What Counts as Feminist Theory

Elizabeth Ermarth’s article, published in the inaugural issue of Feminist Theory in 2000, dialogues with Bronwyn Winter’s essay to jointly explore the boundaries of feminist theory. As a postmodern theory scholar, Ermarth poses profound questions about the nature of “theory” from perspectives of temporality, representation, and knowledge production.

The Boundary Problem of Theory

Ermarth’s core concern is: “What counts as theory?” This seemingly simple question actually touches fundamental tensions in feminist knowledge production. She argues that definitions of “theory” are never neutral but reflect:

• Disciplinary power structures: Who has the right to define what is “theoretical”
• Epistemological hierarchies: Certain knowledge forms granted the privileged status of “theory”
• Institutionalization logic: How academic norms shape recognizable “theory”
• Exclusionary mechanisms: How theory definitions exclude certain modes of thinking and practice

This boundary-drawing is not merely academic but political, as it determines whose voices are taken seriously and which knowledge is deemed valuable.

Postmodern Perspective on Theory Critique

As author of Sequel to History: Postmodernism and the Crisis of Representational Time, Ermarth brings her deep understanding of postmodernity to reflections on feminist theory. She points out:

Crisis of Representation

Postmodernity challenges traditional representational logic—the idea that theory can “objectively” represent reality. For feminist theory this means:

• Theory is not transparent representation of “women’s experience”
• There is no single, universal “feminist perspective”
• Theory itself is constructive, not descriptive

Reconstructing Temporality

Ermarth’s signature contribution lies in analyzing temporality. She argues postmodern temporality is rhythmic and multiple, not linear and singular. The implications for feminist theory:

• Reject understanding feminist history as linear progress (first wave → second wave → third wave)
• Acknowledge the synchronicity and diversity of different feminist traditions
• Value the “non-synchronous” theories marginalized by mainstream narratives

Decentering the Subject

Postmodernity deconstructs the unified, autonomous subject. For feminism, this is both challenge and opportunity:

• Challenge: How to conduct feminist politics without a stable “woman” subject?
• Opportunity: Escape essentialism, embrace plural and fluid subjectivities

The Artificial Binary of Theory and Practice

Ermarth critiques the tendency to dichotomize “theory” and “practice,” “academia” and “activism.” She argues this distinction:

Reinforces Hierarchies

• Views “theory” as higher-level, more abstract, more intellectual activity
• Demotes “practice” as applied, concrete, secondary activity
• Replicates mind-body dualism and patriarchal binaries of male rationality/female embodiment

Masks Theory’s Politicality

• Imagines theory as neutral, objective knowledge production
• Denies that all theory is situated, interest-driven practice
• Obscures power relations in theory production

Limits Knowledge Democratization

• Monopolizes “theory production” in academic elites
• Denies theoretical innovation in grassroots movements, activism, and everyday practices
• Reinforces gatekeeping function of academic capital

Ermarth calls for breaking down this binary, acknowledging that all knowledge practices are simultaneously theoretical and practical.

Necessity of Epistemological Pluralism

Ermarth advocates that feminism should embrace epistemological pluralism, recognizing diverse knowledge forms:

Situated Knowledge

Echoing Haraway, Ermarth emphasizes all knowledge is produced from specific locations:

• No “God’s eye view” of universal theory
• Every theory bears marks of its production context
• Situatedness is not a flaw but an essential characteristic of knowledge

Embodied Knowledge

Feminism has long emphasized the importance of embodiment. Ermarth further argues:

• Theory is not just abstract thinking but embodied practice
• Bodily experience is an important theoretical resource
• Embodied knowledge challenges mind-body dualism

Narrative Knowledge

Postmodernity values narrative as a knowledge form:

• Stories, testimonies, autobiographies are also theory production
• Narrative reveals complexities and contradictions that abstract theory obscures
• Women’s literature and artistic creation are theoretical practices

Collective Knowledge

Collective wisdom produced by feminist movements:

• Dialogic theory in consciousness-raising groups
• Strategic knowledge formed in movements
• Collective learning in community practices

Ermarth argues that restrictive theory definitions exclude these rich knowledge forms.

Disciplinary Construction and Knowledge Colonialism

Ermarth’s analysis resonates with postcolonial feminism. She points out that narrow definitions of “theory” are often tools of knowledge colonialism:

Eurocentrism

• Treats European-American philosophical traditions as the standard for “theory”
• Demotes non-Western knowledge traditions as “culture,” “religion,” or “folk wisdom”
• Denies theoretical contributions of non-Western feminisms

Linguistic Imperialism

• English hegemony as the “theoretical language”
• Power asymmetries in translation politics
• Marginalization of multilingual knowledge production

Methodological Colonialism

• Views specific argumentative styles (like analytic philosophy) as “theoretical”
• Excludes other knowledge traditions’ modes of reasoning
• Forces non-Western scholars to adopt Western academic norms

Ermarth calls for decolonizing theory definitions, recognizing globally plural feminist epistemologies.

Political Functions of Theory

Ermarth reminds us to attend to theory’s political functions, not just its content:

Legitimizing Function

• Theory grants academic authority to certain positions
• “Theoretical” arguments viewed as more credible, more serious
• Claims lacking “theory” are marginalized

Exclusionary Function

• Complex theoretical language sets admission barriers
• Excludes those lacking academic capital
• Maintains elite control over knowledge production

Mobilizing Function

• Theory can inspire imagination, open new political possibilities
• Provides common analytical frameworks and language
• Builds coalitions across differences

Ermarth argues we need to critically examine how theory serves different political purposes.

Implications for Feminist Pedagogy

Ermarth’s analysis has important implications for feminist teaching:

Curriculum Design

• Should not teach only “canonical” theoretical texts
• Should include diverse knowledge forms: literature, art, testimony, movement documents
• Value students’ own experiences as theoretical resources

Teaching Methods

• Encourage dialogic, collaborative learning rather than unidirectional transmission
• Cultivate critical thinking rather than worship of theoretical authority
• Acknowledge the classroom itself as a site of theory production

Assessment Standards

• Rethink what counts as “theoretical” academic writing
• Accept diverse forms of expression
• Value practical wisdom and action-oriented knowledge

Theory in Contemporary Digital Culture

Though Ermarth’s article was published in 2000, her insights are even more relevant in the digital age:

New Media Theory Production

• Blogs, podcasts, social media as theoretical platforms
• Decentralized knowledge production and circulation
• Challenges to academic journal monopolies

Collective Intelligence

• Wiki-model collaborative knowledge production
• Epistemology of open-source movements
• Theoretical innovation in social networks

Accessibility Issues

• Democratization of theory or digital divide?
• Tension between attention economy and deep thinking
• Algorithmic influences on knowledge circulation

Ermarth’s critique reminds us to beware of new elitisms and exclusivities even in new media environments.

Dialogue with Winter’s Essay

Ermarth’s article forms a productive dialogue with Winter’s contemporaneous “exercise in dictionary use”:

• Winter focuses on power politics of dictionary compilation and inclusion/exclusion mechanisms
• Ermarth questions the concept of “theory” itself and its epistemological assumptions

Both scholars jointly reveal self-regulatory power in feminist academia, calling for more democratic, inclusive knowledge practices. Their critiques mutually reinforce: Winter shows “who is present,” Ermarth questions “what counts.”

Methodological Contributions

Ermarth’s contributions to feminist methodology include:

Reflexive Critique

• Taking “theory” itself as an object of analysis
• Questioning our own epistemological assumptions
• Acknowledging all theorizing is incomplete and situated

Deconstructive Strategy

• Revealing the constructedness of binaries (theory/practice, abstract/concrete)
• Showing how these binaries serve power relations
• Opening new spaces for thinking and practice

Inclusive Vision

• Expanding boundaries of “theory”
• Valuing marginalized knowledge forms
• Building more democratic epistemological communities

Critiques and Limitations

Ermarth’s position also faces some criticisms:

Relativism Concerns

Critics might worry that if everything is “theory,” then:

• How to distinguish good from bad theory?
• Would this lead to epistemological relativism?
• How to maintain critical standards?

Practical Issues

In institutionalized academic environments:

• How to assess diverse knowledge forms?
• How to balance inclusivity with academic rigor?
• How to address resource and time constraints?

Trade-offs

Would expanding theory boundaries:

• Dilute theory’s analytical power?
• Blur necessary distinctions?
• Lower intellectual standards?

These tensions require ongoing reflection and negotiation.

Conclusion

Elizabeth Ermarth’s “What Counts as Feminist Theory” raises fundamental questions about feminist knowledge production. By questioning the definitional boundaries of “theory,” she reveals how such definitions serve power relations and exclude certain voices and knowledge forms.

Ermarth’s postmodern perspective helps us see that theory is not neutral representation of reality but situated, constructive practice. Her critique of the theory/practice binary, advocacy for epistemological pluralism, and vigilance against knowledge colonialism provide important resources for building more democratic, inclusive feminist academia.

In the globalized, digitalized 21st century, Ermarth’s questions become even more urgent: Amid plural knowledge traditions, media, and modes of practice, how do we define feminist theory? Whose knowledge counts? How do we embrace epistemological pluralism while maintaining critical edge?

These questions have no simple answers, but the ongoing questioning itself is central to feminist practice. Ermarth reminds us that reflecting on “what counts as theory” is reflecting on the future direction of feminism.

This article was written by AI assistant based on Elizabeth Ermarth’s 2000 essay published in Feminist Theory, incorporating perspectives from her postmodernist theoretical work to explore epistemological and political dimensions of feminist theory definition.