Introduction

The Fourth World examines the recent emergence of the Canadian Aborigi-
nal women’s movement, its relationship to the broader feminist
movement, and the applicability and appropriateness of contem-
porary feminist theories as frameworks for the analysis of Aborigi-
nal women’s legal, political and socio-economic status. It is an
exploratory study and does not suggest that the results are repre-
sentative of Aboriginal women in general. Aboriginal women have
often been the objects of researchers for academic purposes in
various disciplines; however, the social realities and dynamics of the Abo-
riginal woman’s world have often been ignored or misrepresented and
often entirely misinterpreted. Aboriginal women have often been viewed
and treated as static remnants of the fur trade. The status of Aboriginal
women varies due to several factors under colonialism; this book explores
these factors from the perspective of Aboriginal women, based on their
experiences and social realities as colonized persons.
This book started life as a masters’ thesis that was submitted to the
Department of Native Studies and Graduate Studies at the University of
Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, and it has undergone many changes to bring it
into this form. It is based partly on research I conducted into the attitudes
of Aboriginal women living in urban centres in Saskatchewan about their
lives and the oppressions they face. It develops a framework for the
discussion of Aboriginal women’s multi-oppression, one which reflects
Indigenous women’s perspectives. Feminism often assumes that all women,
cross-culturally, share the same oppression, but I believe this assumption to
be false. The Indigenous Circle of Life philosophy more appropriately
embodies Aboriginal women’s conceptions of human nature, their political
philosophy and their strategy for social change and liberation.
The Fourth World theory is inherent in the Circle of Life philosophy
and in everyday oral teachings of Aboriginal people. In keeping with our
oral traditions, these teachings are constantly being passed on at gatherings

Introduction / 11
and also in private conversations. They comprise a distinctly Aboriginal
worldview.
It is not my intent to malign the broader feminist movement
but rather to elaborate on this distinct worldview of Aboriginal
people. In this discussion, I concentrate on the four main schools
of feminist thought: liberal feminism, Marxist feminism, radical
feminism and socialist feminism. I apologize if there are any
misinterpretations; they are solely mine. It should also be noted
that not all Aboriginal women share this view. As can be noted in
the Interviews, there were a few contradictory answers; these
remain unedited as they were part of the data. I apologize once
again to the informants for not being able to include entire
interviews. Most interviews were at least one hour in length;
therefore the data had to be broken down and only excerpts could
be used.
Many contemporary Euro-Canadian feminists view male domination
as the sole or main source of oppression for all women and quite often
disregard racism and “national” oppression as contributing sources of
oppression for Aboriginal women and women of colour. A crucial question
is: Do Aboriginal women perceive themselves as oppressed within their
own Aboriginal societies because of gender or as oppressed within the
larger and more dominant Euro-Canadian immigrant settler society, or a
combination thereof? I contend that the concepts of racism and
Eurocentrism have not been adequately addressed by feminist writers
analyzing the status of Indigenous women in the global community. As
colonized persons, Canada’s Indigenous women may view their oppression
differently from those of middle-class Euro-Canadian feminists. As such,
many of the concerns and issues confronting Indigenous women may not
always coincide with feminist theory or interests. It is also important to
note that Aboriginal women do not live in isolation from Euro-Canadian
society even if they reside on reserves. One implication of this
non-isolation is that they have become exposed to national gender
debates through the media and at public meetings.
It is my hope that Aboriginal women will benefit from this research, in
that it provides them with an opportunity to express their social realities
and experiences and to be contributors in the formulation of theory. Key
questions addressed in this study are: (1) To what extent do Aboriginal
women understand, experience and articulate their oppression? (2) To
what extent do colonized women perceive racism as the source of their
oppression? (3) To what extent do Aboriginal women view male domina-
tion within their own Aboriginal societies as the sole source of the oppres-

12 / The Fourth World

sion? (4) How do Aboriginal women articulate racism and gender oppres-
sion?
There are five chapters in this book. Chapter One examines
contemporary feminist theories and methodology. Chapter Two
begins by providing a background in the origins of the Aboriginal
women’s movement in Canada and then examines various theo-
ries on Aboriginal women’s oppression. Chapter Three describes
the methodology of the research project and provides the results
of the data collection process. Chapter Four summarizes the research and
formulates an alternative theory—the Fourth World perspective of Cana-
da’s Aboriginal women. Chapter Five concludes with suggestions as to how
Aboriginal people, both women and men, might go forward to form
political strategies for social change and liberation.
Please note that the terms, “Indian, Native, Aboriginal, Indigenous
and First Nations” are used interchangeably in this discussion of Canada’s
Aboriginal inhabitants. The term “Indigenous” has been adopted by the
United Nations as a working definition to describe colonized peoples
globally (International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs 1989; 1990:
231). The other terms are used by scholars and Aboriginal people them-
selves.

Introduction / 13
 1. Contemporary Feminist Theory

Given the difficulty in summarizing the plurality of feminism, it is neces-

sary to zero in on a framework that can be used as the backbone for
discussion, while acknowledging that not all feminist groups fit neatly into
this framework. The range of feminism is broad and varied. At the
time this project was started, Jaggar (1988) formed the basis of
discussion in Women’s Studies courses. To some critics, Jaggar’s
analysis may be outdated, but by the same token, the same could
be said of Marxist theory, which forms the basis of discussion in
many academic writings.
Although this book is not about feminism, the situation of Aboriginal
women is sadly lacking in feminist discussions of women’s oppression. The
multi-oppression of Aboriginal women does not fall neatly into most
feminist theories. A distinctly Aboriginal worldview is needed. Conse-
quently, the four main schools of thought that inform the discussion in most
feminist writings form the foundation for the development of an anti-thesis.
For the purposes of this book, Jaggar’s (1988) approach will be fol-
lowed, one which Holland (1990) describes in the following manner:

In Feminist Politics and Human Nature, Jaggar defines, compares,

and criticizes four “schools” of (Anglo-American) feminist politi-
cal thought—liberal, Marxist, radical, and socialist—and corre-
lates each with a specific doctrine about what constitutes human
personhood. (6)

Liberal Feminism
Liberal feminism is grounded in the basic moral and political values of
liberalism: justice, equality and freedom for all. Liberal feminists do not
challenge existing institutions but rather see reform in legislation as a
solution. Lengermann and Niebrugge-Brantley (1992) state:

Contemporary Feminist Theory / 15

 Liberal feminism then is consistent with the dominant American
ethos in its basic acceptance of America’s institutions and culture,
its reformist orientation, and its appeal to the values of individual-
ism, choice, freedom and equality of opportunity. (466)

Jaggar (1988) believes that liberalism and capitalism complement each

other:

Historically, the liberal tradition in political theory has always

been associated with the capitalist economic system. Liberal po-
litical theory emerged with the rise of capitalism, it expressed the
needs of the developing capitalist class and the liberal values of
autonomy and self-fulfilment have often been linked with
the right to private property. (34)

Liberty, then, is the guiding principle behind liberalism. Every indi-

vidual should have the freedom to do what is good for that individual;
every human possesses the capacity to reason for themselves as to what is
good for them. This right to self-fulfilment should not be in any
way restricted by those in authority, but rather every individual
should have an equal opportunity to achieve that right, regardless
of their sex, once the age of reason has been reached.
Jaggar (1988) and Holland (1990), however, believe that there are
limitations to this “abstract individualism.” In particular, they criticize the
notion that all individuals can attain fulfilment despite their cir-
cumstances and environment. Choice is not always an option. As
well, they believe that liberalism is male-biased and has a middle-
class perspective. The tendency for individuals to be egoistic has
been recognized by some theorists, but most believe that individu-
als do have the mental capacity to put others first:

Only a few liberal philosophers, such as Hobbes and Bentham,

claim that people always act in what they perceive to be their own
self-interest. Most of the other major liberal theorists, such as
Locke, Kant, Mill, and Rawls, conceive people as able to act on a
moral principle of impartiality; which requires them to refrain
from placing their own selfish interests before the interests of
others. (Jaggar 1988: 30)

Liberal feminists believe that men and women have the same mental
capacity but that women have been unable to reach their full potential

16 / The Fourth World

because of their role in the home and family. Liberal feminists believe that
the sex roles perpetuated by the family and public learning institutions
intensify this problem for women and that men have more opportunities
to exercise and attain their full mental capacity because they are not
confined to the home. According to Jaggar, what the liberal feminists
advocate is an androgynous model of society.

Marxist Feminism
Unlike liberal feminism, which appears to support capitalism and the
status quo by seeking only reform, Marxist feminism challenges the capi-
talist system. Jaggar (1988) contrasts Marxism with liberal feminism:

Contrary to liberal theory, which is associated historically with

capitalism and indeed often provides a rationale for it, Marxism
offers a devastating critique of the capitalist system. Marxism
charges, moreover, that the liberal theory employed to justify the
bourgeois revolutions is mere egalitarian rhetoric, serving only to
disguise the deep inequalities that inevitably characterize all socie-
ties divided by class. (51)

According to some authors, “Marxian feminism brings together Marxian

class analysis and feminist social protest” (Lengermann and Niebrugge-
Brantley 1992: 466) to explain gender inequality. However, Jaggar believes
there are problems with Marxist theory because of its ambiguity, arguing
that his various interpreters and revisers often disagree as to what Marx
actually said.
The rise of capitalism was seen to alter the value of woman’s work, as it
was divided into a separate “private” sphere from men’s work, which is in
the public sphere. Kronemann (1981) points out that, “Inherent in this
argument, and in most Marxist writing, is a sharp dichotomy between the
family and society, between ‘personal’ and ‘public’ life, of which only the
latter is seen to really concern socialists” (223). This argument is thematic
in Marxist feminist theories. According to Chafetz (1988):

Marxist-feminism recognizes that patriarchy predates capitalism.

It is seen as rooted in the institution of the family. In various ways,
theorists in this tradition suggest that women’s childbearing and
lactating functions affect the division of labor between the sexes,
leaving women a preponderance of the domestic and childbearing
tasks, regardless of what other labor they perform. Therefore, the

Contemporary Feminist Theory / 17

 roots of gender inequality are to be found in a sexual division of
labor in which males provide much or all of the family subsist-
ence. This division of labor is posited to arise with the dawning of
private property and to be seriously exacerbated by the particular
system of private property known as capitalism. (37)

Theorists in this tradition believe that women’s procreation and

caregiving roles prevented them from working outside the home consign-
ing them to the private sphere, while the men were seen to be outside this
realm, in the public sphere. However, Marx has been often criticized by
feminists for the male-bias in his theory of social oppression; he did not
consider women’s labour in the home to be part of the production process.
However, as Jaggar’s (1988) analysis of Marxist feminism suggests, “Engels’
account of the origins of women’s subordination has been of tremendous
historical importance. Most Marxist and much feminist theory has taken
this into account as its starting point … [and] together with Marx’s …
reveals … important Marxist assumptions about women’s nature” (64).
Engels’ claim that the family unit and monogamous marriages are respon-
sible for the subjugation of women appears to be what feminists echo. As
well, the notion of class associated with the rise of capitalism is common
among Marxist feminists. Thus, what Marxist feminists use is a theory of
social oppression to explain gender inequality:

The solution for gender inequality is the destruction of class

oppression. This destruction will come through revolutionary
action by a united wage-earning class, including both men and
women. Any direct mobilization of women against men is
counterrevolutionary, because it divides the potentially revolu-
tionary working class. (Lengermann and Niebrugge-Brantley 1992:
469)

According to Marxist theorists, in a capitalist society people are op-

pressed by classism and not necessarily because of gender. The by-product
of a class system is gender inequality. However, though theorists of the
Marxist tradition may be able to explain the causes of gender inequality,
they do not explore why women in the upper classes tend to exploit
women in the lower classes. This exploitation of women by women, also a
by-product of the class system, is probably an experience that is more
common to women of minority groups, a reality that has been overlooked.

18 / The Fourth World

 Radical Feminism
Radical feminists believe that patriarchy, with its pattern of domination
and subordination, is the cause of women’s oppression. Patriarchy places
the male in positions of authority over the female. Violence, or the threat
of violence, plays a significant part in the maintenance of this system.
In most feminist writings, The Second Sex, by Simone de Beauvoir
(1949), is a major reference and is often a point of departure for the
discussion of radical feminism. According to Sydie, de Beauvoir questions
why women have accepted their position, “because one is not born, but
rather becomes a woman” (Sydie 1988: 139). The relations between the
sexes are seen as central to the subordination and oppression of women.
Male dominance in sexual relations, in other words what happens in the
bedroom, and acts of male violence and abuse form the basis of oppression,
according to radical feminists. There are some concerns about radical
feminists’ prescriptions for women’s liberation, i.e., alternative forms of
reproduction, lesbianism and sisterhood. Women’s communes and lesbi-
anism may liberate women from male dominance, but not all women
desire such living arrangements.

Socialist Feminism
Socialist feminists borrow from and combine radical feminism and Marx-
ism to describe and explain gender oppression. From Jaggar (1988),
Lengermann and Niebrugge-Brantley (1992), and MacKinnon (1989), we
learn that this synthesis has not been fully developed. According to
MacKinnon:

Attempts to create a synthesis between Marxism and feminism,

termed socialist-feminism, have recognized neither the separate
integrity of each theory nor the depth of antagonism between
them.… Most attempts at synthesis try to integrate or explain the
appeal of feminism by incorporating issues feminism identifies as
central—the family, housework, sexuality, reproduction,
socialization, personal life—within an essentially unchanged
Marxian analysis. (11)

There does not appear to be much difference between Marxist femi-

nism and socialist feminism, as both combine Marxism and feminism. In
his analysis of race, class and gender, Bourgeault (1989) also advances this
position:

Contemporary Feminist Theory / 19

 Some feminist anthropologists (Marxist) are advancing a more
accurate historical materialist interpretation of women’s status in
pre-capitalist societies.… These analysts also recognize that gen-
der relations must be analyzed as part of a total system, and not in
terms of the structure and function of roles and relationships
separate from political and economic influences. (88)

However, Bourgeault challenges the universality of patriarchy as a

system of male domination, as some feminists have posited. As well,
Bourgeault claims that, “unlike gender oppression, which is rooted in pre-
capitalist societies and the transition to early class formations, race oppres-
sion is closely linked to the rise of capitalist relations of exploitation” (89).
Bourgeault is critical of what he terms “Western” feminism’s theoretical
approaches because of the tendency of feminists to treat male domination
as a distinctly separate and hierarchical system. Bourgeault’s position is
well-taken because the main criticism from women of colour is that
feminists tend to ignore racism or treat it as separate from sexism and
classism in their analysis of gender oppression.

Critique of Feminist Theory and Methodology

The publication from which Bourgeault’s (1989) article, “Race, class and
gender: Colonial domination of Indian Women,” was taken includes ten
other authors and covers a wide range of issues. Several contributors are
women of colour who criticize the feminist movement for marginalizing
their concerns and side-stepping the issue of racism. For example, Thornhill
(1989) states:

[W]oman has become synonymous with White Women, whereas

Women of Colour, such as myself, are seen as Others, as
nonpersons, as dehumanized beings—or sometimes not seen at
all.… We Black Women, it would appear, have no role in the
finalized script of Canadian Women’s Studies. We have no speak-
ing parts. Despite our unique experience of Triple Oppression—
on the counts of race, sex, and class—and despite our special
survival skills, which are indispensable cornerstones to the evolv-
ing documentary of female experiences, the Women’s Movement
has failed to generate any in-depth analysis of Black female experi-
ence. (27)

Thornhill believes that the history of Black women in America and their

20 / The Fourth World

struggles for survival have not been recognized as part of women’s experi-
ences.
Furthermore, race and sex cannot be taken as separate issues
in the analysis of women’s oppression, which Thornhill believes
has been the case in white feminist theorizing:

White women insist that sex and race are two separate issues. And
yet, in the words of Black feminist writer, bell hooks: “At the
moment of my birth, two factors determined my destiny, my
having been born Black, and my having been born female.”
Clearly, race and sex are two immutable facets of human identity
and the struggles to end them are naturally entwined. (28)

hook’s (1981) analysis of the history of the feminist movement in the

United States and the relationship with the Black women’s movement
shows that indeed Black women have been excluded from the broader
white women’s movement. If they were included, Black women often
remained segregated and marginalized at feminist meetings. hooks (1981)
believes that American white feminists tend to promote their own inter-
ests:

At the beginning of the 20th century, white women suffragists

were eager to advance their own cause at the expense of black
people. In 1903 … a southern suffragist urged the enfranchise-
ment of white women on the grounds that it “would insure the
immediate and durable white supremacy.” (128)

American white women were outraged that Black men rather than
white women would be given the right to vote and, in fact, did not
advocate that voting rights be extended to include all women. hooks
further believes that both the Black civil rights movement and the women’s
rights movement have become weak, if not dead. She argues that collective
feminist activism is not possible if only one group advances its rights and
ignores the rights of others. She insists that American white feminists have
achieved a certain degree of social equality but have not advanced the
plight of Afro-American women. Competition between the two women’s
groups “for male favor” (hooks 1981: 156) is believed to be one cause.
Another antagonism, according to hooks, is that slavery advanced
white women’s status and domination over both Black men and Black
women, and white women did not want to relinquish that status. hooks is
disillusioned with the racism and classism prevalent in the women’s move-

Contemporary Feminist Theory / 21

ment and cautions that unless these issues are dealt with, the women’s
movement will remain a “sham,” as it will be representative only of white
women’s desires. Equal pay with men will not necessarily mean liberation
if racism and classism are not addressed. For women of colour, sexism,
racism and classism are intertwined and cannot be treated separately in the
analysis of women’s oppression.
In the Canadian context, the most vocal groups of women of colour
appear to be Black feminists, Asian-Canadian feminists, and other immi-
grant women who feel that their concerns are being ignored and
marginalized by the broader feminist movement. A detailed critique of
feminist theory by Aboriginal women is almost non-existent.
Within the American context, the problem facing Black feminists
appears to be one of exclusion. In The Black Woman Cross-Culturally,
Steady (1981) has compiled the works of mainly (but not exclusively)
Black women, to show the diversity of perspectives and roles in their
respective societies. In this study, Rosalyn Terborg-Penn (1981: 301–15)
documents the history of the Black women’s movement in the United
States from 1830–1920. What is most profound in her report is the racial
discrimination and exclusion experienced by Afro-American women in
their attempts to get involved with the white feminist movement. There
were several instances where Black feminists were asked not to attend
certain conferences for fear they would jeopardize white women’s demands
for equality. When they were allowed to attend, they were often asked to sit
in places reserved for Black women. Sojourner Truth’s experience is one
such example:

Sojourner Truth was one of the few black women noted by

historians to have frequented women’s rights conventions. She,
however, was not always welcomed. Her narrative reveals that the
white women at the Akron, Ohio, Women’s Rights Convention in
1851 beseeched the chairman to forbid her to speak before the
group. They felt she would ruin the movement by giving the
public the impression that their cause was “mixed with abolition
and niggers.” (Terborg-Penn 1981: 304)

These exclusionary tactics resulted in Black women forming their own

women’s groups, or self-help groups with men, because they did not get
support from white women, who were supposedly fighting for all women’s
liberation.

22 / The Fourth World