Foucault and Feminism

As much of his work centered on issues of power, an issue that is central to the study of gender, the theories of philosopher Michel Foucault have been hotly debated within feminist literature. However, the relationship between Foucault and feminism has at times been a troubled one, and during the late twentieth century, it was a topic that was much-debated among feminists and scholars.

Of course, given that Foucault never specifically applied his theories to women, this is not surprising. Lois McNay noted that although many feminist writers have drawn on post-structuralist theories such as Foucault’s, they began to “question anew how far they can draw on poststructuralist thought” (Foucault and Feminism, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992, p.2). She identified the way in which Foucault’s work on discipline and his early work on sexuality lent itself to feminist theory but noted that his theories failed to assimilate “a primary philosophical form of critique into feminist theory which is rooted in the demands of emancipatory politics” (Ibid., p. 3).

Similarly, Dorothy E. Smith argued that Foucauldian theories of power and knowledge “capture a sense of something significant about contemporary society that they are incapable of explicating” (The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge, Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1990, p.70). However, McNay asserted that Foucault’s final works ‘The Use of Pleasure” and “The Care of the Self" addressed this failure by acknowledging the limitations of the ‘docile’ body theory in which the individual is seen as a ‘passive body’. The model of passivity, noted McNay, ignores the impact of “agency and self-determination”. She suggested that the “technologies of the self” thesis restores agency through its focus on self-reflexive thought (McNay, Foucault and Feminism, p.3).

By seeking to reintroduce Foucauldian theory to feminism, McNay wanted to show that reconsidering Foucault’s theories of the self could provide women’s studies a new vigour. However, like many other feminist writers using Foucault, McNay focused heavily on theories surrounding the body and its relation to the self. In so doing, these writers painted “women”hood as “body”hood. Accordingly, McNay discussed the inscription of gender upon the body, and the theory of the “docile” body. Though she recognized that power produces resistance, McNay read this resistance in bodily terms- “the sexed body,” “‘deviant’ sexualities” and, again, “docile bodies”. She adhered to what Monique Deveaux termed first-wave feminist Foucauldian literature (‘Feminism and empowerment: a critical reading of Foucault,’ in Sharlene Hesse-Biber, Christina Gilmartin and Robin Lyndenberg, eds. Feminist Approaches to Theory and Methodology: An Interdisciplinary Reader, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 237).

In her critique of feminist uses of Foucault, Deveaux outlined three “waves” (Ibid., p. 237). She identified the first wave as that which focuses on docile bodies and Panopticism.

First-wave Foucauldian Feminist Literature

Panopticism, a theory that Foucault introduced in ‘Discipline and Punish’ (1975), centers on disciplinary themes and feeds into the idea of self-regulation. It is based on Jeremy Bentham’s 1787 prison design in which prisoners were left “perpetually exposed to view and [were] therefore likely to police themselves” (Deveaux, ‘Feminism and empowerment,’ p. 238). Thus, the Panopticon produces self-regulating subjects.

From the feminist perspective, the Panopticon represents “the shift from more overt manifestations of oppression of women to more insidious forms of control” (Ibid., p. 238). In this feminist interpretation of the Panopticon, power is exercised through the perpetual male gaze. Thus, in first-wave Foucauldian feminist literature, the Panopticon became a “compelling explanatory paradigm for women’s acquiescence to, and collusion with, patriarchal standards of femininity” (Ibid., p. 238). In this model, women are compliant in their own subjugation.

Janet Wolff applied first-wave strategies in her study of corporeality, arguing that “it is through the body that women collude in their own oppression” (Janet Wolff, Feminine Sentences: Essays on Women and Culture, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990, p. 127). Similarly, Deveaux cited Sandra Bartky’s 1988 article, ‘Foucault, Femininity, and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power,’ which claimed that women’s oppression was hidden, though still present, in the current era.

Deveaux countered by maintaining that the oppression of women is, in fact, not insidious, but overt. To substantiate her claim, Deveaux cited the prevalence of rape and assault, as well as the continuing lack of safe and accessible abortions. Moreover, Deveaux called Bartky’s discussion of women and the body “reductionist,” claiming that Bartky ignored the complexities of women’s own relationship with their bodies by focusing on the female body as a “docile” object that gains its meaning solely through the male gaze (Deveaux, ‘Feminism and empowerment,’ p. 239).

Deveaux compared Bartky against Susan Bordo’s 1989 article, ‘The Body and the Reproduction of Femininity,’ in which Bordo offered a Foucauldian examination of women’s bodies in relation to eating disorders and body image. Deveaux found that, unlike Bartky, Bordo “modif[ied] the paradigm to include accounts of women’s understanding of their experiences” (Deveaux, ‘Feminism and empowerment,’ p. 240). Thus, we might posit that Bordo restored a sense of agency to women which are denied when they are portrayed merely as passive objects. However, though Deveaux recognized Bordo’s amendment of Foucauldian theory, she argued that the modification was insufficient, as it did not go far enough toward reclaiming women’s agency (Ibid., p. 240).

Second-wave Foucauldian Feminist Literature

The second wave of Foucauldian feminist literature identified by Deveaux was the “agonistic” model, in which power produces resistance (Ibid., p. 242). In this approach, the subordination and victimisation inherent in the Panopticon and docile body theories are replaced with a “more textured understanding” of gender/power relations (Ibid., p. 243).

An example is Aveen Maguire’s study of power and Irish women, which broached the issues of domestic violence, contraception, welfare, maternity services and education (‘Power: now you see it, now you don’t. A woman’s guide to how power works,’ in Linda McDowell and Rosemary Pringle, eds. Defining Women: Social Institutions and Gender Divisions, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992, p. 18). Maguire examined how “power is being exercised against us [the women’s movement]” (Ibid., p. 19). She argued that the feminist movement’s will to affect change in society is frequently countered by power systems that resist change. This resistance to change manifests in three ways and, like threads in a tapestry, each manifestation is interwoven with the others.

The first involves direct action in the form of violence and explicit oppression. The second manifests through the stifling of women’s protest as soon as it emerges. The third is the most “insidious” and is thus the “hardest to discern” (Ibid., p. 20). It involves the manipulation of the individual to the point where they are no longer aware of having a grievance (Ibid., p. 20). Thus we see an evocation of Foucault’s self-regulating subject (though Maguire never explicitly references Foucault).

Like McNay, Maguire alluded to the technologies of the self and self-reflexive thought (though she did not apply the Foucauldian terms in her discussion), when she argued that “knowledge is power… Knowing something about the ways in which power is used against us gives us a choice” (Ibid., p. 24). She suggested that the best way for women to subvert power is to rile against it; to “deviate from the accepted notions, the established values, the norms” (Ibid., p. 25). She challenged women to reclaim the word ‘deviant’ and to “cultivate it as the virtue it is” (Ibid., p. 25). However, she recognized that women who choose to deviate from norms “will be pursued…[as]… deviance is seen by those in power as a very threatening thing” (Ibid., p. 25).

Deveaux acknowledged what she termed “second-wave” Foucauldian feminism’s rejection of the docile woman in favour of the resisting woman, but cautioned that second wave theories were nonetheless inadequate, as they failed to consider “the inner processes that condition women’s sense of freedom or choice” (Deveaux, ‘Feminism and empowerment,’ p. 245). Instead, argued Deveaux, these theories focused on the “external manifestations of power and dominance” (Ibid., p. 25).

Third-wave Foucauldian Feminist Literature

Third-wave Foucauldian feminist literature centred on sexual identity and the regime of truth/power. Deveaux used the example of lesbian/gay politics and cited Judith Butler’s 1992 article, ‘Imitation and Gender Insubordination,’ in which Butler applied Foucauldian theories to the construction of a heterosexual ‘normality’ against which homosexuality is cast as the aberrant ‘Other.’

For Deveaux, third-wave theories such as those adopted by Butler ignored the issues of “sexual choice and the conscious appropriation of an identity” (Deveaux, ‘Feminism and empowerment,’ p. 250). She suggested that these models failed to acknowledge gay and lesbian activism and its active creation of positive sexuality which counteracts the negative model that is imposed from the outside.

Bell hooks argued that feminist ideologies “should clarify for women the powers they exercise daily and show them the ways these powers can be used to resist sexist domination and exploitation” (Cited in Ibid., p. 252). Deveaux agreed, and cited writers who offered an alternative vision of power. To this end, she identified Audre Lorde’s work on erotic power (1984), and Patricia Hill Collins’ study of empowerment among American Women of Color.

Though she accused Foucault of not fully engaging with feminist concerns, Deveaux offered these works as an example of how Foucauldian notions of power, resistance, and sexuality could provide a useful basis from which to develop a specifically feminist theory of power. Similarly, while recognizing that his work contained certain “androcentricities,” Karlene Faith described Foucault’s theories as “complementary to or evocative of feminist perspectives” (‘Resistance: lessons from Foucault and feminism,’ in H. Lorraine Radtke and Henderikus J., eds. Power/Gender: Social Relations in Theory and Practice, London, Thousand Oaks and Delhi: SAGE Publications, 1994, p. 36).

In her study of gender theory, Joan Wallach Scott focused on theorists other than Foucault, such as Marx, Derrida, Irigaray and Lacan. Like many of the feminists writing on post-modern and post-structuralist theories, Scott approached the topic of womanhood from the standpoint of semiotics: she wanted to offer a definition of gender that took into account a number of various theories. She noted that although feminist historians had been “more comfortable with description than theory,” they were increasingly turning to theoretical models in order to create a category of “gender” or, indeed, “woman” (‘Gender: a useful category of historical analysis,’ in Joan Wallach Scott, ed. Feminism and History, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 154).

Similarly, Rosi Braidotti saw the application of theory as a means of redefining traditional ideas about women and power. She posited that Foucauldian theory “represents a clear point of contact between women and philosophy” (Rosi Braidotti, ‘Ethics revisited: women and /in philosophy,’ in Carole Pateman and Elizabeth Grosz, eds. Feminist Challenges: Social and Political Theory, Sydney, London, and Boston: Allen and Unwin, 1986, p. 54). Likewise, Shapiro proposed that Foucauldian theory allowed feminists to “challenge the content of historical narrative while suggesting the masculinist bias in its construction” (Ann-Louise Shapiro, History and Feminist Theory, Middletown: Wesleyan University, 1992, p. 3).

In her book ‘Ladies Who Lunge: Essays on Difficult Women,’ Tara Brabazon suggested that the feminism of the twenty-first century should adopt an “issue-based approach” (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 2002, p. 173). Throughout the book, she suggested that modern feminism is fraught with disparate notions of what constitutes female empowerment. Brabazon praised those women who dare to defy a model of ‘ideal’ feminism; women whose experiences illustrate the tension of being caught between ‘Feminism’ (with a capital ‘F’) and the reality/banality of having their achievements defined by their gender.

In the closing paragraph of ‘Ladies Who Lunge,’ Brabazon wrote,

… By remembering the cuts in the body politics and the stabs in the fabric of identity, we hold on to what makes women strong and powerful…We have a chance for societal change if we capture the pain of the past, feel it, store it, write about it — and remember it.

©️ Jupiter Grant, 2021

Enjoyed this article? Please send me a tip below so I can keep writing.

Jupiter Grant is a self-published author, blogger, narrator, and audiobook producer. Buy me a coffee here: https://ko-fi.com/jupitergrant

More from Jupiter Grant here on Vocal Media: