Abstract
As journal editors of Affilia, we often find ourselves in the position of asking the question, “is this feminist?” Of course, this question has various iterations and includes, “is this feminist enough?” “that can’t be feminist?” “are we behaving like feminists?” We also know ourselves, particularly in a moment of intense heated dialog, to comment to each other, “you don’t sound very feminist.” Are there such definitions? Feminist enough, more feminist, less feminist, or more properly feminist, among feminists? Asking these questions of ourselves and during our editorial board processes has become part of the way we design our work, and more importantly an attempt to fully live our lives. Critical feminism orients us toward a set of values like a compass fueled by love and oriented to true north. It compels us to listen, to understand, aim for growth, think of possibilities, and directs us toward a conviction to truth telling even in the most uncomfortable situations. It has become so much of a part of our operating values that it becomes assumed into our work, like a statement of the obvious. This integration is a process, one that we did not fully anticipate or plan for, it has taken time and commitment, and while we are not doing it perfectly, we are wholly grateful for the opportunities that it brings us.
Critical feminist analysis has also created for us intellectual alliances, while other frameworks push up against our feminist edges. Anti-oppression and critical race theories (to name two) have emerged as important frameworks that address issues of structural inequity and social responsibility. With these two theories, we feminists seem comfortable using them as critiquing tools because of their congruency with our principles and values, even though they did not grow directly from feminism.
One of the greatest challenges for critical feminist is to think about how we move feminism forward as fundamental to social work intervention. This seems especially true when the target of the intervention is not the individual or family. It leaves us wondering if the application of feminist theory and practice in an evidence-based environment either stumps or trumps interventions that are nonmicro focused. Can we produce critical feminist interventions in an evidence-based environment when those interventions are designed to challenge the dominant economic and political “truth” that challenges the sociopolitical structure?
The danger of the micro focus is that the unit of analysis and intervention, while not being called the problem in polite company, is treated as such. The targets of intervention are objects of change because they are problematic. This is true even when they are situated at easier level of intervention. For instance, we see high school drop-out rates, despite efforts to frame it differently, are not understood as schools pushing out students of color even when the disproportionality is clear. In this way, the student becomes “a dropout” and burden with the problem. This moves the focus from underfunded overcrowded schools in poor neighborhoods. We then approach the problem by analyzing poor children and families to determine how they can survive and thrive the problem and we call it resiliency. In this way, we focus on interventions such as parent engagement rather than turning to structural answers such as equitable school funding, standardized curriculums, and content that reflects the history and politics of multiple communities.
Even when examining the area of intimate partner violence, which has one of the longest histories of feminist focus, we find that feminists have long offered sociopolitical structures for the explanation of this social problem, and a few social work organizations have caught on to embed social change as a part of their mission. It is a small minority, however. Most social work interventions are focused on individual “solutions” rather than systemic explanations for continued high levels of violence against women by their intimate partners.
We critique our colleagues for their individual focus stating that building up resilience is like an inoculation from a disease whose goal is to protect the “at risk” from social ills. Our colleagues retort that we continue a constant and consistent studying of the problem rather than action toward systematic interventions (praxis). It seems a fair criticism that we use our justice theories as tools of critique rather than creating intervention design aimed at what some call the impossible, structural justice.
Despite the influence on intervention develop and design of funding organizations, we must rail against the power of dollars to dictate research foci that ignore structural barriers that create and maintain individual and social ills. It is time for us to develop, evaluate, and write about interventions that stem from feminist praxis. We must address the issue that structural interventions rooted in feminist social work seem few and far between and that we must extend beyond therapy as the main stay of feminist interventions. The use of the tools of feminism for critiquing and intervention development, which leaves the dignity of those receiving the intervention intact, is behaving just like feminist.