On the Usefulness of Women Studies…

Being French, I come from a country where, because of the so-called “universal republican ideal”, the mere mentioning of any “natural” differences among human beings is highly suspicious, if not taboo. I was therefore really excited at the idea of taking a WSTU class at GW, as any other undergraduate here can do. For sure, I would never have had the opportunity to focus almost exclusively on women’s issues in France, for the topics of gender and race are not considered to be specific “issues” or “problems”, but are rather incorporated (at least, they are said to be) into the more general fields of history, sociology, etc.

Now that I have been attending a WSTU class on feminist theory for about three weeks, I still find myself wondering: Should we have such women studies’ programs? Would they constitute an improvement in the French higher education system?

Of course, I think gender issues should be addressed every time they are relevant to explain past, current or even future trends in the world, but does it have to be done through a Women Studies’ Department in universities?

The answer, I guess, depends on one’s idea of what should be the purposes of such courses. So far, I see two main alternatives:

1) They should help develop feminist “consciousness”, defend the achievements of the feminist movement and encourage students to fight for new feminist “goals”. In a word, they should “convert” students to feminism;

2) They should merely focus on the role of women in many different fields and, in a way, make up for past injustices, as women’s achievements were too often ignored. In a word, they should add a new, woman-centered perspective to traditional fields of knowledge.

As regards the (first) idea that women studies are intimately linked with feminism as a way of thinking and being, one must say that feminism is by definition a critical, in many respects political, approach to society. As Joan Kelly puts it, feminism has always been “an outlook that transcended the accepted value systems of the time”[1]. By questioning sexist prejudices, feminism cannot but seek to change society and the way people have been thinking for centuries. This “feminist project”, if not revolutionary, is at least a project of societal reform, which implies it is somehow rooted in political philosophy. Moreover, the underlying political philosophy behind feminism need not be unique, as exemplified by the Marxist feminists, the classical liberal feminists… and so on.

Then comes the question: if feminism is so diverse, how can a teacher in women studies introduce students to feminism without imposing on them her (or his) approach? How do you want a “Marxist” instructor to “convert” her students to “classic liberal” feminism?

If, as I think, feminism is not in itself a distinct political philosophy but rather a somewhat narrower perspective that permeates and influences all other philosophical systems, then one must say that the teaching of feminist theory with the idea of “converting” the students cannot but be biased[2]. And how could they be neutral if they are to arise students’ consciousness for what teachers hold to be “feminism”?

Here my opinion is that academic courses are not meant to be political meetings. Contrary to what bell hooks suggests in her latest book[3], I don’t think that WSTU classes should be thought of as a substitute for the former “consciousness-raising groups” in the 1970s. In those groups, women would gather and openly express their (sometimes conflicting) views on a wide range of issues related to gender and they would end up defining common strategies of action, as well as seeking to “recruit” as many women as possible to increase the movement’s impact.

Keeping women studies out of the controversial world of politics, other people see WSTU courses as a way to provide new insights on a wide range of topics without drawing any theoretical or practical conclusions so as to affect students’ behaviors. As in any political science or philosophy classes, feminist theories would be studied in relation with historical facts, merely providing students with the analytical tools necessary to make better-informed choices once they leave the academic world. In that respect, women studies can be thought to be useful in that they stress the often-neglected importance of women in many realms. However, I see some flaws in the argumentation: by studying women’s contribution in the sciences, the arts, economics…etc. separately, one gives up the idea that they should be acknowledged by every student in any major field of academic discipline.

What’s more, if traditional courses actually took women into account, WSTU classes would become the mere repetition of other courses, focusing on some aspects already mentioned in broader perspective.

So here is my conclusion: we’d better do our best to help modify the existing academic programs so that they give women the place they deserve, instead of trying to “compensate” with WSTU classes which, by the way, mostly appeal to the few students already aware of the problems posed by sexist prejudices. As for the political side of feminist commitment, it should take place within student groups or other associations, not in WSTU classrooms, unless we want our universities to indoctrinate, instead of educate, young citizens.

[1] Joan Kelly, “Early First Theory and the Querelle des Femmes, 1400-1789”, Signs 8:1 (Fall 1982), 6-7.

[2] If one considers feminism as a distinctive approach on a par with other political theories, it would then be a one-sided approach, and my argument that women studies would lack the neutrality one expects from college courses would remain valid.

[3] bell hooks, Feminism is for Everybody, South End Press, 2000.