Don Sabo and Janie Victoria Ward, "Wherefore Art Thou Feminisms? Feminist Activism, Academic Feminisms, and Women's Sports Advocacy"
(page 4 of 6)

Conscious Feminisms, Implicit Feminisms, and Feminisms by Default

Across the 30-year-plus history of the women's sports movement, we suggest that there have been several orientations to feminism, including "conscious feminisms," "implicit feminisms," and "feminisms by default." Conscious feminisms operate where advocates or scholars self-identify as "feminists" and proclaim feminist values and political goals - e.g., bell hooks arguing that feminism is a movement to end sexist oppression.[20] Implicit feminisms occur when advocates are guided to one extent or another by what could be described as feminist values or aims, but they do not publicly identify as "feminist." For example, a group of coeds may pursue gender equity in campus athletics but not call themselves "feminists," or a law professor may lecture about homophobia in sport but not label her/his lesson as "feminist practice." If queried, however, these individuals would recognize that their action or work is grounded in feminism and say something like, "Why yes, of course, in relation to these kinds of issues, I consider myself a feminist." Finally, feminisms by default refer to cases where individuals do good work on behalf of girls and women, yet there is no conscious linkage to the history of the women's movement, feminist theory or practice, or other similar "women's political agendas" - e.g., the passionate soccer mom or devoted male coach of a girls' team fights to increase girls' opportunities because she or he believes that the sports experience will help young women succeed in education or the work place.

We argue that all three feminisms are part of the contemporary scene and, moreover, that the typology can be a touchstone for historical speculation. For example, the 1960s and 1970s were an era of conscious feminisms among mainstream women's activists and academic feminists. Women's sports advocates outside academia did not generally wear their feminist identities and policy agendas on their sleeves, but feminist ideals and the struggle for equity were implicit in their thinking and actions. With the 1980s and 1990s came the patriarchal backlash, but, at the same time, women made gains in the workplace, business, and sport. As women's sports advocacy groups became configured as nonprofit organizations, the discourse of political feminism became less visible, relevant, and tactical.[21] For example, women's efforts to confront sexual harassment during the 1970s would have been considered "radical feminist activism," but by the dawn of the 1990s such actions were consonant with dominant case law. Today most of the women who do sexual harassment law or who clamor for equal pay in the corporate sector do not often identify themselves as feminists, yet they are implicitly aware that their work and perceived rights derive historically from women's political and cultural movements. So too, we believe, would many women sports advocates embrace implicit feminisms. Indeed, it is fair to say that implicit feminisms now reign in progressive circles and organizations partly because it has become politically impractical or functionally irrelevant to overtly espouse "feminist" agendas.

Today it is mainly academic feminists and, perhaps even more so, the older generation of Second Wave feminists who still call themselves feminists and adhere to conscious feminisms. Some younger women academics are developing conscious feminist identities and political agendas under the banner of Third Wave feminism.[22] However, most women doing advocacy work for girls and women outside academia no longer outwardly identify as feminists, opting instead for either implicit feminisms or feminisms by default. Many women today, particularly but not exclusively in sport, feel that "feminism is a done deal." Their actions, thinking, and even activism may be grounded in feminism, but they do not dwell on it. Feminism is historical background and informs their thinking, but it is not the name of their platform. Just as we can talk about American ideals without having to rehash the 1776 Continental Congress, or race theorists can discuss contemporary America informed by the principle of racial equality without explicitly detailing the abolitionist movement, some women flow with feminisms without naming the river.

Implicit feminisms and feminisms by default are evident elsewhere in contemporary culture. Many younger women do not identify themselves as feminists because, for them, it makes no sense personally or strategically. And yet, they may see facets of their lives as linked to feminist agendas; e.g., they want equal opportunity in the work place, the right to use contraception, and stiff penalties for rape. To cite another example, women in sport often experience the bite of homophobia and recognize it as a "women's" or "feminist" issue. Single female coaches regularly have their sexuality questioned and young women in "butch" sports (like softball) endure teasing from their male counterparts, sometimes to the point of having to "prove" they are hetero.[23] Women with Third Wave sensibilities may see body image and pathological weight loss issues as "feminist" issues, but they may have only a little or some latent feminist identity, may not call themselves "feminists," or, if they are women of color, may be reluctant to ally too closely with what is perceived as white women's agendas.

The Boston Girls' Sports & Physical Activity Project: A Case Study

Typologies are by definition generalizations and, as such, they can put scholars out on proverbial limbs. In order to climb back down to empirical ground, we want to discuss the intersections between feminist activists, feminist scholars, and women's sports advocates in the context of a specific program, the Boston Girls' Sports and Physical Activity Project (BGSPAP). The BGSPAP grew out of national and local concerns that girls, especially poor urban girls, were being underserved in relation to sports and physical activity. A growing body of research emerged during the 1990s that documented the favorable developmental contributions of sport and physical activity to girls' lives, such as physical health, pregnancy prevention, educational attainment, and psychological well-being.[24] Sports and exercise got on the radar screen of many public health officials who aimed to meet the needs of girls and young women.

In 1999, the Harvard Prevention Research Center at the Harvard School of Public Health, in collaboration with the Center for the Study of Sport in Society at Northeastern University, issued key findings from the Play Across Boston project. The results of this comprehensive community-based assessment revealed that Boston girls were participating in sports and exercise programs at about half the rate of boys. Girls of color also exhibited lower participation rates than their white counterparts.[25] Several private foundations in Boston contracted with the Women's Sports Foundation in order to create the BGSPAP, which aims to increase the number of girls participating in physical activity in Boston, to enhance the attractiveness and quality of programs, and to develop an integrated and sustainable network of community-based programs that aim to use sport and physical activity to enhance girls' lives.

The BGSPAP consists of 13 community-based programs that use various forms of sport, exercise, dance, and educational components to help steer urban girls toward positive developmental outcomes. Below we discuss some of ways that this vision and these developmental practices can be said to reflect or foster feminist goals. Both the authors are integrally involved with the evaluation of the BGSPAP. We are completing our second year of assessment, which includes participant observation and site visits, in-depth interviews with program heads and stakeholders, interactive focus groups with girls, and ongoing communication with the project managers. As "facilitative evaluators," our goals include not only to evaluating the girls' experiences and program effectiveness, but also identifying the best practices and helping to move the network toward growth, integration, and sustainability.

Not Much Room for Conscious Feminisms in the Trenches

Conscious feminisms are rarely seen in the BGSPAP. Several academic members of the advisory board would probably identify themselves as "feminists" in certain contexts, but they have never done so in connection with the BGSPAP. Rather, feminist research findings, theory, and policy agendas are implicit in some of the work they do within the network. Similarly, feminist declarations have not been made by the staffs or leaderships of the various private foundations involved, and it is unclear how many personally identify as feminists. Finally, we have not observed any overt references to feminism among program administrators and staff.

There is no conscious feminism in the trenches of BGSPAP programs. Program heads do, however, share an overall vision of the value of sport and exercise for girls. First, they see sport and exercise as a way to broaden girls' horizons by offering opportunities that are not provided in their schools and communities. Second, they believe that increased physical activity is likely to produce favorable physical and mental health impacts. Third, they feel that the reduction of idleness after school and greater social engagement in girls' lives will reduce risk for teen pregnancy, delinquency, and other ills. Fourth, they contend that sports and fitness can offer opportunities to teach life lessons, foster self-esteem, and empower urban girls with an "I can" attitude. One might argue that liberal feminist goals are implicit maximizing girls' entry and participation in the formerly masculine historical domains of sport and exercise. The fourth point, personal empowerment, can be a feminist ideal, but under what circumstances? There is a lot of emphasis on individual or personal empowerment in the programs, but not as much focus on collective empowerment - at least not with reference to gender, race, and class. When does "I can overcome" meld with "We shall overcome"? Is the former approach to empowerment less of a feminist strategy than the latter, or are the two dynamics inextricably bound together?