destruction of dams and the restorationnof free-flowing rivers; the establishmentnof huge tracts of wilderness andnroadless areas; and the practice of annidealized politics that admits of noncompromise. Much of Confessions ofnan Eco-Warrior is an extended politicalnpamphlet elaborating on these points.nIn ten years’ time, Dave Foreman’snbrand of radical environmentalism hasnserved both to polarize the ecologicalnmovement and to push the rank andnfile toward greater activism. His programnhas as many detractors as it doesnfollowers, but few people within ornwithout the environmentalist camp cannsimply shrug it off, and any seriousnecological debate must somehow takenForeman’s positions, as elaborated innhis book, into account.nGregory McNamee is a freelancenauthor, editor, and critic living innTucson, Arizona.nPartial Attractionnby Ellen Wilson FieldingnFeminism Without Illusions:nA Critique of Individualismnby Elizabeth Fox-GenovesenChapel Hill: University of NorthnCarolina Press; 347 pp., $24.95nElizabeth Fox-Genovese’s careernseems dedicated to the principlenthat radicals can be reasonable. Thenencouraging title of her latest booknsuggests that they may even be realistic.nAlthough the author challenges thengrounds on which most feminists arguentheir rights, she is admittedly and regrettablyna feminist herself, and her book isnprimarily a contribution to a familynquarrel.nWhat teases is the suggestion, herenand there, of a susceptibility to ideologicalnconversion. In this Ms. Fox-nGenovese’s book reminds me of GermainenGreer’s offering of a few yearsnago. It contained just enough opennessnto the allurements of traditionalism tonarouse in some a missionary impulse.nBut whatever the peregrinations of anGermaine Greer or an Elizabeth Fox-nGenovese, neither seems likely to loosena floodgate of feminist converts to conservatismnby means of their arguments.nobjections, or misgivings.nFox-Genovese argues that the vocabularynand philosophy of individual rightsnon which feminists (and almost everybodynelse in modern times) have basedntheir claims are illegitimate and finallynunsatisfactory inheritances of capitalist,npaternalistic, bourgeois society. Feministsnshould recognize the extent tonwhich the language of individual rightsnderives from an intellectual history thatnis market-driven and paternalistic andnhence an uncomfortable bedfellow ofnfeminists. A more communitarian philosophynof rights, taking a leaf fromnpre-Enlightenment models, would helpnoffset the gravitational pull of the modernnstate and the increasingly atomizedncondition of its citizens.nShe has a point, and she also has anpoint when she alludes to inconsistenciesnin many conservative attempts tonbalance the claims of the individualnagainst those of the community or itsnsubgroups. Having said that, however, Inhave said almost all the positive things Incan say about this book.nMs. Fox-Genovese is better at raisingnproblems and contradictions and summarizingnthe depressingly wrongheadednschools of feminist thought and dolingnout dollops of praise and criticism forneach than she is at letting us know hownshe would reconcile the demands ofnfeminism with human needs, humannrights—and human weakness. It is oftennhard to pin down the degrees tonwhich she agrees or disagrees with angiven school of feminist thought: hernbook is too full of the diffuse “understanding”nthat characterizes conversationsnin which someone is trying tongerrymander a consensus. Like othernpractitioners of ecumenism, she seemsnto dodge straight yeas and nays.nMost damningly, she left me uncertainnas to whether her proposed newnmodel of feminist thinking was meantnto be closer to the Truth of things ornmerely more efficacious in realizingnfeminist goals. If she were inquiring intonTruth, wouldn’t she define her termsnbetter, or at all? What does it mean tonsay (as she does) that pre-modern societiesnidentified society as prior to thenindividual and understood the individual’snrights as devolving upon him as anmember of a group? ‘Trior to thenindividual” could and did mean differentnthings at different times to differentnpeople. Pre-Ghristian societies viewednnnthe individual differently than didnChristian ones, and religious societiesnview him differently than, say, communistnsocieties do. It matters, a bit, whatnkind of bundle of collectivities, acknowledgingnwhat kind of moral and religiousnchecks, one is thinking of when onenattempts to ameliorate existential angst.nYet Ms. Fox-Genovese’s formulationsnrepeatedly sidestep the underlyingnphilosophical problems. Here is one ofnmany examples.nSince the beginnings of humannhistory, men and women havendemonstrated a propensity toncongregate in communities.nThe propensity runs so deepnas to look very much like anfundamental aspect of humannnature. Whatever the intentionsnof nature, the development ofnhuman history has offeredncommunities differing degreesnof legal and political protection,nuntil in our own time—withnthe noteworthy exception ofncorporations — they receive verynlittie at all. (My italics.)nThis philosophical murkiness increasesnin direct proportion to the specificity ofnthe issue. I’ve read Fox-Genovese’snchapter on pornography, so I know thatnshe’s opposed to it, and thinks thatnfeminist arguments against it shouldnnaturally emphasize pornography’s violationnof groups (women, society) rathernthan of individuals. But when it comesnto causes or cures, Ms. Fox-Genovesendoes what she always does — she assertsnthat the traditional way in which peoplenhave lived and related to one another isnunsalvageable: “We are not likely tonrestore decency by returning women,nand violence against women, to thenbedroom and the kitchen”; “Throughoutnthe twentieth century, the irreversiblenintrusion of the market into thenso-called private sphere has steadilyneroded marriage as a career”; “Sincenmen cannot be held accountable fornsupporting women, as, for example,nthrough alimony, women must be ablento support themselves and often alsontheir children”; “The hard truth is thatnour society is not prepared to providenadequately for children, and those whonoppose abortion are, in general, thosenleast in favor of expanding social andnfamily services.”nAUGUST 1991/37n