Rethinking History

The Journal of Theory and Practice

ISSN: 1364-2529 (Print) 1470-1154 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rrhi20

Feminism, Time, and Nonlinear History

Things can only get better? Feminism, time and progress

Angela Loxham

To cite this article: Angela Loxham (2016) Feminism, Time, and Nonlinear History, Rethinking
History, 20:1, 134-136, DOI: 10.1080/13642529.2015.1065566

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13642529.2015.1065566

Published online: 31 Jul 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 229

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rrhi20
134 Book Reviews

Things can only get better? Feminism, time and progress

Feminism, Time, and Nonlinear History, Victoria Browne, Houndsmill,

Palgrave Macmillan, 2014, 236 pp., £60 (hardback), ISBN 9781137413154

Victoria Browne is calling time on the concept of time. Or at least, she is asking
us to reconsider our assumptions of time, one of the most basic and fundamental
points of reference in life, and certainly within the discipline of history. Often
considered to be a neutral measurement of the passage of key events and the
movement of life, Browne instead invites us, through this useful book, to reflect
on what is really implied when we speak of dates, of narratives and of the
relationship between the past and the present, and the normative and politically
driven ideologies inherent in these seemingly neutral notions. Browne seeks to
achieve this through the lens of the history of feminism.
Using five chapters as her framework, Browne considers one ‘type’ of time in
each, and asks what implicit assumptions are made when using each unit of
measurement, and how these may affect understandings of the history of feminism.
After each analysis, she proposes alternative ways of understanding time, which
may serve to produce more accurate histories of feminism, and also (and linked to
this) which may help to advance feminist causes. As feminism has always been
critical of traditional, hegemonic (and frequently male-produced) interpretative
structures, Browne is dismayed to see that feminism has adopted the same
approach when discussing its own history. Therefore, Browne stresses the need to
interrogate concepts of time, allowing for multilinear and multidirectional
histories. Central to this is Browne’s desire to escape from ideas of progress that are
often implicit in understandings of the passage of time. Part of this entails
abandoning conceptions of feminism’s past in terms of ‘waves’ or ‘phases’. For
Browne, these imply the importance of moving on and lead to the danger of
ignoring the unfinished potential of feminism’s multiple pasts.
The initial chapter focuses on the concept of lived time. Arguing that time is not
metaphysical and ‘out there’, Browne claims that time must be understood as lived.
While systems of time provide a useful reference point for comprehending shared
experience, the idea of a total history in which all participate should be eschewed.
Instead, there are many plots and multiple histories. The implication of this for
histories of feminism is that boundaries of ‘waves’ and ‘phases’ are not tenable by
virtue of the many different experiences that do not fit into such neat categories.
Instead, feminism’s history will be seen as, ‘a shifting entanglement of trajectories
and temporalities; of feminism as multilinear rather than unilinear’ (46).
Chapter 2 develops this argument against metaphysical conceptions of time
through an examination of the narrativist school of history (history as a creation
of language) and the opposing argument that history lies waiting to be discovered
 Rethinking History 135
in the archive. Browne espouses a middle ground; the archive is replete with
points of reference, but the way in which these are viewed is always shaped by
present priorities, hence merely returning to the archives can never reveal a
supposedly objective account of what happened. Similarly, present work is
shaped by the past. Browne thus writes that the historian must show constant
reflexivity so that, ‘naı̈ve historical realism’ is avoided, while still allowing for
‘continuities or links between historical narratives constituted in the present and
events as they happened in the past’ (67).
The idea of an objective history and passage of time receives further attention
in the third chapter, centring on the construction of narratives. As these create a
linear progression of history, Browne claims that narratives of the past are
intimately tied up with present identities. Highly problematic here is that
narratives tend to be exclusive. She cites the example of the narrative of the
Italian Renaissance, arguing that it cannot be applied to women. But similarly,
the idea of a ‘second wave’ of feminism centres on an idea of where feminism is
now headed but ignores those who were excluded from this, such as poor women.
Instead, adopting what Browne calls ‘pluriotopic hermeneutics’ (91) would allow
for a nuanced examination of narratives and a discussion of the relationship
between the individual and the group. Browne does not wholly reject narratives
but does advocate that they should be examined critically and not viewed as
exclusive and closed, thus allowing for different stories to be told.
Calendar time is Browne’s focus in chapter 4. Again, she acknowledges the
utility of calendar time for providing shared points of reference, but reminds
readers that it is a human creation with a normative dimension; time could have
been divided in alternative ways. As it is, calendar and clock time create the
illusion of progress, with time being equated with life getting better. While
everyone is born into calendar time, not everyone experiences it in the same way
and so there is a need to remember the heterogeneity of societies and cultures.
In terms of feminism, this means that a shared public space can be spoken of but,
at the same time, remembering that the experiences within this can differ.
To close, Browne’s final chapter covers generational time. Browne questions
the linear assumptions that are inherent in this relational concept, noting that this
idea is derived from masculine notions of genealogy and inheritance. It is
problematic for feminism because it is divisive, setting old against young, young
against old and considering time solely in terms of past and future. Browne asks
for conceptions of generationality that speak of co-existence, incorporating
continuity, discontinuity and connection.
Browne’s polytemporal approach dispenses with normative definitions of
historical time. She is not, however, didactic, and she does acknowledge the use
of traditional understandings of time and progress as providing shared points of
reference. However, she makes it clear that there must be greater reflexivity when
we speak of time, remembering that histories are created in line with power
relations. We therefore need to reflect on how and why certain concepts of time
136 Book Reviews
come to dominate over others and the effects of this. For Browne, this is
especially urgent as the way in which histories of feminism are constructed has a
strong impact on the feminist project today.
For some readers, this last point may cause unease. Browne does write from
an unashamedly feminist position, and early in the book she notes, ‘ . . . we need
to reflexively examine the ways in which we are constructing and representing
feminist histories to ensure that the kinds of stories we are telling and models we
are using are not contrary to our aims’ (6). Having argued that many conceptions
of time have been advanced so as to serve male interests, one may wonder what
makes her position any different, or better. Indeed, as with any ‘ism’ there is
always the danger that facts are used to serve present purposes. In view of
Browne’s constant pleas for reflexivity, critical analyses of traditional models
of time, and her desires for a plurality of histories, she could easily be accused of
advancing just another alternative normativity that serves her ends.
While this is a rather significant criticism, this book is still of value, not only
to historians of time and feminism, but to all because it reminds us that something
as seemingly banal and neutral as time is often full of deeper ideological claims
that deeply affect how we write history. Furthermore, although the overt focus of
this book is feminism, Browne’s work and the philosophies that she develops
have a much wider applicability. Indeed, if one retains the focus on minority or
under-represented groups, it would be possible to substitute the word ‘feminism’
for ‘black and ethnic minorities’, ‘LGBT’ or ‘disabilities’, without altering the
wider theoretical framework but to show how narratives of progress affect (often
wrongly) how we view the histories of these groups. The title then should not be
off-putting to those who do not incorporate feminism in their work.
Readers should be aware that Browne approaches her work through a wide
range of philosophical texts. Browne’s writing is clear and she does her best to
introduce some complex theories but at times it can be heavy going, although this
likely owes much to the continuing divergence between history and philosophy.
In this sense, Browne shows how philosophy can be of great use for reflecting on
the uses, and potential abuses, of history. With no pun intended, the potential of
the book in this latter respect makes it a timely publication indeed.

Angela Loxham
Department of Sociology, Lancaster University
a.loxham@lancaster.ac.uk
q 2015, Angela Loxham
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13642529.2015.1065566

The quest for reality: two contemporary views, Bohr and Wittgenstein, by
Stig Stenholm, Oxford, University of Oxford Press, 2011, 222 pp., £37.99
(hardback), ISBN 978-0-19-96035-9
When I was young in the 1960s, I read Experience and Its Modes (1933), by
Michael Oakeshott, the English political philosopher. In this, Oakeshott made a