What do you think?
Rate this book
Inclusive Feminism: A Third Wave Theory of Women's Commonality
Second Wave feminism collapsed in the early 1980s when a universal definition of women was abandoned. At the same time, as a reaction to the narcissism of white middle class feminism, "intersectionality" led to many different feminisms according to race, sexual preference and class. These ongoing segregations make it impossible for women to unite politically and they have not ended exclusion and discrimination among women, especially in the academy.
In Inclusisve Feminism , Naomi Zack provides a universal, relational definition of women, critically engages both Anglo and French feminists and shows how women can become a united historical force, with the political goal of ruling in place of men.
In Inclusisve Feminism , Naomi Zack provides a universal, relational definition of women, critically engages both Anglo and French feminists and shows how women can become a united historical force, with the political goal of ruling in place of men.
- GenresFeminism
204 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
2 people are currently reading
29 people want to read
About the author
Naomi Zack
39 books13 followersNaomi Zack is a professor of philosophy at the University of Oregon. She is a prolific author, having published seven books in addition to a large number of papers and contributed chapters in feminist ethics, particularly in areas having to deal with race or disaster.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
July 22, 2025
A FEMINIST PHILOSOPHER LOOKS AT WAYS TO ACHIEVE ‘COMMONALITY’ AMONG WOMEN
Naomi Zack is professor of philosophy at Lehman College (CUNY); she formerly taught at the University of Albany, and the University of Oregon.
She wrote in the first chapter of this 2005 book, "No one is quite sure what is going on in academic feminism these days. The intellectual foundation of second wave feminism collapsed during the 1980s and feminists did not unite to rebuild it. Some … created separate and unequal feminisms along divisions of race, sexual preference, or intellectual proclivity. Others agonized over how it could be possible to talk about the subject of feminism---women… their bolder counterparts proclaimed that the idea of such a subject, requiring as it did a preformed woman’s subjectivity, was an outdated conceit of masculinist modernism. The result of this has been a great deal of theory, as well as theory about how to do theory.” (Pg. 1)
She continues, “The most promising path to a new coherence runs through the sharpest criticism of second wave feminism---the claim that white middle-class feminism did not speak for all women…The purpose of this book is to develop a new theory in third wave feminism that will be inclusive… The purpose of this chapter is to explain the motivation behind intersectionality, explain the problems with intersectionality, and reclaim the idea that all women have something in common. I will propose that what women have in common is a relation and not a thing…. I will try to show … second wave feminists were too hasty in accepting the collapse of their edifice. But… it is probably too late to reconstruct the old foundation…. I therefore hope that all readers, of at least the two generations in question, will join me in constructing a new foundation.” (Pg. 1-2)
She goes on, “there will need to be inclusive feminism in the third wave, if… the third wave will be able to speak convincingly to the Third World… As it stands, feminism, as practiced by academic women in the United States, has not become weaker as an academic subject since its historical and theoretical exclusion of nonwhite and poor women was affirmatively raised in the late 1970s… it appears that more philosophy students than ever are interested in feminism, more traditional philosophers than ever are recognizing its disciplinary legitimacy, and more graduate students than ever think they can succeed academically with concentrations in feminism.” (Pg. 2-3)
She explains, “second wave feminism preserved white middle-class exclusivity in its beginnings and continues to do so, even after the nonwhite protest… bell hooks reminded feminists that the 19th century women’s movement in the United States was a white women’s movement… The mid-20th century comparison of being a woman to being black was insulting to blacks… When black women protested their exclusion from feminism in the late 1970s, they emphasized their struggle for women’s rights as well as racial equality. They objected that white feminists were preoccupied with the problems of white middle-class women, to the neglect of both the material conditions of poor women and the effects of white racism on nonwhite women… And during the 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. U.S. feminists faced further challenges from East European women… These critiques of white feminism have resulted in segregated feminisms. But intellectual segregation is not a solution to inequality…” (Pg. 4-6)
She adds, “The term ‘intersectionality’ refers to multiple oppressions experienced by nonwhite and poor women in particular… In the paradigm instance of intersectionality… a black woman is understood to be not merely a woman in the white feminist sense, who is in addition black. No, a black woman is … someone with a distinct identity of gender because race is supposed to be a principal determinant of gender: race + class = gender!” (Pg. 7)
She continues, “An essence can be something … which is a necessary and sufficient condition for membership in a group… Women are those human beings who are related to the historical category of individuals who are designated female from birth or biological mothers or primary sexual choice of men. Call this category FMP.” (Pg. 8) She states, “[In Sojourner] Truth’s rhetorical ‘Ain’t I a Woman?’ she was asserting her womanhood despite her differences from white women… [This] supports commonality among women.” (Pg. 13)
She explains, “To develop into a woman, based on female designation at birth, is to join the group of women according to what is expected and imposed in one’s immediate social context, in combination with what is distinctive or unique about one as a developing individual. It is not only that one becomes a woman but that one becomes a human female in a social and psychological matrix. I propos[e] … that feminists define women as human beings who are assigned to or identify with the FMP category.” (Pg. 4)
She cautions, “Although biology continues to be used and reused as a justification for the cultural project of sex-gender, feminists cannot afford to forget that the problems which make feminism necessary are not biological but cultural.” (Pg. 55)
She argues, “There is presently a ‘rationalist/empiricist’ divide in feminist social theory, although… a ‘textual/factual’ divide is a more appropriate description… If the subject is the problems of contemporary black women, a text-based theory about connections of ideas of blackness to Christian notions of sin and ugliness is not useful for addressing intellectual discrimination against black women or their underrepresentation in the mass media. Similarly, text-based analyses of the sexual exploitation of black women during slavery are not directly relevant to the difficulty contemporary educated black women have in finding suitable mates among black men, or the reasons why black ‘welfare mothers’ were particularly despised by white conservatives in the 20th century.” (Pg. 67-68)
She proposes, “Inclusive feminist social theorists need to understand how the interests of dominant groups constrain women in different ways through circumstances and situations… I am proposing that feminist social theorists proceed as though women, all women, have no identities---either as things within them or dispositions to behave in specific ways---and that they be willing to undertake meticulous descriptions of the kinds of circumstances and situations that operate for the benefit of other people, in which women variably find themselves.” (Pg. 75-76)
She summarizes, “Women’s commonality is directly relevant to feminist political goals and activism throughout the world… Feminists… have concluded that it is not possible for First World feminists to speak for those in the Third World, for rich women to speak for poor, or white for nonwhite. Each distinct group or intersection of women… need to speak for themselves. Groups that have not yet found a voice… are in principle included by the formal, relational definition of women I have proposed---there are already places for them at the table, which will continue to be set until they show up.” (Pg. 141)
She concludes, “The ultimate questions for feminist political theory … are: Can women rule? and How can women come to rule?... There have been evolutionary and biological explanations of why men have ruled, but they do not show that rule by men over both men and women is inevitable or necessary… The logical possibility of rule by women could acquire a positive probability through the following scenario: Establishment feminists and women’s advocates throughout the world form women’s political parties…. The two universal objectives of rule by women would be the end of violence and preservation of natural environments.” (Pg. 164)
Zack’s approach to such questions as a philosopher gives this book uniqueness, and is well worth the careful attention of modern feminists.
Naomi Zack is professor of philosophy at Lehman College (CUNY); she formerly taught at the University of Albany, and the University of Oregon.
She wrote in the first chapter of this 2005 book, "No one is quite sure what is going on in academic feminism these days. The intellectual foundation of second wave feminism collapsed during the 1980s and feminists did not unite to rebuild it. Some … created separate and unequal feminisms along divisions of race, sexual preference, or intellectual proclivity. Others agonized over how it could be possible to talk about the subject of feminism---women… their bolder counterparts proclaimed that the idea of such a subject, requiring as it did a preformed woman’s subjectivity, was an outdated conceit of masculinist modernism. The result of this has been a great deal of theory, as well as theory about how to do theory.” (Pg. 1)
She continues, “The most promising path to a new coherence runs through the sharpest criticism of second wave feminism---the claim that white middle-class feminism did not speak for all women…The purpose of this book is to develop a new theory in third wave feminism that will be inclusive… The purpose of this chapter is to explain the motivation behind intersectionality, explain the problems with intersectionality, and reclaim the idea that all women have something in common. I will propose that what women have in common is a relation and not a thing…. I will try to show … second wave feminists were too hasty in accepting the collapse of their edifice. But… it is probably too late to reconstruct the old foundation…. I therefore hope that all readers, of at least the two generations in question, will join me in constructing a new foundation.” (Pg. 1-2)
She goes on, “there will need to be inclusive feminism in the third wave, if… the third wave will be able to speak convincingly to the Third World… As it stands, feminism, as practiced by academic women in the United States, has not become weaker as an academic subject since its historical and theoretical exclusion of nonwhite and poor women was affirmatively raised in the late 1970s… it appears that more philosophy students than ever are interested in feminism, more traditional philosophers than ever are recognizing its disciplinary legitimacy, and more graduate students than ever think they can succeed academically with concentrations in feminism.” (Pg. 2-3)
She explains, “second wave feminism preserved white middle-class exclusivity in its beginnings and continues to do so, even after the nonwhite protest… bell hooks reminded feminists that the 19th century women’s movement in the United States was a white women’s movement… The mid-20th century comparison of being a woman to being black was insulting to blacks… When black women protested their exclusion from feminism in the late 1970s, they emphasized their struggle for women’s rights as well as racial equality. They objected that white feminists were preoccupied with the problems of white middle-class women, to the neglect of both the material conditions of poor women and the effects of white racism on nonwhite women… And during the 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. U.S. feminists faced further challenges from East European women… These critiques of white feminism have resulted in segregated feminisms. But intellectual segregation is not a solution to inequality…” (Pg. 4-6)
She adds, “The term ‘intersectionality’ refers to multiple oppressions experienced by nonwhite and poor women in particular… In the paradigm instance of intersectionality… a black woman is understood to be not merely a woman in the white feminist sense, who is in addition black. No, a black woman is … someone with a distinct identity of gender because race is supposed to be a principal determinant of gender: race + class = gender!” (Pg. 7)
She continues, “An essence can be something … which is a necessary and sufficient condition for membership in a group… Women are those human beings who are related to the historical category of individuals who are designated female from birth or biological mothers or primary sexual choice of men. Call this category FMP.” (Pg. 8) She states, “[In Sojourner] Truth’s rhetorical ‘Ain’t I a Woman?’ she was asserting her womanhood despite her differences from white women… [This] supports commonality among women.” (Pg. 13)
She explains, “To develop into a woman, based on female designation at birth, is to join the group of women according to what is expected and imposed in one’s immediate social context, in combination with what is distinctive or unique about one as a developing individual. It is not only that one becomes a woman but that one becomes a human female in a social and psychological matrix. I propos[e] … that feminists define women as human beings who are assigned to or identify with the FMP category.” (Pg. 4)
She cautions, “Although biology continues to be used and reused as a justification for the cultural project of sex-gender, feminists cannot afford to forget that the problems which make feminism necessary are not biological but cultural.” (Pg. 55)
She argues, “There is presently a ‘rationalist/empiricist’ divide in feminist social theory, although… a ‘textual/factual’ divide is a more appropriate description… If the subject is the problems of contemporary black women, a text-based theory about connections of ideas of blackness to Christian notions of sin and ugliness is not useful for addressing intellectual discrimination against black women or their underrepresentation in the mass media. Similarly, text-based analyses of the sexual exploitation of black women during slavery are not directly relevant to the difficulty contemporary educated black women have in finding suitable mates among black men, or the reasons why black ‘welfare mothers’ were particularly despised by white conservatives in the 20th century.” (Pg. 67-68)
She proposes, “Inclusive feminist social theorists need to understand how the interests of dominant groups constrain women in different ways through circumstances and situations… I am proposing that feminist social theorists proceed as though women, all women, have no identities---either as things within them or dispositions to behave in specific ways---and that they be willing to undertake meticulous descriptions of the kinds of circumstances and situations that operate for the benefit of other people, in which women variably find themselves.” (Pg. 75-76)
She summarizes, “Women’s commonality is directly relevant to feminist political goals and activism throughout the world… Feminists… have concluded that it is not possible for First World feminists to speak for those in the Third World, for rich women to speak for poor, or white for nonwhite. Each distinct group or intersection of women… need to speak for themselves. Groups that have not yet found a voice… are in principle included by the formal, relational definition of women I have proposed---there are already places for them at the table, which will continue to be set until they show up.” (Pg. 141)
She concludes, “The ultimate questions for feminist political theory … are: Can women rule? and How can women come to rule?... There have been evolutionary and biological explanations of why men have ruled, but they do not show that rule by men over both men and women is inevitable or necessary… The logical possibility of rule by women could acquire a positive probability through the following scenario: Establishment feminists and women’s advocates throughout the world form women’s political parties…. The two universal objectives of rule by women would be the end of violence and preservation of natural environments.” (Pg. 164)
Zack’s approach to such questions as a philosopher gives this book uniqueness, and is well worth the careful attention of modern feminists.
Displaying 1 of 1 review