In search of feminist theory

Sylvia Walby’s 2000 article in Feminist Theory responds to critiques from Ann Phoenix, Gudrun-Axeli Knapp, and others. As one of British sociology’s most important feminist theorists, Walby further elaborates and defends her position that feminism needs to move beyond politics of location to develop universal theoretical frameworks.

Walby’s Theoretical Project

First, it’s important to understand Walby’s broader theoretical project:

Theorizing Patriarchy

Walby’s most famous contribution is systematic theorization of patriarchy:

Six Structures: In Theorizing Patriarchy (1990), she proposes patriarchy consists of six interrelated but partially independent structures:

1. Paid work: Gender segregation and inequality in labor markets
2. Household production: Unpaid domestic labor and care work
3. State: Gender bias in policies and laws
4. Violence: Male violence against women
5. Sexuality: Sexual norms and exploitation
6. Culture: Representation, discourse, ideology

This multi-dimensional analysis avoids economic or cultural reductionism.

Private vs. Public Patriarchy: Walby distinguishes:

• Private patriarchy: Women primarily excluded from public sphere, subject to individual men in households
• Public patriarchy: Women enter public sphere but still discriminated against, subject to collective structures

This distinction explains historical transformations in patriarchal forms.

Gender Regimes Concept

In later work, Walby develops the “gender regimes” concept:

• Emphasizing diverse forms of gender relations
• Attending to variations across societies and historical periods
• Analyzing gender regime evolution and transformation
• Connecting micro-interactions with macro-structures

Globalization and Feminism

Walby particularly focuses on globalization’s impact on gender relations:

• How economic globalization restructures gender divisions of labor
• Role of transnational institutions (UN, EU) in gender equality policies
• Transnationalization of feminist movements
• Gender dimensions in global governance

This global perspective shapes her claims about theoretical universality.

Responding to Critiques

Walby addresses several core criticisms in this article:

“Universalism Ignores Difference” Critique

Critics (like Phoenix) say:

• Universalist claims mask differences
• Abstract theory ignores concrete experiences
• “Women” category is essentializing
• Western-centrism

Walby might respond:

• Theorization doesn’t equal ignoring difference
• Can both acknowledge diversity and identify common patterns
• Patriarchy takes different forms in different contexts but is still identifiable as systemic oppression
• Analyzing structures doesn’t mean denying agency
• Universality need not be abstract or ahistorical

The key is distinguishing “bad universalism” (erasing difference) from “good universalism” (identifying systemic patterns).

”Rational Argument Is Power Tool” Critique

Critics (like Knapp) say:

• Argumentative standards themselves are power-laden
• Academic norms exclude certain voices
• Need to reflect on reason’s power effects

Walby might respond:

• Acknowledging argument has power dimensions doesn’t mean abandoning argument
• Feminism precisely needs argumentation to challenge patriarchy’s “naturalization”
• Abandoning reason would weaken feminism’s political effectiveness
• Can critique bad argumentative practices without rejecting argument itself
• Feminist movement success depends on persuasive arguments

The question isn’t whether to argue but what kind of arguments.

”Necessity of Politics of Location” Critique

Critics say:

• Need to acknowledge knowledge’s situatedness
• Positionality is epistemological responsibility
• Denying position means masking privilege

Walby might respond:

• Acknowledging positionality doesn’t equal falling into relativism
• Starting from specific positions doesn’t prevent making claims transcending situations
• Feminist movement history has always been both local and translocal
• Overemphasizing position risks political fragmentation
• Systemic oppression requires systemic theory

Walby doesn’t deny politics of location’s value but warns against its overemphasis risks.

Theory’s Necessity

Walby emphasizes feminist theorization’s indispensability:

Revealing Systemic Oppression

Without theory, we can only see:

• Individual cases and isolated events
• Surface phenomena rather than deep structures
• Personal problems rather than social problems
• Contingencies rather than systematicity

Theory helps us identify:

• Patterns: Connections between seemingly unrelated phenomena
• Structures: Mechanisms persistently producing inequality
• Systems: How multiple structures interact
• History: How oppression evolves and persists

Patriarchy theory reveals that superficially dispersed phenomena (wage gaps, domestic violence, sexual harassment) are different manifestations of the same system.

Guiding Political Action

Theory is crucial for effective political action:

Diagnosing Problems:

• Identifying roots rather than symptoms of oppression
• Understanding connections between different oppression forms
• Predicting possible consequences of interventions

Formulating Strategies:

• Determining key leverage points for intervention
• Coordinating action at different levels
• Evaluating different strategies’ effectiveness

Building Alliances:

• Providing common analytical frameworks
• Building connections across specific issues
• Negotiating common goals

Without theory, action may be blind or counterproductive.

Cross-Situational Dialogue

Theory makes cross-difference dialogue possible:

• Provides common conceptual language
• Makes comparison and learning possible
• Identifies similarities and differences across contexts
• Builds transnational feminist networks

If each locality can only speak of its unique experience, how is transnational solidarity possible?

Globalization Era Challenges

Walby particularly emphasizes new challenges from globalization:

Transnational Patriarchal Structures

Globalization produces new patriarchal forms:

• Global labor divisions: Women concentrated in low-paid, precarious work
• Transnational care chains: Rich country women employ poor country migrant women
• Sex trade globalization: Human trafficking and sex tourism
• Transnational corporations: Exploiting gender wage differentials

These aren’t purely local phenomena; require transnational analysis.

Global Governance Institutions

International institutions increasingly important in gender policy:

• United Nations: CEDAW, Beijing Platform for Action
• European Union: Gender equality directives
• World Bank/IMF: Gender mainstreaming policies
• International courts: Handling sexual violence as war crimes

Feminism needs to participate in these global-level debates and decisions.

Human Rights Discourse

Human rights become important framework for feminist claims:

• Framing women’s rights as human rights
• Using international legal mechanisms
• Universal claims across cultural boundaries
• Countering cultural relativism

Human rights discourse is inherently universalist, though its application is contextualized.

Transnational Feminist Movements

Contemporary feminist movements increasingly transnational:

• World Women’s Conferences
• Transnational NGO networks
• Rise of Global South feminisms
• Digital technology-facilitated connections

These movements need theoretical frameworks both acknowledging difference and seeking common action.

Theoretical Diversity vs. Theoretical Fragmentation

Walby might distinguish valuable diversity from destructive fragmentation:

Valuable Theoretical Diversity

Feminist theory should:

• Include different perspectives and methods
• Draw resources from different disciplines
• Acknowledge multiple theoretical traditions
• Encourage innovation and debate

Diversity is a source of theoretical vitality.

Destructive Theoretical Fragmentation

But if taken to extremes:

• Different theories cannot dialogue
• Everyone speaks only of their unique experience
• Rejecting any generalization or comparison
• Theory becomes tool of identity politics

This weakens feminism’s critical power and political effectiveness.

Seeking Balance

Walby seeks:

• Acknowledging diversity without falling into fragmentation
• Theorizing without erasing difference
• Universal claims without denying particularity
• Cross-situational dialogue without imposing uniformity

This isn’t a simple middle road but complex balancing.

Defending the Patriarchy Concept

Walby might particularly defend the “patriarchy” concept’s continuing relevance:

Critiques of “Patriarchy”

Some feminists critique the patriarchy concept:

• Too general and abstract
• Implies single male dominance system
• Ignores historical and cultural variation
• Essentializes male-female relations
• Outdated concept

Walby’s Defense

Walby argues the patriarchy concept:

• Can be flexible and historicized
• Acknowledges multiple forms and degrees
• Doesn’t presuppose fixed essences
• Still captures systemic gender inequality
• Connects seemingly unrelated oppression forms

The key is how to theorize patriarchy, not abandoning the concept.

Theory’s Political Function

Political value of “patriarchy” as theoretical concept:

• Naming oppression system
• Identifying responsibility
• Mobilizing and solidarity-building
• Challenging naturalization

Abandoning this concept might weaken feminism’s critical edge.

Methodological Stance

Walby’s position involves specific methodological commitments:

Realist Epistemology

Walby inclines toward some form of realism:

• Social structures exist independent of our cognition
• These structures produce observable effects
• Theory aims to understand these structures
• Though all knowledge is situated, can approach truth

This differs from extreme constructionism or relativism.

Comparative Method

Walby emphasizes comparative research:

• Cross-national comparison reveals commonalities and differences
• Historical comparison shows change and continuity
• Comparison is key to theory development
• But needs conceptual frameworks to make comparison possible

Without some universality concept, how is comparison possible?

Combining Quantitative and Qualitative

Walby’s work combines:

• Large-scale statistical analysis (like gender wage gaps)
• Historical and comparative analysis
• Theoretical conceptualization
• Policy analysis

This multi-method orientation supports her theoretical ambitions.

Political Commitments

Walby’s theoretical stance stems from specific political commitments:

Reformism or Radicalism?

Walby might be criticized as:

• Too focused on state and legal reform
• Cooperating with mainstream institutions
• Not radical or revolutionary enough

She might respond:

• Reforms can accumulate into transformation
• Using state power serves feminist goals
• Pragmatism doesn’t equal abandoning radical vision
• Effectiveness over purity

Social Democratic Tradition

Walby’s position reflects European social democratic traditions:

• State as potential tool for gender equality
• Social policy importance
• Collective bargaining and labor rights
• Feminist transformation of welfare state

This differs from more radical anti-state positions.

Gender Mainstreaming

Walby supports “gender mainstreaming”:

• Integrating gender perspectives into all policies
• Working within mainstream institutions
• Influencing elites and decision-makers

Critics might see this as diluting feminism’s radicalism.

Contemporary Relevance

Walby’s position has continuing contemporary relevance:

#MeToo Movement

Transnational #MeToo movement embodies:

• Personal stories’ power
• But also needs structural analysis (why so prevalent?)
• Cross-border resonance
• Identifying systemic gender violence

This supports Walby’s claim about needing to theorize systemic oppression.

Global Gender Inequality

Contemporary data shows:

• Persistent gender wage gaps
• Women’s underrepresentation in political and economic elites
• Unequal distribution of domestic labor by gender
• Sexual violence prevalence

These cross-national patterns require systemic explanation.

Climate Justice

Gender dimensions of climate crisis:

• Women more severely affected by climate change
• But underrepresented in climate policy
• Need gendered climate justice analysis
• Connecting ecofeminism with global governance

Digital Platform Economy

New forms of gender inequality:

• Gendered labor in gig economy
• Algorithmic bias
• Online harassment and violence
• Digital divide

Need theoretical frameworks understanding these new phenomena’s connections with traditional patriarchy.

Possible Limitations

Even sympathizing with Walby’s position, should acknowledge limitations:

Western-Centrism Risks

Though Walby focuses on globalization:

• Her framework still primarily based on European experience
• May underestimate colonialism and race’s centrality
• “Patriarchy” concept’s universal applicability questionable
• Needs more theoretical dialogue from Global South

Class and Race

Though Walby acknowledges intersectionality:

• Her work primarily focuses on gender
• Integration with race and class theories could deepen
• May underestimate these systems’ relative autonomy
• Needs more complex intersectional analysis

Weakening Radical Critique?

Walby’s reformism might:

• Trust state and legal mechanisms too much
• Underestimate deep structural change necessity
• Leave relationship with capitalism ambiguous
• Need more radical imagination

Conclusion

Sylvia Walby’s “In search of feminist theory” reaffirms her core claim: in the globalization era, feminism needs robust theorization capable of identifying systemic oppression, guiding effective political action, and facilitating transnational dialogue and solidarity.

Walby’s contribution lies in insisting feminist theory cannot retreat into pure politics of location or empiricism. Despite acknowledging difference and situatedness’s importance, she argues we still need conceptual tools to:

1. Understand gender inequality’s systemic and structural nature
2. Identify connections between different oppression forms
3. Build dialogue across local boundaries
4. Formulate effective political strategies
5. Participate in global governance and policymaking

Her debate with critics isn’t simple “universalism vs. particularism” opposition but about how feminist theory should balance universality and situatedness, theorization and experience, critique and construction.

In the contemporary moment, as global challenges (climate crisis, digital capitalism, rising authoritarianism) become increasingly urgent, Walby’s claim about needing powerful theoretical frameworks becomes more relevant. Simultaneously, her critics remind us to remain vigilant about power relations and exclusivities that new universalism might mask.

Perhaps the most productive position isn’t taking sides but working within this tension—developing feminist knowledge practices that are both analytically powerful and acknowledge diversity, can transcend situations while respecting differences, theorize while remaining grounded in experience. This is precisely the direction contemporary feminist theory continues exploring.

This article was written by AI assistant based on Sylvia Walby’s 2000 essay in Feminist Theory, incorporating her long-term research on patriarchy theory, gender regimes, and globalization feminism to explore feminist theorization’s necessity and challenges.