The ethical and pragmatic concerns about taking up the identity

A re-purposed version of this article, for Arc Digital, can be found here.

A Clarification

To begin with, I do not identify as a feminist. I also believe in the equality of the sexes. I see no contradiction.

If I were asked, “are you a feminist?” my response is likely to be, “what do you mean by feminism?”

I would then look at the provided definition and then say “by that definition, yes” or “by that definition, no.” Further clarity can be achieved by references to subsets of feminism. What the you in this instance believes to be the definition, or simply what s/he means by the word, is not necessarily what I would accept as what feminism truly means — that which it means on a societal level, in a larger scale than in this limited space of conversation. I am similarly sceptical about any characterizations provided for the “feminist movement,” “feminist community” and suchlike.

The Meaning

Ascertaining the meaning of feminism is not as simple as referring to a dictionary definition. The meaning of a word comes from what it refers to and what it connotes in its usage. The word feminism is associated with both a section of academia — that of feminist theory, and a social movement. As a result, the word connotes a significant amount of intellectual and historical baggage.

This baggage, I contend, is what we must start with while ascertaining the word’s meaning — not any single definition that claims authority for itself. This results in the meaning being defined by a large corpus of ideas and events — some good and some bad, neither of which should be ignored. I do not claim that such a nuanced view will paint feminism in pure negativity. However, it will lead to an understanding of feminism in terms of both its merits and flaws, something that is absent in a reductionist definition found in a dictionary. A dictionary, like any other source, cannot claim to be apolitical.

According to a paper by Williams and Wittig, holding views that favoured equality between the sexes is not predictive of taking up the label. A Vox poll suggests that while 85% of Americans believe in the equality of the sexes, only 18% of them identify as feminist. HuffPo puts the figure for American women who identify as feminist at 20%, with 29% believing the term to be ethically neutral and 30% believing it to be mostly negative. Another poll with British women, reported by The Telegraph, shows that while they believed in “feminist” ideas, only one in seven identified as a feminist.

Clearly, equality and all else that is good is not all that constitutes the meaning of feminism. Am I to buy a reductionist definition and declare them all feminists against their will? I can, perhaps, if I were to define the word for myself like with the provisional definition I mentioned at the beginning. I cannot, however, presume that my definition enjoys universal acceptance and validity on a societal level. Any imperialistic imposition of one definition over others (in this laughable case, a vast majority of them) amounts to nothing more than a political move aimed at shifting the definition in popular understanding or reinforcing the illusion of a definition with consensus. Provisional definitions are useful and political definitional pushes can be too, but neither is necessarily synonymous with a meaningful definition. I thus safely disagree with the feminist ideologue on whether believing in the equality of the sexes makes one a feminist.

An Orthodoxy

If the meaning of feminism isn’t so obvious, why are we so prone to thinking otherwise? This is because of the Overton window, also known as the window of discourse, which refers to the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse. Each of us perceives an Overton window as decided by the crowd we are surrounded by — by choice or otherwise, and the media we choose to consume — often ideologically biased to reflect our own. This creates an echo chamber in which you are led to believe that your own moral foundations, political inclinations and linguistic usages, including ideological definitions and various politically charged methods of categorization, hold consensus where it matters. There is the illusion of hegemony, insofar as feeling justified while presenting your own normative politics as unquestionable and universally applicable.

It is easy to live in such an atmosphere of validation and moral security, and one needs to go out of their way to understand those who think in ways that differ from one’s own. Ideological communities, with their mutually reinforcing positive feedback loops of thought, can make it seem inconceivable that there may exist a world outside that may come to different informed conclusions in good faith.

A fabrication is thus made in various circles that all those who are right-thinking and supportive of equal rights are feminists, and the rest are sexists.

In the words of Helen Pluckrose:

“If you believe in gender equality, you are a feminist!” — No. Please stop saying that. It’s presumptuous, domineering and factually wrong. Feminism does not have a monopoly on the aim for gender equality. Feminism is not simply the name of that aim. Non-feminist supporters of gender equality are not just confused about feminism. Feminism is one approach to gender equality, and it’s too loaded with ideological baggage to be popular… feminism (but not all feminists) produces all kinds of silly and nasty ideas that bewilder and alarm many people, — microaggressions, manspreading, cultural appropriation, menstrual activism, mansplaining, culturally relative ethics, #MaleTears, #KillAllMen. Please be assured that those of us who actively work for gender equality and are not feminists are not confused or uninformed. We know what we’re saying.”

Nothing but a political claim, as I argued earlier, can exclude these unsavoury streams of activism from what feminism is. Doing so amounts to nothing more than a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. Due to the way ideology works, even if one recognizes this, one may project the best parts of feminism in their eyes as the most significant, while delegating the undesirable aspects as insignificant and inconsequential. This is, yet again, the result of a flawed perception tainted by the lack of awareness about the Overton window of oneself and that of others. Perceiving the world without the lens of ideology, beyond the horizon of the conclusions it leads us to, is uncomfortable and requires effort — it requires conversing with and listening sincerely to those who disagree with us and perceive differently, in the hope of understanding.

Association through Identity

The imposition of labels and definitions is sometimes warranted. Take, for example, the word ‘human,’ which has a very established meaning. There is no reason to lend any credence to a person’s claims of not being a human but a tree or a wolf instead. You have no obligation whatsoever to change your definition of those words — your method of categorization that you share with society, to accommodate said person.

The use of the feminist label in a way that monopolizes the linguistic territory describing advocacy for equal rights of the sexes is, as I have argued, not based on any meaningful claim to a definition. As a political claim, it often comes from a place of good intentions — that there needs to be a unifying label for all that claim to be in support of equal rights for men and women for effective activism and political solutions.

What such an attitude fails to take into account is that the feminist label creates links of association with more elements that one agrees with, lending political power and validation to persons and causes that you share nothing with beyond the label. Feminism does not envision the equality of the sexes in a uniform manner. Each conception of equality warrants a different political solution and means to achieve the same. A moderate feminist would thus do well to educate themselves about the more radical and extremist appendages of the feminist body politic that they unwittingly empower with their endorsement of the feminist label.

What one needs to be even more mindful of are the truth claims associated with feminism that one lends credence to by association. In the words of the linguist Steven Pinker:

“…feminism as an academic clique committed to eccentric doctrines about human nature is not [important]. Eliminating discrimination against women is important, but believing that women and men are born with indistinguishable minds is not. Freedom of choice is important, but ensuring women make up exactly 50% of all professions is not. And eliminating sexual assaults is important, but advancing the theory that rapists are doing their part in a vast male conspiracy is not.”

The Hazards of Tribalism

The neat and convenient division of the world into feminists and sexists invites every peril that follows tribalism. The feminist label, through the links of association it creates, does not only act as a marker of advocacy but also creates an identity and a community — a tribe.

One only needs to notice how there is large consensus within the Republicans and the Democrats of the US on a large number of issues that have little to do with each other to see the social pressures that tribalism induces to make one fall in line with the opinions of the rest of the tribe. An experiment has shown that, if presented with the policies of the opposing party while being told that they belong to one’s own party, an American is overwhelmingly likely to support them and vice versa. Tribalism replaces the process of thinking for oneself with the simple acceptance of the party line.

The feminist tribe suffers from the very same deficiencies — a feminist, with or without their knowledge, is likely to be moulded by these social pressures to hold positions that those in their ideological circle hold — whatever wins the approval of their ideological peers. Like any movement, feminism has its leaders. They include both academic ideologues and simple celebrities who identify as feminists. Their doing and saying of things in the name of feminism, due to the nature of tribalism, attains far more aplomb and advertisement than what a treatment of their ideas according to their merits would have attained despite often being untrue and absurd. Being a member of a group also creates a bias towards defending its actions rather than disavowing them where necessary. Thus, being aware of the evils one may unwittingly become an accomplice to by membership in a tribe, one ought to be wary of becoming a member of any tribe, be it feminism or otherwise.

The Appropriation of a Value

There is no reason to allow feminism to appropriate a basic human value — that of the recognition of the equality of the sexes, and claim all its adherents into an ideological categorization.

The coercive conscription effected by “you’re a feminist if you believe in equality” is best discredited expediently. Such a claim when used for recruitment, when not coming from a place of ignorance, is in intent or effect a call to enlist oneself in an ideological collective.

This affords the movement the ability to use the dynamics of a tribe to entrench the newly recruited in ideology, gaining political support for that which it pleases without requiring the recruited to do any thinking for themselves.

The definitional claim sometimes extends to a history-based moral claim — something along the lines of “the feminists died for the rights of women; you’re a bad person and an ingrate if you’re not one yourself.” Indeed, there are significant good things that can be attributed to what is called the movement, parts of which self-identified with the feminist identity and parts of which have simply been assigned the label post-hoc. Yet, what matters is that we acknowledge the historical efforts that brought us to where we are, and that we hold and practice the good principles they upheld. What does not follow out of a respect for such historical movements is an obligation to pledge allegiance to the movement and take up a label that confers a group-based identity regardless of everything else that it entails at this point of time. Such a claim is specious not least because the suffragettes of the 19th century are likely to find little in common with the positions of today’s feminist movement.

What’s Important

What, then, is the alternative? I argue that we are best served by advocacy for individual solutions rather than a broad movement that takes for granted the support of its members for solutions advanced by a few. By not delegating thinking to the machinery of a movement, specific issues can be given the attention they deserve. A movement with a grand narrative and a romanticised identity is far more likely to make large herds of people support illogical and ineffective ideological solutions than if the focus lay solely on identifying problems and having objective conversations about how they can be solved.

My central contention, therefore, is that holding the feminist identity should be of no importance, and not something that should be expected out of anybody. Principles, ideas and facts, on the other hand, are what really matter.

It is for these reasons that I choose to not take up the label. Nobody, in my opinion, should be satisfied with representing their view with the single word of feminism. Not only do I think more nuance is what we need, but I also think that a feminist group identity steals nuance from us.

There are those I respect who have great sentimental value for the label and hope to use the identity group for good advocacy and thus give it a good image. Despite knowing the hazards of being involved in the movement, they choose to stick with the label as they believe the benefits outweigh the costs. While I may disagree with the conclusion, I respect their decision. Such a consideration of the dangers and possible benefits of taking upon the identity is ideally something everybody makes honestly.

Being a member of a group is not inherently good or bad, nor is upholding a definition. When there are signs that mere membership is what is insisted on, however, second thoughts are warranted.