But the empress has no clothes! Some awkward questions about the 'missing revolution' in feminist theory

Liz Stanley and Sue Wise’s 2000 article “But the empress has no clothes!” represents a bold intervention in feminist theoretical debates at the turn of the millennium. Building on their decades of collaborative work since “Breaking Out” (1983) and “Breaking Out Again” (1993), Stanley and Wise deliver a provocative critique of feminist theory’s failure to revolutionize its fundamental structures, despite revolutionary transformations in feminist epistemology and methodology.

The Missing Revolution Thesis

Stanley and Wise’s central argument is both simple and profound: while feminist scholarship has fundamentally transformed how we think about knowledge production (epistemology), research practice (methodology), and ethical frameworks, feminist theory itself remains surprisingly conservative in its structural form. They borrow the concept of a “missing revolution” from Judith Stacey and Barrie Thorne’s 1985 critique of sociology, applying it to feminist theory itself.

The authors argue that contemporary feminist theory, despite its radical content, largely mirrors the structures and forms of what they call “malestream” social theory. This parallel project approach means that feminist theorists often engage in the same kinds of abstract theoretical debates, use similar conceptual architectures, and reproduce comparable hierarchies of knowledge that characterize mainstream academic theory. The revolutionary potential of feminism becomes contained within conventional academic structures, creating what Stanley and Wise see as a fundamental contradiction.

The Emperor’s New Clothes Metaphor

The title’s allusion to Hans Christian Andersen’s tale is deliberately provocative. Stanley and Wise position themselves as the child who points out what everyone can see but no one will acknowledge: that feminist theory, despite claims to radical transformation, has not fundamentally altered the way theory is conceived, produced, and validated within academic contexts.

This metaphor operates on multiple levels. First, it suggests that feminist theory’s claims to revolutionary status may be overstated when examined closely. Second, it implies that there’s a collective unwillingness within feminist academic circles to acknowledge this limitation. Third, and perhaps most importantly, it positions their critique as a necessary truth-telling that breaks through comfortable consensus.

Epistemology, Methodology, and Ethics: The Successful Revolutions

Stanley and Wise acknowledge significant transformations in three key areas of feminist scholarship:

Feminist Epistemology has successfully challenged traditional notions of objectivity, universality, and the knowing subject. Concepts like situated knowledge (Haraway), standpoint theory (Harding, Hartsock), and the politics of location have fundamentally altered how we understand knowledge production. These developments recognize that all knowledge is produced from somewhere, by someone, for particular purposes.

Feminist Methodology has revolutionized research practice through innovations like consciousness-raising as research method, the validation of personal experience as data, and the development of participatory and action research approaches. Stanley and Wise’s own concept of “feminist fractured foundationalism” represents an attempt to create methodologies that are simultaneously rigorous and politically committed.

Feminist Ethics has transformed how we think about research relationships, accountability, and the purposes of knowledge production. The emphasis on reflexivity, reciprocity, and responsibility to research participants represents a fundamental shift from extractive to collaborative models of research.

The Stagnation of Feminist Theory

In contrast to these revolutionary developments, Stanley and Wise argue that feminist theory remains trapped within conventional academic structures. They identify several problematic tendencies:

Parallel Project Syndrome: Much feminist theory simply creates parallel versions of mainstream theories rather than fundamentally questioning theoretical form itself. There’s feminist versions of psychoanalysis, Marxism, poststructuralism, and so forth, but these often reproduce the same kinds of abstract, universalizing tendencies they purport to critique.

Hierarchy of Knowledge: Despite feminist commitments to democratizing knowledge, theoretical work continues to be valued over empirical research, abstract concepts over grounded analysis, and metropolitan theories over peripheral voices. This reproduces exactly the kinds of hierarchies feminism claims to challenge.

Disconnection from Practice: Much feminist theory has become increasingly disconnected from feminist political practice and everyday women’s lives. The complexity and abstraction of theoretical debates can exclude those without specialized academic training, contradicting feminist commitments to accessibility and inclusion.

Metatheoretical Blindness: There’s insufficient reflection on what theory is, what it does, and how it functions within feminist scholarship. Questions about the form, structure, and purpose of theory itself are rarely addressed, with most debates focusing on theoretical content rather than theoretical practice.

The Call for Feminist Metatheory

Stanley and Wise’s solution is not to abandon theory but to develop what they call feminist metatheory - a systematic reflection on the nature, structure, and purposes of feminist theorizing itself. This metatheoretical project would examine:

The Form of Theory: Rather than simply debating theoretical content, feminists need to question the very form that theory takes. Why do we theorize in particular ways? What assumptions about knowledge and abstraction underpin our theoretical practices?

The Politics of Theory: Who gets to theorize? Whose theories count? How do academic structures shape what kinds of theoretical work is possible and valued? These questions reveal how power operates through theoretical practice itself.

The Purpose of Theory: What is feminist theory for? If it’s disconnected from political practice and inaccessible to most women, can it really claim to be feminist? These questions challenge us to reconnect theory with its transformative purposes.

Alternative Theoretical Forms: Stanley and Wise call for experimentation with new forms of theorizing that might better embody feminist values. This could include collaborative theorizing, theory grounded in practice, or theoretical work that refuses conventional academic genres.

Feminist Autocritique

Central to Stanley and Wise’s argument is the necessity of what they term “feminist autocritique” - a rigorous self-examination of feminist theory’s own assumptions, practices, and effects. This autocritique would:

Question Sacred Cows: Even foundational feminist concepts and canonical texts need to be subject to critical scrutiny. The tendency to create new orthodoxies must be resisted through continuous questioning.

Examine Institutional Embeddedness: How has feminist theory been shaped by its location within academic institutions? What compromises have been made? What possibilities have been foreclosed?

Address Exclusions: Who is excluded from theoretical conversations? What kinds of knowledge are marginalized? How do academic conventions limit who can participate in theoretical work?

Reconnect with Politics: How can feminist theory reconnect with feminist political movements? What would theory look like if it were accountable to activist communities rather than academic disciplines?

Critiques and Responses

Stanley and Wise’s intervention generated significant debate within feminist circles. Critics argued that they:

Oversimplified Diversity: The variety and complexity of feminist theoretical work cannot be reduced to a single “parallel project” criticism. Many feminist theorists have indeed questioned theoretical form itself.

Understated Achievements: Feminist theory has achieved more transformation than Stanley and Wise acknowledge, fundamentally altering disciplines and creating new fields of inquiry.

Created False Binaries: The distinction between “successful” revolutions in epistemology/methodology and “failed” revolution in theory may be overstated. These areas are deeply interconnected.

Idealized Alternatives: The call for new theoretical forms remains somewhat vague. What would non-parallel feminist theory actually look like?

Contemporary Relevance

More than two decades later, Stanley and Wise’s critique remains remarkably relevant. The questions they raise about feminist theory’s institutional position, its relationship to political practice, and its accessibility continue to be pressing. In an era of:

Academic Precarity: As academic positions become increasingly precarious, questions about who can afford to do theoretical work become even more urgent.

Digital Feminism: Online feminist activism has created new spaces for theoretical work outside academic institutions, potentially addressing some of Stanley and Wise’s concerns.

Intersectional Complexity: As feminist theory grapples with ever more complex intersectional analyses, questions about accessibility and practicality become increasingly important.

Decolonial Challenges: Decolonial feminists have extended Stanley and Wise’s critique, questioning not just the form but the colonial foundations of much feminist theory.

Implications for Feminist Scholarship

Stanley and Wise’s article implies several important considerations for contemporary feminist scholarship:

Methodological Innovation: The success of feminist epistemology and methodology suggests that transformation is possible when feminists are willing to fundamentally question established practices.

Institutional Reflexivity: Feminist scholars need to continuously examine how institutional locations shape theoretical production, maintaining critical distance from academic conventions.

Accessible Theorizing: If feminist theory is to be truly transformative, it must be accessible to those outside academic institutions. This requires not just translation but fundamental rethinking of theoretical practice.

Political Accountability: Feminist theory should be accountable to feminist movements and communities, not just academic disciplines. This requires new forms of engagement and validation.

The Ongoing Challenge

“But the empress has no clothes!” remains a challenging and somewhat uncomfortable read for feminist academics. It forces us to question whether our theoretical work truly embodies feminist values or merely reproduces academic hierarchies with feminist content. Stanley and Wise don’t provide easy answers, but they insist on asking difficult questions.

Their call for feminist metatheory and autocritique is not about abandoning theory but about making it more genuinely feminist in form as well as content. This requires ongoing vigilance, creative experimentation, and a willingness to acknowledge when our practices fall short of our principles. The “missing revolution” they identify is not a past failure but an ongoing challenge - one that each generation of feminist scholars must take up anew.

The article ultimately serves as both critique and invitation. It challenges feminist theorists to examine their own practices with the same critical rigor they apply to patriarchal structures. And it invites experimentation with new forms of theorizing that might better serve feminist goals of transformation, inclusion, and liberation. The empress may have no clothes, but Stanley and Wise suggest that recognizing this nakedness is the first step toward clothing feminist theory in genuinely revolutionary garments.