Issue 16

The Issue 16 Collective

Editorial Collective: Diana Agosta, Edith Beker, Loretta Campbell, Lisa Cartwright, Su Friedrich, Annie Goldson, Joan Jubela, Nicky Lindeman, Barbara Osborn

From the Issue 16 Collective 

The focus of Heresies #16 is on the work women have done, and are doing, in film, video, and the media. In choosing this focus, we hope to create a sense of community for other feminists who feel information is lacking in these areas. Much of the content in this issue would have little chance of being published elsewhere—and #16 provides some deserved publicity for these works. The recent surge in technology has changed the way we communicate, and women have an increasing opportunity to use different forms of media. Our interest in technology is not to suggest that women join the ranks of the technocrats, but rather to encourage women to overcome a conditioned fear of technology and to begin to use it as an organizing tool and a source of personal expression.

Putting out a Heresies issue takes a long time, and although all of us had had some experience working on collectives and doing political work, only one of us was familiar with the entire production process. None of us found it easy, but on reflection, we have managed to isolate some of the difficulties.

Like most nonhierarchical groups, one of the problems we failed to face was the distribution of work at each stage. We never discussed what working on a collective meant to each of us, what our personal commitments could be, or what a reasonable amount of responsibility should be. The haphazard organization led to an unequal distribution of work. Some members took on more work than others, and resentments grew. Because most of us could not suspend all non-Heresies work, we all faced a decision in how we divided our time. These decisions were not clear-cut. Work outside Heresies can be motivated by a desire for personal gain, but it can also have political intent. These choices can also be paralleled within the collective. One works for Heresies to experience collective process, to contribute to a magazine committed to change, on to network with other feminists; but it is also possible that one might participate to gain recognition in the artworld. Ultimately these choices determined how much work we did for this issue.

The problem of workload was compounded by unrealistic deadlines: for submissions, for rewrites, for editing, and for production. The collective felt further confusion because of the lack of a clear definition of #16’s theme. The initial grant proposal was for a film and TV issue, but by the time our collective was meeting
regularly, the main collective had expanded the theme to include all communication media. Early debates about whether to emphasize commercial or artistic work were then further clouded by discussions of all forms of media. All these problems forced us to hurry through crucial early stages of the collective’s formation.

Under pressure, we never adequately examined the aesthetic, political, racial, and sexual differences among us. Disputes about the materials—their style, their content, and their feminist politic—were frequently taken on a purely personal level, outside of their political context. Feminism, like every movement for change, faces conflict about strategy. Issue 16’s subject matter—the very information channels through which we try to effect change—guaranteed us plenty of conflict. Although we were united in our desire to challenge the male-dominated media system, our personal choices about the forms of media we worked in outside of Heresies differed greatly. These other experiences affected how we chose material for the issue, and these differences were implicit in our discussions. For instance, is there a correct way to present women’s images? Can we infiltrate the mass media, or should we leave it alone? Is it possible to present radical content in a conventional form? At times, positions taken by collective members on such issues were mutually exclusive. The wide range of material in the issue reflects these disparate visions. Many of our discussions about articles forced us to define as well as to defend our own ideas and beliefs about media work. We were each strongly committed to our own forms, but we did come to realize that other women could be as
committed to different forms. In the long run, however, some of us grew apart because those differences could not be overcome.

Only one woman on the #16 collective is Black, indicating a lack of outreach to Third World and Black communities. Heresies has a poor reputation for dealing with the concerns of women of color, and not enough distributors in Third World communities sell the magazine. The content of many of the previous issues has not reflected the needs of Third World women, and no adequate mechanism has yet been put into place to address these problems. What Heresies needs is more visibility in Third World communities. The Heresies collective should more actively solicit Third World women for the main collective and the issue collectives. Perhaps then women of color would be more interested in submitting material and suggesting topics for future issues, thus broadening Heresies’ horizons.

The difficulties of #16 arose mostly because we lacked foresight. Future collectives could approach these problems by taking the time early in the process to investigate the differences among members, and use this knowledge to establish their own working structure. Lulls in the development of the magazine—for instance, after the call for submissions and before material begins to arrive—could provide this time. The main collective could help further by giving a realistic chart of how an issue develops, indicating the time period required for each of the various phases of producing a magazine.

As with most issues of Heresies, #16’s topic was too broad to be covered by one issue. One thing that we agreed about was the need for a new journal in which to continue a dialogue about, and develop networks within, the vital feminist film/video/media arts community. At this time, the more activist feminist press devotes little space to such work. The few journals which address women and film/video concern themselves far more with the male media portrayal of women than with the growing body of work produced by women. The feminist academic journals limit themselves to occasional articles on feminist theory and criticism. As women’s studies becomes co-opted by the university system, outspoken feminist academics are fired, and feminism becomes more threatened such a journal becomes crucial to continue the dialogue about feminist media. Now is the time to expand our audience to include a wider base of women. We see this issue as part of this dialogue.