Feminist theory · Theory and practice

What has theory ever done for us? The case for feminist theory

There is a  vein of anti-intellectualism that characterises some iterations of feminism. Symptomatic of this is a rejection of theory and a conflation of academic obscurantism or elitism with the process of describing complicated or difficult ideas. In this post I want to argue for the continuing relevance of feminist theory for political practice and explain my own relationship to theory.

The case against theory is compelling, especially if we understand the relationship between theory and practice as a process of “acting on the basis of an autonomous, esoteric and abstract corpus of knowledge” (Fargion). Here theory unnecessarily (and perhaps maliciously) mystifies  commonsense, on-the-ground understandings of women’s lives and oppression.  Implicit here is also the conception of theorising as passive and  a ‘waste of time,’ standing in opposition to the active, world-shaping effects of political practice. I think this is a seductive but ultimately wrong-headed idea. Instead I want to argue for a dialectical relationship between theory and practice, where the two ‘talk’ to each other to enrich and strengthen their purchase on the truth and/or impact on the world.

What about the objection is that theory is somehow elitist? Certainly, if we conceive of theory as a purely academic exercise that takes place in exclusionary social institutions, we would have every reason to be suspicious. Chandra Talpade Mohanty, for instance, has argued against “a kind of careerist academic feminism whereby the boundaries of the academy stand in for the entire world and feminism becomes a way to advance academic careers rather than a call for fundamental and collective social and economic transformation.” It’s true that careerism in academia or politics may entail the adoption of theoretical models or apparatus that are irreconcilably antagonistic towards our liberation but this temptation shouldn’t preclude the activity of theorising. We all  engage in theory at some level. Choosing to participate in a march, for instance, is underwritten by a particular idea of what is politically efficacious. While feminist suspicion of academia (from within and without) is absolutely vital, it needs to be decoupled from the activity of theorising which is at base a kind of thinking about how things work and interact.

Not everybody is going to be interested in theory. I get that. There are some people (me included) who like to deal with things at a high level of complexity and abstraction. More pragmatic types are liable to get impatient with us at times for not ‘doing something’ or being ‘out of touch’.  We as theoreticians need to listen to these people:  an autonomous, esoteric and abstract corpus of knowledge does little to stop workplace discrimination or violence against women on its own.  But, I would still contend, practitioners need theory. Urgently. I can’t talk about being raped as structural and systemic, for example, without engaging in some level of abstraction- like having a theory of patriarchy or some working hypothesis about the relationship between structure and agency. Theory is a kind of action or at the very least the intentionality behind political action.

It may not come across in my writing but my feminism, my relationship to theory is intimately connected to the biographical details of my life: a fraught family life, mental illness and male violence and sexual exploitation have all shaped how I think, but biography shouldn’t be the only criteria of theoretical salience. I’m adamant that we need a robust theory of patriarchy. Not doing so precludes us from talking about oppression in two ways: first the term becomes discredited as thin and reductive; it strikes people as insufficiently historical or nuanced and outdated. Second, we talk past each other; the imprecision of the term creates confusion about effective forms of struggle and resistance or the bases for solidarity and antagonism. In this mode patriarchy becomes a feeling, a kind of  general malaise incapable of attaching itself to concrete structures and processes.

We don’t need less theory. We need to democratise it and lay bare our own implicit theoretical commitments. This is why theory is important to my feminism.






2 thoughts on “What has theory ever done for us? The case for feminist theory

  1. The discord between theory and practice is just one more unnecessary division, but is based on real issues. We need them both, and each requires the other to be highly effective; theory isn’t much helpful if it doesn’t inspire or guide action, and action and understanding often falls short without a solid ideological underpinning.

    I think existing oppressions are at the bottom of the resistance you see towards theory, as well as the problem of privileging ideas over experience and actions. Classism and racism create a huge gap in experience and academic exposure, and fuel an often uncomfortable disconnect between women.

    I do think we can overcome the theory vs action division by valuing academic work, knowledge from experience, and action, as equally important and necessary for success. But it cannot just be lip service, it has to come from a place of genuine respect for the efforts of others. Getting to know other RFs that work in ways you do not, can also help build these bridges.

    I think it would also help if academics made an attempt to tone down the complicated, esoteric, language, *when writing for a varied audience*. Not every piece needs to be for all women, but those that are intended to be universal should be plainly written. What you lose in precision can be outweighed by offering a robust conceptual framework to work from.

    Take the example of Dworkin, whose writing is easily accessible, even though her ideas are challenging and all encompassing. Working towards clarity, simplicity, and specificity, in your theory can only improve communication.

    Illustrating how your ideas can inform action can also help bring more women to theory, besides being more effective overall. I would love to see a strong RF theorist work with a skilled RF activist, to offer more ideas tied to methods for material change. One successful example of theory and practice together can be found in Lierre Keiths and Derrick Jensens DGR book, which offers a fully considered theory as well as a framework for further actions. Regardless of you’re opinion on their ideology, it’s worth looking at just to see how these things can work together.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s