Exploring Feminist Storytelling through Feminist Icons:
Examining Queen Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc
Lindsay O’Keefe
5598362
MA Gender Studies
Supervisor – Peta Hinton
Second Reader – Marieke Borren
2
I dedicate this to my parents,
Mike and Sherry O’Keefe. My parents
have always been there to support
me every set of the way, through excitements
and hardships. It is only because of
them that I have the opportunity to
complete my Master of Arts
in the first place. Thanks mom and dad!
3
Introduction
“A story lives in relation to its tellers and its receivers; it continues because
people want to hear it again, and it changes according to their tastes and needs.”1
Stories have been used for centuries to explain events humans could not
comprehend, and to teach moral lessons of what is right and what is wrong.2 Stories
allow humanity to explain and process the world around us, i.e. – why the sun rises
and sets. Stories also enable us to pass information from one generation to the next;
what we want our children or our children’s children to remember. Feminist thinkers
in particular have utilized and sculpted stories to explain shared ideologies and goals.
However, feminists from different eras, with different political inclinations and
messages, have employed vastly different narrative forms to tell their own stories.
Understanding differences between how feminists tell stories illuminates the many
different ideological deviations between feminst generations, waves, and individual
thinkers. Through an examination of stories told within the second and third waves
of feminism it becomes clear that feminists tell stories that are shaped by their own
temporal context.
Story telling and narratives about historical figures are crucial historical tools.
Feminist thinkers across multiple generations, and academics across distinct
feminist waves, have told stories to understand the past for a very long time. The way
in which feminist thinkers tell stories differs across these temporally distinct
generations. Therefore, a study of feminist historiography, specifically feminist
biographies of the feminist icons Queen Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc, supports the
idea of generationally distinct feminist theories, which are contextualized through
wave theory. The way in which story telling methods differ between biographers of
Queen Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc elucidates not only how feminist histories are told,
but how feminist historians from different generations often work within the
politically distinct confines articulated by wave theory. This project will examine the
Marina Warner, Joan of Arc: The Image of Female Heroism, 1st edition (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1999), 3.
2 Mak and Waaldijk write, “In the beginning, these stories had a mythical or religious nature. They
would explain, for example, the divine creation of human being. Factual matters intermingled with the
fantastic, the possible, or the desired.” Geertje Mak and Berteke Waaldijk, “Gender, History, and the
Politics of Florence Nightingale,” in Doing Gender in Media, Art and Culture (London: Routledge,
2007), 209.
1
4
question, ‘Can the study of feminist historiography, specifically popular historical
biographies of feminist icons such as Queen Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc, support the
tenets of wave theory when contextualized in terms of generational feminism?’
This discussion regarding how feminist historiography actually demonstrates
the validity of wave theory in context, will help explain how and why feminists of
different generations tell feminist stories, and what this means. By examining
biographies of women from different points in history, I hope to offer an argument in
favor of wave theory as a useful framework for understanding and interpreting
differing generations of feminist stories. Two figures that have long been discussed
by historians and feminists alike are Queen Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc. By
comparing popular biographies of these figures through the conventional wave lens
of second and third wave feminism, an understanding of what it means to tell
feminist stories can be achieved through analyzing the general goals, positions, and
assertions of the second and third wave feminist narratives. While conventional wave
theory often over-simplifies a feminist generation, the wave metaphor serves to
summarize or emphasize the most common strands of feminist rhetoric and
ideology.
This project will first address what it means to tell feminist stories and
construct feminist icons. Next I will examine the varying types of rhetoric approaches
in feminist narratives, and how these narratives differ while constructing the
biography of the feminist icons in question: Joan of Arc, and Queen Elizabeth I.
Finally, I will address the approaches of second and third wave feminist histories,
why these approaches differ, and why wave divisions can still be useful when
contextualized in terms of feminist generations
This thesis uses multiple methodologies to examine the nature of feminist
waves in relation to generational feminism. It codes biographical content into
different narrative types using the narrative theories explained by Claire Hemmings.
These coded narratives are then divided into second and third wave based on their
respective goals and ideologies as outlined by their narrative points and arguments
regarding Joan of Arc and Queen Elizabeth I. To code these narratives, I employ
feminist historiography as a way to examine and interpret these feminist
5
biographies. Varying feminist historiographical goals affects how feminist histories
are told. I actively employ the methodology of feminist historiography to examine the
differing political and historical arguments made from feminist thinkers who wrote
during vastly different temporal contexts. In order to position and define these
temporal contexts, I actively employ wave theory and label biographers as overtly
influenced by either the second or third wave. Wave theory places feminism into
distinct categories based on time period, political goals, and a particular ideology.
While wave theory can often be an over-simplification, Iris van der Tuin’s notion of
generational feminism, when applied to wave theory, complicates and reinvigorates
wave theory as useful. Wave theory is often contextualized in terms of conflict
between feminist waves; however, through the lens of multi-generational feminism
the conflict is re-contextualized as a conversation across feminist generations that
retains the structures and definitions of wave theory and renders them more useful.
This generational logic is partially informed by feminist new materialism, which does
not continue to overtly define ‘feminist’ in terms of dualistic camps, but rather,
encourages and emphasizes non-dualistic understandings of past feminist theory.
Generational feminism emphasizes communication across multiple feminist
generations, and I posit that wave theory remains and useful, as long as a
generational feminist understanding of wave theory is applied.
Feminist historiography in conjunction with generational feminist wave
theory applies as a framework for analyzing these four biographies. When analyzed
through wave theory, which applies generational feminism, wave theory becomes a
useful historiographical tool. Historiography is a type of historical analysis employed
by historians in order to do a ‘history of history.’ For this project historiography
“refers to a theoretical or philosophical exercise that takes a step back from the actual
writing or producing of history to critically examine the ‘deeper’ conceptual models
that underpin historical practice.”3 Feminist historiography specifically examines the
changes of feminist historical argument across the waves and generations of feminist
historical thought. Feminist history is both an exercise in identity politics as well as
historical narrative genesis. Feminist historiography is a method of interpreting
history with a feminist lens. The innately political nature of the feminist lens means
3
Ibid.
6
that this methodology examines the political nature of emphasizing women in
historical contexts.
Feminist historiography as a methodology allows feminist historians to apply
a multi-generational feminist lens of political understanding to historical argument,
and chart the history of feminist writing. Feminist historiography straddles the line
between writing history and constructing a political practice. Victoria Browne
explains that a feminist historiography is “a theoretical meta-reflection on the ways
that feminists conceive and construct histories of feminism and the resulting impacts
upon feminist political and intellectual practice.”4 Thus, feminist historiography is an
historical methodology that examines the innate political nature of feminist
representations in history across multiple generations of feminist historians.
Feminist historiography informs my assertion that the differences between
feminist biography writers across temporalities can be explained adequately with
feminist wave theory because wave theory proves to be an accurate summation of the
political and historical motivations behind the narratives presented by feminist
biographers of Queen Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc, when examined in terms of
generational feminist understanding. Wave theory distinctions prove to be useful
when analyzing historiography because they give insight into the mainstream goals
of the time period in which an author was writing, and illuminate what the biases of
the authors of these popular biographies might have been. After a full analysis of
these four biographies, it becomes clear that the authors’ arguments about Joan of
Arc and Queen Elizabeth I concretely align with the general political and historical
rhetorical goals of second and third waves of feminism.
Feminists tell stories for very specific purposes to outline the ideological goals
of their time. Examination of feminist icons within multiple popular biographies
allows interesting patterns to emerge. I want to explain that how we write history is a
reflection of our time period. Feminist stories are embedded within time periods, and
in order to gain understanding and meaning, it is imperative that they are viewed
within their historical contexts. This is particularly important as many feminist
4
Browne, Feminism, Time, and Nonlinear History, 4.
7
scholars continue to critique the use of the wave metaphor. The wave metaphor
reflects a temporal location and should not be dismissed, as it allows feminists to tie
their stories together. As part of this inquiry, therefore, I intend to explain how the
wave metaphor is a useful way to tell feminist stories. To explain the wave
metaphor’s usefulness, I utilize feminist historiography using the narrative types
established by Clare Hemmings.
This project is organized into five chapters. Chapter one examines feminist
stories and feminist generations. This chapter specifically outlines Hemmings’
understanding of how feminists have told stories historically, as well as how
feminists might want to change how they tell stories. Astrid Henry also examines
how feminist generations describe and interpret history, and the ways second and
third wave feminists differentiate themselves. Chapter two examines feminist icons
and popular biographies as a literary form. This chapter specifically explains how
Queen Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc are utilized as feminist icons.
In this project I also explore Geertje Mak and Berteke Waaldijk’s work as
feminist historians. I explain how popular biographies are useful in conjunction with
feminist narratives and wave divisions. Chapter three examines how feminist
historiographies differ from other historiographies. This chapter describes how
feminist historiographies are useful for this project when interpreting the ways in
which feminist generations differ. Chapter four analyzes the way the lives and
characters of Queen Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc are described in four popular
biographies. Chapter four outlines how these biographies differ based upon the time
they were written, their feminist generation, and the corresponding feminist wave.
Finally, chapter five discusses how feminist histories of various waves and
generations employ the narrative types that Hemmings introduces: progress, loss,
and return. Chapter five also emphasizes what the general narratives within second
and third waves are. Lastly, chapter five both critiques and maintains that the wave
metaphor is a useful way to organize feminist generations that coexist ideologically
with one another.
8
This project focuses specifically on the American feminist movement. This
scope is due, in part, to my upbringing as an American, an interest in previous
feminist generations within the United States and their role in shaping feminism(s)
today. This utilization of non-American historical figures, Queen Elizabeth I and
Joan of Arc, are utilized within the analysis because they are commonly referenced
within the American feminist movement. Non-American women were often co-opted
and used by American feminists to help shape and contextualize the values and
critical aspects of the feminist movements of various generations, because they were
global figures. Therefore, despite not being of American origin, non-American
women are crucial to the construction of American feminist priorities within each
feminist wave. The physical borders of the nation-state do not confine the feminist
movement. The feminist movement, originally the suffragettes, began in the United
States and the United Kingdom and desired to empower women globally. All primary
sources for this project are biographies that were either written or published within
the United States; thus, they have a connection and relevance to American feminist
context regardless of original national borders. The use of Joan of Arc and Queen
Elizabeth I, in conjunction with Hemmings’ narrative structures, illuminates exactly
how feminist historiographies are told across all waves of feminism/feminist
generations.
Queen Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc are women from history who have long
been viewed and examined as icons answering what it means to be a feminist and a
strong woman. Feminist icons are not necessarily women who were a part of a
feminist movement, but women whose names have been prominently used within
the feminist movement in a positive or venerated way, to promote the ideals and
positive traits applauded by feminists across multiple waves and generations of
thought.5 Different generations of scholarly feminist historians employ these icons,
and retell their narratives within the political framework of the feminist wave that
5 For example, Patricia Vettel-Becker explains that
suffragettes like Susan B. Anthony and Abigail
Scott Duniway used Sacagawea as one icon for the suffragette movement. Grant wrote that this
“demonstrates the important role the figure of Sacagawea had taken on in the suffrage movement
during the Progressive Era. Sacagawea was considered not only the first “American” woman to vote,
but also a young woman who could participate in a momentous and arduous mission, hold her own
among men, and still preform her duties as a mother.” Patricia Vettel-Becker, “Sacagawea and Son:
The Visual Construction of America’s Maternal Feminine,” American Studies (00263079) 50, no. 1/2
(Spring/Summer 2009): 34.
9
was contemporary to their intellectual development. Thus, I conclude that Queen
Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc were utilized as icons for as long as feminism has been a
concept, movement, or practice, making them ideal figures for examination when
attempting to understand how feminists across generations tell stories and how these
stories differ based on generational or wave context.
The biographies reflect generational differences in historical thought that can
be understood and divided in terms of wave theory, here in the case of the
biographies of Weir, Pernoud, Jenkins, and Warner. Wave theory and the differences
between second and third wave feminism effectively explain the reason for such
vastly different feminist narratives about these feminist icons being presented. Thus,
wave theory is still applicable to feminist historical narratives, and can be employed
when historiographically examining biographical narratives of feminist icons.
Feminist story telling is a practice used across generations of feminists to craft vastly
different narratives about Joan of Arc and Queen Elizabeth I.
10
Chapter 1: Feminist Stories and Feminist Generation
Stories have wide arrays of narrative styles, goals and functions. Feminist
stories, histories, biographies, or narratives of any type are no exception.
Furthermore, different time periods or ‘generations’ often have different story telling
methods, and ideological goals when constructing stories or narratives. Lastly, the
intended audience matters when authors structure stories. Claire Hemmings
introduced the theory of feminist stories in her book, Why Stories Matter: The
Political Grammar of Feminist Theory. She explains the general patterns that
feminist narratives can take in all forms of narrative writing, including biographies
about figures such as Joan of Arc and Queen Elizabeth I. Hemmings limits her own
scope to feminist stories in the Western world, and elaborates on the narrative
structural camps that feminist authors often unconsciously divide their narratives
into. In addition to narrative structural tropes, feminist generations come into play
when looking at biographical texts written in different time periods. During both the
second and third wave, biographies about ‘feminist icons’ were written, and these
narratives often contradict one another in many essential ways.
Henry and Van der Tuin introduce critiques of feminist wave theories and
build on these waves, stating that waves need to take other generations into account.
Generational Feminism, according to Van der Tuin, brings multiple waves of
feminism into conversation with one another. Using Hemmings’ feminist narrative
forms, and through the theory of generational feminism, this project intends to bring
different feminist historical generational narratives together, compare them, and
then demonstrate that wave theory is useful for feminist historiography, as long as
the narratives of second and third wave are in conversation with one another.
Feminist Stories
Hemmings is one noted scholar who examines how feminists tell stories. In
her book, Why Stories Matter: The Political Grammar of Feminist Theory, she
explains the common rhetoric surrounding how feminists tell stories and how
modern feminists can reinterpret these stories. Hemmings explains the three
commonly used narratives that typify feminist storytelling: progress, loss, and
return. Each represents a way of telling feminist stories. Hemmings is specifically
11
interested in re-examining stories by investigating how Western feminists tell stories
through citation tactics.6 Hemmings explains this as one way to understand how
feminists construct chronology and erase unsuitable events.7 The progress narrative
is the belief that feminists have progressed towards a brighter future, that feminists
now include a wider variety of voices.8 The loss narrative is the belief that feminists
have lost some of their narrative to a unified, less complex feminism.9 Finally, the
return narrative encourages feminists to return to feminism of the past, returning to
materiality.10
Hemmings pinpoints that progress narrative views women as a unified
category that has diversified, with the efforts of black and lesbian feminisms over
time. This suggests that feminism has progressed and is better now than in the past.11
On the other hand, the loss narrative believes feminism used to be unified, but as
time progressed, the movement has fragmented resulting in its depoliticization.12 The
return narrative states, “we [feminists] have lost our way, but we can get it back.”13
This rhetoric is problematic because it posits that the past is better than where we are
currently and pits the past and the present against each other. Each narrative trope
has a specific method of story delivery.
Hemmings critiques the use of progress, loss, and return narratives because
they produce a meta-narrative. The creation of meta-narratives oversimplifies
complex histories with many moving parts.14 Each narrative, be it progress, loss or
return, has a different goal, a different way to tell the story of a particular feminist
intervention. Progress, loss, and return narratives assume a specific feminist
narrative; that we have progressed, lost something, or need to return to something.
These narratives often fall into pitfalls of oversimplification.
Clare Hemmings, Why Stories Matter: The Political Grammar of Feminist Theory (United States of
America: Duke University Press, 2011), 3.
7 Ibid., 163.
8 Ibid., 33.
9 Ibid., 61.
10 Ibid., 97.
11 Ibid., 3.
12 Ibid., 4.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid., 3.
6
12
Feminist historians have “sought to tell stories other than dominant ones,
both in response to mainstream records and as part of enriching feminist
historiography.”15 Hemmings explicitly states that feminist historians are uniquely
positioned to reexamine and reinterpret common feminist narratives. This method of
telling feminist stories and feminist history provides useful insights to examine the
ways feminists represent feminist icons. The process of telling stories reveals “the
politics of the present.”16 In other words, the present is always connected to the past,
and the stories that feminists tell creates this connection with the past. Every
feminist generation has an adgenda, something they want accomplished, and thus,
are not homogenous. Each generation of feminist thinkers examines their past, and
looks to the future.17 This is the temporality Hemmings discusses in her examination
of progress, loss, and return narratives. She urges feminists to actively examine how
they interpret history, and then craft new narratives accordingly.
Hemmings demonstrates that the continuation of these narrative tropes
allows for only one kind of story. These narratives must not go unchallenged and
cannot remain without critique. Hemmings personally interferes with linear feminist
stories and scrambles their narratives in order to create a new story.18 Intervention of
feminist storytelling is necessary to create a brighter feminist future. According to
Hemmings, retelling feminist stories allows feminists to understand their history and
create connections between feminists and feminisms. Feminist generations are
overtly different but also connected; they exist under the same name without
synonymous belief. With this in mind, Hemmings states, “Feminist recitation thus
allows us not only to revalue what haunts the feminist present but also to rethink
how the threads of the past come together.”19 They are connected by name and they
learn and engage with each other.
Hemming’s theory, regarding narrative structure and tropes in feminist
narratives, illuminates the patterns often present in second and third wave historical
texts. Narratives of women who have become ‘feminist icons’ during both the second
Ibid., 13.
Ibid., 16.
17 Hemmings specifically examines how the present influences the details of the past and vice versa.
Ibid., 131.
18 Ibid., 13.
19 Ibid., 186.
15
16
13
and third wave fall into the narrative tropes outlined by Hemmings. Hemming’s
divisions between feminist story types show how western narratives in the second
and third wave function historically. The bottom line for Hemmings is that feminists
will always tell stories and that these stories will always have an underlying meaning.
However, as feminist scholars, we must critique how stories, such as biographies of
feminist icons, are told and retold. Feminism needs to bend and progress as times
change.20 Hemming’s division of narrative structures lays out the tools needed to
reconstruct and explain the narrative tropes in western biographies of ‘feminist
icons’
Mak and Waaldijk, like Hemmings, understand the need of feminist stories to
change and develop. They explain that historical figures, like Florence Nightingale,
are no longer remembered outside of canonical historical constructs. Florence
Nightingale became a figure that is no longer an historical person, but instead, a
symbol, an icon, and an entity all on her own, separate from her literal self in time.
The historical figure ceases to be the woman who existed in the past and instead
serves as a symbol of her story for the present according to Hemmings. Mak and
Waaldijk bring women into larger historical context and view this as an essential
aspect of understanding female historical figures.21 Mak and Waaldijk have a similar
historical understanding with Hemmings. All three understand there is a common
rhetoric surrounding feminist history and feminist storytelling. Mak and Waaldijk
focus on how feminists tell stories from a historical perspective.
Mak and Waaldijk state value for presenting historiography from a feminist
viewpoint. They write, “In the 1970s, feminists began to voice critique on the scant
presence of women in historiography, which led to women’s history or gender
history, [to become] a specialists [area] that addressed different historiographical
areas.”22 Thus, for Mak and Waaldijk, analyzing history from a feminist perspective
allows for insight into what it means to be a female figure within history. This is
important, they argue, because we can no longer ignore that women have had an
historical impact. Thus, a feminist historiography produces a different kind of history
Ibid., 193.
Mak and Waaldijk, “Gender, History, and the Politics of Florence Nightingale,” 212.
22 Ibid., 211.
20
21
14
with different ideals and goals. Generally speaking, these goals include the
production of a new story and narrative.23 This new story carries an important
function; it is essential to examine the obscured figures in history, i.e. women. Mak
and Waaldijk state that women “were keen on finding proof of their feeling that
historiographers had perhaps been blind to the feats of women.”24 The examination
of women’s roles within history will create a more accurate, complex understanding
of history.
Feminist Generations
With this background, I will move to develop an understanding of feminist
generations and how these generations influence the way in which feminists choose
to tell their stories. Hemmings critiques the rhetorical narratives surrounding
feminist stories, as these reflect relationships between feminist generations. Mak and
Waaldijk investigate the historical methodology surrounding how female historical
figures within history are chosen as subjects for stories and presented. They analyze
and explain why certain female figures from history have become feminist icons,
while others have fallen out of favor in popular feminist discourse. Generations are
intrinsically connected to how feminists tell stories, even if they do not understand or
directly state this claim. Feminist thinkers develop their ideas in a particular time
and place, and this inherently affects their ideological and writing styles. At this
juncture, Astrid Henry enters the conversation when she critiques the use of wave
theory due to its problematic binary nature.25 Henry’s critique of wave theory points
to the problems of wave theory that generational feminism addresses.
Henry’s book Not My Mother’s Sister: Generational Conflict and Third-wave
Feminism examines the ins and outs of how second and third wave feminists exist
within the larger feminist context. She explains that for “third-wave, or ‘younger,’
feminists, their simultaneous identification with and rejection of second-wave
feminism is what grants them an identity to call their own. Not My Mother’s Sister
examines how such cross-generational identifications – and misidentifications –
have been politically emboldening to feminists of both waves.”26 As Henry explains,
Ibid., 209.
Ibid., 211.
25 Astrid Henry, Not My Mother’s Sister (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2004), 3.
26 Ibid., 7.
23
24
15
the waves of feminism are often held in contrast to each other and are held up as
both individual waves/movements, yet are, still connected to each other, much as
waves in an ocean. Henry directly identifies the binary nature that feminism takes
when forced into opposition with itself.
Henry examines how the second and third waves of feminism differ with
regards to identity and ideological goals. These differences are found in varying
approaches to history, including the approaches in the biographies of Queen
Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc. According to Henry, second wave feminists actively saw
their place within their historical context. They understood that they were creating
history; they created their own stories.27 This is evident when examining how the
narratives of Queen Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc are written by Jenkins and Pernoud.
Henry writes that third wave feminists are unsure of their role and their impact on
history.28 She explains this occurs because third wave feminists feel adrift and
unconnected to the movement of the second wave, but without a clear third wave
forming, they are not connected to any strong wave theory in historical terms.29 The
feminist movement clearly has many interpretations of history that fall into either a
second-wave or third-wave ideological camp according to Henry’s analysis. This
points directly to the problematic nature of meta-narratives because meta-narratives
create one over-arching story line. Meta-narratives dilute details of a story and keep
the narrative of the majority group, which often occurs in second-wave and thirdwave historical narratives. Henry specifically addresses this problem when she states
that one story is not superior to another, and that there are different experiences
which are valid and important.
Henry does not dismiss or favor third or second waves narratives, and
effectively argues that they should coexist and converse with each other. This directly
relates to Iris van der Tuin’s overarching thesis about the existence of multiple
generations of feminism coexisting alongside one another. It is important to hear
multiple stories, and recognize that multiple feminist ideologies can exist
Ibid., 73.
Ibid.
29 Ibid., 7.
27
28
16
simultaneously. One story or narrative structure cannot explain everything and will
inevitably leave out important details from the perspective of another analysis.30
For Henry, second and third wave feminists do not have the same
understanding of what it means to be a feminist, but multiple feminisms can actually
be beneficial for the development of rigorous thought and academic development.
This is evident when considering generational and wave differences regarding
sexuality. One example Henry unveils in her book is the role that sex plays in the
feminist movement, specifically whether a feminist should be pro or anti-sex. She
explains, “It appears that when this earlier pro-sex feminism is acknowledged at all,
its status as a second-wave feminist is untenable. Feminism, with a capital F, must
remain anti-sex so that third-wavers can announce their generation’s arrival with its
‘much needed’ intervention into feminist thought.”31 This highlights the differences
between second and third wave and differences in ideological positions of a unified
movement.
With knowledge of the variety of feminist opinions about sex and sexuality, it
is easy to see second and third waves positioned on two opposing sides, a binary
opposition.32 Henry explains third wave feminists identify themselves in opposition
to second wave feminists, in order to create their own path. Henry does not believe
this is the best way to tell feminist stories. She explains this specifically through the
use of the mother-daughter relationship created between second and third wave
feminists. A commonly used phrase is ‘I don’t want to become my mother,’ and thus,
makes it a prime metaphor for feminist generations. Second wave feminists are the
mother generation, and third wave feminists are the daughters.33
Henry views the generational divide between feminist waves as both
problematic and useful. One benefit of distinguishing feminists by generations or
Ibid., 183.
Ibid., 107.
32 Ibid., 3.
33 Interestingly in her Afterward, Henry writes, “One of the great ironies of writing about generations
– particularly when the topic is contemporary – is that one inevitably finds one’s own generation
being replaced. In the years it has taken me to finish this project, I have watched the ‘new’ generation
of which I am a part become eclipsed by something even more current: the next generation of
American youth, variably called Generation Y or the Millennial Generation.” Ibid., 181. Further
reading on the possible fourth wave can be found through scholars like Martha Rampton.
30
31
17
waves is that it allows the feminist movement to have a solid homogenous identity,
i.e. – we are all feminists. Nevertheless, homogeneity is something feminists have
grappled with for a long time. Just like colors in a coloring book, there are many
nuances and shades, much like the nuances and differences within the overarching
feminist movement. Henry explains that even though she presents generations as
coherent, she does not agree with this coherence; “My goal… is to interrogate
precisely this imagined unity of generations, exploring how and why feminists
represent generations, or waves, in monolithic terms.”34 Second and third wave
feminists do not necessarily hold the same beliefs and are not simply a unified
homogenous entity.
Henry makes clear, there is no singular feminist identity of second and third
wave feminists. However, all feminists hold important overarching beliefs, for
example; men and women should be treated as equals. Presenting second and third
wave feminist ideology in opposition to one another is problematic. It assumes that
one wave must be superior to the other. Feminist waves create a common feminist
story and presenting these generations as oppositional, does not contribute positively
to feminist goals and identity. The first wave of feminism is so named to unite the
movement, however, this is odd, as suffragettes never called themselves feminists.
Once second wave feminists were so named, suffragettes were retroactively named
first wave feminists.35 Cathryn Bailey explains the connections between first and
second wave, and then, second and third wave in a 1997 article.
…the second wave is so named primarily as a means of emphasizing continuity
with earlier feminist activities and ideas. By contrast, the third wave…seems to
identify itself as such largely as a means of distancing itself from earlier
feminism, as a means of stressing what are perceived as discontinuities with
earlier feminist thought and activity.36
What Bailey identifies, is what Hemmings calls a return narrative because it
emphasizes on past narratives, and cries out for understanding of past feminist
narratives. Bailey suggests that the existences of various waves of feminism are
identified in order to connect each wave, but also to separate the waves. There is
Ibid., 6.
“History and Theory of Feminism,” accessed May 23, 2016, http://www.gender.cawaterinfo.net/knowledge_base/rubricator/feminism_e.htm.
36 Cathryn Bailey, “Making Waves and Drawing Lines: The Politics of Defining the Vicissitudes of
Feminism,” Hypatia 12, no. 3 (1997): 17–18.
34
35
18
“new feminism” as “a reaction to the negative and stereotypical image of ‘the
feminist’ that both the popular press and occasionally third-wave writers help to
perpetuate.”37 The picture of ‘the feminist’ from the second wave of feminism
confines third wave feminists. Bailey states that calling feminists second or third
wave is extremely problematic.38 Each feminist generation influences the following
feminist generation. Henry emphasizes that feminist generations are not unified but
are absolutely related.39 Even though the binary idea of second and third wave
feminism is problematic the ideological differences in goals and beliefs hold as
distinct for different generations of the feminist movement. Additionally
contemporary feminist theory coexists with second and third wave feminists who are
alive and still perpetuate the goals of the feminism that they were brought up in. Van
der Tuin offers a theoretical framework that doesn’t dismiss the value of the waves,
but rather argues that multiple generations of feminism can exist and be in
conversation with one another.
Van der Tuin builds directly off the work of Hemmings, Henry, and Mak and
Waaldijk. Like Henry, van der Tuin specifically explores the role that generations
play within feminism. Studying the temporality of feminist generations, she explains,
“We are not used to reading/studying along the lines of…fluid generationality.
Affirmative relations with feminist foremothers… take shape in feminist
classrooms.”40 Van der Tuin examines the role of looking at generations through a
non-linear lens. We need to revolutionize how we tell stories and how we examine
the feminist past. She examines the temporality of “generationality” and how
feminist identities ebb and flow.41
When examining how feminist identity is produced and portrayed, it is
essential to understand the differences between how the second and third waves
present themselves. An image of what it means to be a feminist in temporal context is
clear after examining feminist icons and their stories. Although first, second, and
Henry, Not My Mother’s Sister, 110.
Bailey, “Making Waves and Drawing Lines,” 17.
39 Henry, Not My Mother’s Sister, 6–7.
40 Iris van der Tuin, Generational Feminism: New Materialist Introduction to a Generative
Approach (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2015), 5.
41 Iris van der Tuin, Generational Feminism: New Materialist Introduction to a Generative Approach
(Lanham: Lexington Books, 2015), 7.
37
38
19
third wave feminists are not synonymous they are united by name. There are very
distinct generational divides. These differences are useful and not innately hierarchal
because they help define the goals of feminism in each particular temporal context.
Ultimately, however, identification of all generations as ‘feminist’ should be seen as a
valuable unifying factor, because of the core belief in women’s equality.
It is my argument that a study of feminist historiography – the stories told by
feminists and the ways in which these stories are told across time – can support the
idea of generational feminism/feminist waves. Feminist wave theory is useful when
feminist waves are understood in relation to each other, not in complete opposition.
Second wave and even first wave goals have not come to fruition because society is
still inherently patriarchal, and therefore first wave and second wave thinking is not
obsolete. The goals of first, second, and third wave feminism are important, and exist
alongside each other. The biographies of Joan of Arc and Queen Elizabeth I, despite
being from different temporal contexts, bring up different relevant historical facts
and assertions that illuminate different aspects of feminist historiography.
Biographical histories of feminist icons illuminate the different narratives and
generational priorities of second and third wave feminism through the various
historical events and facts that are used to back up the narratives created during the
second and third waves respectively.
20
Chapter 2: Feminist Icons and Popular Biographies
This chapter serves to explain what a feminist icon is, and why feminist icons
are important when considering the division of narratives between second and third
wave scholars. Furthermore, this chapter explains how popular feminist biographies
tended to reflect the most prevalent or popular feminist sentiments in the wave that
corresponded with the time of the particular biographies’ publication. Popular
biographies serve to reflect the current ideologies of those who have written them,
and present them in a consumable form to the public. Therefore, by explaining and
interpreting the lives of feminist icons in bibliographical form, feminist historians
promote ideals of the second and third wave respectively through their analyses in
their own books.
Historical women are upheld as feminist icons because they embody feminist
ideologies and goals. Historical women are chosen and then constructed as feminist
icons because they embody an ideal that authors want to promote. These icons cease
to be historical figures; instead, they become symbols of the attributes most
important to feminists, thus making these women ideological icons. These icons
exhibit the beliefs of the time when their story was published. Examining the
symbolic role Queen Elizabeth I played in the twentieth-century, David Grant Moss
explains, “…another trend appears in the use of Elizabeth in the twentieth century –
Elizabeth as the quasi-feminist heroine. When presented in this context, she is most
often used as a cipher upon which current views of women are projected.”42 Moss
continues, explaining that Queen Elizabeth I ceased to be the person who existed
solely within her time; she instead became an icon, a symbol, and a “cipher upon
which current views of women are projected.”43 Word choices and story narratives
that surround Elizabeth’s story create another meaning and impact, as her story is
told and re-told. Feminist icons are ideally suited for examination and interpretation
of differing goals of second and third wave feminists, because of the intrinsic
connection between feminist icons and feminist ideology.
David Grant Moss, “A Queen for Whose Time? Elizabeth I as Icon for the Twentieth Century,”
Journal of Popular Culture 39, no. 5 (October 2006): 798, doi:10.1111/j.1540-5931.2006.00306.x.
43 Ibid.
42
21
Sacagawea was a popular symbol of the suffrage movement in the U.S. and has
been lost in world history books. Sacagawea was a Native American woman who
guided Lewis and Clark through the ‘unexplored’ west. Her image is on the U.S. onedollar coin, shown carrying her son on her back. Many Americans believe she
“became the most celebrated ‘daughter’ of the United States, even though never
officially a citizen.”44 Sacagawea was utilized as a feminist icon of first wave
‘feminists’ within the United States because of her status. She was an ideal historical
female figure used to promote women’s right to vote. She was a strong woman, but
more importantly, a good mother who was able to “participate in a momentous and
arduous mission, hold her own among men, and still perform her duties as a
mother.”45 For American suffragettes, Sacagawea’s ability to lead Lewis and Clarke
and remain a good mother was invaluable to their cause. Suffragettes needed to
prove that women could hold powerful positions and still continue to maintain
womanly duties at home. Sacagawea demonstrated that this was possible.46
Moss explains that in the postmodern era, Sacagawea was a symbol of female
equality.47 She did not resonate with everyone in the same way she resonated with
American suffragettes. Second and third waves of feminism, did not share this goal.
Motherhood was an imperative for first wave feminists, while second and third waves
of feminism did not base their identity and value as a woman, within the confines of
needing to be a mother.
Queen Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc as Feminist Icons
Two widely known historical figures within the Western world who have
persisted as prominent feminist figures within a patriarchal history are Queen
Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc. Fascination with Joan of Arc predates contemporary
media, her biographer, Marina Warner, explains, “She is a heroine of history.”48
Queen Elizabeth I has also been a symbol of “The Golden Age” and the mother of
literature itself.49 These women became famous for the roles they played in history,
as a martyr and an opulent virgin queen respectively. This does not explain why they
Vettel-Becker, “Sacagawea and Son,” 27.
Ibid., 34.
46 Ibid.
47 Moss, “A Queen for Whose Time?,” 43.
48 Warner, Joan of Arc, 3.
49 Moss, “A Queen for Whose Time?,” 797.
44
45
22
were co-opted by the feminist movement and became feminist icons, but Queen
Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc transcend time and remain relevant today. Their status
as feminist icons have persisted over time, while Sacagawea has not.
Feminists produce feminist icons as a means to identify and create character
traits as well as expectations of what it means to be a woman. Joan of Arc and Queen
Elizabeth I became feminist icons because they were well known historical figures.
Basic facts surrounding each woman are generally well known. Mak and Waaldijk
note that historical women are utilized as symbols of their nation, i.e. – Mother
Earth, Mother Nature or in terms of a nation’s birth or procreation. Only when
women successfully received the right to vote and received full legal rights as citizens
did they receive any historical importance and become historical players.50 Mak and
Waaldijk note while examining Florence Nightingale; the ability of a woman to attain
and maintain historical significance, prior to legal liberation, was obtained only
through identification of the woman as extremely unique or masculine in nature.51
Feminist icons exemplify ideals of the feminist movement and demonstrate
important ideological qualities. Universal female figures, allow their iconography be
understood according to story, time, and place.52 Queen Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc
remain relevant to the overarching goals of feminist thought across generations.
They represent characteristics and life stories that can be co-opted, to tell specific
stories for specific feminist generations. The suffragettes needed historical women to
prove that women could hold power and position without losing their role as the
moral compass of the family. They commandeered representations of well-known
women from throughout history, Sacagawea, is one example. Alternatively, second
and third wave feminists utilized Queen Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc, in accordance
with their own political goals and justification for women’s economic and political
equality.
Mak and Waaldijk, “Gender, History, and the Politics of Florence Nightingale,” 211.
Ibid., 209.
52 Warner, Joan of Arc, 6–7.
50
51
23
Popular Biographies as Historical Form
For this project, I utilize popular biographies to analyze feminist iconography.
The primary reason for this genre choice is that popular biographies allow feminists
to tell stories the way they want to tell them. Writing about the biography, Jerome de
Groot explains how popular histories offer a narrative form of history that deviates
from the ‘fact-based’ textbook. De Groot writes, “The public historian… is someone
who writes compelling tales, communicating effectively through their personal style
and clarity of expressions.”53 Popular biographies and popular histories do not
function as a factual report; they are literary narratives able to present a well-crafted
story or message. De Groot explains, historical biography is an arrangement of
historical facts crafted by the biographer to present a specific narrative.54 In this
narrative form, history is no longer simply about what happened on a specific date
and time. Popular histories and biographies morph history into something readily
available to the public; they attempt to present a specific narrative that has a specific
emphasis or message in mind. History, in general, has its own narrative patterns and
standards. Popular biographies are one way to expand knowledge and
understanding.
With this understanding, a popular biography is more likely to reflect beliefs
of its time with more transparency than textbooks. Popular biographies are not
forced into the same ‘academic historical parameters,’ as academic textbooks. My
choice of popular biographies, as opposed to academic texts, as the genre to explore
how feminist stories are told, relates directly to de Groote’s explanation of popular
histories. They are crafted with the intent of being accessible to the general public.
The accessibility of these biographies creates a strong narrative voice that reveals the
story of historical figures. They are more likely to reflect the ideas and goals of their
time. Hemmings explains: “which story one tells about the past is always motivated
by the position one occupies or wished to occupy in the present.”55 Thus, the way one
chooses to tell a story and what details they choose to present often reveals more
than the story itself. A popular biography reveals the past, but, more importantly for
Jerome de Groot, Consuming History: Historians and Heritage in Contemporary Popular Culture
(New York: Routledge, 2009), 33.
54 Ibid., 38.
55 Hemmings, Why Stories Matter: The Political Grammar of Feminist Theory, 13.
53
24
this project, it also reveals insights into the time it was written. The way an author
decides to tell a story is revealing and representative of their time.
Ideologies of Second and Third Waves
Each selected text used for this project is written by a woman who either
personally identifies, or is identified by others, as a feminist, making her writing
innately connected to either the second or third waves of feminism. Parameters of
the second wave of feminism were roughly between the 1960s and early 1980s, with
the third wave of feminism starting in the mid-1980s and progressing, at least,
through the beginning of the 2000s (however, there is some disagreement, see
Rampton 2008 Pacific magazine).56 For the second wave of feminism, gaining equal
rights to men, particularly within the workplace was a major ideological goal. These
goals are found in landmark texts, such as Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique
(1963) and Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex (translated to English in 1953).57
The third wave attempts to focus on what the second wave missed, i.e. – Black
Feminism and/or LGBT+ feminism. There is more interest in sexuality and in
embracing one’s femininity.58 These are, of course, generalizations and should not be
considered the sole messages or concerns. Mimi Schippers and Erin Grayson Sapp
address ways in which second wave and third wave feminists embrace femininity
differently. They posit third wave feminists believe femininity is a performance
geared towards women, but that anyone is able to embody it.59 Whereas, second
wave believes society is a male dominated system that must be destroyed.60
With basic ideological understandings of second and third waves of feminism,
an in-depth discussion of each text within its time will be used to demonstrate the
specific feminist predispositions of the author. In order to understand the
intersection of history and biography, it is imperative to understand how an author
specifically approached their writing. Elizabeth Jenkins and Regine Pernoud
represent the second wave by focusing on the strength of women, important
“Four Waves of Feminism | Pacific University,” accessed March 23, 2016,
http://www.pacificu.edu/about-us/news-events/four-waves-feminism.
57 “History and Theory of Feminism.”
58 Ibid.
59 Mimi Schippers and Erin Grayson Sapp, “Reading Pulp Fiction: Femininity and Power in Second
and Third Wave Feminist Theory,” Sage 13, no. 1 (2012): 31.
60 Ibid., 29.
56
25
historical roles, and their impact on history. Alison Weir and Marina Warner two
authors from the third wave, place an emphasis on symbolism, interest in sexuality,
and the multifaceted nature of feminism.
Jenkins, both a biographer and novelist, gave an important narrative edge in
her work on Elizabeth. A French historian, medieval expert, and an archivist,
Pernoud’s text is the most historically based, utilizing primary sources on Joan.61
Weir mentions her role as a popular historian and a storyteller. Warner wrote novels
and biographies and specifically alludes to feminism on her website in a way the
others do not.62
The personal biographies of these authors overlap in terms of personal
background and experience. Weir and Warner have personal websites displaying
their autobiographies. For example, Weir specifically states,
As a non-fiction author, I write ‘popular’ history…History belongs to us all,
and it can be accessed by us all. And if writing it in a way that is accessible and
entertaining, as well as conscientiously researched, can be described as
popular, then, yes, I am a popular historian, and am proud and happy to be
one.63
Weir recognizes positions she holds as a writer of popular history and as a historian.
Additionally, Warner’s website explains her personal positioning: “My critical and
historical books and essays explore different figures in myth and fairy tale and the art
and literature they have inspired, from my early studies of…Joan of Arc to more
recent work on the Arabian Nights.”64 She acknowledges her personal role as a
storyteller and a writer of feminist history as an important factor.
I am specifically interested in how authors tell the stories of each icon.
Pernoud formats each chapter with a section utilizing primary source material from
Joan of Arc’s trial, and ends each chapter with personal commentary and an
explanation of the events and how to interpret them. Warner explains Joan’s story
Jorinde Luyts, trans., “Régine Pernoud,” Babelio, accessed May 2, 2016,
http://www.babelio.com/auteur/Regine-Pernoud/9921.
62 “Marina Warner - Writer and Mythographer,” accessed May 2, 2016,
http://www.marinawarner.com/about/mwonherwriting.html.
63 “Alison Weir - Author Biography,” accessed May 2, 2016,
http://alisonweir.org.uk/biography/index.asp.
64 “Marina Warner - Writer and Mythographer.”
61
26
using narrative and lyrical form. She begins Joan’s story with an explanation of who
she was and what she symbolically became. Jenkins writes by chronologically
examining Queen Elizabeth I’s life. Elizabeth is the center of the story and is
presented as a strong, persistent woman and complicated historical figure who has
been widely studied. She writes in a novelistic fashion, creating an intriguing story.
Examination of these authors allows a comprehensive picture of how second and
third wave feminism is viewed through the lens of individual time periods and author
perspective.
27
Chapter 3: Feminist Historiography
To truly understand how wave theory and feminist generations affect
historical thinking it is essential to turn to feminist historiography and chart the
academic changes in historical thinking regarding Western feminist icons such as
Joan of Arc and Queen Elizabeth I. This is because feminist historiographical
analysis is able to take into account the origin and differences of feminist arguments
and thought in relation to history, and sort through it. This is why feminist
historiography is essential methodology when discussing the temporal differences in
understanding of the historical figures Joan of Arc and Queen Elizabeth I.
As mentioned previously, the methodology I utilize for this project is feminist
historiography. For this project is that historiography “refers to a theoretical or
philosophical exercise that takes a step back from the actual writing or producing of
history to critically examine the ‘deeper’ conceptual models that underpin historical
practice.”65 Feminist historiography straddles the line between writing history and
crafting a political narrative. Victoria Browne explains that feminist historiography is
“a theoretical meta-reflection on the ways that feminists conceive and construct
histories of feminism and the resulting impacts upon feminist political and
intellectual practice.”66 Thus, feminist historiography is an historical methodology
that examines the innate political nature of feminist representations in history.
Feminists are invested in examining their own history. The feminist
historiographical approach has developed alongside understanding of feminism’s
relationship to history. Feminists recognize the need to reevaluate and reinterpret
common historical narratives with political issues and concerns as part of that
evaluation. Feminist history developed and progressed in conjunction with women’s
history, feminism itself.67 Browne clarifies this point when she quotes Susan Stanford
Friedman, saying “‘the feminist desire to ‘make history’ entangles the desire to effect
change with the desire to be the historian of change.’ (Friedman 1995, 13).”68
Feminists wanted to make history and thus, feminist historians were created.
Ibid.
Browne, Feminism, Time, and Nonlinear History, 4.
67 Ibid., 4–5.
68 Ibid., 5.
65
66
28
Feminist historians acknowledge that feminists can, and do, influence how history is
created. The history they elucidate allows the stories of feminist icons a stronger and
more impactful voice through the use of word choice and storytelling narrative.
Women’s history developed simultaneously with the second wave feminist
movement. It took many years for Women’s history to achieve its proper prominence
and role within academia. Penelope Corfield, June Purvis, and Amanda Weatherill
discuss the development of women’s history. They explain, “Women’s history, in
other words, has moved rapidly from a fringe interest to a mainstream one. Whereas
in the early 1970s it was viewed as a raffish or eccentric subject, it has now become
normalized.”69 This normalization of Women’s History has informed the
development of feminist historiography. Women’s history developed in order to
highlight often hidden figures within history, women. Today, women’s history and
gender history are reputable subjects within academia, allowing feminist scholars to
examine history more critically, and reveal long lost figures.70
The production of feminist history challenges common historical rhetoric,
which excludes women and minorities. Unfortunately, it still excludes groups of
women not common to this rhetoric. The stories of women and minorities have not
been saved and shared, in part because they were not deemed ‘different enough’ and
provided no new insight or differentiation. This previous dismissal was offensive and
unfounded, and has since been debunked by the theory of intersectionality. It would
be beneficial to become more inclusive, especially with women who have not
represented or underrepresented in history. The story of every woman ultimately
becomes part of the story, simply of, women.
Feminist historiography connects the broader aims and interpretations that I
utilize within this project. This historiographical approach allows me to utilize the
knowledge and background I gained from my training as an historian. I developed
this project through the use of this methodology by examining exactly how
biographies presented their feminist icons and the historical facts they chose to
Penelope J. Cornfield, June Purvis, and Amanda Weatherill, “History and the Challenge of Gender
History,” in The Feminist History Reader, ed. Sue Morgan (New York: Routledge, 2006), 117.
70 Ibid.
69
29
utilize. Utilizing this approach is one way I am able to ground my inquiry and
research question within the field of history.
In summary, feminist historiography is a methodology developed as a way to
examine the roles women held within history. It developed as a way to examine and
reinterpret feminism’s history within greater social context and issues of producing
feminist knowledge. Joan Scott, a well-known theorist on gender and history,71
explains, “Feminist history thrives on interdisciplinary encounters and has
incorporated some of the teachings of theory, but it was rightly considered its
primary focus to be the discipline of history itself.”72 Feminist historiography is
complex and mirrors itself. Browne specifically explains “we need to examine
reflexively the ways in which we are constructing and representing feminist histories
to ensure that the kinds of stories we are telling and models we are using are not
contrary to our aims.”73 Feminist history is innately aware of the role it plays within
the larger sphere of history. Feminist historiography then reveals that there are
multiple feminist interpretations that can be defined and categorized using
generational feminism and wave theory. There are biographical interpretations of
figures universally accepted as feminist icons, but these are discussed in vastly
different ways and shows that wave theory is still useful when interpreting historical
arguments that are labeled as feminist. It is my argument that, through studying
particular feminist icons popular within the second and third waves of feminist
scholarship, we can elucidate that the stories feminists have told and the ways in
which they have told them changes over time. This is in accordance with identity
politics, and the historical and cultural specificities of each context. As such, I believe
that a study of feminist historiography can support the existence of intergenerational
feminism and the second and third waves.
Sue Morgan, The Feminist History Reader (New York: Routledge, 2006), 133.
Joan Wallach Scott, The Fantasy of Feminist History (United States of America: Duke University
Press, 2011), 41.
73 Browne, Feminism, Time, and Nonlinear History, 6.
71
72
30
Chapter 4: Examining Queen Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc
Narratives about Queen Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc are different based on the
temporal context or generation of each author. These biographies reflect the
usefulness of wave theory by historically replicating the political inclinations of
feminists from different generations of thought. Studies of Queen Elizabeth I and
Joan of Arc reveal generational conflict on issues of masculinity versus femininity,
different interpretations of what femininity is, and how sexuality can be employed.
Additionally, marriage, the iconography of Joan’s ‘arc’ nomenclature, and the very
nature of how historical research is done differ between the authors simultaneous
with the second wave and with the third wave. This chapter seeks to highlight the
wave differences between the interpretations of Joan of Arc and Queen Elizabeth I.
Additionally, by highlighting these differences in terms of wave theory, wave
distinctions prove to be a useful analytical tool.
Queen Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc are subjects of analysis, and more
importantly for this project, points of discussion for second and third wave feminists.
Elizabeth and Joan are two well-known female figures utilized and idealized as
women who transcended gender roles and feminine stereotypes created by
patriarchal history. Examining discussions surrounding these historical figures
allows more complex insight into feminist histories, because they illuminate the core
differences between different generations of feminist thinkers in historical context.
Additionally, the way feminist icons are constructed and emphasized shows the
different priorities of feminism from different waves.
Popular biographies provide deeper insights about Queen Elizabeth I and
Joan of Arc and what it means to be feminist during the second and third waves,
when narrative differences are explored. Popular biographies are particularly
important because they show what was spread into the greater understanding of the
general public. People who read second wave texts about Queen Elizabeth might
understand her as a woman with masculine traits, while people who are
contemporary with the third wave and read biographies about Queen Elizabeth
might understand her in terms of how she employed femininity as a tool to maintain
power. Wave theory gives framework to vastly different feminist interpretations of
31
the same figure, which is built up as an icon to show woman that they can be
empowered. Four popular biographies by, Jenkins, Weir, Pernoud, and Warner
reveal narrative patterns indicative of the waves that the books are contemporary
with. I will identify the differences and commonalities between feminist generations
using these biographies as a framework.
Queen Elizabeth I
Queen Elizabeth I is a feminist icon known for embracing her role as queen
during her reign in the 16th century. Leadership roles were delegated to men due to
patriarchal succession conventions. Queen Elizabeth I embodied many traits, which
in the 16th century, were regarded as masculine. This allowed her to earn respect as a
ruler regardless of her gender. An era of growth and cultural prosperity correlated
with Elizabeth’s reign. These traits enabled Queen Elizabeth to be popularized as a
feminist icon.
Weir, a contemporary of third-wave feminism, and Jenkins, a feminist writer
during the second wave, both wrote biographies on Queen Elizabeth I with concrete
differences that emphasize the ideological differences between second and third wave
feminism. Comparing narratives, their biographies reflect feminist values of the time
and place in which they were written. Weir emphasizes the importance of Elizabeth’s
femininity and sexual agency, which is emblematic of third wave ideals, while
Jenkins focuses on Elizabeth’s masculine traits, and lack of interest in sexual
encounters in an empowering manner. A nuanced discussion of the understanding of
power reveals potential reasons for conflict between second and third wave ideals.
In order to understand the nuances of Jenkins and Weir’s discussions of
Elizabeth, it is imperative to understand how power is understood in second and
third wave feminism. Schippers and Sapp, in their article entitled “Reading PulpFiction,” articulate that power, according to feminist theory, is understood differently
dependent upon the wave with which the reader identifies. Schippers and Sapp state
second wave feminists interpret femininity as male imposed, male defined, which
innately make it worth critiquing. Such representations should be eradicated in order
32
to overcome patriarchal confines.74 These authors state, for second wave feminists,
femininity should not be praised or redefined; it simply must be struck down. In
contrast, third wave feminists see femininity not simply as an expectation of being a
woman, but rather a possible identification tool to be embraced by anyone.
Femininity, in this approach is not inherently subordinate or negative.75 Instead, it is
a set of socially accepted ideals created for women to embody, but is not wedded to
biological sex. These are two very contrasting opinions on femininity. They reveal
how distinct the second and third waves are from each other. This reflects the
usefulness of wave theory because feminist scholars from different waves have
diverse ideological interests and thus can tell the same stories but in different ways.
As such, an understanding of the diversity within feminist story telling across
generations can support the idea of different ideological feminist waves. The differing
goals of the second and third waves are emphasized in different story telling methods
in biographies about Joan of Arc and Queen Elizabeth I. Their different generational
ideas can be explained and contextualized by wave theory definitions of the second
and third waves.
Sexuality is a key difference in understanding power, and highlights nuanced
differences found in Weir and Jenkins’ arguments. Queen Elizabeth I retained the
label ‘the Virgin Queen’ because Elizabeth was a female monarch, who never
married. Queen Elizabeth I was not married when she took the throne and chose to
remain unmarried. There is no proof of whether she did, in fact, remain celibate.
Nevertheless, Weir suggests that Elizabeth “felt more invincible in the persona of the
Virgin Queen than she would have done as a married sovereign.”76 Elizabeth was
assumed to be a virgin, in large part, due to her gender. Kings, even without children,
were never assumed to be virgins by the general public. Elizabeth was, and embraced
this distinction, not letting it delegitimize or hinder her work as queen. Sexual
relations for an unmarried queen were unthinkable. Societal conventions of 16th
century England shamed and delegitimized women who engaged in sexual relations
outside of marriage. These temporal conventions of sexuality led historians and
storytellers to give Elizabeth the title, the Virgin Queen, which also alludes to the
Schippers and Sapp, “Reading Pulp Fiction: Femininity and Power in Second and Third Wave
Feminist Theory,” 29.
75 Ibid.
76 Alison Weir, The Life of Elizabeth I, Reissue edition (New York: Ballantine Books, 1999), 51.
74
33
Blessed Virgin Mary. Weir articulates that Elizabeth embraced her femininity and it
served to empower her. Her ‘virginal’ nature, especially as a woman, represented her
autonomy and power. The interpretation of Elizabeth’s story was a precursor to the
third wave ideal that femininity did not have to be erased. Taking pride in her lack of
a husband and embracing her virginity title was seen as a positive. While the title of
Virgin Queen caused Elizabeth turmoil in her younger more fertile years, it became a
badge of honor in feminist historical lore largely due to third wave historiography
and its interpretation of femininity.77
Weir mentions Queen Elizabeth I’s lack of a husband by quoting a German
envoy. The German envoy explains, “‘The Queen is of an age when she should in
reason, and – as is woman’s way – be eager to marry and be provided for. For that
she should wish to remain a maid and never marry is inconceivable.’”78 As the Queen
of England his worry was twofold. First, that it was the queen’s duty to marry and
have children so there was a clear line of succession, and secondly, as a woman, it is
unhealthy and inconceivable for Elizabeth to remain unmarried. The first concern
was one held for both kings and queens. A country could fall into turmoil when there
was no clear successor, which did happen when Queen Mary died.79 Remaining
unmarried and without an heir caused many in England, a great concern that
Elizabeth would leave her country vulnerable.80 Additionally, the envoy clearly
concerned about how a woman could function without a husband to control her, as
this is not considered ‘natural.’ Weir’s third wave analysis emphasizes Elizabeth’s
agency and her choice not to marry as an element of her femininity, and how she
fought against expectations of society.
Jenkins mentioned the societal pressure for Elizabeth to marry in a slightly
different way. Jenkins’ analysis does not focus on Elizabeth’s manipulation of the
marriage based alliance system and instead simply emphasizes Elizabeth’s desire to
remain unmarried. Those she trusted were all aware that the queen did not desire to
marry, even while important Englishmen did not understand nor embrace
Ibid., 9–10.
Ibid., 25.
79 Ibid., 4.
80 Interestingly, Elizabeth refused to ever name a successor as she believed that left her venerable to
attack or assassination. Ibid., 138.
77
78
34
Elizabeth’s rhetoric on marriage.81 Elizabeth did, however lead suitors on. Jenkins
writes, “It is not yet realized how keenly, how exquisitely Elizabeth enjoyed
conducting courtships and marriage negotiations which she never intended to
complete.”82 From this we understand Elizabeth to be a smart woman who knew she
needed to at least pretend that she was willing to marry for the good of the kingdom.
However, she also knew, as queen, she had the power to choose a suitor at her
leisure. Elizabeth knew that as a 16th century English woman society deemed it
unacceptable for her to remain unmarried thus went through the motions and
conducted marriage negotiations. She found one reason or another to break them off.
Consequently, she managed to maintain control over her sexuality and marriage
prospects, despite the patriarchal structure of 16th century English society.83 Jenkins
states eloquently,
To marry and establish the succession would take away at once her immense
importance as a matrimonial catch for the crowned heads of Europe, and
though a strong alliance would bring great advantages it would deprive her of
an invaluable diplomatic weapon.84
Elizabeth knew she would lose her influence, respect, and power if she married. She
chose to retain her power as queen, without a marriage alliance. Jenkin’s argument is
developed and dependent upon second wave interpretation of power. Femininity
functions in opposition to power. Therefore Elizabeth, by actively rejecting marriage,
was rejecting feminine expectations, as well as, femininity itself. This demonstrates
Elizabeth partially dismissed femininity and embraced masculinity, which society
necessitated English monarchs to do.
These initial interpretations emphasize how different feminist ideological
understandings are for Weir and Jenkins. Weir focuses on the logistics as to why
Elizabeth did want to marry. She mentions the well-known statement Elizabeth
made to Robert Dudley when she was young about never wanting to get married,
however, this is not her focus.85 Weir explains a possible physical reason Elizabeth
choose not to marry,
Elizabeth may well have confided to Harington the fact that she had a mental
aversion to sex…Modern writers have speculated… that Elizabeth either had
Ibid., 46.
Elizabeth Jenkins, Elizabeth the Great (Time Reading Program, 1962), 85.
83 Weir, The Life of Elizabeth I, 14.
84 Jenkins, Elizabeth the Great, 75.
85 Weir, The Life of Elizabeth I, 13.
81
82
35
an abnormally thick hymen or suffered from an hysterical condition that
causes sexual penetration to be excruciatingly painful.86
Weir is interested in sexual issues potentially experienced by Elizabeth, and presents
this as at least one reason for her choice not to marry. Returning to Schippers and
Sapp, we remember that third wave feminists want to rework or empower femininity
and not destroy it. Third wavers view sexual freedom as a fundamental right.87
Weir’s focus on Elizabeth’s physical ability to have sex as an important aspect of her
decision not to marry appears to meet with this claim. Elizabeth did not embrace
sexual freedom as queen, resulting in the belief that there must be some underlying
reason for her decision. Weir chose to emphasize Elizabeth’s femininity in a positive
way instead of as a detriment.
Jenkins, meanwhile, makes no mention of Elizabeth’s possible hymen defect,
focusing instead on why marriage would be extremely detrimental to Elizabeth’s
autonomy. Marriage is a yoke that would allow a man to control her. Jenkins
explains, “Marriage up till now had always been spoken of as a means of curtailing
her. Northumberland had looked out for suitors whose obscurity might extinguish
her.”88 Jenkins emphasizes criticism of patriarchy and that marriage is an institution
of male control. This narrative focused on that noblemen and Elizabeth’s counsel
who wanted to control her, and could not do that without a husband by her side. If
she were married, she would have to answer to her husband. As a woman she would
be his property. Without a husband, she would be held accountable only to herself.
Schippers and Sapp iterate this narrative throughout their discussion of second wave
approaches to femininity and power. With this example of marriage, it is no wonder
that Jenkins, as a product of second wave feminism, would see the greatest problem
for Elizabeth as marriage in general. Within the second wave, marriage is a maledefined system used to control and oppress women, just like femininity.89 Jenkins
analyzes the constraints marriage would place upon Elizabeth. Even as a queen, she
would first and foremost, be a wife. As an unmarried queen she had the ability to
reject feminine constraints of her gender, in a way that would be inconceivable if she
Ibid., 49.
Henry, Not My Mother’s Sister, 90.
88 Jenkins, Elizabeth the Great, 75.
89 Schippers and Sapp, “Reading Pulp Fiction: Femininity and Power in Second and Third Wave
Feminist Theory,” 29.
86
87
36
were married. She did not have to assume a subordinate role as a queen if she had no
king. She was able to fully embrace her role as a leader of a great nation, without
concern for biology. Born a woman, her biology dictated her social and political role,
meaning, femininity would be a deterrent. Through choice and cunning she knew
how to use femininity to her advantage.
The conversation surrounding Queen Elizabeth I and marriage is clearly
influenced by social contexts and political terms defined by each author’s feminist
perspective and this is reflected in the opposing ways this story is told by feminist
scholars from different generations. Second wavers fought for equal rights and equal
representation for women; while third wave feminists fought for women’s capacity to
represent femininity however they wished. Another difference between Weir and
Jenkins’ analyses is the role Robert Dudley played within Elizabeth’s story. Weir
spent a significant amount of time discussing the complex relationship of Elizabeth
and Dudley. Their relationship is presented as though they were ‘star-crossed lovers.’
Elizabeth knew Dudley since she was a young girl. Weir specifically explained that
“Robert Dudley had one supreme advantage over all her other male admirers. He
could not offer her marriage. With him, she had the best of both worlds.”90 Dudley
was already married when Elizabeth became queen. Weir emphasized Elizabeth was
able to love him without having to commit to marriage. Weir explicitly states,
When she [Elizabeth] was with him, she was anything but discreet, making no
secret of her affection for him. She spoke of him often and never missed a
chance to praise his talents as a horseman or as an arranger of tournaments
and courtly entertainments.91
Third wave feminism influenced Weir’s discussion of Elizabeth and Dudley’s
relationship, within the context of a sexual relationship, which did not make
marriage a requirement. Elizabeth was unable to marry Dudley, but she could have a
sexual relationship with him. Dudley was unavailable for marriage, allowing
Elizabeth to maintain her status as primary ruler, while engaging in sexual activity
according to her own desires. The narrative Weir presented about Elizabeth’s and
Dudley’s relationship suggested that Elizabeth maneuvered herself and her decisions
in order to circumvent the patriarchal standards of the 16th century.
90
91
Weir, The Life of Elizabeth I, 73.
Ibid., 71.
37
In contrast, Jenkins only briefly mentioned the relationship between Elizabeth
and Dudley. When Dudley is mentioned it appears out of obligation not because of
narrative interest. Jenkins states that Dudley is an important, but is not a central
feature of Elizabeth’s narrative. Jenkins writes, “The Queen had made an excellent
beginning but those nearest to her who wished to gaze upon her with approval found
their vision blocked by Lord Robert Dudley.”92 The analysis of Dudley’s role
emphasized that Dudley’s masculine power helped block potential suitors, rather
than the feminine agency of Elizabeth. This demonstrates Jenkins’ understanding of
power, in the terms that Schippers and Sapp identify, as second wave. Jenkins
mentions that Dudley was attractive to Elizabeth because he was unavailable. The
relationship narrative Jenkins posits is the contradictory story of a woman, one who
does not want to marry and therefore chooses the one man she cannot marry as a
lover. Weir views Elizabeth’s relationship with Dudley as a relationship that blocked
her from possible suitors and allowed her to actively remain unwed.
A final difference is how Queen Elizabeth I is represented as a ruler and as a
woman. Weir, as third wave narrative states, Elizabeth embraces both masculine and
feminine characteristics using each to her advantage.
She [Elizabeth] had also learned to use her femininity to her advantage,
artfully stressing her womanly weaknesses and shortcomings, even indulging
in effective storms of weeping, whilst at the same time displaying many of the
qualities most admired in men.93
Elizabeth utilized femininity for her best interest. Additionally, she utilized
masculine skills to prove her power as a ruler. Femininity and masculinity can be
embraced both by men and women, however, femininity is usually associated with
women and masculinity is usually associated with men.94 Weir eloquently tells
Elizabeth’s story through the third wave narrative, stating Elizabeth had both
masculine and feminine qualities and remained a strong ruler of England, just like
her father King Henry the VIII. This does bring into question what was considered
feminine and what was considered masculine.95
Jenkins, Elizabeth the Great, 83.
Weir, The Life of Elizabeth I, 17.
94 Schippers and Sapp, “Reading Pulp Fiction: Femininity and Power in Second and Third Wave
Feminist Theory,” 31.
95 I am aware that the characteristics of masculine and feminine, operating within these biographies
are in a pre-critical manner, and many feminist generations have worked to more critically examine
the boundaries of femininity and masculinity.
92
93
38
Jenkins presents Elizabeth as a complex figure; however, she does not
interpret Elizabeth’s actions in the same way as Weir. Weir emphasized that
Elizabeth often used her femininity as a tool in her favor, and emphasized that
Elizabeth was unique as an English monarch partially because of her femininity.
Jenkins compared Elizabeth to her father, discussing her intellect, strength, and
magnetism – qualities also known of her father.96 Elizabeth understood how she
could embrace both masculine and feminine characteristics and use each to her
advantage. Second wave feminists touch on roles of masculinity and femininity, but
view femininity as the problem, because males enforce femininity, in order to keep
women subservient.97 Third wave feminist thought, in contrast interprets femininity
as an identity that does not have to be inherently problematic or subservient to
masculine traits. Second and third wave feminist interpretations differ drastically in
this way
Schippers and Sapp explain second wave feminist theoretical thinking stating,
“Men define and/or enforce femininity; women embody it to signal and perpetuate
their subordination to men.”98 Femininity is the embodiment of subordination,
rejecting it, is to move towards social change, eradication of male enforced femininity
is the goal.99 Jenkins does not hypothesize that femininity was intrinsically part of
Elizabeth’s success, but rather, believes Elizabeth used masculine characteristics
revered during that time period. Jenkins’ view is emblematic of the generational
ideas of the second wave that still exist in conversation with later generations of
feminists.
The biographies of Queen Elizabeth I show distinct generational differences
between the understanding of feminist thought not just in terms of historical
analysis, but also political goals. These biographies emphasize the discussion
between different generational ideas regarding the merits and disadvantages of
femininity and they use Elizabeth as a vehicle to articulate two contrasting but
Jenkins, Elizabeth the Great, 67.
Schippers and Sapp, “Reading Pulp Fiction: Femininity and Power in Second and Third Wave
Feminist Theory,” 29.
98 Ibid.
99 Ibid.
96
97
39
relevant points of view. Wave theory proves to be useful because it helps organize
and differentiate between the multi-generational feminist ideas at work.
Joan of Arc/Jeanne D’Arc
Joan of Arc is a unique feminist icon that was not only an historical figure but
also a Christian figure. She was dubbed a saint and served a dual role, connecting the
historical to the religious. Each of Joan of Arc’s biographers presented her as a multifaceted figure, but viewed her differently. Pernoud, the biographer of the second
wave text, explicitly examined primary text documents from Joan of Arc’s trial.
Pernoud’s focus was to present an ‘unaltered’ Joan of Arc. Her introduction
specifically stated that she wanted to “let the historic documents themselves make
answer.”100 Pernoud is extremely interested in the role Joan of Arc portrayed within
her own historical context. Historical text can and will never remain unaltered; it is
always influenced by interpretation, and this involves temporal context. Pernoud
functions in the second wave, re-claiming Joan of Arc’s historical narrative, by
engaging in traditional historical methods. These methods are often used by male
academics, and present a new analysis, synthesized by a woman, about a woman.
Pernoud reexamined a history of a masculinist discursive product on women’s lives.
She utilized feminist historiography to reflect that Joan was not only an historical
figure, but also a feminist figure. Pernoud through primary source work attempts to
present an unaltered view of Joan of Arc.
Warner worked to understand whom Joan of Arc was and did not necessarily
intend to leave her story unaltered. Warner specifically explained, within the
prologue to her text, “These composing parts of her [Joan of Arc’s] greatness have
invited generation upon generation of enthusiasts to identify with her and to adopt
her as the palladium of their cause.”101 Thus, we gain a sense that Warner understood
how Joan of Arc has been co-opted by each generation, creating slightly different
meaning. Joan of Arc, as a Christian figure, was deeply intertwined within masculine
Christian interpretation and understanding. Warner intended to legitimize feminine
interpretation and understanding of Joan’s history within the context of previous
Régine Pernoud, Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses, 1st edition (New York: Scarborough
House, 1990), 8.
101 Warner, Joan of Arc, 3.
100
40
historical analysis and primary sources. In doing so, she identified previous
understandings, even naming conventions identified as relevant in previous
historiography and mythology. Warner divided her writing and categorizations of
Joan into themes such as ‘Maid of France,’ ‘Prophet,’ ‘Heretic, Knight,’ ‘Amazon,’ and
‘Child of Nature.’ The construction of Joan’s identity followed her symbolic
investments in her life and her religious/political roles. Warner explicitly explores
how Joan of Arc is represented historically, and included her own feminist analysis
and previous interpretations.
The construction of the name ‘Joan of Arc’ is important to both Pernoud and
Warner. Joan of Arc never actually called herself, Joan of Arc. Warner explained the
origin of the title, stating, “The name Jeanne d’Arc, Joan of Arc, is an invention. At
her trial, according to the old French transcription, her first words were that in
France she was called ‘Jhenne,’ but at home she had been known as ‘Jhannette.’”102
For Warner, Joan’s name change and creation was constructed alongside the story
and symbolism that is Joan of Arc.
Pernoud’s explanation of Joan’s name did not emphasize the symbolism of the
alteration.103 There is no record of what Joan looked like which, demonstrates that
appearance, based on understanding of Joan are purely conjectur.104 Despite this,
there are visual depictions of Joan of Arc in written record and through stained glass
images.105 The way Joan’s image was created indicates it was in concert with the
retelling of her story. Historical and religious narrative is consistently intertwined in
these combined narratives. Pernoud and Warner delve into past historical
understanding of Joan and equally commit to investigation of Joan of Arc. Pernoud’s
analysis emphasizes historical convention and tradition. She rejects previous analysis
done using the lens of history created by a male dominated academy. Her text
examined Joan exclusively through primary source work, removing conjecture.
Pernoud’s work demonstrated that women were able to stand on equal footing with
men, supported by primary research and interpretation of documents. Her analysis
utilized patriarchal historiography practices that demonstrated that women and men
Ibid., 198.
Pernoud, Joan of Arc, 16–17.
104 Ibid., 24.
105 Ibid., 128–29.
102
103
41
were able to share research methods. Pernoud and Warner examined the
understanding and interpretation of Joan’s name as important, however used
different lenses, which represented second and third wave.
Joan of Arc’s name change was equally important to Pernoud and Warner.
However, symbolism is only discussed by Warner, and reflects her feminist
reinterpretation of Joan’s symbolic nature. Warner unpacks meaning surrounding
the term ‘arc.’ She explains, the choice of this word over others is no coincidence. She
writes, “Arc, with its multiple meanings of ‘bow,’ ‘arch’ and ‘curve,’ places Joan at the
centre of a web of imagery associated with the power of women since antiquity.”106
Warner continues, “The particle de is an invention. It is a sign of noble birth, and its
appearance was made possible by the absence of apostrophes in medieval and
Renaissance French names.”107 Through the invention of this name, meaning is
constructed which tells a story about Joan of Arc. Joan’s name, in part, maintained
her status as a significant, long lasting historical figure. Warner does not dismiss
previous historiographical constructions of the name ‘Joan of Arc,’ but rather seeks
to add feminist commentary and analysis. Warner examines the development of
Joan’s name because it was historically constructed and invoked as an image of
feminine strength. This contrasts to Pernoud’s reinterpretation and analysis of Joan’s
life, using primary source texts. Third wave feminists, like Warner, are deeply
invested in the reexamination of the symbolism surrounding what it means to be a
woman.
Warner focused on examining the power that language had in telling stories.
The way in which the story of Joan of Arc was told, and the details that surrounded
her life, expressed her story in a way that simple facts did not. She explicitly stated,
But such rapid strokes of the pen that now bring her breathing and alive into
the schoolroom were made differently by the historians of her own time and
differently again by the men and women of the Renaissance…and writers of
the nineteenth century.108
Storytellers produced and expressed how Joan of Arc was symbolized and how these
symbols connected to a larger historical narrative. A postmodern feminist narrative,
Joan of Arc, 198–99.
Ibid., 199.
108 Warner, Joan of Arc, 6–7.
106
107
42
an area that marked contributions of third wave feminism, demonstrated the
symbolic order these narratives created.109 Warner was interested in examining and
reinterpreting symbolism that surrounded Joan, both as an historical figure and as
the creation of (feminist) historians.
It is important how Joan is represented. To this end, Warner examined in
detail, one of the symbolic narratives attached to Joan of Arc was the narrative of the
Amazon. The Amazon, according to Warner, was associated with Joan as a figure
who exhibited many traits these warrior women of mythology displayed.110 Using this
association, the tellers of her story connected her to a larger narrative of confident,
strong, and male dominating women. Warner states, “If the warrior maid bore arms,
she also remained the ideal feminine. Nothing so radical as Joan’s rejection of the
female mode of life belongs to [other historical female figures] Clorinda or
Britomart.”111 Gender is a fluid concept for third wave feminists and Warner reflected
this understanding in her analysis of Joan’s association with the Amazon. 112 Warner
suggested that masculine characteristics were also feminine characteristics for Joan,
a figure who blurred lines between masculine and feminine. The picture of the
Amazon emphasized power, agency, and strength.
The understanding of gender fluidity is not addressed within theory of second
wave feminists, despite being a regular fixture in third wave feminist narratives. This
reflects how scholars from different waves have different theoretical foci, thus
emphasizing that wave theory is an effective way to divide historiographical
narratives about feminist icons. This lack of analysis regarding gender fluidity may
explain why Pernoud instead focused on Joan’s historical significance and her
historical narrative. Pernoud’s approach worked in concert with second wave
feminists who were more interested in their role within history. Henry explained,
“early second-wave feminists saw themselves as being part of history even as they
demarcated themselves as new and vanguard.”113 Pernoud recounted a more critical
‘accurate’ story of who Joan of Arc really was. She was interested in ‘the facts’ and
Nancy Potter, “Key Concepts: Feminism,” PPP 8, no. 1 (2001): 65.
Warner, Joan of Arc, 204.
111 Warner writes that Clorinda and Britomart lived as knights. Ibid., 213.
112 Schippers and Sapp, “Reading Pulp Fiction: Femininity and Power in Second and Third Wave
Feminist Theory,” 30. Potter, “Key Concepts: Feminism,” 65.
113 Henry, Not My Mother’s Sister, 75.
109
110
43
telling an unaltered story unembellished by symbolism and narrative construction.
Pernoud went so far as to state in her book, “Refutation of such stuff would serve no
purpose here: one must resign oneself to the fact that texts are texts, legends –
legends.”114 Pernoud utilizes ‘historical facts’ because it grounded her work in
masculine facts and allowed her to play the masculine historical game. Feminist
research, completed using a traditional masculine model, offered opportunity for
acceptance within male dominated research narrative models. This method allowed
researchers the ability to create a paradigm shift. Methodology and results that
would typically be ‘used against’ feminist perspectives could now be supported by
that same methodology.
Second wave feminists dispute patriarchal definitions of what it means to be a
woman, what femininity means, and the subservience of women to men. Pernoud’s
analysis of Joan of Arc, as a prime historical figure, exemplified that women can,
indeed, be equal to men. “Engles (1972) argues that the origins of patriarchy were
linked to the advent of private property and inheritance, which led to the regulation
of female sexuality within a monogamous family unit.”115 The second wave focus was
gender equality, specifically as it related to property and legal rights. Contemporary
scholars have labeled this aspect of wave theory as too simplistic, and ignore second
wave understandings of how masculinity relates to femininity. There is a larger
image as to how Joan is regarded within patriarchy as a woman who led an army and
embodied the masculine. Joan is a perfect example of a feminist icon that is not
subordinate to men, and according to second wave thinkers is not feminine. Pernoud
explains, “in the matter of war, she was very expert, in the management of the lance
as in the drawing up of the army in battle order in preparing the artillery.”116 She was
a woman, on equal footing with men in her army.
Certain goals and narrative frameworks guide second and third wave
feminists. Their temporal contexts affect the details that are pinpointed constructing
a narrative about Joan of Arc. Third wave feminists are interested in how people blur
lines between what it means to be a woman and to be masculine or feminine.
Pernoud, Joan of Arc, 69.
Rita Felski, “American and British Feminisms,” in Social Theory: A Guide to Central Thinkers, ed.
Peter Beilharz (Australia: Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd, 1991), 23.
116 Pernoud, Joan of Arc, 63.
114
115
44
Warner’s text accepts and demonstrates a blurring of the line between masculine and
feminine. It also embraces the positivity of femininity as a means to identity that still
commands power and influence in society. Second wave feminists are interested in
the redefinition of what it means to be a woman, such that a woman does not have to
embrace the male-defined version of femininity. In contrast, second wave feminists
see masculinity as the default while femininity is a construction imposed on women
by patriarchal culture. Pernoud is a storyteller, but wants to tell an unaltered story,
that also eschews the convention of typical masculine historical research and
interpretation. Warner and Pernoud, like Weir and Jenkins, are products of their
historical periods and the beliefs and goals utilized during their respective feminist
generations. The stories of the biographers are reflected by their place within their
temporal context: second wave and third wave. They are part of different generations
of feminist thought that differ widely regarding the intrinsic understanding of
femininity and can be contextualized by wave theory.
45
Chapter 5: Telling Feminist Stories
In this chapter I will look at theoretical arguments used in analyzing historical
female figures, identifying how the biographies examined in the previous chapter are
able to augment and respond to approaches of feminist generations and feminist
historical story telling. To do so, I will use Hemmings’ argument regarding the
progress, loss, and return narratives, and apply them to the biographies.
Additionally, I will explain why historical biographies are crucial examples of the
narratives Hemmings discusses, and how these different narratives are employed
across multiple generations of feminist biographers. The crucial nature of the
biographies as feminist history function that way because of Joan of Arc and Queen
Elizabeth’s status as feminist icons, as discussed in chapter two.
Understanding the temporal context of the second and third feminist waves in
relation to authors’ arguments about Joan of Arc and Queen Elizabeth I reveals how
thinking differs across feminist generations. This section seeks to bring second wave
and third wave generational narratives into conversation with each other and
elaborate on the goals of the authors, and how their arguments reflect the goals of
different waves of feminism. Lastly, this chapter serves to show that waves, despite
being oversimplifications, are still useful categorizations when explaining and
articulating the different priorities of different generations of writers who write about
‘feminist icons.’
Analysis in the previous chapter established that there are concrete
differences in how feminist icons are presented in texts produced during the second
and third waves of feminism. Combining this with Henry’s understanding of feminist
generations and van der Tuin’s understanding of temporality, it becomes clear that
feminist waves inform various generations of feminist writers in terms of content,
writing style, and over all argument when identifying valuable traits of ‘feminist
icons.’ Stories of the second and third wave are embedded within the larger context
of history, women, and feminism, and therefore are equally important, but not
synonymous types of feminist historical writing. Second and third wave narratives
should be treated as separate feminist schools of thought that are in conversation
46
with each other, but clearly have different political goals, even in terms of historical
writing.
Hemmings: Progress, Loss, and Return
Hemmings specifically discusses the various narrative forms of feminist
stories, i.e. – progress, loss, and return. The feminist biographies about Joan of Arc
and Queen Elizabeth I discussed in this project are not neatly encapsulated within
each narrative type, but employ different aspects of all narrative types to varying
degrees. Just as feminist waves and generations are not clear-cut, all narratives can
be adjusted to the needs of the particular temporal paradigm of an author. What is
evident is, despite having different understanding of femininity and masculinity,
both second and third wave feminists employ Hemmings’ three narrative types. I
utilize Hemmings’ approach to reflect the relationships between feminist
generations.
Hemmings’ analysis initially focused on the progress narrative, which,
“transforms rather than merely adds to existing approaches, deconstructs and moves
beyond, as well as, forward.”117 Progress narratives are less about erasing the
masculine dominated historiography that came before, rather, they try to adapt
previous historiography in order to create a new feminist oriented narrative. To
accomplish these goals, progress narratives must deconstruct and then rearrange
previous aspects of history and do not get rid of historical facts. Progress narratives
demonstrate an understanding of a positive progression of feminism from past to
present. Examination of progress narratives, allows questioning of feminist
generations and how their presentation themselves developed. Third wave feminists
focus on the development of more feminist narratives and a move to postmodern
feminism. With this shift, “the relationship between subject and object of feminist
theory has been destabilized” and we move towards a disjointed feminism.118 There is
a clear shift in feminist theory with progress narratives and with third wave
feminists.
117
118
Hemmings, Why Stories Matter: The Political Grammar of Feminist Theory, 35.
Ibid., 4.
47
An example of Hemmings’ progress narrative is found in Weir’s
representation of Elizabeth. This returns to discussion concerning the role that sex
and sexuality played in feminist agendas. From this perspective, we note the change
in approach to sex and sexuality, as delivered within different biographies of
Elizabeth, reflect the shift in this discourse. Hemmings shows the relationship that
developed as a progression into feminine or female liberation. “Radical feminists,”
she argues, “‘fail’ to recognize sexual subjectivity, reducing ‘female sexuality’ to
repression” while “the pro-sex feminists of the 1980s are expansive, indeed are ‘at the
forefront’ of an impressive range of demands.”119 Hemmings’ assertion is that third
wave feminism addresses female sexuality in a multifaceted nuanced way. Second
wave ideology reduces female sexuality to oppression, forced on women by
patriarchal forces. Weir’s understanding of how Elizabeth employed her sexuality in
order to maneuver politically serves as a progress narrative.
Hemmings explains the loss narrative, stating that, “Western feminist loss
narratives must work to insist that feminism’s original interest in producing work
that challenged that status quo has dwindled with its increasing location inside the
‘ivory tower…’”120 The loss narrative asserts that as feminist theory progresses
through time, the complexities of analysis and marginalized periphery voices of the
feminist movement have been lost. The loss voices, are the voices of those outside the
privileged center of the academy, i.e. black feminist voices, queer feminist voices,
trans feminist voices, etc. The privilege of the academy has served to de-radicalize
and over simplify feminist narratives at the expense of the periphery. Third wave loss
narratives directly addresses these institutional oversights and seek to reclaim
marginalized voices silenced by second wave feminists. Additionally, third wave
feminist theorists seek to reclaim aspects of women’s history, lost in the birth of the
feminist movement, and include them in the third wave.121 In Hemmings’ terms,
“Western feminist loss narratives tell a story of feminism’s demise, a downward
trajectory from vibrancy to stasis.”122 The loss narrative is not well represented in
these four biographies, perhaps in part, due to the fact that Joan of Arc and Queen
Elizabeth I were figures not lost by the second wave. Second wave biographic
Ibid., 49.
Ibid., 69.
121 Ibid., 79.
122 Ibid., 66.
119
120
48
narratives often focused on a woman’s power, unwavering political levelheadedness,
and an ability to function. These traits were often stereotyped in pre-second wave
patriarchal historiography as traits characterized by men.
Second wave feminist scholars sought to minimize stereotypically feminine
aspects of female subjects, instead emphasizing that women stood equal to men in
traits that previous patriarchal historiographies defined as valuable. Third wave
feminists asserted that there was value in feminine traits, in addition to traits that
often assumed to be purely masculine. Weir’s analysis emphasized that Elizabeth’s
femininity was valuable. Elizabeth maneuvered potential suitors against each other,
and would lead suitors on for political reasons. Weir’s narrative stated that Elizabeth
could be sexually active without being tethered to marriage. Additionally, though
contradictory, Weir’s narrative celebrated existing cultural emphasis of Elizabeth’s
‘virginity,’ that, according to Weir, could be seen as a feminine source of power. This
type of thinking was lost in second wave works that sought to emphasize Elizabeth’s
ability to be strong, levelheaded, and benevolent. Elizabeth controlled her own sex
life, and used her position as a woman to out maneuver men politically.
There is a cultural turn toward language in social analysis (see “Posthumanist
Performativies,” Sign 2003). This is in contradiction to the material oriented
feminism of second wave. Return narratives avoid relativism, and the political
incapacity that comes with such fragmented relative ideas. Critique does not alter
power dynamics between feminist scholars and the patriarchal academy. Return
narratives reflect those things that have presumably been neglected or underemphasized by past feminisms. In contemporary feminist debates, this takes the
form of a return to materiality, while taking into account structural inequalities
women face in the academy, as well as the material nature of embodiment. 123 Return
narratives usually exist within the third wave.124 The return narrative is a rhetorical
form that returns to feminisms of the past, towards a material culture.
Warner’s biography of Joan of Arc is a type of return narrative. She examines
language as a form of materiality. Van der Tuin explains, there is a type of
123
124
Ibid, 5
Hemmings, Why Stories Matter: The Political Grammar of Feminist Theory, 99.
49
temporality that generations create and allow for, a blurring of the lines regarding
how second and third wave feminists relate to each other, their history, and their
temporal context in general.125 According to Hemmings, this return narrative was
developed as a move away from language-oriented feminisms concerned with
differences within specific terminology. This moved toward emphasis on the material
body, just as third wave feminists sought to unite materiality and language. Despite
Hemmings’ call to move away from language-oriented feminisms, in the case of Joan
of Arc: The Image of Female Heroism, language functioned as historiographical
material that made up the different facets of Joan’s identification by scholars.
Language develops from the description of physical materials, such as mythological
texts, historical annuls, stained glass window depictions, and paintings. Warner
emphasizes how contemporaries represented Joan and the symbolic nature that
surrounded Joan i.e. – her depiction as an Amazon or a saint. Language surrounding
Joan of Arc reflected her constructed material depiction and function, as synthesized
historiographical material. Language can be representative of materials; therefore, I
assert that the return narrative can, in part, be represented by Warner’s biography of
Joan of Arc. We can carry this analysis one step further, with Warner’s argument, as
it proves not all return narratives (of this nature) can afford to dismiss language as a
form of material, demonstrating a flaw. Progress, loss, and return narratives are
separate entities, Hemmings, however, acknowledges that they are inherently linked
and have significant overlap in feminist narratives.
Feminist Stories/Generations
With the basic premise of how progress, loss, and return narratives function
and how waves generally fit into certain narratives, I want to examine the ambiguity
that exists within feminist waves. A clear example lies in what Henry describes as
third wave feminists interest, redefining what it means to be a feminist. Henry
explains, “This ‘new’ feminism is, in part, a reaction to the negative and stereotypical
image of ‘the feminist’ that both the popular press and occasionally third-wave
writers helped to perpetuate.”126 A progress narrative, which promotes progress from
van der Tuin, Generational Feminism: New Materialist Introduction to a Generative Approach,
2015, 104–5.
126 Henry, Not My Mother’s Sister, 110.
125
50
one point in time to another point, is a feminist story that places future temporality
as essential.127
Another example through which the narratives of Hemmings speaks, links an
analysis of feminist generations to tensions between second and third wave
feminists, often depicted by the mother (second wave) and daughter (third wave)
relationship, as discussed by van der Tuin and Henry. Van der Tuin and Henry
explain the mother-daughter relationship is often one at odds, because daughters
want to show that they are different than their mothers.128 This type of conflict is in
part, reflected in the contentious relationship between Queen Elizabeth I and Mary
Queen of Scotts, as Weir outlines. It is emblematic of an intra- rather than intergenerational conflict. Weir explains: “On a more personal level Elizabeth regarded
Mary as her rival: younger than Elizabeth, and reputedly more beautiful, Mary’s
widowhood meant that the Queen of England was no longer the most desirable
match in Europe.”129 They were women of the same time, cousins, and yet were
destined to be at war with each other. Deep familial ties can also co-exist with
dramatic conflict. There is an inevitable cycle existent between feminist generations
and in mother-daughter relationships. Henry explicitly states, “Within the familial
structure… it is inevitable, then, that those who are now feminism’s daughters will,
over time, become its mothers – and given the negative image associated with
mothers, who would want such a fate?”130 These familial structures are intertwined
and constantly demonstrated within feminist generations.
There is little question that interaction between feminist generations are
complex, not clearly divided and in flux. This fluctuating relationship will now be
addressed. If we recall, Mak and Waaldijk clearly explained how women participated
in history was not the same as men, thus, the teller of women’s stories must keep that
in mind. Mak and Waaldijk explained that women, like Florence Nightingale, Queen
Elizabeth I, and Joan of Arc, were exceptions to the patriarchal historical rule.131
They were women who embraced masculine characteristics allowing them to break
Hemmings, Why Stories Matter: The Political Grammar of Feminist Theory, 5.
van der Tuin, Generational Feminism: New Materialist Introduction to a Generative Approach,
2015, 9; Henry, Not My Mother’s Sister, 11.
129 Weir, The Life of Elizabeth I, 124.
130 Henry, Not My Mother’s Sister, 181–82.
131 Mak and Waaldijk, “Gender, History, and the Politics of Florence Nightingale,” 212.
127
128
51
away from the confines of femininity in a time where only those who were masculine
were thought of as noteworthy. This demonstrated how feminist icons tended to
embody traditional masculine traits. Mak and Waaldijk state, “And so the idea arose
that gender historians should stop the hunt for women who met those masculine
criteria because the norms for historical importance should be queried as such.” 132
They explained that feminist historians must be accountable as they tell feminist
stories. The interpretation of women’s stories and histories is what feminist
generations do in order to explain the stories of women in history differently. Mak
and Waaldijk call for a more complex and in-depth analysis of how women should be
considered noteworthy in history.
Van der Tuin explains, “Feminist new materialists do not continue to
classifixate feminist thought, but rather imply a non-dualist take on the feminist
theories of the past.”133 Utilizing terms of the second and third wave, feminists are
able to feel part of a community. However, as van der Tuin explains, some feminists
attempt to de-classify or classifixate away from this binary opposition. Henry
analyzes the dualistic relationship created from interpreting second and third wave
feminists as a mother-daughter relationship.134 The way second and third waves
relate to each other demonstrates changing dynamics between these two feminist
generations. It is Henry who explained that second and third wave feminists simply
have different understandings and connections to their history. Second wave
feminists actively examined their own historical products, whereas third wave
feminists did not have the same understanding and are uncertain of their historical
role.135 We can understand that the use of the wave metaphor allows for a general
understanding of what was important to second and third wave feminisms; i.e. – it
helps to position them, but it is necessary to acknowledge there are no set categories
and these categories constantly fluctuate.
Ibid., 212.
van der Tuin, Generational Feminism: New Materialist Introduction to a Generative Approach,
2015, 21.
134 Henry, Not My Mother’s Sister, 3.
135 Ibid., 72–73.
132
133
52
Critiquing and Maintaining Feminist Waves
Feminist generations may be valuable as a resource, in order to organize
feminist thought. Critical judgment, however, needs to be used when interpreting
different waves. One problem the wave metaphor often sets up a dyadic relationship
between second and third wave when not through a lens of generational feminism.
Many young feminists see feminism as a battleground, a place where they must fight
for their rights.136 This was characteristic of second wave feminists, who coined the
term “sex wars.”137 There is, a clear point of connection, between second and third
wave feminists, both see their right to sexual freedom an essential to bodily
autonomy. Van der Tuin explains, “Genealogies provide a window to the surprising
futures that have been dreamt in past feminist expressions…”138 This window allows
an onlooker to see the connections and differences between feminist generations.
Van der Tuin’s interpretation of temporality and its implications for
relationships between feminist generations is a compelling method for analysis and
intervention in feminist stories and generational arrangements. She writes, “Time
and temporality are currently being reconfigured along the lines of embodied
‘duration,’ and spatiality is now generally seen as a ‘jumping’ of scale, which prevents
feminist from using space as a linear container (of time).”139 Van der Tuin urges
feminists to recognize this dynamic relationship between feminist generations and
how they interact with time. Each feminist wave develops their own thoughts,
interpretations of their role and their place in a linear context. Oppositional
relationships between feminist generations create a binary opposition with possible
subordination of one generation to the other.140 Van der Tuin’s contextualizes wave
theory and proposes that there is no end to the second wave or third wave. Rather
the ideas of these waves have ebbed and flowed over time.
Defining feminism using wave metaphor, a clear picture of rising and falling
waves comes to mind. This metaphor suggests there are some points in which
feminist waves are closer to their peaks than others. Does this create a hierarchy
Ibid., 91.
Ibid., 89.
138 van der Tuin, Generational Feminism: New Materialist Introduction to a Generative Approach,
2015, 59.
139 Ibid., 1–2.
140 Ibid., 53.
136
137
53
between the feminist waves, as one that is superior, if ever so slightly, than another?
Henry cites Judith Roof, “the attention on generational differences has dramatically
shifted feminism’s focus from external enemies to internal ones. If feminism is
indeed a family, it would be wise of us not to forget its absent father.”141 Offering a
clear motive to address intra-generational conflict, tension shows us that when
struggling or fighting amongst ourselves, we lose sight of what is important, which is
to create a different future for the feminist generations to come.
Examination of feminist generations, whether good or bad, is one method
feminists have chosen to organize their movement. The narrative tropes of progress,
loss, and return are integral to how this is done. Indeed, they constitute a departure
point for feminists to tell their stories differently, and in a more complex way. The
narratives of progress, loss, and return oversimplify history.142 Whether feminist
generations explain Queen Elizabeth I as a strategic ruler, or show Elizabeth
embracing her sexuality and femininity to make her one of the most influential
women in history, different interpretations of Elizabeth the person, demonstrate that
feminist generations have different priorities and interests. Details are influenced by
context and time. Feminist waves differ, they have different focuses, yet they are still
connected and still support each other.
There are many methods available for feminists to organize themselves:
second wave and third wave, baby boomers or gen X, narratives of progress, loss, and
return. As Hemmings explains, the rigid narratives of progress, loss, and return
narratives are problematic and box many feminist narratives into rigid inflexible
thinking. These narratives, however, have helped feminist thought develop and
deserve some credit for existing as a basic framework for feminist historians such as
Weir, Jenkins, Pernoud, and Warner to engage in. Feminists across generations,
despite overtly different political beliefs and contextualization, use the narrative
types examined by Hemmings, regardless of temporality, which gives some
semblance of unity to feminist writing and thinking, despite the existence of multiple
feminisms.
141
142
Henry, Not My Mother’s Sister, 183.
Hemmings, Why Stories Matter: The Political Grammar of Feminist Theory, 3.
54
Feminist waves are not clear-cut and often blend together, and sometimes
they entirely lose their distinctions, even though feminists would likely not admit
this. Feminist generations change and adapt as times changes and new ideas arise.
Furthermore, despite the overt flaws in wave theory as a rigid construct, when you
take into account that different generations of contemporary feminists all emerged
during different decades with different feminist struggles, it becomes clear that wave
theory is a useful tool to organize the thoughts and beliefs of the thinkers that
emerged from a particular temporality. Waves ebbed and flowed, but did not simply
disappear. Second wave thinkers are not extinct, and their points are still relevant
and in constant conversation with third wave texts. The biographies of Joan of Arc
and Queen Elizabeth I show that wave theory can still organize the general priorities
and understandings of femininity and sexuality among different generations of
thinkers. We must add complexity to feminist stories and not box them into
unchanging waves, but rather, acknowledge that second and third wave voices
actually exist alongside each other in contemporary feminist discourse, and often
organize themselves in terms of the waves that these thinkers emerged from. The
wave metaphor and theory is a worthwhile organizational tool for feminists of the
present and future.
55
Conclusion
Though feminist waves are a flawed and often incomplete methodology to
understand differences between different feminist temporalities, the general theories
or trends illuminated by the waves hold true even when separated from academic
history. This thesis examines biographical popular histories of the feminist icons,
Joan of Arc and Queen Elizabeth I, and positions various narratives in terms of wave
theory and different generational voices. While feminist wave theory might often
over-simplify the nuances of academic and societal ideology during the 20th century,
the biographical analyses of Queen Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc follow the ideological
trends and patterns that theorists argue are emblematic of the second and third
wave. This project compares and is critical of feminist wave theory; however, I posit
that feminist wave theory, generally speaking, is still applicable overall in the realm
of popular histories, and the creation of feminist icons. Furthermore, what it means
to write a feminist story is not a singular meaning or summation, and is rather
different for every generation positioned within the waves of feminism. It can mean
multiple things when one writes a feminist story, and the multiple meanings can be
explained in terms of generational differences.
Queen Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc are two historical women who stood the
test of time. Through this project, I examined how Queen Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc
are used as feminist icons both within the second wave and third wave of feminism.
The same icons are utilized to tell a very specific story geared towards achieving and
revealing the goals of a feminist generation. Utilizing strong female historical figures
and pointing to specific details of their story and how specifically their stories are
told, I demonstrate how feminist generations differ from one another and how the
theory of feminist waves is supported through a study of feminist historiography
across these periods. I established that second wave and third wave are different and
have distinctly different goals represented through telling feminist stories using
feminist icons. They both tell stories, but the stories do not contain the same
narratives and story tropes.
Feminist historians of different generations have different historical and
political goals when constructing narratives, but often use similar narrative
56
structures to articulate their arguments. These structures are the narratives of
progress, loss, and return. Furthermore, feminist icons are constructed through
popular historical discourse, making biographies crucial for cementing iconic status
and explaining feminist icons regardless of the generation in question. Joan of Arc
and Queen Elizabeth I are classic examples of feminist icons that are explained and
interpreted differently across generations and waves of feminist thought. Feminist
historiography is a crucial tool to deconstruct biographical and political narratives of
feminist icons. To employ this method, knowledge of different generational voices
and wave theory is crucial to differentiate and explain various narrative structures
about Queen Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc. The narrative differences of these multigenerational biographies demonstrate the importance of wave theory to the history
of feminist historical writing, because it allows historiographical studies to be
contextualized politically and temporally. What is clear is that narrative structures of
feminist stories are constant, while the political and historical goals are in flux. No
matter the generation, or wave, these stories are all feminist in nature. Multiple
feminisms defined by wave theory coexist in conversation with one another and
manifest through feminist story telling.
Understanding feminists through generations and waves is a useful tool to
understand the general goals and ideologies that surround feminist waves. These
should be examined critically, not taken as the only possible goals or opinions, but
this does not prevent them from being useful. Utilizing feminist wave theory,
connections across feminist generations are not necessarily lost, and perhaps could
not be achieved without this unifying name. I have attempted to prove that
generations and waves do have different goals and intentions. For example, second
and third wave feminists interpret femininity and masculinity differently. It is my
claim that it is acceptable to define feminist waves differently as long as one is
critical. It is my opinion that feminists should continue to utilize wave theory.
I was not able to achieve, within this project, the examination of more feminist
icons. Examination of other well-known women, within the context of the Western
world, and an understanding of how feminism extends across the world might have
been developed. This would have allowed for additional proof that second and third
57
wave feminists tell their stories differently. I would love to have examined a total of
five icons; however, that was beyond the scope and time restrictions of this project.
Stories are an important oral tool for the sharing of knowledge. The stories we tell
and the way we tell them varies across generations and the stories are reflective of
the identity and cultural/historical politics at play in a given temporal context. For
feminist scholarship, a study of our stories, the way we tell stories, and how this
changes over time i.e. – feminist historiography, can help us to understand ourselves
and in my estimation, the context in which we live. As such, feminist historiography
is central to understanding the generations of feminism and, in essence, supporting
the existence of these feminist waves.
Further research would be possible by examining present-day feminism. Is
there a fourth wave of feminism, or is it simply a continuation of the third wave? This
could be done through the examination of popular biographies and feminist stories
written during the contemporary generation, when scholars have postulated a fourth
wave of feminism would start. Examination of the third wave of feminism in relation
to contemporary feminist discourse should be further studied. Additionally, study
into how intersectional theory has affected feminist theory, historiography and
thought, could potentially yield an argument that we currently exist in an
intersectional fourth wave of feminism.
58
Bibliography
“Alison Weir - Author Biography.” Accessed May 2, 2016.
http://alisonweir.org.uk/biography/index.asp.
Bailey, Cathryn. “Making Waves and Drawing Lines: The Politics of Defining the
Vicissitudes of Feminism.” Hypatia 12, no. 3 (1997): 17–28.
Beauman, Nicola. “Elizabeth Jenkins Obituary.” The Guardian, September 7, 2010,
sec. Books. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/sep/07/elizabethjenkins-obituary.
Browne, Victoria. Feminism, Time, and Nonlinear History. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2014.
Cornfield, Penelope J., June Purvis, and Amanda Weatherill. “History and the
Challenge of Gender History.” In The Feminist History Reader, edited by Sue
Morgan, 116–29. New York: Routledge, 2006.
de Groot, Jerome. Consuming History: Historians and Heritage in Contemporary
Popular Culture. New York: Routledge, 2009.
Felski, Rita. “American and British Feminisms.” In Social Theory: A Guide to
Central Thinkers, edited by Peter Beilharz. Australia: Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd,
1991.
“Four Waves of Feminism | Pacific University.” Accessed March 23, 2016.
http://www.pacificu.edu/about-us/news-events/four-waves-feminism.
Hemmings, Clare. Why Stories Matter: The Political Grammar of Feminist Theory.
United States of America: Duke University Press, 2011.
Henry, Astrid. Not My Mother’s Sister. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University
Press, 2004.
“History and Theory of Feminism.” Accessed May 23, 2016.
http://www.gender.cawaterinfo.net/knowledge_base/rubricator/feminism_e.htm.
Jenkins, Elizabeth. Elizabeth the Great. Time Reading Program, 1962.
Luyts, Jorinde, trans. “Régine Pernoud.” Babelio. Accessed May 2, 2016.
http://www.babelio.com/auteur/Regine-Pernoud/9921.
Mak, Geertje, and Berteke Waaldijk. “Gender, History, and the Politics of Florence
Nightingale.” In Doing Gender in Media, Art and Culture, 207–22. London:
Routledge, 2007.
“Marina Warner - Writer and Mythographer.” Accessed May 2, 2016.
http://www.marinawarner.com/about/mwonherwriting.html.
Morgan, Sue. The Feminist History Reader. New York: Routledge, 2006.
Moss, David Grant. “A Queen for Whose Time? Elizabeth I as Icon for the Twentieth
Century.” Journal of Popular Culture 39, no. 5 (October 2006): 796–816.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-5931.2006.00306.x.
Pernoud, Régine. Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses. 1st edition. New York:
Scarborough House, 1990.
Potter, Nancy. “Key Concepts: Feminism.” PPP 8, no. 1 (2001): 61–71.
Schippers, Mimi, and Erin Grayson Sapp. “Reading Pulp Fiction: Femininity and
Power in Second and Third Wave Feminist Theory.” Sage 13, no. 1 (2012): 27–
42.
Scott, Joan Wallach. The Fantasy of Feminist History. United States of America:
Duke University Press, 2011.
van der Tuin, Iris. Generational Feminism: New Materialist Introduction to a
Generative Approach. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2015.
59
———. Generational Feminism: New Materialist Introduction to a Generative
Approach. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2015.
Vettel-Becker, Patricia. “Sacagawea and Son: The Visual Construction of America’s
Maternal Feminine.” American Studies (00263079) 50, no. 1/2
(Spring/Summer 2009): 27–50.
Warner, Marina. Joan of Arc: The Image of Female Heroism. 1st edition. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1999.
Weir, Alison. The Life of Elizabeth I. Reissue edition. New York: Ballantine Books,
1999.