APA Newsletters

Spring 2001
Volume 00, Number 2

Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy

Symposium: Intra-Feminist Criticism and the "Rules of Engagement"

Previous Article | Index | Next Article

Ms. Feminist Philosopher Manners's Guide to Respectful Critical Sisterly Behavior

Ann Garry
California State University, Los Angeles

Although no one in her right mind would expect feminist philosophers to agree on every single point of substance, method, and politics, there are nevertheless important issues to address about the manner of, not to mention the manners appropriate for, our conflicts and critiques. Feminist philosophers share a set of values and assumptions with at least family resemblances to each other; we also share a (very wide) range of methods and styles of scholarly interaction. It is perhaps both from our shared values and from our differences that our critical behavior sometimes finds us in hot water with our sister colleagues. One of the shared assumptions is that feminist claims and arguments, in both senses of 'argument,' matter deeply. They matter not only for the reasons that most philosophers think our claims and arguments matter, but also because of their potential impact on social change that aims to improve the condition of humankind, especially its female members. Feminists can thus become deeply invested both in the correctness of our own views and in the importance of showing others to be wrong. However, social commitment and personal investment by no means exempt us from treating each other fairly and with respect.

I suggest below some concrete ways in which we might treat each other with respect and fairness.1 Many of the suggestions are equally applicable to any intellectual criticism; others will apply primarily to intellectuals whose work presupposes or advocates a commitment to social change. The format will make more sense if the reader visualizes an overhead transparency of Ms. Feminist Philosopher Manners's list of "bulleted" imperatives collected under various topics. As you consider these points along with those of others in this symposium, keep in mind that I am thinking of quite severe, harsh criticism, not the kind of critique that Marilyn Frye writes about at the end of her essay ("earnest, sustained, thoughtful, generous, intelligent, fully explicit…").2 I have heard Billie Jean King say, "Pressure is a privilege." Similarly, the kind of critique Frye is speaking of is a privilege-a privilege to receive and a privilege to give. The kind I am speaking of risks being neither.

1. Concerning content and motivation…

Do not consider it a career move to criticize other feminists severely in public.

Ask yourself whether you are seriously interested in her topic for its own sake, or whether you are using a public critique of her work to separate yourself from that kind of feminism. Scrutinize your motives. Marilyn Frye's discussion of "disengagement" speaks eloquently to the same issue.3
Read very carefully the work of the person you are criticizing and try to present it in the most charitable light. If possible, ask her privately about an interpretation if you are in serious doubt about something.

Giving a charitable interpretation is a fundamental tenet of fair scholarship of any kind-feminist or not. What if you have really blown your interpretation? What if she is kidding or being ironic? Then you look silly or foolish as well as offend her. Obviously you cannot always ask privately. In fact, there may be a generational bias in my even suggesting that a private question is appropriate. Such questions are easier to ask when we consider someone a peer rather than an authority figure. Nevertheless, email has worked wonders to mitigate perceived differences in status.
Do not ignore relevant feminist work. If you believe that some work on your topic is wrong, either explain your disagreement with it or in some other way acknowledge its existence.

To write as if someone has not already published work on a topic is simply not good scholarship. Even if you disagree with someone, you have a variety of appropriate responses: you can acknowledge the existence of the work in a footnote, but say that it is not your approach; you can engage it as a position to criticize (briefly or more thoroughly), and so on.

2. Concerning how you say it…

If she were in the room, would you put your criticism in exactly the same way? If you would not, then ask yourself why you want to score points this way and with whom.
Scrutinize your motivation for stating your points in the precise language you choose, especially if it appears to ridicule.
Do not assume in a scholarly talk or classroom that your audience agrees with you, that is, don't take an 'us' vs. 'her' stance in your talk or paper. Instead assume that someone in the audience respects the work of the feminist you are attacking.

3. Concerning "locations"-…

Consider carefully where to publish a highly critical essay. Ask yourself what pleasure will it give sexist voyeurs to see feminists "cat-fighting" in the Chronicle of Higher Education or The New York Review of Books.

A number of factors obviously go into our choice of a forum. Sometimes it is chosen for us, so we respond to an attack where it is given. But whoever initiates an attack is responsible for remembering the world of anti-feminists out there enjoying the fight. Sometimes our choices may have implications for a group or organization's strategies. Think this through in advance.
Consider carefully your own personal "location" with respect to the person you are criticizing. Especially, for example, if you are in the relevant respect a person in the "center" and she is "marginalized," make sure that you are not misguided about your cognitive authority or otherwise overstepping the bounds of prudence.

Naomi Scheman has discussed this kind of point using examples of transsexuality and transgendered practices.4 I wish to take it in a different direction-generational differences. I do not mean simply that a senior, tenured feminist should deal respectfully with an untenured faculty member or graduate student's work in a responding paper at the APA. Of course, she should. We also need to be aware of our different positions in relation to "texts." In the workshop at the Feminist Ethics conference in Florida, a graduate student spoke about her attitude toward criticism of "received" feminist works-they are "texts" to her in the way that Rawls and Wittgenstein are texts. Yes, living women wrote them; however, the texts are part of a body of work, feminist philosophy, which she takes as her field and in which she must make her place. Her position as a critic of these texts is very different from the position of the author of one of them toward the work of the younger feminist.

4. Concerning the woman with "difficult" politics: she claims to be a feminist, but acts in ways that are harming women…

If you really think she has been co-opted by male power, then it is important to communicate that to her in some way.
Assume she is a person of good will, and respond in that way, even if you have a hunch that she is not.
Get friends she relies upon and respects to try to talk her out of a pattern of destructive behavior and to find out why it is important to her to score points that way.

5. Concerning the woman who is just "difficult" herself…

Keep in mind that what sounds too much like "whining" (or worse) to one of us, may be just the strategy that moves someone else. Remember that there are usually a variety of appropriate responses to injustice.

There are limits, of course; some people simply do whine. If she has overstepped the limits, see the last two points under the woman with "difficult" politics.

6. What if you are the person attacked?

Consider how to respond in a way that enables you to maintain your self-respect and integrity at the same time you de-escalate the controversy.

It is not a sign of weakness, but level-headedness, to ask for help strategizing in this situation.

7. What if you are asked by a nonfeminist group to speak authoritatively about the "feminist position on"… (where…is a matter of deep feminist controversy)?

Try to ascertain where the group falls on the spectrum between a sincere desire to know and a setup for ridicule.

At the Florida Ethics conference it became apparent that North American feminist philosophers are asked to communicate with everyone from right-wing radio talk-show hosts to groups of traditional health care providers who are deeply troubled about issues in their practices that affect women.
If you believe the group's members are at least reasonably sincere…

Try to cast what you might, in fact, believe to be a hopeless quagmire of intranecine warfare in some more interesting light.
Ask yourself whether there is a small set of agreed upon feminist values at the center of the dispute, in light of which the differences can be appreciated.
If those fail, you can lay out a range of plausible positions and (with moderation) advocate the one you prefer.

8. Finally, Ms. F. Ph. Manners suggests that when all else fails (in any critical situation), remember that feminists have a sense of humor. Use it.

Of course, Ms. M. would like to hear, respectfully, from those who disagree or have other comments.

Notes

1. I was led to some of the points by comments from the workshop at the Feminist Ethics Revisited conference hosted the University of South Florida in October 1999. I have modified other points after the panel jointly sponsored by the Society for Analytical Feminism and the Society for Women in Philosophy at the American Philosophical Association, Pacific Division, Albuquerque, April 2000. I've constructed other ideas, alas, in response to my own less-than-stellar behavior. Ms. F. Ph. Manners wishes to add that she's always wondered what it would be like to go mano a' mano with Kant concerning the separation of the 'should' of etiquette from the 'should' of morality.
2. This issue.
3. This issue.
4. This issue.

Previous Article | Index | Next Article

APA Newsletters

Spring 2001 Volume 00, Number 2

Spring 2001
Volume 00, Number 2