Many people are working today with a variety of media trying to bring about social
change. With the advent of the women's movement and more concentrated organized
efforts to deal with inequities and injustice, some women have definitely engaged
in feminist productions and projects for changing the social order. This is, in
part, a result of a development of radical ways of looking at the world and women's
respective status. However, in examining more closely how feminist theory has
impacted cultural production, I am confronted with three major definition problems
concerning each main word in question:"feminist," "theory," and this "field".

Starting with the easiest one, I would define "my field" as cultural production for
social change. However, this is not a traditional category for "field". It is
multi-disciplinary and in my personal case at least bi-cultural, if not
multi-cultural. People working in this "field" draw knowledge from diverse
disciplines, they engage in various strategies and practices, and they view the
world in different and often enough, contradictory ways.

This obviously entails difficulties in categorizing and grouping all of these
complex diversities into one "field." Nevertheless this grouping can be made by
joining the specific means (cultural production) used to achieve certain objectives
(social change).
 

The word "feminist" presents another large set of problems. Rosalind Delmar
attempts to define feminism in her article "What is Feminism?". [1] Although she
presents a base-line definition for feminism, I feel this concept is to a certain
extent idiosyncratic. Since "feminism" is a synthetic term that is based on pillars
of knowledge, experience, awareness, action, culture, ideology and historical
moments, there will be as many "feminisms" as there are people.

"Feminism" is a polysemic word; the scope and boundaries depend on who defines it
and why it is defined in the first place. I agree with Delmar's basic definition
which states that a feminist is someone who "holds that women suffer discrimination
because of their sex, that they have needs which remain negated and unsatisfied,
and that the satisfaction of these needs requires radical change in the present
social, economic, and political order." Furthermore, I associate "feminist" with
action, that is, someone who does not merely behold these ideas, but at least
attempts to bring about progressive change. However, I feel this definition is more
of a starting point than an ending point.
 
 

Women are splintered by so many divisions, contradictory interests, and oppressive
processes (such as racism, classism, etc.) that no one definition can fit all
interests. "Women" do not exist apart from a larger and extremely complex context
that makes it impossible to unify everything under one totalizing experience. Only
in a mode of analysis can we connect the similarities in the processes involving
diverse groups of women, their societies, their cultures, etc. Additionally, in
questioning why women do not have access to certain privileges in society, this has
led me to formulate the larger question, why is it that society is structured into
having a privileged group and not an egalitarian whole? Furthermore, this also ties
into qestioning other oppressive processes such as racism, etc.

The word "theory" also propels more questions than answers. Two of its modern
connotations are:
"a scheme of ideas which explain a practice" and "a scheme that postulates how
things ideally should be," but which is apart and disassociated from practice. When
I think of various different professionals who work in my field, it is clear that
theory as such is mostly useless.

All of them are engaged in a process that can best be synthesized by the word
"praxis", meaning practice informed by theory and certainly theory informed by
direct practice. It is important to note a further distinction, in this case praxis
is used to describe "a whole mode of activity in which, by analysis but only by
analysis, theoretical and practical elements can be distinguished, but which is
always a whole activity, to be judged as such." [2] Furthermore, I feel the word
"theory" is highly problematic because it stems from a scientized way of looking at
the world. Not only that, it falls into the destructive trap of legitimizing this
as the only valid way of understanding human experience. It excludes "another world
- the world of emotions, feelings" [3], intuition, understanding, other visions,
and philosophies. Why can't I take a course on "feminist praxis" or "feminist
feelings" when they are very much part of my life? Why is intellectual writing the
predominant mode of communication in an academic setting? Why does the hegemony of
the theorizing and intellectualizing processes go unquestioned?

Several artists working in my field, including myself, work mainly through praxis.
It is hard to delineate how has feminist theory influenced us, if one uses theory
to mean schemes apart from practice. Many work intuitively; there is a diversity of
values, ideologies and goals. Some of these goals are to diminish inequality, to
tackle different processes of legitimized violence, to increase and uphold women's
rights, and to raise awareness. In my last project, for example, I protested the
social denial of sexual violence through a visual book. I certainly would not have
been able to make this book if there was not a minimum of awareness and political
freedom in the university environment it was created in, which is related to larger
society as well. This project also would not have been possible if I had not
acquired in the last few years a greater understanding and political awareness
regarding this and other issues of violence and oppression against children and
women. But how can I separate what was a result of feminist theory alone? It all
ties in to my own development and experience, and the changes processed in the
whole of society as well.

Furthermore, my work (as well as those of other artists) can encompass entirely
different themes such as environmental problems, racism, imperialism, spirituality,
sexuality, etc. It is clear that an attempt to formulate universal descriptions
becomes tricky if not ludicrous. Nevertheless, the women's movement (with its
theories) along with other movements has propelled me to actively struggle for
change in a variety of ways benefiting women and society as a whole.
 

Notes
[1] Delmar, R. "What is Feminism?," What is Feminism, J. Mitchell and A. Oakley,
eds. (New York: Pantheon, 1986), page 8.

[2] Williams, R., Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, (New York:
Oxford, 1976), page 266.

[3] Harding, S., The Instability of the Analytical Categories of Feminist
Theory," SIGNS 11, no. 4 (1986), page 650.