A review by Jo Freeman published in Contemporary Sociology, Vol.
20, No. 2, March 1991, pp. 186-7.
Daring to Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America, 1967-1975,
by Alice Echols. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989.
the end of the sixties a new social movement of and for women arose which
has transformed our thinking about gender as well as bringing about many
legal and institutional changes. The feminist movement was not a united
movement; it had two separate origins from either side of the generation
gap with different goals and different strategies. The younger branch
never created a national organization, but its small groups were the
source of many of the movement's most innovative techniques (e.g. consciousness
raising) and most of its ideas. Echols' social and intellectual history
documents much of the growth and infighting of the younger branch, particularly
among those women who identified themselves as radical feminists. Although
she covers only those women who fought and argued in five cities (Chicago,
Boston, New York, Washington, D.C. and Gainesville, Fla.) she captures
the flavor of their exchanges and describes the consequences of their
debates with great precision. Indeed, so thoroughly does she document
the many disagreements, that one finishes the book feeling that it should
have been entitled Political Cannibalism and Civil Wars.
feminists did not initially call themselves feminists. Since most came
out of the new left, they thought of themselves as Radical Women. The
first major split in the movement was between the "feminists" and the "politicos".
The former argued that men were the enemy and women should be organized
to defeat patriarchy. The latter maintained that capitalism was the
enemy, and women should be organized as part of the larger Movement
to bring revolution to an oppressive System. Unfortunately, the new
movement did not know how to handle conflict; it rejected as "oppressive" and "male" all
rules and forms of organization. Instead of a fruitful exchange of
ideas, disagreement over direction was expressed as personal attacks;
women who had new ideas and knew how to articulate them were denounced
the left was breaking up, politicos broke from the left. Those women
who survived the carnage went on to create socialist- feminism and
lesbian-feminism. Although the latter is often thought of as a variant
of radical feminism, Echols points out that it primarily originated
with politicos who, at a time when leftists were going underground,
saw lesbianism as the most radical option available to them. Since
many radical feminists were also converted, the "gay-straight split" became
the next major fission. However, within a few years most straight women
either changed their sexual preference or left that branch of the movement.
The early dictum that "the personal is political" gradually came to
mean that one's political beliefs were best expressed through one's
civil wars took their toll as most of the early leadership was purged
or submerged. Those women who remained or joined later turned to building
a community where they could be comfortable and left proselytizing
to others. Echols only briefly describes a few of the concrete projects
and institutions. Although hers is an intellectual history, this omission
does leave the inaccurate impression that there were no concrete accomplishments.
Instead she explores the way in which the definition of radical feminism
underwent a 180 degree transformation in only a few short years. The
eruption of difference led to a search for what women had in common.
Cultural feminism replaced the original radical feminism as "the question
of whether feminism entails the transcendence of gender or the affirmation
of femaleness ... [became] the new feminist faultline." (p. 287).
the irritating use of a few neologisms (e.g. problematicized), and
one major omission (the attempted takeover by SWP/YSA), Echols' book
is well written and thoroughly researched. Indeed its' detail is almost
its downfall. As an introduction to radical feminism it fails to highlight
key concepts or provide explanatory guidelines to facilitate understanding.
However, for those who already know the outline of recent feminist
history, Echols' fills in the spaces between its crazy twists and turns
and describes the hues of its multiple party lines. As such, it's an
invaluable resource for understanding the internal dynamics of an important