Spelman Annotation – Feminist Theory

It seems as though there exists a paradox embedded in the North American Feminist Theory. All women experience similar expectations that come with womanhood – a “universal sameness” if you will. Yet at the same time each woman’s degree of experiences are influenced by their demographics. Thus, the conflict prevails: should feminists unify all women under a shared “womanhood” while concealing differences among women? Or should they instead focus on these intersections of class, race/ethnicity, ability, etc. in the identity and experiences of being a woman, risking inter-gender conflict and hierarchy? This is the very conflict Elizabeth Spelman addresses in her book, Inessential Woman. She calls for Feminist Theory to challenge the idea of universal womanhood, and reveals how Western feminism has become that of white, middle-class feminism. Thus, Spelman supports a theory that takes the intersectionality of women’s identities into account, while acknowledging women’s shared experience of sexism (to varying degrees). 

The dangers of overlooking diversity in the feminist theory is best explained via Spelman’s parallels between Western philosophical thought and Western ethno-centered feminism. Western philosophy is historically influenced by Plato and Aristotle’s work on the relationship between a person’s soul (or identity) and body (or demographics). This philosophy assigns rankings of ‘humanness’, or power, based on one’s body, which is linked to the soul and identity of a person. This hierarchy of power based on the “nature” of beings from particular demographics (usually white and male being the top) can be seen in Western feminist theories as well. By labeling a white woman’s experience of discrimination as a universal experience for all women, these theorists are not only neglecting non-white women’s experiences, but they are also neglecting the fact that gender-based discrimination takes varying forms based on intersectional oppressions. By disregarding diversity in the white-feminist movement, it automatically forms an invisible hierarchy that falls superior to white woman. 

While there are dangers in viewing womanhood as a universal experience for all women, Spelman also recognizes the dangers of focusing too much attention on inter-gender diversity. First, sexism affects all women regardless of other social identities. Secondly, drawing that much attention to differences within this demographic increases the risk for inter-gender hierarchies.  But the point Spelman is trying to make is that each woman’s experience as a woman (in other words, sexism) is highly dependent and influenced by additional demographics that make up a woman’s full identity. It is also linked to the history of how women’s bodies were treated and respected, and interwoven with other oppressions in a way that makes them intersect in multiple dimensions. 

The concluding point that Spelman emphasizes is that Feminist Theory should not focus on rigid definitions of universal womanhood, nor should it focus primarily on the differences that exist among women. Instead, this theory must challenge Western feminist’s ethno-centric agenda of white middle-class feminism, and define feminism as an intersectional discipline for all woman’s rights. Lastly, she stresses that while sexism is a shared experience, it can take on many shapes and sizes based on the additional demographics that make up a woman’s identity – just as pebbles contain as shared element of “pebbleness”, but are unique in physical form and composition.