Publication details
This article was first published as « Variations sur des thèmes communs » in Questions féministes, no. 1 (November 1977) p. 3-19. It was written by the Editorial Collective of the journal. The initials in brackets in the text are those of the individuals responsible for different parts. [The first section was written by C.D. and M.P. (Christine Delphy and Monique Plaza). The second section was written by E.L. (Emmanučle de Lesseps). The third section was written by N.-C.M. (Nicole-Claude Mathieu). The last section was written by C.C.-P.(Colette Capitan-Peter)] This translation by Yvonne Rochette-Ozzello was first published in New French Feminisms, ed. and intro. by Elaine Marks and Isabelle de Courtivron [Amherst : University of Massachusetts, 1980]. A different translation was published in the journal Feminist Issues, vol. 1 no. 1 Summer 1980.
This project was born from the recognition that feminism does not have its own space for theoretical debate, although it feels the need for this space now more than ever. Feminist publications are practically nonexistent in this country, and not only do we need theoretical journals, but we also need widely published monthlies (like Sparerib in England, Emma in Germany, Effe in Italy). And we need not one but several militant newspapers (as were Le torchon brûle, Les femmes s'entêtent, Les pétroleuses, and as Histoires d'elles still is). It would also be desirable for purely informative publications (like L'information des femmes) to be further developed and multiplied. But if we have chosen to devote our efforts to the launching of a « theoretical » journal, it is because such a publication seems to us to be equally necessary, and not because we consider it as a priority. [1]
Women frequently react with mixed feelings to this term. We believe in the necessity of an in-depth analysis of women's oppression, but at the same time « theoretical » too often refers to inaccessible texts that are destined for a privileged social elite. Theoretical is then synonymous with hermetic, as if the obscure nature of a text established its « scientific value, » its « seriousness. » Such an equation must be broken. We want to rehabilitate the true meaning of theory and by so doing make theory everyone's concern, so that cash of us can not only use it but also produce it. We consider as theoretical any discourse, whatever its language may be, that attempts to explain the causes and the mechanisms, the why and the how of women's oppression in general or of one of its particular aspects. « Theoretical » means any discourse that attempts to draw political conclusions, that offers a strategy or tactics to the feminist movement.
Following this particular political definition of « theoretical, » our journal will try to bring together texts of different kinds that formulate theories about women's oppression : a one-page brochure, a literary work, a lampoon, a theoretical article can contribute equally to the elaboration of a feminist science. We know that it is not always possible to write simply : certain concepts do not exist in ordinary language and cannot be translated, and the possibility of their reformulation depends on the level of abstraction and specialization of each discourse.
Theory does not only explain facts, it also describes reality : we will therefore also publish texts that offer information on women's life in France and in other countries, on women's status today and in the past.
This diversity we hope to put into practice will bring to the archives of discourse and history texts that are ordinarily banned, and we will offer for a broader discussion topics t]rat today eau only be debated in the isolation of feminist groups.
When one analyzes women's oppression, one necessarily studies their material oppression, which is real, and the ideology that has been internalized by women and whose coercive power allows exploitation to exist. Now, one of the privileged breeding grounds for this ideology — it develops constantly and was not produced once and for all — is still « science, » and in particular the so-called sciences of man. A feminist approach necessarily includes a criticism of scientific discourse on women but also of the supposedly « general » discourse : what is indeed more revealing than omissions ? General theories of society and of the psyche, when they consider sex categories as being natural without asking questions about their development and their social nature and when they do not take into account women's oppression, thereby condone this oppression, thus remaining at the level of the most reductive sexist ideology. Such theories help perpetuate women's oppression while they build a false theory of the object they purport to study.
We wish that a feminist science could come into being, which would account for hierarchical patriarchal structures (and their impact on individual people) and, by so doing, change the global analysis of society. Our daily lives would benefit from this feminist science : the emergence of subversive feminist discourses has allowed us and still allows us to alter the course of our lives. But we also want to know how a feminist viewpoint can intervene wherever the powers that be, whose direct aim is the reproduction of patriarchal structures, are in action. In certain professional domains (medicine, gynecology, psychology, psychoanalysis, social work) the issue of women's oppression is crucial because the problem of « abnormality » keeps arising and leads to normalizing therapeutic interventions.
Those are the words by which we identity our political perspective. The notion of radicalism starts from the recognition of (and from a political struggle against) the oppression of women by our patriarchal social system. In order to describe and unmask this oppression, arguments that have recourse to « nature » must be shattered, an undertaking that feminists set in motion several years ago and that should constitute one of our most solid gains. But things do not work that way : naturalist evidence, although it has been unmasked, still prevails, slyly and perniciously, in the very heart of the women's movement (where certain groups, strangely enough, delete the word « liberation » between the words « women » and « movement »). The present trend of « neo-femininity, » which attracts many women because it appears to be constructive, can be interpreted as a return to anti-feminist classicism, a fall in to one of the traps that patriarchy sets for us. For our oppression is not to be found in the fact that « we are not feminine enough » but on the contrary in the fact that we are too feminine. Under the pretext that we are « women, » « different, » we are prevented from fully leading the life of free and independent individuals. It is the patriarchal system which posits that we are « different » in order to justify and conceal our exploitation. It is the patriarchal system which prescribes the idea of a feminine « nature » and « essence. »
Radical feminism takes as its preliminary tenet the necessity to work within the areas that the first feminists conquered against naturalist ideology. This requires :
-- A deliberate refusal to probe, to elaborate, to project any concept of « woman » that would be unrelated to a social context.
-- The corollary to this refusal is our effort to deconstruct the notion of « sex differences » which gives a shape and a base to the concept of « woman » and is an integral part of naturalist ideology. The social mode of being of men and of women is in no way linked with their nature as males and females nor with the shape of their sex organs.
In a nonpatriarchal society, the question of being a man or a woman will not be asked in the terms in which it is asked today. All labor, all tasks will be performed by men and women. On the level of sexual practices, the distinction between homo- and heterosexuality will be meaningless since individuals will meet as singular individuals with their own specific history and not on the basis of their sexual identity.
-- To destroy the differences between the sexes is to abolish the hierarchy that today exists between two terms, one of which is defined in relationship to the other and in this process is kept in an inferior position. One cannot claim « the right to be different, » for this means in today's context « the right to be oppressed. » Our top priority is to claim the right to be autonomous (the right not to be the object of, owned by). Our second priority is each person's right to her or his singularity outside of any reference to sexual identity. This does not mean that « we wish to become men, » for at the same time as we destroy the idea of the generic « Woman, » we also destroy the idea of « Man. »
-- The destruction of the idea of « Man » : this notion represents another patriarchal trap. Unmasking naturalist ideology has allowed us to demonstrate how science and theories are sexist. The next step was to maintain that thought, language, and discourse are « masculine » and therefore hermetically closed to women. Those of us who took that step have reached a defeatist position which hampers ail of us. Hence another vicious circle of oppression that we must explore : on one band, by drawing attention to the fact that we recognize our oppression, we do not sum up our « being. » The social system is contradictory since it allows us, despite its oppressive practices, to be feminists, to decipher its oppressive mechanisms, more particularly, to track down what ideologies claim to be self-evident and to do this through language itself; on the other hand, by asserting that nothing in the social system is « masculine. » Certain scientific discourses, certain concepts are truncated and phoney insofar as they are based on power relations, not because they are elaborated by « men. » The « principal enemy » is a certain type of hierarchical social relation where men are involved as agents but not as biological beings.
Radical feminism also expresses itself in relation to the revolutionary political groups that today challenge the status quo. It rejects any interference in its affairs from established political groups and maintains that certain notions, certain key expressions are basically false (the idea of « primary struggle » and « secondary struggles »; the terroristic use of capitalism as the unique explanation). Radical feminism sets as its goals the rediscovery of a materialistic approach, by making political use of certain concepts. So that, if the notion of class distinction is correctly, i.e., dialectically posited — that is, based on the reality of oppressive dynamics instead of on a static content analysis — it can be said that women belong to the same social class, the same gender. The insistence that all women belong to the same social class — along with the breaking away from naturalist ideology — is the preliminary condition for any feminist struggle : the creation of the French women's liberation movement for instance relied on an adhesion to this concept which diverged from the reigning Marxist orthodoxy.
Today the radical feminist trend based on these subversive probings seems to be smothered both as an agent and as a voice. Newborn, or rather reborn, the new feminism is threatened within itself by a two-pronged reaction : leftist cooptation on one side and cooptation via the ideology of neo-femininity. These two factions that, each in its own more or less disguised way, serve the interests of patriarchy, are the only women's groups to be acknowledged by the media.
However, the radical feminist trend exists : it gave impetus to all the important feminist campaigns and it is the force behind all subversive action against womens' oppression, against hierarchical social organization. Moreover, it is acknowledged as a model by many separate and isolated groups all over France. The time has come for radical feminism to speak up, to have a place for theoretical and political encounters in order to share its experiences and analyses, and so that its achievements may be disseminated and disguised.
This is what we intend to contribute, within the limits of a quarterly. We hope that this undertaking will allow those papers that are sadly confined to desk drawers to come right out, and those papers that have not even been written, because there was no hope of their being published, to be written at last. [C.D. & M.P.]
[1] Since we wrote this editorial (in June 1977) things have moved in the feminist press. The « widely published monthly » we were calling for was born (F-Magazine), though it is not as feminist as we would wish. On the other hand, two new militant monthlies have appeared : Revue-ménage and Le temps des femmes, and a « journal of feminist politics » : La revue d'en face. This list is not exhaustive since mimeographed newsletters are not mentioned here. - authors note.