The
term Third Wave feminism has developed relatively recently to describe a form
of analysis which is critical of Second
Wave feminism.
[3]
It seems to be part
of a wider postmodernist-influenced theoretical position where `big stories
are bad, little stories are good', but, unlike some other forms of analysis,
such as post-feminism, it locates itself within a feminist trajectory (Potter,
1996). Second Wave feminism has achieved
a great deal: feminist campaigning and consciousness raising in the 1960s
and onwards have changed attitudes to the role of women and have resulted,
in
Third
Wave feminist linguistics does not assume that women are a homogeneous grouping
and in fact stresses the diversity of women's speech.
For example, Penny Eckert analyses
the differences between the language use of different groups of girls in a
high school in America, drawing on the categories and groupings that they
themselves use, such as `jocks' and `burnouts' (Eckert, 2000). Mary Bucholtz
and Nancy Henley analyse the way that Black American women's speech
does not necessarily accord with the type of speech patterns described by
Lakoff and Spender, since there are different linguistics resources available,
signalling potentially different affiliations (Bucholtz, 1996; Henley,
1995) The essays in the collections edited by Bergvall et al (1996) and Coates
and Cameron (1988) all stress the way in which women's language differs according
to context and factors such as class, ethnic
and regional affiliation. Even the notion of the status of the variable
itself has been questioned; for example, Mary Bucholtz has argued that in
Second Wave feminism `locally defined groupings based on ongoing
activities and concerns were rarely given scholarly attention; if they were,
members were assigned to large scale categories of gender, race and ethnicity
and class' (Bucholtz, 1999:8). In contrast, in Third Wave feminism, these
large scale categories are now questioned, so that rather than gender being
seen as a stable unified variable, to be considered in addition to race or class, gender is now considered as a
variable constrained and constituted by them and in turn defining them in
the context of local conditions. Indeed, feminist linguistics now seems to
have turned away from these more established identity categories to an analysis
which focuses on ` a whole set of identity features (being a manager, someone's
mother, a sensible person)' which might be potentially relevant (Swann, 2002:49)
Furthermore, identities are now seen as plural and potentially conflicting
even within a specific individual in a particular interaction. Third Wave feminist linguistics does not make
global statements about women's language but rather focuses on a more punctual analysis, that is one which can
analyse the way that one's gendered identity varies from context to context.
However, Swann has argued that this contextual focus in relation to
variables has almost invalidated the notion of the variable; she argues `if
gender identity is something that is done in context, this begs the question
of how an analyst is able to interpret any utterance in terms of masculinity
(or working class, white, heterosexual masculinity).
How does an analyst assess whether a speaker is doing gender, or another
aspect of identity?' (Swann, 2002:48) What
Swann goes on to argue is that rather than seeing Third Wave (or as she terms
it Postmodern) feminism as a simple reaction to
Second Wave feminist linguistics, we need instead to see the way in
which Third Wave feminism depends on early feminism; the contextualised studies
are interesting `partly because they qualify, or complexify, or introduce
counter-examples' (Swann, 2002:60). Thus,
the localised studies should be seen against the background of the earlier
global (and problematised) claims of Second Wave feminism, which they can
perhaps help to modify and temper.
Much
Third Wave feminist linguistics draws on the work of