We are told tensions exist between feminist theory and activism.  The tensions stem from theory itself which some argue has grown increasingly out of touch with grassroots organizing around the world. All though real and deep divides exist between certain strains of feminist theory and feminist and women’s activism, I believe the distinctions most dwell on are often false.  Distinctions constructed on narrow definitions of theory and practice undergird elitism amongst certain practioners and further the resolved of activist non-scholars to draw thick boundaries between themselves and scholar non-activists. Yet the commitment to binary thinking not only ignores the history of Western feminism that comes out of the theory of women’s equality but also feminisms from the margins (both Western and in the Global South) that continue to be primarily praxis based.

The process of knowing and acting as feminist is circular and reinforcing. When women come together they inevitably discuss their lived experiences rendering the hegemonic presence of systemic male privilege visible regardless of location. In confirming a shared disparity based on gender, and multiplied by race, class, sexuality, ability, language, and location, women around the world articulate a theory of gendered oppression based in specificity and capable of solidarity across differences.  Rather than reifying, in its best sense, experience as a basis for theory and action allows us to move past the tendency to universalize a single woman’s experience or to claim that gender eclipses other metalanguages by acknowledging the specific embodied locality of theory. The coming together of women (practice) and the articulation of gendered oppression (theory) move the movement/s forward co-equally.

At the same time, we cannot forget the ways in which certain kinds of theory have moved us away from feminist praxis. Many criticized the rush to theory precisely at a moment in which white women and women and men of color finally became subjects and producers of academic inquiry (see Christian 1990).  Concerns about the destabilizing subject reflected a strong commitment to action based on identity as an organizing principle.  All though some calls for a stable subject were regressive, i.e. a return to the unquestioned “Woman” of early Western feminist theory, many recognized that an operational definition of “woman” that was real and influx was necessary. The call to reject postmodernist theory in particular, as an obfuscation of the material for the linguistic, also reflected a deep desire to change the materiality of women’s lives (Ebert 1995). Finally, feminist critiques of theory also highlighted the creation of theorists whose language and frame of reference was increasingly obscure and insular. The inaccessibility and insularity of certain kinds of theory had and could easily continue to lead some academic feminists away from revolution and toward unproductive navel gazing (Stanley and Wise 2000). Academic linguistic insularity also led to an inability to speak across positions so that both academics and activists were often left frustrated by attempts to work together.

Yet is the problem theory itself or is it the ways in which we have traditionally defined theory and theorist? Stanley and Wise (2000) argue that traditionally theory must declare itself as such, reference other theorists, and increasingly use obscure language. As they point out, this definition limits the revolutionary potential of feminist theory. First, in order to count feminists must call up a credentialing machine that is already exclusionary.  If feminist theory only references other canonized theorists whole bodies of knowledge are lost including contributions from non-academics.  Hernández-Ávila (2002) questions canonical credentialing by replacing it with ancestors.  Her work reminds us that feminist knowledge is produced through connectivity to others, animal and human spirits, and the earth itself.  Her work challenges what we claim as knowledge and how we claim to be knowledgeable in a way that also centers community.  By shifting the paradigm of who is a theorist we avoid the academic-activist split by understanding knowledge is produced everywhere.

The same shift can occur at the level of form and content.  Instead of thinking of theory as an obscure and insular discourse, Carol Boyce Davies argues “One is always acting out of some theoretical position/s whether these are named or not” (1994, 39). Her definition avoids the theory-practice split by showing how theory and practice are always praxis.  Action then becomes its own theory, removed from highly academic printed texts. Other feminist theorists have shown us that theory exists in art, poetry, and plays (see Trinh 1992, Davy 1995, and Lopez 2004).

As Alison Bartlett will show us in this volume, the act of writing itself functions as a form of feminist praxis.  Cherrie Moraga (1983/2004) reminds us that writing can be an act of creating space for oneself and for a myriad of other women left out of discourse both in their natal communities and in the public face of the communities they now claim. Authors such as Andrea Smith (2005) use writing to intervene in existing feminist theories of sexual and gender oppression not only to aid in the movement to end domestic and sexual violence (DSV) but also to document the examples of DSV the nation willingly erases.  Her work, like other feminists redefining core feminist theories to be inclusive of all women, dares us in the reading to make our theories of diversity and global feminism into practice.  Co-Editor Lena McQuade’s article in this edition of FemTAP also illustrates how writing theory meets urgent communal needs while demonstrating how feminist research also expands ones own feminism.

Perhaps Lorde put the connection between theory and practice, content and form, and feminist revolution best when she warned us “For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.  They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change” (1981, 99). No matter what the short term gains, we cannot adopt nor adapt hegemonic theory and believe we are still functioning as practioners of feminism. Only when we redefine feminist theory as grounded in the material, predicated on social change action, and accessible across subject positions, will we avoid ultimately being undone as a movement and as human beings.

The desire to shed light on feminism that understands the connections between theory and practice and between different feminisms led to the creation of this e-journal.  It represents a conversation begun in my own graduate career in Women’s Studies between those of us feminists who were coming out of grassroots organizing into the sometimes insular walls of academia. As women from the margins and the center, we wanted to find a way to bridge gaps between subject positions which we felt should not be disconnected. We understood that U.S. based academic feminism exists precisely because of feminist organizing on campuses for Women’s Studies Departments and Women’s Centers.  Our history is one of both/and.  As editors and guest editors of FemTAP we hope the magazine will resonate with other feminists’ work to make both/and our shared present as well.

FemTAP also comes out of the first Graduate Feminist Theory course at the University of New Mexico.  Here we began from the place of embracing praxis in all forms and a commitment to highlighting marginalized and erased voices. Our work on the journal reflected our own relationships to feminist theory and commitment to feminist praxis.  As such, our decision-making process was non-hierarchical, conversational (everyone had room to speak with full knowledge that they would be heard), and majority rule.  We also decided to highlight emerging scholars while including scholars at all levels; for us, the definition of scholar included non-academics. Our editorial process included extensive feedback and exchange between ourselves and potential contributors based on their initiative.  We worked together to produce an overall project that all of us own because we understood we are stronger in community than in competition.

In order to present a cohesive, readable, and pointed first edition, we chose to only include four essays.  We were privileged to receive seven times our limit in submissions from around the world. We made our choices based on a desire to represent a feminism that holds all voices as equal participants in the feminist struggle.  Thus each of our essays represents a different viewpoint, discipline, writing style, and stage.  We begin with Nancy A. Naples discussion of global feminist activism and scholarly activism as particularly needed/relevant feminist praxis in the current age and move to Tao Valentine’s exploration of black feminist theories of love as potential place for the practice of feminist healing. Concluding our edition, Ann Millett’s discussion of differently-abled artists’ active display of their bodies and Ann Bartlett’s use of Australian fictocriticism as inherently feminist claim art as praxis oriented intervention into feminism.

We welcome you to participate in our multi-authored conversation about feminist theory and praxis as a reader and potential writer.  Our next call for papers is entitled “Feminist Pedagogy: New Paradigms, New and Old Places” and is available under the “call for papers” link at this site.

REFERENCES

Davies, Carol Boyce (1994) Black Women Writing and Identity: Migrations of the Subject. NY: Routledge.

Davy, Kate (May 1995). “Outing Whiteness: A Feminist/Lesbian Project.” Theater Journal  47.2, 189-205

Christian, Barbara (1990). “The Race for Theory.” Making Faces, Making Soul/ haciendo caras: Creative and Critical Perspectives by Feminists. Anzaldúa. Editor. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Press, 335-345.

Ebert, Teresa (1995). “(Untimely) Critiques for a Red Feminism.” Post-Ality, Marxism and Postmodernism. Mas'ud Zavarzadeh, Ebert, & Morton. Editors. Maryland: Maisonneuve Press, np.

Hernández-Ávila, Inés. (2002). “In the Presence of Spirits.” This Bridge We Call Home: Radical Visions for Transformation. Anzaldua & Keating. Editors. NY: Routledge,530-538.

Lopez, Alma. www.almalopez.net accessed 2004

Lorde, Audre (1981). “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House.” This Bridge Called My Back. Anzaldua & Moraga Editors. NY: Kitchen Table Press, 98-101.

Moraga, Cherríe (1983/2000). Loving in the War Years: lo que nunca pasó por sus labios. Cambridge: South End Press.

Rubin, Gayle (1984/1993) “Thinking Sex: Notes from a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality.” The Lesbian Gay Studies Reader. Abelove, Barale, Halpern. Editors. NY: Routledge, 3-44.

Smith, Andrea (2005). Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide. Cambridge: South End Press.

Stanley, Elizabeth & Wise, Susan (2000). “But the Empress Has No Clothes! Some Awakward Questions About the Missing Revolution in Feminist Theory.” Feminist Theory 1:3, 261-288.

Trinh, Minh Ha (1992) Framer Framed. NY: Routledge.