I have been concerned in this chapter to indicate something of multiple meaning and conceptual contestation. I have used the question ‘What is “woman”?’ at various points for exemplification. Sylvester (1999) is similarly concerned with the meanings and representations of ‘woman’ and her research explores this through the further problematic concept of progress. Specifically, Sylvester considers how, and if, we can conceptualize progress through women’s lives and testimonies. The framework
of Sylvester’s paper is a deconstructive analysis of narratives of progression and its linkage to issues of identity. In this she notes: ‘Progress is at once a very common, common notion, easily grasped by the modern mind, and something difficult to understand and make happen or to repudiate absolutely’ (ibid.: 90). As Sylvester also notes, progress can be an embarrassing word for feminists as it reminds them of a one-for-all 1970s’ marching feminism where progression was guaranteed once one could agree on the best route to utopia. Clinton exemplifies the ambivalence toward progress in contemporary feminist theorizing as ‘Sex in the US White House humbles some feminists for whom that skulker in dark corridors has been a darling of progress for women’ (ibid.). Thus, ‘Progress exists/does not exist, is asserted/contested in many ways. How does one investigate the elusive relevant and irrelevant wanted and absent? How does one research trickster ‘‘progress’’ at this point in time?’ (ibid.: 91).
Sylvester’s response to these questions is to argue that what is vitally necessary is to ‘refocus and look at the everyday social constitution of ‘‘progress’’’ (ibid.: 92). Her paper is therefore based on interviews that she conducted between 1988 and 1993 with women in Zimbabwe’s commercial farming and factories. Here she is concerned to ‘telescope’ their descriptions of their daily work and their desires for what they do not have. This is because ‘the usual ways of studying progress [e. g. through statistical and economic analyses] are not designed to take the concerns of local ‘‘women’’ into account’ (ibid.). The questions that Sylvester asked included whether they found their work met their expectations or was satisfactory, what changes, if any, they would make in their workplaces and what they would do if they were the President of Zimbabwe. Most importantly, Sylvester adds, she asked ‘Are you women?’ and ‘How do you know?’ Sylvester threads this interview data with fictional representations of women from noted Zimbabwean literature produced in the 1980s and early 1990s.
Sylvester’s research illustrates the connections between meanings of progress and meanings of ‘woman’ in varied ways. In fiction these connections include:
• woman as having progressed because she is ‘freed from the fetters of loyalty to fixed and inherited places’ (ibid.: 94);
• woman as in need of progress because she is ‘the dregs of agricultural labor. . . the non-permanent, casual, . . . desperate’ (ibid.: 94-5);
• woman as progress because she is the labour aristocracy.
Women’s own accounts similarly illustrated these fictionalized elements and illustrated how women experienced sexual harassment and the common gendered inequalities in access to promotion, permanent work, equal pay and positions of power and influence in worker representation systems. Their testimonies also illustrated how women sought to circumvent and resist these imperatives to lack of progress. Sylvester indicates how “‘Progress’’ existed in everyday narratives of effort and movement and in the counter-efforts of others to patch up problems and get on with progress’ (ibid.: 111). The women that Sylvester interviewed also offered multiple meanings of woman. They noted that they could not speak for ‘all’ women, that some women may have different views and politics about ‘progress’. Sometimes they could point to particular women as exemplars of progress. Nonetheless, ‘Always [progress] was a desiring of movement around the usual rules for women at work. And just as always, the outcome would be ambiguous. Would the fiesty factory ‘‘women’’ be promoted? Would commercial farm ‘‘women’’ get women supervisors? Were the transgressions we noted powerful or just quick tricks?’ (ibid.: 112). Sylvester’s paper makes it clear that there are no easy answers to these questions. This is because in terms of its meanings and empirics, ‘Progress is so tricky’ (ibid.: 113).
Summary
As an opening chapter I have attempted to illustrate what has influenced my own thinking in framing this text. What follows explores key terms in feminist theory to illustrate their diverse conceptualization and their application in feminist research. In the concluding chapter I return to the issue of conceptual literacy. Here I am concerned to indicate ways in which conceptual literacy might be further developed.
FURTHER READING
Connolly, W. (1993) The Terms of Political Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell (Third Edition). This is a classic text on conceptual contestation. It is written primarily for politics students and draws on the term ‘politics’ for exemplification.
Plumwood, V. (1993) Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. London: Routledge. Plumwood does an excellent job in illustrating the distinctions between binaries and dualism. I have only had space here to draw attention to this issue and so would recommend much fuller consultation of her work.