dictated that the Filipina woman shoulder the emotional labor and pain of this new imperial arrangement. Though the imperial conquest of the Philippines brought a shift in gender roles and class related hierarchy, it also brought with it the vast potential for resistance. It is exactly where colonialism begins that marks the same place that women's movements find their start. During the initial Spanish con quest of the Philippine island Ilocos, we find the woman who is arguably the first Filipina revolutionary: Gabriela Silang. She is described as "[carrying] on the leadership of a rebellion in the Ilocos after her husband's death, and was executed by the Sp anish authorities" for doing so (Santos 2004, p. 28).

PAGE 83

78 Today, the prominent Filipino political women's organization GABRIELA is named for her, as she is widely recognized as the premier revolutionary woman in Filipino history. Though Gabriela Silang is regarded as the first and most recognizable figure in the Philippines' history of women's movements, o ther prominent women revolutionaries include Melchora Aquino, Trinidad Tecson, and Gregoria de Jesus. Aquino is noted for being the "Mother of the Revolut ion" for her close ties and support of Filipino rebellions and revolutionaries. Tecson is praised for her weapon wielding, as she both procured weapons for the rebellions against the Spanish, as well as wielded a bolo or a short blade sword regarded as the weapon of choice for the Philippine revo lutionaries. Gregoria de Jesus, like Gabriela Silang, is another revolutionary Filipina who is frequently associated with her husband Anderes Bonifacio, who was a "fully fledge d" member of the anti Spanish underground organization called Katipunan (Santos 2004, p. 28). What these women have in common is not only that colonial history has been deeply unkind to their legacies in effacing their roles in revolution and the war aga inst the Spanish but that they served dual roles : anti imperialism and feminism together. Though there is little scholarship on the subject of these women, Leonara C. Angeles (1989) argues that the motivations of the aforementioned revolutionary women was not in "pro women sentiments," but rather vested in "their deep sense of patriotism or love of country" ( p. 110). This sentiment is best expressed by Melchora Aquino when she remarked "I have no regrets and if I've nine lives I would gladly give them up f or my beloved country" (San Juan 1998, p. 154). The national istic motivations to expel Spanish colonial rule from the Philippines, and the obvious defiance of colonial gender roles that these revolutionary women

PAGE 84

79 undertook, are indicative of a thriving fe minist movement that, by Western sta ndards, does not seem "feminist" at all. Again, Leonara C. Angeles (1989) summates this when she says transcending the social role limitations imposed upon them as women was proof enough that they had sharply perceived not only the economic and political evils of colonialism, but also the sex inequalities engendered by the social order ( p. 110). Fo r these revolutionary women and for contemporary Filipinas, colonialism is always part and parcel of patriarchy; of sexism, gender inequality, of hierarchy and exploitation. This is the precise reason why women's movements in the Philippines are nationalistic: the independent state of the Philippines has become the holy grail of all Filipino peoples' liberation, regardless of t heir gender. In terms of the union of nationalism and f eminism, political science scholar Cynthia Enloe critique s and dismiss es the connection between these two political ideas, as she deems the t he nationalist project "masculinist." Referring specificall y to the project of nationalist state building, Enloe (1990) says "nationalism has typically sprung from masculinized memory, masculinized humilia tion, and masculinized hope" (p. 44 ). Though Enloe's rhetoric has some merit in that she alludes to a subsumin g of women's issues in large scale social and political movements, I would argue that contrary to Enloe the Filipino peoples' movement toward an independent state is not exclusively woman centered and better for it. In other words, women's participation and leadership roles in rebellion, war, and revolution in the Philippines is focused on a slew of social and political issues that were predicated upon a historic gender equality that was assumed in good faith to have existed prior to colonization. Women r evolutionaries were not less than for having nationalist sentiments, their male counterparts only tremendously

PAGE 85

80 underestimated the ubiquity and the power of internalized colonialism and its companion: patriarchy and male privilege. I argue that these revol utionary women form the backbone of the women centered social and political movements of the Philippines duri ng the last century and a half. All throughout the Filipina revolutionaries' fighting, hiding, executions, and exiles, the nationalist project of m aking the Philippines an independent state subsumed the "woman question as it was assumed that independence meant liberation for all Filipinos. Alas, in 1896 when the Philippines gained independence from Spain, only three years later was their republic again under siege by the United States. I argue that the implications of this dual colonization, f irst by the Spanish, then by the Americans, did not render the nationalist sentiments of women revolutionaries obsolete or redundant; on the contrary, the two waves of colonization and imperialism strengthened women's attachment to a free and independent P hilippines as the ultimate form of women's liberation, and liberation for all Filipinos. Though women's movements continued to proliferate after the Philippine American war from 1899 1902, they took on a new revolutionary bent that responded to the new col onizers, as well as carried with it the Philippines' long history of conquest and resistance. This second onslaught of colonialism brought with it a new response, a new opposition, but they all remained tethered to the material struggles of women, manifes ted at all different levels of class and all modes of production. Elucidating upon the onset of American colonization, Anne Lacsamana (2012) suggests that [t] he defeat of the first Philippine republic and the in stitution of the U.S. rule posed new challen ges for Filipino women atte m pting to negotiate another set of foreign occupiers. Though religious teachings continued to wield enormous influence over women's sexuality it was the intensification and uneven

PAGE 86

81 development of capitalist relations and the impos ition of the U.S. based education system that had the most impact on women at the time ( p. 38) Here, Lacsamana indicates the bind that Filipinas were in with the new colonizers: having already been inculcated with the Spaniards' reli gious precedent for t he control of women, Filipinas now had to compete wit h a changing political economy and a n ew educational structure This new countrywide school system "took older children, traditionally housekeepers and mother subsitutues, from the home, thus limiting, t oo the mo tions of mothers to go into productive work" (Eviota 1992, p. 75). This change not only precluded women from participating in productive labor on a large scale, but capitalized on the colonized mentality that had been deeply internalized by wome n over the last few ce nturies: a gender role with "an infinite capacity for forbearance, suffering, and forgiveness" (Santos 1984 p. 3). Women's role in the new economy dictated by the American occupiers was hastened by an already colonized mentality that lent itself to women being "forced to withdraw excl usively to reproductive work" ( Eviota, 1992 p. 64 ). Although many of the social, economic, and political conditions were ripe for the acquiescence of Filipina women to these new power structu res, the conditions were also ripe for resistance, struggle, and revolution. Just like when the Spanish colonizers occupied the Philippines, the r adical potential for resistance was created and seized by many women with a vested interest in a free and independent Philippine state. However, not so radical potentials for resistance were also cultivated and condoned by a new American colonialism, inten t upon utilizing changing gender roles in their Filipino subjects in order to maintain control of the population. Some scholars even allege that the United States influence can be implicated in the Filipina movement for suffrage;

PAGE 87

82 encouraging women's partic ipation in their political enfranchisement in an attempt to divert their attention away from the growing revolutionary movement for independence (Lacsamana 2012, p. 39 ; Santos, 1984, pp. 5 6 ). Paying special attention to the diverted attentions of this wo men's political movement, Santos argues that U.S. colonial encouragement of Filipina suffrage is an example of "the recognition of women's ability to turn the tide" in Filipino political and social movements. In other words, the U.S. involvement in encoura ging the Filipina suffrage movement stands as a testament to the fear of the power of women's resistance to colonial forces and ultimately the questioning of U.S. presence in the Philippines. Aside from the movement for suffrage, from the end of the Phili ppine American war to the present day, there has been a massive proliferation of women's movements in the Philippines. These movements include communism feminism, liberal reform, and militarism Common to each is anti imperialism in their ideologies, manifestos, and demands for change. Most all of these women's movements remain anti colonial or anti imperial at their core, though unlike the revolutionary women resisting the Spanish, the "woman question" is frequently brought up in tandem with the natio nalist question (Lacsamana 2012, pp. 41 43 ) Revolutionary women continue d to organize in anti colonial movements after the Philippine American war. Asymmetrical gender relationships within these move me nts become more apparent, as women were assigned gen der specific roles within the organizations. The obvious gendered division of labor within anti colonial organizations "[highlighted] the ideological schisms between women's liberation and national liberation" (Lacasmana 2012, p. 40). Alas, even w ithin le ftist organizations, like

PAGE 88

83 Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan ( Huk, or Army of National Liberation ) and Partido Komunista ng Pilipina s ( PKP or Communist Party of the Philippines ), organizations who were deeply cognizant of reproductive and productive labor as manifestations of imperial oppression, women's liberation was continually subsumed into an overarching class struggle. Lacsamana argues that the conflation of class and gender oppression in the early Philippine left would "continue to plague the revolutionary movement well after the eventual dissolution of the PKP and the establishment of the Communist Party of the Philippines in 1968" ( p. 41). Contrary to the narrative that suggests that mult iple feminisms come about as a response to hegemonic feminism, it should be noted that leftist peminists actually have much in common with other Marxist or leftist feminisms in thei r qualms with the subsuming of the woman question in to the class question. Delia Aguilar (1981) specifically addresses this when she indicates and utilizes the rhetoric of Marxist feminists in saying Just as some Marxist feminists err in the giving primacy to ideology in order to call attention to the oppression of women, we ha ve in the main paid little heed to the ideological constructs that both reflect and intensify the concrete conditions of women's subjugation ( p. 173) Elucidating upon this issue, Heidi Hartmann (1979) directly critiques Marx's t heories through a feminist lens. Hartmann claims that though Marxism is a helpful and often necessary way to observe the phenomenon of class oppression, it is an inadequate way to understand the nuances of sexist oppression. Though Hartmann does concede that women also bear the pro blems of the oppression of the proletariat, she also suggests that issues specific to women are subsumed into issues of the proletariat. Hartmann claims that

PAGE 89

84 the "marriage" of marxism and feminism has been like the marriage of husband and wife depicted in English common law: Marxism and feminism are one, and that one is Marxism. Recent attempts to integrate marxism and feminism are unsatisfactory to us as feminists because they subsume the feminist struggle into the "larger" struggle against capitalism ( p 1) So where Marx claims that sex and age disc rimination are subsumed into proletarian issues by the oppressive power of the bourgeoisie, Hartmann answers back by suggesting that women's issues have always remained so long as there has been a dialectical class opposition. Further, the subsuming of feminist issues into the issues of the proletariat ignore the fact that even proletarian men benefit from the free reproductive labor that is typically provided to them by wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters in the stereotypical nuclear family household. In conversation with leftist feminism s Hartmann 's assertions uphold the idea that sexist oppressi on is formed by material agency. Going even further, Hartmann suggest s that the alienation suffered by women specifically in Marx's epoch of the bourgeoisie is distinctly different than that of the false co nsciousness or ideology created and embedded in both proletarian and bourgeois men. One of Hartmann's observations particularly relevant to Philippine women's movements is the dialectic of sex. Hartmann describes the material base of patriarchy (as oppos ed to, or in conversation with capitalism) as the means by which women are brought up or socialized to perform reproductive labor. Though the aforementioned revolutionary women of Filipino anti colonial movements frequently asserted this idea Hartmann br ings these to light to show that the primary dialectic indicated by Marx and Engels is, put simply, not enough to answer the woman question. By the same token, Hartmann suggests that the happiest of bedfellows are not Marxism and feminism, but rather they are capitalism and patriarchy, which she describes as overestimated and

PAGE 90

85 underestimated by Marx, respectively ( p. 17). Hartmann ultimately concludes that patriarchy and capitalism present themselves as the vectors by which dual dialectical hierarchies are c reated in society; they must be simultaneously critiqued and dismantled in revolution. I mention Hartmann's ideas here to underscore that p eminism has little to no relationship with United States iterations and constructions of hegemonic feminism, but ra ther p eminism has a distinct relationship with anti colonialism and the sexism that has become embedded in its social movement. Hartmann's assertions serve to illustrate leftist women's movements in a different light than the widely accepted narrative that says that feminism begets feminisms; they respond simultaneously to class and sexist oppression, rather than to a constructed hegemonic feminist core. Understanding p eminism as a res ponse to the patriarchy and sexism of colonization serves to critique and preclude the notion that Filipina feminism comes as a response to heg emonic feminism. That is to say, posing Filipina women's movements against the sexism of anti colonial movements (and the sexist oppression of colonialism itself) aids in dismantling an ideology that says that feminisms cannot exist without a hegemonic feminist center. Despite the hardshi p elicited from the simultaneous dialectical oppos itions of classism and sexism, p eminist movements continued to thrive even after the granting of formal independence in 1946. Arguably, the reason why social movements, including women's movements continue d to proliferate after independence is due to the threadbare economic and political structure left in the wake of colonialism. Describing the new post war and post independence relationship with the U.S, in 1980 Senator Jose Diokno said : When the American s left, they left behind the same three basic problems [which they found in the country: widespread poverty unequal distribution of wealth and

PAGE 91

86 social exploitation] and added two more: a totally dependent economy and military situation so tied to the U.S. t hat dec isions on war and peace, in fact rest with the United States and not the Filipino people ( quoted in San Juan, Jr. 2009, pp. 101 102) Senator Diokno's words in mind, Philippine women's movements continually responded to the neocolonial relationship implicit in the powerful but indirect control that the United States continually wielded over the Philippines. One of the ways that the United States continually exercised control in the Philippines after formal independence was the supporting of the Ferdinand Marco s dictatorship. In 1972, Marcos declared martial law, thusly driving many factions of revolutionary movements in the Philippines underground. In respon se to this brutal regime, "militant sections of the women's movement became an integral part of the anti imperialist, anti feudal, anti capitalist, and anti fascist move ment advocating for the end of the U.S. supported Marcos dictators hip" (Santiago, 1995, p. 121 ). So instead of conceding, groups like MAKIBAKA (which in Tagalog means "struggle") were galvanized by their suppression, with the U.S. backed Marcos regime as a means of fuel for their revolutionary endeavors (Lacsamana, 2012, p. 42) After mart ial law was lifted in the Philippines in 1981, a new democratic space seemed to open up in Filipino politics, and with it a massive proliferation of women's organizations came to the foreground in the fight for social justice. Organizations opposed to the Marcos regime came out from the underground, such as WOMB (Women for the Ouster of Marcos and Boycott) and AWARE (Alliance of Women for Action and Reconciliation), while others had closer alignment with the new democratic movement after the fall of the Mar cos regime. Still, leftist organizations committed to the nationalist anti colonial and anti sexist project carried on, and many groups came together to form

PAGE 92

8 7 the federation GABRIELA (named for Gabriela Silang), made up of over 200 women's organization, a nd is currently still considered the largest women's group in the Philippines (Lacsamana p. 44) Though there have been many political shifts and changes in the Philippines since the end of the Marcos regime, it is here that my history of Filipino women 's movements comes to a close. This is not to say that justice for women has been achieved in the Philippines, nor is it to say that there is no longer revolutionary potential in women's political activism in the Philippines. Rather, I end here as women's movements in the Philippines are continuing the same anti imperial struggle in its many different forms today as they were fifty years ago. Further, I end here to highlight the chronological relationship with the birth of Women's Studies in the American ac ademe, and the theorization of p inayism, which begins the wake of the new democratization of the Philippines. To conclude, I stress the connection between pinayism and p eminism. Due to neocolonial influence by the United States, I argue that the large Fili pino American population is exactly the product of a colonial relationship. Due to this we can understand the Pinay or Filipina American, not solely as a colonized and displaced woman, but as a part of the long legacy of women's resistance in the Philippi nes. In other words, it is the colonia l relationship between the Philippines and the United States that makes it so p inayist resistance, even if located geographically in the United States is a part of the longer heritage of women's movements in the Philip pines. The neocolonial relationship with the United States is precisely why so many Filipinos come to the United States; however, this does not mean that p inayism, though

PAGE 93

88 located within the United States, automatically fits into and is a response to hegem onic, white, or western feminism. Instead, I argue tha t p inayism is the organic off shoot of the multitude of anti colonial, nationalist, and leftist feminist movements of the Philippines, in that the Pinay is precipitated from a colonial relationship, and it is ostensibly theorizing in an attempt to resist this relationship's totalizing and oppressive agenda. Even if p inayist scholars have unconsciously absorbed a hegemonic narrative, their resi s tance, identity and material realities are informed and influenced by the very same power structures that their revolutio nary foremothers fought against.

PAGE 94

89 CHAPTE R VI CONC L USION From 1898 to 1946, Filipinos in the United States were not immigrants in the conventional sense but colonial subjects whose bodies were transported or exiled from the periphery to the metropolis, their physiognomies studied and their cultures classified b y the appropriate ideological apparatuses. In order to legitimate the supremacy of United States knowledge and power ( San Juan Jr., 1994, p. 119 ). San Juan Jr.'s quote opens my final chapter and conclusion to bring us full circle, and highlights an unexpected finding in my research: academic structure and ideology functions in a way that is similar to colonialism. Though I hesitate to compare the vio lence of colonization to the disciplining of feminism for p inayist scholars attempt ing to draft their origin story, academic systems of power do indeed aim to oppress, dominate, and play a role in how their scholarship is formed. The same way that Filipin os have become transnational colonial specimens in the Unit ed States is the same way that p inayist scholarship has classified itself: through Western and American eyes, and in San Juan Jr.'s words legitimates "the supremacy of United States knowledge and p ower." This study set out to answer the questions: What are the origins of Filipina feminism? And in what way has academia and the Women's Studies discipline influenced how Filipina feminism is researched and understood? With these primary questions in min d, I will conclude this project by explicitly addressing these questions, reiterating my findings, elucidating some unexpected findings in my study, as well as positing my own assertions about the prospects of academic feminism and p inayism. To conclude t his study, I reiterate my initial argument: Academia as an ideological apparatus has structured Women's Studies in a way that its scholarship is

PAGE 95

90 perpetually a response a hegemonic center; this ideology is embedded in Women's Studies pedagogy and in turn ha s influenced how Filipina femini st (p inayist) scholars iterate t heir origin story. Contrary to p inayist definitions of their own origin story, I claim that Filipina American feminism can trace its lineage away from academic feminism and directly to the ant i colonial women's movements in the Philippines. It is my assertion that the academy became the home of politic al and social women's movements and that though these women's movements aimed to critique and dismantle the power structures of the academy, they were instead taken into the fold of academic culture, hierarchy, and most of all, ideology. Academic ideology consists of the belief that sch olarship and know ledge production is apolitical; subsequently, academic disciplines including Women's Studies are implicitly held to the standard of neutrality and objectivity, in an attempt to disguise hierarchy. When Women's Studies was taken into the f old, albeit with a fight, a cademic structure and ideology d isciplined" highly po litical feminist thought into scholarship that was not only much narrower than the wide breadth of women's movements that occurred outside of the academy, but into scholarship that could be constantly produced, critiqued, proliferated, and most of all, capitalized upon. It is in this way that academia as an ideological state apparatus assisted in turning Women's Studies into a site of knowledge making from which it could exerci se both control, and in a way, profit. By the same token, academic ideology severed a connection between political and social feminism and academic feminism. Women's Studies in turn became the site of a host of ideological problems not elicited from femin ist movements, but from academia. In becoming an academic discipline, the stories and voices of multiple feminist movements became homogenized

PAGE 96

91 or effaced in an attempt to create a grand narrative of feminism that was conducive to knowledge production and t he demands of scholarship. So then, when a theory such as intersectionality was produced, it became institutionalized and used in a way that it both indicts Women's Studies for being exclusionary, while at same time allows for a capitalization and prolifer ation of the scholarship of these marginalized identities as a corrective addendum to the entire discipline. I have argued that using intersectional t heory to correct the belief in a singular feminism has become embedded into Women's Studies pedagogy, further epitomized by the wave metaphor. Though there have already been many scholarly critiques of the wave metaphor, my contribution to this body of critique is that it does not reach far back enough; the w ave metaphor in Women's Studies pedagogy lacks a reflexivity about its own power to contribute to the narrative of feminism that suggests that all feminisms come from a hegemonic center. The iteration of this hegemonic center, or "hegemonic feminism," is p redicated upon an unsubstantiated belief in a monolithic feminist movement that has supposedly galvanized multiple feminisms. This aeteological narrative, while allowing multipl e feminisms a buttress from which to set them selves apart, has ultimately serve d to limit the scope of how multiple feminisms are understood. Moreover, the concept of hegemonic feminism has painted multiple feminisms as reactionary and limited in their intentions and goals. In propagating a narrative that says that feminism begets fe minisms, Sandoval's (2000) concept of hegemonic feminism has not only found a way to perpetually forti fy itself, but also stifled further inquiry as to why race or ethnicity based feminisms come about.

PAGE 97

92 Peminism and p inayism have come into the tangled mess of academic discipline and ideology, which has influenced how Filipina American scholars regard and study the origins of their movement. Further, these same scholars have understood Filipina feminism in its many forms not as pol itical movements, but as identity politics, ideas, and abstraction, thus validating my argument that scholars have internalized academic ideology Though p inayist scholars have crafted a narrative that fits into the accepted paradigm of feminism and multip le feminisms, there exists another chapter to the story of Filipina feminism that is erased by a belief in hegemonic feminism. Connected to the women's movements in the Philippines by the diaspora elicited from the asymmetrical neocolonial power relati onsh ip with the United States, p inayism can be understood as a part of a larger body of activism that is not geographically or historically limited to the United States Peminist movements against two waves of colonialism, religious oppression, and masculinist politics within nationalist movements make up a rich history of women's resistance in the Philippines, all of which have little to do with hegemonic feminism. Peminists' nat ionalist and anti colonial motivations are testaments to the complexity of what ga lvanizes women's movements to begin. Further, women's resistance in the Philippines can be traced back to when col onization by the Spanish began, and not to when privileged white women's movements began in the West. In analyzing p eminism as a free standing movement that is not in response to hegemonic feminism, my most interesting finding in this research is tha t p eminism and Women's Studies have had similar experiences with institutionalized power structures. Peminism is a response to a concom itant colonial and capitalist ideology supplanted into the Philippines social, political, and economic structures. Similarly, this

PAGE 98

93 colonial/capitalist ideology functions in a way that could be likened to the academic disciplining and institutionalization o f knowledge making communities such as Women's Studies In finding this, I do not want to conflate different oppressions and hardships ; rather, I hope that seeing the similarities between these systems of power will give feminists, peminists, pinayists, ac tivists, and scholars a clear view of the necessity of o ngoing resistance. Though I have found a similarity between the functioning of the ideological state apparatus and colonialism, I do not wish this study to be concluded in a manner that stifles idea s and hopes for Women's Studies or radical political and social change. On the c ontrary, I regard this study as a call for the return of a union of activism and theory; a revival of praxis as a means to precluding in fighting, and focusing on making positi ve changes to marginalized women's material realities. To me, this means not only a critique of the academic structure that has disciplined feminism, but also an elevation and privileging of inquiry into why women's movements start at all. Ultimately, I pr opose we use intersectional theory in its original iteration, as we observe women's movements from where they start, instead of acquiescing to an academic ideology that says women's movements respond to a hegemonic center. Finally, I argue that if we do not regard women' s movements as beginning from the different circumstances that women live in, we will never come closer to changing women's material realities for the better.

PAGE 99

94 BIBLIOGRAPHY Aguilar, D. D. (1981). Some thoughts on the oppression of women In E. San Juan Jr. (Ed.), Filipina Insurgency Quezon City, Philippines: Giraffe Books. Aguilar, D. D. (2000). Questionable claims: C olonialism redux, feminist style. Race & Class 1 12. Aguilar, D. D. (2012). From triple jeopardy to intersectionality: The feminist p erplex. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, 32 (Number 2), 415 428. Althusser, L. (2009). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (Notes toward an investigation). In M.G. Durham & D.M. Kelln er (Eds.), Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell, (pp. 80 87) Andersen, M. L. and Hill Collins, P. (Eds.) (2004). Race, Class, and Gender: An Anthology (Vol. 5). Belmont: Wadsworth. Anderson, R. E. (1983). Finance and effective ness: A study of college e nvironments Princeton: Educational Testing Service. Angeles, L. C. (1989). Feminism and nationalism: The Discourse on the woman question and the politics of the women's movement in the Philippines M.A. Thesis (unpublished). Dep artment of Political Science. University of the Philippines. Austin, A. E., & Gamson, Z. F. (1984). Ac ademic w orkplace: N ew demands, heightened tensions. Washington DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Austria, C. S. R. (2004). The church the state and women's bodies in the context of religious fundamentalism in the Philippines. Reproductive health matters, 12 (24), 96 103. Baca Zinn, M., Ca nnon, L. W., Higginbotham, E., and Dill, B. T. (1986). The costs of exclusionary practices in wome n's studies. Signs 11 (2), 290 303. Baca Z inn, M., Hondagneu Sotelo, P., and Messner, M. (2004 ). Gender through the prism of d ifference Race, Class, and Gender ( 5). Belmont: Wadsworth. Bailey, C. (1997). Making waves and drawing lines: The politics of defining the vicissitudes of feminism. Hypatia, 12 (3), 17 28. Beck, E. T. (2008). On being a pre feminist feminist OR how I came to Women's Studies and what I did t here. In A. E. Ginsburg (Ed.), The Evolution of American Women's Studies: Reflections on Triumphs, Controversies, and Change (pp. 117 131). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

PAGE 100

95 Blair, C., Brown, J., & Baxten, L. (1994). Disciplining the feminine. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 80 (4), 383 409. Bleich, D. (1995). Academic ideology and the new attention to t eaching. New Literary History, 26 (3), 565 590. Buhle, M. (2000). Introduction. In F. Howe (Ed.), The Politics of Women' s Studies (Vol. 1 ) (pp. xi xxvi). New York: The Feminist Pres s at the City University of New York. Campbell, T. I. D., & Slaughter, S. (19 99). Faculty and administrators' attitudes toward potential conflicts of interest, commitment, and equity in university industry relationships. Journal of Higher Education 70 (3 ), 309 352. C hesebro, J. W., Cragan, J. F., and McCullough, P. (1973). The small group technique of the radical revolutionary: A synthetic study of consciousness raising. Communication Monographs, 40 (2), 136 146. Cohen, P. N. (1996). Nationalism and su ffrage: gender struggle in nation building A merica. Signs, 21 (3), 707 727. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demargi nalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of a ntidiscrimina tion doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist p olitics. Universit y of Chicago Legal Forum 1989, 139 167. Davis, K. (2008). Intersectionality as buzzword : A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist theory, 9 (1), 67 85. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cag e Revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationalizing in organizational f ields. American Sociological Review, 48 (April), 147 160. Eisenstein, Z. (2010). Hillary is White. In J. B. C. Beverly Guy Sheftall (Ed.), Who Should Be First?: Feminists Speak Out on the 2008 Presidential Campaign (pp. 79 85). New York: SUNY Press. Enloe, C. (1990). Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics Berkeley, CA : University of California Press. Evans, S. (2010). Tida l wave: How women changed America at century's end New York: Simon and Schuster. Eviota, E. (1992). The political economy of gender: Women and the sexual division labor in the Philippines London: Zed Books. Fromm, E. (1961). Marx' s concept of man New York: Continuum.

PAGE 101

96 Ginsburg, A. E. (2008). Introduction. In A. E. Ginsburg (Ed.), The Evolution of American Women's Studies: Reflections on Triumphs, Controversies, and Change (pp. 1 6). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gumport, P. J. (200 2). Universities and knowledge: Restructuring the city intellect. In S. Brint (Ed.), The cu l ture of the city of intellect: The changing American university (pp. 47 81). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Gumport, P. J. (2005). Graduate education and res earch : Interdependence and strain. In P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (Vol. 2nd) (pp. 425 461). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Univers ity P ress. Guy Sheftall, B. (2008). Women' s Studies: A v iew from the m argins. In A. E. Ginsburg (Ed.), The Evolution of American Women's Studies: Reflections on Triumphs, Controversies, and Change (pp. 103 116). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Hartmann, H. I. (1979). The unhappy ma rriage of Marxism and feminism: T owards a more progressive union. Capital & Class, 3 (2), 1 33. Haskell, T. L. (1990). Objectivity is not neutrality: Rhetor ic vs. practice in Peter Novick' s That Noble Dream. History and Theory 29 (2) 129 157. Hewitt, N. (2012). Feminist Frequencies: Regenerating the wave metaphor. Feminist Studies 38 (3), 658 680. Hoffman, N. (2000). Teaching Across the b orders of r ace and c lass. In F. Howe (Ed.), The Politics of Women's Studies (pp. 16 28). New York: The Feminist Press. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom New York: Routledge. Jesus, M. D. (2005). Pinay Power: Theorizing the Filipina/American experience New York: Routledge. San Juan Jr., E. (2009). Overseas Filipino Workers: The m aking of an A sian p acific d iaspora. The Global South, 3 (2, Fall 2009), 99 129. Kennedy, D. (1997). Academic Duty Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Labaton, V., & Martin, D. L. (2009). The fire this time: young activists and the new feminism New York: Anchor. Lacsamana, A. (2012). Revolutionizing Feminism: The Philippine Women' s Movement in the Age of Terror Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

PAGE 102

97 Laughlin, K., Gallagher, J., Cobble, D. S., Boris, E., Na dasen, P., Gilmore, S., & Zarnow, L. (2010). Is it time to jump ship? Historian rethink the waves metaphor. Feminist Formations, 22 (1), 76 135. Levinson, R. M. (1989). The Faculty and i nstitutional i somorphism. Academe, 75 (1), 23 27. Marx, K. (1947). T he German Ideology New York: International Publishers. McCall, L. (2005). The c omplexity of i ntersectionality. Signs, 30 (3), 1771 1800. Mendoza, P., and Berger, J. B. (2008). Academic capitalism and academic culture: A case study. E duc ation policy ana lysis archives, 16 (23) 1 24. Messer Davidow, E. (2002). Disciplining feminism: From social activism to academic discourse Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Munro, E. (2013). Feminism: A f ourth w ave? Political Insight, 4 (2), 22 25. Newman, F., Couturier, L., & Scurry, J. (2004). The future of higher education: Rhetoric, reality, and the risks of the market San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Nicholson L. (2010). Feminism in "Waves" : Useful Metaphor or Not? New Politics, 12 (4), 34. Patai, D., and Ko ertge, N. (1994). Professing feminism: Cautionary tales from the strange world of women' s studies New York: Basic Books. Pierce, L. M. (2005). Not just my closet: Exposing f amilial, c ultural, and i mperial s keletons. In M. d e Jesus (Ed.), Pinay Power (pp. 31 44). New York: Routledge. Pollitt, K. (2001). Subject to debate: Sense and dissents on women, politics, and culture New York: Random House Rollin, R. (1989). There' s No Business like Education. Academe, 75 (1), 14 17. Roth, B. (2004). Separate ro ads to feminism: Black, Chicana, and White feminist movements in America's second wave Cambridge University Press. San Juan Jr., E. (1998). Filipina Insurgency Quezon City, Philippines: Giraffe Books. Sandoval, C. (2000). Methodology of the o ppressed Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Santiago, L. Q. (1995) Rebirthing Babayae: The women' s movement in the Philippines. In A. Basu (Ed.), The chal lenge of local feminisms: women' s movements in global perspectives (pp. 110 128) Boulder, CO: Westv iew Press.

PAGE 103

98 Samson, F. L. (2005). Filipino American men: Comrades in the Filipina/o American feminism movement. In M. de Jesus (Ed.), Pinay Power (pp 149 166 ) New York: Routledge. Santos, A. F. (2004). Do w omen r eally h old u p h alf the s ky?: Notes on the women's m ovement in the Philippines. In C. I. Sobritchea (Ed.), Gender, Culture, and Society: Selected Readings in Women's Studies in the Philippines Seoul. South Korea: Ewha Woman s University Press. Sarachild, K. (1978). Consciousness rai sing: A radical weapon. In Feminist Revolution ( New York: Random House ) 144 150 Shields, S. A. (2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, 59 (5), 301 311. Showalter, E. (1985). The n ew f eminist c riticism: Essays on w omen, l iterature, and t heory New York: Pantheon Books. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Slaughter, S., and Rhoades, G. (2004). Aca demic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education Baltimore MD : Johns Hopkins University Press. Smith Rosenberg, C. (2001). The new woman as androgyne. Feminism: Feminism and modernity, 2 156. Sneider, A. L. (1994 ). The i mpac t of e mpire on the North American w oman s uffrage m ovement: Suffrage Racism in an Imperial Context. UCLA Historical Journal, 14 Taylor, B., & Conrad, C. (1992). Narratives of sexual harassment: Organizational dimensions. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20 (4), 401 418. Thompson, B. (2002). Multiracial feminism: Recasting the chronology of second wave feminism. Feminist Studies, 337 360 Tintiangco Cubales, A. G. (2005). Pinayism In M. de Jesus (Ed.), Pinay Power (pp. 137 149) New York: Rou tledge. Walker, R. (1995). To be real: Telling the truth and changing the face of feminism New York: Anchor Books. Walker, R. (2001). Becoming the Third Wave. In B. Ryan (Ed.) Identity politics in the women's movement (pp. 78 80). New York University Press. Weitz, R. (1982). Feminist consciousness raising, self concept, and depression. Sex Roles, 8 (3), 231 241.

PAGE 104

99 Wrye, H. K. (2009). The fourth wave of feminism: Psychoanalytic perspectives introductory remarks. Studies in Gender and Sexuality, 10 (4), 1 85 189. Yip, A. (1997). Two Movements in One : The re emergence of the Asian American women s movement. AsianWeek ( 03 April 1997). Zinn, H. (2003). A People's h istory of the United States 1492 p resent New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.