This document may be too large for your printer buffer to handle. We suggest downloading this document to a disk if printing difficulties are encountered or e-mailing the author for a hard copy by clicking on his/her name.
The first Women's Studies program in the nation was founded in San Diego,
California in 1970, and within six years there were approximately 270 such
programs. The 1990 Women's Studies Directory lists some 818 programs in
institutions of higher education; that is, approximately 1/4 of all accredited
institutions of higher education in the U.S. have WS programs. In her recent
book Feminism in Action, Jean O'Barr has noted that "the Women Studies
movement called for change on at least three fronts-- the individual, the
institutional, and the ideological." Thus individual women were not only to
join the academy, but they were also to work for equal treatment for women
and support feminist scholarship. Institutions, in turn, were to act
affirmatively with regard to student recruitment and rewards, staffing, and
curricula. Finally, the women's studies movement demanded that educational
values systems be re-examined and altered.
The establishment of separate
courses on women was succeeded by the development of interdisciplinary
programs, usually on the undergraduate level, most often offering only a
certificate or a minor. Later, majors and some limited graduate
concentrations were established. In 1976, feminist scholar and editor Florence
Howe was commissioned by the National Advisory Council on Women's
Educational Programs to report on the progress of the Women's Studies
programs and to make recommendations for their improvement. Howe
visited 15 programs, including U.T.'s. She identified several ways or patterns
in which Women's Studies programs differed from other academic programs:
they had close, on-going relationships with elements of their local
communities, they put more emphasis on student advising, they stimulated
and supported scholarship on women, and they had specific agendas for
change. She also noted the universally low budgets, lack of appropriate space
and support staff, and over-dependence on women whose tenure lines were
in traditional disciplines. The National Institute for Education's follow up
studies in 1980 showed the continuing rapid growth of WS programs and
courses, but also reported on their lack of integration into curricular
requirements and the continued low levels of funding and staffing.
Paradoxically, by the 1980s the interdisciplinary Women's Studies programs
had taken on all the characteristics of a discipline: a professional association,
academic conferences, scholarly journals, a growing body of monographic
literature, and international, as well as national, networks of scholars. By the
end of the 1980s, most WS programs were still free-standing, with poor access
to institutional resources and support, depending on other departments'
faculty and part-timers.
The WS program at U.T. has followed this general
pattern. After the establishment in 1972 of a Task Force on Women in
response to pressure from faculty, staff, and students, the WS program was
established along with other interdisciplinary programs such as Black Studies
under a Cultural Studies umbrella in the College of Liberal Arts. In 1974, the
core courses were taught for the first time to a total enrollment of 71 students.
WS survived the transitions from quarters to semesters, revised its minor,
added more cross-listed courses, and established a major. It also eventually
acquired two GAs and a small endowment fund. Currently, WS is in the
process of establishing a public WS Forum and providing for more rotation in
the WS Advisory committee membership. According the 1995 self study, 588
students were enrolled in WS own courses and WS cross-listed courses that
fall semester. And during the life span of the program, some 8,959 students
had taken WS core courses along with 8,856 students who had enrolled in
courses cross-listed with WS. The program at UT has also reflected the
national patterns of having to struggle for space, being consistently under
funded with respect the FTEs generated, and having to depend totally on
tenure track and tenured faculty housed in traditional academic departments
plus part time adjunct instructors.
WHY? I am going to argue that, in large
part at least, these inconsistencies and inequalities are due to the threats to
traditional values that are posed when we try to integrate gender into
mainstream academic disciplines. In other words, I want to describe what
happens when the ethical considerations that we assume institutions have--
such as equity, equality, and fairness--come into conflict with the deeply held
values of a discipline. As a test case, I am going to consider my own discipline,
history.
History as a Test Case
Transformation of the curriculum has always
been a central objective of women's studies programs, and it has been
relatively easy to add free-standing courses on women, such as a philosophy
course about Concepts of Women, or Women and French Culture, or Women's
Health Issues, or even Women in European History. But what happens when
we try to incorporate gender as a category of analysis in mainstream courses
that already exist? In this part of my presentation, I want to use the academic
discipline of history as a test case to demonstrate the questions of values that
are raised when we attempt to transform the existing curriculum so as to
include gender analysis.
Every history major and beginning graduate student
has to consider the definition of history: What is history? Although there is no
absolute agreement within the profession, the generally accepted consensus
among the majority of practitioners is that history is the story of the human
past which focusses on change and continuity over time, that history contains
both narrative and analysis based on the critical use of evidence, and that
history advances limited truth claims. The postmodernist minority within the
profession disagrees with this definition. To them, history is a story rather
than the story, and thus should not advance any truth claims. Since time is not
linear but can fold backward and forward upon itself, change and/or
continuity are impossible to determine (and not important anyway). Finally,
the evidential base for analysis may be narrow and exclusive rather than
broad and inclusive, the explanatory form should be narrative, and historians
should not even try to be relatively objective. While postmodernist
approaches to history offer both challenges and opportunities, they are not
the focus of this presentation. Rather, I will use the definition of history that
underpins the overwhelming majority of courses and all history textbooks as
the basis for my analysis.
What is important, then, for purposes of this test
case are the ideas about chronology, use of evidence, objectivity and
truth
claims that are central to the mainstream of historical endeavors today.
Chronology is simply how we divide up time into manageable periods, such as
the colonial period, the Jacksonian era., the Civil War and Reconstruction, etc.
Chronological periods are identified by what is deemed to be important or of
value, and in most fields of history the periods are political, and, to a lesser
degree, economic. Rarely are the periods socio-cultural; the old
Renaissance/Reformation subfield of long ago has become Early Modern
History. The evidence relied upon by most historians is documentary:
material in government archives, legislative debates and reports, treaties,
letters, diaries, newspapers and magazines, etc. And although no historians
believe that they can be completely free from their frame of reference or
climate of opinion, they agree that objectivity is their goal. Most, in fact, think
that they can overcome their biases and obtain a considerable degree of
objectivity. Finally, this objectivity combined with a careful and critical use of
evidence leads to truth claims. Mainstream historians believe that they are
telling the story of a part of the human past, stories which, like building blocks,
can be fitted together into a larger edifice to provide a meaningful synthesis of
knowledge.
But what happens when we try to incorporate women into this
formula-- not just add them on somewhere, as most textbooks do, but actually
integrate women into the story of the human past? Using gender as a
category of analysis raises questions and has the power to transform radically
each element of history as it is currently practiced.
Chronology
Women's
experiences do not fit well or even fit at all into conventional political
divisions of time. For example, it does not make sense to talk about child
rearing in the administration of Teddy Roosevelt or the impact of the Civil
War and Reconstruction on birth control technology. This raises questions
about what is important to know about our history. Central to the understanding of women's experiences
(and, one could argue, to the understanding of men's experiences also) is the
social construction of gender--how men and women are socialized, what
kinds of behaviors are perceived as acceptable and appropriate, how class,
race, ethnicity, region, and religion intersect with gendered expectations, etc.
Further complicating the issue is that while women share some experiences
with men, such as the Great Depression, they may experience the event
differently. Other experiences such as child birth and child rearing have
different impacts on women's lives than on men's lives. If we divided up time
according to changes and continuities in the social construction of gender, the
chronology of history would be very different indeed. Social and cultural
history would become central, while political and economic history would
become less important.
Evidence
Traditional sources of evidence usually yield
only very limited information about gender issues. Upper class and middle
class women, especially those related to famous men, women such as Abigail
Adam or Eleanor Roosevelt, will be best represented by such sources. There
are also sources about deviant women, as seen through the eyes of men, such
as the accused witches of Salem, and exceptional women, such as temperance
activist Carrie Nation. But bias toward traditional documentary sources
often eliminates ordinary women, e.g., wives and daughters of farmers,
artisans, sailors, and laborers who lack the political voice and visibility of
their male relatives. Women of color, like their male counterparts throughout
much of history, are even less likely to appear in traditional sources of
evidence.
Thus it is clear that to study gender one must expand the kinds of
evidence one analyzes. Historians of women have especially relied upon
artifacts of material culture, such as clothing, houses, furnishings, household
implements, paintings and drawings, etc.; prescriptive sources such as
sermons, advertisements, etiquette books, etc.; statistical data, especially
information about age at marriage, number of children, etc.; and oral history
for the more recent past. However, these kinds of non-conventional sources
raise issues of interpretation--how do you "read" clothing? What is the
relationship between prescriptive evidence telling women how to behave and
the influence on women or the realities of women's behavior. What the
profession has always called the "rules of evidence" do not work well for these
kinds of sources. Far more useful to historians interested in gender have been
concepts and even models borrowed from other disciplines such as cultural
anthropology or sociology. Use of these concepts or models, of course, tends
to blur disciplinary boundaries.
Objectivity
Even more problematical to
historians interested in gender have been the goal and assumptions of
historical objectivity. Many historians of women became historians
specifically because they felt the lack of a usable past, wished to give women
an historical voice, and were committed to social change. The entrance of
women into the historical profession has also tended to coincide with periods
of intense feminist activity; the 1910s and early 20s and the 1960s and early 70s
were two such periods. As Linda Kerber and Jane De Hart have pointed out,
women's history has gone through four stages: first compensatory, rescuing
extraordinary women from oblivion; next contributionist, adding women as
actors into traditional political and economic history; then reconstructive,
trying to test and change some of our historical generalizations; and finally,
focussing on gender as a social construction and making that central to our
historical understanding. It is worth noting that Kerber's and De Hart's
textbook, Women's America, is now in a fourth edition. The integration of
women's history into mainstream textbooks simply hasn't happened.
Truth claims
Finally, emphasizing gender as a social construction often directly
challenges the truth claims of history. For example, both the Civil War and
World War II are portrayed as difficult, negative periods in our history. Yet
women's opportunities and options broadened during these two wars.
American history in particular tends to have a progressive bias-- that things
get better and better. It also often claims uniqueness-- our history is very
different from that of other countries. But the narrowing of opportunities for
American women (and for African Americans and Native Americans also)
during several eras contradicts the supposedly progressive nature of
American history, and in many instances women's experiences are much more
like those of women in other nations than they are like the experiences of
American men, in the Great Depression of the 1930s, for example.
Peter
Novick's massive, extensively-researched history of the American historical
profession, That Noble Dream, was published by Cambridge University Press
in 1988. This magisterial study has gone through at least seven reprintings
and was the subject of an entire issue of the American Historical Review in
1991. Novick discusses the entrance of both African Americans and women
into the historical profession in the late 1960s and early 1970s, noting that both
were highly visible, represented constituents outside the university, and dealt
with subjects traditionally passed over. However, women budgeted into
history departments, he points out, frequently "chose to publish major work in
interdisciplinary journals" and shared a belief in "sisterhood" as their basic
bond of solidarity and mutual support, rather than confining themselves to
the narrower circle of their history colleagues and the discipline of history.
Furthermore, Novick asserts, the logical conclusion of black separatism was
"a kind of moral and cultural emigration," while "the logical conclusion of
separatist feminism was lesbianism." Although admitting that only a tiny
minority of women historians were lesbians, Novick pointed out that straight
women historians had gone so far as to suggest that heterosexuality might be
a male construct. African American historians (one assumes male historians),
Novick suggests, had not been nearly as threatening as women historians.
Women's "moral separatism," he concludes, "was a good deal more
threatening to academic life, and the domestic life of male academics, than
black separatism had been."
SELECTED SOURCES
Howe, Florence. Seven Years Later: Women's Studies Programs in 1976.
1977.
Kerber, Linda and Jane DeHart. Women's America. 4th edition. 1995.
National Institute of Education. The Effectiveness of Women's Studies
Teaching. 1980.
National Women's Studies Association. NWSA Directory. 1990
O'Barr, Jean F. Feminism in Action. 1994.
Novick, Peter. That Noble Dream. 1988.
Women's Studies Program, UT Knoxville. "Self-Study, 1987."
________. "Self-Study, 1995."
________. The Impact of Women's Studies on the Campus and
Disciplines. 1980.
________. Liberal Learning and the Women's Studies Major. 1991
Talk to the Conference Participants |
---|
Questions and comments may be directed to the Conference Convenor, Alvin G. Burstein or individual authors by clicking on his/her name.
This page has been accessed times.
Last updated: July 22, 1997