Photo by Flickr user Jeff Epp. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Near the end of a meditation on the notion of “waves” in feminism Suzie of Echidne of the Snakes quotes Madelyn Detloff (of Miami University of Ohio) that conflict between “waves” might arise because

“one’s work must be ‘original,’ meaning that it must present the appearance of newness, which is often achieved by attacking the old.” This goes beyond universities. People must claim new ideas, if not new identities, to attract members and money to their organizations, sell books or attract the media. Thus, women who want to make their mark may feel the need to set themselves apart from the women who went before, and older women may welcome younger voices who can make their enterprises look hip, new and attractive.

Suzie said it here.

I only have incidental anecdotes about feminist waves but on the way to an emphasis in social theory I studied a lot of history of controversy within fields. Therefore to the extent I sound even slightly authoritative here it’s about the general process and not the particular example. But…

It’s… pretty safe to say that in academics (at least in academic science and history) and in progressive movements “new waves” are often distinguished not so much by their attacks on the old as being attacked by it. The difference between academic “waves” and progressive/political “waves” within an overall movement is that later waves tend to want to add to rather than overturn the work done by their predecessors.

The issue of 2nd and 3rd waves is still largely in process, but taking a look back to “first” and 2nd-wave feminism I think a lot of the later 19th-Century feminists might have been impatient with 2nd-wave feminists for diluting feminism with economic issues. Even in 1960 a 1st-waver could have sensibly argued there was still way too much to be done in terms of elected-representational equality in legislative bodies to lose focus. 2nd-wave feminists, on the other hand, didn’t lose interest in legal personhood (the “0th wave”) or legislative equality (1st wave) in favor of economic equality though, they added on to it. And that’s more the sort of movement add-on process you see with 2nd and 3rd wave feminism, more than the academic “overturn the old to distinguish ourselves” model Suzie mentions.

It’s sort of like that old saw about Isaac Newton who said something like “If I see far it’s because I stand on the shoulders of giants.” If they’re still around the giants, however well respected, are more likely to be saying “WTF, I’m a hero, not a piece of furniture!” Or, I dunno. To really overuse the standing-on-shoulders metaphor, height increases arithmetically, but as one goes higher the horizon grows geometrically.

To knit all the above back together the point is I think to the extent there’s resentment or rejection in political or even academic waves it tends to rise up from originators rather than down from those who come after.

And if I can editorialize briefly that dynamic isn’t even right or wrong — it makes perfect sense that a leader would resent that a successor wasn’t also a follower because it also makes sense that with geometrically more to work with successors would seem less focused than their predecessors. (And that to successors predecessors would seem obsessed with too-narrow objectives.)

—-

One other point. Suzie suggests “wave” might not be a useful way to think about feminism because, say, feminism had Victoria Woodhull in the 1800s or Betty Dodson in the 1970s. Which I think nicely illustrates the point that “waves” aren’t identical to “age” or “generation.” But I’m also pretty sure Woodhull or, say, Bloomer in the 1800s and Dodson and, say, Greer were far less warmly regarded by their movement contemporaries than they’ve been by their successors… which I think also illustrates the point that (in all movements of any kind) waves are more about focus, perspective, and inclusion than age or generation.