Defining Feminism
I've long had a niggling feeling of unease about feminism, a reason I couldn't express for not being a feminist. Lately, I more and more believe that the reason I've struggled to rationalize that feeling, or to think in a clear manner about feminism generally, is that no definition of feminism exists. The problem is that you can't criticize what you can't define. Many have argued that feminism is an "essentially contested concept", meaning that no common definition of it is possible. In this article, I beg to differ.
Metric's
Before I give my own definition, a word on epistemology. The problem with establishing what feminism means is that, unlike objects of inquiry in the natural sciences, neither words nor ideologies really exist and there is no objective meaning out there to find. Whereas an astrophysicist studying the temperature of a star can be certain that the star does actually have a temperature which remains constant regardless of who observes it, the same is not true of feminism which exists only in our minds and the characteristics of which are hence entirely subjective. Before I can give my definition there needs to be a clear standard for how to judge whether any definition of a word is fair or acceptable.
There are a few possible metrics I can think of for finding the meaning of words, especially those describing political movements and ideologies:
- How far a definition is in line with the source material
- How far a definition is in line with what people in general understand feminism to mean
- How far a definition is in line with what self-identifying feminists actually believe
Each of these has their own problems. Judging definitions based on source material is difficult as feminism, unlike ideologies such as Marxism, lacks a single source. Even if such a source existed, over time a movement's beliefs can diverge significantly from the source text meaning a source based definition may well not describe modern feminism just as the old testament does not describe modern Christianity. As for looking at popular understanding of a word or movement, ignorance becomes an issue. After all, just because people think a movement stands for something does not mean that that is actually the case. For example, if it was the case that 90% of Americans believed that Buddhism was a religion based entirely on war and violence, I would not be willing to call actual Buddhists fakes simply because they were too peaceful. After all, it seems that an ideology should be defined at least partially by what it actually is as opposed to what people believe it to be. A final way to assess what feminism actually stands for is to look at the beliefs of feminists. Again, this metric is far from perfect. Do feminists actually believe what they believe they believe? Who is a feminist and who is not?
How to define a word or an ideology is very tricky and I could go into great length on why one metric is preferable. I won't do that. I've already said why a source based definition is impractical, as for the other criteria I'll accept the highest burden and say that my definition of feminism has to be in line both with what feminists actually believe and with what the average person thinks feminism means. The following are the three specific criteria I derive from the metrics:
How to define a word or an ideology is very tricky and I could go into great length on why one metric is preferable. I won't do that. I've already said why a source based definition is impractical, as for the other criteria I'll accept the highest burden and say that my definition of feminism has to be in line both with what feminists actually believe and with what the average person thinks feminism means. The following are the three specific criteria I derive from the metrics:
- The beliefs that define feminism should be shared by the overwhelming majority of people who identify as feminists.
- These beliefs must be generally accepted as feminist by non-feminists
- Those beliefs must not have overwhelming public acceptance
The reason criterion 1's requirements are stronger than those of criterion 2, overwhelming majority as opposed to generally accepted, is that when looking for what feminism means I put more weight on what feminists actually believe as opposed to what non-feminists think feminism means. The last criterion, exclusivity, is nothing more than garbage collection. Without it anything feminists believe, for example that rape is wrong, would define feminism.
My Definition: Feminism as Inequality
What is feminism? I say that feminism is defined by three core beliefs:
The final premise, that unjustified inequalities should be changed, is largely tautological, being a necessary extension of the first two principles, and thus follows the same reasoning as 1 and 2.
- Women are worse off than men
- This inequality is mostly unjustified
- Action should be taken to rectify this inequality.
By extension, in order to be a feminist a person must accept all three of these beliefs. But is this a fair definition?
The first premise, that women are worse off than men, seems to be common to virtually every feminist and feminist organization I have ever met, satisfying the first condition. Likewise it seems that the average person would accept that feminists believe that women are worse off than men, satisfying condition two. The real problem with this premise is whether it is specific to feminism. I believe that there is not truly overwhelming acceptance for the idea in society generally but this is a conclusion I am not certain of and certainly the weakest point of my argument.
The second premise, that such inequality is unjustified, once again seems to be common to most of the feminists I have seen. Again, it seems to be a fair characterization of what feminists believe and what a member of the public would accept as a feminist belief. Finally, despite being shared by many on the left, I would say it is not prevalent throughout our society as many believe that there exist innate differences between men and women which justify certain levels of inequality.
The final premise, that unjustified inequalities should be changed, is largely tautological, being a necessary extension of the first two principles, and thus follows the same reasoning as 1 and 2.
A final word
Definitions are important. Mine is not perfect but I don't know of any which are better.
Member discussion