Who Counts (or Doesn't Count) What as Feminist Theory?: An Exercise in Dictionary Use

Bronwyn Winter’s essay, published in the inaugural issue of Feminist Theory in 2000, offers a sharp critique of epistemological boundaries in feminist academia by examining the compilation practices of feminist theory dictionaries. The article reveals how seemingly neutral reference tools participate in constructing and maintaining power relations within the discipline.

Dictionaries as Authority-Building Tools

Winter views feminist theory dictionaries not merely as reference tools but as authoritative apparatuses of disciplinary construction. She argues that dictionaries shape disciplinary identity through:

• Establishing boundaries of “legitimate” feminist theory
• Granting canonical status to certain scholars and theoretical schools
• Excluding or marginalizing theoretical contributions that don’t conform to mainstream standards
• Reinforcing the centrality of Anglo-American feminist academic discourse

This authority-building process often proceeds under rhetoric of “objectivity” and “comprehensiveness,” masking its inherent selectivity and exclusivity.

The Politics of Inclusion and Exclusion

The article analyzes inclusion/exclusion mechanisms in dictionary compilation:

Included Theoretical Traditions

Winter finds that Anglo-American feminist dictionaries tend to prominently feature:

• Feminism within the Anglo-American analytic philosophy tradition
• Liberal and radical feminist schools
• French poststructuralism (selectively incorporated)
• Psychoanalytic feminism
• Theory produced in institutionalized academic settings

Marginalized or Excluded Voices

Simultaneously, the following theoretical contributions are often ignored:

• Feminist theory from non-English-speaking worlds
• Grassroots movement and activist theory
• Non-Western feminist epistemologies
• Radical theory challenging academic norms
• Interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary feminist practices

Epistemic Violence of Anglo-American Centrism

Winter particularly critiques Anglo-American centrism in feminist theory dictionaries. She argues this centrism manifests as:

• Linguistic hegemony: English dominance marginalizing feminist theory production in other languages
• Geographical hierarchy: Positioning Anglo-American feminist scholarship as “theory” while non-Western thought is categorized as “culture” or “area studies”
• Methodological bias: Preference for theoretical styles and argumentative modes conforming to Anglo-American academic norms
• Citation politics: Reinforcing canonical status of Anglo-American scholars through citation networks

This epistemic violence not only reflects the continuation of academic colonialism but also limits the diversity and critical potential of feminist theory.

Normative Power Within Feminism

The article reveals that feminist academia itself contains power hierarchies and normative mechanisms:

• Cost of institutionalization: Academic feminism sacrificing radicalism for legitimacy
• Theoretical elitism: Separating “theory” from “activism,” devaluing the epistemological worth of the latter
• Gatekeeping mechanisms: Maintaining disciplinary boundaries through peer review, publishing policies, and citation practices
• Politics of representation: Who has the right to represent feminism? Whose voices are deemed more “theoretical”?

Winter points out that these mechanisms often replicate the patriarchal academic structures feminism initially critiqued.

Methodological Reflections on Disciplinary Construction

As an “exercise in dictionary use,” this essay demonstrates a critical methodology:

Discourse Analysis Strategies

Winter employs the following analytical techniques:

• Examining dictionaries’ compilation standards and selection logic
• Tracking which scholars and theories are repeatedly cited
• Analyzing the significance of absences and silences
• Revealing political assumptions behind seemingly neutral classifications

Reflexive Critique

The article also embodies reflexivity:

• Acknowledging limitations of the author’s own position
• Questioning feminist theory’s self-representation
• Challenging feminist academia’s claims to “universality”

Call for Knowledge Democratization

Winter’s critique implicitly calls for more democratic feminist knowledge production:

• Decentering: Recognizing multiple centers and traditions of feminist theory
• Epistemological pluralism: Valuing different knowledge forms and theoretical practices
• Transnational dialogue: Establishing genuinely global conversations beyond Anglo-American centrism
• Theory-practice reconnection: Breaking down theoretical elitism, valuing activist knowledge

This requires feminist academia to reflect on its own power structures and exclusionary mechanisms.

Contemporary Relevance

Winter’s critique from the turn of the century remains sharp today:

Ongoing Challenges

• English hegemony: The dominance of English as academic lingua franca has intensified
• Neoliberal academia: Quantitative assessment and impact factors further reinforce center-periphery hierarchies
• Digital divide: Unequal access to online academic resources exacerbates knowledge colonialism
• Selective incorporation of intersectionality: Depoliticization when intersectionality is mainstreamed

New Possibilities

Simultaneously, new spaces of resistance and alternatives have emerged:

• Open access movements challenging knowledge commodification
• Social media providing platforms for marginalized voices
• Decolonization movements reshaping academic agendas
• Transnational feminist networks establishing alternative knowledge circuits

Contributions to Feminist Epistemology

This essay contributes to feminist epistemology by:

Revealing the Materiality of Knowledge Production

Winter emphasizes that knowledge is not abstract ideas but produced and circulated through concrete material practices (publishing, dictionary compilation, citation) embedded in power relations.

Critiquing “Objectivity” Rhetoric

The article reveals how seemingly objective and comprehensive reference tools serve specific epistemological and political agendas, challenging claims to neutrality.

Advocating Situated Knowledge

Echoing Haraway’s situated knowledges, Winter argues that all theory originates from specific locations—there is no transcendent “theoretical” perspective.

Methodological Insights

Winter’s “exercise in dictionary use” provides methodological insights for feminist research:

• Politics of texts: Attention to textuality and circulation politics of texts
• Significance of absence: Analyzing what is excluded and silenced
• Institutional critique: Taking academic institutions themselves as objects of analysis
• Reflexive practice: Continuously reflecting on one’s own epistemological assumptions and power positions

This methodology has enduring value for critiquing disciplinary construction and revealing knowledge-power relations.

Limitations and Debates

It’s worth noting that this brief essay itself has some limitations:

• Primarily focuses on feminist theory production in the English-speaking world
• Limited discussion of dictionary compilers’ actual considerations and constraints
• May underestimate the practical value of dictionaries as teaching tools
• Fewer concrete suggestions for building more inclusive reference tools

Nevertheless, its critical intervention lays groundwork for subsequent discussions about feminist knowledge politics.

Conclusion

Though brief, Bronwyn Winter’s essay raises profound questions about feminist academic production: Who has the right to define feminist theory? What kinds of knowledge count as “theory”? How can feminism critique patriarchal knowledge systems while avoiding replicating their exclusionary mechanisms?

Through the seemingly modest research strategy of “dictionary use exercise,” Winter reveals power dynamics and epistemic violence within feminist theory. Her critique reminds us that feminist academia must continuously reflect on its own normative power and commit to more democratic, pluralistic knowledge production practices.

In an era of globalization and digitalization, feminist theory faces both challenges and opportunities in redefining its boundaries. Winter’s critique provides crucial epistemological tools for this reflection, prompting us to ask: What should a truly decolonial, intersectional feminist theory look like?

This article was written by AI assistant based on Bronwyn Winter’s 2000 essay published in Feminist Theory, offering critical analysis of epistemological boundaries and knowledge politics in feminism.