Power and South Africa’s social movements in the era of globalization
Changes in the status of women are key features of globalization. Some analysts have even concluded that globalization is, in part, feminization. ‘The feminization of what?’ is the question. We are not going to try to answer this question here. Rather, we want to open discussion on how stories about women and globalization relate to the world of activism. What functions do these stories perform for the left? How do they constitute social movements and mask that civil society is not an ideal space; that inequities are often reproduced there?
The question of whether the changes associated with globalization have been aggregately positive or negative for women tends to be one around which activist and civil society politics is mobilized – and key assertions about where our global society is going and how it wants to get there are framed.
Digital divide notwithstanding, hours of web searching every possible combination of key words for ‘women and globalization’ essentially *revealed* that little to no progress of any meaningful kind has occurred over the last 100 years, and that women as a whole remain overwhelmingly powerless, voiceless and victims. The trade in colors, with the image of black and brown women as the “face of poverty”, is particularly robust.
But, can we trust these stories completely? The way power is organized tends to allow –even encourage - relatively well-resourced and socially privileged spokespersons (men and women of various colours) to use popular discourses about the affects of globalization on women. Discourses do things; they have effects. Or, more strongly, people say things in order to achieve things. They offer excuses, assign blame, win support, seize the moment, cast themselves in a particular light, and so on.
Women in the social movements in post-apartheid South Africa provide testimony to the fact that whilst they may form the mass base of the movement they most certainly are not well represented among the leadership ranks. The movements have garnered the support of thousands of poor black women and have through their political action challenged the state’s provision of basic services to the household and raised consciousness around the plight of poor women. Yet within the movements, a male, top heavy leadership speaks on behalf of thousands of poor black women while the added burden of moving much needed gender reform forward is one that falls primarily to women – often finding an uneven, even cold reception from leaderships accustomed to defining gender equality as secondary to class and race struggles.
That inequities are reproduced in civil society – from local to global - raises questions about a left that trades on taking up the plight of women, a left that looks to women’s experiences to legitimize movements, organizations – even activist careers. Commander Esther, Zapatista Army of National Liberation, highlights the contradictions:
“[A]s women, the rich man tries to humiliate us, but also the man who is not rich, who is poor like our husbands, our brothers, our fathers, our sons, our companions in the struggle, and those who work with us and are organized with us. So we say clearly that when women demand respect, we demand it not only from the neoliberals, but also from those who struggle against neoliberalism and say they are revolutionaries but in the home are like Bush.”
In South Africa, the social movements have traditionally been perceived to be the place where poor, black women coagulate to regain their self-respect, their dignity, their strength as a collective and their identity as women. However, this safe space of the movement continues to displace value and repeatedly uses the same oppressive forms of structure and organising. Thus, when women gain it may be merely as a component of other geometries of power, such as unions or civil society organizations - whose decision-making processes and well paid positions are overwhelmingly occupied by men. Some predict that if this were to continue then women will be compelled to reconstitute themselves as a group identity of women that will supplant class interest as the chief medium of political mobilization.
Still, not much is done within social movements to empower women to participate more effectively, so that they can be their own voices and be their own faces and agents of their own experience. For example, often the male leadership simultaneously co-opt women’s powerfully articulated demands for better municipal services while conceiving of and scripting women’s organizational roles as merely supportive. The commitment from the male leadership to the transformation of gender relations appears strategic and limited. As a result, women in the movements are feeling a greater sense of isolation and that their particular issues and their identities as women are being ignored. Ten years on now from the end of apartheid and there is a growing sense that women’s development in the movement - other than what they are able to achieve as individuals – has stalled.
If women consistently fail to escape the everyday indignities of discrimination in social movements, that those movements might unravel under the weight of their contradictions, is not surprising. Among the members of the now frayed and fragmented Concerned Citizen’s Forum [CCF], for example, it was a commonly held perception that, while women are at the forefront of the struggle and many occupy leadership positions in their local branches, there was no development of women in the CCF - other than what they are able to achieve as individuals - and there existed few mechanisms in the social movements leadership structure to encourage active participation of women. Similarly, to date in trade unions, the democratic rights that have been achieved by the unions for women members in the workplace are not paralleled by democratic rights for women within the unions. More insidiously, however, the values and beliefs encountered within the union structures have been of women as inherently subservient, whose issues carried less weight than those of the broader working class struggles.
Cutting into the question of women and the left where we have seems to suggest that one route out of the impass might be to play closer attention to what women can and have achieved (in terms of extracting themselves from their particular experience with a tangle of patriarchal norms and institutions) through acts of individual creativity and innovation. For example, a breaking down and breaking out – moving beyond what seems structurally or organizationally possible within existing hierarchical parameters – has long been the innovative strategy of black women – and a mode of power of the so-called ‘powerless’ more generally. Since their demands have perpetually been left out by feminist movements and movements for racial liberation, it is often individual creativity that has brought about the actual gains that translate into bargaining power and leverage in movements.
In this light, while there is little point to romanticizing the ruptures and border zones of the globalizing world, some analysts point to not yet well understood informal temporary zones and multi-centric functional networks nested within sprawling “scapes” where important social resistance and renewal takes place. That is, beyond totalizing rhetorics and hardened organizational hierarchies of the left there is an array of women’s insurgencies taking place. The widest array of which may be, to borrow Castell’s language, “practical feminists” (2000b: 200).
“Aren’t the struggles and organizations of women throughout the world, for their families (meaning mainly their children), their lives, their work, their shelter, their health, their dignity, feminism in practice…Under different forms, and through different paths, feminism dilutes the patriarchal dichotomy of man/woman as it manifests itself in social institutions and in social practice. So doing, feminism constructs not one but many identities, each one of which, by their autonomous existence, seizes micropowers in the world wide web of life experiences.”
Authors like Saskia Sassen have noted that in the global cities “[t]here is a large literature showing that immigrant women's regular wage work and improved access to other public realms has an impact on their gender relations: Women gain greater personal autonomy and independence while men lose ground.” It may be that we like our stories of women having new freedoms, of gaining ground, to be less messy. We have been trained to see as primary her exploitation in the capitalist labour market. But what if we change the lens from capitalism to patriarchy? And what if we set that picture afloat within a global left that doesn’t value women any more than capitalism does?
The organized left’s skepticism about women’s agency and what can be achieved without being organized tends to operate to script the work of ‘the struggle’ in service of ‘the revolution’ as nobler, more important, more immediately pressing. But the promise that women’s everyday lived indignities will simply evaporate once race and class issues are addressed relies on futurology as vague and discredited as Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Capitalism seems to trade on patriarchy, but so can the left.
We are skeptical about global discourses and politicized terrains that remain dominated by debates that frame women’s autonomy as something won on behalf of women. It renders invisible much of the day-to-day innovation and activity that individual women leverage to incrementally reinvent daily life. More insidiously it co-opts and confiscates the gains made by women in the everyday, attributing it to activists, organized civil society organizations and international development agencies, many of which primarily serve the interests of a narrow band of elite often organized along principles where men are able to move through the ranks leaving the bulk of women behind as shadow workers.
Many of the women who belong to social movements in South Africa often don’t restrict themselves to the work of the organization. Women in the Anti-Eviction Campaign in the Western Cape pointed out that it is not only evictions that they are concerned with. They work in their communities around issues of HIV, poverty, rape, drug-abuse, accessing social grants, teenage pregnancies and access to education for their children. Yet this work is not considered as a form of activism that is altering the political landscape. Rather “strategic” interests of the left are perceived as a more evolved and informed type of activism (where most of the men congregate around) and set in opposition to “practical” issues like daily survival.
With the specter of revolution denied looming intimidating, women are called to justify and rationalize the authenticity of their interests - to stop pursuing those interests and be drawn into the diversionary web of defending them. In her seminal 1985 article Spivak asked the question “Can the Subaltern Speak?” The point was not that movements for social change can somehow ‘get it right next time’ when they speak on behalf of those who have little voice in existing architectures of power. Rather, she wanted to know when and under what conditions will the subaltern speak for themselves?
As Poet Sujata Bhatt has said:
I am Indian, very brown, born in
Malabar, I speak three languages, write in
Two, dream in one. Don't write in English, they said,
English is not your mother tongue. Why not leave
Me alone, critics, friends, visiting cousins,
Every one of you? Why not let me speak in any language I like?...
* Saranel Benjamin and J. Zoë Wilson are with the Centre for Civil Society, University of KwaZulu Natal, South Africa, and Institute for Research and Innovation in Sustainability, York University, Canada. The authors would like to thank Amanda Alexander, Raj Patel and Richard Pithouse for their valuable comments. All errors remain the responsibility of the authors exclusively.
**NOTE TO READERS: the authors would like to invite people everywhere to send their experiences with gender equity in social movements to: [email][email protected] and [email][email protected] Accounts will be compiled, verified and made available to all respondents. Please note if you wish to remain anonymous.
* Please send comments to [email protected]
References
Benjamin, S ‘ “We are not Indians! We are the Poors!” : Investigating Race Class and Gender in Social Movements’ Development Update, Vol 5 No. 2, 2004.
Castells, M. . The Power of Identity. Great Britain: Blackwell Publishers, 2000.
Spivak. G. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” In Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory: A Reader, pp. 66-111, Patrick Williams and Laura Chrisman, eds. Hemel Hempstead & New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993. (First printing 1988)