A STUDY OF SIX FEMINIST ART COLLECTIVES ON THE CANADIAN PRAIRIES,
ACTIVE BETWEEN 1980–2005
LORALEE EDWARDS
Bachelor of Fine Arts, University of Lethbridge, 2005
A Thesis
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies
of the University of Lethbridge Studies
in Partial Fulfilment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS, WOMEN’S STUDIES
Women’s Studies Program
University of Lethbridge
LETHBRIDGE, ALBERTA, CANADA
 Loralee Edwards, 2008
A STUDY OF SIX ART FEMINIST COLLECTIVES ON THE CANADIAN PRAIRIES,
ACTIVE BETWEEN 1980–2005
LORALEE EDWARDS
Approved:
* (Print name)
(Signature)
(Rank)
(Highest
Degree)
Date
______________________ _____________________ ________ ________ ________
* Supervisor
______________________ _____________________ ________ ________ ________
* Thesis Examination
Committee Member
______________________ _____________________ ________ ________ ________
* External Examiner
______________________ _____________________ ________ ________ ________
* Chair, Thesis Examination
Committee
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to Paul, who was my editor, friend, cook, driver, and support through this process and always;
and to my immediate and lovely family – all 16 of you,
who encouraged me through this process;
AND
to the women who shared their stories, experiences, and insights with me, I am honoured to have
met each of you.
iii
ABSTRACT
This thesis attempts to theorize some of the questions surrounding art collectives by examining six
feminist art collectives (Adamant Eve, The (
)ette Collective, Finger in the Dyke, Herland, the
Saskatoon Women’s Calendar Collective, and Sugar and Splice) that were active on the Canadian
prairies between 1980 and 2005. The purpose of my research is two-fold: First, to describe and
document the structural operations of six contemporary feminist collectives involved in cultural
activism on the Canadian prairies; and, second, to study the operating structure of these collectives.
Specifically, it examines the ways in which collectives engage with activism, either theoretically or
practically, three factors resulting in either conflict or cohesion within a collective, and the strengths
and weaknesses of sociability in feminist collectives.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would especially like to acknowledge the following people who were instrumental in the
compilation of this research: Dr. Carol Williams, my supervisor, for inspiration, advice, and encouragement; Prof. Mary Kavanagh and Dr. Muriel Mellow, for their invaluable direction; Prof.
Dagmar Dahle and Dr. Josephine Mills, for allowing me to independently study with them; Dr.
Joanne Fiske, for providing emotional support and a space to write; Dr. Dayna Daniels, for stopping by often to ask how I was doing; Kelly Andres, who inspired and began this journey with me;
The ( )ette Collective: Kelly Andres, Cayley Sorochan, Jen Rogan, Kim Grift, Sylvia Power, and
Jenna Montgomery, for inspiring this research; Crystal Phillips, my office mate, with whom I conspired to begin a fourth wave; Brian Heinrich, for his invaluable discussions and editing; Shannon
Phillips, for editing and encouragement; and Heather Lidberg, my research assistant, who travelled
the prairies and British Columbia, camped in my Westfalia, edited videos on various picnic tables
in various campgrounds, kept smiling and kept me smiling through it all.
I am grateful for the financial support of: the Social Science Research Council of Humanities, Alberta Foundation for the Arts, University of Lethbridge’s Keith and Hope Ferguson Award,
University of Lethbridge Graduate Scholarships, and the Alberta Person’s Case Scholarship.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page ................................................................................................................................................. i
Signature/Approval page ........................................................................................................................ ii
Dedication ............................................................................................................................................. iii
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. iv
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................ v
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... x
Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Setting It Up .............................................................................................................................. 1
Why Feminist Art Collectives?................................................................................... 2
The Activist Intent of this Research ......................................................................................... 3
Collectives in this Study ............................................................................................................ 4
Alberta ......................................................................................................................... 4
The ( )ette Collective ................................................................................... 4
Adamant Eve ................................................................................................. 5
Herland .......................................................................................................... 5
Saskatchewan ............................................................................................................... 6
Saskatoon Women’s Calendar Collective .................................................... 6
Manitoba...................................................................................................................... 6
Finger in the Dyke ......................................................................................... 6
Sugar and Splice ............................................................................................ 7
Other Interviews Conducted .................................................................................................... 7
Dr. Joan Borsa ............................................................................................................ 7
Dr. Marie Lovrod........................................................................................................ 8
Overview of Canadian Feminism and Feminist Activism ....................................................... 9
Canadian Feminist Activism’s Diversity ..................................................................... 9
History of Canadian Feminism ................................................................................ 10
First Wave.................................................................................................... 10
Second Wave............................................................................................... 11
The Second Wave in Canada ..................................................................... 12
Third Wave ................................................................................................. 14
Fourth Wave? .............................................................................................. 15
‘Post’............................................................................................................. 16
Prairie Contexts ...................................................................................................................... 17
Geography ................................................................................................................. 17
Culture ....................................................................................................................... 17
Politics and Economics ............................................................................................. 18
Government Support of the Arts ............................................................................. 19
Individual Support of the Arts .................................................................................. 20
Thesis Map ............................................................................................................................. 20
Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................................... 22
Why It Is Important to Study Feminist Art Collectives ........................................................ 22
Descriptions ............................................................................................................................ 23
The Collective Structure ........................................................................................... 23
Feminist/Activist Art ................................................................................................. 25
Feminist Art Collectives ............................................................................................ 25
The Distinction between Collaboration and Collectivity......................................... 26
Art Collectives, Not Feminist or Activist .................................................................. 27
Power Structures ....................................................................................................... 27
vi
Decision-Making Models ....................................................................................................... 28
Consensus Model...................................................................................................... 29
Consensual Model .................................................................................................... 29
Feminist Bureaucratic/Modified Models ................................................................. 30
Hybrid Model ........................................................................................................... 30
Product or Process ...................................................................................... 31
External Pressures ....................................................................................... 32
The Individual within the Collective ...................................................................................... 32
Collective Intelligence............................................................................................................. 33
Issues for Artists Working Collectively .................................................................................. 33
Competition .............................................................................................................. 33
Funding ...................................................................................................................... 34
Is it Art? .................................................................................................................................. 34
Key Elements for a Successful Art Collective........................................................................ 35
Chapter 3: Methods and Methodology ............................................................................................... 36
Feminist Standpoint Epistemology ........................................................................................ 36
Methods of Data Collection ................................................................................................... 37
Oral History/Qualitative Interviews.......................................................................... 37
Insider/Outsider ........................................................................................................ 38
Situating Myself in my Research ............................................................................................ 39
My Story .................................................................................................................... 39
My Politics ................................................................................................................. 39
Why I Undertook This Research............................................................................. 40
Awareness of Bias ..................................................................................................... 40
Activism of This Project............................................................................................ 41
Research Design ..................................................................................................................... 42
Research Subject Criteria .......................................................................................... 42
Locating Research Subjects....................................................................................... 42
Homogeneity of Interview Subjects ............................................................ 44
Collectives I did not Interview .................................................................... 45
Ephemeral Traces ....................................................................................... 47
Pre-Interview Research ............................................................................................. 47
Field Methods ......................................................................................................................... 49
Contact with Interviewees ......................................................................................... 49
Ethics ......................................................................................................................... 49
Interview Questions .................................................................................................. 50
Interview Process .................................................................................................................... 51
Style ........................................................................................................................... 51
Double Interviews ..................................................................................................... 51
Locations ................................................................................................................... 52
Length ........................................................................................................................ 53
Recording Methods ................................................................................................... 53
Gathering Other Data ............................................................................................................. 54
Data Analysis........................................................................................................................... 54
Upon Reflection...................................................................................................................... 55
Use of Language/Questions ...................................................................................... 55
Time .......................................................................................................................... 56
Sharing/Archiving the Data ....................................................................................... 56
Researcher/Assistant Relationship............................................................................ 57
The Beginning ............................................................................................. 57
Attempting Collaboration............................................................................ 57
vii
The Complications – Power Dynamics ...................................................... 57
Equality ........................................................................................................ 58
Chapter 4: Engaging Theoretical and Practical ................................................................................... 59
Definitions............................................................................................................................... 59
Theoretical and Practical .......................................................................................... 59
Influence of Women’s Studies and University on Engagement with
Theory ......................................................................................................... 60
Theoretical Collectives.............................................................................................. 61
Practical Collectives................................................................................................... 62
Engagement with Activism ..................................................................................................... 62
How Engagement Affects Decision-Making Process............................................... 63
Intuitive Hybrid Decision-Making............................................................................ 64
Evolution from Theoretical to Practical ................................................................................ 65
Saskatoon Women’s Calendar Collective ................................................................ 66
Herland ..................................................................................................................... 67
The ( )ette Collective............................................................................................... 69
Sugar and Splice ........................................................................................................ 70
Finger in the Dyke .................................................................................................... 71
Uniqueness of Adamant Eve .................................................................................... 71
The Effect of the Individual on the Collective ...................................................................... 72
Importance of this Data.......................................................................................................... 73
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 73
Chapter 5: Conflict and Cohesion ....................................................................................................... 75
Discussing and Understanding Conflict ................................................................................. 75
Structure and Power in Collective Organizations .................................................... 75
Various Levels of Comfort ..................................................................................................... 78
Comfortable with Conflict ........................................................................................ 78
Conflict Is Openly Expressed ..................................................................... 78
Long-term Relationships ............................................................................. 79
Leaving the Collective ................................................................................. 79
Commitment to Collectivity ........................................................................ 81
Discomfort................................................................................................................. 82
Would Not Discuss Conflict .................................................................................... 83
In Retrospect........................................................................................................................... 83
Three Factors that Affect Collective Cohesion ..................................................................... 84
Factor One: Collective Structure .............................................................................. 84
Size ............................................................................................................... 84
SWCC.......................................................................................................... 84
One Task/Set Process ................................................................................. 85
Issues with Set Process ................................................................................ 86
Tight Deadlines ........................................................................................... 86
Undefined Deadlines .................................................................................. 87
Working ‘Individually’ ................................................................................ 88
Factor Two: Group Homogeneity............................................................................ 89
Seeking Members who ‘Fit’......................................................................... 89
Differing Political/Philosophical Views ...................................................... 90
Diversity Issues ............................................................................................ 92
Social Class/Education/Age......................................................................... 94
Sexual Orientation ....................................................................................... 94
Race.............................................................................................................. 95
Work and Life Experience ......................................................................... 96
viii
Creative Tensions ........................................................................................ 97
Aesthetic Differences .................................................................................. 97
Factor Three: Established Relationships.................................................................. 99
Time............................................................................................................. 99
Long View .................................................................................................... 99
Trust and Care............................................................................................. 99
Short-Term View ....................................................................................... 101
Benefits of Conflict .................................................................................... 101
Conclusion ................................................................................................. 102
Chapter 6: Sociability and Pleasure ................................................................................................... 103
Advantages of Sociability ...................................................................................................... 104
Personal Support..................................................................................................... 104
Social Benefits ......................................................................................................... 104
To Learn/Engage with Something New ................................................................. 105
Only Woman Atmosphere..................................................................................... 106
Working Together for Support .............................................................................. 106
Continuing Academic ............................................................................................. 107
How Sociability and Pleasure are Facilitated and Achieved ............................................... 108
Potluck, the Metaphor ............................................................................................ 108
Potluck, the Food .................................................................................................... 108
Why does the potluck persist as a social tool when women gather? .................... 108
The Evolution of the ‘Potluck’ ............................................................................... 109
Alternative Social Engagements ........................................................................................... 110
Internet/E-mail/Mailing Lists/Chat Rooms ............................................................ 110
Facebook/Web sites/Blogs........................................................................ 112
Web Chat .................................................................................................. 112
Technology .............................................................................................................. 113
Sociability Issues ................................................................................................................... 113
Not Looking for Sociability .................................................................................... 113
Addition of Staff Members ..................................................................................... 114
Effect of Institutions ................................................................................................ 115
Pleasure ................................................................................................................................. 116
Support .................................................................................................................... 118
Busy, but… ............................................................................................................... 119
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 119
Chapter 7: Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 120
Findings of This Research .................................................................................................... 120
Thoughts for Further Study.................................................................................................. 123
References .......................................................................................................................................... 125
Appendix A ........................................................................................................................................ 135
Appendix B ........................................................................................................................................ 145
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 63
x
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
It is a game of inferences, speculation, lost memory, and lost lives. What we have
learned in pursing these stories is that women’s history is fundamentally a chronicle of absence. With a few notable exceptions, women are not talked about; their
experiences are not recorded; their names are not even attached to their own photographs.
The Saskatoon Women’s Calendar Collective, 2003
1
The prairies are so under studied, we have a very short memory and it’s very selective and it always privileges the present, so I’m really glad that you’re doing this
project, not that I’d consider myself someone important in prairie feminist history,
but it is a really important history to chronicle.
Anna Carastathis, 2006
2
Setting It Up
In 2005, five women, members of The ( )ette (blankette) Collective in Lethbridge, Alberta
organized a feminist video festival. Held between September 28th and 30th, the event showcased the
work of local, national, and international independent artists. Entries were solicited by an international call for submissions. Screenings on all three evenings of the event were filled to capacity, and
students from the University of Lethbridge wrote about the event in their classes. Organizers received e-mail thanking them for planning such an event in Lethbridge, and a review article appeared in the local newspaper. By all accounts, the event was a success.
Yet, without permanent documentation, cultural events such as The ( )ette Collective film
festival simply disappear. Involved with this group of artists as a founding member of The ( )ette
Collective, I was inspired to study feminist collectives and cultural activism on the Canadian prairies, focussing on the years between 1980 and 2005. While general histories of Canadian women
are numerous, ‘little historical research has been done on the modern feminist movement’ in Canada (Taylor & Owram, 1994, p. 204). By collecting 24 individual histories of prairie women actively
1
(Holmlund & Youngberg, 2003, p. 251).
Anna Carastathis is one of the interviewees in this research project; this quote is from the
interview transcript.
2
1
engaged in contemporary feminist art collectives, this research will contribute to the documentation
and study of Canadian feminist activism.
Why Feminist Art Collectives?
I undertook this research project because I believe the issues of feminist collectivity are
complex; therefore, this study aims to discover what can be learned about collectives and women’s
experiences within them. My research identifies and documents six contemporary feminist (and
culturally activist) art collectives operating in the Canadian prairie provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan,
and Manitoba) in order to record a history of the collectives and the events and projects they have
completed.3 Incorporating oral histories collected from 24 individual members of six different prairie collectives, this thesis provides a record of these collectives, which permits insight into prairie
feminists who use art to work for social change. Prior to this project, no history of prairie art collectives had been documented or studied.
Art collectives organize to challenge the hierarchal structures of art galleries and museums
and to confront the Kantian concept of the heroic lone (male) genius artist, heightened in the modernist era and still prevalent in the art world (Guerrilla Girls, 2004). Many feminist artists in the
1970s organized into collectives to resist sexism and to provide women access to exhibition spaces
(Nesmer, 1975); even today, feminist collectives such as the Guerrilla Girls in the United States
continue the fight against the sexism and inequality that pervade the administrative operations of
galleries and museums.4
My interest in feminist art collectives, particularly on the Canadian prairies, arose from my
personal involvement with The ( )ette Collective in Lethbridge, Alberta. First, I simply wanted to
find other art activist collectives on the prairies to join, or perhaps even to create a social network to
3
For the sake of readability I refer to ‘cultural activist art collectives’ hereafter simply as col-
lectives.
4
Artist-run Centres (ARCs) also provide alternative exhibition spaces for emerging and established artists alike. ARCs in Alberta include Trap\door-Lethbridge, Latitude 53 in Edmonton,
and New Gallery and Truck in Calgary. In Saskatchewan, there are AKA in Saskatoon and Neutral
Ground in Regina, and in Manitoba, Plug-In and Idea Art, both in Winnipeg.
2
combat the isolation that I and members of my collective felt as feminist artists in a largely conservative environment. Second, I wanted to discover how other collectives managed conflict. At one
point, The (
)ette Collective experienced internal discord, the repercussions of which almost
broke up the group. Our desire to continue to create art together allowed us to overcome those
difficulties, but the incident fuelled my desire to learn about other collectives and to find out how
they deal with conflict and power dynamics.
In Chapter Three, I discuss in detail my search criteria to find collectives on the prairies.
Here, I briefly describe the collectives I interviewed as well as why I chose each group for my research. All six of the collectives studied in this project have created or promoted art for cultural activism within the last 25 years.
The Activist Intent of this Research
This research project is an extension of my personal feminist activism, and the results will
include a documentary video, a Web site, and a multi-event exhibition in addition to this thesis. I
have chosen these four media to disseminate my findings, for it is vital that these collectives, their
actions, and their shared experiences are not only recorded but that knowledge about them is made
available to a wider public audience. Since research about feminist activism is concerned with social
and cultural change, making this work, which chronicles and examines feminist activism on the Canadian prairies, available to a broad audience not only to recognizes publicly the actions of these
women but also creates spaces for further activism.
Women I interviewed repeatedly stated that the Web was a great way to connect with
women in other places and to share knowledge and experiences. Jen, founding member of Sugar
and Splice, described the importance of connecting through the Web:
It’s almost like support just to know [other women] are out there. . . . I was talking
to my friend, and we have friends that are not doing their Masters [degrees], when
they finished their [undergraduate degrees] they went to work, and so we don’t
know where the feminists are. . . . We are not visible to each other because we all
have different realities, we’re working, we are burnt out. . . . If there was just something there to learn that people are still out there, to make women, feminists, visible – just for a security blanket. Cyber-networking is good because no one has any
3
money, and I really like the idea of taking up cyberspace, and I like the idea of
someone else being way out ‘there’ and Googling and being able to find out about
feminist radio, feminist film, feminist art, and then finding links to other women in
other places. . . . I just like the idea of taking up space and the idea that what
you’re doing is taking up a chunk of history. (Interview, p. 24)
As I travelled across Canada to collect my research data, I heard the same sort of sentiments from the women I met; they asked me what other women were doing, in fact, their desire –
and excitement to discover and share stories of feminist activism on the prairies was the inspiration
for my plans to create a self-reporting, networking Web site for feminist art activist collectives on
the prairies upon completion of this project. The Web is not only a place where women can network with other women, but it is also a safe space for women to be feminists (Duncan, 2005), something they might not experience in their communities
The results of this research are not simply about the participants; they are also for the participants (Hesse-Biber, Leavy, & Yaiser, 2004). This research is a tribute to the prairie women in
Canada who have organized, engaged, and promoted feminist art for cultural activism; it represents
their events, actions, and collective work, which – though largely unrecorded – is significant.
Collectives in this Study
Alberta
In Alberta, I interviewed 11 women from three different collectives: The ( )ette Collective,
Adamant Eve, and Herland.
The ( )ette Collective
The ( )ette Collective was established in 2003 by four women: Kim Grift, Jen Rogan, Cayley Sorochan, and myself; we were all undergraduate fine arts students at the University of Lethbridge. The membership evolved and, in the summer of 2005, I interviewed the members at that
time: Kelly Andres, Jenna Montgomery, Sylvia Power, and Cayley Sorochan.5 The mandate of the
collective is to promote feminism and cultural activism through our art projects, public performances, and events, all of which interrogate language as a site of power.
5
Current members are: Kelly Andres, Hannah Wigle, and myself.
4
Adamant Eve
Jana Razga transformed Adamant Eve, an Edmonton feminist radio show, into a collective
in 1994.6 The collective includes disc jockeys and producers who collectively produce a half-hour
weekly feminist spoken-word program on CJSR, Edmonton’s campus and community radio station,
based at the University of Alberta. Despite annual changes in collective members and pressure
from the radio station to operate under a hierarchy, Adamant Eve has adamantly remained collectively organized for 17 years. I also interviewed Anna Carastathis, an Adamant Eve member from
2001 to 2003.7
Herland
Herland organizes the annual Herland Film and Video Festival in Calgary. Established in
1989 by the Calgary Status of Women Action Committee in partnership with the National Film
Board’s Studio D, the festival has grown into an annual week-long event featuring several evenings
of feminist film and video, workshops, and a gala celebration. Herland ’s structure is different from
that of the other collectives I examined in this thesis. Herland has a small core group (of 4–8) that
make day-to-day decisions and organize events, as well as a membership of over 400 individuals,
comprised for the most part of an e-mail list used to advertise events and call for volunteers. In
2006, Herland ’s membership at large was consulted via e-mail for their opinions about the use of
the word ‘feminist’ in the title of its festival.8 I interviewed four current members in May 2006: Sha-
6
Also collective members when Jana was a member: Rosaleen and Candace (last names
not available).
7
Carastathis is currently a PhD student at McGill and a collective member of the Graduate
Group for Feminist Scholarship, blog spot http://ggfsmcgill.blogspot.com/2006/06/here-are-someimages-from-yesterdays.html
8
Herland ’s ‘membership at large’ includes the women and men who attend the festival (at
the doors of every festival they conduct a membership drive; membership is $1 and providing an email address); so the core basically polled their audience to see if including the word ‘feminist’ was
important to Herland ’s festival title. The results of the e-mail poll were split 50/50 and the festival
co-ordinator at the time made the decision to exclude ‘feminist’ from the title.
5
ron Boutlier, Tamrin Hildebrandt, Sandra Law, and Marie;9 I also interviewed past members
Michelle J. Wong and Corrine Cornish.10
Saskatchewan
Saskatoon Women’s Calendar Collective
In Saskatchewan, I interviewed six members of the Saskatoon Women’s Calendar Collec-
tive: Amy Jo Ehman, Sheila Gillgannon, Teresa Harley, Deanna Herman, and Shirley Martin. I
was not able to coordinate interviews with other current members: Cheryl Avery, Patty Williams
(Nova Scotia), or Roma Kail (Toronto). Formed in 1975, this collective produces an annual calendar featuring the histories of 52 different women from across Canada, stories that, save for this medium, would otherwise be lost. My research explores how the Saskatoon Women’s Calendar Col-
lective has maintained longevity and how the collective has evolved over 33 years.
11
Manitoba
In Manitoba, I interviewed seven women from two different Winnipeg collectives: Finger
in the Dyke and Sugar and Splice.
Finger in the Dyke
Finger in the Dyke creates performances that investigate and challenge socially constructed
gender stereotypes. This collective has had the same, and only, two members – Shawna Dempsey
9
Due to personal reasons, Marie provided her first name only – although she did not request anonymity in this document or the eventual documentary.
10
For the following list as well as the future collective member lists women’s names appear
in the order I find them in the archive files, not alphabetically. Members of Herland ’s core over
the years: Kelly Langard, Michelle J. Wong, Michele L, Alexandria Patience, Mellisa Luntnen,
Sharon Stevens Corrine Cornish Colleen Bell, Carrie Blaug, Sandra Law, Anne Marie Nakagawa,
Heather Walker, Carrie Blaug, Emmanuelle Piron, Jaylene Scheible, Cate Hanington, Charlene
Hellson, Kristina Kassey, Nazili Izmirli, Patricia Duquette, Sharon Boutlier, Tamrin Hildebrandt,
Sabrina Jayabal, Natasha Shannon. Ravind Din from the NFB’s Studio D was a founding member.
11
Founding members are: Erin Shoemaker, Colleen Pollreis, Beth Foster, June Bantjes,
Gwen Morrison-Gray, ‘and collective children’. There is an extensive list of the hundreds of collective members over their 33-year history in Inspiring women: A celebration of Herstory, written by
two past members of the collective, Mona Holmlund and Gail Youngberg, and published by
Coteau Books (the publisher of their annual calendar) in 2003.
6
and Lorri Millan – since it formed in 1989, and has made a conscious decision to create and curate
art almost exclusively as a collective.
Sugar and Splice
Sugar and Splice, a collective formed by professors and undergraduate students at the University of Winnipeg in 2004, organizes an annual film festival featuring local and international artists. This young collective has gone through many member changes in its short three years of operation. I interviewed the four current members: Jennifer (Jenny) Birsch, Allyson Bile, Alyson (Ally)
Brickey, and Jen Porter; I also interviewed Joey Jakob, who was a member in 2004–2005.12
Other Interviews Conducted
I also interviewed two professors from the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Dr.
Joan Borsa and Dr. Marie Lovrod.
Dr. Joan Borsa
Dr. Borsa, head of the Women’s and Gender Studies Department, has extensive
knowledge of Canadian feminist art. She also curates and is a critical writer of art, and in 1987 she
produced a video, Rewriting the script: Feminism and art in Ontario. I originally contacted Borsa to
discuss the video and her experience filming, editing, and distributing it, given the pertinence of
such a video to this thesis project.
In my discussions with Borsa, which occurred towards the end of my fieldwork (July 2006),
I confided my disappointment that I was not able to find more feminist art collectives on the prairies; we discussed the ephemeral nature of feminist activist and performance art. Borsa commented
that, without recorded histories such as this project, ‘people forget’ (Interview, p. 1). She indicated
that the Shoe String Gallery (Saskatoon), now known as the AKA Gallery, was founded as a feminist collective and brought important feminist artists such as Judy Chicago and her Dinner Party to
The founding members of Sugar and Splice are: Jen Porter, Jan Oakley, Tam McFadyen,
Joey Jakob, Rhona Hunther, Cheryl Gudz, Jennifer Faulder, Danishka Esternazy, Alixa Dyer, Caitlin Brown, Sarah Amyot. Membership in the second year: Jen Porter, Alyson Brickey, Jennifer
Faulder, Jan Oakley, Joey Jakob, Allyson Bile.
12
7
Saskatoon.13 I told Borsa I had contacted AKA in order to inquire about past or present art collectives in Saskatoon and was told they did not know of any. Borsa responded, ‘[T]hat is one example
of how something evolved and the history gets lost’ (Interview, p. 1). We discussed how women’s
activism is often spontaneous. Borsa said:
[C]ollective to me has always implied that you organize in some way, it is a bit
more official, you give yourselves a name, a structure, are more cohesive. . . . The
things I have been involved in were always much more occasional, temporary,
spontaneous, itinerant. . . . I think there are many example of these kinds of
[groups], but there is no documentation of it. (Interview, p. 3)
I had suspected there were collectives, past or current, that I was unable to find. Borsa reinforced
my sense that the difficulty in tracking down feminist art activist activities on the prairies is partly
due to the nature of many collectives, which often come together to create a project in response to a
current issue, may not work together again, and may not even consider themselves to be a collec-
tive.
Dr. Marie Lovrod
I also met with Dr. Marie Lovrod at the University of Saskatchewan. Lovrod has expertise
in the areas of autobiography, feminist theory, cultural studies, feminist documentary, and media.
She and I talked at great length regarding feminist documentary and the evolution of story telling,
discussions that will be invaluable to me when I begin the editing process for my documentary.
Lovrod, who has participated in various feminist activist collective organizations, said that she prefers consensual decision-making models to consensus models, believing that the former offer a
more transparent and more expedient decision-making process. I often refer back to my conversation with Lovrod, and as I was going through my research data it struck me that all of the collectives
13
Cindy, the current director of the artist-run centre explained: ‘After a decade of sustained
and vital activity, Shoestring underwent significant change in mandate and direction. The transition
from a member-based visual arts and craft co-operative to a non-profit artist-run centre yielded
AKA in 1982. The mandate of the gallery was enlarged to encompass a multidisciplinary concern
and presentation of innovative art from across Canada while retaining the original motivation to
support development of local artists. The change enabled wider access to public funding sources
and increased community involvement in the decision-making process’ (Personal communication,
November 8, 2006).
8
I studied described consensual decision-making processes, even though they defined their decisionmaking process as consensus-based.14, 15
Overview of Canadian Feminism and Feminist Activism
Canadian Feminist Activism’s Diversity
Overall, feminism in Canada has not ‘just existed . . . it has thrived’ (Griffin Cohen, 1995,
p. 26), but describing and defining feminist activism in Canada is difficult for many reasons. Canada
is multi-cultural and multi-dimensional, as are its feminist movements. Feminist activism in Canada
is both complex and diverse, and the country’s expansive geography and differences between the
Anglophone and Francophone feminist movements only add to the complexity. This is especially
evident in Quebec (Adamson, Briskin, & McPhail, 1988), where the movement is distinct from that
in the rest of the country (Strong-Boag, Gleason, & Perry, 2003). Michelle Durmont says that one
of the unique things about the feminist movement in Quebec is that it has combined the causes of
feminism and Quebec federalism: ‘[T]hey [Quebec feminists] did not put the Quebec cause before
the women’s cause. They simply defined what seemed indispensable for them to remain both feminists and Quebecers’ (Durmont, 1992, p. 83).
The last thirty years of Canadian feminist historical scholarship have shown that there is no
monolithic history of feminism. Meg Luxton argues that there are generally understood to be three
feminisms in Canada: Francophone, First Nations, and ‘the rest of Canada’ (Luxton, 2004, p. 4).
However, Luxton notes that women of colour and immigrant women have also organized into
groups and challenged feminists from the rest of Canada for their failure to address racism, and
have thereby in effect created a fourth Canadian feminism (p. 4).16
Consensus decision-making requires that all members agree to an action; consensual decision-making allows members to disagree but to consent to the action.
15
I would be remiss if I did not also acknowledge the many informal discussions I had with
my thesis supervisor, Dr. Carol Williams, regarding her experiences within activist art collectives
(such as Worksite), collectivity, feminism, and feminist documentary film-making.
16
I agree with Luxton when she states that the feminist group label, ‘the rest of Canada’, is
an unfortunate name, as it groups all women and their personal identities into this category (2004,
p. 4).
14
9
Numerous scholars have critiqued the way in which many historical accounts of Canadian
feminism have excluded the Québécoise and Aboriginal feminist movements or have dealt with
them incompletely (Durmont, 1992; de Sève, 1992). However, for this brief overview of feminist
activism, I have chosen to focus on the feminist movement throughout the rest of Canada, given
that the collectives I researched are located on the three Canadian prairie provinces, are nonAboriginal, and are English-speaking.
History of Canadian Feminism
Although feminism has conventionally been divided into three waves, Victoria Bromley
and Aalya Ahmad caution that a ‘compartmentalized history of the women’s movement’ should be
challenged, as feminist history is ‘interconnected and on-going’ (2006, p. 67). Nevertheless, for the
purposes of this review of feminist history in Canada, I will examine feminism through the conventions of first, second, and third waves (Bromley & Ahmad, 2006, p. 67).
First Wave
First-wave feminism is a label given retroactively to the suffrage movement of the late 19th
and early 20th centuries. First-wave feminists struggled to achieve basic political equality: the right to
vote and some reproductive, educational, and economic rights (Adamson, Briskin, & McPhail,
1988). In Canada, this struggle was mostly led by middle-class white women, who at times were ‘intolerant of ethnic and class diversity and often unwilling to confront profound inequities in capitalist
society’ (Strong-Boag as quoted in Adamson, Briskin, & McPhail, 1988, p. 35). There are, however,
many accounts of labour unions and groups of black women organizing for suffrage in Canada (Adamson, Briskin, & McPhail, 1988). On the Canadian prairies, many first-wave feminists were farmwomen advocating for suffrage. In 1916, the three prairie provinces were the first to grant women
the vote (Adamson, Briskin, & McPhail, 1988). There was no national charter on suffrage, so each
province had the power to reform their own policies. Women campaigned in each province and,
by 1917, the five western-most provinces had suffrage. By 1918, the federal government could no
longer ignore the issue and passed national legislation extending suffrage to most Canadian women.
10
Chinese and Indo-Canadian women were granted the vote in 1947, although Aboriginal women did
not gain federal suffrage until 1960 (Citizen Shift, n.d.).17 Feminists of the first wave are often described as ‘maternal feminists’. Women in the early twentieth century described their work as
‘mothering’ and believed equality was necessary as a means towards becoming ‘good mothers’ (Adamson, Briskin, & McPhail, 1988). First wave feminists were successful in their fight for political
equality; but, even after attaining suffrage, women continued to face many inequities.
Second Wave
The origins of second-wave feminism coincide with the Second World War, as many
women began, for the first time, to work outside the home, filling jobs vacated by men who had
gone to war (Adamson, Briskin, & McPhail, 1988; Griffin Cohen, 1993). When the war ended,
many women were pressured to return to the home so that men coming back from the war could
return to their jobs.18 By the mid-1950s, women were beginning to voice their unhappiness, and in
the late 1950s the Canadian magazine Chatelaine began publishing feminist articles detailing the
growing frustration of its readers regarding inequalities in the home and workplace, as well as women’s growing dissatisfaction with the traditional roles of domesticity (Rebick, 2005).19
As an identifiable movement, second-wave feminism is generally thought to have coalesced
in the early 1960s and to have begun fracturing by the late 1980s (Griffin Cohen, 1993). Judy Rebick (2005) states that many American and Canadian feminists credit Betty Friedan’s The feminine
mystique, published in 1963, with giving impetus to second-wave feminism. Many middle-class
First Nations women could vote earlier if they gave up their Indian status. Inuit men and
women were not allowed to vote until 1950, while the Métis did not have voting restrictions (Tremblay, 2003).
18
Over 300,000 women joined the work force during the Second World War, and the government paid them well and provided daycare and tax breaks as incentives for women to stay in the
work force. Many women who had not worked outside the home in the past ‘enjoyed their work
experiences because of the companionship with other working women, the good salaries and the
chance to demonstrate their independence’. http://www.citizenship.gov.on.ca/owd/English/ history
s_month/2005/ww2.htm.
19
I found it particularly interesting that although Chatelaine had the opportunity to publish
chapters from Betty Freidan’s The feminine mystique (at that time unpublished), the editors decided against it, as they felt the work duplicated many of the articles they had already published.
17
11
women, both in Canada and the Unites States, related to what Friedan termed the ‘problem with no
name’, a general dissatisfaction with the notion that women found fulfillment in domestic duties
such as homemaking, childbearing, and childrearing (Rebick, 2005; Adamson, Briskin, & McPhail,
1988). The 1960s were a time of colossal social and political upheaval and many women became
involved in various social activist groups, particularly groups dedicated to peace and racial equality.
Even within these groups, however, many women continued to experience barriers and inequality
due to the hierarchical structure of some organizations, leading many to embrace the feminist
movement (Adamson, Briskin, & McPhail, 1988).
The Second Wave in Canada
Canadian women organized for local, provincial, and national social change. The Abortion
Caravan (1970) was the first national action of Canadian feminists. Originating in Vancouver, this
independent group of feminists organized a pivotal activist act, setting out across Canada and collecting more members as they went. By the time they gathered in Ottawa, they were 500 women
strong and protested for two days on the steps of Parliament. Thirty women chained themselves to
the gates, closing Parliament for a day, for the first time in history (Rebick 2005; Pro Choice Action
Network, n.d.). Similarly, groups of rural women, such as CORA in Ontario, organized road trips
to educate communities about feminism (Griffin Cohen, 1993).20 In order to collaborate on larger
issues, such as abortion and day-care, and to overcome the problem of small rural feminist populations existing within large geographical areas, Canadian women later began to organize on provincial
and national levels (Blackhouse & Flaherty). Using consciousness-raising and study groups, secondwave feminists began to foster a sense of sisterhood among women (Adamson, Briskin, & McPhail,
1988). Through these experiences, women learned that many of their issues were experiences that
affected all women, and that the personal was, therefore, political. Many feminists chose to organize
CORA (which was named after prairie feminist E. Cora Hind (1861–1942), who was a
pioneer/grain grower/writer and suffragette) was a group of women (Judith Quinlan, Boo Watson,
and Ellen Woodsworth) from rural Ontario who painted a school bus red, filled it with feminist
books, pamphlets, works from women artists, and much more, and travelled to rural towns in
southern Ontario.
20
12
into non-hierarchical, horizontally structured collectives rather than to reproduce the hierarchical
and patriarchal structures characteristic of the traditional workplace and family (Wine & Ristock,
1991).
Second-wave feminists focussed on issues such as ending violence against women, reproductive choices and rights, universal childcare, pay equity, and fighting harassment and discrimination in the workplace. Second-wave feminists believed in the possibility of change, and their commitment to bringing about that change is demonstrated by the staggering accomplishments of feminists during this period (Adamson, Briskin, & McPhail, 1988). Many networks and coalitions were
founded, such as the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC), an umbrella
group for over seven hundred feminist organizations across Canada (Bégin, 1992; Adamson,
Briskin, & McPhail, 1988).21 Feminism also had an impact on education, including the creation of
Women’s Studies programs in universities across both Canada and the United States. Support systems and structures were established for survivors of domestic violence and sexual abuse, and the
right to a legal abortion in Canada was eventually realized (Blackhouse & Flaherty, 1992). Women’s
bookstores were opened and networking events provided women with easy access to resources they
previously lacked. Prairie women were very active in second wave feminism; the first national conference on the women’s movement was held in Saskatoon in November 1970 (Adamson, Briskin,
& McPhail, 1988).
One of the most significant accomplishments of second-wave feminism in Canada was the
formation of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women (RCSW) in 1967, which ‘played a
key role in creating and accelerating the process of a feminist evolution in Canadian women’s associations’ (Blackhouse & Flaherty, 1992, p. 7). Headed by Florence Bird, the RCSW’s report, pub-
21
National Action Committee (NAC), once funded 100% by the government, is now selffunded through ‘membership fees, donations, project grants, and fundraising.’ NAC is an umbrella
group for over 700 women’s groups across the country. These diverse groups include, but are not
limited to: women’s centres and shelters, women of colour, immigrant and refugee women, academic women, trade unions, student groups, Aboriginal and Métis women, lesbian groups, and
business women associations. http://www.nac-cca.ca/about/about_e.html
13
lished in 1970, contained 167 recommendations to improve the status of women’s lives. Although
many of the recommendations have been implemented, important ones remain unaddressed, such
as a national childcare program (Wine & Ristock, 1991).
Second-wave feminism has been critiqued as being highly essentialist, and ‘many women,
particularly women of colour and lesbians’, felt excluded and protested that the mainstream movement did not recognise the diverse – and different – issues they faced (O’Neill, 2002, p. 2). The
second-wave movement has also been criticized for creating a divide between men and women; for
being too exclusive; for taking on too much; for not doing enough. As Judy Rebick said, ‘if you are
moving, you are a target’ (Rebick, 2005).
Third Wave
The third-wave movement is characterized by ‘niche events or protests and driven by temporary leaders who take up a particular cause at a particular time’, rather than by big accomplishments (Duncan, 2005, p. 161). The term ‘third wave’ identifies the feminist movement from the
late 1980s to the present. Third-wave feminism is difficult to define because it embraces diversity,
inclusivity, and multiplicity; it is also branded by its use of irony, humour, militant tactics, and radical gestures (Bromley & Ahmad, 2006; Whittier, 2005). Jo Reger describes third wave feminism as
‘having a sense of play, particularly in discourses regarding sexuality’ (2005, p. 11); it embraces
transgender politics and interrogates binary definitions of gender (Wittier, 2005). Many women
who identify themselves as third-wave feminists are beneficiaries of second-wave feminism and
therefore felt empowered to question – and further push the boundaries of – feminist theory and
discourse (O’Neill, 2002). Third-wave feminists, sometimes called ‘third wavers’, critique identity
politics while striving for a recognition of the diversity of race, sexuality, (dis)ability, and age among
women.
Third wavers assert that small, issue-specific groups can collaborate, collectively and cooperatively, to achieve their goals. Sometimes their tactics are criticized as unorganized and ad hoc;
but Victoria Bromley and Aayla Ahmad (2006) argue that third wavers see this inclusivity as a
14
‘strength rather than weakness’, and Rebecca Walker argues that the ‘messiness’ is actually more
simplistic than second-wave organizing, that ‘constantly measuring up to some cohesive fully downfor-the-feminist-cause identity without contradiction and messiness is not a fun task’ (cite in Whittier, 2005, p. 60).
Third wavers transcends definition as they mix various feminist models – often, for example, advocating legislative reforms much like liberal feminism; however, they also use radical feminist approaches to grassroots activism (Whittier, 2005). Third wavers have learned from their second-wave sisters that they can ‘do anything’, and they use every tool available to them today in the
attempt to achieve everything (Whittier, 2005). With the advancement of technology and communication, thanks to computers in particular, this task becomes easier. Women are able to publish
and print from their homes, and to organize events and network through the Internet. Third wave
feminists often use alternative media for activism; in particular, they have taken advantage of the
large community found in cyberspace and are creating blogs, e-zines, and electronic mailing lists
both to disseminate information and to organize political actions. Nevertheless, these online communities are ‘fragile and unstable’ (Duncan, 2005, p. 171), and traces of these women’s actions are
even more ephemeral as Web pages disappear.
Fourth Wave?
Have young women started a quiet revolution against previous waves of feminism to define
their own wave? Anita Harris prefers to call it a redefinition. The Internet is filled with Web sites
and e-mail lists of women discussing and theorizing about a new wave of feminism. Young women
question some of the second wave’s hard won battles and want to reject stereotypes of feminists
often portrayed in the media (Ansell, n.d.). They find labels restricting, even the label ‘feminist’
itself.
15
I don’t like the label feminist or feminism, I don’t like –isms in general, an –ism is
like a pin in the back of a butterfly, it kills it and makes it something to look at, instead of something active. (Jenny, Interview, p. 9)22
Over the past few years, I have discussed the definition of feminism with many young women who
readily admit to being feminist activists but are not sure that the label ‘feminist’ still fits. Joan Borsa
describes the discourse surrounding the rejection of the word ‘feminist’:
[I]t is a healthy resistance. . . . I think it is an important and timely discussion, it just
pokes away at all the assumptions, and if we really want to work at the boundaries
of gender, if we want blur that a lot more than we even have, then we need to start
talking. (Interview, p. 12)
Young women are talking, and like young women from all waves of feminism, they are learning and
critiquing previous movements and defining their own wave.
‘Post’
Post-feminism is ‘neither feminist or activist’ (Bromley & Ahmad, 2006) but rather a product of the backlash against feminism, identified and studied by Susan Faludi in her book, Backlash.
In the 1980s, journalists began using the term ‘post-feminism’. Victoria Bromley and Aalya Ahmad,
in ‘Wa(i)ving solidarity: Feminist activists confronting backlash’ (2006), suggest that the media and
political institutions have promoted these ‘tensions’ in order to weaken the feminist movement and
advance a neo-liberal agenda. Groups like Realistic, Equal, Active, for Life (REAL) Women of
Canada accept, promote, and support neo-liberal claims of achieved equality. REAL Women’s influence in the Harper Conservative government negatively affected the financial support of organizations such as the Status of Women Canada (SWC).23 The fact that many young women today do
22
Although no interviewees requested anonymity, I only use first names. A listing of interviewees as well as a brief biography is in Appendix A.
23
REAL Women of Canada has led a campaign to eliminate Status of Women Canada
(SWC),
declaring
that
women
in
Canada
have
reached
equality.
http://www.statusreport.ca/?q=taxonomy/term/42 In fact, REAL Women of Canada issued a press
release on September 26, 2006, after the Conservative government had announced the reduction of
SWC’s budget by 5 million dollars, stating that they ‘hope that the Status of Women will eventually
be eliminated entirely, since it does not represent “women,” but only represents the ideology of
feminists’ (http://www.real womenca.com/press.htm#09_26_06).
16
not label themselves as feminists (‘I am not a feminist, but’) can be attributed to the feminist backlash that continues to be promoted in popular culture and media.
Feminism continues to thrive, despite the media’s promulgation of its supposed death
(Bromley & Ahmad, 2006). Brenda O’Neill recently (2002) completed a research project studying
the attitudes of generations of women towards feminism and found that young women tended to
feel positively about feminism and related to feminist thought. Faith Wilding warns ‘there are many
strong voices calling for a new activism and vision in global feminisms today’ (in Stalbaum, 2006)
but that feminists have not ‘worked out yet in practice how to live in a house of difference’, and
when women of diverse backgrounds work together in groups we have to make concerted efforts to
resist ‘resorting to quotas, tokenism, political correctness, or “special” considerations. It is crucial
for the development of contemporary global feminisms that we acquire this experience’ (in Stalbaum, 2006).
Prairie Contexts
As a resident of Lethbridge, Alberta, I chose the Canadian prairies as my subject of investigation. While creating, exhibiting, and engaging politically here, I experienced feelings of isolation,
geographical as well as political, and was eager to learn what other feminist cultural activists on the
prairies were doing, what experiences or issues they found as art activists on the prairies.
Geography
I defined the prairies as Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. The collectives I researched
are all from the central to southern portions of the three prairie provinces – from Edmonton south
in Alberta, Saskatoon in Saskatchewan, and Winnipeg in Manitoba. Despite different political and
social values as well as economies, the prairie provinces all have vast lands between populated spaces and are largely agrarian.
Culture
The prairies are defined by their unique culture. The First Nations were the first people on
the prairies, before the railroads brought with them major settlements. In response to a national
17
bilingual (English and French) poster and advertising campaign in the late 19th century to populate
the prairies, immigrants arrived and were given land in block settlements. As a result, pockets of
various cultures such as Ukrainian, German, French, and Scandinavian continue to inflect the ethnic landscape of the prairies (Dawson, 1936, p. 395).
The prairies have long been considered the land of new beginnings, and with the recent
boom of natural resources on the prairies, particularly in Alberta, they continue to offer new opportunities for many Canadians. Cities like Fort McMurray have seen large influxes of new residents
from other provinces, especially the Maritime (Friesen, 1987).
Politics and Economics
Alberta is the most populous prairie province, with a population of 3,455,062 people (2006
census). It has had a Conservative government since 1971, and its people are often considered individualistic and entrepreneurial. The richest of the three provinces, Alberta had a Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) of 152,670/capita (www.gov.ab.ca) in 2006. Saskatchewan’s population is 990,212
(2006 census), and in 2006, it had a GDP of 45,052/capitia (www.gov.sk.ca). Saskatchewan has a
rich history of left-wing politics – under the leadership of Tommy Douglas, it was the first province
to establish provincial Medicare – although in 2006 the Saskatchewan Party (the formerly named
Conservative Party) was elected to government. Manitoba has a population of 1,182,291 (2006 census), and a GDP of 37,052/capita (www.gov.mb.ca). The NDP is the current provincial government,
as it has been for the most part, aside from a period from 1988 to 1995 when the Progressive Conservatives held power (www.gov.mb.ca).
All three prairie provinces have seen changes to social assistance programs over the past 10
years. These changes have particularly affected women and children in various ways. In Alberta, the
Conservative government has been advocating for a semi-privatized ‘Third Way’ health care system, which many fear will create a two-tiered health system based on economic status. The rapid
expansion in population has caused shortages in affordable childcare and housing. A 2004 report
from the federal Standing Committee on the Status of Women noted that the increase of women in
18
prison populations was directly related to the evisceration of healthcare, education, and social services. It also stated that the highest increase of women inmates was in the three prairie provinces
(Status of Women Canada, 2004, p. 2).
Government Support of the Arts
Although Manitoba is the ‘poorest’ of the three prairie provinces in terms of factors like
GDP, it offers more money for the arts than any other prairie province – more, in fact, than any
province in Canada outside of Quebec (Hill Strategies Research, 2004). Saskatchewan and Manitoba have just recently (2005) launched aggressive cultural initiatives. The Manitoba government calls
its initiative The Manitoba Arts and Culture Advantage and states that ‘Culture and the arts are an
integral part of the Manitoba way of life and economy. Our strong cultural scene enriches our
lives.’24
The Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy (SIPP) boldly claims that culture brings people
to a community, in contrast to the more ‘orthodox’ belief that business attracts new residents. Dr.
Greg Baeker, a senior consultant for AuthentiCity and contributor to SIPP, asserts that ‘the reverse
is true. If we build communities where people want to live and work, business and investment follow people’ (Baeker, 2006, p. 7). SIPP also advocates for a reconciliation of the three Ts, namely:
talent (drawing talented people to the area), technology (increasing economic development), and
tolerance (people from a variety of backgrounds and talents are attracted to a community ‘that is
open, generous, understanding and tolerant of all its members’ (Morgan et al., 2005, p. 7)).
I did not find a specific policy on the promotion of culture in Alberta, although there were
several cultural initiatives during the provincial centennial in 2005 and Alberta is home to the Banff
Centre, a world-renowned arts and cultural centre. Of their total arts and culture budgets, Alberta
spends the least per capita of the three provinces on visual arts, while Manitoba spends the most; all
three prairie provinces use lottery revenue to fund arts and culture programs.
24
(http://www.gov.mb.ca/finance/budget06/adavantage/culture.html).
19
Individual Support of the Arts
In 2004, Hill Strategies Research compiled a report for the Canadian Council for the Arts.
It found that in 2004, there were record public donations to the arts. The report further notes that
residents on the prairies give in greater numbers (3.2 percent of the population) than the national
average (2.8 percent of the population). In 2004, prairie residents donated $16 million to the arts,
more per capita than anywhere in the country (Baeker, 2005). Interestingly, women on the prairies
donate more then men (3.5 percent, compared to 2.8 percent). This report leaves no doubt that the
prairies are active culturally and that women on the prairies particularly see the value of arts and
culture, although the phenomenon of women forming art collectives, especially those with the explicit intent to engage with cultural activism, is not directly addressed.
Thesis Map
In Chapter Two, the Literature Review, I survey the history of feminist activism and collectivity (including writing on the issues, advantages, and disadvantages of working collectively), as documented in the literature. Chapter Three, Methods and Methodology, details the feminist research
approaches I used to collect and analyze the research data.
Chapters Four through Six review and discuss the key findings of the research study. Chapter Four, Theoretical and Practical, is the first data analysis chapter, examining the evolution collectives may go through in order to achieve longevity. All collectives were born out of intense theory
and activism, but some collectives evolve into practical collectives, while others continue theoretical
work but are more likely to burn out. Chapter Five, Conflict and Cohesion, looks at three primary
factors that I found affected cohesion within collectives: collective structure, group homogeneity,
and developed relationships. Chapter Six, the last data analysis chapter, investigates the importance
of sociability to feminist collectivity. Social events such as potlucks often feed women’s desire for
the company of ‘like-minded’ women. I also discuss how the Internet and e-mail have affected collective sociability.
20
Chapter Seven, the conclusion, summarizes my data analysis and proposes questions for
future research. The appendices include descriptions of the collectives and the members I interviewed and a copy of interview questions. I have not included the interview transcripts, of which
there are hundreds of pages, but I do intend to make these available for further research.
21
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review covers previous research findings regarding feminist collectivity, feminist/activist art, feminist art collectives, and art collectives. I also examine different decision-making
models collectives use, and how a collective’s value of process or product affects their decisionmaking model. I consider both the internal and external pressures that affect collective organizing
and decision-making. I finish this chapter by detailing the advantages and disadvantages of artists
working collectively.
Why It Is Important to Study Feminist Art Collectives
Although events that feminist art collectives organize and produce may be important in
their communities, without recognition, documentation, and historicization, they can be lost forever
(Barlow, 2003) – particularly since much of the work and archive material of feminist art collectives
tends to be ephemeral media (Barlow, 2003). Gregory Sholette states that, given the renewed interest in working collectively among young artists in particular, it is important to record the actions and
structures of collectives analytically and systematically to distinguish them from ‘community-based
art’ (Sholette, 2004).
There is certainly no abundance of literature regarding art collectives (Cotter, 2006; Critical
Art Ensemble, 1998; Leigh Butler, 2001; Moore, 2007; Sholette, 2004; Stalbaum, 2001), and little
to no literature about the organizational structures of art collectives, which is in stark contrast to the
volumes of work on service and political structures. However, since I began this research project in
2005, there has been increasing interest in investigating and documenting art collectives’ histories.
New books, such as the recently published (2007) Collectivism after modernism, edited by Blake
Stimson and Gregory Sholette, present a history of collective activism from around the world. It is
interesting to note, though, that in their 300-page text the authors devote only three to discussing
the history of feminist art collectivity. Further, they credit the evolution away from modernist art to
Duchamp, technology, and conceptual art, without recognizing the immense influence of feminist
22
art in the 1970s, which challenged the traditional distinction between high and low art (Wark,
2006). Even with the publication of recent texts discussing art collectives, there is still little documentation or analysis of collective working structures, much less any study of contemporary feminist art collectives on the Canadian prairies.
Given that academic work regarding feminist collectives is often presented from the perspective and experience of volunteer service collectives or political activist collectives, I used existing research when analyzing my research data where it was relevant (Ferguson, 1984; Freeman,
1974; Mansbridge, 1984; Yancy Martin, 1990; Rothschild-Whitt, 1979; Barnett, 1995; Bordt, 1997;
Ferree & Hess, 1994; Iannello, 1992; Leidner, 1991; Powell, 1987; Staggenborg, 1989).
Descriptions
The Collective Structure
Collectives are groups that come together and use a consensus model of organization. Collective organizing values equal distribution of skills and knowledge among members, and groups
that form collectively tend to value the collective process more than the outcome (Reger, 2000).
Typically, these groups are small, with ten members or less, and less rigidly organized then larger
organizations. In the 1960s, feminists started using the collective model around the same time that
they used consciousness-rising (c-r) groups; in fact, most collectives continue to have a large c-r
component. Many women described these meetings as one of the only places they felt safe to voice
their opinions. Collectives often provide a sense of belonging, even of a ‘sisterhood’, a term coined
in the 1970s (Wilding, 1992; Reger, 2002).
Historically, second-wave radical feminists first formally and consciously created the collective structure in the 1960s when they were championing the cause of equal opportunity, as exemplified by horizontal and non-hierarchal organization structures (Reger, 2002). Collective organizing is
a direct challenge to conventional hierarchical structures, such as those found in social, work, and
family environments that are oppressive to women (Ferree & Martin, 1995); it confronts disparities
that continue to exist between men and women in the workplace, wherein women tend to earn less
23
than men, are promoted less frequently, and have less involvement in decision-making processes
(Ristock, 1991).
In Feminist organizing for change: The contemporary women’s movement in Canada, the
authors describe three primary principles for feminist collective working structures: the rejection of
hierarchy and leadership, the importance of personal experience and knowledge, and the collective
process. A structure is the intended arrangement of an organization, whereas practice refers to the
way things are done (Acker, 1990). The collective structure, which uses the rotation of job positions
and shared responsibility, allows each person an opportunity to learn and refine skills. For instance,
a member acts as a chair for one project and for the next project is the treasurer (Adamson, Briskin
& McPhail, 1988). Collectives take advantage of their members’ expertise to share knowledge and
experience among the group – organizing training sessions, for example, if an individual has specialized skills that can be taught to others (Thomas, 1991).
Collective organization has a long history of promoting equality and empowering women in
their work environments, ideally through job rotation and internal education. Women who work in
collectives are in a work/business situation where they are not the ‘other’ and have a voice; however,
collective organizing can come with organizational and interpersonal issues that may cause frustration and confusion (Ristock, 1991). Unrecognized power structures within collectives can result in
disempowerment and dissatisfaction among members of the group, especially those who may be
less vocal (Ristock, 1991).
Although some collectives operate within formal structures, most collectives tend to be
unceremonious and unstructured. It is very rare to for groups to have official rules regarding their
organizational structure; instead, meetings are usually free-form and tasks informally allocated
(Melucci, 1996). While informal and unstructured feminist groups ‘do well at getting women
together, they are not often effective for getting things done’ (Freeman, 1975, p. 203); in her 1970
essay, ‘The tyranny of structurelessness’, Freeman explains that, if collectives remain unstructured
and informal, rather then empowering their members they can become manipulative and
24
undemocratic (1975). Informal, unrecognized power structures can splinter collectives as internal,
subversive dynamics emerge. In other words, there is no such thing as a group without a structure –
‘rather there are groups who have a purposeful, explicit structure; or groups who, perhaps
unwittingly, have an informal, implicit structure’ (1975, p. 202).
Feminist/Activist Art
Activist art is ‘anti-establishment, denunciatory and revolutionary art, embodying tactics for
different goals than those from society’; it is art with a message (Durand, 1998). Feminist art is different from art created by women; instead, it is art that reflects feminist politics (Vogel, 1991). Jayne
Wark argues that feminist art is by definition activist art or ‘art as action’, and that because feminist
artists are informed by the knowledge that the personal is political, nothing is exempt from politics
(Wark, 2006).
Activist artists on the whole are less concerned with the creation of objects then with working for social and political change, using whatever means or media they see fit (Moore, 2007). Activist art collectives seek to raise consciousness on social and cultural issues and reach a ‘non-gallery’
audience (Sholette, 2004, p. 3), and feminist art collectives, such as Canadian collectives the Cli-
chettes and Finger in the Dyke, have successfully used humour and subversion to create critical
performances still accessible to a wider audience (Wark, 2007).
Feminist Art Collectives
Feminist art collectives, like feminist collectives, organize collectively to eradicate hierarchal
organizational structures; they use feminist principles as a value system and activist tactic. The organizational structure of art collectives is not unlike that of service or political collectives. Collectives
question and challenge hierarchal structures of art galleries and museums, as well as the Kantian
concept of the heroic lone genius artist heightened in the modernist era but still very prevalent in
the art world (Enwezor, 2007; Wark, 2006; Critical Art Ensemble, 1998). Artists working collectively also challenge modern notions ‘of the art object as the unique object of individual creativity’ (Enwezor, 2007, p. 223).
25
Feminist artists in the 1970s organized into collectives to battle sexism and to provide
women access to exhibition and publication spaces (Nesmer, 1972). Feminist art collectives such as
the Guerrilla Girls continue the fight against sexism and inequality which continue to pervade art
galleries and museums to this day.
In the 1980s, there was an eruption of art collectives, primarily due to the rise of neo-liberal
conservative governments and policy-makers, and in action to address the growing AIDS epidemic
(Moore, 2007). Collectives tend to form during periods of economic, political, or cultural crisis, and
at such times artists frequently ‘evaluate current modes of art production, and what is art, or the
artist, in relation to economic, social and political conditions’ (Enwezor, 2007, p. 225). A perfect
example of this is art created during the second feminist wave, when feminist artists challenged the
politics, ideas, media, and purpose of art.
There is great variation among artists who organize collectively. Likewise, these artists utilize many different forms of media, of which the new culture of Web collectives is a prime example. Members of these cyber-collectives may work collectively on art and performance Web projects while never meeting face to face. Holland Cotter cites research, archiving, and creative hacking
as just some of the forms of art that online collectives are taking (Cotter, 2006).
The Distinction between Collaboration and Collectivity
Some authors use the terms collaborative and collective interchangeably. But in an interview with Brett Stalbaum, Faith Wilding contends that there is a clear distinction between artists
choosing to come together to work collaboratively on a project and those working together under a
collective structure. A simple yet important distinction is that artists who work collaboratively maintain ownership of their work, each artist recognized for his or her work by name, whereas artists
working collectively do so under a group name. Wilding states that collaborations are usually less
ideologically driven and more practical then collectives, perhaps working together to pool resources
or to get a ‘specific project done.’ Those who organize under a collective structure, on the other
hand, share similar political ideals. Wilding cites the well-known feminist project Womanhouse as
26
an example of collaboration: although the participants worked closely together and gave feedback
to one another, each of the performances, installations, and works were individually credited (Stalbaum 2001).
Art Collectives, Not Feminist or Activist
Recently there has been a rise in art ‘collectives’ that create works individually. Gregory
Sholette, who has written about the phenomenon of collective exhibitions and the current popularity of art collectives, says ‘collectives are hot’ (Sholette, 2004). Alan Moore, in his essay, ‘Artists’ collectives mostly in New York’ (adapted from his dissertation on New York collectives), says his interest in documenting collectives arose because, ‘despite the reluctance of galleries and museums to
exhibit collective work, the city has seen a continuous and significant increase in group formations
by artists’ (Moore, 2007, p. 217). However, most of these collectives do not describe themselves as
overtly feminist or activist, and Sholette contends that the component missing from many of these
art collectives is a sense of cultural or social activism (Sholette 2006). Unlike feminist art collectives,
collectives such as Forcefield, Derriandrop, Paper Rad, Gelatin, and The Royal Art Lodge do not
use art to advance social, cultural, or political agendas (in fact, many are explicitly apolitical), but,
rather, promote ‘colourful, guilt-free fun’ (Sholette, 2004). These collectives are very different from
the feminist art collectives of the 1980s and 1990s discussed in the previous section, which have
been using art as a vehicle to compel cultural change (Cash, 1994).25
Power Structures
Many collectives develop invisible, unrecognized power structures within their groups, uneven arrangements that often leave certain members without a voice or true participation in decisionmaking. As Ryan says, ‘in reality most groups are run by a few people who have the time . . . and
often these few become the leaders, and without the recognition or naming an official role, or even
Political art collectives include (but are in no way limited to) Political Art Documentation
and Distribution, Group Material, General Idea, Carnival Knowledge, the Clichettes, Repository,
Dyke Action Machine, Guerrilla Girls, Gran Fury, RTMark, the Yes Men, subRosa, the Critical
Art Ensemble, Ant Farm, and No More Nice Girls.
25
27
that they have adopted this role’ (Ryan, 1992, p. 94). It is not possible for a group to eliminate power structures by simply stating that they will work collectively; rather, groups needs to engage in ongoing transparent discussions, making visible power structures that are ‘inescapable’ (Melucci, 1996,
p. 329). Jo Freeman (1975) advocated for explicit structure within collectives, arguing that an explicit structure provides a map for new members to access power equally:
The idea [of a structureless group] becomes a smoke screen for the strong or the
lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others. This hegemony can be so
easily established because the idea of ‘Structurelessness’ does not prevent the formation of informal structures, only formal ones. . . . thus Structurelessness becomes a way of masking power . . . as long as the structure of the group is informal,
the rules of how decisions are made are know only to a few and awareness of power is curtailed to those who know the rules. (p. 69)26
Freeman maintains that even if power structures still exist, if decision-making processes and structural rules are visible, then there is a system for members to address and access power within a collective.
Decision-Making Models
Consensus decision-making is the backbone of collective organizing (Ferree & Martin,
1995; Iannello, 1992). But academic research has shown that consensus decision-making also
makes it difficult to keep a collective’s membership diverse while still getting things done (Ferree
and Martin, 1995). Kathleen Iannello, in her text Decisions without hierarchy: Feminist interven-
tions in organization and practice, details four case studies of groups which all use some form of
collective structure; she discovered two variables that contribute to a collective’s ability to achieve
consensus in a reasonable period and without conflict: group homogeneity and group size (Iannello, 1992). Recently, recognizing that inequity also exists in collective structures, feminists have
adopted modified consensus models, utilized feminist bureaucratic models, and even created hybrids of various decision-making models in efforts to create a more equal and participatory work
environment (Iannello, 1992; Bordt, 1997; Reger, 2000).
26
This passage is from Jo Freeman’s ‘Tyranny of the structureless’, as quoted in Elizabeth
Armstrong’s text, ‘The tyranny of poststructurelessness’.
28
Consensus Model
Consensus decision-making is when all decisions are made by all members. Believing it to
be the most equitable, collectives use a consensus decision-making model, wherein an issue is discussed until all aspects are clear to all members and until all are in agreement about how to proceed. Members do not vote, but each member of the group has input and must agree to the proposed action; if agreement cannot be reached, the issue is tabled until the next meeting, or even
indefinitely (Iannello, 1992). This process encourages all members to participate and ideally to have
equal say in the decision-making process. Sometimes, due to time constraints and a desire to get
tasks done expediently, groups slip into traditional decision-making processes such as voting and
forming committees with decision-making powers, although this is often done with ‘a sense of guilt’
(Adamson, Briskin, & McPhail, 1998, p. 244). Consensus decision-making is time-consuming and
often exhausting for collective members (Ryan, 1992).
Consensual Model
Other groups use a consensual decision-making structure. In this model, after all members
are satisfied with the group discussion, one or two people sum up the discussion (Iannello, 1992).
Rather than trying to get uniform consensus all the time, these collectives adopt a process of consent; in other words, anyone can choose not to consent, which means the group continues to discuss the issue until the either consensus or consent is reached (Lovrod, Interview, 2005). In order
for this decision-making model to succeed, it is essential for the meeting chair constantly to evaluate
the meeting to ensure all members feel they have a voice in the decision-making process (Acker,
1993.
Therefore, many feminist collectives adopt a modified consensus decision-making structure, which combines elements of both the collective and bureaucratic models. Critical decisions
are made by the group (collective), but routine decisions can be delegated to certain committees or
members (Iannello, 1992).
29
Feminist Bureaucratic/Modified Models
Often women who have professional experience and who have achieved success within a
traditional model will be more comfortable with the bureaucratic process because they know how it
works; women with numerous commitments may also feel that consensus is ‘a waste of time or just
undoable’ (Ryan, 1992, p. 58). Jan Thomas, in her research of 14 feminist women’s health collectives in operation for over 20 years, found that all the collectives eventually moved to a more hierarchical structure. Thomas says one of the unique aspects of these health collectives is that they
were not afraid to create a decision-making model that worked for their organization while staying
within a feminist framework (1999). In opposition to Bordt’s findings, detailed below, these health
collectives appear to be making conscious changes to their structures rather than simply allowing
new structures to emerge without conscious intent.
As feminist collectives or organizations grow, continuing to utilize consensus decisionmaking can impede timely processes and emotionally fatigue members; although collectives have
the option to remain small, many service and political collectives want to expand in order to address the growing and critical issues women face (Reger, 2000). Decision-making processes for collectives – particularly those with tight deadlines, large workloads, and a diverse membership (such
as health/service/non-profit collectives) – evolve out of necessity to focus on feminist outcomes rather than on a feminist process within the collective (Thomas, 1999; Ryan, 1992).
Hybrid Model
Bordt identifies a need for theoretical attention on feminist organizations that use hybrid
structures rather than the current focus on purely collective or bureaucratic organizational structures (1997). Many collectives use a variety of organizational and decision-making methods, mixing
collective principles with bureaucratic and democratic structures (Martin, 1993). Patricia Martin, in
her article ‘Rethinking feminist organizations’, says bureaucracy can have its benefits, in particular
for accomplishing tasks without exploiting its members; she further states although there is no ‘essential’ feminist organizational model, different approaches work for different groups and outcomes
30
(1993, p. 199). Some feminist groups explore hybrid organizational models in order to maintain
their original commitment to equality and participation while enabling the collective to operate
more efficiently. Bordt researched the structures of large non-profit women’s organizations and
concluded that most – in fact, over 68 percent – of the organizations she studied used a hybrid
structure. Bordt said she had hoped discover that the hybridization of these collective structures was
the result of conscious decisions; however, she found that most members had not discussed organizational structure and that the structures ‘just emerged’ (Bordt, 1997, p. 77).
Although Bordt’s research looked at large, established feminist service organizations, her
findings are important to my research of small art collectives. During my collection of oral histories,
many interviewees did not recall engaging in group discussions regarding their collective structure,
and other members could not define collectivity. And yet all of the women nevertheless described
their groups as collectives and their operating structures as collective. Collective members, including
the women I interviewed, are often involved with many different groups that have various organizational structures (Pelak, Taylor, Whittier, 1999), and organizations often use mixed decisionmaking methods from the time they formed (Acker, 1990).
The Critical Art Ensemble (CAE), an activist collective, uses an alternative decision-making
process self-described as ‘a form of consensus.’ After consensus is reached regarding how a project
will be completed, the member with the most relevant expertise is appointed as project manager.
The project manager makes all of the decisions about the project until its completion, including
advising and directing fellow collective members on how she or he wants things done. CAE stresses
that in order for this structure to work it is very important for collective members to trust one another and to believe that everyone has the collective’s best interests at heart (1998).
Product or Process
Collectives committed to growth and outcome rather than internal processes usually utilize
some form of a feminist bureaucratic decision-making model; whereas collectives committed to
collective internal processes, active participation, as well as social activism use a collective democrat-
31
ic model, sometimes with modifications for staffing decisions (Thomas, 1991). This is not a critique
of collectives that choose to work under a bureaucratic model; in fact, Reger cautions that to define
‘groups that adopt bureaucratic models as not feminist enough denies the realities of growing, busy
feminist organizations’ (2000, p. 144). Even though feminist collectives adopt various decisionmaking methods, the most important element of any feminist decision-making is recognizing the
importance of the decision-making process itself – valuing communication and sensitivity to all
members regardless of their hierarchical positions (Metzendorf, 2005). Collective members sometimes employ coping strategies when there are issues with the decision-making process, such as conflict or time-consuming decisions.
External Pressures
Governments and institutions usually require hierarchical structures on grant or funding
applications. But because collectives often engage in counter-politics, these requirements can make
it difficult for such organizations to look for outside funding sources (Thomas, 1999). Members of
some collectives have admitted that they often arbitrarily choose a ‘president/vicepresident/secretary etc’ for their funding applications, while other collectives have been faced with
the prospect of not accepting funds because they do not want their autonomy compromised (Martin, 2003, p. 201).
The Individual within the Collective
Although the goal of collectivity is to empower each member, working collectively can
stress individual members. Consensus and consensual decision-making takes time, and meetings
can often be emotionally charged. While individual contributions build a successful collective,
Janice Ristock (1991) suggests that success can at times be at the expenses of the individual; collectives foster a sense of sisterhood and community, but members often subsume their individual
needs, opportunities, and even power for the good of the collective. Further, although the use of
job rotation in collective organizing in theory empowers individual members, Ristock believes that
collective organizations often fail to use the various skills members may have. Some women have
32
even expressed feeling powerless rather than empowered when they find themselves struggling with
jobs that they are not familiar with or find difficult (1991).
Collective Intelligence
One of the key elements of collective work is sharing intellectual, artistic, and physical work
with members who have different skills and interests. Faith Wilding calls the collective pooling of
intellectual and physical resources ‘collective intelligence’ (Stalbaum, 2001). With the rise of artists
engaging in technical and Web work, working collectively is not only an advantage, it is becoming a
necessity (Moore, 2007). Sharing the workload and expenses is helpful because much of artists’
work, especially cultural activist work, tends to be unfunded, undocumented, and unpublished
(Moore, 2007). The Critical Art Ensemble (CAE) describes working collectively and pooling talent
as a way to allow collectives to permeate more spaces in more varied ways. The CAE can tap the
talents of its members for a variety of projects incorporating Web, performance, media, stage, guerrilla acts, books, and journals, in many cultural settings (2001). For emerging artists just starting out
or graduating from school, working collectively provides camaraderie and support, and sometimes
these friendships and networks evolve into cultural activist art collectives (2001). Finally, artists in
isolated places often collaborate on projects in order to share physical resources as well as theoretical, historical, and practical knowledge (Brown et al., 2003).
Issues for Artists Working Collectively
Competition
In some ways, working collectively can be detrimental to artists’ individual professional development and recognition. Universities and learning institutions are designed for individual artists
and do not promote collective work. Studios as well as classrooms are set up for individual practice.
Even artistic and graphic professions that will allow employees to work collectively in their day-today creative duties usually require independent work samples and portfolios when hiring (Critical
Art Ensemble, 2001; Stalbaum, 2001). Increased competition for acceptance to graduate programs
or professional art professions can put stress on members of a collective who may find themselves
33
competing for the same outside positions. This competition for schools and employers necessitates
that artists have their ‘own’ work to show, or documentation of ‘what part they did’ in a collective
project. Working collectively also raises practical and legal issues, such as who owns the work or
copyrights if a collective disbands.
Funding
Historically, granting and academic institutions have forced artists to be competitive (Critical Art Ensemble, 2001), requiring clear distinctions as to what part an applicant ‘did’ in a collective
project (Stalbaum, 2001). Government granting agencies and art galleries typically prefer to fund
and display individual artists rather than groups (Yancy & Martin, 1995; Critical Art Ensemble,
2001). However, as collectives have become more popular, the same stigma attached to collectivity
is fading. Granting bodies are recognizing and funding collective work, and galleries are beginning
to exhibit products of artistic collectives (for the most part apolitical, collaborative style collectives
such as The Royal Art Lodge). Interestingly, it is also becoming easier for collective members to
transition to careers as solo artists (Moore, 2007).
Is it Art?
Artists who create feminist activist art have often had their work dismissed as merely political, not ‘real art’ (Mullin, 2002, p. 189). In a 1980 essay, Lucy Lippard wrote that ‘overtly feminist
artists are always being accused of being “bad artists” simply by definition’ (Lippard, 1980, p. 364).
And in ‘Feminist art and the political imagination’ (2002), Amy Mullin explains that theorists and
critics typically fall into two camps when it comes to writing about political and activist art: those
who believe that art, politics, and activism should never mix; and those who focus only on the political message of feminist activist art rather than on any aesthetic qualities. Mullin argues that this is
because many art critics and theorists are still basing artistic imagination on the Kantian notion of
the inspired genius. Kant’s concept of artistic genius was that it was a product of nature, something
given at birth, and which could not be explained even by the artist. Kantian theories of creativity
and individual genius exclude not only political and activist work but the idea of collective work as
34
well. They negate feminist, political, and activist art as ‘real’ art. It is important to point out, of
course, that feminist activist art is often simply not written about, which is one of the reasons that
many feminists create, write, and edit (collectively) their own journals (Moore, 2007).
Key Elements for a Successful Art Collective
Art collectives are formed by artists with the same concerns and commitments who elect to
work together. In addition to these two key ingredients of collective working – shared values and a
desire to work together (Leigh Butler, 2001) – ongoing discussion and examination of the working
structure of the collective are critical to maintaining a healthy, invigorating environment. Collective
members need constantly to analyze their shared working style (Simonds, 1994, cited in Leigh Butler, 2001). And, finally, successful art collectives take time, because the long-term commitment of
collective members is what builds trust. The literature has demonstrated that once trust is established many of the issues that plague a short-term collective, particularly uneven division of labour
and work ethics, eventually even out – and that issues that are frustrating in the short term dissipate
as members get to know one another and relationships grow (Stalbaum, 2001). People work at different paces and in very different ways, and in order for the collective experience to be pleasurable
for all artists, there has to be an environment of trust and total dedication from each member
(1998).
35
CHAPTER THREE
METHODS AND METHODOLOGY
This chapter examines the feminist approaches I undertook in the collection and analysis
of my research data. The research questions of this project are: 1) what feminist art collectives exist
on the prairies?; 2) what kinds of actions or events do they organize?; and 3) what are their operational structures and how do they function?
Method refers to the practical tools used in the collection and analysis of research data.
Methodology refers to the framework – in other words, the description, discussion, and reflection
on the methods used. During the second wave of feminism, feminist research was defined as research done by women, with women, and for women. However, given that not all women are feminists and not all feminists are researching women, feminists began to rethink the definition of ‘feminist research.’ Feminist social scientist Sandra Harding states there is no ‘distinctive feminist method of research’, but rather feminist research approaches (1987, p. 1). Many of the methods used by
feminists in their research are traditional sociological methods such as oral history, observation,
surveys, interviews, and questionnaires. Feminist methods are therefore not distinct; rather, it is
feminist methodology that defines feminist research (DeVault, 1999, p. 21), which Marjorie
DeVault say is ‘without . . . fixed definition, and rather held together by core feminist commitments’
(1999, p. 36).
I begin by defining research approaches: standpoint, oral history, and insider/outsider as
they relate to my research. I then describe my research design and field methods and conclude by
considering how my methodologies may have affected my research findings.
Feminist Standpoint Epistemology
A feminist framework for research recognizes that personal experience is a valuable and legitimate source of knowledge, and that women use themselves as sources for research (HesseBiber, Leavy & Yaiser, 2004; Wilkinson, 1986). I entered the research process as a feminist artist
who had not previously engaged in feminist or sociological research but who personally valued
36
knowledge produced from women’s perspectives and experiences (Letherby, 2003; Briggs, 2003;
Ellis & Berger, 2003).
Standpoint theory, which emerged in the 1970s, is the position that research is grounded,
informed, and created from the standpoint of the oppressed, and developed through life experience and social position (Harding, 2004). Patricia Hill Collins states women often have several
standpoints and are therefore able to produce unique, alternative, and valid knowledge (1991). I
used feminist standpoint throughout my collection of prairie women’s oral histories, as well as my
own experiences in the research data and analysis (Hill Collins, 1991).
I also kept in mind that ‘reflexivity within research is not a problem but a scientific resource, and the use of reflexivity leads to strong objectivity’ (Letherby, 2003, p. 45). As I describe
my methods, I have also included reflections on my use of these methods.
Methods of Data Collection
Oral History/Qualitative Interviews
Women’s oral histories are crucial for the creation of new historical research. Collecting
oral accounts of these feminist activist artists makes visible a history that until now had gone largely
unnoticed (Armitage, 2002; Thomas, 1999). Oral history is not new, nor is it inherently feminist
(Geiger, 2004, p. 399). But gathering oral histories can become a distinctly feminist discourse
through the unique methodology feminist scholars use to collect and analyze research data.
The feminist methodology of oral history is what Armitage calls an ‘awareness of our own
motivations and personal styles’ during the interview process (Armitage, 2002, p. 67). She believes
the reason women agree to participate in the gathering of their oral histories is that we as researchers have convinced them that we want to know about them, that they have meaningful stories to
share, and that their histories will be respected (2002,). Sherry Thomas argues that we have to know
our own prejudices when collecting and analysing oral history (2002,). In other words, while collecting women’s oral histories it is especially important to be self-conscious of our processes.
37
To gather the data for this project, I used qualitative interviews. Although researchers use
qualitative, in-depth interviews to collect women’s life histories, oral histories are not synonymous
with qualitative interviews (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2006). Oral histories are collections of whole life
stories, whereas qualitative interviews are focussed more on specific topics and interests. From typically one-on-one, thorough interviews, a researcher is able to compile large amounts of data in the
form of interview transcripts (Sterk & Elifson, 2004). Where quantitative interviews are structured
and use a list of standardized, close-ended questions that are asked of each participant (Hesse-Biber
& Leavy, 2006), qualitative interviews are unstructured and use open-ended, directed questions; the
latter are more challenging because the researcher must be actively aware of and engaged with interviewees’ responses throughout.
Insider/Outsider
An insider belongs to the group she is researching, be that by age, gender, ethnic or social
class, racial group, or shared life interests and experiences (Naples, 2003; Hesse-Biber & Leavy,
2006). When I discuss ‘insiderness’ in this research, I am describing the experiences and interests
shared by both my research subjects and myself: We are feminists living on the prairies and dedicated to art and activism. At the beginning of each interview, I disclosed to the interviewees that I
also live on the prairies, am active in a feminist art collective, and that my interest in this research
project stemmed from my experiences with this collective. A researcher who is an insider can use
her knowledge to gain greater insight into her research – she is better able to understand and empathize with her research subjects and it is less likely that ‘exploitative power relationships will occur’
(Oakley, 1981, p. 256).
Insiderness can also be problematic, though: If the interviewer and the interviewee have
too much in common, the interviewer may not draw out as many details or behaviours (Acker,
2000, p. 198) because a great deal is already assumed. In retrospect, I recognize that my insiderness
and familiarity of the structure and issues within a feminist art collective may have affected my ability to gather information. I am uncomfortable with conflict within my own collective and frequently
38
avoid topics that may lead to disagreements. Therefore, when I asked women about conflict within
their collectives, I often backed off on any questions that seemed to create tension. If I had been an
outsider, I may have been less inclined to let the question ‘drop’ as quickly. Given these potential
issues, being an outsider in the interview process has, in the past, been seen as a more neutral position. However, feminists have challenged the notion of a neutral position at all, and feminist researchers recognize that interviews are dynamic and fluid and cannot be simply defined by the opposition of insider and outsider (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2006). That said, even an insider can feel
like an outsider, especially when asking very personal questions about conflict or power.
Situating Myself in my Research
Feminist researchers have recognized that research is ‘not value free scientific inquiry’ (Ellis
& Berger, 2003, p. 469), and that researchers need to situate themselves in their research. Gayle
Letherby even suggests that ‘feminist research accounts should be grounded in the personal and be
accountable to readers’ (2003, p. 9), and that they are in fact enriched by the researcher sharing her
experiences and standpoints (Naples, 2003).
My Story
I am forty years old and returned to school seven years ago as a mature student. When I
began this research project, I was coming from an art and activist background into feminist academia. I did not have any training in Women’s Studies, but rather a BFA in art. Nonetheless, throughout my undergraduate degree, I was always interested in feminist art and artists and wrote exclusively about female artists in my art history classes. My art practice has always had a feminist, activist
agenda and it has became increasingly important to me over the last few years to work collaboratively and collectively for cultural activism. At this point in my life, the collective and collaborative process is at least as important as the resulting product or action.
My Politics
I am a feminist activist who uses art as a medium for activism, whether collaboratively or
independently. I identify my feminist politics as third wave, although lately I and other young femi-
39
nists have been theorizing about the possibility of a ‘fourth wave’. I value the achievements of second- and third-wave feminists and do not claim that feminism is dead by any means. I welcome the
diversity and fluidity of definitions (Bromley & Ahmad, 2006) but at the same time admit that an
established definition of feminism would certainly be much cleaner and less complicated. It is my
experience with second- and third-wave feminist discourse, as well as my engagement in feminist art
production and collective organization, that have inspired the collaborative and collective nature of
my activism and art practice.
Why I Undertook This Research
Like many feminist activist researchers, I undertook my research because of my experiences working collectively and collaboratively (Naples, 2003). As a member of a feminist art collective,
The ( )ette Collective, I have been very engaged with cultural activism. I have also collaborated
with another artist, Kelly Andres, on many performance and installation projects over the past three
years. My reflections and experiences of collectivity and collaboration are interspersed throughout
my research.
Awareness of Bias
My personal experiences, including those of conflict, within a feminist art collective
sparked my interest in researching other such collectives. As I began my research process, I initiated informal conversations with the other members of The ( )ette Collective. Almost immediately,
they pointed out that I focused on conflict more than on other topics or issues within our collective.
One member told me, ‘You have an agenda in your research. You have things you want to find out,
and your questions are leading the conversation to the conflict we encountered. This is personal to
you’ (Kelly, Interview, p. 2). Reflecting on her comment, as well as the interviews I conducted with
members of other collectives, I realized that I often brought conversations back to themes of power
and conflict.
There are two incidents that have made collective organization and conflict management
important to me. The first is a serious conflict that arose in my own collective and which remains
40
unresolved to this day. Although difficult to explain, the crux of the matter was the inability of our
collective’s three members to reach consensus on an issue. In the end, one member felt left out,
and we ostensibly resolved the issue by discarding the project, but the relationship between the
three of us was never the same as it had been.
The second incident also occurred while I was in the collective. I realized that I tended to
assume a leadership role, and that I tended to struggle with working collectively. Leadership is not a
negative feminist trait, nor a characteristic that is inherently at odds with the nature of collective
work; in fact, collectivity is a process that should empower all participants and facilitate leadership
skills. However, during collective meetings I would often catch myself assigning tasks or assuming
chairing duties. I did not intend to assume power by taking organizational control of the meetings;
rather, I felt compelled to move the collective forward by getting things done.
Our collective was without formal structure, and as Jo Freeman (1975) has described, unrecognized power structures developed that gave prominence to a few collective members. Members who had been in the collective longer, or who had more familiarity with theory, or even who
were more comfortable speaking, were given more authority. (I discuss this phenomenon further in
Chapter Five.) As the collective evolved, I became conscious of a growing tension between passion
and pragmatism within the membership; I also realized that I was uncomfortable talking to the other members about conflict when it occurred. Our collective seemed to ‘ignore’ conflict for the sake
of our engagement with art activism.
Activism of This Project
This research project is an extension of my activism and includes this thesis as well as a
documentary video, a Web site, and a multi-event exhibition. I have chosen these four media to
disseminate the results because I believe it is vital that the actions and collective experiences of
these groups are not only recorded but that knowledge about them is made available to a wider
public audience. Since feminist activism is concerned with social and cultural change, it is important
that research which chronicles and examines such activity on the Canadian prairies be widely dis-
41
seminated, thereby both recognizing women artists publicly and creating spaces for further activism.
This research is a tribute to the women involved, a testament that their events, actions, and collective work have been recorded and are significant. The results of this project are not only about the
participants, but also for the participants (Hesse-Biber, Leavy, & Yaiser, 2004).
Research Design
Research Subject Criteria
Initially, I quite narrowly defined the kind of collectives I wanted to find, document, and
investigate, seeking out collectives much like the one in which I am involved. Specifically, I was
looking for collectives and collective members on the prairies active during the last 25 years (1980–
2005) that defined themselves as feminist and created contemporary art for cultural activism. Furthermore, I tried to find collectives that draw on feminist politics to create art, whether performance, video, installation, painting, sculpture, photography, or film.
In her book Radical gestures: Feminism and performance art in North America, Jayne
Wark argues that, as women became involved in feminist politics, they used ‘art as action’ (2006, p.
32). Using ‘art as action’ to challenge gender, social, and cultural norms was indeed fundamental to
the collective in which I was involved. I was inspired by artists and collectives I was reading about at
the time – individuals such as Collette Urban, Tanya Mars, Cindy Sherman, Suzy Lacy, Yoko Ono,
Barbra Kruger, and collectives like the Clichettes, Idea Group, Guerrilla Girls, the Critical Art En-
semble, and Finger in the Dyke, who are included in this research.
Locating Research Subjects
In Spring 2005, I used various methods to locate collectives on the prairies. I turned to the
Internet, starting with search terms like ‘collectives’, ‘art collectives’, ‘feminist collectives’, ‘prairie
collectives’, ‘women’s groups’, ‘women’s activism’, and ‘women’s art’. I searched Web sites of various galleries and artist-run centres, looking for any exhibitions by, or articles written about, feminist
art collectives and activist events or actions. I then sent e-mail inquiries to art galleries and/or artist-
42
run centres across the three prairie provinces.27 I searched Women’s Studies Web sites from all the
universities and colleges in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, and sent e-mail to these programs and specific faculty inquiring if any were aware of feminist artist, collectives, or activists in
their cities. I placed a call for submissions on PAR-L, an online feminist network, and Instant Cof-
fee, an online Canadian resource for artists and galleries. The call specified that I was looking for
28
art collectives engaged in cultural activism and that I was looking to interview current or past members of feminist art collectives who were active on the Canadian prairies at any point between 1980
and 2005. The call added that the purpose of the research was to collect the histories of feminist art
activism on the prairies and to contribute to knowledge about collective operating structures; and,
further, that the results of the research project would be a written thesis and documentary. I created
and distributed posters in Lethbridge, Edmonton, and Calgary, and sent the poster via e-mail to
university women’s centres, art galleries, and artist-run centres in all three prairie provinces. I researched prairie art magazines (Border Crossings, Parrellegramme/Mix, and Galleries West) and
local newspapers from across the prairies.29
Another strategy I used in my attempts to find feminist collectives was attending feminist
events, conferences, and art openings across the prairies. I attended Feminism(s) in the Third
Wave, a conference in Edmonton, Alberta; Herland Film and Video Festival in Calgary, Alberta;
and the Sugar and Splice Feminist Film Festival in Winnipeg, Manitoba.30 At these events, I was
27
In Alberta, I sent e-mail to the Calgary Art Gallery, Truck, Stride Gallery, the New Gallery, the Triangle Gallery, and EMMEDIA. In Saskatchewan, I contacted the Mendel Gallery,
Paved Arts, and AKA Gallery in Saskatoon, and the McKenzie Art Gallery, Neutral Ground, and
Soil Digital Media Suite in Regina. In Manitoba, I contacted the Winnipeg Art Gallery, Video Pool,
ACE Art Inc., Urban Shaman, the Label Gallery, and Mentoring Artists for Women’s Art
(MAWA). I also sent e-mail to Women’s Studies programs and women’s centres at the Universities
of Lethbridge, Calgary, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Regina, Winnipeg, and Manitoba.
28
PARL-L can be found at http://www.unb.ca/PAR-L/ and Instant Coffee at
http://www.instantcoffee.org/.
29
I accessed local newspapers while I was on my research trips, not in the initial research
stage. While I was in Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, and Lethbridge, I scanned local
papers and community event flyers for notices of events regarding, art, and/or art collectives.
30
Feminism(s) in the Third Wave, May 12–14, 2006, organized by the Women’s Studies
Undergraduate Association at the University of Alberta, featured undergraduate and graduate stu43
given the opportunity publicly to describe my research project and to announce that I was searching
for feminist art collectives. I visited various artist-run centres in Calgary, Saskatoon, and Winnipeg,
asking staff members if they were aware of any feminist collectives in their cities; and I searched
local gallery publications and alternative newspapers for features or any information regarding feminist activist art collectives.
When I had little success finding collectives on the prairies that fit my preliminary conditions, I re-evaluated my criteria and broadened my search to include collectives that not only creat-
ed art, but also those that promoted feminist art for cultural activism. I expanded my definition of a
collective to include collaborations of just two artists, such as Shawna Dempsey and Lorri Millan
(Finger in the Dyke), who define themselves as a collective. Re-defining my search criteria yielded
six collectives, including: two feminist film festival collectives, Herland and Sugar and Splice; a feminist publication collective, the Saskatoon Women’s Calendar Collective; women from two generations of an Edmonton feminist radio collective, Adamant Eve; and two art collectives, Finger in the
Dyke, and my own collective, The ( )ette Collective.
Homogeneity of Interview Subjects
As I began meeting and interviewing the feminist activist artists I soon became conscious,
self-conscious even, that my subject group was very homogeneous. Although there is a variety of
ages and sexual orientations among the women I interviewed, most were middle-class white women
(one interviewee was Chinese-Canadian) and all but one has at least one university degree. When I
made contact with the collectives and the individual members, I did not ask the race, class or education of the women. However, I had included a question inquiring if the collective actively tried to
dents. I presented at this conference. Herland Film and Video Festival is an annual feminist film
festival held in Calgary for the past 17 years, the only annual feminist film festival in the western
Canadian provinces. I was able to attend the 2005, 2006, and 2007 festivals. The festival and collective may not continue to operate, as it has recently lost half of its annual funding as well as almost all
of its core members. The collective lost its office space and is currently working at rotating houses
in hopes that the festival can continue. Sugar and Splice Feminist Film and Video Festival has held
three feminist film festivals in Winnipeg. It is a young collective composed of recent graduates of
the University of Winnipeg. I attended their 2006 festival. They did not have a festival in 2007 and
are unsure about 2008.
44
diversify its membership, and that question became more important to me as I realized the ‘sameness’ of the collectives’ demographic makeup.
It is worth noting that my attempts to contact and interview the following groups were unsuccessful: TRIBE, an Aboriginal art collective in Saskatoon, and Women of Colour, a collective
that organizes cultural events in Calgary.
Collectives I did not Interview
There were a few collectives I located but was not able to include in this research. For example, I found an art collective called Fucken Up Sexist Shit (FUSS), founded at the University of
Alberta in 2002 by students, faculty, and members of the community at large. Funded by the student-run Alberta Public Interest Research Group (APIRG), FUSS described itself as ‘women and
men of various ages and backgrounds who do actions employing sardonic wit and a variety of approaches to sex-positive feminist activism’.31 Although the collective disbanded in 2005, I was able
to contact two of the members; unfortunately we were subsequently unable to coordinate interviews
during my fieldwork.
As I travelled the prairies to complete my fieldwork, word of my project spread and soon I
was receiving e-mail informing me of other feminist collectives on the prairies. For example, when I
arrived in Winnipeg, the women from the collectives I was there to interview had prepared a list of
other feminist artists or collectives that I might want to contact. Sugar and Splice introduced me to
the eight-member collective that was organizing Lady Festival, a three-day event that included theoretical discussions, art exhibitions, concerts, and a parade. I met informally with that collective and
attended a few of their events, but I did not have time on that research trip or in my fieldwork to
interview and study them formally. Finger in the Dyke also gave me the names of the collective
members organizing A Gender Play Cabaret, as well members of another collective organizing the
31
When I was searching for collectives I found information (as well as the descriptive quote
I have used above) on the APIRG Web site. This information is no longer on the site
(http://www.apirg.org/wg/wglist.php) but the fact that they existed and were an APIRG funded collective is still evident.
45
2006 International Drag King Extravaganza. And Lisa Lambert, a feminist and activist in Lethbridge, contacted me in the fall of 2006. She and her aunt discussed my project while they were at a
family reunion; her aunt, Judy McNaughton, happens to be the co-ordinator of an art collective,
Common Weal Community Arts, an arts group in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.
32
Following the completion of my field research, I received an e-mail with information regarding a feminist art collective operating in Calgary, Women, Creativity, and Political Voice
(WCPV); this collective collaborates with many community and feminist organizations in Calgary. I
also found feminist radio shows that are collectively organized,33 including a young feminist collective that launched a radio show at CJSW in Calgary in 2006 called Dykes on Mikes. This collective
aims to explore and promote feminism and women’s issues, and its members are concerned with
the ‘trend’, as they see it, of Alberta feminist organizations dropping the word ‘feminist’ in order to
be more palatable to men and women (Hofferd, 2006). Collectively operated feminist radio shows
are of particular interest to me because in the past they have often been pressured by radio managers and producers to operate hierarchically, but they have resisted, citing their connections with
Women’s Studies programs.34, 35
Mentoring Artists for Women’s Art (MAWA) is a feminist organization that develops and
operates mentoring programs for female artists in Winnipeg. Its presence is important to feminist
32
McNaughton was very interested in my research and would have liked to have been included in the project. Although I was not able to interview her for this paper, I will be doing so for
the documentary that is part of this research project.
33
Say it Sista (Winnipeg), Dykes on Mikes (Calgary).
34
Although I have discovered that currently radio station administration is more open to
collectively operated radio programs they still request a ‘contact person’. A contact person in a radio collective creates an uneven power dynamic in the collective (Interview, Anna, p. 24). Further,
radio stations sometimes require shows to pre-record, rather than live-host the production, another
element that has affected the collective process. Two women (of different generations) who hosted
the Edmonton feminist radio show Adamant Eve both described the process of pre-recording as
more an individualized than collective process.
35
In intend to include WCPV, FUSS, Dykes on Mikes, and TRIBE, as well as other collectives I may discover, in my postgraduate research Alberta Foundation for the Arts documentary
video project. This documentary will combine the interviews I completed for this thesis as well as
further interviews and documentation with the aim of introducing a wider audience to these collectives and their activism.
46
and activist artists in Canada. However, I did not include MAWA since my research focuses on
documenting feminist art collectives, and MAWA currently operates under a hierarchical board
structure.36
Ephemeral Traces
Although I found collectives from all three prairie provinces that use or promote art aimed
at cultural activism, I was unable to find or interview as many art-creating collectives as I had hoped.
My inability to identify these art collectives on the Canadian prairies is in fact one of the very reasons I wanted to do this research project: with little public documentation of these collectives, their
actions are often overlooked by even their own communities. The traces of cultural activist collectives are hard to find because they frequently organize on a project-to-project basis and, although
their actions may have great impact in their local communities, more permanent records or widespread knowledge of their actions is easily lost. Jen of Sugar and Splice in Winnipeg says:
I think so many non-profit and activist kind of work is done by people in their
spare time and so it is not documented and just sort of slides away. I remember
hearing something about a film festival here, I think in the eighties, a feminist film
festival, and yet I’ve never found anything on it, but I’ve hear little bits and pieces
about people who [are art activists] who say, ‘it happened, it was great’ . . . so it
makes me wonder where did it go? (Interview, p. 24)
As I touched on in the introduction, art activist activities, especially performance, are
ephemeral by nature and therefore gathering archival documentation to historicize feminist and
cultural activism is not an easy task (Cvetkovich, 1998, p. 195). Most collectives are working outside
institutions and, unless collectives self-publish, there is often little to be found in the public record
(Ault, 2002). In other words, it is highly likely that there are many more collectives on the prairies
that have been active in their communities than I have been able to identify.
Pre-Interview Research
To construct my research design, I studied the existing literature regarding collectivity, feminist art, Canadian feminist activism, and feminist research methods. Equally importantly, I inter36
As I described in my literature review, many feminist organization are forced to adopt a
board structure due to pressure from outside agencies and government institutions.
47
viewed all current members of The ( )ette Collective. I started with this collective before beginning
my fieldwork, as I am a founding member and familiar with its members and issues. Given that this
was my first research project involving human subjects, interviewing women and discussing topics
with which I was familiar eased me into the process. More importantly, the experience of conducting these interviews helped me shape the questions I was developing for the other collectives.
Through the interviews with The ( )ette Collective, which were mostly informal and conversational, each member and I considered specific events and discussed how we dealt with the issues they raised. This exercise clarified in my mind our own collective process and concerns within
the collective; it also informed my subsequent research questions. For example, when I interviewed
Cayley, a founding member of The ( )ette Collective whose past experience was with peace activist
groups, she said she felt that the lack of a formal structure was responsible for much of the conflict
in the collective. Her responses echo literature regarding feminist collectivity, such as writing by Jo
Freeman (1974). On the other hand, when I asked two members, Kelly and Sylvia, if they felt that
formalizing the collective structure would aid in cohesion, they opined that, although it might, they
did not believe conflict was always negative and that in fact conflict often even resulted in richer art
projects. They both also said they would not want to work in a formally structured collective. These
sorts of discussions gave me insight into the different ways women from the same collective might
consider various issues.
I completed these initial interviews on my own, engaging in discussion from behind a handheld video camera. Upon completion of this first set of interviews, I realized that I needed to be
able to take notes and concentrate more intently on the interview subjects; therefore, for the remaining interviews I hired a research assistant, Heather Lidberg. I reflect on our working process
later in this chapter.
48
Field Methods
Contact with Interviewees
My fieldwork was conducted from May 2006–August 2006. I contacted the collectives
through e-mail; we coordinated a week when I could interview collective members individually, and
when possible I coincided these research trips with events. For example, I travelled to Saskatoon to
meet and interview members of the Saskatoon Women’s Calendar Collective (SWCC) during their
annual meeting (June 2006), and my interviews with Sugar and Splice in Winnipeg took place during their film festival (May 2006), at which time I was also able to interview the members of Finger
in the Dyke. Because Herland is located in Calgary, which is only two hours away, I attended their
2005 festival just as I was beginning my research project, their 2006 festival on another research
trip, and then made three more visits to Calgary to interview six different collective members (four
current and two past members). In order to interview two past members of the Edmonton radio
collective Adamant Eve (Jana (1992–1993) and Anna (2002–2003)), I travelled to the Sunshine
Coast and Montreal, their current residences, respectively.
I interviewed almost all current members and some past members of the collectives I
found – of all the collectives, the only members I did not interview were past members who did not
want to be interviewed or current members with whom I could not coordinate interviews. The one
exception was Adamant Eve: despite multiple attempts, I was not able to meet current members
during the course of my fieldwork.
Ethics
As required by the University of Lethbridge for any research involving human subjects, I
completed an Ethical Review of Human Subject Research application (April 2006) to ensure that
my research adhered to the University’s established code of ethics and that it was in accordance
with the Tri-Council Policy Statement. This ethics application required me to describe in detail
who the research subjects would be, how I would recruit them, and what rights they would have. I
49
also provided copies of all forms I would be using in my research, including the Letter of Informed
Consent, as well as a sample of interview questions.
All participants were given three options for the interview process: They could choose
complete anonymity, with their identity hidden by a pseudonym and the data only used in the written thesis; they could choose to have their interview data only used in the written thesis; or they
could choose to have the interview data used in the written thesis as well as the documentary video.37 I further notified participants that if there was anything they reconsidered after the interview
that they did not want included in either format, they could inform me at any time. As it happens,
everyone interviewed gave full permission for her data to be used in both the written thesis as well
as the documentary video; no participants requested anonymity. Although I did not discourage interviewees from choosing to be anonymous, I was pleased that no one elected this option. As Jan
Thomas has argued (2002), using real names when recording women’s oral histories means that
these women, and their art activist work, are given a real voice as important contributors to feminist
art and activist prairie history. In fact, Michael Patton says that there are now some interviewees
who are ‘maintaining their right “to tell their stories” without hiding their identities, especially when
they see such projects as an opportunity to gain empowerment and perhaps become a catalyst for
social change’ (Patton, 2002, p. 411).
Interview Questions
I have included a copy of my interview questions in Appendix A. The interviews were conversational, so I did not necessarily cover all the questions listed, but the examples offer a sense of
the types of questions I asked. The basic two thematic interests I explored were the history of the
collective – why did the collective form? why the conjunction of art and activism? what projects has
the collective engaged in? – and the working structure of the collectives, particularly issues regarding
conflict and power?
37
I had told participants that if they desired anonymity that we could record the interview
audio only; no one requested this format.
50
Interview Process
I attempted to create an interview environment that provided a comfortable space and atmosphere, as well as adequate time, for the interviewees and I to feel at ease engaging in ‘woman
talk’ (DeVault, 2004, p. 228). DeVault states that woman ‘talk’ differently when in mixed social situations than they do when in conversation with each other. When women are together, they are
more likely to listen intently and ‘speak more fully about their experiences’ (2004, p. 229). Therefore, I listened intently and hoped they would feel free enough to share their experiences honestly.
Style
Having learned that oral history ‘began with talk’, I attempted to structure the interviews
like a conversation between friends (Berger Gluck, 1991, p. 9), listening carefully and encouraging
each interviewee to tell her story on her own terms, at her own pace (Anderson & Jack 1991; Fontana, 2003).38 There were certainly topics I wanted to cover during interviews, including their impetus to form/join a collective, events/actions they organized, structure of their collective, personal
experiences with collectivity, and power dynamics or conflict within the collective. However, I attempted to work these thematically in to the conversation without interrupting or being confrontational, rather than going back and forth with questions and answers. In this way, I allowed the interviewees to guide the interview (Armitage, 2002).
Double Interviews
Although the interviews were primarily one-on-one, there were three instances when I interviewed two women at the same time; it became clear that the women who chose to be interviewed with another collective member were also close friends outside the collective. Six women:
Amy Jo and Deanna from SWCC, Allyson and Jenny from Sugar and Splice, and Shawna and Lor38
I attempted to engage the women in a participatory interview session that was more conversational, so the attached questions were merely a starting point or a guide. That said, I did attempt to cover some form of the following questions: what was their impetus was to join or form a
collective? What were their personal experiences with feminist collective organizations? We discussed the organizational structure of their collective; any conflict and/or power structures they personally experienced within the collective; and projects, events, and actions their collective had completed.
51
ri from Finger in the Dyke, were interviewed together at their requests. The women were comfortable together, and each appeared to be confident in her own right. At no time during the interviews
did I get the impression that either woman felt inhibited from sharing her thoughts or experiences
because another collective member was there. However, I did notice that the one-on-one interviews
tended to be more self-reflective and personal, while the participants in the pair interviews seemed
to describe actions or events as they impacted the collective. For instance, in the individual interviews participants would say things like ‘I thought it was really important that . . . ’ or ‘it bothered
me that . . . ’, whereas in the dual interviews participants were more likely to say ‘we did this and
that. . . ’, ‘we usually meet here. . . ’, confirming dates or details with each other. The exception was
Finger in the Dyke, who, as I stated in the introduction, are a collective of two who have worked
closely for almost twenty years. When I interviewed them together they smoothly transitioned back
and forth between personal experiences and structural or more fact-based discussions.
As I was interviewing two members together who shared a close friendship, it was apparent
how their intimacy may have affected the collective structure as a whole. For example, when interviewing Allyson and Jenny from Sugar and Splice in Winnipeg, Jenny, the newer member stated,
‘[W]e know each other, we had that trust before I [joined] the collective’ (Interview, p. 14). The
way they explicitly expressed trust of one another led me to think that perhaps they did not enjoy
that same trust with other members of the collective.
Locations
Recognizing that interviews are affected by various dynamics – including the social dynamic
of the interview itself as well as power dynamics amongst participants (Briggs, 2004) – I asked each
subject to choose the location of our interview, figuring that the women would choose places they
felt the most comfortable and thus feel more invested in the interview process. Although I think this
strategy did help subjects feel more at ease, most subjects chose public places such as coffee shops
52
and parks, which sometimes resulted in visual distractions and undermined the audio quality.39 On
the other hand, these public interviews themselves became acts of feminism, as we two, sometimes
three, women were filmed by another woman, discussing women’s histories and actions in very
public spaces.
Length
The interviews averaged one and a half hours in length, usually allowing enough time for a
natural rapport to develop through conversation. I began interviews by asking the subjects to create
a visual representation of their collective; I provided them with paper/scissors/crayons/pens/etc.,
and while they constructed their representations I would ask ‘easy’ questions such as: How long
have you lived here? Why did you join/form this collective? Have you always been politically active? Do you have any individual art practice? This ice-breaking exercise successfully permitted the
interviewees and me to become more comfortable with each other before the conversations
evolved.
Recording Methods
Each interview was videotaped, as were (when possible) group meetings, events, and actions. My assistant, Heather Lidberg, operated the video camera for all the interviews, except (as I
mentioned previously) those with The ( )ette Collective. Each interview is transcribed, and following this project the video documentation will be used to create a documentary about feminist art
collective activism on the prairies.40
In retrospect, I recognize that there were implications to using a video camera to record the
interviews. In Chapter Five of this thesis, Conflict and Cohesion, I discuss the discomfort some
women exhibited when I asked questions regarding conflict within their collective. I began to won-
39
The fact that the women for the most part chose public spaces is interesting to me. Although I have not examined this issue in detail in the thesis, I do discuss it a bit further in the Sociability and Pleasure chapter.
20
The documentary, funded by the Alberta Foundation for the Arts, will be completed in
July 2008.
53
der if Sherna Berger Gluck’s description of the ‘performance in interviews’ (Berger Gluck, 1998, p.
7) or Charles Briggs account of the ‘imagined text’ (2003, p. 498), in which participants imagine
how their words will be used in the finished text (and, in this instance, the eventual documentary
video), may have been playing out in my filming of the interviews.
It should be noted, however, that most of the women did choose public spaces such as cafés for the interviews, so it would seem that they did not necessarily desire to keep the conversations
private (Hesse-Biber & Peavy, 2006). Though discussing interpersonal relationships is different
from promoting an event or engaging in performance art, most of these women are accustomed to
being in the public eye and to speaking publicly; in fact, all members of the art collectives engaged
in public and video performance, and most members of the art-promoting collectives either spoke
publicly at their events or participated in newspaper, radio, or television interviews.
Gathering Other Data
As I stated earlier, when possible, I observed collective meetings or events of the collectives. I was able to attend two collective meetings: Saskatoon Women’s Calendar Collective ’s annual meeting (June 2006) and Herland ’s meeting following their 2006 film festival; I also attended
three consecutive Herland Film and Video Festivals (2005–2007), as well as the 2006 Sugar and
Splice Feminist Film Festival. An informal group meeting with Sugar and Splice that I organized
was videotaped.
I collected and analyzed archive material that members of some collectives had saved, including: books, catalogues, posters, programs, flyers, buttons, photographs, videos, and CDs. I also
studied the Web sites that four collectives maintain (Herland, Saskatoon Women’s Calendar Col-
lective, Finger in the Dyke, and Sugar and Splice).
Data Analysis
When analyzing my research data I looked for patterns and themes regarding operations,
relationships, and projects of these feminist art collectives. I recognize that my data results are only
partial knowledges and could be influenced by many factors; for example, how long a woman has
54
been in a collective, why she joined the collective, and her current relationships with other collective members. I also acknowledge that there are no universal truths, and the experiences I chronicle
here certainly may not apply to all women working in feminist collectives, whether on the Canadian
prairies or elsewhere (Letherby, 2003).
I am also aware that my own experiences working in a feminist collective necessarily influenced the collection and analysis of this research (Letherby, 2003) and that decisions I made regarding the inclusion and interpretation of data were affected by my personal experiences of feminist collectivity, feminism, and cultural activism, as well as my art, political views, and activism. For
example, because I am a member of an art-creating collective engaged in feminist theory, when I
began to interview and study women from art-promoting collectives that were not actively engaged
in theory, I initially felt disappointed. However, as I analyzed the data I realized the immense importance of these collectives to their communities and to my study, and that often their longevity
rests on the fact they engaged in theory when they were established but now have a template to
complete their annual projects.
Upon Reflection
Use of Language/Questions
In Talking and listening from women’s standpoint: Feminist strategies for interviewing and
analysis, Marjorie DeVault states that ‘there is a chance of mislabelling from a use of language that
does not fit’ (2004, p. 244); as I thought about that statement it occurred to me that the word ‘conflict’ is a very masculine word, a word that connotes fighting, combat, and opposition. I had chosen
the word ‘conflict’ when creating my interview questions because it was commonly used in the literature I read at the time (Ristock, 1991; Freeman; Iannello, 1992) to describe issues of power and
dissension that can arise within feminist collectives. In retrospect, I wonder whether that decision
might have informed the women’s responses and if, during the interview process I had used ‘tension’, ‘disagreement’, ‘pressure’, or other words that may have more accurately described their ex-
55
periences than the word ‘conflict’, I may have received different answers and if the discomfort I
observed in many participants when we discussed ‘conflict’ may have been different.41
Analyzing the research, I realized that many of my questions focused more on the stucture
of the collectives than on their projects, as reflected in the data analysis chapters. I was subsequently
able to gather information from archives about the collectives’ various projects, but as Letherby
(2003) posited, the questions we ask affect the answers we get.
Time
I believe that the time restrictions of a Master’s program also had an impact on my data
collection. The interview process included initial contact by e-mail or telephone, a few minutes of
conversation when I met the women while we were setting up for the interview, and then the interview itself. It goes without saying that we did not have enough time to create an atmosphere of familiarity or develop a relationship of trust. Though unavoidable, practically speaking, this reality
certainly affected women’s comfort level when discussing conflict within their collective.
Sharing/Archiving the Data
This research is itself activist in nature – not only because it chronicles a history of prairie
activists but also because it was undertaken ‘with a commitment to produce useful knowledge that
will make a difference to women’s lives’ (Letherby, 2003, p. 4). Armitage stresses the importance of
sharing the collected and analyzed research material with the narrators (2002, p. 70). Towards that
end, I offered a copy of this thesis to the interviewees and promised to send a DVD of the subsequent documentary.
A hallmark of feminist research methods is an insistence that the work contribute to women’s history and that researchers advocate and engage in activism. For this research project, I collected over 35 hours of videotape. All the interviews are transcribed, and I have a collection of archive material that has been categorized and recorded. Recognizing the importance of sharing these
41
I discuss the issue of discomfort with conflict in more detail in Chapter Five.
56
women’s histories, I intend to ensure that the transcripts and archive material from this project are
made accessible to researchers across Canada by donating them to a public university or an organization such as the Canadian Women’s Archive.
Researcher/Assistant Relationship
The Beginning
I had only met Heather briefly before hiring her as my videographer; we were essentially
strangers when we began to collaborate. But soon enough, we were working together closely – from
long driving trips (often 12-hour days) to sleeping in tight quarters (in a Westfalia in various
campgrounds), from sharing cooking and cleaning responsibilities to packing and unpacking our
necessities and research equipment. We became very comfortable with each other and fell into an
easy partnership that really thrived while we were on the road.
Attempting Collaboration
When Heather and I became partners on this project, I had already been working collaboratively and collectively for more than three years; I had become aware of power dynamics, and I
wanted to flatten the often hierarchal relationship between employer/employee. Therefore, I approached our working relationship as a collaboration. This strategy was awkward at the beginning as
Heather was, perhaps understandably, looking for more direction and I was uncomfortable giving
it. However, working through it during our first research trip of ten days, we arrived at a healthy
equilibrium of collaboration and direction. We continued self-reflexive discussions throughout our
four-month working relationship and, I believe, succeeded in achieving a rewarding balance between my research and our relationship.
The Complications – Power Dynamics
Louise Johnson states that ‘the idea of entering into employment contract as well as a collegial research relationship is an oxymoronic on-going tension’ (Johnson, 2002, p. 59). Although
Heather became a great colleague and friend, there were certainly issues of power at play nevertheless.
57
As I stated earlier, I had not done human subject research before this project; I had not
participated in qualitative research, either as a researcher or participant. I felt – and in fact, I was –
quite inexperienced. I was unsure of how the interviews should go, not knowing what a successful
interview looked like, and I wondered if my questions were on target. Heather, on the other hand,
had a background in anthropology. I would often ask her what she thought about my interview performance, if the interview went well, or if she had any advice. What I did not share with her was
that her experience relative to mine was at times a great source of stress to me.
Equality
Jan Coates, in her essay ‘Women’s friendships, women’s talk’, argues that ‘friendships are
only sustained if participants treat each other as equals’ (1997, p. 247). I believe that one of the reasons Heather and I were able ultimately to reach a relationship of collaboration and friendship is
our common backgrounds, both of us white women who identified ourselves as feminists, artists,
and activists. We are both confident women, comfortable with confrontation, and I believe the
foundation of our friendship, which continues today, is that we consider ourselves equals.
58
CHAPTER FOUR
ENGAGING THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL
We try to be different from the kind of political art that is angry and points to
something and says “This is bad.” That’s preaching to the converted. We want to
be subversive, to transform our audience, to confront them with some disarming
statements, backed up by facts – and great visuals – and hopefully convert them.
We carefully craft everything we do. We try to twist an issue around and present it
in a way that hasn't been seen before. We usually test-drive a project by showing it
to a few people beforehand to gauge their response. We’ve also learned that focusing on one aspect of an issue is better than trying the change the whole world in a
single work.
Guerrilla Girls, 1989
[C]onsider what it means for women to be ‘extraordinary’. Do they do more than
meet the expectations of their world? Do they prepare the way for others in addition to making their own? There is an inherent problem in trying to pour women
into the moulds of traditional history – women tend not to be ‘just’ doctors or
physicists or reformers, as if, being a woman you can never be just one thing.
Mona Holmlund and Gail Youngberg, 2003
42
In this chapter, I look at two modes of collective organization: the theoretical and the practical. I begin by defining the theoretical and the practical as they relate to collectives; I then consider
the way in which these two modes relate to activism, as well as to the decision-making process. Furthermore, I define and examine reasons why art-creating collectives are very different from artpromoting collectives when it comes to theory and activism. I conclude by indicating the ways in
which the different groundings of art-creating and art-promoting collectives affect how these collectives can reinvigorate or rejuvenate themselves.
Definitions
Theoretical and Practical
I defined the feminist art collectives I studied as either art-creating or art-promoting collectives. As my research progressed, I discovered that it was also useful to describe these collectives as
theoretical or practical in reference to their modes of engagement. I define theoretical collectives as
groups that actively engage in theory at collective meetings: in other words, who discuss literature
42
From ‘History of Herstory’ in the introduction to Inspiring Women (2003, p. v).
59
and criticism regarding feminist, activist, and visual theory and consider this process critical to informing their ideas and projects. In this study, I have categorized Adamant Eve, Finger in the Dyke,
and The ( )ette Collective as theoretical collectives, while I consider Herland, Saskatoon Wom-
en’s Calendar Collective, and Sugar and Splice to be practical collectives. Practical collectives are
groups that have already discussed feminist theory and decided how they want to engage in cultural
activism; meetings of these collectives are exclusively pragmatic and work-based.43
Influence of Women’s Studies and University on Engagement with Theory
For the women in this study, post-secondary education and feminist pedagogy play a large
role in the decision to take action and engage with activism. Female students, either in university or
recent graduates, were the founders of all but two of the collectives. Moreover, most collective
members had taken at least one Women’s Studies class, or were Women’s Studies majors. When I
asked Ally, a member of Sugar and Splice, why she became involved in a feminist collective, she
explained:
I started to take some Women’s Studies classes and some feminist literature
courses . . . just learned, learned, learned all I could – it’s something that I found
myself really hungry for. (Interview p. 17)44
Jana from Adamant Eve stated, ‘I wanted to do something positive, I found Women’s
Studies a bit depressing, I found myself wanting to change my world’ (Interview, p. 21). These students were engaged in theory but wanted to put it into practice by taking action. Other women were
engaged in feminist politics through their art. For example, The ( )ette Collective was formed by
four University students in order to share ideas, engage in feminist theory and discourse, and then
to use these discussions to create art as a form of activism.
Herland was one group not founded by students; collective members tended to be established women from the community.45 Herland was brought into being by women from two groups,
43
Later in the chapter I discuss the impact of individual members who are engaged in theory (or not) and how this affects their collectives.
44
As standard practice, I have smoothed the quotes for readability.
60
Calgary Status of Women Action Committee (CSWAC) and the National Film Board’s Studio D
in 1989, both of which were highly involved in feminist activism in Calgary.46
Theoretical Collectives
Theoretical collectives give as much weight to the development of discourse and theory as
to the creation of activist projects. I argue the nature of these collectives is more theoretical because
ongoing discussion of feminist theory informs the projects they plan and complete. Theoretical collectives set their own deadlines for new projects, so they have the luxury of being able to engage in
discussions and explore options without the added pressure of time. As I stated in the previous
chapter, undefined deadlines can result in conflict. But for some collective members conflict is an
integral part of the critical discussion process.
Members of theoretical collectives tend to be extremely interested in considering and in
creating new theories. Critical writing and the deconstruction of language often comprise a large
part of their mandates. Even the posters that The ( )ette Collective produces to advertise events
are intended to promote an engagement with feminist theory.
The women I interviewed from art-creating collectives engage in feminist theoretical discussion and then create art as a viable form of cultural activism. Because art-creation collectives develop new art they tend not to repeat their projects but create different projects in response to current
political issues.
Most of the collectives I studied either evolved into practical collectives, or their members
quickly burned out and the collectives dissolved after only three or four years. Finger in the Dyke,
the art collective from Winnipeg, is the exception. The members of this collective have worked
45
Although I did ask members why they thought this might be the case, none of the members was sure why. One possibility is that often new members are ‘friends’ of one or more of the
established collective members.
46
Studio D approached SCWAC with the idea of coordinating a feminist film festival in
Calgary and was involved in planning and financially contributing to the festival until 1998; the festival was still under the office Status of Women Canada until 2006. Herland became a sort of division of CSWAC when they hired a festival coordinator. Herland applied for and received nonprofit status in 2006; but unfortunately future is uncertain due to lack of funding and core volunteers.
61
together for almost 20 years and are actively engaged in feminist theory and cultural activism. They
also regularly produce new political artwork.
Practical Collectives
The groups I categorized as being of a more practical tendency have each established an
activist project that has become their collective’s raison d’être. While these groups engaged in collective theoretical discussions when they were formed, this is presently not the case. Instead, they
establish a specific annual project and develop a template by which to complete the project. By
template, I mean that they choose their form of activism (e.g., a calendar or film festival) and develop processes in order to complete the task. This template reduces the need for a collective to engage in consciousness-raising or theoretical discourse – that is, of course, until something prompts
the collective members to re-evaluate that template.
Practical collectives may not actively debate creative or theoretical issues, but they tend to
produce more tangible and consistent output. Because practical collectives have a set project to
complete, as well as established processes and deadlines by which to complete it, the practical collectives I interviewed had without fail met their goals. I have found that for the most part artpromoting collectives are also practical collectives; the one exception is Adamant Eve, which I define as a theoretical collective, yet they are art-promoting and have tight deadlines which they reach.
These collectives have set deadlines, which necessitate practicality and swift action. Practical collectives typically do not address current events, as their goals are broad and not as driven by contemporary issues or discourse.
Engagement with Activism
62
All the collectives I studied engage in feminist activism. The figure below illustrates that the
difference between theoretical collectives and practical collectives is how they engage with activism.
Theoretical collectives engage in theoretical discussion, which informs their art creation with the
objective of cultural activism. Practical collectives identify a space for activism, such as women under-represented in the film industry, and take practical steps, which result in art promotion, such as
organizing a film festival.
Figure 1
How Engagement Affects Decision-Making Process
As I have stated, among the collectives I studied art-creating collectives are theoretical collectives, and art-promoting collectives are practical collectives. It is the level of engagement with
theory, which affects their decision-making process.
Theoretical/art-creating collectives use a decision-making model that is mostly consensus
based. It is important that everyone agrees because each project is a reflection of their ideas, beliefs,
and activism, and may even impact their individual art practice. All members need to be in agreement about how their project engages with theory, what medium they will use, what the aesthetics
will be, and where they will exhibit or perform the work. For feminist artists it is the idea, manifested from theory that is used create art for political and cultural activism (Cash, 2001, p. 238). Art
63
collectives are thus more likely to engage in conflict because the output may also be a reflection of
their personal practice or politics, which is discussed in the next chapter.
Although art collectives may appear to, or at least attempt to, achieve consensus, power dynamics inevitably influence the decision-making process. Members who are newer, less familiar
with theory, or less established artists are less likely to voice their concerns, opinions or disagreement. Jenna, from The ( )ette Collective states:
[I]t is difficult when you’re joining any sort of group that has history, it’s like joining
a whole new community and just as how it is when you move to a new place, you
have to get comfortable and understand what’s going on. I am still trying to figure
out my role. I’m very self-conscious about my own work and my own ideas. When
I first joined the collective I knew there had been conflict, but I didn’t find out the
specifics, and I didn’t feel comfortable asking about those things. I didn’t feel like it
was my business. (Interview, p. 1)
New and less-outspoken members are often (silently) consenting to actions, without deliberately
participating in the formation of that consensus.
Practical/art-promoting collectives do not engage in theoretical discussions at every meeting, and they need or desire to get things done in a timely manner. Therefore, a more consensual
model works for them. However, because practical collectives are not engaged in theory many
members of these collectives were not aware of ‘consensus’ or ‘consensual’ per se and therefore
were participating in consensus-making passively.
Intuitive Hybrid Decision-Making
As I said above, all of the collectives I studied defined their decision-making process as
consensus, even though they described modified consensual decision-making processes. This apparent disconnect caused me to wonder if collectives strive for consensus but find that consensual is
simply a more intuitive, practical, and perhaps even more honest navigation of collective decisionmaking. Consensual decision-making allows for an open discussion regarding the possibility of not
agreeing or participating with a proposed action while consenting that the collective engage in the
action.
64
I believe that all of the collectives I studied adapt their structures to what I am identifying as
an intuitive hybrid structure. I describe them as intuitive because it appeared to me that each collective made slight, unrecognized adjustments to their own decision-making process as their collective
evolved. For example, the Edmonton radio collective Adamant Eve made all program decisions
collectively, but they also formed (informal and rotating) couplings (what might be thought of as
committees) of members; these members change week-to-week and take turns creating different
portions of the weekly radio program, and most significantly these couplings have total decisionmaking power over the portion of the program they produce. However, when I asked members to
describe their decision-making process they identified it as collective.
The Saskatoon Women’s Calendar Collective uses a form of a consensual decision-making
model, although they describe it as consensus. I attended the collective’s annual meeting, where
they choose the 52 women to be profiled in their annual calendar. Each member brought a file
folder containing information about the different women that member wanted to profile. The
members went around in a circle, and each member briefly described her candidates. If no one
said anything or disagreed, the member would proceed to the next candidate. It was understood
that lack of objection implied consent, which does not strictly define either consensus or consensual
decision-making.
Art collectives also modify and evolve their decision-making processes. In my research Fin-
ger in the Dyke (FITD), the collective of two, did not describe a formal method of decisionmaking, but their process is a clear example of consensual decision-making. FITD is unique as a
collective of two: its members are able to compromise more easily in a give-and-take fashion, knowing that though they might not get ‘their way’ this time, the other member will likely consent the
next time.
Evolution from Theoretical to Practical
Based on my research I have identified an evolution of theoretical engagement within collectives. In order for a group to decide to form an activist collective, even a ‘practical’ one, they are
65
‘ideologically or idealistically motivated’ (Murray, 2007, p. 156). The collectives that I have categorized as practical have sought to make women’s lives, work, creativity, and beliefs more visible, by
organizing spaces and building a body of literature that invites a larger and more diverse audience.
Therefore, collectives may start theoretical but become practical in their tactics, evolving into pragmatism.
Some members I interviewed did not recall an evolution in their collective from theoretical
to practical. Often, it appears that current members are unaware of the founding history of their
collective or of its transitions to the current state. Especially in practical collectives with a long and
storied past, early engagements with feminist theory may be lost to newer members. Given that my
research examined archival materials perhaps not available or known to current collective members, transitions were often evident to me where they were sometimes invisible to participants.
Though all of the collectives I studied have theoretical roots, not all are currently engaged
with theory. It is, in fact, rare for a collective to sustain that initial theoretical thrust given the intense
energy and time needed to engage in theoretical discussion and consciousness-raising, on top of
continually completing new projects.
Here I examine each collective and discuss how they have engaged and currently engage
with activism. The Saskatoon Women’s Calendar Collective successfully evolved into a practical
collective. Herland, on the other hand, is facing some serious issues as a result of their evolution to
a very practical collective. The ( )ette Collective and Sugar and Splice took on projects that caused
them to be more practical, leading to a dormant period, which may be destructive in the end. Two
collectives, Finger in the Dyke and Adamant Eve, have not yet transitioned into practical collectives.
Saskatoon Women’s Calendar Collective
The evolution of the Saskatoon Women’s Calendar Collective (SWCC) has ensured its 33year success. This collective was founded on theory, activism, and feminist discourse and evolved
early on into a practical collective. In 1975, four female students at the University of Saskatoon noted the lack of women documented in Canadian history. The women engaged in theoretical discus-
66
sions to decide how they wanted to contribute to the documentation of women’s histories, or Her-
stories as they ended up naming their publication. They decided on an action and formed a collective to research, write, and publish Canadian women’s histories. The collective now has a template
to follow for creating and publishing the annual project. The collective has taken practical measures
– such as developing a writing guide for new members – to ensure both consistency and continuity.
They go to great lengths to make the calendar available in many schools as a historical resource. As
I stated earlier it is evident that this collective uses a hybrid decision-making process: collective
members propose women for inclusion in the calendar, and unless there is a lack of consent, more
names are proposed. There is not much discussion unless a member is adamant that a particular
woman should not be included.
Herland
Herland was formed by women involved in activism and theoretical and feminist discourse
from the Calgary Status of Women Action Committee (CSWAC) and Studio D. Past Herland film
festival programs have been used as a tool to disseminate feminist theory and discourse. For example, programs from 1997–2003 each contain at least one critical feminist essay, in addition to numerous practical economic and social resources. On their ten-year anniversary, the Herland collective, recognizing the political nature and necessity of recording women’s history, created The Herland Chronicle (a document of Herland ’s history done in the style of an old newspaper) and distributed it at their film festival.47
In the 1990s, Herland ’s collective was embroiled in an often-heated discussion as to
whether the word ‘feminist’ should be kept in the festival’s title. I was able to talk to two women
who were members during that time (they are not presently members). Michelle believed the discussion was valuable, and that feminist should be kept in the name. Michelle was also adamant that
Not only does the document contain Herland ’s history, it also recognizes other groups in
Calgary that have taken collective action but ended up marginalized. The document also makes
connections among the groups (for example, the collaborative work between Herland and the Calgary Queer Film and Video Festival), demonstrating that collectives in Calgary also come together
for activism.
47
67
the festival was a political act. By contrast, Corinne did not value the discussion about the word
‘feminist’ – in fact, Corinne was frustrated with the time and emotion invested in the issue. Corinne
believed the festival was an opportunity to screen women’s films but did not consider it a political
act.
In 2003, Herland applied for funding and hired a festival co-coordinator. Since then the
planning of the festival, including the program, has fallen to a staff person. To date, the staff person
has not been a woman who is highly engaged in feminist theory. In 2006, the staff person, who is
also a collective member, initiated an e-mail ‘vote’ to all members (400 or so) asking if the word
feminist should be dropped from the festival title. The vote came back tied, and the festival cocoordinator decided to remove the name. Clearly, the collective was not using a consensus decision-making model to resolve the very charged issue.
When I interviewed current collective members in 2006, they did not see the festival as a
cultural activist act, although they believed in the value of screening films by women.48 They did not
engage actively in feminist theory or discourse at their meetings, and they no longer include any
theoretical essays in the festival program. In 2007, the festival was not ‘successful’;49 attendance
numbers were down and Canada Council for the Arts (CCA) placed Herland on ‘concern status’
for two consecutive years (2006 and 2007), cutting Herland ’s grant in half for those years. CCA
stated its concerns:
The festival is not culturally engaged with their community, and is concerned about
recruitment and attendance issues (e.g. new core members), as well as existing
community relationships (e.g. women’s organizations, arts organizations).
CCA stated Herland’s community collaboration is sporadic and superficial. Outreach and deeper relationships within the arts and women’s community is needed.
In recent years, Herland has neglected community networking work. (Herland
special meeting minutes, May 24, 2007, p. 1)
48
When I told past member, Michelle, who self describes herself as a theoretically engaged
feminist, she replied that it was too bad, but that sometimes collectives ‘go through evolutions, I
hope it turns around, maybe they are not sure what the word activist means’ (Interview, p. 14).
49
As described by the collective.
68
CCA’s comments make it clear that they believe Herland is not engaging in community and feminist activism as it once did.
After the unsuccessful 2007 festival, as well as a series of conflicts among members, all but
one of the core members resigned.50 Because of the serious circumstances regarding future funding
from Canada Council, who made it clear they believed Herland was not engaging with community
activism and outreach as they once had, Herland faced difficult decisions. Many past Herland
members attended the brainstorming session, but there was no re-engagement with theory; instead,
the collective brainstormed for practical solutions to their financial and attendance deficits. When I
last spoke to Tamrin (the remaining collective member and the former festival coordinator who
initiated the ‘feminist’ online vote in 2005), she had recruited one member, her girlfriend, to the
collective, and was uncertain of the festival’s future.
The ( )ette Collective
The ( )ette Collective, an art-creating collective, began as a theoretical collective in 2004.
Two years later the collective decided to plan a feminist video festival titled ,Motion (pronounced
‘comma motion’). It was a successful festival, but the lack of engagement with theory during that
time was difficult for many collective members. The collective was faced with the need to be practical in order to get the job done, but the fact that none of its members derived any pleasure from the
process left them with no desire to do it again. In my interviews, members of The ( )ette Collective
said they felt engaged not only by the creation of art, but also by the theory that drove the projects.
Therefore, when theoretical conversations were absent, they did not enjoy collective meetings. In
chapter six, I discuss the important role that pleasure plays in keeping members connected both to
their collectives and to activism.
Shortly after the film festival was completed, The ( )ette Collective membership changed
again, and many of the new members did not derive pleasure from engaging in theory. The differences between collective members who desired to remain theoretical and more practically-minded
50
I discuss this in more detail the following chapter, Conflict and Cohesion.
69
members who recently joined the collective were too great for the collective to bear. As a result, it
dissolved into an unproductive ‘time away’ time. During both the more ‘theoretical’ time and the
‘practical’ time, the collective did not follow a formal consensus decision-making model as we had
in the past; rather it was more of an ad-hoc environment where decisions were only discussed when
members disagreed with a proposed action.
Sugar and Splice
Sugar and Splice was very engaged in feminist theory during its first year; that engagement
lessened and caused conflict in the collective’s second and third years. Founding members initiated
the film festival in response to the lack of access to films directed or produced by women. The first
year, the collective had meetings that lasted for hours discussing theory as well as activists’ tactics.
Jen, the last founding member I interviewed in my fieldwork, expressed that she enjoyed engaging
in theoretical discussions, but when the collective membership changed, she had a greater role in
the practical duties of the film festival:
The second year, when there were only a few of us organizing the festival, I realized how much work the festival was. I was one of the women who would come to
the meeting with lots of ideas and enjoy the discussions. I didn’t realise how much
work it was. It is not work I am good at or like. I am not organized. (Interview, p.
12)
Jen fought for a more activist program featuring feminist movies such as: Edge of each ether’s bat-
tles: The vision of Audre Lorde (2002); Born in flames (1983); and Maid in America (2004).
Allyson, a member who did not want to engage politically or theoretically in collective
work, but who wanted a festival for women artists and filmmakers, stated:
Why does feminism have to be about political issues or social issues, why can’t it
just be [about] women expressing themselves, no matter what, no matter what
they’re saying, why does it have to be about these issues. (Interview, p. 23)
The year I interviewed Sugar and Splice (2006), the collective was experiencing internal conflicts
regarding whether its focus should be theoretical or practical. The practical won out because of
time constraints, but the conflict caused a rift in the collective. Due in part to the inability of members to reconcile the conflict between theory and practice, the collective did not organize a festival
70
in 2007. This collective attempted to follow a consensus decision-making model, but when consensus could not be reached, members consented (although not happily) to the other collective members’ wishes.
Finger in the Dyke
If collectives are theoretical and do not evolve into practical collectives, they are more likely
to ‘burn out’. An exception to the rule, Finger in the Dyke (FITD) engages with feminist theory and
discourse and still manages to enjoy both stability and longevity. FITD members Shawna and Lorri
are full-time established artists who commit to a five-day ‘work’ week. They meet in the studio to
discuss theory and current events and to brainstorm ideas. They are unique as a collective of two,
which makes discussions and decisions to engage theory and ideas for art production easier to navigate:
[W]e have gone through a whole lot, we know where the other is coming from, we
have both been at different times on the other side…not sure about an idea, but
we’ve been able to allow ourselves to be convinced and often happily surprised.
(Lorri, Interview, p. 27)
Uniqueness of Adamant Eve
Adamant Eve, the Edmonton radio collective, is interesting. The radio show, which is a
spoken word program, includes presenting the histories of past feminists, discussion of current
events from a feminist perspective, and features female, often feminist musical artists. I define them
as a theoretical collective because their members are engaged in feminist theory and discourse, and
their collective goals and output are affected by their engagement. The discourse itself does not
necessarily take place in the collective setting: meetings for the most part are for organizing who
does what story.
In fact, one member I interviewed, Anna, recalled that discussions at their collective meetings were often about aesthetics or organizational issues rather than about theory: ‘I think back
now…it was less about politics…and it was more so about assertion about aesthetic values…I guess I
71
was more politically flexible then’ (Anna, Interview, p. 11). And yet, their output manages to be
very theoretical and very engaged with feminist discourse.
Adamant Eve ’s members are almost exclusively Women’s Studies students from the University of Alberta. It is likely that members were able to discuss aesthetics – rather than politics –
because they were all engaged in the same discussions during classes, and so theory and politics
might have been a ‘given’; therefore, despite very little theoretical engagement within the collective
as such, the collective gave its members a forum in which to apply what they were learning in their
classes. Meetings could be focused on the practical, a necessity since the collective organizes a pretaped, half-hour show each week. Over the 17 years this collective has been in existence, members
are usually only involved for one or two semesters, so there is a constant flow of new members. But
the theory and politics discussed on air are very current.
Adamant Eve is an interesting collective that epitomizes the direct influence of feminist
pedagogy. Jana, who has an BA in Women’s Studies and is founder of the Adamant Eve collective,
says: ‘Being in Women’s Studies influenced who I am today. I think I became an activist at University’ (Interview, p. 1). She makes it clears that she was applying feminist theory she had learned in
her university classes:
My work with the program was my first experience with being a vocal member of
my community on issues that concerned me. It has also been my first attempt at
taking part in creating something that subverts traditional models of leadership.
The collective is like an experiment to me. (Private writings regarding her time at
the collective, 1995)
The Effect of the Individual on the Collective
There are various reasons women join collectives: to engage with theory, to support feminism, to promote women, to do ‘good’, to create art, to network, to meet like-minded women, to
continue activism they began while in university, and collectives are diverse enough to accommodate such a variety of impulses. But problems generally arise when individual members wish to engage with theory within a practical collective or vice versa.
72
As I have already stated, for the most part art-creating collectives are theoretical and artpromoting collectives are practical. However, individual members in my research varied. Some individuals in promotional/practical collectives had previously engaged in theoretical collectives, but
subsequently wanted to use their theoretical beliefs and knowledge to engage practically in a feminist project. In fact, it was during an interview with Terry of the SWCC collective that I realized
how individual engagement with theory could affect collective cohesion. She said:
I remember I was at a meeting, a consciousness-raising meeting, and I just remember thinking why am I here, I have a perfectly nice husband at home. I think it is
because I have been there, done that…I guess I am just a practical feminist. (Interview, p. 16)
I also found collective members, such as Jen from Sugar and Splice, who wished to engage in theory but was frustrated by the necessary practical processes of Sugar and Splice. Women who joined
theoretical collectives, enjoyed theoretical discussions, and in turn enjoyed the collective experience, felt less conflict in their collectives. The same logic applied for practical collectives. In the
next chapter, I discuss in more detail how theoretical engagement affects collective cohesion.
Importance of this Data
Collectives that do not evolve or create systems (as FITD have) are likely to ‘burn out’ and
disband. From the beginning of my research project, I had a difficult time finding collectives on the
prairies who create art for cultural activism. I suspected that they must be out there, and I searched
earnestly for many months but was only able to find two art-creation collectives, The ( )ette Collec-
tive and Finger in the Dyke, the latter of whom are already well-documented. I have realized that
because art collectives are actively engaged in theoretical discourse and artistic output, both of
which are exhausting, fatigue resulting in disbandment is a very real risk.
Conclusion
Art-creation collectives engage in theoretical discussions to inform their creative projects for
cultural activism. However, because of high energy output and time required to actively engage in
theory and art-creating, some collectives – such as art-promotion collectives who have already estab-
73
lished how they will engage in activism – evolve into practical collectives. This evolution allows the
collectives to survive and hopefully thrive. All of the collectives in this study have organically
evolved their decision-making methods to a hybrid of consensus and consensual methods.
74
CHAPTER FIVE
CONFLICT AND COHESION
I am often asked what is the ideal feminist structure is…but the attempt to develop
any so-called unique or ideal model implies that a static, contextually voice construct is desirable and achievable. It is my contention that there is no ideal model.
Further, by attempting to construct an ‘ideal’ we run the risk of denying the power
relations that operate with any setting. By dichotomizing relations such as empowerment and power and the individual and the collective, the complexities and contradictions within collectives are obscured and mystified.
Janice Ristock, 1991
51
This chapter has two parts. The first part examines various levels of comfort interviewees
displayed during interviews. In the course of my fieldwork, I noted that discussions regarding power
and conflict were frequently the most difficult and uncomfortable aspects of the interview process.
As I stated in chapter three, when designing my interview, I included many questions relating to
conflict and conflict resolution, as I wanted to examine how members understood their collective
structure and what power dynamics might be in place. Part two of this chapter investigates group
cohesion. Conflict existed within the all collectives I interviewed, but some collectives experienced
less conflict than others. Based on my research I identified three factors that aid in group cohesion:
collective working structure, group homogeneity, and established relationships.
PART I
Discussing and Understanding Conflict
Structure and Power in Collective Organizations
Struggles for power within a collective affect group cohesion. Many researchers have studied conflict and hidden power structures within collectives, particularly service and political collectives (Freeman 1974; Marx Ferree & Yancy Martin, 1995; Iannello, 1992). Jo Freeman has written
about the ‘tyranny of the structureless’ that often exists in collectives, which she defines as lack of a
structure resulting in subversive power structures (Freeman 1974). Freeman explains that rather
than empowering members, collectives can become undemocratic and manipulative, and that a lack
51
(1991, p. 51).
75
of structure or recognition of power can actually lead to conflict and elitism. Freeman defines elites
as members who have been in the collective longer or have more knowledge of and history with the
collective and its projects. These members often become close friends. Consequently, when new
members join a collective they may feel intimidated because they lack the knowledge, history, and
familiarity of established members, creating uneven power structures (p. 60).
My research echoed these previous research findings. Implicit power structures do exist,
especially between new members and those with more tenure. Jenna, a member of The ( )ette
Collective explained that she felt established members were more experienced and therefore had
the specific knowledge required for full participation in the collective:
[W]hen I joined I had only been creating art for a year. I felt like an amateur and
had so much respect for all of you. I couldn’t be at the same level. But I’m getting
over it. I go through times where I am very confident and then the next week I’m
questioning it . . . but I am feeling more confident. (The ( )ette Collective Meeting, Interview, p. 2)
This uneven power structure often results in new members ‘sitting back’ and observing meetings so
they learn the ‘right’ way to engage in meetings from established members. As a result, some collective members did not feel comfortable confronting issues or asserting their ideas. Amy Jo of SWCC
shared:
I mean there was a certain hierarchy when I started. I was the newbie, you know?
There were certain people who were quite established and had quite established
ideas and habits and so the hierarchy was very informal. But being a new person I
just sort of sat and listened. (Interview, p. 3)
Allyson, the newest member of Sugar and Splice, told me that she was frustrated when participating in the collective programming of the 2005 Sugar and Splice Feminist Film Festival. She
said, ‘I was outnumbered by members who had a strong political agenda for the festival’ (Interview,
p. 18). Jen was one of the three women Allyson felt intimidated by. As Jen observed: ‘I don’t think
[Allyson] felt comfortable voicing her opinions, maybe we should have done something to ensure
that it was a more level playing ground, but we’re all learning as we go’ (Interview, p. 16). Allyson
76
felt powerless not only because she was the newest member of the collective, but also because she
didn’t feel like the other members were listening to what she had to say.
As Freeman (1971) indicates, collective hierarchies may develop informally and are often
not explicitly recognized, and collective members who are more assertive may dominate or manipulate a group’s conversations. As Jen, a member of Sugar and Splice, puts it:
I remember one meeting when we were organizing this year, I was talking, talking
and I felt like I was dominating the actual conversation. I said ‘I am really sorry,
but I get excited’. I think that’s one of the things you have to watch . . . word space,
taking up word space is another form of oppressing people, not letting others talk.
(Interview, p. 27)
Jen was aware that, as an outgoing woman passionately engaged in feminist theory, and as a founding member of the collective, she had a tendency to dominate a conversation.
Also in this example, Jen said that in the collective’s second year (2005), before Allyson
had joined, she and Ally and another member, Joey (whom I interviewed for this study, but who
was not a member when I interviewed her), attempted to create a structure to ensure equality:
We had twelve members the first year. Things got done because there were so
many members, but they weren’t organized. The second year we thought ‘we need
to make this more organized’. We did up committees. We thought there would be
core members that had to be at every meeting – at least one core member would
be on the committees – the committees were fundraising, publicity, programming,
workshops. We wanted the committees to distribute the workload more fairly. (Interview, p. 4)
While Jen was explaining the process of formalizing a structure, she showed me several pages of
schematics they thought would enable organization within the collective. They had intended to create a structure for their collective in order to ensure equality, but by the time they were prepared to
do so, all of the members had finished university and had full-time jobs. Setting up the structure
took a great deal of time that no one had to spare and it was not pleasurable for any of the members involved. The changes were therefore not put into practice, and as a result the 2005 festival
was less organized than it could have been – all of which led to conflict, which I discuss further in
this chapter.
77
Various Levels of Comfort
The interviewees exhibited varying degrees of discomfort when discussing conflict within
their collectives. Over the course of all of my interviews, only one group of women ( SWCC) indicated they were unaware of any conflict or power structures within their collectives. Others became
visibly uncomfortable when the topic was raised, even as they stated that their collective did not experience conflict. A third group of participants seemed to be quite at ease discussing the idea of
conflict and acknowledging that their groups had indeed struggled with conflict. The last group’s
acceptance of conflict seemed to be rooted in one of three reasons: engaging or discussing conflict
outright, being a long-term member of a collective, or having been a past member of the collective.
Comfortable with Conflict
Conflict Is Openly Expressed
Those who were comfortable discussing conflict and power issues within their collectives all
indicated that such matters were openly addressed by their groups. Consequently, these women did
not view conflict as divisive or even necessarily negative. Sylvia of the The ( )ette Collective stated:
I don’t have a problem disagreeing…if it was about something really small that
didn’t seem like a big deal, then I would probably let it slide, but if it was something that I really disagreed with, that really mattered, of course I would say something. (Interview, p. 7)
At the same time, she indicated that it was equally important for significant conflicts be
openly discussed:
[I] don’t know, you and Kelly scrap it out, you set a good example. . . . You don’t
hide your disagreements, like behind closed doors. You guys will scrap it out in the
middle of meetings and stuff and I think everyone is welcome to do the same. (Interview, p. 8)
Michelle, a member of the Herland collective, describes a similar attitude of acceptance of
conflict within her group:
[W]e have to deal with personalities, sensitivity to the personalities [and] when it’s
political, as Herland was, then there’s always cultural issues, gender issues . . . but I
never felt the collective lost sight of the goal, which was the festival. . . . I found certainly there were personalities . . . but I never found it to be the kind of thing that
78
people couldn’t sort of talk through and resolve . . . when we had problems we just
talked about them and we certainly did ‘check-ins’. (Interview, p. 11–12)52
While some women stated they were comfortable with conflict, at times they would avoid bringing
up contentious issues during collective meetings that they knew would cause disagreement or conflict in order not to slow down the working process.
Long-term Relationships
It appears the women who are most comfortable discussing conflict have been in their collectives for a long period of time and know their peers well. This is akin to a couple that have been
in a long-term personal relationship. In the beginning, both partners have a tendency to want to be
‘right,’ resulting in more conflict than consent. But as the years pass and the relationship matures,
each partner is more likely to let smaller issues go. Lorri, one of the two members of the Finger in
the Dyke Collective, describes her long-term collective partnership in the following manner:
[W]e’re co-dependent beyond reason. . . . I think it’s all, partly from of the fact
that we have known each other now for twenty years and we have been engaged in
a conversation for twenty years. (p. 11)
Shawna, the other member, finishes Lorri’s statement: ‘We have this long view…when you
have the long view, those little micro things, you know, work out over time’ (p 13).
Having nurtured their working relationship over many years, these women have established
enough mutual trust that they are able to take conflicts completely in stride. They were fully confident that addressing conflict would not negatively affect their working relationship.
Leaving the Collective
Some women were comfortable discussing conflict as they were no longer in the collectives
to which they had belonged. When I interviewed Corinne, for instance, she was just leaving Her-
land. She said she was breaking off from the collective because of her frustration with the collective
52
Check-ins are when the chair of the meetings asks if everyone is comfortable with the decisions or discussions at the meeting. Michelle also describes check-ins as informal interactions
among members: ‘[W]e’d get together in a meeting, and then we would check in, and sort of see
how we were. There was a philosophy and a respect to listen to each other and the issues that
would come up’ (Michelle, Interview, p.12).
79
process and the extra work she took on; she explained that she felt compelled to pick up the slack
for others. In the process of disengaging from the group, Corinne seemed to feel liberated from
concerns for maintaining the relationships she had with other members of the collective. She did
not qualify her negative statements, but I did not have the impression that her honesty was out of
malice. Instead, she said that the conflict at meetings which resulted from ‘dedication to activist and
feminist passions’, although commendable, interfered with a speedy process in collective work:
I had been in core meetings where [there] had been such a heated debate, to the
point where, where people were in tears, and, yelling at each other. Not out of disconcern [sic] for the other person, but just because they were so passionate about
this issue and their stance on feminism. I don’t know if or how issues can go into a
collective process when people are so passionate about it. How is a decision made
in a collective process when the issue is very heated and passionate and there’s no
consensus? (Corinne, Interview, p 6)
Corrine did not enjoy the collective process; she was much more comfortable in a hierarchical setting. She did not want to engage in discussions about feminist theory and felt that she had
joined the collective to help coordinate a film festival and to do a job. She would often find herself
frustrated when meetings were more theoretical than task-based.
Like Corrine, it was not until Cayley, an outgoing member of The ( )ette Collective, was in
the process of withdrawing that she brought up conflict as she experienced it in the group:
[T]here were emotional shutdowns and, yeah, conflicts. Sometimes it just seemed
there wasn’t, everyone wasn’t willing to deal with the conflict at various moments
. . . sometimes I felt okay I can bring this forward and talk about it, but other times
I didn’t necessarily feel like I could bring up a problem. (Interview, p 10)
Up until the time of Cayley’s departure, there had not been any in-depth discussions regarding conflict. Recognizing that there were unresolved conflicts, the collective attempted to put a
system in place to deal with it in the future. Jenna of The ( )ette Collective described the parameters that the collective set up for discussion of conflict:
I think just being able to discuss that at our last meeting and open that up again, I
think that sort of allows that space. And we also sort of laid out these parameters so
that we could have disagreements. But we need to be able to work out of those and
not just dwell on them. . . . I think just even acknowledging that those disagreements are possible and are acceptable, that it makes it better. (Interview, p. 12)
80
As Jenna describes the collective decided to discuss and resolve disagreements or conflicts
at meetings and not among friends or collective members outside of meetings, and as I mentioned
in the previous chapter we discussed the possibility of making the meetings more formal, but decided against it because the casual atmosphere better suited our membership. However, just like Sugar
and Splice’s experience described above, we did not ultimately implement our plans because the
tasks to do so were tedious and time-consuming. Unfortunately, as a result, when issues arose between members who engaged theoretically versus members who engaged practically, we did not
have the tools in place to resolve differences.
Commitment to Collectivity
Avoiding conflict within a collective can be considered a testament to these women’s unwavering commitment both to each other and to the feminist ideals of non-hierarchical organization.
In the words of Amy Jo, a member of Saskatoon Women’s Calendar Collective:
[W]e’re not gonna be really overly critical or, or turn it into some sort of a match
where you have to win, you know? If it was like that I wouldn’t wanna be a part of
it right? I’m not competitive in that sense and I don’t need that kind of hassle in
my life. I really love the fact that everyone is very contemplative and very respectful
of each other . . . in the end you know that it’s the wish of the collective then, that’s
what wins out here rather than personal egos. (Interview, p 22)
Other SWCC collective members echoed Amy Jo’s sentiments, no doubt partially due to
these women’s long history with collectivity as well as with feminism. Members of this collective
describe avoiding conflict in order to achieve collective stability and sustainability; they put the
needs of the collective before their own. In our interviews, SWCC members indicated that when
potentially contentious issues arose, they discussed the matter but were then able to let go of the
conflict. Indeed, none of them exhibited any residue of conflict. Some members expressed a personal understanding of how to temper and navigate conflict which they applied to the workings of
the collective. When they avoided conflict, it was a conscious decision.
81
Discomfort
At times, interview subjects and I would be in the midst of an interesting discussion regarding power dynamics in general, but when I inquired about power dynamics or conflict specific to
their collectives, some women would draw back. By ‘draw back’, I mean they would visibly shift in
their seats, put their heads down, or break eye contact. These were women who, just moments before, were smiling and animated. As I discussed in the Methods chapter, I too was uncomfortable
discussing conflict. Therefore, when they exhibited what I perceived to be discomfort I would immediately back off, especially when I got impression they felt these issues were none of my business, or at least were not relevant to the discussion.
During one interview, Ally demonstrated the phenomenon of ‘imagined text’, which is
when interviewees imagine how their words will be interpreted and used by the researcher. Ally
described her experiences of working collectively:
[W]e always sort of say collective and that there is always consensus decisions but,
sometimes that is the ideal right? I think a lot of times that’s not the reality, if we’re
gonna be honest about it you know, which we should be, uhm, and I think uhm,
and I think human nature, we have a tendency uh, to overpower others, or to, be
submissive, not only because we’re socialized and our family structure and everything. I think, contributes to that, uhm, last year there were more people involved,
I was a newcomer, so I definitely noticed more power dynamics. (Ally, Interview,
p. 11)
It was when I attempted to explore the issue further that she sat back, avoided eye contact, and
started to fidget in her chair. She was obviously uncomfortable discussing conflict within her collective and responded:
[W]ell they were just, I don’t, I don’t know, I don’t wanna say anything bad about
anyone you know, uhm, I just noticed there would be some members who were
really firm in what in what they wanted to get done and well they were just, I don’t,
I don’t know, I don’t wanna say anything bad about anyone you know? (Ally, Interview, p. 11)
When I discussed conflict with the other members of Ally’s collective, I discovered that the collective was experiencing an ideological shift. Two of the original members were adamant feminist activists and wanted their annual project, the Sugar and Splice Feminist Film Festival, to remain polit-
82
ical, while the other two members were looking to organize a more neutral venue to screen women’s film and video.
I have since concluded that exhibiting individual discomfort when discussing power or conflict is not necessarily indicative of an unhealthy collective or a member’s dissatisfaction with her
collective. Women who display discomfort when discussing conflict are often long-time members
who also express pleasure working within their collective. For example, Ally from Sugar and Splice
seemed uncomfortable during the interview by shifting in her chair and avoiding eye contact, which
would seem to indicate there was conflict within the collective, but she also said that working within
the collective was a highlight of her activist experiences.
Would Not Discuss Conflict
It is worth nothing that during the taping of one interview, an interviewee stated that she
had not experienced significant conflict within her collective. But when the interview concluded and
the camera was turned off, she disclosed that she had in fact faced instances of extreme interpersonal conflict with certain people. She emphasized that the issues were resolved in the end and,
in order to avoid upsetting other collective members or possibly embarrassing the collective, she
did not want to share these episodes either on-camera or in the written record, even using a pseudonym.
In Retrospect
While analysing the data from The ( )ette Collective, of which I am a part, I realized that
each member seemed comfortable discussing conflict and power issues with me in our one-on-one
interviews; and yet, as I described above, the group as a whole had not discussed such matters until
recently. I’ve since considered the possibility that had I had enough time to meet with interviewees
on more than one occasion, if I might have been able to build a greater level of trust between us,
and that this would have impacted my data collection. Similarly, I wondered what a group interview
regarding conflict within their collective would have elicited.
83
PART II
Three Factors that Affect Collective Cohesion
Factor One: Collective Structure
Size
Contrary to the established research regarding conflict and collective size, the evidence
from my project suggests that the size of a collective has little impact on its degree of conflict or cohesion. I define a large collective as one with 10 or more members. Two collectives had 10 to 12
members: SWCC (consistently over its 33 year history), Sugar and Splice (in its first year), and Her-
land (which varies, but lately has had 5–8). Conversely, the other collectives (The ( )ette Collective,
Adamant Eve, and Finger in the Dyke) had five or fewer members at any given time. Many researchers (Critical Art Ensemble 1998; Ferree Martin, Yancy 1995; Iannello 1992; Freeman 74)
indicate that the smaller the group, the less likely it is to experience conflict.53 However, I found that
more critical to group cohesion than size of membership is the establishment of a single task with a
set process and tight deadlines.
I interviewed four collectives who have a combination of set tasks, processes, and deadlines. SWCC have established all three for their annual project; three other collectives, Adamant
Eve, Herland, and Sugar and Splice, each have one task (a radio show and film festivals, respectively), an skeleton process for completing the task, and tight deadlines.
SWCC
The SWCC typically averages about 10 or so members. Overall, the current members have
each participated in the collective for over 13 years (Holmlund & Youngberg, 2003).54 Of all the
collectives I studied, SWCC has been in operation the longest, and it has developed precise project
53
The Critical Art Ensemble (CAE) identifies a large group as 15 or more and considers a
collective of 5 to 8 the easiest to manage with the least conflict or personality frictions (1998, p. 65).
54
Of the 33 years the collective has been in operation, it has had an estimated 50–70 members or more.
84
tasks and processes over the course of a 33-year history. The SWCC example demonstrates that
how a collective manages its projects is a more important factor to group cohesion than its size.
One Task/Set Process
Each year the SWCC produces a calendar entitled Herstory,55 featuring histories of Canadian women. To ensure that the production tasks are completed in the most efficient way possible,
the collective developed an instructional booklet, which the members follow closely.56 Mary, an
SWCC member for 22 years, describes the publication:
We have a style sheet, which we put together many years ago, but the main way of
knowing what has to be done is simply looking at last year’s calendar because we
don’t change much from year to year. (Interview, p 12)
Having a detailed process for completing this project minimizes confusion, and conflicts
within SWCC are few. New members are encouraged to follow guidelines that have been successful
for the collective in the past. Any conflicts that arise have more to do with modifying the established
conventions than with theoretical or philosophical differences among members.
When I asked Shirley, a member of SWCC for 26 years, about new members and incidents of conflict with in the collective, she responded:
[M]ost of them integrated fairly readily; with the process, I don’t think that was
such a big deal, [the] process works and it is pretty hard to argue with that…thirty
five years now this process has worked, so it is hard [for a new member] to say
‘why do you do that?’ You do it because it works. (Interview, p 17)57
Shirley’s statement reaffirms that the collective has found an efficient way to complete its
task and expects all members to follow the same structure. Under an established umbrella process,
55
The following Web sites provide a history and examples of the calendar the group produces
annually.
http://www.herstorycalendar.ca/inspiring_women.html
and
http://library2.usask.ca/herstory/collectv.html
56
The use of computers in the mid 1980s impacted the compilation of the calendar. From
the 1970s to the mid-1980s, the pages were typed and members literally cut and pasted the calendar
together for publication. Now, the members produce their pages on the computer and send them
straight to the publisher. This is faster and more effective but has also affected the sociability of the
collective, which now only meets twice a year at most (see my discussion in Chapter 6).
57
The collective’s years of operation have been identified differently by different members,
but the first edition of Herstory was in 1975, one or two years (there is not a precise date) after the
collective formed. So I am using the 33 years as the ‘age’ of the collective.
85
there is little room for new members to suggest fresh ways of doing things; but there is also minimal
risk of conflict. After considering whether she has experienced conflict with the SWCC, Mary describes only ‘little irritations,’ adding that ‘there’s been no animosities, been no competitions’ (Interview, p. 3):
[W]e probably have little irritations when somebody’s pages are late and you really
need them or somebody didn’t follow the rules and give you six hundred words instead of three hundred and fifty . . . but it all works out with little difficulty. (Mary,
Interview, p 3)
Issues with Set Process
Of course, there are problems associated with having strict processes in place for projects.
Although the SWCC is an example of success with this strategy, that may not always be the case.
Protocols may not, for instance, always be conveyed to new members in an effective manner. Amy
Jo, the newest SWCC member, shares her experience:
I’m still very new to the group and I suppose a suggestion could be made but . . . if
someone new [came to the group] I would sit them down maybe over a coffee informally and say this is everything you need to know and show them the [calendar].
I had never really examined it, as if I knew there was a bunch of pages with women’s stories on it but the back of the book or the footnotes, and then there’s all
sorts of other parts you know? I felt like the other members assumed I knew what
to do because I was a writer. I didn’t. (Interview, p 6)
While she does not see the collective as being disorganized, it is lacking a structured process for integrating new members.
Tight Deadlines
Although deliberately setting tight deadlines for a task is obviously not a strategy that most
collectives consciously employ to encourage group cohesion, having limited time does in effect
serve to reduce the occurrence of conflict, especially in the form of long drawn-out discussions.
Terry, who has been a member of SWCC for ten years, expresses a kind of gratitude for the process: ‘I have been in groups where everyone goes around and around and no decisions are made
and I can’t stand that’ (Interview, p. 23–27). And as Mary says:
I think because we have built in deadlines, we can’t dither about making decisions
for a long time, on most things. Once those basic decisions are made, then things
86
really go pretty smoothly. It’s . . . we have a product, we prepare it, we produce it
and then we start the next one. (Interview, p. 11)
Deanna, a ten-year member of SWCC, agrees:
[T]he process is very cut and dried. You get down to business and bang, bang,
bang get these pages out, you know, these are the people, this is the break-down,
here’s what we’re gonna do, and we just go from there. (Interview, p. 24).
Sugar and Splice, a collective focused on film festivals, also works under tight deadlines.
Because a number of members had moved on to other jobs and commitments, the group was uncertain whether it would even hold a film festival in 2006. At the last minute, however, its members
decided to pull a festival together, and organized it in only a couple of months, leaving no time for
conflict. Jenny, the newest member of the collective, says:
[I]t was really important for us to focus on just getting it done . . . people ended up
having to just say, okay, I’m going to do this now, is that okay with everyone? So
then things were done. (Interview, p. 14)
Tight deadlines necessitate some compromise for the sake of getting things done. It may have felt
easier for art-promoting collectives to ‘let things slide’ because the product does not reflect their
own work but features the work of others. Just a reminder that I have identified art-creation collectives as groups that collectively create art projects with the expressed intent to engage in cultural activism. I have identified art-promotion collectives as groups who collectively organize events that
promote feminist art with the intent to engage in cultural activism.
Undefined Deadlines
More time to discuss and debate issues, projects, and processes means collectives tend to
experience higher incidence of conflict. The Sugar and Splice collective has experienced this condition as well, earlier in its history. Joey describes a very different attitude then:
[J]ust because it takes so much time and energy to get to the point. There was a
couple of meetings where we, I think we might have taken breaks but they were
hours and hours on end, we’d all manage to agree but there would be . . . really intense arguments and discussion and people would be frustrated and might not talk
for a couple of days. (Interview, p 4)
In its first year, Sugar and Splice had over a year to coordinate its festival, and the members
had the luxury of engaging with theory and debating issues that were meaningful to them as activists.
87
This being the year the festival formed, such discussions were important building blocks which established the discourse, theory, and goals of the collective. However, by the third year, deadlines
were tight and although members had very different views as to the content of the film festival, they
did not have the time or inclination to work through arguments or conflicts.
My research suggests that when collectives have tight deadlines, they tend to avoid conflict
in order to get tasks done quickly. When collectives are not under such pressures, they are more
likely to engage in theoretical discussions, which in turn can increase conflict (although in the case
of art-creation collectives, members seem quite comfortable with the conflict because the discussion
is not viewed as taking up precious task hours).
Working ‘Individually’
While it has become clear that selecting a project, determining a process, and working under tight deadlines are all factors that contribute to cohesion, it is also important that members are
individually responsible for different components of the project. Every year, SWCC holds a meeting to outline the broad tasks necessary to create its calendar. Each person takes responsibility for
specific parts of the project, including eight to ten essays per issue on the histories of various Canadian women. Everyone chooses their own ‘direction’ for the historical essays, so long as they highlight the important work that the subjects contributed to their communities. Before I started the
interviews with SWCC members I attended their annual meeting to choose the 52 women featured
in the calendar. As I described in the previous chapter, there is not a lot of discussion about the
decision-making process within this collective. When I interviewed the women, I asked each one
why there seemed to be such little conflict. In speaking with Amy Jo, we both realized it was because each person worked independently on projects that she had for the most part chosen herself.
In the double interview with Amy Jo and Deanna, Amy Jo stated:
It’s just occurred to me [that] even though we are producing a [calendar] we are actually producing fifty-two individual items, so each of us is responsible for our own
piece of that book. We’re not writing them collectively. Even though none of us
has our names on each of our piece, it is our individual contribution to the pool.
(Interview, p 28)
88
Deanna added, ‘We’re happy with the decision-making together as a group, and then we go
away and we do our work’ (p 29). In a different interview, Karen, another member of SWCC states:
[W]e usually go away, do our research, get the piece put together, we’re all working
independently on our own pieces, independently on the research, independently
on the writing and independently on locating the photographs and dealing with
Coteau [the Calendar editor]. (Interview, p. 14)
In this respect, SWCC ’s working structure is similar to one used by the Critical Art Ensemble (CAE)58: each SWCC member becomes the ‘project coordinator’ of her own assignments.
Factor Two: Group Homogeneity
Seeking Members who ‘Fit’
I would argue that group homogeneity is the second factor in collective cohesion, a conclusion, which echoes previous literature on the topic (Acker 1995; Iannello 1992; Mueller 1995).
Consciously or not, members of collectives tend to seek out new members who are like themselves,
who are approximately the same age, race, social class, ethnicity, and who share similar interests,
political beliefs, and work ethics. In the following section I examine how each group in the study
exhibited homogeneity – or not – and how homogeneity affected each collective’s conflict or cohesion.
The women I interviewed readily identified group homogeneity as key to cohesion within
their collectives. Many ask friends to join the group, because they already know these women and
have an established rapport. In fact, when I asked women what qualities they look for in new members many described a ‘good fit’ as being essential. Jenna of The ( )ette Collective states:
[I]f someone comes along that seems [to] fit, we should snatch her up (laughs). [It
is] important that someone fit and get along with everyone. I think if there were
someone that didn’t, that we couldn’t work with, it would be almost impossible to
get anywhere. (Interview, p. 3)
58
According to CAE, for each project a member with the most experience overall ‘leads’
the group in the capacity of a project coordinator: ‘[W]hile all members have a voice in the production process, the project leader makes the final decision. This keeps endless discussion over who
has the better idea or design to a minimum, and hence the group can produce at a faster rate’.
(CAE, p. 66)
89
When I asked Mary, a member of SWCC, if her collective ever consciously looked for diverse members with respect to race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, class, or ability, she was uncertain
as to how to respond:
I don’t think that’s ever really been an issue, because we get along together, even if
a new person comes in, we still seem to [get women] known by us in other contexts
and somehow seem to fit in as well, so . . . we’re probably perpetuating ourselves
in the long run. (Mary, Interview, p. 8)
However, Mary contends that their collective is ‘diverse nonetheless, our present group is
well, two of us are from the United States, one is from an Indian background, I think via East Africa, and there were Native Canadians at one point’ (Interview, p. 9).
Differing Political/Philosophical Views
Sugar and Splice is an example of a collective that experienced conflict due to varying political and philosophical beliefs and goals among members. As I have stated in the previous chapter,
some collective members wanted simply to promote women filmmakers. Of course, simply exhibiting and promoting art created by women is itself a feminist, political, and activist act given that
women are under-represented in public galleries and institutions. In fact, since the 1980s, the Guerilla Girls have used art, humour, and cultural activism to highlight the continued underrepresentation of women in art institutions and art history (Freeland, 2001). However, not all art
created by women is feminist, and not all art created by feminists is feminist or political act. Lucy
Lippard states that feminist art is ‘neither a style nor movement, but instead a value system, a revolutionary strategy, a way of life’ (Broude & Garrard 1998). Members of Sugar and Splice did not
seem to agree on how they wanted to engage with feminist activism. This kind of confusion and lack
of definition can muddy the mandate or direction of the collective. Allyson, a filmmaker who
joined Sugar and Splice in its second year, states:
I guess it stemmed from last year when really nobody, well, myself and I think one
other girl from last year’s collective, are filmmakers, or from an arts related background. Everyone else was strictly Women’s Studies and last year it was an art
verses politics clash. Last year politics stamped out anything to do with filmmaking
as art. (Interview, p. 18)
90
Allyson’s frustration stemmed from the fact that other members had a strong political
agenda for the festival. One of her strongest complaints was about the festival advertisement poster,
which included a text background. The text background was red and commanded, ‘resist homophobia, resist racism, resist skinny, resist oppression,’ et cetera. Allyson felt the poster was too
overtly political and would scare people off from attending the festival.59
Other members of Sugar and Splice, Jen and Ally, felt that it was not enough to just show
women’s films, since women’s work is not always explicitly feminist. They wanted to require that
the films screened be feminist in order to promote cultural activism within the community. Jen, a
Women’s Studies graduate and the last founding member of the collective, describes her goals for
the festival in this way:
I don’t want to have a festival that just celebrates women, because, you know, not
all women are good . . . I don’t want to have a festival that only promotes, you
know? White middle upper class women in film even if it is a challenge for women
to get into film. (Interview, p. 14)
In 2005, the collective promoted a very activist, feminist festival program. The collective
screened a documentary and activist heavy program.60
In 2006, the year I attended the festival, Allyson and a new member Jenny (whom Allyson
recruited) organized the festival. The other two members, Jen and Ally, ‘let’ them decide on programming. Interestingly the 2005 festival content was definitely feminist. The festival screened all
feminist film and video artists, such as Free Show Seymour, a feminist art collective.
59
The issue of using explicit feminist words, for example the very word ‘feminist’, when
creating advertising for feminist film festivals was a discussion all collectives said they had. The reason stated was that perhaps leaving the word ‘feminist’ out of the title would attract a more diverse
or larger audience. In 2003, the Herland collective - the core 5 members as well the 400 members
at large - ‘voted’ in an online referendum to exclude the word ‘feminist’ from their title. The membership was split 50/50 so the festival coordinator at the time made the decision to exclude the
word ‘feminist’ when applying for non-profit status. Non-profit status was granted in spring 2005
under the name ‘Herland Film and Video Festival.’
60
That year, Allyson just ‘let’ the rest of the collective decide on the programming, even
though she did not agree with the agenda, and she did not attend the festival that year. ‘I didn’t even
care about it, I had nothing to do with it’ (Interview, p. 18).
91
Through analysis of the interview transcripts and archive material, it seems to me that the
difference between the 2005 and 2006 film festivals was the ‘tone’. The 2005 festival, which included serious topical international documentaries, was much more sombre and contemplative, whereas the 2006 festival screened films and videos with a subversive, humourous feminist tone. Jen recounts her thoughts on the two festivals:
I think we always need to look at gender, we need to look at class. I think feminism
is an intersection of everything, so I guess, when that argument was presented [that
the festival should be less political] I felt really defensive. Now after seeing it this
year, I think it was good. I think issues were still covered. (Interview, p. 13)
Although there were compromises from members each year, they were often made under
duress because of tight deadlines and the busy lives of collective members, rather than through consensus. I believe that the ongoing differences in political and activist ideals negatively affected the
collective’s desire to come together to organize another festival; no festival was held in 2006.
Diversity Issues
Some of the collectives, recognizing their homogeneity, made conscious efforts increase diversity within their groups. This can be a risky proposition: diversity has the potential to change a
group’s dynamics and can result in a higher incidence of conflict, which may in turn have a devastating effect on the future of the collective. Shirley, also a long-time member of SWCC, describes a
period in her collective’s history where they actively sought to diversify their membership:
I think there was a period in there where we had a maximum of one new member
a year and sometimes not even that, so if you work on the same project with the
same group for a number of years you obviously get to be closer friends. I think
that nowadays there’s a lot more transition. There was a point where we began to
feel that we were all getting kind of old, we were all pretty much of the same generation and we tended to have a homogenous point of view. We consciously went
out and looked for some younger women who would have different points of view
on things and different kinds of experiences from ours. While everybody pretty
much got along very well, I think it was probably a little harder to become really
close. (Shirley, Interview, p. 17)
Shirley did not express regret about diversifying the collective’s membership, nor did she
indicate that having a less homogenous group led to greater conflict. But she did acknowledge that
92
there was no longer the same level of intimacy that she had enjoyed with a less heterogeneous
group. I discuss this further in the next chapter.
There was also a time when The ( )ette Collective made a conscious decision to recruit
diverse women to the collective. This occurred just after Cayley, one of the founding members, left.
Two very interesting and accomplished women subsequently joined the collective. However, when
it came time to plan our next project, we could not agree on our political/activist statement, the
idea, execution, or even the aesthetic sensibilities of the project. After four or five meetings, we
were still unable to reach any sort of consensus or to take any action. It was not that there was conflict within the group per se, but there certainly was no cohesion either. Our ideas were too disparate and we were too diverse in our views. Rather than continuing discussions, we could only conclude that these gulfs were too wide to bridge. Soon, no one had the ‘time’ to meet. Eventually four
members left the collective, and the collective remained dormant for a year and a half. Members
did not formally resign from the collective, they just quit coming to meetings or answering e-mail,
which is fairly typical; it is highly unlikely that collective members would engage in ‘violent or confrontational situations at a collective meeting, rather it is more likely that individual collective members will simply drop out of the collective’ (Melucci, 1996, p. 57).
Soon after I completed my fieldwork, I discovered that Sugar and Splice had also decided
to ‘take a year off.’ Over the course of my interviews with that collective, I had, in fact, noticed
members expressing widely divergent views on topics ranging from political values to goals they had
for the collective – especially with respect to its future direction. According to my interview notes,
two members of Sugar and Splice were adamant that the word ‘feminism’ should not appear in the
title, or even be the focus, of the film festival they were organizing, proposing instead that the festival simply celebrate women filmmakers. The two other members were equally insistent that feminism should be at the forefront of the festival, that the festival must be political. As a result, three of
the four members said they were uncertain about the collective’s future. Interestingly, Sugar and
Splice had evolved from a group of twelve women – almost all of whom were majoring or teaching
93
Women’s Studies – to four members from various disciplines (Anthropology, English Literature,
and Film Studies). Once again, contrary to existing literature regarding conflict and collective size,
the reduced size of this collective did not lessen the degree of conflict that occurred within the
group. Instead, the principal factor leading to the collective’s demise was its lack of cohesion.
Social Class/Education/Age
Almost all of my research participants were white, middle class, university-educated women
actively involved in their communities and the arts; in other words, they shared similar social and
educational backgrounds. I did not seek out particular demographics when I was engaged in my
subject search. In fact, because I did not request this information before the interview I did not
know the race, social class, or educational background of the participants until I met them to conduct interviews.61
Sexual Orientation
While SWCC had only heterosexual members, the other four collectives – The (
)ette
Collective, Sugar and Splice, Herland, and Adamant Eve – all had members who considered themselves lesbian, bisexual, or heterosexual. Both members of Finger In The Dyke identified themselves as lesbian. All of the collectives except SWCC engaged in cultural activism rooted in issues of
gender, sexuality, sexual identity, and sexual orientation.
None of the interviewees, however, felt that differences in sexual orientation were a contributing factor to either conflict or cohesion within their collective. However, when I was asking the
pre-interview questions, such as full name, date of birth, educational and cultural background,
Shawna and Lorri of FITD replied in unison that their culture was ‘lesbian!’ They made it clear that
their political agenda and cultural activist work were directly informed by shared gender politics.
Although I cannot say conclusively that shared sexual orientation affects collective cohesion overall,
Although most collective members were around the same age, two collectives (SWCC
and The ( )ette Collective) had up to 20-year age spans in their membership. Mary of SWCC celebrates diversity in this area: ‘[W]e have a good balance of older and younger which I think is valuable to us’ (Interview, p. 9). Age did not appear to have an effect on conflict within collectives. Participants were, however, diverse in sexual orientation, race, and work experience.
61
94
I believe that was certainly the case, at least for the FITD women, for them, their shared experience
and commitment to activism definitely contributes to collective cohesion.
Race
Only one interviewee self-identified as a racial minority within her collective. A former
member of Herland, Michelle identified herself as a first-generation Canadian-Chinese woman.
Describing her experiences within the collective, which at the time had ‘white’ women as well as
women of diverse race and sexual orientation, she says:
[W]hen you have a mixed group of women coming together culturally, that there
was this idea of sharing the power, right? and those are discussions that happen a
lot in feminist community. The perception of white women having power and, and
women of colour wanting some of that power and what it means to negotiate and
share that power. (Michelle, Interview p. 10)
When I asked Michelle whether there were discussions between the core members regarding this issue, and furthermore if they recognized this issue existed and tried to negotiate change,
she replied:62
Absolutely. Obviously women of colour acknowledged that white women were,
were participating in helping coordinate [the festival], but then . . . if [we] wanted to
create a screening of women of colour, just for [ourselves] or our community, it
wasn’t meant to be exclusionary, but . . . [about] needing to create a safe
place. . . . Aboriginal women wanted to create a safe space, or lesbian women
. . . no one wanted to accuse anybody of being racist cause we’re all on the same
team, but it’s very interesting that dynamic of just having those discussions. A couple of women got hurt, because they felt like they were being pegged as, you know
‘white’ women with power that were not willing to relinquish, which wasn’t . . . I
don’t think was completely true. (Interview, p. 11)
Although Michelle was the only interviewee from a minority racial background, her experiences bear out existing feminist literature on feminist theory and race. Often white middle class
women have created or participated in theory that overlooks issues of women of colour; women of
colour, then, need to engage in and generate theory for themselves rather than trying to fit their
concerns into established scripts (hooks, 1984). Racial diversity definitely affects group cohesion;
‘Core’ is a term Herland and many other collectives use to distinguish between their
smaller governing collective and the membership at large. The membership at large is used as a
volunteer base as well as consultants on issues such as changes in the collective mandate or name.
62
95
and differences in race can result in important discussions and the creation of new theories or activist programs, such as the one Michelle describes regarding power and representation within her
collective.63
Work and Life Experience
Art-promoting collectives typically engage in tasks that are not unlike duties performed in
hierarchical settings, such as the workplace. The duties of coordinating a film festival, for example,
include sending out a call for work, securing advertisers or financial contributors, booking a theatre
space, organizing volunteers, and creating, editing and sending documents to the printers. Not surprisingly, I observed a greater diversity of work experience and political philosophy in artpromoting collectives than in art-creating collectives.
Sharon, a Herland collective member, is an accountant with a downtown Calgary business.
Sharon joined Herland because she wanted to be involved in the arts community but was not herself an artist, so she thought her business skills might help. Before joining Herland she’d had no
previous experience with collectivity, and during the interview she spoke often of her frustration
with the collective process:
We had issues with some people, and just in terms of what people to do what
work, but then there was no sort of contract, there was no real formal agreement,
and there were some issues where I’m thinking, you know, in business, we have
some sort of contract – it wouldn’t be like this, you know? (Sharon, Interview, p. 4)
Tamrin, another member, had been involved in a collective before and had a very different
experience working with Herland. As she says:
[I]t’s very difficult when somebody comes with a business background, and they
think things should be done, you know, this way, [that] one person should have
decision making authority, and that makes it kind of challenging, you know. (Interview, p. 4)
63
I did not ask most members whether they had experienced any issues resulting from racial diversity in their collective. I wish I had, as some may have had past members and experiences
from those times. However as I stated in chapter three I did ask members if they had actively attempted to recruit members of diversity, as all of the women I interviewed – other than Michelle –
were ‘white’ women.
96
Not surprisingly, the clash between Sharon’s business and hierarchal board experience and
Tamrin’s non-profit collective experience led to some significant conflict between the two women.
Although neither made specific mention of the other as a source of conflict within the collective,
their animosity for each other was clear in their discussions. The frustrations that Sharon shared
with me regarding the ‘business’ side of the collective were evident in the meeting I attended. However, the other collective members did not validate or discuss her expressed concerns. Within a few
months of our interviews, Sharon left the collective. In fact, all the collective members except
Tamrin soon left as well, and it remains unclear whether a festival will take place in 2008. At the
collective meeting I attended, it was apparent that the members were not enjoying the meeting. Although it is obvious that Herland was going through many changes – and Sharon’s experience, as
well as others cannot be solely attributed to familiarity with working in a feminist collective atmosphere, it is clear that lack of group homogeneity is a critical factor in sustaining group cohesion.
Creative Tensions
Because the collectives I studied were either art-creating or art-promoting, there was a mix
of artists who were also activists and women who were not artists but feminist activists. Deborah
Barndt, writing in Wild fire: Art as activism states that ‘creative tensions are always present in alternative art and popular education practices, such as the tension between process and product, between aesthetics and ethics, between cultural reclamation and cultural reinvention, between the spiritual and the political, between the body and earth’ (2006, p. 14). This was certainly true with the
collectives I studied. Some collectives had members with conflicting views about highlighting ‘women’s’ art versus ‘feminist’ art. Other collectives experienced conflict based on aesthetic values and
ideas. I will give examples of both types of conflict.
Aesthetic Differences
Some of the feminist collectives I studied encountered conflict rooted in aesthetic differences rather than in politics. This was the case with the very political Edmonton based radio collective, Adamant Eve. All of the members described themselves as feminists, and most were in Wom-
97
en’s Studies classes while they worked on the program. The two women I interviewed had participated in the collective for two years or more (most of the women are members for one or two semesters). When I was talking to Anna, one of the long-time members, she recalled with surprise
that their collective would have heated discussions not about politics but about the aesthetics of the
radio show. She says:
I think back now, and I think, why [was] I so heated? [I]t is interesting actually to
me to remember that it was less about politics and very different political
views. . . . It was more about an assertion about aesthetic values, you know, how do
we want this, the show to sound, which I find quite surprising to me now, but I
guess I was maybe a little more politically flexible then. . . . [B]ut I think about
those debates [and] . . . this pressure [from the station] to be professional. (Anna,
Interview, p. 11)
Almost all of Adamant Eve ’s programmers come from the Women Studies program at the
University of Alberta. Many of the women working together were also taking the same classes and
having discussions about feminist theory in that setting. Jana, the founding member of Adamant
Eve, remembers: ‘[T]he group was small and we were pretty much on a similar path, or similar outlook, and philosophy.’ (Jana, Interview, p. 3) Through this research, I have found that when collectives have similar theoretical and political philosophies, conflicts are more likely to occur regarding
aesthetic issues or task distribution, which I will discuss in the next section.
There was a time when The ( )ette Collective likewise did not encounter conflict because
of differing political or theoretical views; instead, its conflicts tended to centre on project ideas or
aesthetic choices. When the collective was founded, we were all women who were studying together, sharing an art studio and similar theoretical and political philosophies. However, when The (
)ette Collective evolved into a more heterogeneous group, with members from a variety of backgrounds with their own distinct visions, the disparities widened and we were not able to make decisions.
98
Factor Three: Established Relationships
Time
I found that collectives whose members worked together for a significant length of time and
had established relationships enjoyed more cohesion. This finding corroborates what has been
documented by members of other art collectives (Wilding, 2002; CAE, 1999; Larsen, 2005). For
example, Lucia Sommer shares her experiences as a member of subRosa:
I think collaborative work tends to get a bad rap because most artists experience it
in the form of short-term projects in which conflicts around distribution of labour
are common. But in a true collective, in whom members commit to a long-term
process, there is time to build the trust necessary to true collaboration. (Stalbaum,
2002)64
In addition, when members work together for longer periods the work load tends to even
out over time, and individual members are able to rotate through breaks and take turns from
shouldering the work (Stalbaum, 2002).
Long View
Members who took a ‘long view’ of their group’s work had more cohesive collectives.
Women in collectives which had been operating for ten or more years stated they worked together
successfully, understood each other’s lives, and were able to distribute work accordingly. Both the
SWCC and FITD collectives illustrate these points well. Although Herland is a long established
collective, the members are not. All the collective members I interviewed, except for one, had been
with the collective for less than three years and did not exhibit the qualities of patience and understanding of fellow members lack of participation that long standing members of SWCC and FITD
related.
Trust and Care
Collective cohesion was promoted when women not only trusted their fellow members but
genuinely care about them as well. Terry (SWCC) explains:
64
SubRosa is a cyber feminist collective and can be found at http://www.cyberfeminism.net/.
99
I think it’s important that we care about each other. We don’t sit in each other’s
pockets, but we are aware of what’s going on in each other’s lives and we try to be
helpful. (Interview, p. 10)
The women in SWCC trust each other to participate and see through their commitments, but they
are also aware of members’ varying ability to take on tasks and are willing to assume more work if
necessary. Regarding the responsibility of distributed tasks, Deana (SWCC) adds:
[T]here is, an unstated probably expectation that yeah, everybody pulls their weight
and gets done what they said they were gonna get done, we don’t hound each other. (Deana, Interview, p. 19)
Women’s lives are busy. In addition to childbearing and the day-to-day responsibilities of
caring for a family or an older relative, or perhaps returning to school, women may also experience
divorce or the loss of a spouse. The majority of women who had participated in a collective for five
years or more had at some point experienced either a personal hardship or life-changing event.
Over time, each of the members made accommodations for others, conscious of the fact that there
they too may be in need of extra support someday.
[W]e all pitch in, taking on more chapters when others cannot complete theirs.
Deanna for example, has been a member for quite a while but during that time
she’s been working on her masters degree, so she’s kind of dropped back to a lesser contribution. (Mary, Interview, p 8)
Compared to members of newly established collectives, women who belong to longstanding collectives were able work through changes and overcome challenges much more easily.
Members of the established collectives took a much longer view of the future, and because
they had built a foundation of trust, they were more likely to take on extra jobs in order to help
each other out. Shawna, of FITD, explains:
I also had to realize that a collaboration can’t be parsed into percentages. . . . You
can’t divide it up in terms of hours spent . . . that doesn’t equal essential contributions and so because of the demands of Lorri’s life, because she wasn’t here as
much as I was here. . . . She’s got a child, that doesn’t mean her contribution is any
less essential. . . . I guess my resentful nature has kind of slipped away [over the
years]. (Interview, p 12)
100
For her part, Lorri adds, ‘we have this long view of what we do; it’s not just project to project, it’s a long view, like we casually talk about next month and six years from now. . . . The time
thing works itself out over time’ (Interview, p. 13–14).
Short-Term View
My own experience with The (
)ette Collective involved a more short-sighted focus on
immediate projects and tasks. When we first formed, each of the founding members was in university and, although we were busy with our classes, we were very committed to the collective and invested comparable amounts of time and energy to our cause. We were all in similar circumstances:
students, feminists, artists, activists, white, and middle class. However, as the collective continued to
evolve, two of the original members left and three new members joined; some new members had
different working styles and commitments. I worried that projects would not be completed, and
indeed sometimes they were not, which would cause me anxiety. I would at times resent having to
take over tasks that, because of my strengths, were usually organizational in nature.
However, I no longer have a short-sighted view of immediate projects and tasks. I have
come to understand and appreciate the members of my collective. Rather than only seeing what
they do not do, I value their unique strengths and how they contribute to the group. Some of our
members are wonderful writers, some are great ‘idea’ women, and some are organizers. It took me
time to learn to let things ‘slip away’, as Shawna of Finger in the Dyke put it. I am striving to go with
the flow, to trust both the collective process and the others members of our group. Even after a
couple of years, establishing these relationships and achieving mutual trust is an ongoing process.
Benefits of Conflict
Melluci states that collectives may avoid conflict through ‘sublimation’; they construct what
they feel is an ‘ideal collective and then take refuge in the myth,’ and their group becomes like a
commune (Melluci, 1996, p. 58). Collectives actively engaged with theory are less likely to fall prey
to sublimation as they participate in ongoing theoretical discussions and feminist discourse, and
even the conflict that challenges collective dogma.
101
Conclusion
I witnessed varying degrees of comfort when interviewees discussed conflict during our interviews. Numerous factors were at play – from their collective’s customs, conventions, or familiarity with discussing conflict to how well members knew each other to whether they were presently still
involved with their collective. Unrecognized power structures lead to conflict within a collective,
while group cohesion is aided by operating structure, group homogeneity, and established relationships among members. Almost all of the members, even when they discussed experiences of conflict or frustration, seemed to ultimately view their collective experiences as pleasurable.
102
CHAPTER SIX
SOCIABILITY AND PLEASURE
Collective action helps alleviate the intensity of alienation born of an overly rationalized and instrumentalized culture by recreating some of the positive points of
friendship networks within a productive environment.
Critical Art Ensemble, 1995
65
The structures of production and distribution on the Internet are allied with feminist communication principles. Specifically, many of the physical aspects of the
network's structure — i.e. that it is non-hierarchical, non-linear, decentralized, usercontrolled, etc. — resonate with the way women prefer to communicate and are
consistent with a certain stream of feminist principles.
Bridget Mallon, n.d.
66
Sociability and pleasure play a large role in the success of the collectives I researched. I
define sociability as members of the collective engaging in social activity either before or after
meetings or on separate occasions. I found that collectives that connected socially had deep
connections among members. Women join feminist collectives to meet and engage with likeminded women, and this can be especially true in rural settings (Brown et al., 2002). For many
women, particularly on the prairies, the desire for social interaction and battling isolation are the
impetus joining or starting a collective. Essentially, these collectives become the social and support
networks that they have not found in their communities. Far away from major art centres, feminist
artists and activists may decide to work together to discuss feminist and activist discourse and
collaborate on projects, which address these issues. As previously mentioned, Sugar and Splice was
founded by Women’s Studies students and faculty of the University of Winnipeg, and The ( )ette
Collective was comprised of Fine Art students; both of these collectives formed because within
these collective settings they are able to enjoy social interactions with each other while engaging in
This quote was taken from the CAE’s project, Useless Technology Insert, 1995. ‘The insert was placed in Sunday newspapers in major cities around the United States. Newspapers were
removed from dispensers, and the insert was placed among the Sunday advertisements. The newspapers were then returned to the dispensers’. (CAE, 1998, p. 73).
66
Bridget is from Carlton University, http://www.uiowa.edu/~commstud/resources/Gender
Media/womenmakingmeaning.html
65
103
feminist discourse, art, and activism.
Advantages of Sociability
Sociability ‘solidifies group coherence… and allow[s] ample time for discussing new material and arguing out differences’ (Gardiner, 2005, p. 113). The women I studied cited some of the
many advantages of collectivity: social benefits; the woman–friendly atmosphere; meeting new
friends or deepening existing friendships; personal and professional support; and learning and engaging in new activities.
Personal Support
The social advantages of working collectively are many, but one of the most important is
the opportunity for members to get to know each other and often to become close friends, especially when supporting those who might be going through hardship or difficult life circumstances. The
SWCC is a prime example of this phenomenon. Its members have often given intimate support to
members who have experienced the death of a spouse, gone through a divorce, or had children.
I’ve thought several times about stopping, just because I think you can stay with
something too long but every time I think of that, I think I’d miss the getting together and the discoveries of new people. (Mary, Interview, p. 2)
When I interviewed Mary her husband had died only a few months before, and she recounted how
the collective members had rallyed around her, offering support, she and helping her to feel that
she was not alone. Kelly, a ( )ette member says, ‘I think it is the nature of small groups, we’re discussing our own work, which is very personal, we become personally invested in each others’ lives’
(Interview, p. 10).
Social Benefits
Participating in collectives enabled women to engage socially with like-minded women.
Most described their surroundings in towns on the prairies as conservative, and being part of feminist art collectives that were engaged in social, community, and political activism was a muchneeded outlet. Jana, a member of Adamant Eve, said:
104
Edmonton is pretty red neck, it is about as conservative as it gets, and so it was nice
to have a safe place to talk about feminism, it wasn’t just about the radio station, it
was how we were going to work together, how we were going to make our decisions. (Interview, p. 16)
Joey, a member of the Winnipeg film festival collective, Sugar and Splice, echoes the importance of
being with women who share politics and a commitment to activism:
This is actually a really social experience for me, I think I get from it the
knowledge that other women are thinking about their communities and applying
the change they would like to see happen, and yes there is definitely social aspect
to it. (Interview, p. 22)
Joey personally wanted to engage with social and cultural activism, but working collectively with
other women allowed her to do so while gaining an important social network as well. Sylvia, a
member of The ( )ette Collective, enjoys the camaraderie with the other members, saying, ‘We
are all interesting people and bring a lot to the collective, we have become close friends, and I really
like our times together’ (Interview, p. 4). Jenna, another member, adds, ‘We are a real friend orientated collective, we mostly do everything together’ (The ( )ette Collective group Interview, p. 1).
Although friendship is certainly not a requirement for working in a collective, it can become an important part of sociability within a collective. Anna, from the Adamant Eve radio collective, relates,
for instance, that her interactions with her fellow collective members ‘evolved into friendships’ (Interview, p. 11).
To Learn/Engage with Something New
Many women indicated that they joined their collectives because they wanted to take part in
activities they might not otherwise experience. Sharon from the Herland collective says: ‘I joined it
because I myself have no creative ability but I like creative people, I like the creative process’ (Interview, p. 1). Similarly, Allyson joined Sugar and Splice because, as she puts it, ‘I was never involved with any activism. I’m strictly from an arts background’ (Interview, p. 11). Feminist collectives provide spaces for women to learn, to teach, and to be exposed to all kinds of knowledge, experiences, and people outside their everyday lives.
105
Only Woman Atmosphere
Some women said they were comfortable in a gathering of only women, feeling safe or welcome to voice their opinions. Ally of the Sugar and Splice collective describes her experience:
In the collective I found comfort. I feel sometimes like I can breathe and that I
don’t have to worry about what I say; or what I look like and it’s not because there
aren’t men there, it doesn’t really have anything to do with that it’s that you’re allowed to kind of be who you are and the crowd is so diverse and it was really a positive experience for me. (Ally, Interview, p. 8)
Feminist collectives offer women a space to connect with women and cultivate comfortable communities. Jen, another member of Sugar and Splice, says that one primary impetus for forming the
collective was to develop a woman friendly, comfortable ‘culture’:
[W]e thought let’s make our own culture where you don’t have to worry about
someone staring at your ass, or you don’t have to worry about what you say. We
wanted to create a non-misogynist culture for ourselves. (Interview, p. 10)
These collectives also often provide child-friendly spaces where women can bring their
children while engaging in activist work. Deanna from the SWCC talks about bringing her one
month old baby to collective meetings, feeling comfortable breastfeeding and knowing that if her
son cried other members would not be upset or impatient. Kelly of The ( )ette Collective had two
children who often came to collective meetings and even participated in many of the collective videos and public performances.
Working Together for Support
In the art world women artists are marginalized, their work seldom receiving equal exhibition space in public institutions. In response, art collectives often create their own spaces for exhibition and socializing. Some artists who engage in public art forms, such as performance art, find it
intimidating to do alone and seek collectivity for support. Shawna, a member of Finger in the Dyke
(FITD), describes the comfort of working within a collective rather than individually:
[I]t is so lonely, and it’s so financially challenging and it’s so frightening to perform.
I don’t know. . . . Would we put ourselves through this, if we didn’t have each other? We’ve both wondered whether we’d still be artists without each other. (Interview, p. 14)
106
Feminist art collectives provide a ‘community’ of friendship and support, moral as well as intellectual and financial.
Among the collectives I interviewed, theoretical collectives tended to be the most social,
likely because engagement in theory takes a real investment of time. Women’s lives are busy and
they often juggle many commitments, and they often have to combine theoretical discussions and
planning with meals in order to combine work with leisure (DeVault, 1994, p. 5). Kelly, a member
of The ( )ette Collective, describes how social time informs their work:
The time we socialize, we are planning, it never stops. That is how we can do projects at last minute because we have been discussing them for a long time, we have
the theory worked out. (Interview, p. 12)
Continuing Academic
Many women reported that they joined a collective to sustain the social and academic support they had experienced as students. Upon leaving university, they missed the frequent opportunities to connect with like-minded women. Collectives provide women a forum for ongoing academic and intellectual stimulation, a social space to continue being engaged in feminist discourse,
and even networks of professional support. Ally from Sugar and Splice states:
[I]t’s isolating sometimes, being a feminist and being politically aware and wanting
to talk about your ideas, and not having anyone to talk to them about outside of an
academic setting, that’s very important, ‘cause for me I found I was very well supported in my feminism in academia but then when I left [school] I had a hard time
finding avenues to talk to like minded people or even to feel okay expressing my
ideas. (Interview, pp. 15, 7)
The women from the Saskatoon Women’s Calendar Collective (SWCC), whose members are or
have been professors, teachers, librarians, and writers, appreciated being able to continue their research and writing, as well as staying in contact with many of their colleagues from the University of
Saskatchewan.
107
How Sociability and Pleasure are Facilitated and Achieved
Potluck, the Metaphor
Participating in a potluck is an apt metaphor for collectivity. Women come together with
various talents, knowledge, and interests to create a group with a shared goal, and like community
activism, all members ‘become a part of it, they don’t just witness it’ (Todd, 2004, p. 4). Women get
to know each other – their preferences, likes, and dislikes; and as I mentioned in the last chapter,
the more familiar women are with one other, the less likely they are to experience conflict in their
collectives. Deborah Geis says that ‘food serves as a bridge between private rituals and social issues’
(1994, p. 227).
Feminist artists such as Suzanne Lacy and Judy Chicago have used the metaphor of food
and the sharing of food in their art, connecting the dinner party ‘with the social experience’ (Lippard, 1998, p. 73). So it makes sense that women who believe that the ‘personal is political’ would
also desire to mix a personal experience with social experience.
Potluck, the Food
The potluck has always played an important role in political, activist, and feminist organizing. Meeting with women on a social level, with food to share, is a hallmark of grassroots work
(Baumgardner & Richards, 2005), and meetings and potluck dinners have been synonymous since
the ‘days when sharing food was incorporated into political meetings and quilting parties’ (Lippard,
1988, p. 74). The potluck is a common social activity of all the collectives I interviewed, used to
create and foster sociability.
Why does the potluck persist as a social tool when women gather?
Cooking is not a ‘feminine trait,’ but the deliberate act of organizing a potluck conveys intent to create community, friendship, and a sense of well-being (DeVault, 1992, p.12). Lucy Lippard says that the potluck is a chance for women to ‘make sacrifices,’ not only to each other, but
also for the good of the female community (Lippard 1998, p 74). In other words, there is symbolic
significance in cooking for other women, particularly for occasions such as meetings to discuss and
108
plan feminist activism. DeVault argues that cooking for a women’s potluck is ‘women cooking for
other women, and cooking is not women’s work, but for women’s work’ (DeVault 1992, p. 13). In
this context, an activity that in the past was typically (or stereotypically) considered women’s work is
transformed into something else.
That is to say, it is the act of preparing and sharing food with others, which lends intimacy
to the group. Carole Counihan states that ‘feeding and eating are profoundly meaningful’ (1999, p.
2). Of the collectives studied in this research, the one with the longest history, SWCC, have potlucked from the outset. In the early days of organizing, they would swap recipes during potlucks
and one year even created a recipe book. This collective cultivated strong social relationships
through potlucks, relationships that have lasted to this day. The women of SWCC currently meet
only once a year, and otherwise maintain contact via e-mail, but many of the women who were
members during that time still have strong social relationships with each other.
Over tea with an artist friend of mine, Kelaine Devine, we discussed the phenomenon of
the potluck, especially for gatherings of feminist art collectives. As she said:
Oooo, I see it as a gift. I have gone to basic potlucks like church potlucks, but artist
potlucks are so much more because of the use of ingredients and aesthetics. First,
the dishes look great, there is extra time put in to make them look pretty or maybe
‘arty’, and the food tastes wonderful, often they are more exotic, a cacophony of
spices. If I am invited to a potluck with artists, I will drop everything I might have
planned, because I know it will be great food…and company. (Informal interview,
January 2008)
The Evolution of the ‘Potluck’
There is an interesting distinction in the definitions of ‘potluck’ between generations. The
women of SWCC were of an older generation, while members of the other collectives were mostly
in there twenties. Younger women were more likely to call the bringing together of shared food and
drink a ‘potluck’. These women often contributed store bought snacks, such as chips and salsa. In
contrast, collectives with older women considered a potluck to be the act of cooking together and
for each other. This could be for several reasons, but it cannot be attributed to a lack of time, as the
older generation women I talked to were just as busy as the women from the younger generation.
109
However, many women from the younger generation do not cook, and so a store bought
contribution would not seem out of the ordinary among their peers. In addition, younger women in
the collectives I researched tended to meet more often, which would make preparing meals for every meeting unwieldy. Instead, these women would often meet at cafés or pubs to socialise, participate in theoretical discussions, and plan art projects. As Sylvia put it, ‘There are meetings, but then
there are times when I run into you and Kelly at the bar and we talk about art and activism, and I
love that’ (Sylvia, Interview, p. 8)
Alternative Social Engagements
The Internet has allowed women to work collaboratively from locations all around the
world. The Internet itself is a sort of collective; although its “members” are often alone in a room
while on a computer they are interacting, connecting, finding, joining, and coalescing around issues,
ideas, theories, and even activities (Jarvis, 2007). Through the Web, women, artists, and collectives
are able to see what is being done in any number of different places and to access information and
resources they might not otherwise have found in their communities. The advancement of technology has facilitated collectivist work, and many collectives communicate and come together through
the Internet.
Internet/E-mail/Mailing Lists/Chat Rooms
Not surprisingly, technology has had a great impact on collective sociability. I had hypothesized that technology would be a detriment to collective sociability, but in fact, the women in this
study stated that the Internet, and e-mail in particular, were positive tools to help them keep in
touch with each other. However, they also stated that they continued to meet face-to-face (even if
just once a year) to re-establish friendships, because ‘knowing each other personally solidifies the
bonds of the collective’ (Gardiner, 2005, p. 116).
SWCC members do most of their planning over e-mail, with one or two face-to-face meetings a year. These face-to-face meetings give the members a chance to catch up on news and connect personally with each other. But e-mail enables collective members to stay in contact even when
110
they cannot physically be at meetings, or are not in the city. For example, the SWCC has a member
who moved to Vancouver Island, another in Nova Scotia, and another to Toronto; but all three can
participate in the collective through e-mail, which as a medium of communication has its pluses and
minuses. Shirley, the member who lives on Vancouver Island, cites some of the disadvantages:
[I]n some ways it’s easier when you’re closer because you have much more of a
feeling of what the rest of the group will like and be pleased about and in some
ways I guess maybe being a little more business-like means there is less of that personal element. (Interview, p. 16)
On the other hand, Terry, another member of SWCC, found it was positive that they were to share
work with other members, even from far away:
[C]ertainly with e-mail it makes it much easier these days to share and exchange
ideas and share documents, that used to be a big thing you know making photocopies for everybody and handing them around. . . . We meet electronically a lot,
we discuss a lot electronically, ask each other what they think, and then we had one
member, Patty, who moved to Nova Scotia, it was pre-e-mail days and it did not
work very well, but now we meet and it is much easier. (Interview, p. 16)
However, when I asked members of SWCC if they would recruit new members from across the
country to join the collective they all said no. The general consensus was that new members would
not have the same commitment because they had not established personal relationships first. Sociability can be maintained via e-mail, but there has to be a pre-existing relationship that was established and cultivated in person.
Sylvia, a ( )ette member, left the city for the summer to work in a different town. While
she was away the collective was planning a film festival and a large-scale performance project. Sylvia
continued to participate in the planning through e-mail: ‘I was the e-mail member I guess. I would
send ideas and keep up with what was happening with the planning of the festival’ (Interview, p. 1).
Sylvia was able to remain part of the collective socially by participating in the e-mail exchanges. On
another occasion when she left town and was out of e-mail contact, it took time to rebuild relationships when she returned four months later.
111
Facebook/Web sites/Blogs
Social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook (FB) have become popular sites for
people and groups to connect socially. These sites not only allow friends to stay connected, they
also enable groups to post happenings and announcements. FB has become a popular and effective
activists’ tool to organize events, especially when time is short. Researchers have found that over
37% of users check their Facebook account at least twice a day and 15% check constantly.67 The (
)ette Collective has three collective members/24 FB group members; Adamant Eve has three collective members/39 FB members; and Lesbian Park Rangers, a fan group of FITD’s performance
of the same name, has 48 FB members. It is interesting to note the number of members in the Facebook groups because although the actual collectives only have a few members, the membership
on FB may be much larger, comprised of people who join to keep up on events, comment on projects, and demonstrate support for the group. For example, I am a member of The ( )ette Collec-
tive, Adamant Eve, and Lesbian Park Rangers groups, as well as Collectives for Cultural Activism
on the Prairies (CCAP), a FB group I set up to begin a network of prairie activists. CCAP on Facebook has 37 members from across the prairies, who desire to connect with women and events from
across the prairies.
Four of the collectives in this study – Finger in the Dyke, Herland, Saskatchewan Women’s
Calendar Collective, and Sugar and Splice – have Web sites. Web sites allow searchers from
around the world to see what feminist art collectives on the Canadian prairies are producing and to
learn about the cultural activist events they are organizing. Jen, of Sugar and Splice states that ‘cyber
networking is good ’cause no one has any money and you can get a Web site for super cheap’ (Interview, p. 25).
Web Chat
My own experience with Web chat was not positive, and I would argue that the medium
does little to foster group sociability. One of our members, Kelly, was in Banff for a residency when
67
Source: http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2007/10/facebook-addiction.htm
112
we were planning a major exhibition. During one meeting, instead of gathering around the table or
in the living room, we all sat around my computer and ‘talked’ to Kelly. The combination of the
poor audio and delayed transmissions caused confusion and proved more frustrating than social.
Instead of looking at each other, everyone was staring at the computer screen, inhibiting any social
interaction among us, and certainly with Kelly.
Technology
Mary, of SWCC, describes the effect of technology on their collective meetings and on the
sociability of her collective:
[T]echnology changes, it is a nostalgia, rather than missing – because there was a
locality there, I think that just came out of the frenetic activity and you had three
rooms and somebody was doing the dummy in this room and somebody was cutting and pasting the pages in that room and somebody else was doing the sources
somewhere else and so there was a weekend or two spent working on the calendar
physically and we just don’t do that anymore. Now, it is a solitary kind of thing
when you get together with the product rather than the process and so it is different. But I would never want to go back to the extensive work it took, we typed the
pages by hand, and I would not use white out so it took forever. (Interview, p. 14)
Although with technology came a loss of sociability, it was a relief to her that the work was not as
labor-intensive. As I described earlier, the collective has struck a balance of work and sociability
that is successful for the collective members.
This does raise an interesting point. There is always a risk, ironically, of a collective becoming too social. Even if women enjoy the sociability of the group, the realities of life and the limitations of time do not always allow for the extra investment required to engage socially. So it can become difficult to manage the demands a highly social collective – one that say, throws a potluck at
every meeting. Women may begin avoiding meetings or even leave a collective because a social collective demands too much time.
Sociability Issues
Not Looking for Sociability
Some women join collectives because they were invited by the collective, have the skills required, and believe in the importance of the project, not necessarily because they are seeking socia-
113
bility or community from their collective work. Both Amy Jo and Deanna indicated that they had
joined the SWCC because they are committed to documenting women’s lives and believe in the
value of producing the SWCC calendar. They did not join the collective for the social networking,
nor are they involved because they particularly feel a sense of community. They both mention that
their collective currently does not even get together often enough to foster intimate relationships. At
the same time, Deanna is quick to point out that she nevertheless enjoys the social aspect of the
group:
[B]ut I mean it’s fun when we get together for a potluck, it’s a lot of fun, it is a social event, but we don’t have just social events, just to socialize. . . . We are all too
busy. . . . Even if we have a potluck, we’ve got an agenda, right? We do social
things in combination with doing work in the collective. (Interview p. 16)
The degree of collective sociability is something that can change over time. Some of the
collectives I studied, including the SWCC, are no longer as sociable as they had been in the past.
Newer members of SWCC do not consider sociability an important reason for joining the collective, nor do they see it as being crucial to the group overall.
Addition of Staff Members
While analysing my Herland interview transcripts and notes from the meeting I observed, I
wondered about the effect of a staff person on a collective’s sociability and ultimately concluded
that a staff member did indeed impact the social dynamics for Herland (Herland was the only collective with a staff person). The staff member became the social organizer, coordinating meeting
schedules and agendas and even ordering food for the meetings; instead of members bringing food
to share with the group, food was provided and became more of an incentive to get members to
attend meetings. Herland hired a staff person to complete tasks that were taxing the collective
members. It created a hierarchy and changed the dynamic within the collective, affecting how
members worked together to complete projects. Former collective member Michelle says:
[A]ll of a sudden we got a Canada Council grant of ten thousand dollars, we hired
a staff person, it is not so much that there was an idea of hierarchy, but once you
pay somebody there is an expectation to have to answer to a group of people, the
core that had been the organizing committee became the consulting committee,
114
because we had all worked so hard for so long, it was nice to move it on to someone, but also then collective members felt like they should be paid when they did
things. . . . It didn’t destroy things, but certainly some core members went away.
(Interview, p. 22)
Sociability and a sense of community can be important driving forces for collectivity – but
only if that is what its members seek. Herland, for example, has always been a task-oriented rather
than a social collective as evidenced by Michelle’s description. Herland members do not come together to share food and socialise for the sake of those activities, but to focus on the project they are
co-ordinating. It might even be said that, for a variety of reasons such as time and inclination, they
belong to a collective like Herland precisely because of its lack of sociability.
Effect of Institutions
Institutional pressures inadvertently brought Adamant Eve collective members closer together. When the radio station management wanted the group to discontinue use of the word ‘cunt’
on air (including during The Happy Cunt, a segment on women’s health), members banded together and met more often, reinvigorated in their discussions of theory and their political goals. Jana explains:
[This incident] brought Adamant Eve closer, the collective began a segment called
The Happy Cunt – all of a sudden we were at odds with the management – over
this issue – but it forced us to really come together as a collective and to be separate from everything else that was going on around us and what everyone else desired. We decided what we wanted to do – what was really important – we became
really close. It was so unifying. . . . It was like all of a sudden we were all we were
all just like we’ve got to fight this you know it really gave us a direction and a focus
for that time period (Interview, p. 19)
Conversely, almost ten years later the station administration wanted Adamant Eve to pre-record
their radio show, which negatively impacted the collective’s sociability. Anna, a member at that
time, explains:
We got a lot of pressure to pre-produce all shows – and so moving to preproduction made it much more difficult because it was more individual. Now a big
aspect of our collective work was producing the show. It had big repercussions for
how we were operating. When we weren’t pre-taping the shows we would get together and discuss who we were going to have on the show – even doing the show
was a social time. There would be sometimes three or four of us in the booth. But
when we went to pre-taping the process became very removed. Who ever pro-
115
duced and edited the show would burn the CD and give it to station. . . . It became
much more compartmentalized, one person editing, one producing, one adding
the music. . . . We tried to stay together and all be there to do the task, but with
our crazy busy schedules it was hard to justify sitting there watching someone else
do the talk. (Interview, p. 16)
Pleasure
One factor critical to collective cohesion and longevity is the pleasure individual collective
members experience within the collective. In her article, ‘Making waves’, Margot Leigh Butler describes being in an art collective as ‘oscillating between the difficulties and pleasures of collaboration’ (2001, p. 389). Leigh Butler uses the metaphor of a wave to discuss the ripple effects of art
activism; however, when I re-read that passage I could not help but think of the descriptions I was
hearing from the interviewees. The women I spoke to experienced ‘waves’ of satisfaction and accomplishment with the collective process, as well as ‘waves’ of frustration and conflict, but ultimately were left with sediments of ‘pleasure.’ Hyla Willis, of SubRosa, describes collective work in yet
another way, as ‘sharing living space or music making: there are a bundle of trade-offs but it is generally a richer life experience to share’ (Stalbaum, 2002).
In fact, I sensed that overall women received a sense of pleasure from working in cohesive
collectives. And in turn, members who enjoyed their projects and shared a sense of camaraderie
with the group were more likely to continue working collectively. Whether a collective has a formal
structure or, like most of the ones in my study, a self-described ‘loosey goosey’ structure, the pleasurable experience of collectivity tended to buffer and override many of the problems that arose
within a group.
Within the two art-creating collectives I studied, every member expressed a sense of pleasure in working collectivity, even when they encountered conflict, whereas only a few members art-
promoting collectives only counted pleasure among their reasons for working collectively. It would
seem, then, that having an opportunity to engage in creativity, different processes, and greater freedom are important elements contributing to an atmosphere of pleasure. Kelly, a ( )ette Collective
member, describes her experience:
116
I was accustomed to working independently, so it was hard for me in the beginning, but I love it now. I enjoy having meetings to discuss theory and I love that we
can work together and build on each other’s ideas, yes we have conflict, but I think
the outcome of our projects are better for it. (Interview, p. 2)
Cayley, who eventually left The ( )ette Collective to pursue a graduate program in Montreal, also considers her experience with the collective to have been mainly pleasurable:
I realized [during the] Freak Show.68 We learned that we are hard workers and we
can get things done and we’re going crazy, it’s fun – that’s what I just love [about
working collectively]. (The ( )ette Collective Meeting Interview, p. 3)
Naturally, when women did not experience pleasure associated with collective work, participation waned. When we went from creating art projects and discussing theory together to organizing a feminist film festival we experienced shifts in conflict and cohesion within The ( )ette Collec-
tive. During the festival planning, members were more likely to be ‘unable’ to attend every meeting.
I personally remember most film festival planning sessions as tedious. We divided tasks and independently completed tasks. The focus was always on determining who had done what and what
remained to be done. Those who had not managed to complete their tasks would usually forego
attending the meetings entirely.
Towards the end of the festival planning, however, we decided to create a performance
video to include in the festival. Suddenly, there was excitement within the collective, members attended meetings on a regular basis, and we were engaging once more in theoretical discussions.
Kelly explains:
[I]t’s a rush when things happen spontaneously, that is when the best things happen, sometimes I feel that we have been so work based with the [film festival] that
maybe we were missing something. It was really fun when we did the performing
and filming. (The ( )ette Collective Interview, p. 3)
68
When Cayley mentions the Freak Show she is referring to a performance called The
Feminist Freak Show which was part of 2006 Lethbridge Art Walk. The show was very labour intensive and was organized at the same time we were organizing coordinating the film festival and
producing a 25 minute performance video.
117
Support
The members of art collectives with whom I spoke discussed not only pleasure but comfort
as well. Shawna and Lorri of FITD describe the intimacy that comes from working collectively as
artists:
[W]e’ve both wondered whether we’d still be artists without each other ’cause it’s
so lonely, and it’s so financially challenging and it’s frightening to perform . . . if we
didn’t have each other. (Shawna, Interview, p. 28).
Lorri adds:
We’re constantly influencing each other and we’re best friends. . . . Yeah you
know, corny as that sounds it’s true, we don’t just talk about art, we talk about our
gardens, whatever, we are part of each other’s family. (Interview p. 28)
As I stated above, I discovered that there was a lesser sense of pleasure associated with
working in art-promoting collectives. That is not to say, however, that those in art-promoting collectives were dismissive of the idea of being in a collective for pleasure. Ally, a member of Sugar and
Splice, said:
[W]e’d get together, you know, we got together at Jenny’s house for a screening
and that was just, it was really nice, I get a social aspect out of it as well, that I think
is a good kind of side effect of this type of organizing. (Interview, p. 5)
Working collectively means working hard, committing a great deal of time, exploring creatively. Even navigating different personalities and potential conflict. Anna explains her experiences
with collectivity:
It was a fantastic experience, not to say that it was easy or non-conflictual, because
it had been conflictual, at times, in particular it was about things like whose gonna
do what, when. . . . But it was amazing and created kinds of friendship that you
have learned and the things that you would not ordinary see or learn. . . . I think
part of the reason why it’s so hard to work collectively is that we don’t really have
lots of examples of collective work in this culture – it is I give you a task you do it –
you do your bit I do mine. . . . The thing you get out of working collectively is different in kind, not just you know qualitatively, but quantitatively . . . or sometimes
works (laughs), but different – you relate to it differently you relate to the thing you
have to do – that the main feeling, experience and politically, for me it’s the only
way to go and in that context pursuing feminist politics. (Interview, p. 28)
118
Busy, but…
Pleasure is a key component in collective longevity. In the instances where members of a
collective did not enjoy working with other members, they did not attend meetings consistently and
even chose to avoid social events meant to create intimacy within a collective, such as potlucks.
When women lose pleasure in collectivity, they are likely to reduce their involvement in the collective or to discontinue it altogether.
Women’s lives evolve as our various responsibilities and interests change. The women I interviewed, while working collectively, were also in school full-time, working full-time, going through
life-changing events like childbirth, child-rearing, even divorce. It is my belief that experiences of
conflict and frustration with collectivity that diminish pleasure result in a reluctance to dedicate time
to the collective, even time that was willingly given up before. When I asked women why they left a
collective or were not participating as actively as they had once had, most responded that they just
did not have time anymore. In other words, while taking pleasure in collectivity does not in and of
itself facilitate cohesion, if members enjoy the experience they are more likely to want to work towards a cohesive collective.
Conclusion
Collective sociability provides members with support, an opportunity to learn something
new, the chance to participate in a woman only atmosphere, and a relaxed setting in which to engage theoretically. Sociability is facilitated in many ways, from the traditional potluck to conversations at cafes or pubs, and even over the Internet. There can be disadvantages to a collective that is
too social: new members may find it difficult to establish a place for themselves, and women who
do not have the time for numerous social events may withdraw from the group or leave the collective altogether. However, in the collectives I studied the overwhelming sentiments were of pleasure,
which is both rewarding and inspiring.
119
CHAPTER SEVEN
CONCLUSIONS
Throughout this thesis, I focused on the structures of the collectives under investigation.
The subsequent documentary will concentrate in more detail on their various art activist projects.
Briefly, as I have stated, art-creation collectives (The ( )ette Collective and Finger in the Dyke) use
the tools of performance, installation, video, photography, text, posters, self-publishing, and Web
sites to engage in activism. Art-promotion collectives (Adamant Eve, Herland, Sugar and Splice,
and the Saskatoon Women’s Calendar Collective) organized film festivals, seminars, and round
table discussions; hosted radio programs; and self – and professionally – published women’s histories.
Findings of This Research
I conclude with three major findings regarding art collectives active on the prairies. The
first is the importance of individual collective members’ engagement with activism; art collectives on
the prairies engage with art activism theoretically or practically for art creation or promotion. The
second pertained to the three major factors that affect collective conflict or cohesion. And third, I
determined the relationship in collective structures of sociability and participants’ pleasure, and further how technology has positively and negatively impacted collective sociability. A secondary but
nonetheless important determination was the discovery of how collectives modify ‘consensus’ decision-making to suit their group’s needs.
Categorizing the collectives as art-creation or art-promotion was an important distinction
for my research. I found that the difference between art-creation collectives and art-promotion collectives is their engagement with activism. Art-creation collectives are more likely to engage in theoretical discussions that inform their art creation for cultural activism; however, art-creation collectives are also more likely to burn out because engagement with theory is time consuming and can
lead to conflict. There were two art-creation collectives in this study, The ( )ette Collective and
Finger in the Dyke. Finger in the Dyke is an example of an art-creation collective that is actively
120
engaged with theory, but it notably also has a history of 19 years. They are able to sustain themselves because they have a stable collective structure and, as a collective of two, decision-making is
less contentious.
The ( )ette Collective (2004–present) is still in operation, but they have weathered several
departures due to differing theoretical engagements. Individuals who did not derive pleasure from
participating chose to leave the collective, resulting in numerous shifts in membership.
Most art-promotion collectives have evolved from theoretical collectives, propelled by a desire to take practical action to promote feminist art and politics for activism. The one exception is
Adamant Eve. This collective, a long-standing group, was formed in 1994. It tackles theoretical discussions on air and promotes feminist/female artists and activists. Adamant Eve is unusual because
although they are an art-promoting collective, and as such approach their tasks very functionally,
they remain engaged theoretically. Unlike most art-promotion collectives they are able to engage
theoretically and sustain their longevity because the membership is almost exclusively Women’s
Studies students from the University of Alberta, women who work through theoretical issues in
their classes and then practically apply the theory to art in their collective.
Of the collectives I studied, there were two other long lasting art-promotion collectives –
Saskatoon Women’s Calendar Collective (SWCC) and Herland – and one art-promotion collective
new to the scene, Sugar and Splice. The SWCC have endured because they have set structure,
group homogeneity, and established relationships. SWCC ’s members have typically been involved
for 10 years or more; they work individually on separate parts of a project, meeting once a year to
put their heads together and choose subjects for their next project. SWCC approach their activist
projects very practically and have templates for completing individual tasks as well for structuring
the collective as a whole, which has all but eliminated any conflict within the collective.
Herland is a practical, art-promoting collective but currently does not enjoy group homogeneity or established relationships. Consequently they are experiencing group conflict that has sig-
121
nificantly affected the structure of the collective. At the time of this writing, Herland was reevaluating its structure and fundraising but was not engaging in theoretical discussions.
Sugar and Splice is an art-promoting collective, but with two members that wanted to engage in theory and two that wanted to engage practically, the collective experienced some fundamental conflict. In 2007, they took a break from organizing a film festival and were unsure of their
future as a collective. The theoretical and practical divide created a rift in the collective that spoiled
the atmosphere for its members.
I would argue there are three major aids to improve group cohesion in a collective. These
factors are: collective structure, group homogeneity, and established relationships. Collectives that
define an established task with a set process for meeting the goal, and further a tight deadline for
completing the task, encounter less conflict. Collectives, particularly art-promotion collectives,
whose members have similar backgrounds in terms of political and aesthetic preferences typically
experience less conflict.
Finally, group members’ experiences with sociability within a collective affect their sense of
pleasure within it. Some women suffered incidents of conflict or frustration with collectivity; however, of the 24 women I interviewed for this research project there was an overwhelming sentiment of
pleasure in collectivity. The women enjoyed gathering with like-minded women who shared their
goals of feminist art activism. The Canadian prairies are vast, and although the women in this study
live in communities (Edmonton, Calgary, Lethbridge, Saskatoon, and Winnipeg) not considered
rural, they are not entirely urban either. Feminists have come together to create art that they may be
intimidated to do alone in what they have described as conservative communities.
The collectives in this study intuitively modified strictly ‘consensus’ decision-making structures into ones that work for their collectives. Although there is existing research suggesting that
some collectives consciously modify their decision-making structures, I found that the collectives I
studied intuitively adapted their decision-making to accommodate their various needs. They arrived
at decision-making methods that suited their ways of working.
122
There is no doubt that women on the Canadian prairies are committed to feminist art and
activism and are organizing collectively to create and promote feminist art for cultural change in
their communities. It was important to collective some of their history because often the evidence
of their work is ephemeral; collective members are unlikely to keep their own history with a view to
posterity, they too busy with the present to worry about collecting the past.
Thoughts for Further Study
As I stated in my introduction, after completing this study, I became aware of other collectives – some feminist activist and some art activist – operating on the prairies. The prairies have
become a site of feminist art activism, and there is much more history to be documented and structures to be studied. It would be valuable to continue this research with a wider variety of subjects. I
realized by about my third interview research trip that almost all the women I interviewed were
white, middle class, and all but one university educated. There are feminist collectives I was not
able to interview for this research project but who are promoting art for cultural activism – such as
Women of Colour in Calgary and TRIBE in Saskatoon, and certainly untold others.
As I noted, I was unable to locate many art-creation collectives on the prairies. It would be
worthwhile to discover whether there are just not many feminist art ‘creation’ collectives on the
prairies, or whether, as Dr. Borsa and I discussed, feminist art collectives are difficult to locate because of the ephemeral nature of their work. Further, if there in fact aren’t many art collectives on
the prairies, why not? Also, are the prairies really that different than larger centres? Are there many
Canadian feminist art collectives even in the larger centres? Does the sociability of larger centres,
the ability to more readily find and connect with a larger community of like-minded women, enable
more collectivity? When I was researching literature regarding feminist collectivity, I was not able to
unearth much documentation. However, notable are Dr. Williams’ comprehensive chronology
(1991) of Vancouver area collectives, entitled ‘A working chronology of feminist collectives’, and
the recently published books Caught in the act (2004) by Tanya Mars and Johanna Householder
and Radical gestures (2006) by Jayne Wark, which have all contributed to historicizing the activist
123
work of Canadian feminist artists. Because women are often working outside of traditional institutions, it is rare for writing about feminist art collectivity and activism to be published. I see a space
and a real need for a national examination and documentation of feminist art activist collectives.
There are many questions yet to be asked, much less answered.
In a growing number of virtual collectives, women are actively using technology to organize,
contact, and promote their collective structures and public events. Some collectives (not in this
study) are using the Web as a medium for feminist activist art projects (such as subRosa). I briefly
touched on this in chapter six of the thesis, and the fact that technology was often beneficial to collectivity and sociability was a surprise to me. I would like to study not only the impact of technology
on collective organizing, but also the usefulness of technology on collective activism.
Many of the women I interviewed for this project were surprised that anyone would be interested in their collectives, or in what they would have to say as individuals. Often women do not
recognize the value and importance of their activist work, and I feel it is worth repeating that collective members are not likely to record their own histories, because they are too busy working in the
present to worry about collecting their past. That is why it is important that we, as feminist researchers, make their pasts part of the historical record.
124
REFERENCES
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, and bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4, 139–158.
Acker, J. (1995). Feminist goals and organizing processes. In M. M. Ferree & P. Y. Martin (Eds.),
Feminist organizations: Harvest of the new women’s movement (pp. 137–144). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Acker, S. (2000). In/out/side: positioning the researcher in feminist qualitative research. Resources
for Feminist Research, 28(1/2), 189–208.
Adamson, N., Briskin, L., & McPhail, M. (1988). Feminist organizing for change. Toronto, ON:
Oxford University Press.
Ansell, K. (2001). Feminism fourth wave. Monash Magazine, 7. Retrieved January 8, 2008, from
http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/monmag/issue7-2001/girlmay2001.html.
Armstrong, E. (2002). The tyranny of poststructurelessness. In The retreat from organization: U.S.
feminism reconceptualized. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Aronson, P. (2003). Feminists or ‘postfeminists’? Young women’s attitudes toward feminism and
gender relations. Gender & Society, 17, 903–922.
Ault, J. (2002). Alternative art New York, 1965–1985. Cultural politics. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Bailey, C. (1999). A cinema of duty: The films of Jennifer Hodge de Silva. In K. Armatage, K.
Banning, B. Longfellow, & J. Marchessault (Eds.), Gendering the nation: Canadian women’s cinema. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Barlow, M. (2003). Feminism 101: The New York Women’s Festival, 1972–1980. Camera Obscura 54, 18(3), 3–38.
Barnett, B. M. (1995). Black women’s collectivist movement organizations: Their struggles during
the ‘doldrums’. In M. M. Ferree & P. Y. Martin (Eds.), Feminist organizations: Harvest of
the new women’s movement (pp. 199–219). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Bégin M. (1992). The Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada: Twenty years later.
In C. Blackhouse & D. H. Flaherty (Eds.), Challenging times: The women’s movement in
Canada and the United States. Montreal, PQ, and Kingston, ON: McGill–Queen’s University Press.
Berger Gluck, S. (1998). Whose feminism, whose history? Reflections on excavating the history of
(the) U.S. women’s movements(s). In N. Naples (Ed.), Community activism and feminist
politics: Organizing across race, class and gender. New York: Routledge.
Berger Gluck, S. (2002). Women’s oral history: Resource section. In S. H. Armitage, P. Hart, & K.
Weathermon (Eds.), Women’s oral history: The Frontiers reader. Lincoln, NE: University
of Nebraska Press.
125
Blackhouse, C., & Flaherty, D. H. (1992). Challenging times: The women’s movement in Canada
and the United States. Montreal, PQ, and Kingston, ON: McGill–Queen’s University
Press.
Board, M. L. (2005). [Review of Feminism-Art-Theory: An anthology 1968–2000]. Woman’s Art
Journal, 26, 61–64.
Bookman, A., & Morgen, S. (Eds.). (1988). Women and the politics of empowerment. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Bordt, R. L. (1997). The structure of women’s nonprofit organizations. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.
Brayton, J., Ollivier, M., & Robbins, W. (n.d.). Introduction to feminist research. Retrieved December 18, 2005, from http://www.unb.ca/PAR-L/research.htm.
Bromley, V. & Ahman, A. (2006). Wa(i)ving solidarity: Feminist activists confronting backlash. Canadian Woman Studies, Summer, 25 3:4. <?!>
Bronfen, E., & Kavka, M. (Eds.). (2001). Feminist consequences: Theory for the new century.
Gender and culture. New York: Columbia University Press.
Brown, H. (1992). Women organizing. New York: Routledge.
Butler, M. L. (2001). Making waves. Women’s Studies International Forum, 24, 381–399.
Caiazza, A., & Barrett, A. (2003). Engaging women in environmental activism: Recommendations
for Rachel’s Network. Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Retrieved
September, 11, 2006, from http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/I913.pdf.
Cash, S. (1994). The art criticism and politics of Lucy Lippard. In H. Robinson (Ed.), Feminist-ArtTheory: An anthology, 1968–2000. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Cavanaugh, C. A., & Warne, R. R. (1993). Standing on new ground: Women in Alberta. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta Press.
Coates, J. (1997). Women’s friendship, women’s talk. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Gender and discourse.
Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K., (2000). Interviewees’ power. <?!>
Collective creativity: Common ideas for life and politics. (2005). Retrieved January 16, 2007, from
http://www.absolutearts.com/artsnews/2005/05/02/32970.html.
Collins, P. H. (1991). Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of Black
feminist thought. In M. J. Fonow & J. A. Cook (Eds.), Beyond methodology: feminist
scholarship as lived research (pp. 35–59). Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.
Cotter, H. (2006, September 12). Collectives blurring the lines of who makes modern art. New
York Times. Retrieved January 19, 2007, from http://www.saatchigallery.co.uk/forum
/saatchi_forums.
126
Cotter, H. (2003, January 19). Doing their own thing, making art together. New York Times. Retrieved September, 3, 2007, from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=
9904E0DA 1331F93AA25752C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1.
Cotter, H. (2006, March 5). The collective conscious. New York Times. Retrieved October 10,
2006, from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/arts/design/05cott.html.
Cotter, H. (2007, January 29). Feminist art finally takes centre stage. New York Times. Retrieved
July 11, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/arts/design/29femi.html.
Critical Art Ensemble. (1998, Summer). Body invasion and resistant cultural practice. Art Journal,
Fall 2000, 73–85.
Cvetkovich, A. (1998). Video, aid, and activism. In G. H. Kester (Ed.), Art, activism and oppositionality: Essays from Afterimage. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Dark Star Collective. (2002). Quiet rumours: An anarcha-feminist reader. Edinburgh: AK Press:
Edinburgh.
Dawson, C. (1936). Canadian frontiers of settlement. Toronto: Macmillan.
Deepwell, K. (1995). [Review of the books The power of feminist art: Emergence, impact and triumph of the American feminist art movement and Body and self: Performance art in Australia]. Oxford Art Journal, 18(2), 119–122.
de Sève, M. (1992). The perspectives of Quebec feminists. In C. Blackhouse & D. H. Flaherty
(Eds.). Challenging times: The women’s movement in Canada and the United States. Montreal, PQ, and Kingston, ON: McGill–Queen’s University Press.
Desimone, H. J. (2006). Missing women in Alberta! Retrieved January 13, 2008, from
http://fightforjustice.blogspot.com/2006/09/missing-women-in-alberta.html.
Devault, M. L. (1994). Feeding the family: The social organization of caring as gendered work.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Devault, M. L. (1996). Talking back to sociology: Distinctive contributions of feminist methodology. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 29–50.
Griffin Cohen, M. (1993). The Canadian women’s movement. In R. R. Pierson, M. Griffin Cohen,
P. Bourne, & P. Masters (Eds.), Canadian women’s issues (pp. <xxx>–<xxx>). Toronto:
Lorimer.
Durmont, M. (1992). The origins of the women’s movement in Quebec. In C. Blackhouse & D. H.
Flaherty (Eds.), Challenging times: The women’s movement in Canada and the United
States. Montreal, PQ, and Kingston, ON: McGill–Queen’s University Press.
Dyck, I. (1997). Dialogue with difference: A tale of two studies. In J. P. Jones III, H. J. Nast, & S.
M. Roberts (Eds.), Thresholds in feminist geography: Difference, methodology, representation (pp. 183–202). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
127
Einagel, V. I. (2002). Telling stories, making selves. In Liz Bondi (Ed.), Subjectivities, knowledges,
and feminist geographies: The subjects and ethics of social research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Englart,
J. (n.d.). Collective organization. Retrieved
http://www.anarres.org.au/essays/amje1.htm.
January
19,
2007,
from
Enwezor, O. (2007). The production of social space as artwork: Protocols of community in the
work of Le Groupe Amos and Huit Facettes. In B. Stimson & G. Sholette (Eds.), Collectivism after modernism: The art of social imagination after 1945 (pp <xxx>–<xxx>). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Fabrizio Pelak, C., Taylor, V., & Whittier, N. (1999). Gender movements. In J. S. Chafetz (Ed.),
Handbook of the sociology of gender (pp. 147–175). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenumr.
Farkas, S. (2000). Women creating space for healthy communities. [Review of M. Terans, Momentum (performance)]. Year Zero One Forum: Issue #7. Retrieved November 12, 2006, from
http://www.year01.com/issue7/.
Ferguson, K. E. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Ferree, M. M., & Hess, B. (1994). Controversy and coalition: The new feminist movement (rev.
ed.). New York: Twayne.
Ferree, M. M., & Martin, P. Y. (Eds.). (1995). Feminist organizations: Harvest of the new women’s
movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Freeman, J. (1974). The tyranny of structurelessness. In J. L. Jaquette (Ed.), Women in politics (pp.
202–214). New York: Wiley. (Reprinted from Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 17, 151–165)
Freeman, J. (1975). The politics of women’s liberation. New York: David McKay.
Freeman, J. (1995). From seed to harvest: Transformations of feminist organizations and scholarship. In M. M. Ferree & P. Y. Martin (Eds.), Feminist organizations: Harvest of the new
women’s movement (pp. 397–411). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Friesen, G. (1987). The Canadian prairies: A history. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Geiger, S. (2004). What is so feminist about women’s oral history? In S. N. Hesse-Biber & M. L.
Yaiser (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on social research. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Geis, R. D. (1998). Feeding an audience: Food, feminism and performance art. In R. Scapp & B.
Seitz (Eds.), Eating culture (pp. <xxx>–<xxx>. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press.
Goldstein, P. (Ed.). (1994). Styles of cultural activism: From theory and pedagogy to women, Indians, and communism. Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press.
128
Government of the Province of Manitoba. (2006). The 2006 Manitoba budget. Budget paper E:
The
Manitoba
advantage.
Retrieved
November
12,
2006,
from
http://www.gov.mb.ca/finance/budget/06/advantage/advantage.pdf.
Griffin, G. (Ed). (1995). Feminist activism in the 1990s. London: Taylor & Francis.
Grove, J. (n.d.). Collectives. Retrieved January 19, 2007, from http://www.visiblecity.ca/home
/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=81&Itemid=62.
Harder, L. (2003). State of struggle: Feminism and politics in Alberta. Edmonton, AB: University
of Alberta Press.
Hartsock, N. (1998). The feminist standpoint revisited and other essays. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Hedges, E., & Wendt, I. (Eds.). (1980). In her own image: Women working in the arts. Old Westbury, NY: The Feminist Press/McGraw–Hill.
Hesse-Biber, S., Gilmartin, G., & Lydenberg, R. (Eds.). (1999). Feminist approaches to theory and
methodology: An interdisciplinary reader. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2006). The practice of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Hill Strategies Research. (2004). Donors to arts and culture organizations in Canada. Retrieved November 8, 2007 from http://www.hillstrategies.com/docs/Donors_report.pdf
A history of abortion in Canada. (n.d.). Retrieved January 13, 2008, from http://www.prochoice
actionnetwork-canada.org/abortioninfo/history.shtml.
Hofferd, N. (2006, August). Yeah … what she said! Women with voices, promoting choices. Gay
Calgary 34, 35–36.
Holmlund, M., & Youngberg, G. (2003). Inspiring women: A celebration of Herstory. Regina, SK:
Coteau Books.
Hyde, C. (1995). Feminist social movement organizations survive the New Right. In M. M. Ferree
& P. Y. Martin (Eds.), Feminist organizations: Harvest of the new women’s movement (pp.
306–322). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Iannello, K. P. (1992). Decisions without hierarchy: Feminist interventions in organization and
practice. New York: Routledge.
Jarvis. J. (2007, February 1). Davos07: My big conclusion. Retrieved January 13, 2008 from
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/01/davos07-my-big-conclusion/.
Johnson. L. C. (2002). The difference feminism makes. In P. Moss (Ed.), Feminist geography in
practice: Research and methods. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kim-Cho, Y. (2006). Jamming with women’s rights activists in East Asia: A process of critical reflection. In D. Barndt (Ed.), Wild fire: Art as activism. Toronto, ON: Sumach Press.
129
Labaton, V., & Lundy-Martin, D. (Eds.). (2004). The fire this time. Toronto, ON: Random House.
Laghi, B. (2008, January 21). Conservatives would roll to victory despite misgiving, poll says. Globe
and Mail. Retrieved January 21, 2008, from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/
RTGAM.20080121.wpoll21/BNStory/National/home.
Lamphere, L. P., Zavella, P. Gonzales, F. and Evans, P. B. (1993). Sunbelt working mothers: Reconciling Family and Factory. New York: Cornell University Press.
Larsen, E. (2005). Junky and important: The collective model in the rearview mirror. American
Quarterly, 57(1), 223–236.
Lesick, K. (2003). The beauty of collaboration: Methods, manners, and aesthetics. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http://www.banffcentre.ca/bnmi/programs/archives/2003/
Beauty_of_Collaboration/reports/lesick_collaboration_report.pdf.
Letherby, G. (2003). Feminist research in theory and practice. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Leidner, R. (1991). Stretching the boundaries of liberalism: Democratic innovation in a feminist
organization. Signs, 16(2), 263–289.
Lippard, L. R. (1980). Sweeping exchanges: The contribution of feminism to the art of the 1970s.
Art Journal, 41(1/2), 362–365.
Lippard, L. R. (1988). Lacy: Some of her own medicine. TDR, 32(1), 71–76.
Lippard, L. (1996). Hot potatoes: Art and politics in 1980. In Bird, J., Curtis, B., Mash, M., Putnam, T., Robertson, G., Stafford, S., et al. (Eds.), The BLOCK reader in visual culture
(pp. 7–20). New York: Routledge.
Mansbridge, J. (1984). Feminism and the forms of freedom. In F. Fischer & C. Sirianni (Eds.), Critical studies in organization and bureaucracy (pp. 472–481). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Martin, P. Y. (1993). Rethinking feminist organizations. Gender & Society, 4, 182–206.
Melucci, A. (1996). Challenging codes: Collective action in the information age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miles, M., & Crush, J. (1993). Personal narratives as interactive texts. Professional Geographer, 45,
84–94.
Moore, A. (2007). Artists’ collectives mostly in New York, 1975–2000. In B. Stimson & G. Shollette (Eds.), Collectivism after modernism: The art of social imagination after 1945 (pp.
193–221). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Moore, A. (2004). General Introduction to collectivity in modern art. Journal of Aesthetics and
Protest, 1(3). [Paper for ‘Critical Mass’ exhibition, Smart Museum, University of Chicago,
April 2002]. Retrieved January 19, 2007, from http://www.journalofaesthetics
andprotest.org/3/moore.htm.
130
Morgan, J., Baeker, G., Stoicheff, P., MacKinnon, P., Burton, R., & Baker, B. (2006). Capitalizing
on culture: How can public policy support arts and culture for the public good? Regina,
SK: Saskatechewan Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved December 6, 2007, from
.http://www.uregina.ca/sipp/documents/pdf/BN_18_printer.pdf.
van Mourik Broekman, P., & Berry, J. (2002, November). Countdown to zero, count up to now
(An interview with the Artist Placement Group). Mute 25. Retrieved January 11, 2008,
from http://www.metamute.org/en/node/411.
Mullin, A. (2003). Feminist art and the political imagination. Hypatia, 18(4), 189–213.
Naples, N. A. (1998). Women’s community activism and feminist activist research. In N. A. Naples
(Ed.), Community activism and feminist politics: Organizing across race, class and gender.
New York: Routledge.
Naples, N. A. (2003). Feminism and method: Ethnography, discourse analysis, and activist research. New York: Routledge.
NDP wins historic 3rd majority in Manitoba. (2007, May 22). Retrieved January 13, 2008, from
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitobavotes2007/story/2007/05/22/mbv-elx.html.
Nesmer, C. (1972). Stereotypes and women artists. Feminist Art Journal, 1(1), 22.
Nesmer, C. (1975, November). The women artists’ movement. Art Education, 18–22.
Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms. In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing Feminist Research (pp. 30–61). London: Routledge.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Pestello, F. P. (1991). Discounting. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 20(1), 26–46.
Powell, W. W. (1987). Hybrid organizational arrangements: New form or transitional development? California Management Review, 30(1), 67–87.
Rebick, J. (2005). Ten thousand roses: The making of a feminist revolution. TO: Penguin.
Reger, J. (2002). Organizational dynamics and construction of multiple feminist identities in the
National Organization for Women. Gender & Society, 16, 710–727.
Reger, J. (2005). Different wavelengths: Studies of the contemporary women’s movement. New
York: Routledge.
Ristock, J. (1991). Feminist collectives: The struggles and contradictions in our quest for a ‘uniquely
feminist structure’. In J. D. Wine and J. Ristock (Eds.), Women and Social Change (pp.
41–74). Toronto, ON: Lorimer.
Ross, B. (1990). The house that Jill built: Lesbian feminist organizing in Toronto, 1976–1980.
Feminist Review , 35(1), 75–91.
131
Rothschild-Whitt, J. (1979). The collectivist organization: An alternative to rational-bureaucratic
models. American Sociological Review, 44, 509–527.
Rowbotham, S. (1979). The women’s movement and organizing for socialism. In S. Rowbotham,
L. Segal, & H. Wainwright, Beyond the fragments: Feminism and the making of socialism.
London and Newcastle upon Tyne: Islington Community Press/Newcastle Socialist Centre.
Ryan, B. (1992). Feminism and the women’s movement: Dynamics of change in social movement
ideology and Activism. New York: Routledge.
St. John’s – On the edge of inter-arts activity. (n.d.). Retrieved January 11, 2007, from
http://www.canadacouncil.ca/interarts/mp127997921817540709.htm.
Simonds, W. (1995). Feminism on the job: Confronting opposition in abortion work. In M. M.
Ferree & P. Y. Martin (Eds.), Feminist organizations: Harvest of the new women’s movement (pp. 248–260). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Sholette, G. G. (1999a). Counting on your collective silence: Notes on activist art as collaborative
practice. Afterimage, 27(3), 18–20. Retrieved January 13, 2007, from http://findarticles
.com/p/articles/mi_m2479/is_3_27/ai_58470201.
Sholette, G. G. (1999b). News from nowhere: Activist art and after, a report from New York City.
Third Text 45, 45–62.
Sholette, G. (2004a). Dark matter: Activist art and the counter-public sphere. Journal of Aesthetics
and Protest, 1(3). Retrieved November 24, 2006, from http://www.journal ofaestheticsandprotest.org/3/sholette.htm.
Sholette, G. G. (2004b). Introducing insouciant art collectives, the latest product of enterprise culture. Intelligent Agent, 4(2). Retrieved January 11, 2006 from http://www.intelligentagent
.com /archive/Vol4_No2.html.
Soupuk-Razga, J. (n.d.). Women’s radio collectives, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Retrieved June 6,
2005, from http://www.spunk.org/texts/anarcfem/sp000886.txt.
Spelman, E. (1988). Inessential woman: Problems of exclusion in feminist thought. Boston: Beacon
Press.
Staggenborg, S. (1995). Can feminist movements be successful? In M. M. Ferree & P. Y. Martin
(Eds.), Feminist organizations: Harvest of the new women’s movement (pp. 339–355).
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Staggenborg, S. (1989). Stability and innovation in the women’s movement: A comparison of two
movements organizations. Social Problems, 36, 75–93.
Stalbaum, B. (2001, May 15). Substantial disturbance: An interview with Faith Wilding. SWITCH
16. Retrieved October 25, 2005, from http://switch.sjsu.edu/nextswitch/switch_engine
/front/front.php?cat=20.
Status of women in Canada – a timeline. (2006). Retrieved January 8, 2008, from
http://citizen.nfb.ca/node/6931.
132
Sterk, C. E., & Elifson, K. W. (2004). Qualitative methods in community-based research. In D. W.
Blumenthal & R. J. Di Clemente (Eds.), Community-based health research: Issues and
methods. New York: Springer.
Stimson, B., & Sholette, G. (Eds.). (2007). Collectivism after modernism: The art of social imagination after 1945. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Strobel, M. (1995). Organizational learning in the Chicago Women’s Liberation Union. In M. M.
Ferree & P. Y. Martin (Eds.), Feminist organizations: Harvest of the new women’s movement (pp. 145–164). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Strong-Boag, V., Fleason, M., & Perry, A (Eds.). (2002). Rethinking Canada: The promise of women’s history (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, V., & Rupp, L. (1991). Researching the women’s movement: We make our own history,
but not just as we please. In M. M. Fonow & J. A. Cook (Eds.), Beyond methodology:
Feminist scholarship as lived research (pp. 119–132). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Press.
Thake, W. (n.d.). Cultural activism and culture jamming. Retrieved November 12, 2006, from
http://www.english.ilstu.edu/bmthake/folio/docs/finalcj.html.
Think Again. (2003). A brief history of outrage. Retrieved January 3, 2007, from http://agitart.org/.
Thomas, J. E. (1999). Everything about us is feminist: The significance of ideology in organizational
change. Gender & Society, 13, 101–119.
Thomas, S. (2002). Digging beneath the surface: Oral history techniques. In S. H. Armitage, P.
Hart, & K Weathermon (Eds.), Women’s oral histories: The Frontiers reader. Lincoln,
NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Tremblay, M. (2003, November). The participation of aboriginal women in Canadian electoral
democracy. Electoral Insight. November 2003. Retrieved January 11, 2008, from
http://www.eltions.ca/eca/eim/article_search/article.asp?issueid=9&lang=e&frmPageSize=&t
extonly=false.
Vogel, L. (1991). Fine arts and feminism. In A. Raven, C. Lange, and J. Fueh (Eds.), Feminist art
criticism (pp <xxx>–<xxx>). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Von Heyking, A. (1994). Red Deer women and the roots of feminism. Alberta History, 42(1), 14–
25.
Wark, J. (2006). Radical Gestures. Montreal, PQ, and Kingston, ON: McGill–Queen’s University
Press.
Watts, J. (2006). ‘The outsider within’: Dilemmas of qualitative feminist research within a culture of
resistance. Qualitative Research, 6, 385–402.
133
Whittier. N. (2005). From the second to the third wave: Continuity and change in grassroots activism’. In L. A. Banaszak (Ed.), The U. S. women’s movement in global perspective. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Wilding, F. (1999). Feminist movement. Art Journal, 58(4). Retrieved January 4, 2008, from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0425/is_4_58/ai_59552684.
Wilding, F., & subRosa. (2003). Collectivity and collaboration: subRosa. [Interview with Faith
Wilding and Brett Stalbaum]. M/E/A/N/I/N/G Online #2. Retrieved January 16, 2007,
from http://writing.upenn.edu/pepc/meaning/.
Wilkinson, S. (1986). Feminist social psychology: Developing theory and practice. Philadelphia:
Open University Press.
Wine, J. D. & Ristock, J. L, ‘Introduction: Feminism in Canada. In J. D. Wine and J. Ristock
(Eds.), Women and Social Change (pp. 41–74). Toronto, ON: Lorimer.
134
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE COLLECTIVES INTERVIEWED
Collective #1
Title: The ( )ette Collective
Formed in 2004, this is an art creation-collective (although they have also participated in
art-promotion) with a membership of three to five women. This collective operates in Lethbridge,
Alberta, and all collective members resided in Lethbridge. In 2004 the collective wrote a ( )ette
(pronounced blanket) Statements. The collective describes themselves:
Through bracketing, we are uncovering the unmarked norm – the male (white,
hetro, middle class) position, which is not universal but is a gendered position. Art
is one discourse among many in which these issues can be brought into the realm
of public debate. The focus within contemporary art on issues of representation
makes it a valuable outlet for sparing critical thought in relation to language and
meaning.69
Collective Members:
Kelly Andres, Susan Cochrane, Loralee Edwards, Kim Grift, Heather Lidberg, Jenna
Montgomery, Sylvia Power, Jen Rogan, Cayley Sorochan. Kelly Andres, Jenna Montgommery, Sylvia Power and Cayley Sorochan were the collective members during the time of this research and
are the interview subjects in this study. Currently the collective members are: Kelly Andres, Loralee
Edwards, and Hanna Wigle.
Creations and Events
2005 – Renovated a store space into a gallery space in Historic Chinatown in Lethbridge. This
space is still used by emerging and established artists as an exhibition space and is currently called
The Parlour and run by David Hoffos and Mary-Anne McTrowe.
2005 – Curated a three-venue exhibition called The F Word that featured 24 artists from across
Alberta.
2005 – Participated in RE:route a Southern Alberta Art Gallery public art exhibition.
2005 – Blankettes for Blankets, an installation
2006 – The Feminist Freak Show, a performance/installation
2006 – ,Motion (pronounced comma motion) Feminist Video Festival
2006 – 36 Socially Constructed Feminist Stereotypes, a 25minute performance video
2007 – Dormant
2008 – upcoming ,Motion Feminist Video Festival
69
Taken from the ( )ette Statements
135
Collective #2
Title: Adamant Eve
Formed in 1996, this is an art promotion collective, and typically has a membership of
three to five women. This collective operates in Edmonton, Alberta, and all collective members
resided in Edmonton. Since 1996 the collective has produced and aired approximately 1000, half
an hour radio programs. Their Web site describes their show as:
We´re going there...for you! Seeing as women´s issues are as powerful as ever in
this day and age, and if anything they´re much more complex, Adamant Eve is
everything women have raved, wondered or smoldered about, along with a dose of
news with a feminist bent and music to help you get your feminism on! Kapow!
Collective Members:
This collective changes membership every university semester, although some members,
like the two women in this study, have dedicated up to two years. Because of the transitory nature
of this collective, as well as the frantic pace this collective works under (the collective pre-produces
one program a week – on holidays they program two or three to be played while they are away),
records of the women’s names who have participated have not been recorded. I interviewed members Jana Razga (1996–1997) and Anna Carastathis (2002–2004). Jana was able to give me the
names of the other two members of the collective when she was there: Candice Tarnowski and
Rosaleen McGurry (I was able to track down Candice, but unfortunately she was in Holland during
my fieldwork; I was not able to locate Rosaleen McGurry). Anna gave me the names of her comembers: Kelly Bolen and Kelly Korpesio (I was not able to find or e-mail these members. According to my e-mail correspondence with Ashley Casovan current members are: Liz Durden, Ashley Casovan and Jocelyn Saskiw. However on their Web site they also credit: Ariana , Ashley,
Courtney, Jocelyn, Laura, Lori, Laurie, and Saba; previous members: Vikki and Leslie.70
70
http://www.cjsr.ualberta.ca/news/news.php?s=eve
136
Creations and Events
As I mentioned above the collective has completed a staggering amount of activism. Every show
includes a discussion of theory or history, features women, usually feminist, musical artists, and a
forum for women to share current events. In 1997, the collective compiled a large (format 8.5x11
and content, 59 pages) zine.
Currently, the public can subscribe to a podcast.
137
Collective #3
Title: Herland
Formed in 1990, this art promotion collective typically has a core membership of three to
ten members. This collective also has an e-mail membership of approximately 400 people. This
collective operates in Calgary and all collective members reside in Calgary. Because the collective
has had an office as a base since its inception they have archived quite a bit of material. They have a
copy of all the videos that they have screened over the years (most are on VHS and can be lent to
members for viewing), and all programs and posters. Herland describes themselves as:
Acknowledging that film and video are powerful media of communication and selfdetermination, Herland promotes artists who explore the conditions and experiences of women’s lives from the women’s perspectives.71
Collective Members:
For this research study I interviewed Sharon Boutlier, Tamrin Hildebrandt, Sandra Law,
and Marie;72 I also interviewed past members Corinne Cornish and Michelle J. Wong. Over the
years there have been many collective members and the collective does not have a formal list, I
compiled this list the archive festival programs, I listed women’s names in the order I found them
in the archive files, not alphabetically: Kelly Langard, Michelle J. Wong, Michele L, Alexandria
Patience, Mellisa Luntnen, Sharon Stevens Corrine Cornish Colleen Bell, Carrie Blaug, Sandra
Law, Anne Marie Nakagawa, Heather Walker, Carrie Blaug, Emmanuelle Piron, Jaylene Scheible,
Cate Hanington, Charlene Hellson, Kristina Kassey, Nazili Izmirli, Patricia Duquette, Sharon
Boutlier, Tamrin Hildebrandt, Sabrina Jayabal, Natasha Shannon. Ravind Din, from NFB’s Studio
D was a founding member.
71
Taken from their 2005 film festival program.
Due to personal reasons, Marie provided her first name only – although she did not request anonymity in this document or the eventual documentary.
72
138
Creations and Events
This collective has organized an annual festival since 1990, over the years this festival has
evolved to a weeklong event and currently scaled down to a three-day festival (as discussed in the
introduction the collective has had their funding cut by 50%).
139
Collective #4
Title: Saskatoon Women’s Calendar Collective
Formed in 1972, in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan this art promotion collective typically has had
a membership of eight to ten women. Although this collective operates in Saskatoon and most
members reside in Saskatoon, they now have members who have moved away but stayed involved
in the collective. The collective describes themselves this way:
In 1972, history, as defined by academic historians, was about white, male elites.
Women were literally footnotes, mentioned only if they played some supporting
role, or ‘were the wives of’ prime ministers and governors general. There was little
analysis of women’s contribution or experience and almost nothing about ‘ordinary
women.’ Women’s lives were not seen as producing anything of historical interest.
Women did not sign treaties, win elections, or fight battles. They left behind only
traces of daily life in their letters, diaries, and drawing…It was in this environment
that those first five women decided to do something. They had no experience in
doing historical research and they knew almost nothing about the history of Canadian women. But they pursued women’s stories.73 74
Collective Members:
I interviewed Amy Jo Ehman, Sheila Gillgannon, Teresa Harley, and Deanna Herman: I
interviewed Shirley Martin in her hometown, Nanaimo, B.C. I was not able to coordinate interviews with other current members: Cheryl Avery, Patty Williams (Nova Scotia), or Roma Kail (Toronto)
Creations and Events
The first calendar was published in 1974, over fifty women have participated in the collective, thirty-one calendars have been published, and an annual reading is held in a local bookstore.
These calendars are in many schools and used by students engaged in historical research. Two
women, past collective members has published a book (2003) briefly chronicling the history of the
collective, but for the most part to compile women’s complex histories they collected over the
Interestingly the collective has evolved a membership of women who have experience;
when I asked current members what they looked for in a perspective member it was that she be
‘able to write’. This is an example of the evolution from a theoretical to practical collective.
74
From Inspiring Women: A Celebration of Herstory by Mona Holmlund and Gail
Youngberg – referenced in the bibliography.
73
140
years, ‘we read through past editions of Herstory: the Canadian Women’s Calendar a story
emerged. We found that Herstory had been chronicling women’s increasing participation in ever
more complex levels of society’ (Holmlund, Youngberg, 2003, p. v).
141
Collective #5
Title: Sugar and Splice
Formed in 2004, this is an art promotion collective and has had a membership of three to
twelve women. This collective operates in Winnipeg and all collective members resided in Winnipeg. Students and professors from the Women’s Studies department at the University of Winnipeg
founded the collective.
Collective Members:
Current members, and the women I interviewed for this research project are Jennifer
Birsch, Allyson Bile, Alyson Brickey, and Jen Porter; I also interviewed Joey Jakob who was a
member in 2004–2005. The founding members of Sugar and Splice are: Jen Porter, Jan Oakley,
Tam McFadyen, Joey Jakob, Rhona Hunther, Cheryl Gudz, Jennifer Faulder, Danishka Esternazy,
Alixa Dyer, Caitlin Brown, Sarah Amyot. Membership in the second year: Jen Porter, Alyson
Brickey, Jennifer Faulder, Jan Oakley, Joey Jakobs, Allyson Bile.
Creations and Events
The collective organized three consecutive, three-evening feminist film festivals in Winnipeg.
142
Collective #6
Title: Finger in the Dyke
Formed in 1998 or 1999 (I guess maybe officially), this is an art creation collective has had,
only had a membership of two women, Shawna Dempsey and Lorri Millan. Shawna and Lorri live
and work in Winnipeg. In 1986 they met, began to casually work together, and became a couple
soon after. They broke up a few years later, but were and are still very committed to work collectively. They describe themselves as:
Multi-disciplinary artists who have created a body of internationally acclaimed
work that addresses feminist, lesbian, and social concerns with biting wit. use humour to articulate their feminist politics through performance art. Starting with an
image (particularly a costume), they develop sophisticated texts and tableaux that
articulate contemporary realities. Although the work shares authorship, usually
Shawna Dempsey appears on stage solo, and Lorri Millan acts as “outside eye” (a
notable exception being Lesbian National Parks and Services, in which both appear as Rangers).75
Creations and Events
Shawna and Lorri are very involved and supportive of the art community in Winnipeg,
both have mentored emerging artists under the Mentoring Artists Women’s Art. Their cv is long
and they have been documented and recognized in Canada as well as worldwide. Below is a list of
some of their works.
Object/Subject of Desire (1989)
We’re Talking Vulva (1990)
Mermaid in Love (1990)
Mary Medusa (1992)
Growing Up Suites I & II (1992)
Smile Girl (1993)
Golden Boy Awards (1993)
What Does A Lesbian Look Like? (1994)
Arborite Housedress (1994)
Glass Madonna (1994)
A Day in The Life of A Bull-Dyke, and the companion mock-Life magazine/In The Life (1995)
Good-Citizen: Betty Baker (1996)
75
This description is taken from their Web site: http://www.fingerinthedyke.ca
/performance_art.html
143
Plastic Bride (1996)
Lesbian Love Story of the Lone Ranger and Tonto (1997)
Headless Woman (1998)
Homogeneity (1998)
Short Tales of Little Lezzie Borden (1998)
Tableau Vivant: Eaton’s Catalogue 1976 (1998)
Long Break (2000)
Grocery Story (2002)
Half-hour mock-u-mentary Lesbian National Parks and Services: A Force of Nature (2003)
Archaeology and You (2003)
Target Marketing (2004)
Scentbar (2003)
Consideration Liberation Army (2007)
144
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1.
Please construct a visual representation of your collective working relationship. (I will provide construction paper/white paper, crayons, scissors, and glue stick.)
2.
Are you involved with your community? How so?
3.
Can you describe the origins and evolution of the collective?
4.
Was there a specific event or political environment that caused you to start or join the collective?
5.
What has been the public/community response to your projects?
6.
What is your working process?
7.
What motivates you to action?
8.
What are your meetings like? Could you describe your last meeting?
9.
Can you talk about the power dynamics within the collective?
10.
Is there anything we did not talk about that you would like to add?
11.
How has the collective evolved over time?
12.
How, or do you solicit new members?
13.
How do you plan events/create artistic projects?
14.
How would you define your group?
15.
Please explain your decision making process.
16.
Please discuss collectivity and why you chose to use this model for your group.
17.
How do you deal with conflict within your group?
18.
Do you/if so why do you call yourselves feminist? Can you talk about this?
19.
Can you talk about this community, what it is like to be a cultural activist artist in this community?
20.
What is the gender make up of your collective – if all women, why?
145