This article explores the connection between ideas of change, and activism.
As many of you have probably already figured out, I love to ponder answers to questions that begin with 'how': How does oppression work? How do we create meaningful and lasting social change? How do we envision future societies? 'How' questions tend to dissect mechanisms and excavate processes. This may lead to actual change since 'how' questions can also lead to collective visioning, and provide a road map for activists to realize that vision.
There are lots of different theories concerning the roots of social gender inequality. Many of these theories have arisen from philosophical questions that begin with 'why' and try to determine the essence of human nature: Why is there social injustice? Why are certain peoples oppressed? Why are there pain, suffering and violence? How we answer these questions shape potential solutions to inequality, but these questions alone do not facilitate action. Rather, 'why' questions often generate more existential approaches to understanding inequality - hence the popular claim that philosophers/theorists and activists are not cut from the same cloth.
Naming the philosophy behind social activism creates a deeper picture of social change processes, and is possible by linking the 'why' and 'how' questions. This is demonstrated by comparing Liberal and Cultural feminisms.
On the one hand, Liberal feminists embrace capitalist society and its elitist, 'the crème rises to the top' philosophy. For Liberal feminists, the roots of inequality stem from unequal access to government institutions such as the educational system. They focus on enhancing women's opportunities to fully engage in political and economic forces. They support daycares, education, and women's shelters, seeing them as equalizing structures that create possibilities for women's success in the world. Their slogan might be: Dismantle the patriarchy by making women equal within it. Equality is achieved through sameness with men.
Cultural feminists, on the other hand, claim that equality is achieved through celebrating women's innate feminine differences. Patriarchy which is characterized by masculine structures of force and oppression is overcome by competing structures rooted in women's natural tendencies for creation and caretaking. As older matriarchal values and social organizations are re-established, men become 'feminized'. They become gentler, and embrace more maternalist ways of being. Cultural feminists engage in 'women-centred' activities such as healing circles that re-member feminine ideals, teach children empathy and pacifism, and celebrate the life cycles of all living creatures. The popularity of cultural feminism is reflected in the recent resurgence of women-centred religions such as Wicca.
Cultural feminism roots social inequality in natural gendered tendencies, which further separate women from men, and reify the view that social differences between women and men are the inevitable result of biology. This appears at odds with Liberal feminism's focus on inclusion and sameness. These two responses to the question of why there is gender inequality, point activists in two different directions. Do we dismantle patriarchy through a strategy that focuses on accommodating difference or one where inclusion is rooted in sameness. How we go about creating social change is shaped by our answer to the question of 'why'.
So where does this leave us? Must we determine the most appropriate answer to the 'why' questions before taking action? Or, do we take action, create social change and then examine the effectiveness of our approach? Neither strategy is capable of providing an unproblematic approach. Social dynamics are tricky. They are organic, in constant interaction with the environment and those involved. Perhaps, the solution lies in approaching social change from both an intellectual place of the mind that is, looking at why gender inequality exists, while initiating social changes that utilize understandings of how society creates and reifies power dynamics. By asking how AND why, theorists and social activists can both contribute to social change discussions, and create opportunities for real, lasting and meaningful change.
