Global Feminism, Plural Leadership
http://alainet.org/publica/femlead/en/

Feminist Leadership And Diversity

Introduction

The political development of feminism is acknowledged for its close connection with diversity. Yet the issues posed by the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, point to the urgency of delving more deeply into the interconnections between gender relations and discriminatory and exclusive realities, as they are expressed in the context of globalization.

This implies not only making visible the diverse contexts in which feminist proposals develop, but also taking into account the multiplicity of perspectives and priorities inherent to each of the interrelations between gender, class, ethnicity, geopolitical location, individual choices and others, which configure women's realities.

This also includes the analysis of differences, related to the historical structural gap, of visibility and representation in global feminist leadership. Their manifestations include not only the limited participation of women from discriminated ethnic groups, but also the scant legitimacy attributed to the discourses, cosmologies and forms of expression of relegated cultures.

In that sense, the production of feminist approaches to diversity invites us to put diversity into practice, conceived as a space where all singularities may interact, under equal conditions, and outline proposals that integrate such singularities, in discourse and actions in general.

Debates on the women's agenda for Durban

Sunila Abeysekara

Our discussion on feminist leadership and diversity takes place in the context of the preparations for the World Conference against Racism (WCAR), to be held in Durban South Africa, in August/September 2001. The interventions we may make through our discussion will hopefully help to clarify some of the debates and divisions that have already moved onto the women's agenda for Durban.

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD, 1969) defines discrimination as "distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin", and is gender-blind. To rectify this, in 2000, the ICERD Committee expounded a General Recommendation (No. 25) on Gender-Related Dimensions of Racial Discrimination which clearly states: "Racial discrimination does not always affect women and men equally or in the same way." (Para.1). As part of the preparatory process, the Division for the Advancement of Women organised an expert group meeting on Gender and Race in Croatia, for which a background paper was prepared by Dr. Kimberley Crenshaw on the inter-sectionality of race and gender. Thus, the discussion around gender and race at the WCAR has focused on the issue of inter-sectionality, of the cross-connections between sex/gender and all other forms of identity which make women especially vulnerable to some forms of discrimination and abuse.

In feminist circles the discussion about inter-sectionality is fairly old. Black feminists and feminists of colour in the US and Canada, such as Angela Davis and bell hooks, raised the cross-cutting nature of class, sex and race as they challenged the domination of the women's movement of the 1970s by white middle-class women. In the UK and in Europe, socialist feminists theorised on the links between racism, sexism and class privilege in their work on women and work, including the domestic/family economy and housework. In more recent years, Carole Pateman has written on the ways in which the liberal democratic social contract between citizen and state was in fact a "sexual" contract. The debate has been further enriched by many diverse interventions on concepts of multiple and shifting identities and diversities. In this brief note, I want to focus on the ways in which ethnicity has played a role in constructing women's identities and share some thoughts on how as feminists, we can try to understand this within the framework of diversity.

Ethnicity is recognised in ICERD as one basis of differentiation among peoples. In the past few years, the horror of ethnic divisions has been amply manifest throughout the world, in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, Indonesia and Sri Lanka, to name but a few of the more obvious cases.

Ethnic difference is not so much based on physical appearance, since there may be several different ethnic groups within one racial category, but rather on similarities of cultural and social practice. People of diverse ethnic origins most often look alike except to the most discerning observer who takes "ethnic markers" such as a particular form of dress or adornment, language use or food habits into consideration. In times of social, political or economic crisis, ethnicity becomes a critical factor in determining access to power and resources. Denial of such access, (e.g. the Tamils in Sri Lanka, Chinese in Indonesia), or, suppression on the basis of difference lead to the emergence of tensions based on ethnicity in any society.

It is in situations where ethnic divisions are emerging that women and their role in the community become critical in terms of the community's identity. On the one hand women are perceived to be the "bearers" of the community's "honour" and must therefore behave in a way that affirms them as members of that community. This often means retreating to traditional forms of dress and behaviour, even in communities which had abandoned these forms in previous years. The return of the "hijab" (head cover) among young Muslim women can be presented as a perhaps extreme example. It also means a resurrection of stereotypes of women from traditional folklore and myths linked to the community; most often these women are identified by the virtues of self-sacrifice and dignity in the face of adversity. Sita from the Ramayan story is one such figure. These figures begin to re-appear in both traditional and modern guise in songs, stories and television serials and create a role model for women. There are often also exhortations to women to "reproduce the genus", so that the community may be numerically strengthened. This places many restrictions of women's rights to choose regarding her reproductive and sexual life.

In addition, in such situations, women are told that since the ethnic divide is the most critical one of the moment, they should refrain from raising issues which would divide the community from within. Thus, issues such as domestic violence, incest and denial of equal rights to women in traditional law are perceived as "divisive"; women who raise these issues are labelled as "traitors" or agents of "alien" interests. The fact that women are perceived as "bearers of the community honour" restricts their mobility and choice of partner. It also makes them vulnerable to all forms of violence and abuse at the hands of the "other" community. This is why the rape and sexual violation of women has been a strategy of war through the ages.

At the same time, the extreme manifestation of identity-based politics lead women to join the ranks of fighters on all sides of the conflict. They bear arms, and, as in the Sri Lankan case, earn a reputation for being fearless. Some feminist commentators have queried whether the spirit of self-sacrifice that is propagated through traditional and custom are perhaps reflected in the drive towards becoming "suicide killers". As ethnic divisions heighten, these divisions are reflected within the communities and lead to tensions between the communities at the level of civil society as well. Sometimes these tensions are expressed in brutal ways, with "ethnic cleansing" being perhaps the worst example. In these situations, women are victimised but are themselves perpetrators of violence against women of "othered" communities.

Thus, women who belong to communities for whom ethnicity is the defining factor in self-identification find themselves torn between different loyalties - to their community and to the community of women. They cannot raise issues that are significant for women or that seem to call for equality within the community since this is often perceived as being contrary to the interests of the community. They cannot also easily maintain links with women outside the community because these women may more often than not belong to the "other" community and are therefore perceived as hostile. This places restraints on their ability to take collective action as women and places them at times in opposition to "other" women. In such a moment, unless there is critical understanding of the complexities of the situation, the divisions that are created can destroy a collectivity that have been nurtured over years of activism.

There are several extremely significant women's groups across the world that have maintained links across ethnic divides at moments of conflict and crisis and that have emerged as strong voices for peace and for an end to conflict not only in their own communities but in the world. Among these are the Women in Black initiatives in Israel/Palestine and in the former Yugoslavia.

Some critical issues that have emerged for us as feminist activists from examining these experiences have been:

1. the need to respect women's need to affirm their identity as a member of a community;

2. the acceptance that criticism of a community that feels "under siege" best comes from within that community itself, with support from outside when requested;

3. the need to continue engaging in a dialogue about denial of equality to women in tradition, custom and religious practices with women from communities where such denial takes place;

4. the need to develop a feminist understanding of violence against women as a continuum of patriarchal domination, and to see the links between militarisation at the state level and spousal abuse at the level of the family;

5. the need to promote non-violent forms of conflict resolution at every level of society.

The challenge of working with and across ethnic diversity for peace, and for reconciliation, is a long and hard task. At times it seems as if there are more factors that divide us and promote hostility among us than there are factors that unite us and that provide the basis for collective action. Yet, it is clear that we can move forward in situations of conflict based on ethnic divisions only by working with the differences and diversities, not by denying them.

The old slogan of "Unity in Diversity" now seems to smack of assimilationism. We should rather affirm "Diversity for Unity" in the understanding that our differences enrich rather than diminish our activism and collective spirit. When communities are at war with one another, this is sometimes a difficult goal to pin our hopes on. Yet, in the end, I think feminism has taught us the concept of identity as a constantly shifting and multi-faceted phenomenon. Therefore we can, in the abstract, imagine ways and means of coming through such conflicts, hanging on to our integrity as women while at the same time not denying ourselves the joy of belonging to our community. It need not be an either/or scenario. How to transform this abstract idea into reality, how to maintain friendships and express affection for one another while our communities are at war with one another, how to link our understanding of what it means to be a woman one either side of the ethnic divide -- these are key issues of leadership that we must focus on in our discussion.

Racism, sexism and classism

Phumzile Mtewa

The upcoming UN World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (WCAR) recognises that the issues to be addressed by this conference are inter-linked. Racism, xenophobia and intolerance did not emerge by themselves and include different contents in each context, for diverse people.

The inter-relationship between racism and xenophobia; racism and intolerance; intolerance and xenophobia pertain to distinct forms of expression of domination and privilege in each context; the common denominators being colonial heritage and hierarchical structures; their expressions being found in culture, in economic and social relationships in political spaces and others.

The articulation of these diverse expressions in the context of globalisation arouses multiple tensions, especially those related to diverse forms of intolerance, expressed in the non-acceptance of different cultures, beliefs, spirituality, sexual orientation, abilities, and others. The most clear expression of this intolerance can be seen in the actual "justifications" for war as "ethnic" conflicts or religious differences, as well as the justification for urban violence which are sustained in homophobia, sexism, racism, classism and others.

The historical and current reference to the figure of empowered high class, white male, continues to appear as a model for each individual around the world to aspire to. This act is an ideological imposition, particularly, for Southern women (and men), where one of the consequences has been the prohibition for women to empower themselves based on their own cultural determination and interpretations. But it also acts as negative mirror for every one who does not correspond to this referent: black and indigenous women, lesbians, gay, bisexual, transgendered people (LGBT); young and older people; people with disabilities; poor, excluded, and others.

In several contexts, acting against this imposition often not only results in physical, psychological and emotional punishment, but also means not having or being denied access to essential public services, denied participation at key discussions on issues, including those affecting personal life, and indeed can even lead to not being regarded as human.

Women affected by multiple forms of discrimination are witnesses to the consequences of atrocities, exclusion, discrimination and complete disregard for our true being/identity. It is thus vital that as feminist leaders we advocate for the adoption of proposals/actions necessary to guarantee the full respect, substantive equality, and freedom of all women and that this calling itself becomes a state of emergency.

In this context, it is submitted that the promotion of a culture of diversity emerges as the only alternative to change the current situation, that the respect for this culture can guarantee its sustenance. But, what does this mean in reality? How would it be guaranteed? What is the particular role of feminist leaders in this process?

But, why is the promotion of diversity submitted as the only alternative?

"Diversity is understood as an intrinsic human characteristic of societies and cultures, which also includes sexual identity, life or activity of all persons. These matters, guarded by specific human rights, cannot be subject to the imposition of models, to intolerance or to the denial of freedom and respect".¹

The recognition that women experience discrimination and exclusion because they are bearers of multiple identities, implies not only naming those identities but also understanding the local, regional and global dynamics, as key elements to promote and then ensure the sustenance of a culture of diversity.

In the late 1990s, some States adopted some inclusive policies towards the acknowledgement of diversity.² Even so, in a contradictory way, different forms of exclusion, mainly on socio-economic and cultural issues are increasing. Moreover, in some "traditional" contexts, where the maintenance of local cultures are associated with conforming to the maintenance of male power, various forms of discrimination have been exacerbated.

In our preparations and from our expectations of the WCAR, we have to emerge with dynamic proposals related to the inter-relation of racial discrimination to class/socio-economic background, gender, sexual diversity, age, disabilities, and so on. The inter-linkages of these issues have to be viewed in the context of the marginalization of the Southern countries in the globalisation process.

These proposals have to recognise that racism is an expression of a whole complex of institutional arrangements, power relations, and access to resources in society, as well as that racist attitudes, ideas, actions and movements are developed in a class-based society.

The social being of capitalist inequalities largely perpetuate racist consciousness. Because of this, the majority of women world-wide belong to the working and poor classes, and thus are always excluded from accessing positions and services because of their race and ethnic group, among other factors.

"Tradition and customs" has been used³ to justify the disregard and devaluation of the lives of lesbians [and gay, bisexual or transgendered people's (LGBTs)]. Where this has been verbally articulated, it has been coupled with racist and xenophobic statements such as LGBT life is "an imposition by the Western cultures on the South..."

In talking about diversity, a movement of note may yet be the LGBT movement, where different interests, political ideas, classes, ages, sexes, and other diversities have existed for years in a consolidated movement. By no means, however, can one disregard the "white male dominance" even in that movement. Also, within the feminist movement, issues of sexuality or sexual diversity are still sticky points and continue to be marginalised.

Lesbians, as women, are affected by factors mentioned above that affect women. The deepening of consequences is evident when they bear other identities that are often subjected to discrimination and exclusion. It would be an injustice if any one identity was to be divorced from the others simply because compliance required it. Therefore, in the creation, promotion and sustenance of a culture of diversity, upholding complete citizenship of lesbian identities and lives is a requirement.

Indeed, in priorities in South/North agendas and relations - whether they include discussions on structural adjustment policies, the environment, debt relief, nuclear testing, AIDS, migration and trafficking, drug trials without informed consent and recourse for patients, poverty, etc. - diversity becomes the centre if solutions are to be engaged.

In the context of the AIDS pandemic, for example, which has struck under-developed and poor countries with greater force, with women as largest hit, the actions and responses are questionable. At the only UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) ever held on HIV/AIDS (June 2001), women's scarce presence and participation from these highly affected countries, coupled with the fact that States were logged in debate over the inclusion or exclusion of the most vulnerable group to the epidemic and gearing services specifically targeting them, itself is a sign of how exclusion and disregard for diversity can cause even greater pandemics.

In every issue mentioned above, the active consultation, participation and commitment of young women and girl children in the formulation of these proposals and in their implementation is important. The disregard of the role young people can play, particularly if they represent a class, race, and sexuality that is divorced from the "acceptable practice", undermines all efforts of creating a culture of diversity. It becomes crucial as well, that we do not view young people's roles as merely "taking orders" but as key players in the sustenance of a culture of diversity.

Belief and cultural practices must never be allowed to impede the progress already made in the human rights framework of recognising diversity. Therefore, confirming our commitment to building, and indeed strengthening, a culture where diversity is not seen as a threat requires much more than confirmation that it exists.

Forms of exclusion are embedded in ableism, racism, heterosexism, sexism, classism, lookism, and ageism, among others. In the above few examples representing diverse identities, one cannot help to think that one of the key strategies necessary for the articulation of our concerns, is indeed, the importance of creating space for "cultural" transitions and changing images that always portray victims of discrimination instead of enhancing the valuation of rights and the construction of citizenship.

In essence, investing in guaranteeing substantive equality, eliminating inequalities, in development of economies, the improvement of the quality of life for the majority of women will contribute immensely to the elimination of classism, sexism and racism in our societies and ensure diversity is respected.

The recognition of Citizenship, as a key right and one that can guarantee participation is crucial to be upheld. Confirming diversity should never be a rhetoric subject. It is not about making tokenist nominations, finding and identifying every form of discrimination, or sitting around a representative table. The confirmation of diversity relates to a possibility of concrete action to end the different forms of structural exclusions and discriminatory practices.

Comments

L. Muthoni Wanyeki

Discussion among feminists involved in this year's World Conference Against Racism have, as both Sunila Abeysekara and Phumi Mtetwa, focused on intersectionality as a means of better documenting, understanding and addressing women's experiences of racism. These experiences differ. The racism we undergo is compounded by the fact that we are women, that we come from different class backgrounds, that we have different abilities, that we have different sexual orientations, that we are located in different regions of the global political-economy and that we have different histories to overcome in relation to the global political economy.

As Abeysekara points out, debate on intersectionality among feminists is not new. And besides the academics, activists and writers she mentions, there is also a growing body of work by women from the underdeveloped south attempting to address the complexity of our multiple and shifting identities.

What is new about the discussion on intersectionality for this WCAR then?

Mtetwa views the denial and suppression of difference(s) in the context of our patriarchal, capitalist and colonial heritage. And both Abeysekara and Mtetwa spell out what this denial and suppression of difference(s) has meant to women who identify both as women and with a difference (ethnic or sexual) that is under threat.

For feminists, particularly feminists from the underdeveloped south, what may be new are the increasing examples of women who organise collectively (and successfully) despite the torn loyalties that Abeysekara notes results from this multiple identification. In Somalia, for example, 25 women last year became members of the transitional government. They gained access to the negotiating conference, planned initially to include only representatives of the five clans of Somalia, on the basis that women collectively formed the sixth clan of Somalia.

What also may be new, underlying the successful collective organising mentioned above, is a different engagement, as feminists, with custom, religion and tradition. Abeysekara points out the need to continue the dialogue on custom, religion and tradition. Mtetwa goes further to note the necessity of creating space for cultural (and religious) transition. We have moved beyond easy and simple condemnations of culture and religion. And we have moved beyond angry and reflexive defences of culture and religion. Because, as Abeysekara points out, we are learning how to facilitate critique from feminists from within. And feminists from within are increasingly (re)-claiming the right to document, interpret and proclaim customary and religious law and practice for ourselves.

But as Mtetwa points out, seeking to revise law and policy on the basis of these new interpretations is not enough. And no feminist discussion and engagement (or lack thereof) of difference exemplifies this more clearly than those around sexuality, as Mtetwa points out. Abeysekara notes the need to understand and address public conflict, militarisation and war as a natural continuum from private violence against women, enabled by women's status within typical heterosexual nuclear and extended family models. How many feminists, especially within the underdeveloped south, really have the capacity to challenge and transform (or step outside of) these models without paying great personal, family and social prices? As Mtetwa points out, expanding our understanding of and advocacy for citizenship rights for women in this private context need to be critically and urgently addressed.

Finally, we need to clearly understand what we want from the WCAR at different levels. Among ourselves, as tensions which have emerged between women from the overdeveloped north and the underdeveloped south during preparations for the WCAR have again revealed, we may be getting better on content (as outlined above) but we still need to work on process. As Mtetwa notes, process cannot be reduced to having all the signifiers of difference around a table. How do we turn the new insights from content into our practice as feminists?

This is necessary because, apart from the demands that we want states to accept and measures that we want them to adopt, intersectionality is also about how the UN human rights mechanisms monitor, document and address the human rights violations experienced by women. The WCAR is about developing our human rights practice. And, as with all things, we need to begin with ourselves.

Carol Añonuevo

Rather than elaborate on the points raised by Sunila and Phumi, I would like to focus attention on the implications of the analyses they have put forward. Given my background, I would like to limit my comments to two points: first, diversity and its implications for feminist leadership and second, the implications for educational strategies.

Given the specific social and historical contexts feminists have emerged from, it cannot be taken for granted that feminists will have a common understanding of the notion of diversity. Our diverse understandings of diversity have to be articulated and debated so that we can slowly understand where we are coming from every time we speak about diversity. The two articles clearly present the range of diversities we have to take into consideration - from ethnicity to sexual orientation, from racial differences to ability. The challenge for us is two-fold: to understand how these diversities operate to exclude in different contexts and based on this, to articulate strategies on how to engender a culture of diversity.

Concretely for example, we can interrogate how our leadership practices are informed by our understanding of the diversities at play. How do we use our power as leaders to focus on the need to work on the issue of diversity, knowing too well, that it is acceptable for many of our constituents to use difference to exclude? What does it mean to practice inclusive feminist leadership?

This brings me to the second point on educational strategies. Two concepts need to be unpacked in our understanding of and practice of diversity. To help us practice inclusive feminist leadership, POWER and IDENTITY need to be understood. In the formation and training of feminist leaders, it is critical that women are provided with the analytical tools to look at the range of the practices of power and to appreciate both the exclusive and inclusive possibilities of power. Likewise, women need to confront the idea of the constantly shifting and multifaceted nature of identity and how this is related to our own practice of feminist leadership.

POWER, IDENTITY and DIVERSTY are big ideas that in the end have to be unpacked so that we can move towards transformational practices.

Phumzile Mtetwa

The importance and uniqueness of the WCAR cannot be overly emphasized. It has visibilized the diverse perspectives, albeit not always free of tensions, that women have expressed throughout the preparatory process, among them those of women from the South, discriminated ethnic groups, and other so-called minority groups, who are claiming their own spaces to analyze their specific priorities.

The contributions made on "Feminist Leadership and Diversity", in the framework of this Conference, raise further questions that are essential for feminist leaders particularly, to address. These include, the much needed discussions and debate on what exactly "diversity" for each of us means and represents in each context and in the elaboration of global proposals. As Carol says, it also relates to exactly how it can be put into action by feminist leaders, (in practicing inclusive feminist leadership) and indeed by all leaders.

In this process, to what extent can we see collective organizing moving beyond mere "rubber-stamping" but to 'in practice commitment' to the issue(s) in question. And yes, what would 'in practice commitment' entail in the context of building a culture that respects diversities and recognizes that within diversities there exist different, and sometimes even contradictory, views.

In our practices and in the articulation of our proposals, we further have to ask whether in practicing "inclusive feminism" or indeed in our "collective organizing" the respect of a space created by feminists to articulate specific issues pertinent to them, would be upheld. The autonomy of each organizational initiative is as important as the collective construction. At the same time, it is vital to strengthen diverse forms of leadership and their intervention based on their own agendas at every step.

Working together, particular in the process of the WCAR, also calls into question what our proposals as women and as feminists are when we see the "ethnic violence" in the Middle East, for example. Knowing what our respective governments' roles are in the situation, what proposals are we bringing to the (WCAR) tables that will be reflective of respect for diversity? World peace, justice, substantive equality and citizenship for women may yet depend on this alone. The role of feminists in this is vital.

What we want for the conference may yet depend on how we are addressing the critical issues that differentiate us. Working together in the formulation of consensus and priorities will contribute to breaking the trend of feeling threatened by diversity, but instead be enriched by the diversity among feminists leaders.

For me, as a young Black South African activist who emerged from anti-apartheid working class organizing, the articulation of diversity within this space and in the WCAR is a key issue. I have seen the "benefits" of having enumerated grounds/conditions protected from discrimination in areas of governance. So, advocating and lobbying for the inclusion, for example, of diverse grounds in the governments Declaration and Plan of Action instead of generalization, is crucial to visibilize our diversities and ensure full respect of our dignity.

Is there, within the feminist discourse, any justification for exclusion? In this interrogation, we must go beyond what Carol says about our leadership, but also about the presentations of our proposals at key spaces of decision making, bearing in mind the vast diversity in women's lives and concerns. This will help contribute indeed to our understanding of the role of power in this.

Finally, I wish to recapture some aspects from the past. Possibly one of the best contributions by the feminist movement was indeed the introduction of the concept of gender. Today we talk of this concept as though it has always been there. My respect for that advancement also includes hopes that diversity can be recognized and more importantly engendered, as Carol puts it, and not become a rhetoric concept mentioned by Statesmen and women, but not or rarely recognized or applied. This desire further includes the ability of elder feminists' leaders to integrate the concerns, ideas, opinions of younger women and thus bridge the gaps (educational, geographical) existing among feminists leaders.

I certainly look forward to the WCAR and follow-up activities, particularly how we educate ourselves and articulate diverse proposals for an inclusive era leading towards world peace.

Notes: