Global Feminism, Plural Leadership
http://alainet.org/publica/femlead/en/
Key Feminist Proposals In Fighting Racism, Xenophobia And Intolerance
Introduction
The main characteristic of the relationship between global leadership and racism originates in the historical structural gap among ethnic and social groups which limit the collective and individual inclusion (of proposals) of discriminated peoples and sectors, and in the patriarchal power structures that are predominant in every sphere: from local to world negotiating spheres.
Women's leadership in key power spheres in the globalization process, such as the financial sector, International Financial Institutions, the transnational market, communication systems and media, international "safety" mechanisms, among others, is not only limited, but also reflects the racist structure of society at a global level. This is also reflected in leadership of key initiatives developed by civil society.
In the past years, global feminist leadership initiatives have posed questions on types of leadership and spheres in which feminism should become involved. Of the multiple responses, we can point out two main trends: those who propose that leadership, at all levels, is part of the exercise of rights and citizenship; and those who propose that feminist leadership must be based on the connection between this perspective and a global social change proposal. In both cases, however, racism exercises its influence in limiting the exercise of citizenship rights of women from discriminated groups in every sphere.
The shift from sisterhood to building solidarity platforms
Patricia McFadden
I think that this initiative presents a unique and critical opportunity for feminists globally to re-visit and "delve into" some of the most profound challenges facing us as individuals - within our specific and more general locations- as well as those imperatives that face the feminist movement as a cutting-edge force that is leading the transformation of our societies across the world.
In my experience of feminism as an ideological stance - an identity crafted out of the struggles of women for freedom without qualifications - I know that diversity has been central to my own access of this political space. As a radical Black feminist who does not compromise on any of my rights and the rights of my sisters, the question of taking leadership has often intersected with the vexed issue of difference- as it is linked to race/colour, class, age, ability, sexual orientation, location and heterosexuality, the last as a normatised African "authenticator" which is so seldom questioned in the African Women's Movement even in the present day.
Therefore, I would like to explore the intersections of these interesting notions, focusing on the meaning of feminist leadership in terms of the shift from sisterhood to building of solidarity platforms at various levels of feminist activism; as well as in relation to leadership in terms of raising the very difficult issues of race and privilege in the context of ongoing discourses and debates about these century old problems.
First, let us look at the notion of leadership in terms of the challenges it presents as we move from sisterhood as a broadly essentialist expression of our shared oppression and exploitation as women, without an in-depth recognition of what it actually means for women to be defined in terms of the dominant dichotomies that mark us as either black or white; rich or poor; young or older; able or physically challenged; urban or rural - basically inside or outside the systems that determine our relationships with power, the state, men, social and material resources, etc. - to newer notions of solidarity which come out of those energies that are located at the interface between difference/otherness and diversity/celebration between and among women.
The recognition that women are diverse and in that fact become different has changed the meaning and experience of sisterhood as a universal feminist mantra. An analysis of the linkage between the gains that European women made during the 20th century in terms of social benefits derived from a changed relationship with the state in the North, and the intimate experiences of exploitation and impoverishment endured by African women and their communities in southern Africa, for example, makes the need for a conceptually new political shift in the notions and assumptions that brought us together – as women- during the past century even more urgent.
How do I hold hands with my sisters in the North without also remembering that for 500 years an estimated 100 million Africans, most of whom were women, were brutally dragged across the world and scattered to every corner of the "empire", while millions more - my fore-parents in the widest sense of the word - slaved on plantations and mines across this region, producing the very wealth that made it possible for European women - of all classes - to re-negotiate the distribution of critical resources between themselves and the state through the mechanism of the welfare state? And yet, in this new and very interesting time of the 21st century, when the very same forces that invented racial and locational difference among and between peoples and among women as an exploited and oppressed group, have, through the further entrenchment of social inequality and difference, begun to threaten those very essential bonds that women worked so hard to emphasise during the past hundred years. Clearly, globalisation requires that we interrogate more critically those things that have kept us apart - among which, most importantly, is the issue of white privilege between women in a world divided into North and South.
And so we have come full circle - and are faced with the reality that while we sought to celebrate our diversity and to acknowledge our differences, as socially constructed as they are - these "Othernesses" have become real, and they demand a courageous political response, particularly by feminists who have positioned themselves on the edge of a new global politics.
Therefore, for me, the engagement with racial privilege, and specifically with white privilege which is deeply embedded in centuries of plunder and the ideological construction of people of colour as "less deserving" of the material and aesthetics of human production - with African women defined as the "lowest of the low" in every sense of that hierarchical statement - brings us face to face with the opportunity to move our worlds in fundamentally transformative ways. The women's movement is without doubt (for those of us who experience it as the most important political movement to emerge in human existence) the epicentre of a qualitatively profound new political vision of human society. It encompasses the most inclusive and most sustainable notions and visions of society as a place of peace, equality, and happiness for all persons born into it. And feminist ideology - in all its variations - expresses this singularly distinctive feature of the women's movement and of the values of individual women who are dedicated to vastly different societies compared to the present day patriarchally- dominated ones we struggle in.
Along the way, we have learnt that privilege - in all its forms - is not only underpinned by supremacist claims that legitimate and facilitate exclusion and discrimination, but most importantly, in my opinion, privilege is intimately linked to the rampant expressions of impunity which allow for the unfettered violation of women and girls, as well as for the denial to people of colour, of personhood, dignity and integrity - the three core elements of our entitlement to be recognised, accepted and treated as a human being with equal status.
Therefore, the second aspect of my commentary is related to the need for the feminist movement to draw from the long and admirable traditions which have set us apart from other movements - our ability to raise the most difficult and seemingly intractable issues without hesitation or compromise. The issue of racial privilege and particularly of whiteness as a means through which material and social privilege has been institutionalised and made accessible to certain groups of women, must be tackled directly and without the waste of time and energy that have characterised past engagements. The fact of the matter is that whiteness has made real material and social benefits available for large numbers of women in the North (regardless of their class and age or sexual orientation) and it is time that the feminist movement prioritised this issue and placed it at the centre of our discourses and activism.
Whiteness and racism are inextricably linked to the experiences of feminist of colour, especially of Black feminists, with power, exclusion, stigmatisation and silencing; and they present real and difficult issues in the relationships between and among women across various divides. The persistence of white privilege not only presents us with specific challenges and imperatives in relation to impunity (as does the persistence of all the other forms of privileging), but whiteness in and of itself has constructed the rest of humankind as "other" in ways that feminists must further engage with and change.
Let me pose a few observations cum questions as a way of concluding this short intervention. I think that through a discursive process, it is possible for those who are privileged by race and colour to begin accepting some kind of responsibility to reject the extension of such privilege, based as it is on the continuation of centuries-old practices of plunder and supremacy, while those who have been thrust on the other end of the race divide can also accept the necessity of loving themselves and embracing their personhood through the experience of becoming post-colonial. In southern Africa, the raced (urban ethnic) identity of being Coloured provides an interesting variation on the ways in which whiteness constructs Otherness among those who are excluded through racist ideological claims of supremacy and purity.
We also need to take cognisance of the fact that poor women want more than the rhetorical statement of equality and rights. Excluded women are demanding greater access to and ownership of the key material resources in all their societies, and are insisting on the translation of their legal and property rights into reality. This new expression of entitlement consciousness among both urban and rural women across the African continent poses new leadership challenges feminists within the women's movement, leading to a shift in the ideological construction of what rights mean in actual terms within the lived context of poor women’s lives.
How is this issue impacting on the ideological orientation of feminist politics at the present time and what does it say about the relationships between women of various races and classes and the state; heterosexual women and men in relation to marriage as a property relation; and in terms of the intersection between notions of property, citizenship and women’s rights. How do we reconcile issues of property and entitlement with a restructured relation between women of various classes and the state, especially in countries of the "south"?
What are the implications for feminist activism and solidarity in terms of the relationship of women in the north to their states - which are at the forefront of the globalisation drive?
How is the engagement with globalisation in all its forms changing or impacting on feminist politics across all sectors of our activism and knowledge production?
What are feminist significances of personhood and bodily integrity for women of the "south" through a realisation of reproductive and sexual rights for all women, without reservations and or relativist cultural qualifications? What does the new equal feminist relationship look like? Can we envision it and are we able to manage the changes in terms of relations of power that were/are linked to locational and racial privilege?
Are we responding to the right-wing backlash in terms of the collusion between reactionary elements within the academy, reactionary elements in sectors like the population control lobby, and backward elements on the ground that seek to truncate and reverse the movement towards a fulfilment of reproductive and sexual rights for all women in every part of the world? We are fully aware of the political impact that a realisation of reproductive and sexual rights will have on the ability of women, wherever they live, to break patriarchal hegemony and control over them. The right-wing is systematically resisting this transformation at the level of the UN, the international media, international finance structures, religious fundamentalist organisations and through the mobilisation of old, `cultural’ practices and claims that isolate and intimidate women. It is the collusion between these reactionary forces, supported openly by elements within disciplines like social anthropology, within and outside the academy, which poses the most serious challenge to the sustainability and progress of the feminist movement internationally.
These, for me, are some of the key issues that are located at the intersection between feminism/leadership and diversity - and depending on how we engage with them and use our political and ideological strengths and experiences, we can either move qualitatively forward - through change that makes a real difference for all - or have to wait again for another conjuncture in order to make a feminist transformation.
I look forward to the discourse that is already on board the feminist leadership space, and I am delighted at having been part of this initial intervention.
Colonization, racism and indigenous resistance
Victoria Tauli Corpuz
The women's movement both in the global and local levels, no doubt, has been and still is one of the most significant movements which challenged structures and ideologies which privileged the few who are white and male. Part of the process of enriching this movement is the need to retreat, once in a while, to reflect on whether we are on the right track. For me, as a feminist belonging to a collectivity called indigenous peoples, this was the way I was able to deal with my doubts and dilemmas. In my retreat, however, I came up with more questions than answers. I would like to take this chance to raise issues which may not be politically correct but which I am seriously concerned about.
One of my concerns is the inadequacy of how feminists (myself included) are addressing globalization as it shapes the world and further perpetuates racism and intolerance, and discrimination of women. I would also like to challenge feminists and other movements to confront the possibility that they are also promoting some forms of racism and discrimination.
The WCAR comes at a time when we are witnessing how globalization is negatively impacting not only women but all the other marginalized classes and sectors. The capitalist market economy is mustering all the weapons in its arsenal to neatly shape and fit nation-states, peoples, cultures and nature to become the cogs and wheels of its machinery. Racism, intolerance and discrimination are favorable for globalization because these justify the exclusion and elimination of those who cannot be integrated into the global capitalist economy. How can feminists effectively use this opportunity to make a difference? What analysis and strategies can they offer to challenge the globalization process which abets racism and discrimination? Are feminists conscious of the possibility that they might also be promoting racism even while confronting it?
For indigenous women, racism and discrimination, has been their lot since colonization up to the present. Colonization created indigenous peoples. These are peoples who became the other because they resisted assimilation into the colonial rule and refused to be fully integrated into the dominant post-colonial societies. This resistance has contributed to the continuing existence of the few remaining diverse economies, cultures and languages, cosmologies, governance systems and ecosystems.
Racism underpins colonization and globalization. It promotes the dominant neo-liberal ideology and the capitalist economic, cultural and political system as superior to all others. Thus, all other systems which include indigenous peoples' societies were deemed backward and inferior and had to be eradicated. The violence of racism and discrimination which came in the forms of genocide and ethnocide of indigenous peoples and cultures was unleashed in all parts of the world, whether in Europe, the Americas, Asia, Africa and the Pacific. This continues in spite of the UN Charter and the Human Rights Declaration. Even if all constitutions of nation-states say that no one should be discriminated on the basis of race, gender, religion, etc., women and indigenous peoples are still discriminated against.
What would it take to eliminate racism, discrimination and all forms of intolerance in this globalizing world? Undoubtedly, anti-colonial liberation movements, the women's movements and indigenous peoples' movements, were key in combating these. The continuing process of delegitimizing racist and patriarchal ideology would not have prospered if not for these movements.
However, some of these movements are also guilty of imposing their agenda or ideologies on indigenous peoples to the point of being discriminatory, intolerant and racist. Feminism, for instance, has been criticized by some indigenous peoples' organizations (which include women) as having its own intolerance and disdain for indigenous peoples and traditional cultures and systems. The call for respecting diversity of cultures was seen by some feminists as an excuse to maintain patriarchal indigenous cultures. The efforts of indigenous women to deal with patriarchy in their own way was seen as inadequate by some feminists. While indigenous women acknowledge that some of their systems are patriarchal, it does not follow that these cultures should be regarded as backward and therefore should be modernized.
This is similar to the experience of some black women with the issue of female genital mutilation. This is a major issue of many African feminists and, in fact, they were the ones who spearheaded the campaign against it. However, when it was adopted by western feminists, the handling of the issue became tinged with racism. African cultures which practiced this were demonized. The good aspects of the various African cultures were overshadowed by female genital mutilation. Some African feminists found themselves in a difficult situation. Even if they were critical of this practice and are actively engaged in programs to eradicate it, the racist undercurrents of the way the issue was handled globally made them defensive of their own cultures.
Environmentalists who pushed for creation of national parks or the ban on the trade of furs were accused of discrimination and racism because they kept out indigenous peoples from their traditional forests. They also contributed to the destruction of the traditional livelihoods of indigenous hunters and gatherers. Indigenous peoples in the Arctic, the Inuit, who traditionally hunted seals for their clothing, food and medicines, were portrayed as anti-environment and violators of animal rights.
There is a such a thing called environmental racism which is manifested in the way toxic wastes and industries and destructive technologies were dumped in indigenous peoples communities or communities of people of color. Some environmentalists won't even touch these issues.
Even the construction of human rights as a discourse and the creation of human rights legal regimes were also tainted with some form of racism because these only recognized individual rights and not collective rights. The collective rights of indigenous peoples to territories, language, or culture, amongst others, were not recognized immediately. This led indigenous peoples to lobby the UN to create a Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which remains a draft up to now. Now, with globalization, corporations which are actually collectives, are pushing for their own bill of rights as has been clearly seen in the push for the failed Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI). This is also happening in the World Trade Organization (WTO) and regional agreements such as the NAFTA and the Free Trade in the Americas (FTAA). Why is it that when we, indigenous peoples, demand for our collective rights to be recognized as distinct peoples with the right to self- determination and rights to ancestral territories and resources, etc. we are told that there are no such things as collective rights? However, when corporations demand their rights to invest, their rights to intellectual property, etc. they are considered as legal persons?
The evolution of universal legal regimes to promote and protect rights of corporations and the former colonial governments is racist and discriminatory. For example, the TRIPS (Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement of the WTO is a clear case of universalizing the western rights regime and ignoring or undermining non-western forms of entitlement. The rights of indigenous peoples and local communities to protect their traditional knowledge against appropriation is not covered by TRIPS. In fact, it undermines traditional knowledge, because it has its own definition of what knowledge should be protected. This is knowledge which is created by an individual, which is novel, and which can be used for commercial purposes. Traditional knowledge which is creatively evolved and which is shared and used by communities through generations, cannot be protected by TRIPS.
What is even worse is that TRIPS, which allows for the patenting of life-forms, meaning the appropriation and commodification of genetic materials and information of living things, is now the standard which national laws of all WTO member states should conform with. TRIPS is a legal regime which promotes the monopolization of high technologies like modern biotechnology, nanotechnology, genomics, informatics and robotics. It privileges one kind of knowledge over another.
As far as I am concerned, these developments are matters which should worry feminists because women are key traditional knowledge holders, they are custodians of seeds and their bodies are the ones being manipulated by these modern technologies. There is racism in the way the western systems and worldviews are globalized to become the universal standards by which we are judged in terms of how civilized we are.
Globalization which is being pushed by bodies like the WTO, the World Bank, the IMF and the other multilateral trading bodies like NAFTA, APEC, etc. should be addressed adequately by feminists whether in the WCAR or elsewhere. The racism and sexism which underpins globalization should be uncovered.
Even beyond this, the various movements like those of women, environmentalists, human rights, etc. should also take a deeper look into how they promote discrimination and racism even while confronting these. An unpacking of the universalization of standards whether these are intellectual property rights, women's rights, labor rights, human rights, etc. may need to be done. This is not to say that universalization per se is bad. Maybe distinctions and criteria should be made to determine which universalization is good and which is bad because it promotes further racism, intolerance and discrimination.
There are diverse realities and contexts, especially in the local levels, which should be made visible and supported in so far as they provide a better quality of life for people and promotes more equity. These realities are also more sustainable for nature and all other creations. Indigenous peoples still retain some of these systems and cosmologies which go against the agenda of globalization. What globalization is telling us is that one size fits all. So the global rules made in the WTO, for instance, should fit all countries and communities no matter how big or small, no matter what kind of development was reached. While there are small adjustments because of the protests of civil society and also by some governments, on the whole, the power to define and shape still lies with the rich industrialized countries and their corporations. The women's movement and feminism should engage globalization in close collaboration with other movements.
The struggle against the process of shaping us to become the cogs and wheels of the global capitalist market economy is a difficult one. We have been so fragmented from each other and the assertion of various entitlements and rights of those in the margins were not necessarily complementary. However, if each one plays a part from changing lifestyles to sustaining communities in resistance and creating alternative structures and ways of living and knowing, this globalization scheme will fail. As our friends in the peasant movements say, what we need to globalize is hope.
Development of a feminist culture with an inclusive vision of humanity
Mónica Santana
Xenophobia, like racism and discrimination, are cultural set-backs that have been transmitted from generation to generation in the various historical periods of humanity. As women, we have lived -and continue living- under a system that reinforces inequality among people, based on our sex. This allows us to have a better understanding of the negative consequences of xenophobia, particularly in the sense of domination by a social and cultural group over another, that is, us. This situation has made us more sensitive to this reality, as I will explain.
Thousand of pages have been written denouncing the hatred and rejection that provoke irrational fear towards what is "different" from the established norm. However, in various societies, the groups in power continue using xenophobia to eliminate and/or control entire peoples, thus eliminating their cultures, ethnic origins, life styles, and any other social manifestation that does not respond to the dominant model (e.g. Indo American and African cultures).
In modern times, the white culture has promoted power relations based on prejudice and stereotypes that undervalue so-called "minority" groups, with the aim of preventing their access to power. The white culture has developed economic models of exploitation and oppression of non-white social groups. The fear of the alien has invisibilized and undervalued the cultural contributions of other civilizations developed by non-white groups.
Based on the white culture, humanity has been divided into different categories that promote xenophobia. Thus, for example, we have concepts of civilized and uncivilized cultures, developed and underdeveloped, poor and rich countries, first and third world. Now, who determined what is civilization and what is not? What is development and what is not? Why do we have to accept the validity of criteria established by the white culture in making these divisions?
Following the scheme of the white culture, the US belongs to the first world and is the most civilized and most developed country in the planet. However, it is not the oldest country in the American continent and its economic power has been achieved based on exploitation and looting of the other countries in the Americas and in the world.
Ironically, the US was founded by people from every part of the world, mainly from Europe, looking for new opportunities and to save themselves from the persecutions and intolerance they were subject to in their countries of origin, whether because of their religious or political beliefs. However, it is in this country that xenophobia and racism have been nourished by the groups in power and manifest themselves in diverse spheres.
The manifestations of hatred and intolerance towards the new immigrant are part of daily life and we see a re-emergence of the Ku Klux Klan and conservative fundamentalist groups of the extreme right. Two months ago, in Long Island, New York, two Mexican workers were "invited" to work for three white individuals who kidnapped them and took them to a deserted area, where they beat them with their own tools and abandoned them thinking they were dead. Other recent examples with a strong impact in public opinion are the cases of the African citizen Diallo, who was murdered by 41 bullets shot by the New York police, and the Haitian citizen Louima, who was sodomized in the bathroom of a New York Police Station. Likewise, there is the case of several Latina women who were arrested in a routine control by the transit police and, under the false accusation of being drunk, were forced to undress and walk to their homes naked.
Discrimination, exploitation and violation of human rights and dignity are part of the employer culture in the US. It is "normal" for immigrant workers to work 72 hours a week for wages of 180 to 200 dollars per week. According to the labor laws of the country, a person should receive US$5 per hour and, when exceeding 40 hours per week, she/he should receive US$7.73 as minimum salary for manual or unskilled labor, in a system where the average cost of living per person per month is around US$2,000.
In general, people must work 12 hours per day, many times without breaks even for lunch. Some of these jobs are of high risk to their health and they receive no orientation nor adequate equipment to do the job, which causes a high rate of deaths and accidents with permanent damage and no compensation. This is the type of work that locals do not want to perform due to the low salaries and the poor working conditions.
Individuals who perform this type of work -called dirty work- do not have the right to vacation leave nor any other type of benefits (medical insurance, unemployment pension, paid holidays, etc.). In practice, they do not have the right to unionize and can be fired without justification, which makes them highly vulnerable to abuse by the employers and even, if besides being an immigrant the individual is a woman, she has to bear sexual harassment by anyone - from the owner of the business to fellow workers. Let us not forget that we are talking about labor relations in the US, the richest and most developed country in the world.
On the other hand, xenophobia is experienced not only at work, although this is probably the sphere where it is most painful, due to the fact that there is no access to other options. Hatred and intolerance are repeated in other administrative spheres. Requesting any type of public service, whether education, health, housing, etc., implies, first of all, overcoming all the obstacles of the bureaucratic system and then, facing the public officer who has no respect for what the immigrant represents, socially and culturally. Establishing contact with a police and/or immigration officer, very frequently exposes immigrants to abuse and humiliation, merely because of their physical appearance, or because they cannot communicate in English, or because they speak it with a foreign accent.
The other side of the coin tells us that immigrants, mainly from Latin America, do not leave their countries of origin for the sake of it. Migratory flows are produced most of the time due to causes beyond the control of the immigrant; sometimes provoked by natural phenomena, wars, political persecution or other, and mainly due to the lack of opportunities to attain better living conditions, as a result of the negative consequences of globalization.
As I mentioned before, in the case of Latin American migrations to the US, the fundamental causes are economic, and to a lesser extent, political and/or due to wars. For obvious reasons, the US is in most cases, the main and, many times, the only commercial partner of Latin American countries. This situation, far from benefiting the economies of our countries, has created an economic dependence and the political control of our governments, in which the US is judge and party, thus assuming no responsibilities over the problems they cause through their constant economic or political interventions. Their complicity with corrupt governments in our countries, generate most of the conflicts that later become the causes of migratory flows. In the case of unequal economic relations which are advantageous for the US, they are always the main cause of poverty in our countries and of impoverishment of our people due to the lack of opportunities to find a job and attain an acceptable living standard for Latin American families.
In short, xenophobia and racism are social and cultural set-backs that the capitalist and patriarchal systems use as instruments to maintain under their control the majority of society who does not belong to the white culture or to the economic model that sustains it.
Combating xenophobia requires urgent measures in various spheres:
In the economic sphere, under the policy of globalization of the economy and the markets, it is urgent to adopt policies that are more just, that include, for example, in free trade treaties, the creation of a universal salary that covers the basic household needs in each country; condoning the foreign debt of our countries; creation of employment opportunities that guarantee the unrestricted respect for labor rights; and reparations for the victims of neoliberalism who, as a consequence of these unequal economic relations, have had to leave their countries.
In the social cultural sphere, declare that xenophobia and intolerance are cultural set-backs that must be recognized and eliminated from our society. I propose penalizing any xenophobic manifestation that reinforces the ideology of the supposedly white supremacy. In this way, we will achieve an effective confluence of our social cultural realities that will allow for the incorporation of new labor forces with the same rights as those enjoyed by citizens of the receiving country.
In the artistic-cultural sphere, I propose promoting the artistic expression of our artists, in-depth teaching of our ancestral legacies as positive and significant contributions in the creation of a new culture that reflects a balanced syncretism.
In the political sphere, create laws that recognize and protect the rights of individuals, without considering their ethnic, social and gender origins, as well as proclaim laws that suppress xenophobic manifestations by penalizing them. Let us remember that precisely the US has not subscribed most of the conventions pertaining to human rights, and in particular, the International Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination and the Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
In order to ensure the construction of a world free of cultural set-backs, it is of fundamental importance that a gender perspective be incorporated, based on the human being regardless of sex, race, class or ethnic origin.
Under this new vision, male-female power relations must be re-thought from a gender perspective that takes into consideration equity, equality and identity as basic pillars of that relationship, creating conditions that guarantee the development of human beings and society to face the new millenium and the globalization policy.
Solidarity Platforms Vs. Globalized Otherness
In Tauli's and in McFadden's presentations there are interesting points of convergence which pertain to the key feminist challenges in countering racism, xenophobia and intolerance.
Based on her diverse identity, McFadden highlights how the variables that intersect such identity have marked her access to the feminist political sphere. These variables are, among others, race, class, age and sexual orientation. The author rethinks the significance of feminist leaderships based on the process of intersecting the variables mentioned. She tells us of a shift from sisterhood to the construction of solidarity platforms.
Victoria Tauli Corpus, on her part, begins in the same line, recognizing the importance of the feminist movement as one that challenges the structures that protect the interests of a few over those of the majority. Then, like McFadden, she expresses the need for the feminist movement to rethink mechanisms for action.
Tauli begins that internal look at the movement from an internal look at her indigenous identity. McFadden does so from the identity of a black woman. Both challenge themselves and challenge other feminists to carry out this exercise. Both of them also recognize the need to look at the challenges posed by globalization and one of its most notorious consequences, which is globalization of racism and colonization. The latter, due to the fact that economic interests oblige States to adjust to the needs of globalized markets, interests at the service of maintaining the privileges of a few. Globalization of racism and colonization turn those who do not control or own dominant capitalist markets into "others". Those dominant capitalist markets are seen as superior and, thus, become the standard. In this situation affecting men and women, it is an even greater challenge for feminists to be able to make the necessary intersections with the issue of gender.
Tauli also describes in a very interesting manner the complexity of the struggle for the collective rights of indigenous peoples, as opposed to the individual rights contained in human rights discourses, as a dichotomy that constructs a norm and an otherness. She also warns us that as feminists, we must be careful when criticizing and struggling against patriarchy in the various cultures, due to the fact that sometimes those criticisms, although well deserved, may be mediated by racism, if, for example, an entire culture is criticized when the intention is to criticize something in particular that occurs in it. This issue also sheds light on the need to be based on a respect for diversity, with an understanding that does not value some cultures as better or worse, good or bad; otherwise racism, intolerance and xenophobia will not allow us to build solidarity platforms as expressed by McFadden.
I believe that the authors call on us to look at national, international or globalized economic, social and political processes as feminists, viewing them as issues that challenge us to build bridges of joint work with other actors, such as other movements. I understand that these bridges must run in both directions in order to achieve the feminist transformations we want in our societies.
Personally, I believe that the challenges are multiple, for, in looking into the dynamics of discrimination, we see that they are horizontal, vertical, cross-sectional and internal. Collectively and individually, we have different starting points. So, the personal or individual challenge is as important as the collective institutional or that of the State. The search for answers goes in all directions.
Recently, in a presentation at the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), I mentioned that "If today we can articulate a defense of women's rights to live without violence, for example, this began in the imagination. We had to dream, and one has to dream to build reality, but reality is also a dream. When we believe we are completing its shape, it transforms itself again, uncovering new angles in its body we had not seen before. I believe that as women we are not one, and we are not equal, and much less are we one-dimensional, and for that reason I like to imagine that feminist utopias are constantly shifting and that we are always challenging ourselves to try to articulate a discourse(s) that includes us all and/or that does not exclude some."
Both McFadden and Tauli analyze the implications of globalization policies as new spaces where racism and margination is practiced and it seems to me that both are very concerned that feminists may not be approaching the situation with the depth it deserves. In this process towards the World Conference, I have seen, however, much reflection on these issues. The Plan of Action produced by the NGO's in the Forum of the Americas, held in Quito, is among those that approach the issue of intersections of all the other themes of the conference with that of gender, and turns it into a cross-sectional analysis methodology throughout the document. I believe that exercises of this type are a good starting point.
On The Paper ByPatricia McFadden
The implications of addressing diversity be it of race, colour, ethnic, sexual orientation, class, age, ability and so on, for the feminist movement have been discussed over the years. In her paper, Pat McFadden looks at diversity and in particular racism and its impact on African women. Her excellent analysis poses a number of questions that the feminist movement must ask of itself. These questions are not easily answered, and are, as she herself notes, riddled with problems - not least among them being, the danger of fragmentation of the global women's movement, by those very elements that discriminate on the basis of race, sex and gender, sexual orientation and so on. Yet, in not addressing them in open and meaningful ways, the feminist movement almost certainly faces the danger of fragmentation. And the feminist movement is the space in which the issue of diversity must be addressed, if it is to succeed in its aims of dismantling patriarchy and all forms of oppression.
In order to address what needs to be done, it is necessary to assess where we are currently. To what extent has the feminist movement such as it is, addressed the issues of diversity? What changes need to be made and what new paradigms of feminist leadership need to be evolve in order to make these changes? On the question of diversity, Mcfadden observes that the extent to which women the world over have reached out to one another, to lend support and solidarity and to highlight the numerous manifestations of patriarchal oppression, has made the women's movement one of the most diverse and inclusive socio-political movements to emerge in the 20th century. And it is those efforts to include and to support women the world over, regardless of race, colour, class, sexual orientation and so on, in their efforts to resist patriarchal domination, that places the women's movement at the forefront or to quote McFadden, "at the cutting edge force that is leading the transformation of our societies across the world".
Whilst the women's movement has made great strides in coming together on issues that women have in common, it has been less successful at addressing the issues of difference between and amongst women. I n the context of globalisation, McFadden sites the issue of white privilege as the most important - but by no means the only - issue for analysis in terms of racism and intolerance. In addition, the way in which whiteness has rendered the rest of humankind as "other" (read lesser human beings and therefore less deserving), points to the urgency of dealing with the question of white privilege. White women the world over, of all classes, on the whole have had over the years, greater access to material resources, wealth and so on than have African women. And this has been made possible by the exploitation of African women. The protection of this privilege, which has been institutionalised through the various, global political and economic structures, stands squarely in the way of securing and protecting the human rights and dignity of all the women of the world. It is therefore imperative, that feminist leadership on a collective basis, address the issue of white privilege. The process begins with a recognition of these facts by white women. Similarly, McFadden challenges the African women's movement on its inertia and unwillingness to speak out on the notion of forced heterosexuality in African societies. These are challenges, from which feminist leadership can no longer afford to hide or ignore.
The major challenge for feminist leadership, therefore, is to move from analysing the issues that bring us together (what McFadden refers to as sisterhood), to include those concerns of difference amongst us as women. The feminist movement has an opportunity to provide leadership to the rest of the world on the question of racism and all other diversity. Feminist leadership must draw on the strengths and strategies it developed in the past, and build on them to address these challenges. The template has been set by the principles on which the feminist movement has evolved over the years. It is possible for us to discuss the things that separate us, without losing sight of what brings us together.
My sincere thanks to Pat McFadden for this excellent analysis and presentation.