"Breaking with the silence" : a critical discourse analysis of feminist voices on #MeToo

(1)

Thesis

“Breaking with the

Silence”

A Critical Discourse Analysis of Feminist Voices on #MeToo

Constanze Hödl

University of Amsterdam; Master Sociology: Gender, Sexuality and Society July 2019

(2)

1

Abstract

The stories shared in the emergence of the #MeToo movement have revealed a long-lasting silence about the omnipresence of sexual harassment and assault in society. Yet, survivors of sexual violence are still confronted with negative consequences regarding both being heard and being believed while perpetrators hardly seem to face any consequences. It is argued here that this not only has implications for the effectiveness of the movement but also that this situation indicates prevailing heteronormative notions about women and men existing in society. Conducting a Critical Discourse Analysis, this study shows how mainstream media both plays a crucial role in the representation of the #MeToo movement and the reproduction of the discursively construction of women and men based on patriarchal ideologies. By examining two American feminist blogs, this study finds that the silence about sexual violence both is a strategy to maintain existing power relations between women and men as well as an instrument to constitute and institutionalize them. This research assumes the presence of a post-feminist discourse that hinders the resurgence of feminist activism manifest in the #MeToo movement from resisting the dominant discourse and thereby from exposing and challenging existing power relations. Considering the new opportunities social media provides for political agency and resistance, the author, however, emphasizes the potential of hashtag activism for feminism and eventually for social change.

(3)

2

Introduction

In October 2017, The New York Times revealed that Hollywood producer, Harvey Weinstein, has been accused of sexual abuse by dozens of women in the film industry, bringing cases to the public that are reaching back decades (Kantor and Twohey 2017). This dissemination of stories triggered a multitude of women who had experiences sexual harassment and assault to share their own stories. The Hollywood actress, Alyssa Milano, suggested that all women who have similar experiences should reply to her tweet with #MeToo, a hashtag originally coined by the social activist Tarana Burke in 2007. With the encouragement of the actress, a large number of survivors of sexual violence started using the hashtag to speak out against powerful men, first starting in the U.S., spreading across social media, and going viral around the globe only within a few days (Garcia 2017). Resultingly, the hashtag has provided a space for a wide range of women to participate, online and offline, in the emerging movement, thereby opening a public debate about the prevalence of sexual transgressions in society. #MeToo therefore not only seems to have resulted in raising social consciousness, but also in particular in institutional changes – such as several courts against perpetrators – and a greater visibility of feminist aims in mainstream media (Mendes et al. 2018).

However, the movement, which is publicly designated as feminist, has been criticized by feminist scholars for its narrow focus on gendered sexual violence, for instance, by excluding domestic violence from the public debate, and for its attention to particular women, often stated as white and privileged women, while ignoring the most marginalized ones (Gill and Orgad 2018; Tambe 2018). At the same time, however, literature suggests “a growing trend of the public’s willingness to engage with resistance and challenges to sexism, patriarchy and other forms of oppression via feminist uptake of digital communication”, which indicates the hashtag’s potential of social change (Mendes et al. 2018: 236). This is not least traceable to the resurgence of feminism in mainstream media that further reveals contradictory stances within contemporary feminist thinking (Donegan 2018), potentially influencing the attitudes towards the feminist movement.

Departing from a feminist and social constructionist position, I consider the #MeToo movement to be a symptom of a larger societal struggle resulting from patriarchal ideologies maintaining men’s societal supremacy over women. I regard these institutionalized power relations between and among groups of women and men as being constituted and sustained through discourses. Discourses, that have become increasingly more subtle nowadays, have emerged in a new impertinence (Lazar 2007) by obscuring gender inequalities through

(5)

4

expressions, such as “#MeToo has gone too far” or “women are equal to men anyways”. Within this research, I will locate these remarks in a post-feminist discourse. In doing so, I will embed my research in the discussion of feminist scholars about this prevalent discourse. Considering the different approaches to its conceptualization and little consensus to its definition (Mendes 2011), in this study, I will understand and discuss post-feminism in distinction to feminism, wherein the latter is both “taken into account and repudiated” (McRobbie 2004: 255). Accordingly, this study’s underlying assumption is that although the #MeToo movement has brought feminist aims into mainstream media, a post-feminist discourse obscures the relevance and urgency of their implementation.

The aim of this study is thus to identify these discourses upholding a patriarchal social order, that is, power relations that systematically privilege men, and disadvantage, exclude and disempower women as social group (Lazar 2005). I will do so by conducting a Critical Discourse Analysis. For this reason, I will investigate feminist voices commenting on #MeToo that might provide feminist insights into the movement that are often overlooked in the mainstream coverage. I will do so to get a deeper understanding of its potential of social change. In line with Drüecke and Zobl (2016), I argue for the important role of feminist blogs in framing the feminist debate and their function of feminist networking and mobilization online. Therefore, I will examine two American online blogs, self-identifying as feminist, with regard to where the movement originated, Bitch Media and Ms. Magazine.

The thesis outline is as follows. In the first part, I will provide a description of the theories used over the course of this research. I will thereby specifically draw on discourse theory and its implications for maintaining societal power relations. Based on this, it will be illustrated how discourses are both crucial in constituting and shaping perceptions of women and men. The last section, concerning feminist theory, will then be useful in getting an impression of how to overcome societal construction of gender-based power relations. The second half of this study contains the empirical part. Therein, I will illustrate both the analysis process, including the data collection as well as a description of the data, and provide a detailed description of the findings deriving from the data. In the discussion, the third and last part of this research, theory and empirics will be brought together in order to answer the research questions underlying to this study.

(6)

5 Purpose and Relevance

The purpose of this study is to provide a critical perspective on prevailing discourses sustaining structural relations of power. The discourse of post-feminism in modern societies thereby requires particular attention as it obscures questions of power and ideology in contemporary gender relations and counteracts reflexive social awareness. One concern of a feminist Critical Discourse Analysis is the global neo-liberal discourse of post-feminism, according to which particular equality indicators, such as equal access to education, labour markets and property ownership have been achieved by women. Resultingly, feminism is considered to have outlived its purpose and has become redundant. The post-feminist discourse is not particularly a consequence brought about by men, also women, albeit in different terms, contribute to it (Lazar 2007). Considering the recent contestations of abortion laws in the U.S. (Lai 2019), I argue, that equal rights for women cannot be seen as a given, neither as total nor even, as post-feminist discourse suggests. These recent developments are much more confirming the opposite as they form, especially in times of #MeToo, a limitation in women’s rights to their own bodies.

Research suggests, that social media platforms, such as Twitter, have increasingly become a space for public discussions and articulations of feminist protest by using hashtags to create awareness for misogyny, discrimination, and violence (Drüeke and Zobl 2016). Mendes et al. (2018) find in their research on the hashtag #MeToo significant insight regarding its potential for producing solidarity which often transform into a feminist consciousness and allows hashtags participants to understand sexual violence as a structural rather than a personal problem. Therefore, it provides important opportunities for social change as the “mainstreaming” of feminist activism, observable therein, lays the foundation for a collective shift towards more justice. Hence, I argue, that the examination of the movement, despite its limitations, is insofar important, as it has opened a worldwide debate on sexism as well as on gender-based sexual violence. Its research may therefore provide implications for the obscurity of relevant challenges concerning gender inequality in context the of relevant dominant discourses.

Research Questions

In the previous paragraphs it has been shown that a tension exists within the #MeToo movement: on the one hand, it reveals feminist issues indicating its potential for societal change. On the other hand, it contributed to the silencing of certain voices and fails to address certain voices, and thereby contributes to the maintenance of patriarchal structures. In order to

(7)

6

(1) gain and provide insights into prevailing discourses that are sustaining power relations, and to (2) evaluate the potential for societal change of the #MeToo movement, the following research question have been formulated:

1. How do feminist bloggers (de-)construct the #MeToo movement as resistance against a heteronormative hegemony?

1.a. In how far do the bloggers’ critiques of #MeToo show the movement’s reproduction of a heteronormative hegemony?

1.b. How do the bloggers position themselves, as part of media, within the movement?

1.c. Which similarities/differences in addressing the #MeToo movement can be identified between the blogs?

2. In what way can the discursive construction of the #MeToo movement be understood within a post-feminist context?

These research questions relate to one another as follows: research question one addresses the reflection of feminist bloggers on the #MeToo movement. The fact that bloggers point to its contradictory elements leads to research question two. In order to make sense of their reflections about these contradictions, this study situates the bloggers’ reflections in a post-feminist context.

Literature Review

Representation of feminist movements in media

In their study on media portrayals of violence against women, Easteal et al. (2014) point to media’s role in shaping its perception by framing it, in particular in the domestic context, in association with the theme of mutuality of responsibility for the violence. These media portrayals, resulting in victim-blaming and -shaming, are found to involve stereotypes, for instance, with regard to the “ideal” victim, and subsequently negating and misleading the reality of sexual violence against women. The authors understand these framings’ underlying logic as gendered and reflective of male dominance, sexism and misogyny, and eventually in contrast to feminist goals.

(8)

7

In this context, the concept of “rape culture”, coined by feminist activists in the 70s, has seen a resurgence in feminist politics and in the media. The term refers to “a set of general cultural beliefs supporting men’s violence against women, including the idea that this violence is a fact of life, that there is an association between violence and sexuality, that men are active while women are passive, and that men have a right to sexual intercourse” (Phipps et al. 2018: 1). As a result, so called “rape myths”, that portray women, for example, as to enjoy being raped, are reinforced by discursively supporting the disbelief of rape victims and the belief of perpetrators (ibid). However, “rape culture” is also defined in popular media culture by harmful practices, including rape jokes or cat-calling and therefore is used to describe a multitude of prevailing practices (Keller et al. 2018). Thus, societal narratives about sexual assault and sexual harassment seem to reinforce patriarchal gender norms, myths, and stereotypes and eventually limit social transformation (Easteal et al. 2014).

Analyzing the newspapers’ framing of second-wave feminist movement during 1968-1982 in the U.S. and the UK, Mendes (2011a) found that patriarchal and capitalist ideologies worked to de-legitimize feminism and sustain gendered hierarchies. She thereby illustrates, how media’s reporting is crucial in shaping a social movement’s representation, and its public perception by constructing it as positive or negative. Stating that the feminist movement began to rise in the late 1960s, she regards it to be declining already by 1975, when the both Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts came into effect. By the late 1970s newspapers began declaring the death of the movement, Mendes (2011a) observes. What is most striking about this study is that the author demonstrates how the dominant group maintains its power position. Although the feminist ideas were considered as to challenge the hegemonic discourse, the equal rights acts functioned to de-legitimize them and maintain dominant ideologies, as they were reforms of the system rather than revolutionary.

Post-feminism

In another article, Mendes (2011b) argues, that post-feminist discourses have not emerged as responses to the newspaper’s framing of feminism to be dead in the late 1970s, but rather that they have existed before that already and seem to have achieved hegemony by then. However, post-feminism is considered as response to feminism, embedded in patriarchal and capitalist ideologies. Thus, post-feminist discourses1 have constructed feminist goals as to be redundant

1_{Gill (2007) coined the term ‘post-feminist sensibility’, which she considers to be more open than earlier used} terms such as ‘discourse’, ‘ideology’ or ‘regime’. She argues that this approach gives more attention to focus on feelings, public mood, atmosphere etc. and not only centers on language (Banet-Weiser et al. 2019). Although I

(9)

8

or harmful in order to maintain male dominance. The term post-feminism therefore refers to a process of “undoing of feminism”, “while simultaneously appearing to be engaging in a well-informed and even well-intended response to feminism” (McRobbie 2004: 255). In other words, as feminist goals were considered to be achieved with the implementation of new gender equality laws, post-feminist discourses have started to question the necessity of feminism. Subsequently, the discourse suggests that gender equality is already achieved, and feminism is, by installing a whole new repertoire of new meanings, no longer needed. This remade image of power inequalities between women and men, emphasizing the individual’s freedom and personal choice, McRobbie (2004) describes as “double entanglement” (ibid). This entanglement of both feminist and anti-feminist ideas makes contemporary media culture distinctively post-feminist, according to Gill (2007). She points to the contradictory nature of post-feminist discourse involving both feminist and anti-feminist themes, including, for example, the co-existence of notions reinforcing inequalities and exclusions, such as “the shift from objectification to subjectification”, “a focus upon individualism, choice and empowerment”, “a resurgence in ideas of natural sexual difference” etc. (ibid: 149). In other words, any remaining inequalities between women and men were the result of natural differences and/or of women’s own choices that support the redundancy of feminism (Banet-Weiser et al. 2019).

The crucial problematic in the post-feminist discourse then is, that “women can have it all”, which obscures societal and material constraints different groups of women are still faced with and reframes their struggles as to be an individual matter (Lazar 2007). Interestingly, Lazar (2009) observes in another article, that post-feminism speaks the language of feminism, but without engaging in feminist activism, collectivism, social justice and the transformation of gender relations. Thereby, feminism gets re-contextualized without challenging patriarchal practices. As social, economic, and political achievements are acknowledged, they give enough reason even for women themselves, to celebrate their obtained status in society, rather than continuing to reflect on their positions. Thus, women are also contributing to the post-feminist discourse.

am agreeing with this approach, in this study, I will use the term ‘discourse’ when talking about post-feminism as I am focusing on discursive practices through language, namely the blogs posts. I argue therefore that using the methodological lens of the Critical Discourse Analysis is appropriate to address the term ‘discourse’.

(10)

9 Digital activism

While feminists have historically used media to mobilize for political action as well as for critiquing the structures and the content of dominant media, Drücke and Zobl (2012) state, that the rise of new media and communication technologies, such as social media, has significantly influenced women’s usage of these for the production and distribution of feminist media. Considering this production process, the content and the particular audience from a female perspective, the alternative to mainstream media offers opportunities to challenge hegemonic structures in society and can therefore be considered as oppositional and “counter hegemonic” (Atton 2002: 27). Moreover, with regard to the marginal position of women’s voices in public spaces, Riano (2000) argues, that this is “fundamental in breaking the fear of speaking and in challenging the myth of women’s silence” (ibid: 1335).

Phipps et al. (2018) identify these mediated voices as to function as a protest against “rape culture”. In the feminist blogsphere, in particular, feminist activism is expressed via narratives and personal experiences of sexual harassment and rape. Keller et al. (2018) therefore argue that, social media platforms provide opportunities for women to share their stories and affect solidarity through employing and communicating via hashtag about their experiences of rape culture. Keller (2012) emphasizes the complex and divers way young feminists nowadays are using online spaces to participate in feminist political activism showing the opportunities the internet provides to reframe feminist politics according to their own lived experiences. Herein, she advocates for the importance of blogging practices as significant political contributions, acknowledging the intersections of technological, cultural and political change. Also Shaw (2012) shows how feminist bloggers engage in discursive activism and consider themselves as actively participating therein. She identifies the bloggers network functions as to critique mainstream discourses.

Subsequently, blogs heighten the visibility of feminism by making feminist thinking easily accessible to a large audience and promulgating feminist ideology into non-feminist spaces. As such, online activism challenges hegemonic culture and suggests new forms of political agency and provides new opportunities for resistance, opposed to traditional paradigms of activism (Keller 2012).

Dahl Crossley (2015) investigates the role of online feminist social networks in feminist mobilization. She argues that, networks, such as Facebook, and feminist blogs enlarge and nourish the feminist community, online and offline, and increase new opportunities for the movement. Arguing that online networks join geographically disparate individuals, they have

(11)

10

the potential to sustain solidarity between the activists and spread the movement beyond face-to-face interaction. Feminist blogs are, in this regard, used for both reading feminist perspectives and producing feminist content, and even individuals are drawn into them that would not typically engage in feminist discussion. This online activity is regarded as an important element of feminism for the involved people. As blogs allow for an own reflection about feminist ideologies and how they apply in individuals own every day lives, online feminism becomes more dynamic and strongly connected to offline activism.

Considering the widespread use of hashtags deriving from social media, feminist activism or hashtag feminism has become a powerful tactic to mobilize around the globe. In examining the underlying social mechanisms leading to the visible protest via hashtags, Clark (2012) emphasizes the online telling and connecting of personal stories that specifically distinguish this form of activism from earlier forms of feminist activism. Furthermore, she states that, hashtag activism has overshadowed offline protests and movement organizations, as they potentially work through more inclusive organizational practices, wherein particular voices are not “filtered through institutional gatekeepers” (ibid: 801).

Theoretical Framework

In the following I will provide a description of the theoretical concepts that I regard as being relevant for analysing the topic. They therefore serve as the theoretic point of departure for my research and will be resumed, in particular, in the discussion section. I will employ a social constructionist approach to gender and sexuality, whereby I consider these categories to be constituted by discourse and defined by and institutionalized in systems of power. Thus, I regard power to be creating both the social world as well as how it is formed and talked about through discourse. Therefore, I will use discourse theory as a way of explaining the interdependencies between language, social practice and the social world. In the following, I will subsequently, draw on concepts of discourse and its relation to societal power relations, such as hegemony and ideology, that I claim to be constitutive to heteronormative views on gender, sex and sexuality.

Discourse, Hegemony and Ideology

To begin with, I want to draw on a definition of discourse by Fairclough (1992) that suits best for this research project. Herein, a discourse can be understood “as a complex bundle of simultaneous and sequential interrelated linguistic acts, which manifest themselves within and

(12)

11

across the social fields of action as thematically interrelated semiotic, oral or written tokens, very often as “texts”, that belong to specific semiotic types, that is genres” (Wodak 2001b: 66). A genre thereby is characterized as a more or less fixed way of using language in connection with a particular activity, such as everyday conversation, meetings etc. As it is signifying a certain social sphere from a particular perspective, a dialectical relationship between the social sphere, including situations, institutions and structures, and particular discursive practices, such as text production and consumption, is assumed. Discourses are thereby the different representations of social life, that represent different spheres of live in different discourses (Fairclough 2001: 123).

While situational, institutional and social settings shape and influence discourse, discourse in turn affect discursive as well as non-discursive social and political processes and actions. Subsequently, discourses can be defined as open and hybrid systems, that can consequently create and allow for new fields of action. “In other words, discourses as linguistic social practices can be seen as constituting non-discursive and discursive social practices and, at the same time, as being constituted by them” (Wodak 2001b: 66). Through discursive practices, as an important form of social practices, texts are produced and consumed. Hence, they both contribute to the constitution of our social world including social identity as well as social relations and are constituted by other social practices at the same time. The dialectic relationship between discourse and other social dimensions further does not only show in the (re-)shaping of social structures but even more reflects them (Jorgensen and Phillips 2002: 61).

The starting point of a discourse analytical approach is that we access reality always through language. As a communicative event, it consists of three dimensions: it is a text (speech, writing etc.), it is a discursive practice (involving production and consumption), and it is a social practice (Fairclough 1992). Hence, language is a means to representations of reality, that is contributing to the construction of our view on the world. Physical objects or natural phenomena, for example, then gain meaning through discourses/language. The ascription of meaning of discourses consequently works to constitute and shape the social world. Changes in discourses are consequently a means to change the social reality. Therefore, knowledge is neither just a reflection of reality, nor does it confirm the existence of the absolute truth, but rather determine different regimes of knowledge the discursive construction of what is assumed to be true or false (Jorgensen and Phillips 2002). Similar to Foucault’s tendency to identify one knowledge regime in a given period (see The History of Sexuality I), I will argue

(13)

12

that there indeed is one knowledge regime observable, I will, however, rather frame it as to be dominant or hegemonic, which, as will become clear later, allows for the existence of different discourses struggling for their supremacy.

Given that discourses are here considered as social practices, we must take a closer look on how they respond to one another. Accordingly, social practices are networked in a particular way, in a particular society, at a particular time, constituting a social order. The semiotic aspect of this social order can be framed as the order of discourse, that is the sum of all genres and discourses used within a certain social domain. This order of discourses is open to change by the possibility of using discourses and genres in new ways or by importing discourses and genres from other orders. Resultingly, the social ordering, as a social structuring, is a way of making meaning, through different discourses and genres (Jorgensen and Phillips 2002: 72). Herein, the aspect dominance plays an important role as some ways of making meaning are more dominant or mainstream in a certain order of discourse then in others, alternatives. “A particular social structuring of semiotic difference may become hegemonic, become part of the legitimizing common sense which sustains relations of domination, but hegemony will always be contested to a greater or lesser extent, in hegemonic” (Fairclough 2001: 124). Hence, employing the concept hegemony can be useful in the analysis of such orders and their discursive practice as part of a larger social practice. Accordingly Jorgensen and Phillips (2002) argue that, “[…] discursive practice can be seen as an aspect of a hegemonic struggle that contributes to the reproduction and transformation of the order of discourse of which it is part (and consequently of the existing power relations)” (ibid: 76).

Gramsci (1991) further applied the concept of hegemony to explain the creation of people’s consciousness, finding that the power position of the ruling class cannot be explained by ideology alone, as assumed so far. The production of meaning is key in naturalising power relations and is part of creating common-sense in society. Thus, hegemony is not only dominance, but also the product of a negotiation process. Accordingly, it maintains structures of dominance through constant re-enactment of ideology in representations and interactions. Gramsci locates the hegemonic process in the superstructure as part of a political field, which, back then, was opposed to the notion of people’s consciousness being completely determined by economic conditions. Consequently, it has opened room for people’s autonomy and their possibilities to resist against existing conditions. This means that hegemony’s competing elements nurture acts of resistance as they challenge dominant meanings. Hence, in order to

(14)

13

maintain long-term acceptance, hegemony is never stable, but transforming and constantly in distress (Jorgensen and Phillips 2002: 32; Lazar 2005b).

Within this study, the concept of ideology is considered as strongly connected to the superior power position of one social group over others. Thus, ideology is considered as “representations of practices formed from particular perspectives in the interest of maintaining unequal power relations and dominance” (Lazar 2007: 146). Accordingly, discourses are not only regarded as representation of the social world, but also is their crucial role in furthering the interest of particular social groups assumed. Therefore, “[o]rders of discourse can be seen as one domain of potential cultural hegemony, with dominant groups struggling to assert and maintain particular structuring within and between them” (Fairclough 1995: 56). Power is herein the productive force that some individuals exert over others. Hence, discursive practices are understood to be contributing to the creation and reproduction of unequal power relations between social groups resulting from ideological effects (Jorgensen and Phillips 2002: 63). Accordingly, Fairclough (1995) states that, ideology is “meaning in the service of power” (ibid: 14). He understands ideologies as “constructions of meaning that contribute to the production, reproduction and transformation of relations of domination” (Jorgensen and Phillips 2002: 75).

Subsequently, the relation between discourse and ideology contributes to the maintenance and transformation of power relations. Discursive practices, therefore, can be considered as ideological in their aim to maintain the hegemonic gender relations of patriarchal power. Herein, in particular gender ideology is regarded as hegemonic as it does often not appear as domination, but rather as common-sense is most societies. The effect of hegemonic gender relations then means that patriarchal structures ideologically organize sexual difference between women and men. Through a discourse represented as common-sensical and natural, ideological assumptions are constantly re-enacted and power relations obscured. It must be imperative to consider the intersection of gender with other systems of power, such as race, class, sexual orientation etc., whereupon gender oppression is neither experienced nor discursively enacted for all women in the same way (Lazar 2007). This particular circumstance I will explain in more depth in the next section based on the discourse of sexuality.

(15)

14

Following Foucault, power is spread across different social practices and is not inherent to particular agents with particular interests, such as individuals, groups or the state. He considers power not only as oppressive but moreover as productive, as it constitutes discourse, knowledge, bodies and subjectivities. Thereby, it provides the conditions of possibility of the social world and is thus responsible both for creating it and the particular ways in which it is formed and talked about (Jorgensen and Phillips 2002: 13f). Furthermore, he assumes power to be a normalizing rather than a repressive force. That means, that the individual does not experience a direct repression by the state, but instead experiences control through the mechanism of normalization. As a result, “[d]iscourse is the medium within which these constructs of power and normativity unite” (Munro n.d.: 84). Accordingly, as power and knowledge are considered to be bound to one another, power consequently has crucial implications on discourse shaping the way we perceive the social world. As already suggested earlier, speaking with Foucault, there, is no universal truth, instead truth is created within discourses that are embedded in systems of power. Subsequently, the goal of analysing discourse should not be to find “the truth”, but rather to focus on how effects of truth, and eventually power, are created respectively perpetuated within discourses (Jorgensen and Phillips 2002: 13f).

One essential strategy in perpetuating power relations, in particular between women and men, are, according to Foucault, discourse systems of sexuality. The regulation of sexuality through discursive practices, such as scientific discourses in law and medicine, is herein assumed to secure the control over human bodies by linking them to political, cultural and social discourses. Thus,

“Sexuality must not be thought of as a kind of natural given which power tries to hold in check, or as an obscure domain which knowledge tries gradually to uncover. It is the name which can be given to a historical construct; not a furtive reality that is difficult to grasp, but a great surface network in which the stimulation of bodies, the intensification of pleasures, the incitement to discourse, the formation of special knowledges, the strengthening of controls and resistance, are linked to one another in accordance with a few major strategies of knowledge and power” (Foucault 1976: 106).

This further means for the role of embodiment in gender relations:

“[…] although the oppression of women is based on the appropriation of their bodies by patriarchy, it does not follow therefore that oppression derives from the body or

(16)

15

sex, or that the notion of a natural sexual difference can be used to explain gender inequalities. Rather, the natural body must be understood as a device central to the legitimation of certain strategies of oppression” (McNay 1992: 21).

In The History of Sexuality I (1976), Foucault identifies principal features constituting the relations between power and the discourse on sex. In the following I want to draw on the for the study most relevant ones. As already suggested earlier, power in regard to sex is maintained through language or rather through discourse, creating action by a rule of law. Dealing with sex, he argues, requires nothing more than a law of prohibition. The objective thereby is that sex renounces itself. Hence, the instrument of prohibition is nothing more than the suppression of sex. Power is then exercised through law, sex as a taboo, and censorship, which results in its acceptance, its lack of debate and eventually in its denial. This means, its underlying logic expresses as “an injunction of nonexistence, nonmanifestation, and silence” (ibid: 84). Subsequently, the discourse respectively the lack of discourse about sexuality shapes our social world and views about sexual practices, which results in the production and maintenance of unequal power relations between women and men, constructing them in particular ways of practice, such as men are sexually active and women are sexually passive. This study’s concern therefore is to examine how this gender ideology and resulting power relations are reproduced, negotiated and contested in discursive practices.

Already indicated in the previous section, Foucault approaches power with agendas of political and ideological resistance in mind. As he sees resistance and subversion as elements of practices of power, he locates the exercise of resistance immanent to a given power structure, instead of external to it. Consequently, the omnipresence of power implies possibilities of resistance. The continuous subversion of these power structures is then a means of producing change and achieving effective resistance, that is made naturally possible by fluid power sources. This presumption allows for an approach that acknowledges the dialectical relationship between power relations, agency and subversion, in the context of gender inequalities, away from a gender-based domination and towards the recognition of women as well upholding gender inequalities. Thus, in a state of domination, those involved still have limited freedom to exercise power and resistance, which is not least because of the limitations of a particular discourse individuals are situated in and influenced by (Foucault 1976; Munro n.d.). Hence, the conditionally relation between power and resistance suggests that the subversion of power structure is only then successful, if it happens within the terms of

(17)

16

power, the approach from the outside would solely reproduce the same discourse reinforcing already existing power structures (Butler 1990).

I further argue that the discourse dominating contemporary social relations reproduces heterosexuality through the binary discursive practice of sex and gender, limiting human behaviour and (re-)producing gender inequalities. Following Butler (1990), this separation is artificial and intentionally disciplinary, rather than a fixed and natural binary. Subsequently, she argues, that sex and gender are nothing more than social constructions. They are constituted by discourse and defined by institutionalised systems of power setting the standards of what is supposed to be female and what is supposed to be male based on the presupposed notion of two sexes. “I use the term heterosexual matrix […] to characterize a hegemonic discursive/epistemic model of gender intelligibility that assumes that for bodies to cohere and make sense there must be a stable sex expressed through a stable gender (masculine expresses male, feminine expresses female) that is oppositionally and hierarchically defined through the compulsory practice of heterosexuality” (Butler 1990: 151). Accordingly, gender constitutes and reproduces male and female as a norm, that operates as a normalising principle in social practice, including sexuality and sexual practices, and therefore functions as a disciplinary discursive mechanism, that is heteronormativity. “Herein, the “reality” of heterosexual reproduction is produced and maintained through a restrictive discourse on gender that insists on the duality of man and woman, and where sex is (re)produced as “prediscursive”, “natural” and binary (Griffin 2007: 224). Drawing from Gramsci’s concept of hegemony and Butler’s concept of the heterosexual-matrix, the discursive heteronormative binary seems to be an effect of hegemony, resulting from struggling discourses to achieve supremacy (Ludwig 2012). I will call this heteronormative hegemony in what follows.

Heteronormativity operates, as composite of ideologies, through three primary means, cisgender men and women, heterosexuality and nuclear families, to constrain and privilege individuals. In each of these three dimensions hegemony manifests, as they always imply the institutional power and dominance of one individual/group or more over others. Yet, Allen and Mendez (2018) observe, the potential of heteronormativity to evolve today relative to social and political changes, instead of earlier assumptions of it being stable, even though still (re-)producing inequalities (Allen and Mendez 2018). The concept thus implies a double-sided social regulation: it regulates those kept within its boundaries while marginalizes and sanctions those outside them. It not only regulates sexual, but also non-sexual aspects of

(18)

17

social life including the division of labour and resources which creates advantages and disadvantages, that situate women and men in a hierarchical order and privilege heterosexuality (Jackson 2006).

Nevertheless, I want to stress the critical limits of the analytical concept of heteronormativity. One of the central critiques is that it is ignorant of taking societal categories, such as race or class, into consideration and, needless to say, their intersections with gender, sex and sexuality. Not only does the framework thereby leave out already marginalized groups, but even more does it reinforce unequal power relations by unquestionably interpreting heterosexuality as something white and privileged (Haritworn 2007). However, theories of intersectionality have a particular interest in the interrelations between gender, race, class, sexuality etc. as fundamental for the (re-)production of social inequalities. The concept of intersectionality has a critical focus on societal hierarchical structures based on the unequal distribution of power. Thereby, it acknowledges the substantial link between ideology and power that allows for the justification of difference as a strategy to exercise oppressive practices. Hence, ideologies are regarded as essential in the subordination of one group and the marginalization of another. Thus, the concept of intersectionality can help to understand why the social construction of “whiteness” results in its privilege (Lengermann and Niebrugge-Brantley 2000). The role of intersectionality is, within this study, considered as to be intertwined with sexist ideologies and is therefore to be taken into account over the course of the next section.

Feminism: A movement to end sexist oppression

The presentation of feminism in mainstream media aims to make women social equals of men which results in the following questions: Which men do women want to be equal to? Do they share the same vision of equality? Implicit in this vague definition of feminism, is the dismissal of race, class, sexual orientation etc. and their intersections, determining to which extent an individual is privileged, disadvantaged or oppressed. Consequently, “[…] the possibility that feminism defined as social equality with men might easily become a movement that would primarily affect the social standing of white women in middle- and upper-class groups while affecting only in a very marginal way the social status of working-class and poor women” (hooks 1984: 19). This, therefore, illustrates the need to revise feminist aims that are more inclusive and that have the potential to sustainably redistribute power relations between dominant and marginalized groups in society.

(19)

18

According to hooks (1984), feminism should not focus on goals, such as equality with men or personal freedom, or one specific group of women that benefits, to erase sexism from society. “Feminism is rather a struggle to end sexist oppression” (ibid: 26), wherein men are the oppressor and women the oppressed. Subsequently, the aim of the struggle should be centred around the eradication of the ideology of domination that prevails Western culture. Sexist ideology is thus based on the believe system that power is linked to the male domination of women. Drawing on Millett (1970), sexual domination seems to be the most widespread ideology our culture, that is patriarchal, and which therefore is fundamental for prevalent structures of power. Hence, by arguing, that the struggle for sexist oppression is a crucial step to eliminate all forms of oppression, a feminist approach offers a new meeting ground for the sexes, and an opportunity for social change (hooks 1984).

But let us take a step back and look at the scope of sexism. “Sexism is perpetuated by institutional and social structures; by individuals who dominate, exploit, or oppress; and by the victims themselves who are socialized to behave in ways that make them act in complicity with the status quo” (hooks 1984: 43). Women are considered to be the most victimized group of sexist oppression, not least because male supremacist ideology encourages women to believe themselves that they lower position is legit. Along with men, they therefore accept and believe in the dominant ideology. Similarly, feminists are pushing the notion of men as the enemy and women as the victim, which is not least solely a strategy to create new value systems outside the power structures both women and men grew up with (ibid: 87).

Patriarchy, on the other hand, is defined as universal, because it exists in all spheres of the social, political, and economic and by its long-lasting character based on its main instrument of the domestic family (Millett 1970). Furthermore, following Millett (1970), in patriarchal societies violence is connected with sexuality as sexist oppression expresses a form of power. It has therefore a strategical function to both oppress women’s sexuality, and consider them as men’s sexual objects, thereby limiting women’s right and freedom with regard to their own bodies (ibid: 79).

For this reason, the vision of sisterhood was established based on the idea of common oppression and a common enemy in order to strengthen resistance in struggle united. However, as sexist ideology teaches women to consider themselves as victim, this logic reflects the male supremacist thinking. Aiming to end sexist oppression consequently means to define own terms of a feminist movement instead of holding on to the terms set by the dominant ideology of culture. This means that resistance here not solely includes to resist

(20)

19

male domination but also to transform female consciousness and sexist socialization within ourselves (hooks 1984: 43ff).

Another characteristic of sexism that is also relevant in the context of the concept heteronormativity, is sexist ideology that hooks (1984) regards as immutably connected and similar to racist ideology. As white supremacy is based on the idea of perpetuating the white race, it is in the interest of white racist domination to control all women’s bodies. The struggle for women’s rights regarding their own bodies is a central issue for feminist activists. Thus, until the problematic of white supremacy is not addressed and attacked by white women, bonding between them and multi-ethnic groups of women does not seem possible for the author. This means that it is not only men acting anti-feminist, but also women accept and sustain sexist ideology (ibid: 53).

Furthermore, sexist ideology implies the supposed notion that female empowerment is eventually at the expense of men. However, if women and men would politically bond, sexist oppression could radically be resisted which is why feminism is not solely to be considered as a women’s movement but rather as a societal movement. Similarly, women and men have been socialized to passively accept sexist ideology and moreover benefiting from it. Thus, it is also men that must take responsibility for eliminating it. hooks thereby emphasizes the role of earlier feminist activists by stating “[…] women active in feminist movement were simply inverting the dominant ideology of the culture – they were not attacking it. They were not presenting practical alternatives to the status quo. In fact, even the statement ‘men are the enemy’ was basically an inversion of the male supremacist doctrine that ‘women are the enemy’ – the old Adam and Eve version of reality” (hooks 1984: 78).

Data and Methodology

The analysis’ point of departure is, that there is a hegemonic discourse about sexual violence existent, namely a heteronormative view on sex and gender, which is reproduced in the public discourse of #MeToo. In this regard it is important to examine what is included in and what is left out of a discourse. The underlying assumption hereby is, that ideological strategies maintaining unequal power relations are hidden through hegemonic articulation. The feminist bloggers are therefore considered as the “experts” being able to uncover them. A systematic text analysis will be conducted, and, with the help of this study’s underlying theoretical concepts, used to analyse the discourses emerging from and addressed within the blogs.

(21)

20

The Critical Discourse Analysis, as this study’s methodological approach, was chosen, because of its aim to uncover the role of discursive practices maintaining our social world, herein, in particular, the unequal distribution of power (Jorgensen and Phillips 2002: 64). The analysis will therefore mostly involve the investigation of the discursive practice, although it is inevitably that it will partly include the analysis of the linguistic feature of the texts. Following Fairclough (2010), discourse is not researched isolated but rather embedded in and related to other social processes. Whereas ‘social practices’ are defined as consisting of both discursive and other elements, ‘discursive practice’ is understood as the process of text production and interpretation, here amongst the feminist bloggers (ibid). The discursive practice’s function then is to mediate the relationship between texts and social practice. “Hence it is only through discursive practice - whereby people use language to produce and consume texts – that shape and are shaped by social practice. At the same time, the text (the formal linguistic features) influences both the production and the consumption process” (Jorgensen and Phillips 2002: 69).

Considering the inherent relation between discursive and social practice, the study therefore locates the #MeToo movement constituted by and constitutive to social conditions, such as cultural and societal norms. The analysis will therefore, further involve “[…] considerations about whether the discursive practice reproduces or, instead, restructures the existing order of discourse and about what consequences this has for the broader social practice (the level of social practice)” (ibid). Thus, I will look for patterns that illustrate how #MeToo’s hegemonic discourse is addressed and whether it is subverted or reproduced within the blogs. Thereby, I will focus on how the authors of the texts draw on already existing discourses and genres to create a text, or discourses and genres that were already used, and how they potentially combine them with other discourses and genres (Fairclough 1992).

The consideration of texts within Critical Discourse Analysis is insofar important as therein discursive differences are negotiated, and governed by differences in power that are again obscured and determined by discourse. Resultingly, texts illustrate differing discourses and ideologies competing over dominance. As language expresses power, it can also be used to challenge, to subvert and to alter the distributions of power, as already explained in the theoretical part of this study. When looking at language and discourses, Critical Discourse Analysis’ approach to social phenomena is to ask questions, such as: What constitutes knowledge? How are discourses constructed in and constructive of social institutions? How

(22)

21

does ideology function in social institutions? And how do people obtain and maintain power within a given community? (Wodak 20001a: 11f).

In light of various approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis (see Jorgensen and Phillips 2002), I am positioning myself and my analysis process in line with Norman Fairclough’s contributions who employs a text-oriented approach. One of his central interests is the investigation of social change through his concept of intertextuality, which examines how individual texts draw on elements and discourses of other texts and thereby combine elements, that potentially change individual discourses, and eventually the social world (Fairclough 1992). However, he criticises the exclusive textual analysis of most linguistic approaches. Text analysis alone is, according to him, not sufficient which is why he argues for the combination of textual and social analysis. Social practices, hence, must be taken into account as they are shaped by social structures and power relations people are often not even aware of (Jorgensen and Phillips 2002: 66). He particularly focuses upon social conflict whose linguistic manifestations he detects in discourses, specifically in elements of dominance, difference and resistance (Meyer 2001: 22). Thereby, he suggests a stepwise pragmatic approach in preparation to and in the process of the analysis, which was basic to this research:

1. Description of the social problem and identification of its semiotic aspect outside of the text

2. Identification of the dominant styles, genres and discourses constituting its semiotic aspect

3. Consideration of the range of difference and diversity in styles, genres, discourses within this aspect

4. Identification of the resistance against the colonization processes executed by the dominant styles, genres and discourses (ibid: 28).

As language is seen as crucial for social practice, Critical Discourse Analysis lays a particular interest in the relation between language and power. It is therefore fundamentally concerned with the analysis of structural relationships of, for instance, power, dominance and control manifested in language, and thereby investigates social inequalities expressed, signalled, constituted and legitimized by language, and eventually discourse. Every discourse is regarded as historically produced and interpreted, whereby the dominance structure is legitimized by the ideologies of the particular powerful group. Thus, Critical Discourse Analysis is considered to make the potential of resistance to these unequal power relations possible as it considers “dominant structures [to] stabilize convention and naturalize them,

(23)

22

that is, the effects of power and ideology in the production of meaning are obscured and acquire stable and natural forms: they are taken as “given”. Resistance is then seen as the breaking of convention, of stable discursive practices, in acts of “creativity”” (Wodak 2001a: 3).

However, within the methodology of Critical Discourse Analysis there are different approaches regarding the subject’s ability to take action within a certain discourse, and its capability to resist dominant ideologies. Yet, discourses are generally seen as frameworks that limit the individual’s scope for action and change. Critical Discourse Analysis then presents “a theoretical foundation and specific methods for analysis of the dynamic discursive practices through which language users act as both discursive products and producers in the reproduction and transformation of discourses and thereby in social and cultural change” (Jorgensen and Phillips 2002: 17). Resultingly, it has a particular interest in the ideological effects of discursive practice.

Summing up the arguments made in the theoretical part of this study, Critical Discourse Analysis then seeks to investigate the “often opaque relationships of causality and determination between (a) discourse practices, events and texts and (b) broader social and cultural structures, relations and processes […] how such practices, events and texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over […] how the opacity of these relationships between discourse and society is itself a factor securing power and hegemony” (Fairclough 1995: 132f).

In the following sections, I will provide a description of the data as well as the data collection process and illustrate both the coding as well as its role in the analysis of the data. The theoretical and methodological framework was thereby taken into consideration and will find its deeper application in the section Analysis and Findings respectively in the Discussion.

The blogs

For the analysis I have chosen to examine two online blogs, Bitch Media and Ms. Magazine, identifying themselves as feminist. This choice was made after an extensive google search. These blogs were chosen for two reasons: first, they seem to be value and influential resources for feminist thinking nowadays and, second, they provide access to their articles without subscription. Each blog covers an audience of a couple of hundred thousand followers

(24)

23

which indicates that they reach a broad range of people and therefore serve as an appropriate platform to research, preferably various, feminist voices.

In line with the origin of the hashtag #MeToo, as an online campaign, I will specifically analyse the online appearance of Bitch Media and Ms. Magazine. Garrison (2010) encourages to examine the “spaces that cross over and between what is called the “mainstream” or what is recognized as “a social movement” (ibid: 397). Following Drüecke and Zobl (2016), I therefore argue that feminist blogs play an important role in framing the feminist debate and in networking and mobilizing. Furthermore, they emphasize the blogs’ translation function by generalizing and gathering experiences as well as related topics and by discussing the political and social impacts. Instead of focusing on a consensus, the bloggers rather pursue mobilization which shows in the engagement with hegemonic political and mass media discourses. Moreover, according to Keller (2012), blogging practices functions as significant political contributions and are “key to recognizing the intersection between changing technology, neoliberal culture, and political activism” (ibid: 431). She also shows that teenage girls, for instance, perceive the practice of blogging as a way to reframe feminist activism according to their own lived experiences. Subsequently, the internet provides opportunities to embrace a new understanding of community, activism and feminism, within a neoliberal cultural context.

That said, I am hoping to find a more genuine and thoughtful approach on the topic amongst the feminist voices as their articles do not need to appeal to a sensationalistic mainstream audience. Furthermore, their involvement in the movement, as activists or their direct work with socially excluded people, might provide more insight on the actual influence and the scope of the hashtag than covered by other media such as newspapers.

Bitch media

“Bitch Media’s mission is to provide and encourage an engaged, thoughtful feminist response to mainstream media and popular culture” (Bitch Media 2019). It looks at the media through a lens taking the historical and cultural representation of gender in pop culture into account, traditionally having a narrow vision of what women and girls are and can be. The non-profit multimedia organization’s idea is to be the voice of contemporary feminism which it describes as “one that welcomes complex arguments and refuses to ignore the contradictory and often uncomfortable realities of life in an unequivocally gendered world” (ibid). Feminism is thereby considered as a necessary part of the broader social justice movement, addressed to all kinds of people. It is Bitch’s intention to have a diverse audience, with

(25)

24

specifically young readers discovering feminism and activism, that critically reflect on mainstream media’s definitions of gender, sexuality, power and agency. Not only does it consider itself as part of exploring these topics, but also as part of a movement that seeks to promote activism and social change (ibid).

The magazine, with their headquarters in Portland, US, counts a community of over 6 million readers worldwide. Next to its 2009 launched online platform with many guest-bloggers, the magazine publishes print issues quarterly (also digitally available) regarding specific topics from a feminist perspective and provides its audience with a weekly podcast. The first print version was launched in 1996 by Lisa Jervis, Benjamin Shaykin, and Andi Zeisler with the goal “to point out the insidious, everyday sexism of popular culture, propose alternatives, and celebrate pro-woman, pro-feminism pop products” (Bitch Media 2019).

Ms. Magazine

In its headline the Ms. Magazine states, that it is more than a magazine, but a movement and counts as a landmark institution in both women’s rights and American journalism. Ms. was first launched in the New York magazine in 1971, when feminism was excluded from mainstream media, seeking to translate “a movement into a magazine” (Ms. Magazine 2019). Its founders initially helped to shape contemporary feminism as it was “the first national magazine to make feminist voices audible, feminist journalism tenable, and a feminist worldview available to the public” (ibid). Today, it is published by the Feminist Majority Foundation, the largest U.S. based feminist research and action organization, headed by Eleanor Smeal. The magazine provides its audience with feminist news both online and in print quarterly. It puts an emphasis on investigative reporting and feminist political analysis with the attempt to bring to together a new generation of writers and readers in order to create the feminism of the future. In view of its cross-generational appeal, its global reach and activist stance its goal is to create action and social change (ibid).

In 2001 the Ms. Committee of Scholars was established “to serve as a bridge between the magazine and the field of women’s studies” (Ms. Magazine 2019). The diverse group of feminist scholars help to shape with their knowledge Ms.’ stories and its strategic vision. The magazine has a multi-issue and globally focused perspective that is rooted in an intersectional feminist lens (ibid).

(26)

25

Data collection

The goal of the data collection, starting with the hashtag going viral in 2017 until Spring 2019, was a selection of blog posts that cover the topic #MeToo on a meta-level. This means in particular that I was looking for a holistic perspective on the movement that does not cover solely a specific case, such as the Weinstein accusations, or an event, like of one the numerous marches, for instance. The idea was to collect those that zoom out of the individual cases that cover a societal impression of #MeToo’s impact. For this reason, I was starting to get an overview of the coverage of the topic by searching both blogs’ websites for the term “MeToo”. Because both websites use keywords to tag their articles, I was able to access all the articles available to the topic. In this first phase, I was confronted with over a hundred articles, which I had to sort out by the following criteria in a next step. As noted earlier, I did not consider individual cases, such as Hollywood starlets’ or individual personal experiences etc. emerging from the public’s debate. Furthermore, I excluded interviews, videos/audios and book reviews from my analysis. Another criterium was the length of the articles, which I was trying to keep more or less even within the entire selection. At the end of the data collection process I was left with 18 articles of Bitch Media and 29 articles of Ms. Magazine, which I consider as an appropriate sample size that can offer sufficient and meaningful insights. This difference is based on the fact, that the former does indeed tend to focus more on topics addressing individual cases debated in mainstream media. Considering their website’s “About us” section this observation is not surprisingly, but rather makes their intention to respond to mainstream media and popular culture even clearer.

The collected blogs were almost all written by self-identified women, except of one outspoken non-binary person, and one man. What is the most striking difference between the authors of the two blogs, is that the ones of Bitch mostly include writers, journalist and activist, as well as posts of the editors themselves. Ms.’ bloggers, on the other side, show a variety of different professional backgrounds, including professors, CEOs of NGOs as well as writers. This difference is, in particular, noticeable in the articles itself as the letter’s are in many cases referencing (their own and other) research reports, statistics, laws etc. whereas

Bitch’s authors are tendentially referring to other online platforms and online available

newspaper articles. Eventually, this also reveals the blogs’ varying approaches to address the topic #MeToo, which I will elaborate on in depth later in the analysis. The bloggers’ origins in the U.S. might also have an impact in their approaches towards the topic, as research suggests that women’s movement, considering their goals, tactics and ideologies, vastly differ

(27)

26

depending on place and time (Mendes 2011), and will therefore be taken into account while examining the data.

Coding-Process

My initial approach in the coding phase was to create a reflexive and interactive process between data coding, data analysis and theory. This was supposed to allow for categories emerging out of the data while keeping the analysis’ context in mind to understand and be able to analyse the texts’ broader meaning. In line with Kathy Charmaz’s view, I argue for the data analysis as an interactive and iterative process. Whilst she is arguing for abduction as secondary to induction, she adapts an abductive logic by moving back and forth between data and theory (Timmermans and Tavory 2012). Each blog’s examination was following the same scheme. Left with my final sample, I organized all articles by blog and publication date in a chronological order. During a first reading I highlighted passages and added notes according to what struck me as important to my research focus.

In the coding process itself, I helped myself by applying Charmaz’s strategy (2006) of an alternative approach to grounded theory. Following her suggestion, I was, first of all, coding all selected blog posts line-by-line to avoid putting my own motives and emotions in someone else’s words. Subsequently, I continued with focused coding through which I was trying to explore the selected codes more deeply (Charmaz 2006; Flick 2009). This helped me to identify not only reoccurring topics, namely, silence, speak-out, sisterhood, rape culture, intersectionality and believability, but also to figure out which parts of my data are important/not important for a comprehensive analysis. According to the identified themes, I again organized my data before continuing with generating main- as well as sub-codes. Thus, this selection and first coding phase turned out to already be an essential part of the analysis as it involved many decisions on what to take into consideration and what not, keeping my research questions in mind.

In the next step, I compared the codes I collected, checking between incidents which ones resemble or relate, to consequently derive from them more general dimensions and categories. This meant to selectively sort and organize the most significant or frequent codes and separate them into topics. Another look at the theory was thereby helpful in making sense of the data so far. This phase resulted in the following adaption of the previously identified themes: media, power, silence, speaking out, believability and solidarity, to which I will come back to in the findings section. As a result, I was able to categorize, refine and ideally sum up the

"Breaking with the silence" : a critical discourse analysis of feminist voices on #MeToo