A report on the Introduction of 'Theories of Women's Studies'

Edited by : Gloria Bowles and Renate Duelli Klein

The beginning of the academic study of gender dates back to the 60s. Its emergence was
to draw attention to the ways in which all academic disciplines and sets of knowledge prior to this
date ignored women's experiences, interests and even their entire presence. For the academic
disciplines and particularly sociology, differences between men and women were not recognized
as issues worthy of exploration. In this vein that gender studies took it upon itself to fill in the gaps
of knowledge about women, that resulted chiefly from previous male bias and ill incorporation of
women in the action of research. The book under analysis was published by Rutledge and Kegan
Paul in 1983 and is the fruit of a cooperation between two editors who are :Gloria Bowles :
coordinator of women's studies program at the university of California Berkeley , her main fields
of inquiry are women's studies as an academic discipline and women's poetry. And Renate Duelli
Klein , a feminist , writer, and a senior lecturer in women's studies , currently working as an
associate professor at Deakni University's school of social and international studies in Burswood ,
Melbourne . The book is not the only collaborative work she had with Gloria Bowles , they have
also worked on the "women's studies international forum", a bimonthly feminist journal. My report
will mainly focus on the three main ideas that the introduction entitled "Theories of Women's
Studies and the Autonomy/ Integration Debate" presents. First, I'll present the standpoints of the
integrationist and the autonomous approaches as well as the editors own stance from the matter.
Then I'll move to speak about the challenges that faced feminist scholars in their construction of
theories. And finally I shall devote the last part to tackle the issue of methodologies.

The publication has its origins in the first national women's studies association seminar in
Laurence, Kansas in 1979 coordinated by a set of WS figures such as : Emily Abel , Shirley
Harkess, Debby Rosenfelt and Peg Strobel. The meeting has evaluated WS scholars achievements
and contributions to the field in the duration of ten years , and has most importantly raised the
debate between feminists about the nature of WS in higher education. This first part will mainly
discuss the two approaches that have emerged subsequent this disputation: the integrationist and
the autonomous models .
 The first approach I'll be dealing with is the integrationist. Proponents of this latter adhere
to the view that the change of education and sets of knowledge will take place only through
incorporating WS in the curriculum. In accordance to this, Montana state university has proposed
a project of two years program. The aim behind it is to try to decrease gender bias in education.
Another project adopted by Wheaton college, Massachusetts, hoped through its integrationist
program to foster a more equal or balanced curriculum that combines both men and women's
experiences. Scholars that support the integrationist approach of WS in higher education claim that
changes within the system of knowledge and education that are mainly male-based will take place
only by forcing the change to occur from within . This can be further elaborated by going back to
Caolyn Lougee's saying :" it was inadvisable to have a separate compensatory core curriculum for
those with special interests. This would reaffirm the marginality of women's studies and in a
perverse way relieve teachers in the mainline course from the obligation to deal with women's
issues". Concerning this approache’s weaknesses , the editors have provided a variety that can be
summed as follows. . The scholar in this approaches is always doubly burdened. That is to say, she
is detained in the other disciplines , that she spends time developing and enriching rather than
focusing on her main interest in WS. Another problem that this approach brings to the surface is
‘invisibility’. Writers such as Dale Spender acknowledge their fear that this approach will
ultimately lead to the neglect and disappearance of women within the other traditional male
spheres.

The second approach is the autonomous or discreet. The scholars of this stream refuse
any 'reform' from within the system, that is in their esteem mainly based on androcentric values.
Rather they call for a thorough detachment from this male-based curriculum , and propose a shift
to a system that takes as its frame of reference women's ideas, needs and interests .Instead of
conceiving WS as 'ghettos' as integrationists do. This approach endeavours to change the present
state of affairs marked by oppression and the dominance of the advantaged few over the
disadvantaged many , to a system that is aware , tolerant, respectful and compromising of the
different experiences and interests of plethora of people. The editors provide many reasons to
support their stance in favour of the autonomous model. First, the links that bring together feminists
inside the academy and the community make always the potential of imposing changes on society
highly possible and viable. They also prevent WS from falling into the rigid frame of ' Elitism' that
is writing and thinking for the elite or the privileged few. The second reason is that autonomous
WS program would open a huge platform of inclusive-based inquiries in which women from all
backgrounds can engage. Last but not least, a woman-cantered education will certainly conserve
WS scholars from invisibility. It will enable them from generating knowledge about their own
experiences in a context that is free from male hegemony and male influence . It will lead to the
perpetuation of feminist thought and will make it available for all people interested in the field.

Amongst the questions that were risen in the seminar , is one that concerns women's fear of
theorizing or hostility towards theories, either because theorizing is assumed to be a male_centered
speciality, or because theories have been neglectful or misogynist towards women. In her response
to the debate held in the "theories of women's studies " seminar Nina Nerdgren insisted in her paper
on 'feminist fear of science theory' that :'why should we let ourselves be afraid of theory? What
we should be afraid of is the noncritical and blind acceptance of theory what we should be afraid
of is accepting old myths as truths and one of these old myths is surely that theory itself is the
ultimate truth’. The very last idea in Nordegren's quotation is asserted by Dale Spender who
acknowledges the relativity of all truths, and contends that all theories are on a constant and
ongoing trajectory of change by the change of knowledge in that field. And thus theories in their
traditional or conventional meaning were totally refused by women's studies scholars .Theory in
the Oxford Concise Dictionary is defined as " a supposition or system of ideas explaining
something especially one based on general principles independent of the facts phenomena’.
Feminist scholars oppose this definition in chiefly three manners .First they insist that any theory
has to align facts and feelings for the purpose of thoroughly scrutinizing and reflecting women's
experiences .And the second , any theory for them must be action based that is to necessarily
generate social change. Third and this is asserted by Taly Rutenberg in her article "Learning
Women's Studies " in which she emphasizes on the intrinsic role of student's intellectual and
emotional involvement with the subject matter in class in the construction of women's studies
theories.

Speaking about theories would necessarily lead us to the discussion of how these theories
can be transformed into actions. Feminist scholars all agree or share the conviction that all
methodological research must be based on the will to enhance women's lives and to alleviate the
patriarchal oppression that restricts and paralyzes their thinking and actions. Maria Mies's article
"Towards a Methodology for Feminist Research» gives in details the steps any women's studies’
researcher must follow . The main idea she focuses on is the researcher's link to the researched.
She states that the researcher must acknowledge her biases and must conduct a research from
below, that is to be an active participant in «women’s community " in order to have an all-
encompassing and profound understanding of her sample's experiences , ideas , interests and
demands . The researcher must also keep in regard the goal behind her work which is to change
women's status quo in society.

The significance of this introduction lies in its mapping of the evolution of WS ten years
after its establishment. It highlights the different controversies among feminist scholars and their
long-term visions for the future of women's studies. It also highlights a crucial idea , that is unity
despite difference and diversity. The editors refer to the importance of support and knowledge
exchange between the integrationist/autonomous proponents. I'll conclude this paper with Liz
Stanley and Sue Wise’s quote wherein they state the ultimate aim of every feminist, regardless of
her personal attitudes or vision of women's studies :"we 're first, foremost, and last, feminists , not
feminist phenomenologists , feminist Marxists or feminist hyphen anything else. Our interest and
concern is with feminism and feminist revolution".