AREAS AGROPECUARIAS

This is a feminist piece of research in that women’s experiences are central and valued as a source of knowledge (Harding, 1987; Harstock, 1983; Oakley, 1981, 2005; The Personal Narratives Group, 1989). As The Personal Narratives Group argued, ‘Traditionally,

knowledge, truth and reality have been constructed as if men’s experiences were normative, as if being human meant being male’ (The Personal Narratives Group, 1989,

p.3). Feminist research centres on women’s experiences, thereby challenging the limiting horizons of an intellectual heritage previously dominated by male voices and perspectives. The impetus for this research was developed from my conversations with other women about our personal lives, alongside feminist theorizing. This reflects that the study is not a detached intellectual endeavour. As Jagger argues, western epistemology has tended to see the presence of emotion in the research process as ‘impeding observation or

knowledge’ (Jagger, 1989, p.139). This is based on a cultural suspicion of emotional life

which fails to recognise its inevitability and also its importance as a resource in research, reflecting the human experience more fully: ‘This derogatory western attitude towards

emotion, like the earlier western contempt for sensory observation, fails to recognise that emotion, like sensory perception, is necessary to human survival’ (Jagger, 1989, p.139).

The centralisation of women’s experience draws on feminist standpoint methodology which challenges the silencing and devaluation of women’s experiences and voices (Harding, 1987; Harstock, 1983). Feminist standpoint theory involves the validation of women’s

69 experiences, including everyday domestic experience, which had often been dismissed as meaningless and irrelevant. Its goal is defined as ‘searching for common threads which

connect the diverse experiences of women’ (Harstock, 1983, p.124). This position places

women’s voices and experiences at the centre of knowledge production, in order to privilege knowledge previously marginalised and ignored, leading to a partial, distorted understanding of social life (Harding, 1987). There are a number of popular and ‘official’ versions of who single mothers are, what their lives are like, how they lead their intimate lives and care for their children (discussed in the previous chapter). Bringing single

mothers’ own experiences into view exposes these derogatory and limited perspectives as inadequate, instead providing an insight into the nuanced, contextualised complexity and flux of these lives in process. Women’s experiences, perspectives and aspects of their intimate everyday lives are explored and legitimised. These would not have been deemed worthy of scrutiny in what feminists have termed ‘male-orientated’ research (Oakley, 2005, p.189) due to its emphasis on normative male realms of experience and the dominance of male sociologists within academia. For Oakley this means that Sociology as a discipline can be described as sexist:‘By ‘male oriented,’ I mean that it exhibits a focus on, or a

direction towards, the interests and activities of men in a gender-differentiated society’

(Oakley, 2005, p. 189). The intention here is to emphasise the sense that single mothers make of their own experiences, in contrast to limited dominant ideologies and cultural representations of single motherhood. Ignoring lived experiences and the everyday lives of women, in this case those of single mothers, means an incomplete picture of social life. In terms of research into intimacy, for example, the experiences of women who are caring for dependents are often neglected. As Harding argues:

‘Defining what is in need of scientific explanation only from the perspective of

bourgeois, white men’s experiences leads to partial and even perverse understandings of social life. One distinctive feature of feminist research is that it generates its

problematics from the perspective of women’s experiences… only partial and distorted understandings of ourselves and the world around us can be produced in a culture which systematically silences and devalues the voices of women’. (Harding, 1987, p.7)

Adopting a feminist standpoint approach has entailed dealing with a number of complex issues and critiques. The approach has attracted criticism for its emphasis on experience and assumption of a knowing subject with a ‘stable coherent self’ (Flax, 1990, p.41). Feminist commentators have problematised the liberal notion of selfhood, the rational ‘Enlightenment self’, or the universalised, gender-neutral, asocial self, premised on male assumptions and experience. However, feminists, influenced by a postmodernist rejection of the concept of a pre-discursive subject can begin to redress this balance by ‘analysing

70

the ways gender enters into and partially constitutes both the self and our ideas about it’

(Flax, 1990 p. 229). One of the potential dangers identified with standpoint is a tendency towards universalism and essentialism, unproblematically putting ‘women’ into the same category and assuming a degree of sameness. Butler’s (1990) work which problematizes the notion of gender has influenced feminist thought, arguing that fixed, rigid and simplistic identity categories such as ‘woman’ do not take into account the particular contexts from which women are operating and ways in which race, class and sexuality intersect with gender in specific contexts. This insight is useful for a standpoint approach as it highlights the importance of taking specific contexts into account.

Attending to differences enables an emphasis on the plurality of women’s experiences and multiple standpoints: ‘the pluralization of feminist standpoints recognizes differences

among material experiences of women across history, race, class and culture’

(Hirschmann, 2004, p.320). There is a need to recognize historical and social diversity amongst women in terms of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and class, so as not to exclude their unique standpoints and insights into oppression (Hill Collins, 2004). In terms of research practice this means addressing specific contexts from which particular groups of women are speaking. My research is contextualized and attends to the differences between participants, acknowledging the multiplicity and diversity of women’s standpoints. Feminist thinkers have envisioned a way in which one standpoint need not necessarily claim privilege over another: ‘Women’s standpoint is not an ossified truth that some

feminist academicians have chiselled in stone for all women to begin to worship; rather it is a kaleidoscope of truths, continually shaping and reshaping each other, as more and different women begin to work and think together’ (Tong, 1998, p. 193). This position does

not fully overcome the tendency to universalize ‘women’ and may be viewed as

unrealistically utopian. However, it moves towards exploring the many realities, situations, possibilities and constraints that define and shape women’s diverse experiences.

Standpoint theorists emphasize the possibility of finding common threads of experience between women and it is likely that a group of ‘women’ who identify themselves as such will find both commonality and differences; those sharing the situation of being a single mother in the early twenty-first century in Britain are likely to share some commonalities. The thesis does not however attempt to make broad generalizations about women’s (or even single mothers’) lives. As Ramazanoglu and Holland (2002) have argued, ‘there is a

critical difference between building limited generalizations about women’s social existence (based on specific histories, experiences, cultures, localities and relationships) and making universal generalizations about ‘women’ (based on prior theory)’ (Ramazanoglu and

71 While standpoint theorists argue for identifying and redressing gendered power

imbalances, commentators following Butler (1990) have problematized the category of ‘woman’ as the subject of feminism. However, a concern with completely rejecting the category of ‘women’ is the potential for de-politicisation of their issues and concerns as a group. An important question feminists have engaged in, therefore, is how far it is

necessary to accept an Enlightenment conception of the fixed, unified, autonomous and stable self in order to engage in political action or resistance. Flax asks whether we can envision a fluid, multi-centred subjectivity that can engage in political struggle. She argues that ‘it is possible to imagine subjectivities whose desires for multiplicity can impel them

toward emancipatory action. These subjectivities would be ‘fluid rather than solid, contextual rather than universal, and process oriented rather than topographical’ (Flax,

1993, p. 92). Lloyd develops the idea that there is a need to reconceptualise the notion of subjectivity and the assumed need for a stable, coherent, unified subject for engagement in political action, emphasising that this ideal is a political construction stemming from liberal feminism and the drive towards equality which imports a liberal conception of self, personhood or subjectivity. It is recognised that the self is constantly shifting and so draws on the notion of the ‘self-in-process’ (Lloyd, 2005) which is relevant to narrative research in seeking to capture changing constructions, understandings and identities. I therefore adopt a pragmatic approach (Stanley and Wise, 1990), between the positions of traditional standpoint and postmodernist feminism – acknowledging the constructed nature of knowledge while maintaining the significance of shared social, material and cultural constraints. I argue that women still have much to gain from coming together, discussing and working through experiences of being women under ongoing conditions of patriarchy, particularly in the case of single mothers, with many still facing very real economic, social and cultural inequalities and constraints. Women may find constructive ways forward, challenging power relations at a micro-level of discursive practices as well as through direct political action. The category ‘single mothers,’ often surrounded by negative

discourses, can usefully be ‘deconstructed’ and shown to encompass a myriad of different experiences and contexts. Yet there is much to be gained, personally and politically from sharing experiences, challenging dominant and reductive cultural narratives and refusing to remain in silent, marginalised positions. Women’s conversations and personal narratives are the starting point for my research, are seen as a site at which identities are potentially challenged and reworked. Rather than attempting a generalising account of women’s lives, this study attempts to capture complexities of their sense making processes through narrative in highly contextualised situations and concrete realities. It aims to be sensitive towards differences between participants in terms of their identities, circumstances and material situations but without precluding possibilities of common ground between women.

72 While this study recognises the influence of post-structuralism which enable insights into ways in which participants draw on available cultural resources and discourses, it does not see subjects as solely constituted through discourse. Rather it recognises the embodied, concrete, material reality of lived experiences and women’s agency in negotiating and resisting conflicting discourses and making choices. It values accounts based on concrete experiences as containing more validity than those based on conjecture, rigid ideologies and partial, popularist political positionings, thereby disrupting existing hierarchies of knowledge and power. It attends to the different levels and modes of gendered constraint which emerge, including both material and discursive forms.

Notions of ‘reality’, is another key issue related to feminist standpoint positions (Haraway, 2004; Ramazanoglu and Holland, 2002). While this research is not based on a

‘foundationalist’ position which sees valid knowledge as that which accurately mirrors reality, it does view the narratives of single mothers as providing a more accurate reflection of their social reality than the claims of those with no experience of seeing the world from their perspective. The study may be viewed as accessing two different but complimentary modes of knowledge: 1). Representations of experience through narratives which is inevitably constrained by the discursive resources available to participants and 2).

Knowledge about how everyday gendered intimate lives are lived within specific contexts. This may be seen as ‘situated knowledge’ which comes with the recognition that truths and reality are socially constituted (Haraway, 2004) but acknowledges the very real effects that structural gendered inequalities can have (Stanley and Wise, 1993). In summary, ‘taking a

standpoint means being able to produce the best current understanding of how knowledge of gender is interrelated with women’s experiences and the realities of gender’ (Haraway,

2004; Ramazanoglu with Holland, 2002).

Discursive representations and everyday material realities are not seen as polarised but rather as complementary. Hirschmann (2004) advocates attending to both the material and discursive and the ways in which they interface, recognising how material conditions construct and shape discourse and also ways in which discourse ‘sets the terms for the

construction of material reality’ (Hirschmann, 2004, p.324). In a very stark way, touched on

in Chapter 2, discourses surrounding single motherhood are linked to political decision making and resource allocation and therefore impinge directly on their lived realities. Feminist standpoint and postmodern perspectives are here complimentary, recognising the historical and cultural contingency of experience, observing various layers of patriarchy which shape women’s experiences and recognising identity as ‘socially constructed by

73 Jackson (2005) provides a helpful model which informs the analytical lens of this research, highlighting the intersecting ways in which the socio-cultural order is constructed, shaping subjectivities as well as being shaped by everyday practices. She argues that it is essential to appreciate ‘the variety of social and cultural structures and practices at work in the

maintenance of the current gendered, and heterosexual order’ (Jackson, 2005, p. 16). This

includes attending to cultural realms of discourse, the symbolic and representation but recognising that there is ‘that is not all there is to the social’ (Ibid, p.18); it is imperative not to neglect structural aspects and situated social practices. She identifies four intersecting facets of social construction that can be deployed within a wider material feminist analysis. These complement the notion of ‘scripts’ which also contains intersecting levels of cultural, social and personal:

(1) The structural – gender is constructed as a hierarchical social division and heterosexuality is institutionalized, e.g. by marriage, the law and the state;

(2) The level of meaning, encompassing the discursive construction of gender and sexuality and the meanings negotiated in everyday social interaction;

(3) The level of routine, everyday social practices through which gender and sexuality are constantly constituted within localized contexts; and

(4) The level of subjectivity. (Adapted from Jackson, 2005, pp.18-19)

This research touches on all of these levels: while primarily focussing on the (second) cultural level of constructed, gendered meanings of intimacy, it also explores the (third) level of routine, everyday social practices of intimacy within localized contexts as well as referring to personal, subjective dimensions of experience. Although it does not offer a broader analysis of structural factors such as class, it recognises the broader socio-

economic context and the impact on participants’ material circumstances, locating the study in the wider context of unequal gendered power relations.

Conversations between myself and other women formed a starting point for this research. In line with feminist methodology, barriers between ‘researcher’ and ‘the researched’ were challenged throughout the research process. I was open about my own situation during the recruitment process which helped to break down barriers and provide relaxed and

empathetic interview encounters. In line with Oakley’s framework for feminist research (Oakley, 1981) this enabled a high level of rapport, reciprocity and, as far as possible, a non-hierarchical research relationship. During the narrative interview process it also enabled me to prompt and draw out pertinent themes and aspects of experience through identification with and recognition of the stories being told (Oakley, 1981). Inevitably the research process triggered reflection on my own experiences and research interviews often

74 ended with a mutual sharing and led to ongoing conversations. This approach is in direct contrast to the scientific notion of the researcher as detached and objective, referred to by Stanley and Wise (1993) as ‘hygienic research’ which comprises a failure to recognise the importance of the researcher’s presence (Stanley and Wise, 1993, p.161).

Another aspect of feminist standpoint theory is the potential for consciousness-raising; there is an accompanying emphasis on participants collaborating, having a greater sense of ownership of the research process and access to research findings. The concept of ‘feminist consciousness’ is viewed as a tool in examining the way in which women perceive their own lives and position themselves: ‘“Feminist consciousness” makes available to us a previously

untapped store of knowledge about what it is to be a woman, what the social world looks like to women, how it is constructed and negotiated by women’ (Stanley, 1983, p.120). A

potential critique of the notion of feminist research as consciousness-raising may be that by making feminists the spokespeople for women’s experiences, the feminist perspective becomes dominant and potentially marginalises and excludes many women who do not wish to be defined in these terms. However, a feminist framework enables recognition of shared situations, often stemming from wider structural gendered inequalities - such as differences in pay and parenting expectations (discussed in Chapter 1). As Maynard notes, while women’s experiences are an essential starting point and resource for feminist research, inevitably an analytical framework is required in order to contribute meaningfully to

knowledge and understanding: ‘Feminism has an obligation to go beyond citing experience

in order to make connections which may not be visible from the purely experiential level alone’ (Maynard, 1994). This involves an acceptance that a feminist analysis may not

necessarily sit comfortably with the way individual participants see themselves and their experience: ‘The uncovering of women’s oppression requires attention to systems of

relationships in which individuals are embedded and whose boundaries go beyond the individual and her realm of vision (Personal Narratives Group, p.6). It should also be

recognised that women’s narratives can reproduce gendered inequalities as much as they might resist them or produce counter narratives which consciously challenge the existing order (Personal Narratives Group, 1989).

For the purposes of this study, ‘feminist consciousness’ is part of the process of exploring ways in which women perceive their own lives and position themselves as women in their gendered social worlds. While not seeking to impose a particular agenda on research participants, it is hoped that participating in the research provided an empowering experience for single mothers by giving them a voice, validating their experiences and providing an opportunity to explore how far they recognise, question, resist or challenge dominant gendered cultural narratives. If research can open up opportunities and sites for

75 women to revisit, examine and reconstruct their own lives in order to make sense of them and if in so doing, become more aware of oppressive structures and discourses, then this can only be positive. It may well be that some women more than others find that material constraints restrict their ability to make choices about how to live their lives but this does not mean they are without agency. While some women of my generation may baulk at the idea of feminist consciousness raising, women in previous group interviews on motherhood spoke positively about how it had given them an opportunity to get things into perspective and they appreciated being given a voice to experiences which would in the normal course of life be ignored or seen as ‘ordinary’ and therefore not worth discussing (Morris, 2004). Single mothers’ stories are rarely heard in public or academic domains and so this imbalance needs to be redressed if greater understanding and even transformation of their situations is to occur. In this sense the research is potentially transformative, aimed at moving knowledge and understanding forwards. It therefore constitutes feminist research which ultimately displaces the concept of the dispassionate, neutral, expert researcher in search of

universalising theories, instead exploring women’s nuanced, contextualised experiences in all their diversity.