ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION: Where is Feminism's "Fourth Wave"?

As we move into the fourth decade of the women's movement, how have research questions and activist strategies changed, and how are young researchers and activists framing questions and strategies? Panelists discussed how new research is incorporating gendered analyses; how new knowledge produced informs action; in what ways and in what contexts organizing around gender is important; and the kinds of alliances and networks that now need to be formed.

Participants: Diana Wells, (PhD Candidate, Director of Fellowship Support Services at Ashoka); Martha Whitaker (PhD Candidate, SIROW); Sarah Boonin (Coordinator, Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance); Crystal Kile (Education Coordinator, Newcomb College Center for Research on Women, Tulane University); Nadia Moritz (Executive Director, The Young Women's Project); Yin Ling Leung (Executive Director, Asians and Pacific Islanders for Reproductive Health); Sarah Boonin was accompanied by two field assistants from the Feminist Majority, Niyati Shah and Sylvia Enriquez.

Moderator: Deborah Thomas (International Projects Coordinator, NCRW)

Respondents to Fourth Wave Roundtable: Joyce Gelb (Director, Women's Studies Program, The Graduate Center, CUNY); Beverly Guy-Sheftall (Director, Women's Research and Resource Center, Spelman College)

Deborah Thomas began the session by explaining that the "Fourth Wave" indicates, in her understanding of the various phases of feminist theory and action, a generation under thirty -- the generation following the late 1970s critique (continuing through the present) of mid-1970s/early-1970s "middle class" US feminism by African-American women, Chicanas, Latinas, and others involved in the international women's movement. Despite coming from different perspectives as researchers, as activists, as women living in different regions in the US, there seem to be trends in terms of a generational perspective on relevant research questions and appropriate activism. After the panelists introduced themselves and their work, they delineated what they see as some of the defining characteristics of their generation of feminist research and activism.

Deborah raised two sets of discussion questions to guide the roundtable discussion: 1) How do you feel the "foremothers" have laid a foundation for the kind of work you're doing? How do you feel what you're doing builds upon this, challenges it, broadens it? 2) What do you envision as the next transformation, the next step? How do you see this coming about? What kinds of alliances do you feel have to happen, between research and action, between organizations, between generations, between women and men?

Crystal Kile said that one of the significant differentiating factors for this generation of young women is that it is a generation of feminists who have come of age with an existing institutional structure, a generation with a feminist history. Sarah Boonin echoed this assertion, arguing that the current generation is a generation of Women's Studies graduates, and can therefore imagine in a way made possible by "foremothers." (To this point, during the discussion that followed the panel, one audience member, a graduating senior, said she was toying with making feminism a career, something she felt was inconceivable -- and financially untenable -- for a previous generation of college graduates.)

Diana Wells argued that while certain ideas have followed through each "wave" of feminism, such as the belief that feminist scholarship is inherently activist, this generation has gone further in the recognition of multiple and competing feminisms, leading to a greater willingness to "hash out" the particularities of different historical, socio-economic, and political contexts shaping women's lives. Diana also said that for this generation of researchers, it is more taken for granted that analyzing gender doesn't only mean studying women. Relatedly, Martha Whitaker pointed to the shift in focus from classroom climate to content with respect to integrating feminist and scientific knowledges as very "fourth-wavish."

Despite a greater comfort with the idea of plural feminisms, or perhaps because of it, Crystal pointed out that there is also a fair amount of confusion and cultural conflict regarding the meaning of feminism today. Nadia Moritz suggested that this confusion may have unexpected benefits. She said that whereas women in their twenties and early thirties could be seen as part of an "I'm not a feminist, but..." generation, younger women and teenage girls constitute an "I'm not a feminist, what? Feminist?" generation. Her experience is that younger women have fewer stereotypes about what feminists are, take for granted that women have to have equal access to everything, believe in collectivity, and understand the need to support peers, not because they believe in these as feminist principles, but out of a need to make sense of their lives and the issues they deal with on a daily basis. For them, she said, feminism is a survival tool.

Panelists also agreed that the fourth wave is rooted in a politics of inclusiveness. Yin Ling Leung stated that for her organization, what this means is moving beyond "programming for girls" to helping girls develop their own power and organizaing skills in order to lead their communities to a position of greater power. Others agreed that this politics of inclusiveness emphasizes a methodological commitment to involving younger women in the development of research and activist projects, rather than presenting them with a pre-determined set of ideas. This commitment, however, requires a lot of outreach and hard work.

Martha Whitaker gave several examples of this from her own experiences as a graduate student in both Women's Studies and Hydrology. She described some of the challenges that arose from her decisions to involve the community at large in data collection for her Ph.D. research, and to draw from feminist pedagogical tools in the classroom. While both of these processes ultimately benefitted from her commitment to inclusivity, she explained that they also required a greater time commitment from her, both in terms of completing the work and in terms of negotiating different (and sometimes conflicting) perspectives.

An emphasis on inclusivity is not, however, cut and dry. Nadia argued that since inclusivity means different things for different organizations, it can't only be addressed from a theoretical perspective. Just as important, if not moreso, is attention to the composition of boards, staffs, and leadership structures within organizations, with respect to research, how it's done, who it's done with, and whether it's possible to involve young women and girls in a way that would be empowering to them. Questions have also arisen regarding the nature of effective coalition building. Yin expressed a degree of caution regarding "rampant inclusivity," saying this movement isn't for everybody if some core values are not shared. She urged fourth wave feminists to develop explicit values pertaining both to inclusivity, and to who should benefit from current feminist scholarship and activism.

Yin also made the point, echoed by Niyati Shah and Sylvia Enriquez, that this generation is not bifurcated in their activism; in other words, they refuse to choose between mobilizing as feminists or as people of color. Rather, they recognize that the issues requiring change cross all boundaries. Diana's research in Trinidad, a country where electoral politics has traditionally been divided along ethnic lines, supported this observation. Her research revealed that women's social networks crossed ethnic divisions, and that therefore when the basis of mobilization was an issue (rather than an identity) women formed broader coalitions than men, and were able to re-conceptualize power relationships in the society at large.

In terms of forging alliances, Yin argued that it is necessary also to organize boys and men because the work girls are doing in communities could be undermined without their support. Within anti-sexism work, therefore, cross-gender alliances need to be formed. Additionally, Sarah advocated for inter-generational dialogue between faculty members, students, and community members in an activist arena, saying that this kind of union is at the heart of transforming research into action.

One of the most significant differences faced by this generation of women is the technological revolution, and the need to confront (and preempt) a "digital divide," in order that girls -- and particularly poor girls and girls of color -- are not left behind in gaining access to, using, and directing the development of new technologies and media. Panelists also pointed out that since the right wing is organizing over the internet, feminists must use this medium in order to fight back.

Respondents Beverly Guy-Sheftall and Joyce Gelb were both heartened and inspired by the optimism of the young women. Nevertheless, Beverly cautioned the women, suggesting they develop a radical skepticism, because her experiences, and the experiences of her students, indicate that it is still very difficult to be inclusive and work across difference to transform the world. Joyce argued that dividing the feminist movement into "waves" creates a kind of false opposition between them, when she doesn't see any fundamental incompatabilities between the generations in terms of vision. She advocated for increased intergenerational dialogue, and for the creation of additional coalitions and networks that would serve as a countervailing pressure to the conflicts that sometimes emerge among the multiplicity of feminisms.

First Annual Award for Women Leaders Who Make a Difference

Planning Committee: Eleanor V. Horne (Chair), Caryn McTighe Musil, Shari Miles, Linda Basch, Cynthia Secor, Judith Sturnick (Director, OWHE, ACE), Judy Touchton (OWHE, ACE)

Invocation: Margaret Wilkerson (Program Officer, The Ford Foundation)

Keynote Speaker: Alison Bernstein (Vice President, Education, Media, Arts, and Culture, Ford Foundation)

Previous Page

Next Page

Back to the program