Feminist scholars have criticized social movement theory for its male bias in explaining and understanding resistance. This male bias leads theorists to focus on constructs such as organizational structure and networks, thereby ignoring women's methods of and their participation in struggles. As Kuumba (2001, p. 107) noted, strategies engaged in by women as an outgrowth of their productive and reproductive labor are very ones that are submerged and hidden, (see also Taylor, 1995; Foweraker, 1995; Aulette & Mills, 1988; Baver, 1989; Bookman & Morgen, 1988; Beuchler, 1993; Cohen, 1985). Such analyses challenge false dichotomy between political and personal spheres of resistance, in which male sphere of is seen as political structure and women are conceptualized less as activists because their sphere is seen to be home. Women's resistance, critics have argued, is masked by traditional categories used to assess political action (Naples, 1991, p. 478). A feminist analysis of movement theory suggests that focus on public sphere, in which men are seen to exert power and efficacy, should be accompanied by complementary analyses of and activism as they take place in private realm.The family is a major private site in which activism occurs. Although relationship between family and activism has not been subject of extensive research, two distinct literatures deal with topic. One focuses on nature of family as a microcosm of intersection of race, class, and gender that characterizes public world; activism is seen to develop in response to this microcosm. Not only is impact of these systems of experienced at level of family but ideas about family also operate as a cognitive scaffold used to construct intersecting systems of oppression (Hill Collins, 2000, p. 48). The family illuminates convergence of social and gendered hierarchies in its struggle to access prestige, economic, social, and political power and serves as an important place for understanding development of strategies against intersecting systems of oppression.While some scholars view family as a microcosm of oppression, others argue that effects of and colonialism on family structure can perpetuate progressive changes in male/female relationships and therefore challenge assumptions of traditional gender role socialization. Caulfield (1974), for example, explored non-Western family structure as it is impacted by imperialism. The family, she argued, is most basic of institutions involved in culture of resistance (p. 73). Through their creativity and resourcefulness (p. 69), families develop survival strategies that serve as the cultural response to imperialism (p. 69). She posited that families, generally under leadership of women, have fought back, defending subsistence production . . . cementing family bonds and building new networks of mutual support . . consolidating and developing cultures of resistance--cultures of which, like role of women and family life itself, have been devalued under imperialist ideology (p. 74).Similarly, Baca Zinn (1975), focusing on Chicano families, examined political familism, defined as the process of cultural and political activism which involves participation of total family units in movement for liberation (p. 16). She argued that Chicano family is organizing structure for social justice. In addition to their efforts to end social and political in external society, Chicano families apply demands and expectations of their struggle to gender-role expectations internally. As a result, women's involvement in movement activities transform[s] patterns of male exclusiveness (p. 20).A second body of literature concerning family and activism addresses another aspect of relationship between family and activism--the functions of roles as resistance. …
Read full abstract
Aug 1, 2012
Open Access