Feminist Theory · Research
In search of feminist theory
This essay is Walby's response to critiques from Phoenix, Knapp, and others, further elaborating her position that feminism needs robust theorization and universal claims. Walby argues that in the era of globalization, feminism cannot be limited to politics of location but needs to develop theoretical frameworks capable of analyzing systemic oppression across local boundaries.
Abstract
This article responds to criticisms of Walby's claim to 'move beyond politics of location,' reaffirming the importance of feminist theory needing universal analytical frameworks. Walby argues that acknowledging difference and locality should not prevent feminism from developing powerful theoretical tools to analyze systemic structures of patriarchy, capitalism, and globalization. She explores how to build theory capable of guiding effective political action while acknowledging diversity, and how feminism can respect difference without falling into relativism.
Research notes
Sylvia Walby’s “In search of feminist theory” replies to commentators on her earlier intervention about politics of location and the power of argument. The article opens with a disciplinary challenge: analyses of politics are not automatically theories, and feminist scholarship still needs concepts capable of explaining patterned relations across cases. Walby also identifies a possible convergence in the debate—difference cannot be understood without attention to overarching frameworks and overlaps, while social locations should not be treated as wholly incommensurable.
Her position defends comparison and generalization without requiring that every woman share the same experience. Theory, in this account, should specify mechanisms, relations, and scales that allow claims to be assessed beyond one location. The global context makes this need more urgent because institutions, labor markets, states, and movements cross borders. Yet the exchange also exposes the risk: a framework broad enough to travel may erase the histories and power relations that make locations unequal. Walby’s answer is to seek stronger explanation rather than abandon cross-context argument.
The article is most illuminating when read as one part of a live controversy, not as the final definition of feminist theory. Phoenix presses the politics of alliance, Knapp examines the architecture and terms of Walby’s argument, and Felski considers reason and narrative. Their disagreement clarifies what is at stake in the word “theory”: explanatory reach, accountability to difference, and the standards by which claims can be criticized. For FemRes readers, the exchange offers a model of feminism that treats argument as collective work rather than a demand for premature consensus.
Reader responses
Research discussion
Respond to this research or add another paper worth reading together.
Join the Discussion
Loading comments...
Support Us
If you find our content valuable, please consider supporting FemRes.