simultaneously Alina Zvinkliene: "I am a feminist, who is she?", in M. Goloubeva, D. Hanovs (editors), Women in Baltic Societies: Past and Present. N.I.M.S., Riga 2002, ISBN 9984-679-99-3, pages 83-102.

 

 

The idea to study the Lithuanians‘ perception of feminists occurred to the author of this article during the first meetings with American scholars in Lithuania in the beginning of the 90s. At that time some Lithuanian women introducing themselves to American men made a point of declaring that they are not feminists. I was surprised to hear such declarations no less than the Americans to whom they were made - primarily because nobody asked the women in question about their attitude towards feminism. Later, my research on feminist discourse in the East European countries, with Lithuania as case study, was encouraged by the inaugural speech of the state inspector (ombudsman) on equal rights and opportunities in the Lithuanian Seym (parliament), featured in all Lithuanian TV news programmes in 1998. The first ombudsman in Lithuania started with a statement that can be summarised as follows: ‘I am not a feminist but I am for equal rights and opportunities of men and women.‘ It has to be noted that The Act of Equal Opportunities of Men and Women was passed on March 1, 1999.

 

It is fairly obvious that all legal measures toward equality between women and men are caused by striving to join the European Union. At the same time neo-traditionalism of post-socialist societies appears also in the lack of comprehension of a women‘s treatment as subordinate to men or as a second-class citizens. Therefore it is possible to argue that women in the state bureaucracy avoided self-identification with feminism because of the negative public image of ‘feminists‘ by the end of the 90s. At the same time, it has to be recognised that Lithuania is successful in the institutionalisation of feminism. The development of so-called state feminism is evident, as well as NGO activity directed at the support of women who were victims of discrimination, and academic feminism.

 

The main aim of this article is to describe feminist discourse in the Western and East European academic communities, and self-identification as feminists among female scholars.

 

 

 

Identity is a widely used concept to describe an individual‘s sense of who she or he is. Erik H. Erikson introduced the concept of identity in 1950 and since that time it was developed through various approaches in social sciences. Every approach introduces its interpretation into the concept of identity.In general outline identity could be defined as an individual‘s expression of his/her uniqueness, namely Self that structures his/her behaviour to a considerable degree. At the same time identity presupposes simultaneous acknowledgement of individual‘s belonging to the group and/or society. In other words, identity refers to the individual‘s sense of "who am I" or "who is she/he", and how others identify the person in terms of broad social categories or attributes, such as age, gender, occupation, or ethnicity. It suggests that identity is variable across various situations, and consists of many identities.

 

The main source of self/identity building is the individual life history - a process affected by individual‘s participation in the social structure of society. In that case identity can be considered as developing through a process of self-reflection that is originally generated from the outside. Theories of recognition consider identity formation an open and continuing dialogue and struggle with significant others (Taylor 1992).The dialogic theory of Michail Bakhtin argues that "the self is an embodied entity situated in concrete time and space, and which is constituted in and through its dialogical relations with others and the world at large" (in Gardiner and Bell 1998; 6). Therefore, the concept of identity refers to the relation between self and the other.

 

The research on women‘s identityIntellectuals or intelligentsia according to the Central and East European cultural tradition always had a profound impact on public opinion in Eastern Europe. Feminists and women‘s movement activists or at least pro-feminists are usually persons from intellectual/academic communities. Some data is presented in the empirical research ‘An Academic Woman‘s Identity in Central and Eastern Europe‘ conducted in 1998-2000 by the author of this article. Participants of the seminars on gender and feminist studies in Budapest in 1998 (22 respondents), in Jurmala in 2000 (25 respondents) as well scholars from universities in Switzerland (9 respondents) and Lithuania (12 respondents) took part in this investigation of identity. The data related to self-identification as a feminist and perception of a feminist is discussed in this article.

 

Women‘s identity was investigated using the Twenty Statements Test (TST). Each woman was asked to write 20 responses to the question ‘Who am I?‘. Today critics argue that attitudes, self-concepts, social labelling, group membership, etc. conceptualised in TST are “neither personal identity nor the social self, but practices and consequences of identification: who we identify with, and how we describe ourselves as a result” ( in Peuter de 1998; 35). It is certain that in most cases the statements received by such type of tests are the result of identification with, and simultaneously the presentation of those personal categories or attributes, which are considered important for the respondent herself/himself or for the significant others of the respondent. Moreover the respondent is aware that her/his answers will be read and analysed by others. For the purpose of this study, the statements received through the TST are considered as self-presentations.

 

The dichotomy of public versus private refers to the distinction between the private sphere of the home, to which women are generally assigned, and the public sphere of the workplace and government, to which men are generally assigned. For women to begin to take part in the public sphere, a flexibility of female identity was required. As a result of women‘s participation in the public sphere, a modern woman‘s identity is divided between traditional, or ‘normal‘, female roles and more ‘feminist‘ roles. However the content of both definitions, namely, a ‘normal‘ woman and a ‘feminist‘, is actually vague.

 

In this article, only ‘public‘ occupation of the respondents is taken into consideration. The public/professional activity makes a profound impact on the identity of an individual. Therefore, the public/professional career could be considered as a kind of struggle for recognition in an open or inner dialogue with significant others.

 

Members of the academic community from Eastern and Western Europe have been asked to define a feminist. Responses were received from audio-interviews; some responses were received by e-mail. All interviewed women and men are from so-called mixed gender research area: humanities and social sciences.

 

 

 

It could be noted that discussions about self-identification as a feminist often took place before or after filling the TST, in other words situation in which the research was conducted to some extent had an impact on the answers of the participants. Thus, before responses to the TST each participant of the Budapest Seminar (1998) was called upon to introduce herself by giving a short account of what first brought her to develop an interest in feminism. The conclusions of each personal story one way or another indicated a necessity to make self-identification with feminists. In the case of the Jurmala Seminar (2000) self-identification with a feminist was pre-determined only by participation in the research. This difference of context could be among the reasons why more responses stating ‘I am a feminist‘ have been received from the participants of the Budapest Seminar than from the Jurmala Seminar. Lithuanian and Swiss scholars have filled the TST at their normal working places and nobody asked their opinion about feminists before the research, therefore their responses could be considered as more or less free from the impact of ‘feminist rallying‘. 

 

The participants of the seminars on Gender Studies from Central and Eastern Europe usually had doubts whether they were feminists, or at least whether they were ‘true‘ feminists.  Actually each woman noted that she is often defined as a feminist by others, first of all because of the topic of professional interest which is related to gender issues or to the theory of feminism and feminist literature. Besides, academic women find themselves defined by others as ‘feminist‘ in their home country more often than in the West or among Western feminists. Finally the participants of gender seminars often consider working knowledge of English and, accordingly, access to Western feminist literature as an important criterion to be defined as a feminist.

 

Thus, only half of Central and Eastern European women who took part in the two seminars identified themselves as feminist according to the TST. Scandinavian women at the same seminars without exception identified themselves as feminists. Part of academic women from Switzerland did not reject self-identification with a feminist either.

 

At the same time not a single academic woman from Lithuania interviewed at her workplace referred to her self-identification with a feminist in spite of the fact that some are involved in gender studies. It could be noted that Lithuanian scholars taking part in both seminars also did not identify themselves as feminist whereas Russian scholars did. I received the following responses regarding the reluctance to be identified with feminism and as a feminist:

 

“First, feminism is political, and second comes the scientific substantiation of this policy. My work is connected with women‘s issues but what is declared by radical feminism is unacceptable for me. My profession is above all. I am not politically active that is why I could not consider myself a feminist, surely not a radical feminist. At the same time, I can consider myself a feminist because I am worried about equality between men and women, which does not exist in society" (demographer, female, PhD, 46, Lithuania)

 

Of special interest here is the fact that when a woman working on women‘s issues is asked directly if there is a contradiction between topic of interest and self-identification with it, she prefers or feels obliged to identify herself with a feminist. It could also be noted that the image of a feminist includes political activity. These may be some reasons for refusal, unwillingness or simply forgetting to identify with a feminist among academic women who are involved in gender studies or feminist studies.

 

Other reasons to deny such self-identification could be related to a perceived image of ‘feminist‘. This ‘feminist‘ cannot be acceptable for identification with, or the respondent does not find similarities between the perceived image and herself. It seems that Western academic women (even those not involved in gender studies) often accept feminist ideology and identify themselves as feminist. It seems that academic women from Central and Eastern Europe usually do not do this.

 

There is a need at this point to take into account a professional distance between self and a research object. It seems Western academic women choose gender studies or feminist studies according to their personal attitudes and preferences more often than their colleagues from Central and Eastern Europe. The distance between personal attitudes and the object of professional activity is typical for academic women from Central and Eastern Europe. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that among women scholars as well as among NGO activists working on women‘s issues in Central and Eastern Europe there is a significant part of so-called ‘feminists for the sake of a grant‘. In the context of the economic situation in Central and Eastern Europe this factor is always worth remembering, because connecting a research topic with women‘s issues often provides one with a job. 

 

Self-identification with a feminist is not among the most salient self-references like references to gender, motherhood, ethnic or national belonging and professional occupation among women scholars from Central and East Europe.  The salience of a self-reference may be understood as “the relative spontaneity with which a particular reference will be used as an orientation in the organisation of behaviour”(Kuhn and McPartland 1954:74). Although some respondents referred to the situation of being a feminist as well, it seems feminist ideology is rather alien and ‘unsuited‘ for use in the everyday life of women scholars from Central and Eastern Europe.

It should be noted that women‘s movements in post-socialist countries rarely describe themselves as ‘feminist‘. First of all because feminism is associated more with a hatred of men and lesbianism than with a social transformation of community with regard to women‘s interests. I would dare to assume that four women from the seminar in Budapest who referred to their heterosexuality among the test answers had been in the past accused of less ‘traditional‘ sexual orientations.

 

 

 

Feminism was discussed in academic literature during Soviet times. However, feminist theory was presented as a part of bourgeois ideology totally alien to socialist style of life. Therefore ideas of feminism are not absolutely new phenomena in the academic community. At the same time women‘s or feminist movements have came to the political arena of post-communist countries only after the changes in the beginning of the 90s.

 

The main aim of a set of interviews with ‘significant others‘ was to define what a feminist is. The main hypothesis of the research was that rather the content of feminist discourse in the academic community than the public image of a feminist determines identification with a feminist among academic women. It was supposed that attitudes toward feminism and feminists are variable across generations, and that for women-professionals the significant others are rather their male colleagues than other women.

 

It seems men of the older generation of Lithuanian academic community do not perceive differences between socially active or academic women and feminists. These men note also their abilities and aspirations to use the closest men (fathers, husbands, friends) for career purposes. Thus,

 

 

Middle-aged men usually stay aloof from expressing opinion on feminism and feminists or try to be ‘political correct‘. Thus,

 

 

At the same time some professional knowledge about feminist goals and professional work with social phenomena determines more objective attitudes toward feminists. A feminist is defined as a professional working on feminist problematic or as a woman who is very sensitive to women‘s discrimination. Feminists are considered as fighters for the equal rights and opportunities for men and women. Thus,

 

 

In some cases, some knowledge of feminist philosophy only provides opportunity for considering a feminist a woman who wishes to be a man as well. At least some collections of feminist writings and The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir are translated into Lithuanian. At the same time ideas of feminism and women‘s rights are divided. Feminism is considered as something more than just women‘s rights, it is perceived as a way to lose female qualities. Thus,

 

 

The younger generation of Lithuanian scholars already has more systematic knowledge about feminism than the older generation, due to the inclusion of feminist theory into the curriculum of universities. They start with a definition of feminism, they distinguish Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian type of feminism, and their opinion about feminists is based on personal contacts with persons calling themselves feminists. Thus,

 

Men‘s outlook of feminism is conditioned by their knowledge of feminist ideology. At present the lack of information means rather a sceptical than a negative point of view on feminism. Lithuanian elder and younger men stick to the negative stereotype of a feminist. According to the younger men, there is no urgent reason to be a feminist in Lithuania while equal rights and opportunities are secured by the state. At the same time it is recognised that women‘s discrimination exists in Lithuania, women are exploited in the academic community as well, particularly in the older generation of scholars because of the traditional gender stereotypes. Therefore, if women are active, and if they feel oppressed, they can unite in a women‘s movement for defence of women‘s rights.

 

Lithuanian middle-aged women scholars usually define a feminist as a woman-researcher interested in feminism or a politically active woman promoting feminist ideology, but avoid to be identified as feminists themselves, explaining it by a different topic of their professional interest.  Thus,

 

 

Younger women add that here they have actually never seen the so-called ‘first stage feminists‘, those feminists who tried to become like men in Lithuania, and in general to be a feminist is very difficult in Lithuania, first of all because of negative attitudes towards feminism among Lithuanian women themselves. It seems the youngest generation of women scholars are inclined to identify themselves with feminists out of professional interest in this topic. Thus,

 

 

Therefore in the academic community of Lithuania definitions of a feminist are usually connected with feminist ideology, which she is assumed to represent. At the same time feminism is usually defined as the striving for women‘s equal rights and opportunities, and variety of feminist though is actually unknown.

 

Western scholars had the possibility to observe the development of feminist thought or at least of women‘s movements their youth. The student revolution of 1968 actually did not touch Switzerland. At the same time Swiss academic community did not remain untouched by the spread of feminist ideology and practice. At present there are some programmes to support academic women in universities in Switzerland, since situation there is often considered inadequate for academic women. Thus,

 

 

This definition of a feminist could be considered ‘politically correct‘ and does not differ too much from attitudes of academic men from other Western countries, at least as far as Great Britain, Austria or Scandinavia are concerned.

 

If gender relations inside Swiss society do not have strong connotations at least for Lithuanians and Russians, Italy is considered to be a strongly gender-structured society, the society of the ‘true macho‘. Moreover, some similarities between Russian, Italian and Lithuanian societies could be traced, at least regarding traditional gender stereotypes. At the same time there is no proof that academic men differ too much in their attitudes towards feminism. Moreover, observation of ‘feminist discourse‘ in development gives the possibility to see the problems of feminism and its impact on social issues as well. For instance,

 

 

This opinion is enlarged and corrected by the opinion of an academic woman who defines herself as a feminist. Her response is caused rather by profound knowledge of feminist theory than by a simple reaction to the masculinism of Italian society.  Thus:

 

 

Despite the political correctness of Western academic men‘s responses about feminists, these responses could be interpreted rather as a demonstration of open scepticism towards feminists and feminism. Moreover, it seems that nowadays the feminists‘ arguments concerning women‘s discrimination are considered rather as a reactionary than as a revolutionary view of women‘s situation in society. Thus,

 

 

Many Western feminists, particularly of the generation of 1968 from the USA and Scandinavia, speak about the so-called backlash in the West.  To some extent it caused by the implementation of the principles of equality in the legislation of many countries and the institutionalisation of feminism. It seems Western countries to some extent follow the Soviet pattern of hidden discrimination of women. Equality between men and women was among the main topics of official ideology in the Soviet Union, and officially ‘the woman question‘ was solved in the former ‘socialistic‘ countries. The discrimination of women remained on the everyday level, while staying outside public consideration. Moreover, the first Soviet feminists of the 60s and 70s were considered dissidents (enemies of the ‘socialist‘ regime) and were persecuted by the state.

 

It seems that Russian society today remains misofeminist - it has very negative attitudes toward feminism. According to the data received by the research on the image of a feminist only women younger than 30 perceive a feminist as a norm, namely, a feminist does not differ from a common woman, she is active, often is a business lady (Bondarenko 1999). It is noted that the idea of equality between women and men is absent in everyday consciousness of most Russians including women as well. Moreover, the ideology of equal rights and opportunities is alien to most representatives of Russian intellectual and political elite.

 

It seems emotional attitudes towards a feminist are not rare among academic men as well.  Thus,

 

 

Russian men from the academic community often express very negative attitudes toward feminism and feminists. Feminism is compared at least with class struggles between bourgeoisie and proletariat according to Marx and Lenin. Feminists are perceived as women who attempt to raise the solution of their personal problems to the global social agenda. However, Russian society and academic community also includes a variety of views and there are men whose topic of professional interest is feminist theory.

 

Feminism is usually considered as an idea about social equality between men and women by Russian academic women. However, they often define a feminist out of significant links with academic community, in contrast to the distinctions made by Lithuanian academic women. A feminist is considered as a woman who does not allow the violation of her rights neither by husband or children nor by the society. However it is noted that Russians need at least two generations to understand the necessity of feminism.  An academic woman who defines herself as a feminist notes

 

 

Hence is it possible to conclude that feminist discourse is similar enough in investigated academic communities, at least in the sense that nowadays feminism in these communities is considered rather as a social problem than a political one. Feminism is defined as the desire to have equal rights and opportunities, and accordingly, feminists are women who promote the ideas of equal rights and opportunities in political and social life of society.

 

However, it should not be forgotten that attitudes towards feminists often depend rather on direct personal contacts or on contacts mediated by mass media with persons who are called or represent themselves as feminist, than on the ideology that they represent. Simultaneously publicity of feminist ideas makes a profound impact on public opinion. to Owing to the Baltic states‘ policy of ‘going to Europe‘, feminism is considered rather as a problem of equality between women and men than as groundless or absurd clams of ‘overactive‘ women to equality and something more in the public opinion in Lithuania. Thus, Lithuanian academic men‘s expressed attitudes to feminism and feminists are more tolerant in comparison to Russians, and more similar to the attitudes of the westerners.

 

 

 

Observing feminist literature, it becomes clear that there is no precise definition of feminists and feminism, and it seems there could not be a single one. What is feminism and what it means to be a feminist is a question at issue for both men and women, even those who are involved in studies of feminist thought. Feminist theory requires both an epistemological and a political distinction between woman and feminist. Social identity theory supposes that there is no contradiction between woman and feminist and both selves could coexist on the level of personal identity. 

 

As shown above, self-identification with a feminist is not among most salient self-references for academic women from Central and East Europe, even those who are involved in feminist or gender studies. However, it does not mean that these women could be considered as traditionalist women having ‘a false consciousness‘ and not having feminist aspects of self in their identity. Could academic women in general be simply identified with traditional women? First of all there is the fundamental non-coincidence of the concept of identity with consciousness. Identity always entails relationship with ‘significant others‘.

 

Following the Marxist tradition, a feminist identity should be considered progressive when compared with an ‘ordinary‘ or traditional woman‘s identity. This idea follows from a Marxist model of the development of class consciousness. It presupposes a progress from false consciousness, through partial consciousness or consciousness-raising, to revolutionary, or in our case, feminist consciousness. Feminist consciousness, however, can be considered “not as a linear progression but a circle or spiral: ‘there‘s no such creature as a ‘sorted-out feminist”(Stanley and Wise 1983; 120). Similarly, “women who would not identify themselves as feminist (or even anti-feminist), cannot be dismissed as falsely conscious, since this overlooks the reasons for their denial of an explicit feminist allegiance“ (Griffin 1989; 181). Undoubtedly, feminism, like any revolutionary ideology in development, divides women against women and feminists against each other. This division among women as well as between women and men, leads to a negative perception of feminist ideas in public opinion rather than to the recognition of achievements that can be used, and are in practice used, by all women.

 

Therefore self-identification with a feminist is situated rather on the level of conscious and deliberate position than on the level of the unconscious (deeply adopted labelling). Hence, feminist identity can be considered as identity of choice, namely, the choice for independence from public opinion as well. Clearly, any type of independence has a high price. The high price of a feminist identity here could consist in a woman‘s economical independence which, however, often does not eliminate a psychological dependence on a man.

 

As a representative of social sciences I see the Nomadic Political Project proposed by the recognised feminist Rosi Braidotti as appealing and promising. First, because it is an attempt to find both peaceful consensus between various trends of feminist thought and feminist theory with gender theory, and to keep links between theory and practice. Thus, Braidotti declares: “Far from separating the struggle for equality from the affirmation of difference, I see them as complementary and part of a continuous historical evolution. The women‘s movement is the space where sexual difference becomes operational, through the strategy of fighting for equality of the sexes in a cultural and economic order dominated by the masculine homosocial bond. What is at stake is the definition of woman as other than a nonman.”(Braidotti 1994; 161) Second, as representative of a Woman (sexed subject that is constituted through a process of identification with culturally available positions organised in the dichotomy of gender, see Braidotti 1994; 162)  with both the Soviet experience of ‘married working mother‘ (see Zvinkliene 1999) and post-Soviet experience of its deconstruction in the name of ‘rebirth‘ of the ‘normal traditional woman‘, the concept of nomadic subjectivity seems very suitable to identify an academic woman‘s identity in Central and East Europe. Thus, nomadism is defined as ‘sexual difference as providing shifting locations for multiple female feminist embodied voices‘ (Braidotti 1994; 172). In the frame of this paradigm where ‘the feminist subject is nomadic because it is intensive, multiple, embodied, and therefore perfectly cultural‘, feminists are defined as ‘the post-Woman women‘  (Braidotti 1994; 169).  Therefore in which terms could an academic woman‘s identity in Central and Eastern Europe be defined, if she does not prefer to be a feminist, while her TST shows multiplicity of self-references and she is involved at least in feminist or gender studies? A post-Woman woman but feminist?

 

Do we have to look for new terms of definition or remain with labels such as non-feminists, pro-feminists or even anti-feminists for this type of academic women from Central and Eastern Europe? Can we define them as hidden feminists or even sleeping, unconscious feminists because of the topic of their professional and social activity? According to personal observations, academic woman, and not only they, in Central and Eastern Europe feel and behave as feminists in certain cases.

 

Until a new term is found the author is inclined to consider the larger part of academic and professional women from Central and Eastern Europe as having ‘a nomadic feminist identity‘. Certainly both feminists and professional women could disagree with this definition. However, it could be noted that ‘new-wave feminism or theory of sexual difference is essentially interested in the specificity of female psychology and its symbolic realisation through a very general subordination of women to men. Sexual differences are interpreted through their relationship to power, language and meaning.

 

Therefore, the idea of the social transformation of society is directed to the construction of a ‘female society‘ that opposes the official ‘male society‘. ‘Female‘ or ‘male‘ society can be considered in terms of the relation between power and responsibility. Thus, ‘power is exercised only when the individual or group exercising power can be held responsible for the consequences. When no attributions of responsibility can be made, the outcomes are attributed to ‘fate‘(Lukes 1974, see Radtke and Stam 1994; 4). In this sense of the link between power and responsibility, the post-communist space, especially in the European part of the former USSR, can be considered a ‘female society‘ by fate. The responsibility for social life issues effectively belonged to the women, even though the main power of decision making officially belonged to the men. Therefore, the women from post-socialist countries resist feminism, in most cases, only in a symbolic way. Their actual preferred identity can be considered a mix of feminist (emphasis on professional career and economical independence) and traditional women‘s identities (emphasis on marital life and children), with the tendency toward conservatism in expressed attitudes corresponding to ethno-national peculiarities of a local public discourse.

 

Why women, especially from Central and East Europe, do not identify themselves with feminists? Probably because most of them still did not discover at least nomadic feminist subjectivity in themselves. They simply live with it, it is perhaps a part of their personal discourse. They just do not know what feminist subjectivity is, while it is not properly explained by the ‘official‘ local feminists. Similarly, most of them did not know that they were oppressed and discriminated by a Man, before the arrival of Western feminists with messianic mission into Central and Eastern Europe.

 

 

 

Most likely the results of the research especially among Lithuanian respondents would differ a little from those presented in the article if the research were conducted after the Second Conference on WoMen and Democracy, which was held in Vilnius in June 2001. Thus, according to a personal opinion (that was presented as public opinion as well) of a young female journalist who reported on this conference, gender equality is not an urgent problem of Lithuanian women. Her answers could be considered as vox populi because mass media has a profound impact on the formation of public opinion on the one hand and journalists try to follow accepted public stereotypes on the other hand. She said to the author of this article that a feminist is a woman who pays more attention to her professional achievements than to looking after her family. My comment was that in this way all Soviet Baltic women were feminists since they had the highest employment rate in the USSR and some level of professional carrier. Nowadays most of them could be considered feminists as well since unemployment rates among Baltic women are lower then among Baltic men.  She noted that sometimes she works and even earns more than her male colleagues, while at the same time she does not identify herself with a feminist. The journalist said that she has not experienced discrimination at work and probably that is why she is far from the problems on gender equality issues.

 

This short conversation on the definition of a feminist and identification with a feminist shows that first, there is rather a negative image of a feminist in Lithuania and gender equality issues are alien at least for the young generation of female professionals. Second, it seems that the concept of a feminist does not have a clear meaning at all while it is connected only with women‘s professional career. At the same time there are positive changes in the concept of a feminist because a feminist is not associated with hate of men and lesbianism, as it was popular at the end of the 80s and beginning of the 90s of the last century in post-communist countries. Third, it seems that only the new generation of East European academic women, who start their education and professional career after the collapse of communism, will have fewer problems in their search for personal identity with regard to being a woman and/or a feminist.

 

 

Bondarenko L. (1999), “Obraz zhenshchiny-feministki: monstr ili nezauryadnaya lichnost’?, We/My, The Women’s Dialog, no.8 (24), pp. 29-30.

 

Braidotti R. (1994), Nomadic Subjects. Embodiment and Sexual Difference in Contemporary Feminist Theory, Columbia University Press, New York.

 

Gardiner M. and Bell M.M. (1998). „Bakhtin and the Human Sciences: a Brief Introduction”, Bell M.M., Gardiner M. (eds.), Bakhtin and the Human Sciences, SAGE, pp. 3-11.

 

Griffin Ch.(1989),”I am not a Women’s Libber, but...’:Feminism, Consciousness and Identity, in Skevington S., Baker D. (eds.), The Social Identity of Women, SAGE Publications, London-Newbury Park-New Delhi, pp. 171-193.

 

Lukes S. (1974), Power: A Radical View, Macmillan, London

(Quoted from Radke and Stam 1994).

 

 Kuhn M.H., McPartland T.S (1954), „An Empirical Investigation of Self-Attitudes”, American Sociological Review, vol.19, no.1, pp. 68-76.

 

Peuter de J. (1998) The Dialogics of Narrative Identity, Bell M.M., Gardiner M. (eds.), Bakhtin and the Human Sciences, SAGE, pp. 30- 47.

 

Radtke H.L., Stam H.J.(1994), ‘Introduction‘, in Radtke H.L., Stam H.J. (eds.), Power / Gender, SAGE Publications, pp. 1-14.

 

Stanley, L. and Wise S. (1983),’Breaking Out: Feminist Consciousness and Feminist Research, Routledge and Kagan Paul.

 

Taylor C. (1992), „Multiculturalism and „The Politics of Recognition”, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

 

Zvinkliene A. (1999), ‘Neo-Conservatism in Family Ideology of Lithuania: between West and the former USSR, in Bridger S. (ed.), Woman and Political Change: Perspectives from East-Central Europe, Macmillan, pp. 135-150.