REFERENTE LEGAL

The third strand of feminism to be used is a combination of poststructural feminism with Foucauldian feminism. A poststructural feminist view suggests that gender is an oppressive fiction which “... runs roughshod over multiple differences among and within women who are ill-served by a conception of gender as basic” (di Stefano, 1990, p. 65). According to Bordo, attempts to “theorize culture or history along gender lines... [serves]22 to homogenize diversity and obscure particularity” (1988, p. 619). In di Stefano's terms:

The argument here is that a notion of gender as basic merely serves to reify, rather than to critically contrast, transform and escape the imposed myth of difference, while it ignores other crucial and as yet subjugated areas of difference. (1990, p. 65)

Iris Young argues that the opposition of genders in liberal and early radical

feminism arises from structures of description present in modern culture and language, and any attempt to reverse the valuation of these gender descriptions does not provide a

genuine alternative to patriarchal society (1990b, p. 307). Post-rationalism offers new, decentred, nonidentical, fractured narratives of opposition to the modern state. A

proliferation of differences is counterposed to the singular difference of gender (di Stefano, 1990, p. 67). What a post-rational feminist adds to the anti-rationalist position is to lose the privileged position of gender as the basis for this skepticism, and attune to the multiple and varied differences which produce this skepticism amongst a variety of people.

Foucault offers a critical reading of many of the subjects discussed by poststructural feminists, including power, knowledge, the body, subjectivity and

resistance.23 According to Arnold Davidson (1986, p. 221), three areas of analysis can be found in the writings of Michel Foucault, each area dealing with a separate form and topic of analysis. Foucault’s earliest works deal with systems of knowledge, using an

archaeological method of investigation. The middle period of Foucault’s work deals with modalities of power, using the genealogical method. Foucault’s final writings in the later volumes of The History of Sexuality are his ethical theory dealing with the self’s

relationship to itself. The latter two methods of analysis should be viewed as adding to, rather than replacing, the archaeological work.

In The Subject and Power, Michel Foucault states “My objective... has been to create a history of the different modes by which, in our culture, human beings are made subjects” (Foucault, 1982, p. 229). His purpose, through the use of his archaeological and genealogical methods, is to provide an analysis and critique of the methods modern societies use to control and discipline their populations by sanctioning certain knowledge claims and practices; that is, certain forms of subjectivity. Hence, any society, because of its historical development of laws, mores and beliefs, is active in proscribing the choices that the person can make in terms of being a subject (Grosz, 1990b, p. 84; Ewald, 1992, p. 170). Foucault’s ethics deals with the opportunities taken by individuals to liberate

themselves from the disciplining effects of power in these rigid systems of knowledge (Ostrander, 1988, p. 174; Fox, 1998, p. 424). Foucault’s earlier genealogies of the

domination of medical, religious and social sciences over the human subject (1975; 1976)24

are complemented by analyses of technologies of subjectivification (1984a; 1984b). These technologies allow the individual to “... actively fashion their own identities” (McNay, 1992, p. 3). Through this work on themselves, individuals can escape the normalising disciplines of power. Each of these methodologies will be described in greater detail in Chapter Six of the thesis.

The archaeological and genealogical writings of Foucault have shared several important insights with feminist theory. The idea that sex is not a natural quality, but is the effect of historically specific power relations, has provided feminists with an analytical tool for revealing the disciplined condition of females’ existence (Grosz, 1990b, p. 92; McLaren, 1997, p. 109). The suggestion that the body is produced through power, and is a cultural, rather than a natural, entity, has also been used as an effective rebuttal against any essentialising theory of the female, whether feminist or patriarchal (Bailey, 1993, p. 101; Jagger, 1988, p. 99). And the idea that power has diffuse and personal effects, has allowed different females to explain their experiences of patriarchal domination in their own way, rather than being lumped together in a general category of oppression (Young, 1990b, p. 320; Ahmed, 1996, p. 75). Foucault’s work also locates resistance to power structures in society at the level of micropolitics; that is, at the level of relationships and compromises

between people in small groups (Fraser, 1989, p. 18; Grosz, 1990b, p. 90). This locates resistance at points where many females have the opportunity to effect change.

Utilising These Feminism Strands in a Discussion of Sport

The three strands of feminism have been used by a variety of authors to discuss the position of females in sport. The last section of this introductory chapter will briefly describe some of the work of authors that utilise these feminist strands. This work will be more fully described in the chapters that deal with each of the feminist strands.

Ann Hall (1996, p. 11), the feminist sport sociologist, describes three types of research about gender in sport. Categoric research investigates the differences in athletic participation and performance between the genders, and tries to explain these differences in terms of biological or sociocultural factors. Distributive research looks at the

distribution of resources between the genders in sport and focuses on inequality. Both these types of research treat the two genders as distinct and unrelated entities. In contrast,

relational research investigates the historical and social construction of sport that produces the reinforcement of the idea that men are powerful and women are powerless. Sport is viewed as one of a number of practices where this relationship between the two genders is made explicit, and is maintained. Feminist research tries to create a discourse where this

unequal relationship of power may be broken down.25 Hall (1996), Kane (1995, p.191) and

Shogan (1988, p.272) all argue that the shift towards a research which deals with the relationship between femininity and masculinity, and females and males, in sport has been an important development in feminist critiques of sport. As Kane describes, feminist research in sport:

has evolved from an initial stage of analysis that produced numerous

descriptive studies of women’s participation patterns and their lack of access to various resources- what Ann Hall has referred to as the “add women and stir” phase- to an increasingly sophisticated feminist analysis in which relational issues of power and domination between women and men have become the primary focus ( Andrews, 1993; Birrell, 1988; Hall, 1987; Whitson, 1990). This latter body of knowledge has produced an impressive critique on the fundamental role sport plays in producing and maintaining patriarchal ideologies and arrangements with respect to gender. At the heart of this critique is the notion of biological determinism whereby all human beings are assumed to fit, by nature, into unambiguous and oppositional bipolar

categories of “female” and “male” (Frye, 1983; Kessler & McKenna, 1978). Within this biology-as-destiny paradigm, the apparent given-by-nature dichotomous category of gender forces a polarization between the sexes that ignores overlap; differences are systematically emphasized whereas similarities are ignored (Davis & Delano, 1992). (1995, p. 191)

Both Shogan (1988) and MacKinnon (1987, pp. 117-124) agree that this shift towards investigating the relationship between the genders is crucial to any understanding of male power in sport and society. As Shogan explains:

Remedies to inequality in sport cannot occur if gender is seen to be an irrelevant characteristic which we must ignore in order to be just. This is because inequality is a necessary condition of gender. If gender is ignored, so too will inequality be ignored. As Barbara Houston writes: “…In short, gender is taken to be totally irrelevant to social organization. I have no special quarrel with the claim that this is precisely how a good, just society ought to treat gender. My worry is that this ideal is not especially helpful in the detection and elimination of present gender bias” (1988, p. 274).

Recognition of the priority of male dominance in society will mean that women will also be better able to recognise how any form of female resistance to that dominance will invoke more subtle methods of maintaining the dominance. Lois Bryson suggests that there are a number of layers of oppressive practices which reinforce sport as a male domain, and each layer “ensnares a certain number of female participants” (1987, p. 350). If one

mechanism for maintaining male dominance is overcome, then the next mechanism replaces it. The female athlete is fighting against male dominance, and may need a variety of programs to fight the changing mechanisms of maintaining that dominance.