Journal entry 3

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wswg20

Social Work with Groups

ISSN: 0160-9513 (Print) 1540-9481 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/wswg20

Incorporating Feminist Theory into Social Work Practice: Group Work Examples

Christine FlynnSaulnierPhD

To cite this article: Christine FlynnSaulnierPhD (2000) Incorporating Feminist Theory into Social Work Practice: Group Work Examples, Social Work with Groups, 23:1, 5-29, DOI: 10.1300/ J009v23n01_02

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1300/J009v23n01_02

Published online: 21 Oct 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7887

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

ARTICLES

Incorporating Feminist Theory into Social Work Practice:

Group Work Examples Christine Flynn Saulnier

ABSTRACT. Feminist theories explain the structure and dynamics of women’s experiences within sociopolitical and interpersonal sexual hierarchies. To enhance flexibility and responsiveness in applying the theories, social workers should be conversant in various branches of feminism. This paper reviews five branches of feminist theory and applies each one to social work practice, using group work examples. The practice examples are drawn from the author’s study of women’s groups in which facilitators described the goals and processes used to practice feminism or womanism in their groups. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress. com>]

KEYWORDS. Feminism, group work, feminist theory, social work practice, women’s groups

This paper has two objectives: explaining variations in feminism and providing examples of how the theories apply to group work

Christine Flynn Saulnier, PhD, is Assistant Professor, Boston University, School of Social Work, 264 Bay State Road, Boston, MA 02215.

This material was presented at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, San Francisco, CA, March 12, 1999.

Social Work with Groups, Vol. 23(1) 2000 � 2000 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 5

SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS6

practice. The goal is to encourage the incorporation of feminist theory into social work practice. The paper will present several branches of feminism, each based on a different political or philosophical perspec- tive. It will review the major tenets of the theory and apply each one to social work practice, using group work examples drawn from the author’s research.

WHY FEMINIST THEORY?

Using feminist theory in social work is a useful way of counteract- ing the gender biases of many traditional theories (Carter et al., 1994) since feminist theories, unlike more familiar traditions, explain the structure and dynamics of women’s experiences within sociopolitical and interpersonal sexual hierarchies and draw attention to the ways in which every day actions can shore up discriminatory social structures (Lewis, 1992). To enhance social workers’ flexibility and responsive- ness to women’s social and personal problems, practitioners should be conversant in various branches of feminism.

Most feminist theories suggest ways to help eliminate mispercep- tions, sexual inequalities, restrictions, and oppression faced by wo- men–goals which many writers have pointed out are shared by social workers (see review by Dore, 1994), but the goals of each branch of feminism vary according to the perspective on the forces that impede women. Different situations, different women, and different times call for different approaches to problem solving. With a grounding in several branches of feminism, social workers can choose wisely among the theories.

To help ensure excellence in practice, social workers must review feminist material in a sophisticated way, avoiding trendiness and re- sisting the desire for a simple, elegant theory that will suit the needs and solve the social problems of all women. Without solid understand- ing of a broad range of feminist theories, social workers would be poorly equipped to function at that level.

This article reviews several major branches of feminist theory and provide examples of feminist practice with groups. This presentation should not be construed as an indication that group work is the only, or even the most suitable application for each theory. Rather, the con- centration on a single method of social work practice aids in compar- ing and contrasting the theoretical branches and adds to the growing

Christine Flynn Saulnier 7

body of scholarship on the practice of feminist social work with groups (e.g., DeChant, 1996; Lewis, 1992; Pollio, McDonald, & North, 1996; Schiller, 1997). This article draws on actual uses of feminist theory in the field. It is hoped that doing so helps elucidate the ways feminism can be practiced and demonstrates why a particular branch may be more suited than others to solving a particular problem or set of problems. The authors’ perspective should be stated at the outset: because many of the clients with whom social workers come in contact suffer from multiple forms of marginalization and oppression, the author tends to favor the branches that call for more comprehen- sive change in society: radical feminism and womanism.

THE EXAMPLES

In an exploratory study of a variety of women’s groups which were being offered to women in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1993 and 1994, facilitators were asked to describe any connections they saw between their group and feminist or womanist thought. They were asked how feminism or womanism was practiced in their group; they were also questioned about goals and processes used in group. Be- cause the data set was limited to in-depth interviews with 24 women, not all branches of feminist theory were represented. Perhaps by chance, perhaps due to the convenience, purposive, and snowball sampling methods used, no practitioners of socialist, lesbian, global, or psychoanalytic feminism were interviewed. ‘‘Real world’’ work is seldom as tidy as theoretical formulations, and, in fact, most facilita- tors drew on several branches of feminist theory. To highlight differ- ences among the branches, the author chose the group that seemed to most closely apply to a particular branch of feminism. Five branches, liberal, cultural, postmodern, womanist and radical feminism are de- scribed below, then illustrated by the group which best exemplifies the theory. Only one of the facilitators articulated an intent to remain within one of these theoretical frameworks; otherwise, the classifica- tions are the author’s. Furthermore, this data is used here, not as an indication of how social group work is practiced in general, but as illustrative examples of how various feminist theories can be put into practice. The hope is to increase understanding of feminist theories and their applications.

SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS8

LIBERAL FEMINISM

Liberal philosophy, upon which liberal feminism is based, describes society as being composed of separate individuals, each competing for a fair share of resources. Liberalism’s dedication to individual liberty demands freedom from interference by the state. Of key importance to liberal feminism is that a dividing line is drawn between the public realm, which the state is expected to regulate, and the private realm, which is expected to be free from state control (Jaggar, 1983). The traditional liberal values of independence (vs. interdependence), equality of opportunity (vs. equality of outcome), and individualism (vs. collectivism) are so ingrained in Western society that they are now accepted as standard social functioning, rather than viewed as a partic- ular ideology. These traditional liberal values are central to liberal feminist thought. Liberal feminists point out that society violates the value of equal rights in its treatment of women, primarily by restrict- ing women as a group, rather than treating women as individuals (Jaggar, 1983). They argue that women should have the same rights as men, but they often fail to examine the de facto inequality in distribu- tion of men’s rights by race, socioeconomic and other factors.

Liberal feminists contest such public issues as women’s lack of political equality, and lack of access to certain social services needed to ensure equality between the sexes. Battles for equal education, equal employment opportunities, and equal pay for equal work, have been the hallmark of liberal feminism. Successful campaigns in these areas continue to support the separation between public and private spheres, however. For example, in Roe v. Wade, the U. S. Supreme Court upheld a right to privacy, that is, it affirmed the inappropriate- ness of state interference in the private decision between a woman and her physician regarding abortion. It did not provide equal access to abortion, nor require the states to ensure equality, for example, by funding abortions for poor women. Besides its inadequate attention to poverty, liberal feminism often excludes the interests of women of color by insisting that sex rather than race is the major source of oppression of women (Giddings, 1988; Joseph, 1981).

Liberal feminists do not seek an end to the meritocracy nor do they seek other fundamental change in society; rather they hope women will merit more of society’s current rewards (Nes & Iadicola, 1989). Often inequality is seen as being exacerbated, if not caused, by women’s lack of training in the skills thought to enable men’s success,

Christine Flynn Saulnier 9

for example, assertiveness. Rather than train women to dismantle structural supports of power imbalances, liberal feminists are more likely to examine interpersonal interactions, and encourage women to behave more like those men who are successful in their careers.

Despite the theory’s limitations, liberal feminists have achieved significant victories, primarily through the use of formal policy as a mechanism of social change. These successes include outlawing sex discrimination, improving maternity leave, achieving educational re- forms, improving economic rights within marriage, increasing the likelihood of women obtaining child custody at divorce, and even achieving woman suffrage.

GROUP WORK APPLICATION OF LIBERAL FEMINISM

Liberal feminist theory was practiced by several women in an agency that provides services to women with alcohol problems. Using a psychoeducational approach, the facilitators counseled women in residential and outpatient groups. The foci of the groups were alcohol problems, codependence, and dysfunctional families. All of these were seen as personal rather than structural problems. The facilitators thought that women were particularly vulnerable to alcohol use-re- lated shame.1 Their solution was to help participants eliminate shame- ful behaviors rather than eliminate social opprobrium, however. Other group goals included helping the participants increase their self es- teem, gain a sense of competence and achieve abstinence from alco- hol; in the words of one facilitator: ‘‘growth, education and develop- ment of a clean and sober lifestyle.’’

Facilitators thought that women with alcohol problems tend to come from dysfunctional families; they did not question how family needs could be better met by society. Rather, they taught the women assertiveness. The facilitators supported the idea of ‘‘dealing with personal problems from a woman’s perspective’’ and they argued that there was a need for ‘‘women supporting other women in recovery’’ because ‘‘women need to find some self confidence and some strength, and identity and assertiveness.’’ They believed that was best achieved in women-only groups where women’s issues are less likely to be ‘‘pushed aside and made not as important.’’

The facilitators referred all of their clients to Alcoholics Anony- mous (AA), believing that more women should have access to AA.

SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS10

They acknowledged that many of the women objected to the referral, but the facilitators thought the objections resulted from the women’s inability to join groups, misunderstanding of spirituality, or resistance to the label, alcoholic. They did not believe that the program might be limited in its applicability. Rather, they argued that women have too often been excluded from alcohol treatment and they thought it was important for women to have access to what has traditionally been defined as primarily a men’s program. Women were ‘‘not technically required to attend AA, but they are extremely, extremely encouraged to go.’’

Although the facilitators addressed participants’ personal problems, they drew a clear line between workers’ professional and personal selves. For example, one of the interviewees, a lesbian herself, noted that lesbians were under-represented among agency clients. When asked whether any of the agency staff were out, she said, ‘‘Just to these folks right here. I would not disclose . . . that is my private life and I keep it my private life.’’ Thus, in her conversation, her analysis of the women’s problems, and her approach to group work, she maintained the distinction between personal and political realms that is inherent in liberal philosophy.

Evaluation

Liberal feminist theory was the appropriate branch to use if equal access by women to an alcohol program (AA) was the goal. Since the majority of participants in the groups were mainstream women, seek- ing structural change was not necessarily in their best interest. Howev- er, gaining access came at the cost of careful matching between client and intervention. Access may have been an important political end but gaining access to a program that was not designed with women in mind may be of limited use. A better solution might have been to refer women to more relevant self-help groups, such as Women for Sobri- ety,2 or at least to offer women the option of refusing the referral.

CULTURAL FEMINISM

Gender stands as a fundamental division among humans, privileged over class, race, and other sources of inequality, according to cultural feminist theory. Cultural feminists premise a profound and pervasive

Christine Flynn Saulnier 11

difference between women and men and celebrate those aspects as- cribed to womanhood that they consider superior to, or more valuable than, opposing aspects in men. For example, women are said to be nurturing and altruistic and these aspects are privileged over the com- petitiveness ascribed to men. The development of knowledge through emotion and intuition is valued (Fuller, 1843), as is a sense of commu- nity among women (Donovan, 1985). Social workers such as Jane Addams, Crystal Eastman and Sophonisba Breckenridge, who prac- ticed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century are often con- nected with this branch of feminist thought (Donovan, 1985).

Cultural feminists often stress the spiritual potential of the women’s movement. Although there are several approaches to feminist spiritu- ality (Saulnier, 1996) many cultural feminists are interested in the development of a specifically woman-centered religion or spirituality. In the process of creating a new system of thought and language by which women could free their minds from patriarchal chains, theolo- gian Mary Daly (1978) revived the romantic tradition of depending on intuition to uncover the ‘‘patriarchal reversals’’ of language that ob- scure meaning. Cultural feminists celebrate ‘‘the feminine principle’’ in women. Essentialist3 arguments concerning women’s goodness challenge dominant assumptions and foretell a revolution in which women will achieve power (Echols, 1989).

Women’s and men’s natures are seen as changeable. Still, differ- ences between women and men are thought to be significant, and cultural feminists often speak of women as being more closely con- nected to natural forces, thus seeming to accept as positive the associa- tion of men with culture and women with nature. This is especially evident in ecofeminist strains of cultural feminist theorizing, where it is assumed that women are nonviolent and in tune with the earth. There is a strong call for supporting women’s ‘‘voices’’ or perspec- tives. The goals of ecofeminism are peace, ecology, the development of women’s spirituality and women’s culture and restructuring of soci- ety to increase the social valuation of women and women’s culture.

Generally, cultural feminism seeks to coalesce feminists and elimi- nate splits among women. To accomplish these goals, they use claims of universalism and downplay differences, including very important differences such as racism, experienced by some, but not all women. There is a strong emphasis on building women’s culture, often using separatism as an approach, sometimes as an end in itself. Women

SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS12

focus on developing enterprises and services that are owned by and serve women. Sometimes these enterprises have an expressly political agenda, as in women’s centers that offer their space to women’s politi- cal groups. At other times, the organizations are intended more for retreat and entertainment, as in women’s music festivals.

GROUP WORK APPLICATION OF CULTURAL FEMINISM

A group called Feminist Thirteen Aspects best represented cultural feminism. Nearly all participants were theologians. They were Bud- dhist, Hare Krishna, Protestant, and Catholic. There was no specific topic or clearly defined focus for discussion, but most members had a history of involvement with 12-Step programs, for example, Al-Anon or Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous, and had been unhappy with those programs. Their chief complaint was the lack of political con- textualization in their former programs. They had a clear preference for using a structural analysis of society, based in feminist principles. Like Mary Daly, they wanted to uncover and discover their female essence. They celebrated womanhood.

They were interested in contributing to a new understanding of spirituality, from a woman’s perspective. Fitting with a cultural femi- nist perspective, the members noted that the presence of men and the lack of political contexualization found in other programs, failed to meet women’s needs. Thus, a group was needed that focused on the nature of women, and women’s context in society. The group ad- dressed political issues, but primarily within the context of what that meant for self rather than for society. That is, the political analysis tended to be in the service of personal recovery from a variety of problems, as the following quote suggests.

I think the political dimension is important–for me–and I think it is for the other women too . . . A lot of them did have a history of having gone to . . . 12 step groups . . . and felt fragmented and split off from a bigger analysis of what was going on. The would hear women–or men–describe something that was obviously op- pressive but no one would ever say, ‘‘That was racist.’’ ‘‘That was sexist.’’ ‘‘That was classist.’’ Whatever it was. There was no analysis. That was really taboo . . . I felt . . . that we needed to name that and have that be part . . . of recovery.

Christine Flynn Saulnier 13

Members used consciousness-raising, support and mutual aid to help women address problems. In the following excerpt, the facilita- tor/member/developer of Feminist Thirteen Aspects describes the in- teraction between her internal process of self discovery and the un- folding of a structure for the group. Consistent with the cultural feminist idea of a female essence, she believed that one’s inner nature was either masculine or feminine. Notice her depiction of a female essence distinct from male nature.

I was working out–how do I empower myself? We started out talking about our true selves. That was the first draft. It ended up being our true female selves. That was a big step for me to put the word female in there . . . to say it that way acknowledges that the concrete, particular selves that we are, are female and at the same time it also acknowledges that the depth of our being, the true selves when we finally get down to our core–that’s our true self–it’s FEMALE if we’re female. It’s male if we’re male.

Feminist Thirteen Aspects members’ political analysis, celebration of womanhood, focus on women’s spirituality and self-empowerment all are consistent with a cultural feminist perspective.

Evaluation

Cultural feminist theory was an effective theoretical backdrop for this particular group. Given their commitment to spirituality and religion, and their desire to frame their beliefs in a political context, this theory worked well. They did not express a desire to be social activists, so the theory’s emphasis on self-empowerment versus struc- tural change seemed to meet their needs.

POSTMODERN FEMINISM

Postmodern feminism borrows heavily from postmodernism, which is an epistemology, that is, a theory of knowledge and understanding. Use of language is a central concept. Words, whether spoken or writ- ten, are said to lack fixed and intrinsic meanings, so one must always know the context, speaker and the social processes that contributed to the use of words in order to understand their meaning (Scott, 1990).

SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS14

Postmodern feminists examine the network of power inherent in lan- guage as it acts upon social reality (Wittig, 1988a).

Postmodernists point out that feminists often have sought a single cause to explain women’s oppression cross-culturally. According to Fraser and Nicholson (1990), feminist theories falsely universalize the theorist’s own era, society, culture, class, sexual orientation, and eth- nic or racial group. Such analyses of gender and sexual difference need to be replaced with a plurality of difference. Drawing on Fou- cault’s (1980) notion of a plurality of resistances, or sites from which one can argue against oppressive power, postmodern feminists seek multiple ways to deconstruct the culturally construed ideology of male superiority.

Kristeva (1981) argued that the word ‘‘woman’’ is a social rather than natural construct, and neither can, nor should be, defined. By taking woman as the starting point, given the term’s existence only in oppositional difference to the notion of man, feminist practice based on the notion of ‘‘woman’’ could only be negative, formed in reaction to the concept of woman. DiStefano (1990) added that a conception of gender as basic in the sense of inescapable or overdetermined is war- ranted, however, given the pervasiveness of cultural and social gender structuring. But this does not mean we must declare gender differ- ences inherent or fixed. To do so is to ‘‘naturalize’’ and excuse oppres- sion (Wittig, 1988b).

According to Flax (1990, p. 55), the tasks of postmodern feminist theorists are: (1) to articulate feminist viewpoints of society; (2) to analyze how women are affected by the social world; (3) to examine the role of power and knowledge relationships in shaping the ways women think about the social world; and (4) to imagine ways in which the social world can be transformed.

GROUP WORK APPLICATION OF POSTMODERN FEMINISM

The facilitator whose work seemed to best reflect postmodern femi- nist theory was providing several groups. Most of them were offered to lesbians living in an affluent, primarily white suburb of a large city. The suburb lacked the services of the nearby city and the political climate was quite conservative. Few of the lesbians seemed to be acquainted; many were closeted and concerned about the social rami-

Christine Flynn Saulnier 15

fications, particularly loss of employment, should their orientation become known. The use of language as a way to structure society was a key organizing principle:

(The group) is based on a kind of language philosophy . . . looking at language and how language forms and influences the human condition . . . One way of looking at it is to say, we got into this in language and we’ll get out of this in language . . . we learn about ourselves by the way people tell us who we are and language is, in fact, very permeable and it’s also very flexible and if we want to change lability and emotions, one way to do that– it’s kind of a cognitive theory–(is by) changing the way we think, changing the way we talk about it.

The facilitator helped participants to examine the power of words by analyzing the social production of lesbianism. She encouraged them to read the work of Lillian Faderman, an historian who reviews the changes in thinking about women’s relationships to each other and the changing status of women’s romantic relationships. The facilitator discussed the impact of social power by exploring the ways in which lesbians are stigmatized and helping participants examine the social definition of lesbianism, consider whether they would claim the power to define themselves or sacrifice self-definition to their need for be- longingness:

I wanted us to look at lesbianism not just as a personal phenome- non but as a social phenomenon . . . people still deal with stigma and that’s a major issue in terms of educating and having support groups–to talk about the stigmatization . . . There’s always going to be a need for someone to understand the powerful effect of growing up in a culture that’s your culture but from which you are banished. You have this incredible decision to make . . . which is choosing your self over your belonging.

The facilitator discussed the courage, fear and stigma that were attached to the coming out process, arguing that culture works by making lesbian and gay people think the problem is theirs when the problem is actually ‘‘the heterosexism disorder of our culture.’’ She was not concerned with transforming the world, but worked on chang- ing participants’ perceptions of it:

SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS16

My focus . . . at this point . . . is to see individual change through information . . . we are living in a culture that has been misman- aged in a lot of ways. And misinformed–profoundly–about differ- ence and diversity, whether you’re looking at race . . . at sexual preferences . . . able-bodiedness, any of the differences . . . I don’t see that my group’s task is . . . to remediate the culture. But I do see their task as being able to find self-affirmation.

Evaluation

Once again, these were affluent white women who may have lacked interest in groups and theories designed to restructure society. If the primary problem is stigmatization, then it would make sense to ana- lyze the production of the stigma and provide women with an epis- temology that would help them rethink their position. Unfortunately this facilitator, (consistent with postmodern feminism), seemed to re- duce heterosexist marginalization and suffering to language, as critics of this theory have feared (Marks & de Courtivon, 1980). A better approach might have been to develop larger networks between the suburban and urban women, so they might have had a better chance to broaden their options for responding to heterosexism.

WOMANISM

African-American women have contributed significantly to the de- velopment of all of the divisions of feminist theory discussed here. In addition, black women writers and theorists have developed a new branch, often referred to as womanism. Race is an all-encompassing and powerful determinant of people’s lives. Race and gender are expe- rienced, however, quite differently by black and white women because gendered identity is constructed and is often represented in polarized and antagonistic ways for black and white women (Higginbotham, 1992). White women, for example, often are unaware of their own experience of race or the privileges accorded to them as members of the dominant group; thus, it sometimes is difficult for white women to understand the importance that many black women put on race, or the relative constancy of the effects of social perceptions of racial differ- ences. But race cannot be separated from gender since both are experi- enced simultaneously. Because of this, black women who work to-

Christine Flynn Saulnier 17

ward feminist goals tend to focus their efforts at the intersection of sex and race, and usually on class struggles as well.

Womanists have argued that additive models of oppression–in which oppressive systems are seen as parallel and only occasionally intersec- ting–hide from view, and therefore from change, interlocking systems. Because of categorical thinking it is difficult to conceive of race, sex, and class as a single consciousness with a single struggle needed to overcome them (Brown, 1990). Womanists argue, however, that it is necessary to examine all these aspects so that neither race, nor sex, nor class are hidden or discounted (Christian, 1985). That means we cannot consider one system of domination and then move on to the next without exploring the intersections. It also means we need to revamp theories of oppression as we learn more. When we expand our under- standing of racism, we need to reexamine our understanding of sexism and classism, in light of what we know about how racism operates.

Besides failing to account for the mutual dependencies of systems of oppression, additive models do not account for people of mixed racial and ethnic identity (Collins, 1990). When our categories be- come blurred, for example with biracial or multiracial people, or with bisexual people, we often see how limiting the study of a single cate- gory of dominance can be. Instead, womanism proposes a ‘‘both/and’’ worldview (Brown, 1990). Rather than posing race and gender as contradictory opposites where a woman is expected to identify either as black or as a woman,4 womanism allows for a unified whole (Brown, 1990; Ogunyemi, 1985). Working from an assumption of interlocking systems is a paradigmatic shift away from focusing on separate, interacting systems. It is a move toward an inclusive view of mutually dependent oppressive systems (Collins, 1990). Womanism starts with the perspective of black women rather than white men and centers on the complex matrix of oppressions.

Both action and articulation are emphasized in womanist theory (Lorde, 1984). Womanism uses racial consciousness to underscore the positive aspects of African-American life (Ogunyemi, 1985). But wo- manism does not focus solely on a social agenda. Self-healing is among the goals (Brown, 1990). To survive, despite racist and sexist valuations, black women need to define themselves quite differently from the way they are viewed by those in power.

SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS18

GROUP WORK APPLICATION OF WOMANISM

One of the people interviewed was a social work student who was consciously using womanist theory to guide her group work practice. She was a facilitator and participant in a group called Sistah, Sistah. Its focus was building connections among lesbian and bisexual women of color. The group’s topic was oppression in its various forms. The facilitator explained her reasons for forming the group:

My experiences in lesbian/bisexual groups is that they were pretty white focused and they didn’t give me any chance to address my internalized racism. That made it easy for me to stay blind to my own reality as a woman of color.

Group members felt that, prior to Sistah, Sistah, they had no place to focus multiple axes of oppression. Besides analyzing sexism, the group helped women address internalized racism that was not ad- dressed in white women’s organizations and address the heterosexism they encountered in some women of color organizations.

White feminists didn’t see that the first thing you are in this world is black and the second thing you are is woman. And . . . all of us have experienced people criticizing us from our own com- munities . . . ‘‘You’ve already got two strikes against you. Why give yourself another one?’’ Even from black feminists . . . I’ve experienced homophobia.

The group they formed was unique and emerged from the joining of two previously separate groups: lesbian and bisexual women, and women of color. One goal was to form an accurate identity. ‘‘If we’re gonna align ourselves with a larger feminist movement, we have to figure out where we stand first.’’ The women in Sistah, Sistah accom- plished this by consciously bringing together women who might not otherwise encounter each other, by providing supportive space to talk about these issues and by calling on the Women’s Resource Center on campus to provide material resources such as meeting space, access to a computer and photocopier, message service, etc., that is, the struc- tures needed to organize in support of women who ‘‘are invisible minorities within invisible minorities.’’

Another goal of the group was to determine an accurate self-de-

Christine Flynn Saulnier 19

scription to reflect the members’ experiences. They discussed whether they would align themselves with a larger feminist movement and how that would shape their own identity:

We have to figure out where we stand with each other first. We never put the label feminist on it. I think that is a very white woman term. We certainly addressed the splits we felt, the op- pression we felt. We addressed sexism in general, but I think . . . it’s still in its beginning formation and . . . as much as feminism and womanism are inward statements of self, they are also out- ward statements of politics . . . Lesbian and bisexual women of color are still in the who-the-f . . . -are-we stage . . . how can we define ourselves when we’ve been invisible for so long?

The facilitator felt strongly that having Sistah, Sistah recognized and funded by the university was a political act: ‘‘I think by its very existence it’s political . . . We spent a lot of time talking about the need for visibility . . . it was also political because there were women of color from different ethnic groups coming together.’’ The facilitator argued that women of color coming out within their various communi- ties was profoundly political–forcing the recognition of a previously invisible population. The group provided encouragement and support to members to do so.

What started out as a campus friendship and discussion group evolved into a group with support and community building functions. Participants used consciousness-raising, mutual support and communi- ty organizing to achieve their goals. The group also worked to dislodge class boundaries by including off-campus, working class women. There was some emphasis on modeling as a group process, enacted by en- couraging connections across differences: ‘‘Some were older. Some were younger. Some were on campus. Some were off campus. Some were students. Some were working . . . and it really helped people, especially the younger people see that there was a future and it also helped some of the older people realize how far we’ve come.’’

Evaluation

Womanism was a useful theory for guiding the intervention here. Women who were marginalized by sex, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, and some by class required a theory that recognized the importance of interlocking structures of domination. It was also help-

SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS20

ful to have a theory that explained the pain of having felt forced to choose among aspects of self. This population needed an analysis that accounted for status as ‘‘minorities within minorities’’ and suggested that both self and community needed healing. Womanism provided that analysis.

RADICAL FEMINISM

With the adoption of the slogan, ‘‘the personal is political,’’ several areas formerly excluded from feminist analysis were incorporated into feminism (Tong, 1989). Radical feminists argue that individual women’s experiences of injustice and the miseries that women think of as personal problems are actually political issues, grounded in power imbalances. They insist that separating public from private issues masks the reality of male power, a system of domination that operates similarly in both spheres. Furthermore, they insist that the public and private systems of male control function in dynamic interaction. What happens ‘‘out there’’ in the bastions of male political arenas affects women as individuals on an extremely personal basis. So, for example, dismissing claims of sexual harassment by public figures devalues indi- vidual women’s experiences of sexual harassment. Public-private divi- sions isolate and depoliticize women’s oppression (Nes & Iadicola, 1989).

Radical feminists characterize society as patriarchal. By this they mean both that historically, families have been organized according to male lines of inheritance and dependence and also that society had been constructed in a way that accrues a disproportionate share of power to men. By characterizing contemporary society as patriarchal, radical feminists assume that the most fundamental and significant social division is by gender (Jaggar, 1983). Patriarchy is described as a cultural universal, with all institutions reinforcing that social order (Nes & Iadicola, 1989). The patriarchal structure consists of a system that privileges men through the complex political manipulation of individual identity, social interactions, and structural systems of pow- er. It is not only legal systems that create and reinforce the sexual hierarchy, but all human interactions perpetuate and are permeated by male privilege (Eisenstein, 1981).

Radical feminists have developed a psychological analysis of male supremacy (Echols, 1989) that has two main themes. Supporters charge

Christine Flynn Saulnier 21

that women are damaged psychologically by the internalization of op- pressive patriarchal messages (Echols, 1989) and they argue that psy- chological control of women is a significant component of patriarchal systems (Donovan, 1985). Women’s personalities and their sexuality are seen by some radical feminists as having been constructed to meet men’s needs, rather than women’s (Tong, 1989). Furthermore, women are so limited in their roles that psychological problems are almost inevitable. Rigid sex-role prescriptions not only distort people, but they also lead to sex-based oppression. Radical feminists suggest that men become oppressors not by virtue of biology, but by rationalizing su- premacy on the basis of biological difference (Koedt, 1973). Millet (1969) has held that women are conditioned to serve men, and that it is because patriarchal ideology permeates the culture that women are assured of being confined to their castelike status. This psychology of sex role conditioning accounts for women’s apparent complicity with patriarchy, evidenced in their subservient behavior (Echols, 1989).

Radical feminists have studied the appalling prevalence of violence against women, particularly in the forms of physical and sexual assault, and they define the violence as political in nature. They argue that violence against women is about domination and control; it is men who tend to abuse women; and battering is usually woman abuse. Only the dismantling of patriarchal structures will be an effective response.

The radical feminist analysis of sexism is purposefully comprehen- sive. Sexism is described as a social system consisting of ‘‘law, tradi- tion, economics, education, organized religion, science, language, the mass media, sexual morality, child rearing, the domestic division of labor, and everyday social interaction,’’ the purpose of which is to give men power over women (Willis, 1989, x). It is this very pervasiveness of sexism that necessitates fundamental social change. Radical femi- nists are sometimes impatient with the notion of reform, and they doubt the ability of a patriarchal state to legislate in the interest of women (Eisenstein, 1981). Instead of demanding equal pay, more women professors, legalization of abortion, and an increase in child care services, radical feminists critique the basic structure of work systems, support a radical analysis of universities, insist that child care should be viewed as a social rather than individual responsibility, and maintain that the nuclear family is an unworkable social system (Eve- lyn Goldfield, as cited in Echols, 1989). The most basic institutions need fundamental change.

SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS22

GROUP WORK APPLICATION OF RADICAL FEMINISM

Two co-facilitators discussed their work providing women’s sup- port and empowerment groups and workshops. Much of their work focused on women’s social roles and the relationships between per- sonal and political problems. They found that problems of living in a patriarchal society came up automatically in groups. Although women may or may not have used the term ‘‘patriarchy,’’ they described indoctrination into circumscribed roles and presented a clear need for empowerment. ‘‘Women are trained to be nurturant . . . to take care of others. Women are trained not to fight . . . They were humiliated when they got their periods . . . [disparaged] for being working mothers.’’ They described barriers to women’s attempts to be strong and power- ful and they saw a need to help women resist those constraints.

The goals of the women’s support groups and workshops were to encourage women to become involved in social activism and to chal- lenge the limitations of social roles, as well as to use the emotional experience of growth within a women’s group to heal from ‘‘the injuries that patriarchal society promotes.’’ They used consciousness- raising, support, empowerment, skill-building and practice at develop- ing plans for social action. Through consciousness-raising, they helped women understand connections between personal and political:

There is a continuum between the personal, the interpersonal and the global . . . an intersection between my personal depression and aspects of the world’s condition. When people come into therapy, often they are coming in with existential issues that are concerned with the world. We feel that it is appropriate, natural and desirable and should not be shunted off into personal issues . . . ‘‘you’re so worried about the world, but what happened with your father?’’ So we work on the premise that all people can be global facilita- tors, that every person is uniquely capable of knowing what their niche is, to be socially active in whatever way is possible.

They supported women in their need for addressing personal issues, but they put the issue in context:

Women may come in with a very specific issue in their personal life . . . we work with them as individuals, on their own specific problems. But it happens against the backdrop of the group . . .

Christine Flynn Saulnier 23

That’s part of how we work. We move from the personal to the interpersonal to the global, no matter what forum we’re working in . . . This isn’t just my personal heartbreak. I’m experiencing the heartbreak of millions of people.

The facilitators believed that it is important in working with women to understand women’s psychology, the desire for affiliation and coop- eration, for which women are known, but also to understand women’s drive for power, for personal and group power. ‘‘The number one issue in any women’s group is always empowerment.’’ When they talked about empowerment, these facilitators usually meant social change. ‘‘Our job is to empower people to be involved and to take their place in the world working both with their individual growth and to recog- nize that their growth is also involved in improving situations for the world.’’

They sometimes worked with women who were already involved in social activism and, in those cases, it sometimes was the personal connection that was lost and required great effort to be reclaimed:

We do a fair amount of work with activists and see ourselves as activists . . . sometimes somebody . . . has a certain vision . . . and will not open to anything else, so trying to move people from that position to just drop the armor for a little bit and feel. Feel the despair and the pain that moved them into that position. Because after awhile we don’t feel the pain anymore. We’re just fighting. The armor covers the pain . . . It’s like pulling teeth.

A key component of the work was teaching non-activist women how to be activists and helping them practice developing a plan for action.

We include an applied aspect . . . It’s not enough to talk about it, empathize, cathect about it or whatever. We try to have a specific plan for how people want to carry it into the world . . . this is what I want to actually go out and do, and how do I do it? What would block me from doing it? What do I need to do? What have I already got? So it isn’t just theoretical.

Evaluation

Radical feminist theory was the appropriate branch to use if person- al and political change were the goals. The facilitators’ point about the

SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS24

tendency of some clinicians to reframe problems presented to us as political into personal problems, was an important one. Radical femi- nism encourages us to use consciousness-raising to help women un- derstand the connection between their personal ‘‘heartbreak’’ and larg- er issues. It also helps us to recognize when clients have already made those connections. It can aid us, as social workers, not to be discour- aged by the enormity of social change required, if women’s’ needs are to be met. Rather, radical feminism supports the traditional social work attention to person and environment. Social group work pro- vides an opportunity to pursue radical feminist educational, therapeu- tic and social action goals (Reed & Garvin, 1996).

Chart 1 summarizes the theories and the groups that were used to demonstrate them.

DISCUSSION

‘‘What has revolutionized the conduct of treatment for women had been the awareness of the explicit connections between the conditions in which most women live, their social status, and their mental health’’ (Bernardez, 1996, p. 244). Feminist theories can guide the application of this new knowledge to social work practice. Determining when to apply which theory requires the ability to make distinctions among theoretical perspectives and a minimum level of comfort in operation- alizing the theory. This paper discusses a variety of options available to those who wish to pursue feminist approaches to intervention. Fem- inist theories present viable alternatives to traditional intervention, particularly for women who are interested in focusing on their needs as women. Social group work and feminist practice both promote ‘‘liberating modes of human endeavor’’ (Lewis, 1992, p. 278). The approaches used in the example groups corresponded with the femi- nist orientations of facilitators. There were distinctions and there was some overlap. Several women talked about using empowerment in the groups. Empowerment of women sometimes is offered as a reason for providing women’s services, although it is not always clear what is meant by empowerment. For example, Cox (1991) made the following observation on politicians use of the term:

Political figures representing conservative, liberal, and progres- sive-radical perspectives used the term [empowerment] to win

Christine Flynn Saulnier 25

CHART 1. Overview of Feminist Groups

���������� ��� ��� ����������� � ���� �� �� � ���� ������������ � ��� �

� � � ������ �� � ���� �������� �� � ���� � � ������ � ��� ���� � �� � � � ������ ����� � ��� � �� �� � �� �� ���� � ���� �� �� ��� �� � � � ���� � � ���� �������� � ����� ���������� � ������ �� ��� � ���������� ��������� ������ � ���� � �� � � ������ �� � �

� � � � ���� �� �!� � ����� �������������� � ������� �� ��� � ������������������ � �� � ��� ��� ������� �� ������� � ���� �������� � � � � � ���� �� �!� ��������������� � � � ����� � ��� � �� �� � ������ ����� ������ � �� � � ��� �� � � � ���� � � �� �"� ������ ���� ��� � � � ��� �� ������� � �� �� �� �� ����� � � ���� �� #� �� �� ����� � � ���� �� ���� ����� �� �

��� �� �

� � ����� ��� �� ������ � � � ��$��������� � ������� ���� � � � ��$ � �� ����� � ����� ��� ��� �% � � ������ � � ��� �� ��$��� � � �����& � � � �� � �� %�� � ���� ���� ����� � � �������� ���� � �� ���� �� ���� � ������ � � ����� � ������� ���� � � #���� ��� ����� � $�� � �� � ������ ����� ��!� � �������������� �

' � �������������������� � � ������"���� # �� � ������� �� �� � � ��� ��� �� �� � � ��� �� ���������� ������� � ���� ������ ������ � � ����� ���������������� � � ����� � ����� ���������������� � ������� �� �� � ���� ���� ������� �� �� � � � ��� ����� ������&��� � ���� � � � ��������� ����� ���������������� � ���� ����� ��� ����� � � ���� �� ������������

���� ���� ���� �����

( � ��� ����� ������ � )��� �� �� � ������� �� �� � �����* �� ���� � � � ��� ������ +����� � ������� �������� ������� �� � ������������� � � ����� � � ��� �� ��������� �� � � ������� ���� � �$����� � ���� �� �������������� � ������ � ����� ���� � � � ������������ � ��� �� �� ���� � ���������� ��� � � ������ � ���������� � � ������ �����& � � �������� ���

� #��� � ���� ��� �� �

�������� ����� �� � � ��� �� � ����� ��

SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS26

support. Empowerment is equated with intra-psychic change, self-care competency, group self-help, and social action. (p. 77)

Cox (1991) argued that the tendency to focus either on personal or on political aspects of a problem was misguided, since a single focus contributes insufficiently to empowerment of group members, particu- larly their ability to change their environment. Indeed, lack of atten- tion to political forces denies the inherent political function of any group to either support or challenge the status quo (Pollio et al., 1996). Cox argued that social workers should promote multifaceted groups. In her own work, she encouraged group members to intervene at both personal and political levels. She reported that group members succeed- ed in changing both their consciousness (e.g., courage, sense of power, knowledge of bureaucratic functions), and their environments (e.g., increased safety, improved food stamp policy, and increased hours of a service availability at a facility used by participants). Social work prac- titioners have noted bi-directional skill development, indicating that women who were empowered as individuals were better equipped to undertake collective group action. By the same token, members devel- oped personal skills and increased confidence when they were engaged in social action leading to more tangible outcomes, such as policy change or resource development (Regan & Lee, 1992).

As Cox (1991) suggested, empowerment meant different things when different women, in the examples provided here, used the term. Meanings ranged from learning assertiveness skills to altering social systems. Because of that, the implementation sometimes meant help- ing women consider the origin of their internalized stereotypes; other times, using empowerment meant encouraging group members to par- ticipate in social activist efforts. The use of a range of feminist theories seems to contribute to meeting a breadth of women’s needs. It is gratifying to be able to provide examples of the progress that has been made in understanding the wide variety of experiences of women, and in terms of successful outreach to marginalized populations. Feminists seem to be drawing on the expanded theoretical options available. A more discouraging note is that there are few example groups in this study that demonstrate an attempt to address both personal and social problems. Of the twenty four groups described by women in this study, only four evidence specific goals for changing social condi- tions. The focus on personal and political has been present but not

Christine Flynn Saulnier 27

often enough. Despite undeniable improvements in many women’s social and economic conditions, considerable gender, race, class and sexual orientation based oppression remains. Group workers must continue to focus on such inequalities, and their contribution to psy- chological distress (Kravetz & Maracek, 1996).

Too narrow a focus is of particular concern to social work given the social justice mission of our profession. While it is encouraging to realize the dual focus on changing both person and environment is being practiced, perhaps greater attention to training social workers in how to incorporate both types of goals into social work practice would be beneficial.

Becoming familiar with feminist theories can help social workers to incorporate both personal and environmental goals into social work practice. It is important to use the tools we have–including feminist groups–to help social workers help their clients to promote a more just society.

NOTES

1. This has been supported by research. See Beckman, 1994; O’Connor, Berry, Inaba, Weiss, & Morrison, (1994).

2. See Kaskutas (1996). 3. Essentialism is the assumption that all members of a group, in this case women,

share certain characteristics and that while individuals and subgroups may vary, they are the same in important or essential ways.

4. Note the title of a widely read anthology: All the women are white, all the blacks are men, but some of us are brave. Gloria T. Hull, Patricia Bell Scott, and Bar- bara Smith, (Eds.), 1982). New York: The Feminist Press at the City University of New York.

REFERENCES

Beckman, L. J. (1994). Treatment needs of women with alcohol problems. Alcohol Health and Research World, 18(3): 206-211.

Bernardez, T. (1996). Women’s therapy groups as the treatment of choice. In B. DeChant (Ed.), Women and group psychotherapy: Theory and practice (pp. 242- 262). NY: The Guilford Press.

Brown, E. B. (1990). Womanist consciousness: Maggie Lena Walker and the Inde- pendent Order of Saint Luke. In Ellen Du Bois, & Vickie Ruiz (Eds.), Unequal sisters. NY: Routledge, p. 208-223.

Carter, C., Coudrouglou, A., Figueria-McDonough, J., Lie, G. Y., MacEachron, A., Netting, F. E., Nichols-Casebolt, A. Nichols, A.W., & Risley-Curtiss, C. (1994).

SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS28

Integrating women’s issues in the social work curriculum: A proposal. Journal of Social Work Education, 30(2), 200-216.

Christian, B. (1985). Black feminist criticism. NY: Pergamon. Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the

politics of empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman. Cox, E. O. (1991). The critical role of social action in empowerment oriented groups.

Social Work with Groups, 14(3/4), 77-90. Daly, M. (1978). Gyn/ecology: The metaethics of radical feminism. Boston: Beacon

Press. DeChant, B. (Ed.). Women and group psychotherapy: Theory and practice. NY: The

Guilford Press. DiStefano, C. (1990). Dilemmas of difference: Feminism, modernity, and postmod-

ernism. In L. Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/Postmodernism. NY: Routledge, Chap- man & Hall.

Donovan, J. (1985). Feminist theory: The intellectual traditions of American femi- nism. NY: Frederick Ungar Publishing.

Dore, M. M. (1994). Feminist pedagogy and the teaching of social work practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 30(1), 97-105.

Echols, A. (1989). Daring to be bad: Radical feminism in America 1967-1975. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Eisenstein, Z. (1981). The radical future of liberal feminism. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Flax, J. (1990). Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory. In Linda Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/Postmodernism. NY: Routledge, Chapman & Hall, p. 39-62.

Foucault, M. (1980). The History of sexuality: Volume 1: An introduction. NY: Vintage Books.

Fraser, N. & Nicholson, L. (1990). Social criticism without philosophy: An encoun- ter between feminism and postmodernism. In Linda Nicholson, (Ed.), Feminism/ Postmodernism. NY: Routledge, Chapman & Hall, p. 19-38.

Fuller, M. (1843). Woman in the nineteen century. New York, NY: Greeley & McEl- rath.

Giddings, P. (1988). When and where I enter. NY: Bantam. Higgonbotham, E. (1992). African-American women’s history and the metalanguage

of race. Signs, 17(2), 251-274. O’Connor, L. E., Berry, J. W., Inaba, D., Weiss, J. & Morrison, A. (1994). Shame,

guilt, and depression in men and women in recovery from addiction. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 11(6): 503-510.

Jaggar, A. (1983). Feminist politics and human nature. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.

Joseph, G. (1981). The incompatible menage á trois: Marxism, feminism and racism. In Lydia Sargent (Ed.), Women and revolution. Boston: South End Press.

Kaskutas, L. Road less traveled: Choosing the ‘‘Women for Sobriety’’ program. Journal of Drug Issues, 26(1): 77-94, 1996.

Koedt, A. (1973). Lesbianism and feminism. In Anne Koedt, and Ellen Levine, & Anita Rapone (Eds.), Radical Feminism (pp. 246-258). NY: Quadrangle Books.

Christine Flynn Saulnier 29

Kravetz, D. (1996). The personal is political: A feminist agenda for group psycho- therapy research. In B. DeChant (Ed.), Women and group psychotherapy: Theory and practice (pp. 351-369). NY: The Guilford Press.

Kristeva, J. (1981). Woman can never be defined. In Elaine Marks & Irene deCourti- vron (Eds.), New French Feminists. NY: Schocken Books.

Lewis, E. (1992). Regaining promise: Feminist perspectives for social group work practice. Social Work with Groups, 15(2/3), 271-284.

Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider. Freedom, CA: The Crossing Press. Marks, E. & de Courtivron, I. (Eds.) (1981). Introduction. New French Feminists.

NY: Schocken Books. Millett, K. (1969). Sexual politics. NY: Ballentine Books. Nes, J. & Iadicola, P. (1989). Toward a definition of feminist social work: A compari-

son of liberal, radical, and socialist models. Social Work, 34(1), 12-21. Ogunyemi, C. (1985). Womanism: The dynamics of the contemporary black female

novel in English. Signs, 11(1), 63-80. Pollio, D. E., McDonald, S. M., & North, C. S. (1996). Combining a strengths-based

approach and feminist theory in group work with persons ‘on the streets.’ Social Work with Groups, 19(3/4), 5-20.

Reed, B. G. & Garvin, C. (1996). Feminist thought and group psychotherapy: Femi- nist principle as praxis. In B. DeChant (Ed.), Women and group psychotherapy: Theory and practice (pp. 15-49). NY: The Guilford Press.

Regan, S. & Lee, G. (1992). The interplay among social group work, community and social action. Social Work with Groups, 15(1), 35-50.

Saulnier, C. F. (1996). Feminist theories and social work: Approaches and applica- tions. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Schiller, L. Y. (1997).Rethinking stages of development in women’s groups: Implica- tions for practice. Social Work With Groups, 20(3), 3-19.

Scott, J. (1990). Deconstructing equality-versus-difference: Or, the uses of poststruc- turalist theory for feminism. In M. Hirsch, and E. Fox Keller (Eds.), Conflicts in feminism. NY: Routledge, p. 134-148.

Tong, R. (1989). Feminist thought: A comprehensive introduction. San Francisco: Westview Press.

Willis, E. (1989). Forward. In Alice Echols, Daring to be bad: Radical feminism in America 1967-1975. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Wittig, M. (1988a). The straight mind. In Sarah Hoagland, & Julia Penelope (Eds.), For lesbians only: A separatist anthology. London: Onlywomen Press, p. 431- 438.

Wittig, M. (1988b). One is not born a woman. In Sarah Hoagland, & Julia Penelope (Eds.), For lesbians only: A separatist anthology. London: Onlywomen Press, p. 439-447.

ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED: 07/29/99 MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED WITH MINOR REVISIONS: 11/15/99

FINAL MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED: 01/10/00