Sue Wise

But the empress has no clothes! Some awkward questions about the ‘missing revolution’ in feminist theory

Who owns feminist theory? and just what is meant by the idea of ‘theory’? We explore these fundamental questions as part of interrogating some emergent orthodoxies about feminist theory, proposing that there is a ‘missing revolution’ in feminist thinking, for while ideas about feminist epistemology, methodology and ethics have been fundamentally reworked, those concerning feminist theory have not. Our purpose is to stimulate a debate about the form of feminist theory, rather than the more usual controversies about its content; and thus our concern is with promoting the development of feminist metatheory. We argue that the now-dominant version of feminist theory is a parallel project to that of mainstream/malestream social theory, and that a feminist autocritique of this and related developments is needed, with the aim of achieving a transformation of the fundamental categories of feminist theory.

The ESRC's 2010 Framework for Research Ethics: Fit for Research Purpose?

The ESRCs (2010) Framework for Research Ethics extends the remit of its 2005 research ethics framework in three significant ways: the system is to be fully mandatory and it will no longer be possible to make the case that no out of the ordinary ethical issues arise; the Research Ethics Committees (RECs) set up under the ESRCs 2005 document have extended remit, including reviewing all research proposals accepted by the ESRC and other funding bodies; and funding will depend on the REC review, with its purview extending through a projects life. The 2010 document is reviewed in detail and the conclusion is drawn that it is not fit for purpose. Six wider issues raised by the FRE document are discussed: the consultation process by the ESRC was insufficient and the informed consent of the social science community was not obtained; the ethics creep involved will involve unnecessary bureaucratisation; the RECs will operate without expert discipline-specific knowledge using unethical generalist criteria; the overall effects long-term will be deleterious to the research base; the FRE document unacceptably ignores the professional associations and their research ethics guidelines; and the ESRCs system of the expert peer review of funding applications will be undermined.

Putting it into practice: using feminist fractured foundationalism in researching children in the concentration camps of the South African War.

Feminist fractured foundationalism has been developed over a series of collaborative writings as a combined epistemology and methodology, although it has mainly been discussed in epistemological terms. It was operationalised as a methodology in a joint research project in South Africa concerned with investigating two important ways that the experiences of children in the South African War 1899-1902, in particular in the concentration camps established during its commando and ‘scorched earth’ phase, were represented contemporaneously: in the official records, and in photography. The details of the research and writing process involved are provided around discussion of the nine strategies that compose feminist fractured foundationalism and its strengths and limitations in methodological terms are reviewed.

V. Beyond marriage: 'The less said about love and life-long continuance together the better'

In writing a ‘response’ to the two Feminism & Psychology Special Features on ‘A Marriage of Inconvenience? Feminist Perspectives on Marriage’ and ‘For Better or Worse? Lesbian and Gay “Marriage”’, we looked at some earlier Feminism & Psychology Special Features and the responses they generated. We were interested in how the Special Features were structured, how contributions were written and responses presented, all of which influenced how we subsequently approached our own task. We were also interested in how the contents of the original Call for Papers influences the contributions that result, and not just the editorial introduction. The Calls for Papers usually solicit personal statements and are organized around questions indicating the themes the editors are interested in; and both help influence the final contributions which are published. The Special Features we are concerned with were organized similarly: although there were two separate Calls for Papers, these were circulated together; and while one explicitly asked for personal experiences and the other did not, they will have been closely associated by other potential contributors as well as by us. And while different questions were posed in the two Calls for Papers, both encourage contributors to problematize the whys and wherefores of the ‘institution’ of marriage as well as to explore how partnership is experienced in relationship terms. Consequently these Special Features have a ‘together/apart’ relationship and need to be thought about conjointly. We concluded that the two Special Features should be responded to together, and below we shall comment on some of their common features. We decided to write a response which directly engaged with the contributions in the context of the relevant academic and political literatures, because a wider dialogue is taking place and it is important to locate the Special Features in relation to it. For us, even though the contributions are based on personal experience, it is not unreasonable to expect some engagement with the ideas advanced by others in the

The Domestication of Death: the sequestration thesis and domestic figuration

Sociological work on the sequestration of death has taken on some canonical qualities, while secondary discussion has not recognized interesting divergences within it. While drawing on Giddens (1991) provides useful ideas, the work of Elias (1983, 1985, 1994) is an especially helpful means of historicizing, contextualizing and theorizing domestic figuration and its role in responding to the threatening ‘otherness’ of death. Case studies concerning the domestication of death and its ritualized practices are discussed, including representations of the ineffable ‘moment’ of death. Following Elias, a fully-articulated theorization of death needs to be grounded, historicized, comparative; to explore such matters through the lens of domestic figuration; and to deal with the ontological and epistemological issues raised by death with which the bereaved necessarily have to deal.

New Right' or 'Backlash'? Section 28, Moral Panic and 'Promoting Homosexuality

The lesbian and gay movement in the UK has been the least successful of the major ‘new social movements’ (NSMs) in achieving social policy and legislative change, and Section 28 of the Local Government Act (1988) remains in force as a major symbol both of Conservative opposition to such changes and also of wider and institutionalised discrimination. Around ‘New Labour’ proposals to repeal Section 28, a ‘moral panic’ has taken place, and sections of the popular press have been ‘players within’ the amplification processes involved. Reporting of ‘what has been happening’ has suggested apparently close ongoing links exist between disparate groups opposed to repeal and largely homogenous views about the moral wrongness of homosexuality as such tantamount to a ‘New Right’ hegemonic phenomenon. However, a closer look suggests there is actually important differences between the groupings involved and the ‘close links’ are actually artefacts of ‘creative reporting’; and that these events are better characterised in terms of a ‘backlash’ to the specificities involved rather than a ‘New Right’ blanket response.