Postmodern Feminist Theory and Social Work N THE PAST 15 years, an explo- sion of feminist scholarship has sparked numerous “re-visions” of so- cial work knowledge. Feminist writ- ings across disciplines have illumi- nated an understanding of the status of women in a patriarchal society, sex- ist biases in social and behavioral theo- ries, and the feminization of poverty. In social work, a number of scholars have explored the striking compatibil- ity between feminist theory and social work (Collins, 1986; Gould, 1987; Nes & Iadicola, 1989; Van Den Bergh & Cooper, 1986 Although social work theories gained many benefits from the earlier wave of feministtheory, the profession hasbeen much slower toconfront the opportuni- ties and challenges offered by the more recent postmodern feminist. theory. Postmodernism, a cultural phenom- enon that sprang tolife in architecture and spread rapidly into literature, art, and other areas, together with decon- structionismand French feminism, has stimulated and transformed ferninist, thinkingand practices. The social work literature is only beginning to touch on postmodern feminist themesandmeth- ods (Berlin, 1990; Jones, 1990; Tice, 1990), which are on the cutting edge of knowledge in other fields, This article provides an intellectual background to understanding post- modern ferninism anditspotentialcon. tributionsandchallengestosocial wor This is an ambitious project. because the body of works from which post- modern feminists draw is immense and complex. The inaccessibility of postmodern feminist writings, which has been one of the grounds on which postmodern feminism has been criti- cized, increases the importance of this, article. The obtuse nature of the writ- ing, as well as the highly specialized vocabulary, tends to discourage even the most intellectually curious. As the profession prepares for the 21st cen- CC Coe 0057-80480 $8100 Roberta G.Sands Kathleen Nuec A recent burgeoning of feminist writ ings has triggered reconceptualizations of social work knowledge. Emerging writings across disciplines have pro vided insight into women's status in a patriarchal society, the sexist biases of social and behavioral theories, and the feminization of poverty. Social work thas been much slower in confronting, the opportunities and challenges of fered by the dramatic newer develop ments in feminist theory that include oststructuratism, deconstruction, and Fronch feminism. Thisarticlediscusses the contributions and difficulties that postmodern feminist thought has to offer for the reconceptualization of so cial work theories and practice. It pro vides an overview ofthe status of fer nist theory within the social work literature and describes the roots and explains the concerns of postmodern feminism. Finally, the article discusses the relevance, implications, and chal. lenges of postmodern feminist theory in relation to social work theory and practice tury, social workers will find that the contributions of postmodern feminism provoke reconceptualizations of many of social work’s basic assumptions. Emerging postmodern feminist theory challenges accepted ideas about race, gender. and class, as well as political rights, equality,and differences, which are basic to the values of both the ‘women’s movementand the social work: profession, Feminist Theory and Social Work. Although issuespertainingto women are discussed widely in the social work. literature, feminist. theory informs a limited number of these writings. The social work literature that has incorpo: rated or drawn on feminism has taken three directions, the first two of which, appear to contradict each other, The first direction recommends eliminat- ing false dichotomies or categories, ‘whereas the second promotes the use of categories. The third direction en- tailsapplyingideas about “differences” that have been articulated in feminist, psychological literature to social work theory and practice, Eliminating and Establishing Categories A popular focus among feminist social workers has heen eliminating false dichotomies that emerge from American capitalistie, patriarchal, hi- erarchical society. Hierarchical’ di- chotomous thinking creates opposi- tional and zero-sum relationships between areas of knowledge, such as the distinetion between policy and practice, which are better represented by a continuous or wholisti¢ relation. ship. A sampling of the writings in this vein insists on eradicating false distinctions and artificial separations (Bricker-Jenkins & Hooyman, 1986; Collins, 1986; Gould, 1987; Van Den Bergh & Cooper, 1986) and discarding the dichotomy between personal ser vice and social action (Morell, 1987) To avoid false dichotomies, an affir- mation of the unity of all living things (Wetzel, 19861 and the achievement of synthesis (Bricker-Jenkins & Hooy- man, 1986) have been proposed. Avoiding false dichotomies is partiew: larly compatible with the ecological perspective in social work Collins, 1986}, with its focus on wholeness, Paradoxically, feminist social work literature also often emphasizes the establishment of categories, which are used as an organizing framework 489for analyzing social work theory and practice. Categories of feminism, such as radical and Marxist, have been de- scribed extensively in feminist writ- ings across disciplines (for example, Ferree & Hess, 1985; Lengermann & Wallace, 1985; Tong, 1989). Several social work writers have categorized social work knowledge and practice using three philosophical and political feminist. political orientations—lib- eral, socialist, and radical feminisms (Bricker-Jenkins & Hooyman, 1986; Nes & Iadicola, 1989). Liberal femi- nism emphasizes the attainment of political rights, opportunities, and equality within the existing political system. Socialist feminism attributes ‘women's oppression to the interaction among sexism, racism, and class divi- sions, which are produced by patriar- chal capitalism. Radical feminism finds patriarchy an omnipresent i fluence that, needs to be dismantled. Although Nes and Iadicola (1989) noted that feminist social work in it- self is “outside of the dominant per- spective” (p. 20), they also observed that mainstream social work thinking ismost closely allied with liberal femi- nism. This orientation of social work thinking is reinforced by a recent study by Freeman (1990), which found that: most social workers iden- ‘ify with liberal feminism, Celebration of Differences A theme within feminist theory that. has been adopted by social work writ- crs is the “celebration of differences.” Unlike liberal feminism, which em- phasizes sameness and equality, this perspective calls attention to and at times applauds the world views of women and describes the divergent developmental paths of women and men. Social work writers Bricker- Jenkins and Hooyman (1986) argued that diversity is a resouree that ean be used to advance the interests of the women’s movement. Furthermore, they found value in the nonrational and emotional, stereotypical charac- teristics of women that have been used as justifications for the exclusion of ‘women from the public” sphere, where ‘men claim hegemony. 490 A number of social work scholars develop the theme of differences from the psychological writings of Chodorow (1978), Gilligan (1982), and Kaplan and Surrey (1984), Rhodes (1985), for example, showed how the different “voices” deseribed by Gilligan are manifested in social work. The respon- sibility mode is consistent with the emphasis on compassion, nonjudg- mental acceptance, and relationship in social work, whereas the individual rights mode is reflected in social work ethies. Similarly, Davis (1985) identi- fied “female and male voices in social work,” both of which are needed and desirable. Male social work academics and those researchers who use a posi- tivistic approach to research represent the male voice, In contrast, practitio- ners represent the female voice, which tends to be suppressed in schools of social work. Reimer (1984) recom- mended that clinical social workers become aware of their own concep- tions of differences so that their biases will not contaminate their therapeu- tie relationships. Differences are celebrated in two additional articles in social work jour- nals. Berzoff (1989) viewed connected- ness asa theme that isa characteristic of women's development. In a research study of women executives in human services agencies, Chernesky and Bombyk (1988) found that women ad- ministrators bring to their positions qualities such as concern, sensitivity, nurturing, mentoring, recognition of dual roles of women workers, and a commitment to staff participation in decision making. ‘The themes evident in these social work feminist writings anticipate (but do not incorporate) issues that have ‘been developed by postmodern femi- nist theorists. More recently, Tice (1990) discussed how new feminist scholarship that challenges assump- ns of universality and objectivity can be used to transform social work ‘education in the 1990s. Berlin (1990) ‘questioned the value of polarized think- ing but did notidentify her perspective aseither postmodern or feminist. Jones (1990) used deconstruction and femi- nist theory to interpret a research in- terview. Social Work / Volume 37, Number 6 Postmodern feminism challengesthe validity of categories and promotes the recognition of differences. At times, however, postmodern feminism finds categories to be useful ‘The Roots of Postmodern Feminist Theory Postmodern feminism is rooted in poststructuralism, postmodern philoso- phy, and French feminist theory, all of which emerged spontaneously around the same time. The boundaries among these schools and the classification ofa particular theorist. among these and previous traditions are problematic, because themes overlap and philoso- phies are contradictory, even within a school. Furthermore, the relationship among schools and the progression of ideas are nonlinear. American post- modern feminist theory both adopts and criticizes themes that have been developed in these discourses and in- troduces perspectives ofits own, Structuralism and Poststructuralism ‘Structuralism is an analytie method used by scholars within anthropology, Jinguisties, psychoanalysis, and other human studies, The method is chara: terized by asearch forunderlyingorga- nizing structures or relations among. empirical events in cultures, personal- ity, politics, and otherareas(de George & de George, 1972; Grosz, 1989). Struc- turalist scholars share the conviction that “surface events and phenomena are tobe explained by structures, and phenomena below the surface” (de George & de George, 1972, p.xii).Struc- turalists such as Marx, de Saussure, Freud, Levi-Strauss, Piaget, and Lacan developed systems of thought in whieh lawful explanatory deepstructuresare proposed. Many of these theorists em- phasized the importance of language in shaping power relationships. Poststructuralism both incorpo- rates and transforms structuralism. Whereas structuralists view meaning that is produced within language as fixed, poststructuralists see meaning as_multiple, unstable, and open to interpretation (Weedon, 1987) / November 1992Poststructuralists look at meaning in relation to the particular social, politi- cal, and historieal contexts in’ which language is spoken or written. They view discourses (bodies of language or “texts”) and “readers” as situated, rather than neutral. Accordingly, poststructuralists move away from “grand theory,” which purports to as- sert universal truth. Theorists asso ated with this movement are Derrida (1978), Foucault (1965), and the French feminist Kristeva (1982). ‘The poststructural theorists whose works interest both the French femi- nists and postmodern feminists have developed several themes. Among these are (1) criticism of “logo- centrism,” (2) the nature of “differ- ence,” (3) deconstruetion of texts, (4) multiple discourses, and (5) the n: ture of subjectivity Criticism of Logocentrism. Poststructuralist writers have identi fied an assumption in Western meta- physies (post-Bnlightenment philoso- phy) that they find problematic. They call this logocentrism, the belief that there isa fixed, singular, logical order (Derrida, 1976) that can be found in the immediate presence in “real,” “true,” and “unmediated” forms (Grosz, 1989). Logocentrism is open to chal- lenge for two reasons. One, it assumes that there are “essential” qualities in- herent in categories of thinking. Ac- cording to Derrida (1978), categories, definitions, and constructs vary in lation to their particular social, his torical, and political milieus, There are no inherent “essential” meanings; defi nitions are historically contingent and context bound. Another problem with logocentrism is that it relies on binary categories (polar opposites) for the pro- duction of knowledge. This problem is, related to the nature of “difference” and the role of language in the produc- tion of meaning. Differences. Derrida (1978) drew a distinction between “difference” and “difference” that affects the reading of texts, Western logocentricthought pro- motes thinking of differences in terms ‘of binary opposites, such as identity difference, male-female, and reason— ‘emotion, which are perceived as mutu- ally exclusive, oppositional, and hierarchical instead ofinterdependent. Derrida suggested that, although one may be propelled to think dichoto- mously, there is a residue of meaning that does not fit into these categories. He used the term “difference” to de- scribe meaning that is both-and (iden- tity and difference); neither; or alter- native (Grosz, 1989), ‘A major source of categorical think- ing is language, which is infused with meaningsderiving fromthe logocentrie culture. Languageembodies and main- tains the perspective of the “Symbolic Order” (Lacan, 1977), which is patriar- chal (*phallocentric™: Cixous, 1981; Derrida, 1978). In this respect, the terms within binary categories are val: ued differently. One of the terms (for example,“male”)is“privileged’ ordomi- nant, resulting in the relegation of the second term to a negative state (for example, whatever is not male is fe- male; Grosz, 1989). The privileging or ‘valorizing” of one term results in the suppression, marginalization, or de- valuation of the other. Deconstruetion. One way to re- cover suppressed meanings is through deconstruction. Deconstructionisaway of analyzing texts that is sensitive to contextual dimensions and margin- alized voices. When one deconstructs text, onedoesnot accept the constructs used as given; instead, one looks at them in relation to social, historical, and political contexts. The decon: structionist identifies the biases in the text, views them as problematic, and “decenters” them. Meanwhile, the per- spectives that are treated as marginal are “centered,” and meaning in excess of (not accounted for by) the polarities is identified. Through deconstruction, the presumed fixity of the existing so- cial order's “destabilized” and the per- speetives of the marginalized ean be articulated (Grosz, 1989). This process interrupts the hegemony of the domi- nant order (Hutcheon, 1988) and gives prominence to suppressed voices. Multiple Discourses. Decon- struction has revealed that history ob- fascates the perspectives of those who are missing from the text. Foucault (1978) pointed out that at any time, multiple perspectivesordiscoursesare present but only a few are heard: Sands and Nuccio / Postmodern Feminist Theory and Social Work To be more precise, we must not imag- ‘nea world of discourse divided between accepted discourse and excluded dis- course, or between the dominant dis- course and the dominated one; but as a multiplicity of discursive elements that ‘can come into play in various strate- gies. [is this distribution that we must reconstruct, with the things said and those concealed, the enunciations re- ‘quired and those forbidden, that it com- prises... .(p. 100) The discourses that are heard are tied in with power and strategies to maii tain power Foucault, 1978). Thosecon- current discourses that are silenced, however, are also meaningful. Subjectivity. Subjectivity refers to “the conscious and unconscious thoughts and emotions of the indi- vidual, her sense of herself and her ways of understanding her relation to the world” (Weedon, 1987, p. 32). Within the logocentric tradition, the dividual is autonomous and has an sssential” subjectivity, identity, or personality thatis stable, unique, and (if healthy) integrated, From a poststructuralist perspective, however, subjectivity is “precarious, contradic: tory and in process, constantly being reconstituted in discourse each time we think or speak” (Weedon, 1987, p. 33). Accordingly, the subject is multi- faceted and speaks in many voices, depending on the context. Contradic- tions and changes over time are to be expected. Furthermore, subjectivity is the site in which others socially co struct one’s identity. Thus, subje ity is connected with the sociocultural, historical, and interpersonal context in which one is situated. French Femis ‘The philosophical perspectives of the French feminists, such as Cixous (1981), Irigaray (1985), and Kristeva (2982), share some common ground with poststructuralist writers such as Derrida (1978) and Foucault (1965), as well as Lacan (1977), who is consid ered a structuralist. These French feminists are, like Derrida, de- constructionists. Although Foucault ‘was remiss in his exclusion of women, 491