WommsSrudwsInt. Forum. Vol. 7. No 3.pp. 177-183. 1984 0277-5395/W 13.

W+ (Xl
Punted I Great Brnam Pergamon Press Ltd.

THE UNEASY ALLIANCE OFFEMINISM AND ACADEMIA

MARIAN LOWE?

Department of Chemistry, University of Southern California, University Park, Los Angeles, CA 90089, U.S.A.
and
MARGARETLOWE BENSTON?

Womens Studies Program, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada VSA lS6

Synopsis-The authors argue that some integrationists are seriously underestimating the degree to
which the university is embedded in the overall social structure, a role which has not developed
accidentally, and which is not likely to change without concurrent major changes in other
institutions. Although it is understandable why integrationist strategies have developed and why
some projects may be useful, it is also important to think about how they may undermine the radical
goals of feminist scholarship and our ties to the community.

The debate in Womens Studies about the proper
balance between integration of feminist scholarship
into the mainstream curriculum and autonomous
Womens Studies programs has been with us since
the first programs were developed. However, these
questions have acquired a particular urgency right
now, as an increasing emphasis is placed on integra-
tion. At issue is not only the success Womens
Studies is likely to have reaching its goals but,
potentially, also the long term survival of feminist
programs within universities and colleges.
Assessments of the proper balance between
integration and autonomy should be done keeping
in mind the origins and goals of Womens Studies
(Boxer, 1982). Feminist scholarship and Womens
Studies both came, of course, directly out of the
Womens Movement. Feminist scholarship has
taken on not simply the task of developing an
understanding of the world that takes women into
account. It also has as its explicit goal the search tar
the origins of womens oppression and the formula-
* Permanent address: Chemistry Department, Boston
University. Boston, MA 02215, U.S.A.
t Marian Lowe, a physical chemist by training, is
presently a Visiting Professor for Women in Science and
Engineering at the University of Southern California in
Los Angeles. She teaches regularly at Boston Universitv.
where she has directed the-Womens Studies program:
With Ruth Hubbard, she edited the recentlv released
Womens Nature: Rationalization of Inequality p;bIished in
the Athene Series by Pergamon Press. Margaret Lowe
Benston. who was trained as a chemist, teaches in
Womens Studies and Computing Science at Simon Fraser
University in British Columbia.
177
tion of effective strategies for change. Women?
Studies was developed primarily as one of these
strategies for change. It was seen as a way of
disseminating feminist scholarship and of educating
for change. The basis of feminist scholarship and of
Womens Studies is thus a commitment to social
change, specifically addressed to ending the oppres-
sion of women.
The central questions and the major theoretical
approaches of feminist scholarship were developed
within the different branches of the Womens
Movement. The major underpinning common to all
is the conception of human characteristics as having
been divided along gender lines. Feminists, albeit in
different ways, have as a major goal, the healing of
this split and a redefinition of the meaning of
human in a way that does not depend on gender.
Feminists thus see themselves as ultimately speaking
for everyone. There has been a general recognition
that changing womens role will require change in
social institutions as well as in individual conscious-
ness, although the degree to which institutions are
questioned and the emphasis placed on individual or
institutional change varies in the different branches
of feminism.
FEMINISM AND WOMENS STUDIES
To the extent that choice has been possible in
institutional settings, feminist principles have been
the basis of the development of the structure of
Womens Studies. More than any other social
movement in contemporary society, feminism has
shown a sensitivity to oppression in all of its forms.
178 MARIANLOWE and MARGARETLOWE BENSTO~
As a consequence of this, there is a strong egali-
tarian and anti-elitist element in feminism which has
strongly affected Womens Studies. Feminism has
also given Womens Studies a strong collectivist
tendency because of the feminist conviction that
individual development and strength depends on
support from a community. Most important,
perhaps, is the influence of that part of feminist
theory which deals with the interaction between the
individual and social context. This was expressed in
early feminist writing as the personal is political,
and was initially an exploration of the ways in which
hierarchical. authoritarian, elitist, patriarchal and
exploitative elements in society are part of our own
consciousness. Feminists. including those in
Womens Studies, have been committed to over-
coming such elements and to resisting honorary
maleness in our lives. As a consequence, autono-
mous Womens Studies programs have been seen as
places where a structure could be developed to
support styles of work and relations to colleagues
and students that differ significantly from overall
university or college norms.
The understanding of the effect of social context
on the individual has had a profound effect on
feminist scholarship as well, and has led to feminist
critiques of objective scholarship and a recognition
of the way personal bias can affect scholarly work.
In fact, the quest for objectivity is seen as futile by
feminist scholars, since biases are inherent in our
view of the world. This recognition, that social
context inevitably structures ones perception of
reality and ones production of knowledge is
probably the most revolutionary aspect of the new
scholarship on women and is the main reason that
feminists are convinced that acceptance of feminist
scholarship by other disciplines implies a restructur-
ing of knowledge within those disciplines.
The different branches of feminism have each
made significant contributions to feminist scholar-
ship and to Womens Studies. In discussing these
contributions, we will use here the usual labels for
different kinds of feminists. But it should be
recognized not only that the labels are imprecise and
represent abstractions of real positions but also that
most feminists share all of these views to some
extent and differ primarily in emphasis.
Liberal feminists ask for equal opportunity to
compete within the existing system. This branch of
feminism is much less committed to egalitarian aims
and collective work styles than the others and makes
the general assumption that women will act like men
given the equal opportunity. Attempts at institu-
tional change are directed toward those ideas and
institutions that seem to keep women in disadvan-
taged positions, such as sex-role socialization,
inequality of opportunity, unequal access to
education, and female responsibility for childrearing
and housework. The assumption is that womens
oppression serves no real social function. so that the
institutions seen as specifically oppressive to women
can be changed without any fundamental change in
other social institutions.
The liberal feminist idea that changes in indi-
vidual consciousness are the critical factors in
eliminating womens oppression has been a strong
element in the development of Womens Studies
and has provided a useful. if limited. focus on the
very real legal and social barriers faced by women in
our society. In Womens Studies. the elimination of
sexism in the curriculum and balancing the curricu-
lum has been an important goal.
Radical feminists argue that the oppression of
women is built into the very structure of our society.
The division between the sexes, based on the
patriarchal family, is seen as fundamental to social
organization. Other hierarchical. oppressive social
structures are development that come out of patri-
archy. Thus, all such structures must be rejected if
women are to be liberated. This branch of feminism
sees equality for women within the present system as
impossible and calls for a radical restructuring of
society. involving the eliminations of patriarchy and
along with it all other hierarchical structures.
The radical feminist analysis has led to a focus on
womens lives and strengths and has been particu-
larly concerned with an examination of power in
personal and sexual relationships. The separatism
that has resulted from the radical feminist viewpoint
has led to the creation of a separate and exciting
womens culture in contemporary society. In
Womens Studies the analysis given by radical
feminism has provided an important framework for
much of feminist scholarship, while the existence of
a separate womens culture has helped to create a
sense of community.
The Marxist and socialist feminists also believe
that womens oppression is so deeply rooted that
only a basic restructuring of society can change it.
This branch of feminism emphasizes the way in
which the specific form of womens oppression
changes from one society to another and links the
position of women to economic and social institu-
tions characteristic of a particular society. The
contributions made by these feminists to feminist
scholarship have been an emphasis on the interplay
of social structures and the details of peoples lives.
an examination of the economic and social functions
of womens roles in particular societies and thus an
idea of what kinds of barriers exist to changing
them, and finally, an idea of the relationship of
womens oppression to that of other groups. A
particular contribution to Womens Studies has been
an analysis of the university as a social institution
and its function as an agent of social control.
The different political points of view have led to a
great deal of conflict within Womens Studies. but
their interaction has also been responsible for the
 The of Feminism Academia 179

richness of scholarship and and, in created w0men.s

contributed to ability of to think
the prevailing systems. Although the produced in univer-
Much feminist scholarship date has sities not objective value-free, those
done by scholars based traditional the work convinced that is. This
disciplines. Womens Studies to is possible of the meaning
a extent have a means feminists given objectivity. Objective unbiased have
based different departments communicate. to to mean and uninvolved. this
their work others who similar criterion, work which political action
assumptions, find support a sense social change nonobjective and As a
community, and find a for attempting put there is systematic bias maintaining
feminist into practice. major activi- the quo in mainstream disciplines,
of most Studies programs been the universities sources of stability.
around Feminist other scholars repeatedly shown
The focus teaching developed several lack of and the toward the
reasons. these was commitment to quo. in behavioral and sciences in
change which that knowledge to be to the where some bored with
The choice teaching as vehicle for need to the same over and
feminist knowledge then a result of (among others Spender (1982). (1983)),
skills that of the Womens Studies Hubbard Lowe (1979) Miles and
already had. addition. resources (1983). The analysis of interaction
made available support teaching. the between and the of knowledge
beginning, have responded to shown the of the view and precon-
Womens offerings. In Womens ceptions the knower to any
Studies has offered useful to Given a that takes m a
teaching programs colleges and and tive society, of vested and decidedly
most have taken of it. with sexism, and poverty
in Womens has cost its faults, is not that psychologists
little, and have received great deal return just one produce theories male vs
in of student brains or research aimed finding ways
get working to accept and lack
interest in jobs. History, literature
and whole range scholarly activities the
university very different done by
WOMENS STUDIES ACADEMIA
with different points from normal ones.
In of the growth since styles within are based the
appearance in late 1960s Studies has ideal the competitive with its
fit easily academia. It been a hierarchy and These, coupled
question whether goals and the lack women and in most
of Womens were incompatible the act to the norms the outside
university This, of has to with the Scholars working this framework
nature of Studies and able to work which and
supposedly objective of the stabilizes structures and various
As feminist other critical has interests, patriarchal ones, still
shown, are not of the retaining illusion that are doing
of society. is an of the search unbiased, objective Current academic
for and wisdom scholars on of on theories sex differences behavior
the community. Objectivity-that neutral, and social roles rooted in differen-
unbiased supposed to the steady ces the sexes an important of
toward more knowledge. But this
are political economic institutions The myth objectivity is extremely strongly
as such. serve political economic one. It been very in
interests. knowledge produced them shaping various disciplines it is clear how
reflects Among other the universities impact the have had are likely
major agents social control. done have. The of objectivity there is
within university in ways serves is not misperception that by chance
interests of who benefit our present 1975). It been carefully
system. Specifically, scholarship has (whether consciously no is matter). The
an important of the which has that the scientific method
180 MARIANLOWE and MARGARETLOWE BENSTON
somehow frees one from any question of who that
approach serves is one which has consistently
appeared in the academic freedom literature of the
20th century. In fact, the emphasis on objective
scholarship acts to limit inquiry to topics which do
not threaten the social order, since any scholarship
which explicitly discusses the desirability of social
change is seen as special pleading and nonobjective.
A look at the history of the development of the
various disciplines makes it clear that the profes-
sions and professional associations were set up so as
to take control of knowledge, primarily through
enforcing standards of objectivity. As part of this
control, radical thought tied to social movements
has been consistently and overtly excluded. The
rhetoric of objectivity has been fostered to obscure
very real political purposes of knowledge produced
within the universities.
Given the degree to which a distorted objectivity
has been established as a basic criterion for judging
scholarship, the explicitly political orientation of
feminist scholarship and of Womens Studies has
inevitably made it suspect to anyone who is in the
mainstream. Feminist scholarship is regarded by
many non-feminists as lacking in rigor, as tainted by
politics or simply as special pleading. All of the
other aspects of Womens Studies programs which
represent significant deviations from the norm have
been seen as additional evidence for feminists basic
lack of soundness and untrustworthiness as scholars,
since both control of knowledge and work styles are
so closely tied to the biases inherent in work in the
traditional disciplines. Thus, recognition of the
validity of knowledge gained by nonprofessionals,
nonhierarchical work styles and treatment of
students as active participants in the educational
process are all viewed with deepest suspicion.
This has led to a basic dilemma for feminists. It
has not been clear that Womens Studies could
remain feminist and still remain in the university. As
Mary Howell points out, feminists who attempt to
work in professional areas face a fundamental
conflict between the principles they hold and the
imperatives of their jobs. For some, the choice has
been clear: Many feminists have thus decided not to
become scholars, not to become physicians, not to
become professional in any area of work that is
male-defined. There has been a thread of anti-
intellectualism in the womens movement that is
more apparent than real. for it reflects a deep
mistrust of the UPPUIS of intellectual activity.
(Howell, 1979). This fear resulted, as just one
example, in the resignation of the entire Womens
Studies faculty at San Diego State in the mid-70s.
They felt that remaining was contrary to their
principles.
Clearly, others were willing to try to work within
the institution and try to use it for feminist ends. The
separatists, however, have shared the mistrust
Howell describes. Their commitment to separate
Womens Studies programs represents a recognition
that Feminist Studies represents ideas and prac-
tices that are incompatible with many (if not most)
of the assumptions and procedures of universities
and colleges.
THE DEBATE
Since the inception of Womens Studies, partici-
pants have debated tactics and to some extent goals.
While a source of conflict, these debates have also
been a source of vitality. How has it happened.
then, that integration or mainstreaming has come
to dominate discussion in Womens Studies at the
present time, particularly given this history of doubt
about whether feminists belong in the university at
all?
The availability of resources for mainstreaming
has clearly played a major role. However meager
they may be, more resources appear to be available
for integration than for other aspects of Womens
Studies. But many Womens Studies faculty have
also actively sought such resources. The concept of
mainstreaming has been seen as both appropriate
and as desirable by many of those in Womens
Studies.
One reason for this may be an evangelical spirit.
Having discovered all of the wonders opened up by
feminist scholarship, there is a feeling on the part of
many that it is simply too good and too powerful to
keep to ourselves. As intellectuals we are rather
awestruck at our discoveries and we want to share
them with our unenlightened colleagues, particu-
larly since we know that our movement is one for
human liberation. In addition, we recognize the
tenuousness of any discipline which is not accepted
as legitimate by the rest of the academic community
and many people feel a need for our colleagues to
understand and accept our work in order to assure
our survival.
The most compelling reason is probably that
integrating material on women into the general
curriculum appears to be the obvious thing to do.
Since teaching has been one of the major tactics
adopted by Womens Studies as a way of spreading
the new scholarship on women, mainstreaming is a
rather natural direction in which to move. It offers
the possibility of reaching both colleagues and
students, through activities that people are good at,
and it offers the appearance of achievable results.
The political origins of Womens Studies create
pressure for action and for immediate results. Both
the resources available and available skills make
teaching the most obvious place for this action.
Integration, for a number of reasons then, is
clearly a very attractive strategy and is consistent
 The Uneasy Alliance of Feminism and Academia 181

with the goals of Womens Studies. However, there advocates radical social In order be
are a number of problems. It is not clear that heard all, it clear what most likely happen.
mainstreaming can fulfill all of its promises. In fact, Material is not radical will selected, in
it seems likely that it cannot. Furthermore, the tactic hope that will be to those the
carries a fair amount of danger for Womens Studies mainstream. have from beginning felt
as well. to compromise order to a hearing
Those who believe that womens scholarship can our ideas, the choice the name
be made an integral part of the undergraduate Studies rather Feminist Studies clear.
curriculum and that, somehow, in the process the We felt the to look objective and
structure of the traditional disciplines will be radi- political as within our standards.
cally changed are seriously underestimating the The process is happening with
degree to which the university is embedded in the selected as suitable for into the
overall social structure and the importance of its curriculum. A of feminists
social functions. The truth of university scholarship pointed to diversity of critiques of
is such that it presently serves vested interests. Since disciplines and asked how are going
this role has not developed accidently, it is not likely choose which present. However, practice this
to change in any fundamental way without changes will probably There will
in other social _institutions occurring at the same strong pressure focus on liberal side
time. There is a certain amount of leeway because of feminist scholarship, there is evidence
the liberal ideal, but as long as we live in a society that this material be tolerated
dominated by the male, white, corporate class the difficulty, by and faculty in courses
scholarship coming out of the disciplines will be Womens Studies 1980; Wilson,
their voice. Specifically, a sexist society will produce As long womens position fundamentally
sexist scholarship. The integrationists in Womens unchanged society (and is now worse if
Studies ask that a deviant voice be given a place in it is to see faculty especially
the mainstream. When this voice is heard, the respond in that are different from
argument goes, it will lead to an intellectual social norms.
revolution based on new social values. If we this point main successes
believed in a liberal, open objective university come in down the inroads on few
devoted to the disinterested pursuit of truth, this gains we have made in social
would make sense. But our own analysis tells us that position. in fact, be the reason why
this is not the case. We know that scholarship is political program feminists must some
never neutral and certainly is not now objective. integration. is now large body non-
The prevailing paradigms in the various disciplines feminist on women has been
arise out of social conditions and the social percep- in reaction feminist demands
tions of those who practice the disciplines. In turn, equality and end of Nonfeminists (to
the paradigms shape what can be perceived. There it mildly) taken up question of
are strong pressures to retain these paradigms. Yes, origins of oppression and have
if our ideas were to be listened to, they would lead produced number of which, under
to an intellectual revolution. The difficulty is that it guise of act to womens social
will take a social revolution before most of our The biology destiny theories the most
collegues will be able to hear us. If we truly believe and probably most dangerous.
that the end of womens oppression can only come most influential represent revivals the
with radical social change, we cannot really expect biological of the century.
to have our ideas accepted and taught in the There evolutionary arguments, about se::
mainstream. It is only if we accept the liberal ideas in the and theories sex
that sexism serves no real purpose, or that know- hormones, they all that behavioral
ledge can be value-free, that we might expect our rooted in differences between
colleagues to change their point of view as soon as sexes have to the observe in
we present them with the insights of feminist roles. They carry the that
scholarship. womens arises from characteristics
This ti to imply we should try to to and it would very hard, probably
others. is just we need be realistic undesirable, change. Such are extremely
how far can expect get and how much at the time. They not only
to expend. work is to the and accepted within but are a
also directly at contradictions in great of attention the media. seems very
current production knowledge. There be that this of work get at equal
some can hear However. we dealing in time feminist theories the mainstream
with colleagues students who not since in cases they more
182 MARIANLOWE and MARGARETLOWE BENSTON
compatible with the points of view of those working
in the mainstream. We do have to do our best to
counteract their influence, not simply by pointing
out their flaws, but by offering their own
alternatives.
POLITICAL STRATEGIES
If Womens Studies is to fulfill its commitment to
the cause of women and ultimately to ending
oppression for everyone, then we must continually
assess our strategies in terms of goals, and we must
explore a number of different paths. There are a
number of areas besides integration in which we
ought to be working.
First, if our aim is to educate for change through
integration, then we need to do a great deal more to
introduce feminist ideas into the secondary and
primary schools and we also ought to be educating
outside of the schools, in the community, as well.
Even within the universities, mainstreaming may
not be the best way to use feminist scholarship. Our
personal experience has been that the existence of a
separate Womens Studies program is often itself a
significant factor in the introduction of feminist
material into the mainstream curriculum. This
happens partly simply because the existence of the
program continually raises the issue and partly
because students from our courses press for such
material in their other courses.
Second, what we need at this point is more
emphasis on scholarship, not less. We have under-
taken a large task: to understand the world in order
to change it, and we have just begun. If. as part of
our political program, we are in the university at all.
it is because we recognize the resources of academia
for producing knowledge. We need to take full
advantage of our opportunities to generate the
knowledge we need. The emphasis of the integra-
tion model is on teaching, and this will likely be at
the expense of scholarly activity, given our time and
resource constraints. Furthermore, as is discussed
below, if we put too much of our effort into
integration, we may damage our scholarship and our
ability to provide an alternative vision of the future
in irreparable ways.
Third, if our aim is to get closer to the truth and to
develop a strategy for the future, then we have to
have connections outside academia. If we work
primarily within universities and colleges, then our
scholarship will inevitably remain distorted and
limited by the elitism and class bias of our environ-
ment. Only autonomous programs have any possi-
bility of having significant involvement in the
community and still surviving.
Finally, if our aim is to have an impact on what is
accepted as truth in our society generally, then an
emphasis on integrating feminist scholarship into the
classroom is not the proper way to go about it. The
structure of knowledge is not defined there. It is
defined by scholars at the major research centers.
working through such institutions as journals, book
publishing and informal structures (the .old-boy
networks). We need to learn much more about how
to get past the gatekeepers of knowledge in order
to make our work legitimate and widely accepted.
This will involve understanding more about not only
the production but the distribution of knowledge.
Circulation within the profession and teaching are.
of course, the main methods that academic scholars
use to distribute their results. But there are already
a number of other ways in which knowledge
produced within universities becomes part of the
public sphere. These most often eventually involve
presentations in one or another of the media. either
directly by academics or indirectly by popularizers.
The print media are particularly important and
material appears in the whole range from low-
circulation, intellectual magazines to the Sunday
supplements of newspapers and the Readers Digest.
A relatively new phenomenon is the appearance of
magazines such as Psychology Today whose purpose
is the popularization of academic work. Using such
channels is something we need to explore.
In the end. too much integration may impede
rather than help our attempt to develop committed
scholarship. The integration of material into other
disciplines involves convincing others to redefine
their assumptions, while at the same time trying to
get our own questions on their agendas, instead of
trying to formulate and answer our own questions.
The focus on mainstreaming is likely to increase
emphasis on producing, as well as teaching, ideas
that will be acceptable to others. It will also continue
to emphasize critiques of existing work in the
traditional disciplines at a time when we should be
moving beyond this.
Radical feminists and Marxist/socialist feminists
have been the source of the most revolutionary
aspects of the new scholarship on women. They are
the ones who have raised questions which are
outside the scope of the traditional disciplines and
the ones who have developed the analyses based on
the personal is political. Their work has begun to
give us alternative visions for the future. But it is
just these aspects of feminist scholarship that are
least understandable to nonfeminists and which are
least explainable in traditional frameworks. These
are the parts of feminist scholarship that are likely to
suffer from integration. They are also the parts that
are most important to develop if we are to start
looking to the future as well as the past and present.
and so begin constructing our own model of change.
A focus on communicating with others who do not
share our view of the world may make it significantly
harder to keep up our intellectual revolution, since
our own consciousness will be affected in the process
 The Uneasy Alliance of Feminism and Academia 1x3

as well.

Theories of Womens Studies.

Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Freedman, Estelle. 1979. Separation as strategy: female
institution building and American feminism, 1870-1930.
Feminist Studies 5 (3): 512-529.
Froines. Ann. 1980. Integrating women into the liberal
arts curriculum: some results of a modest survey.
Womens Studies News. 8 (4): 11-12.
Howell. Mary. 1979. Can we be feminists and profes-
sionals? Womens Studies ht. Q. 2 (1): 1-7.
Hubbard, Ruth and Marian Lowe. 1979. Pitfalls in
research on sex and gender. Genes and Gender II.
Gordian Press, New York.
Karier. Clarence. 1975. The Shaping of the American
Educational State. Macmillan, New York.
Miles. Angela and Geraldine Finn. 1983. Feminism in
Canada: From Persuasion to Politics. Black Rose Press,
Montreal.
Spender. Dale. 1982. Mens Studies Modified. Pergamon.
London.
Wilson. Joan Hoff. 1981. A grand illusion: continuing the
debate. Womens Studies Q. 9 (4): 5-6.