| Mrinalini
Sinha, Donna Guy and Angela Woollacott (eds.), Feminisms and Internationalism,
Blackwell, Oxford and Malden (MA). 1999. 264 pp.
Let us start with the claim of the book, as printed on the back cover,
and illustrated by a photo of middle-class European and Asian women, some
in Asian costume, many wearing cloche hats, under palm trees, at some conference
in the late-1920s:
Feminisms and Internationalism addresses the theme of the history
of internationalism in feminist theory and praxis. It engages some of the
following topics: the ways in which `internationalism' has been conceived
historically within feminism and women's movements; the nature of and the
historical shifts within `imperial' feminisms; changes in the meaning of
feminist internationalism both preceding and following the end of most
formal empires in the twentieth-century; the challenges to, and the reformulations
of, internationalism within feminism by women of colour and by women from
colonised or formerly colonised countries; the fragmentation of internationalism
in response to a growing emphasis on local over global context of struggle
as well as on a variety of different feminisms instead of a singular feminism;
and the context for the re-emergence of internationalism within feminisms
and women's movements as a result of the new modes of globalisation in
the late twentieth-century.
This is an ambitious agenda. But so is the very title of the book, the
first such of which I am aware. We begin with quite extensive abstracts,
revealing authors with roots in Korea, Latin America, China, India, Iran
and West Africa(?), as well as the more usual North-American and West-European
ones. In addition to the introduction and a set of seven cases (the body
of the book), we are offered a forum, followed by several review essays.
The authors of the seven articles are all new names to me - as are those
of the editors - which is again promising. The forum is led off by a veteran
historian of Latin American feminisms, Asunción Lavrin. The respondents
and reviewers include such well-known names as Leila Rupp, Mary John, Francesca
Miller, V. Spike Peterson and Val Moghadam.
The editorial introduction provides further orientation to the collection.
This is where the back cover blurb comes from. I think, however, we immediately
run into a problem here, because the editors neither define nor discuss
`internationalism'. As a matter of fact, they don't define or discuss `feminisms'
much either. But a useful contemporary understanding of such can nowadays
be assumed (and in any case is much discussed elsewhere in the book). This
is not the case for `internationalism' which, curiously for our pluralist
times, appears here in the singular.
The editors apparently looked for historical (or historians') contributions,
and seem to consider that such provide the necessary basis for further
academic work on the subject. Yet it seems to me that while we have an
increasing body of historical work in this field (see the review articles
and bibliography, as well as that in Waterman 1998: Chapter 6), what we
lack is precisely theory. In the absence of a conceptualisation, a model,
or some organising hypothesis, we are likely to create something in which
the whole is less than the sum of the parts. The editors do argue
for a certain orientation, but this is a general and now commonplace one,
seeking a mean between or beyond an abstract universalism and a particularistic
relativism. They also make much of `defamiliarising' and `decentering'.
But this implies that there exist theories, theorists, schools,
traditions or tendencies which require such. And, unfortunately, the one
classical liberal-feminist historical work worthy of this (Bernard 1987)
is nowhere even referred to!
As a result of the above, the articles and reviews sections seem
to be held together more by reference to the international than
to internationalism. There is, therefore, in this collection much about
feminism and (anti-)imperialism, or international relations, and even development.
The piece on Yemen makes no reference even to the international and actually
belongs to the abundant literature on feminism and nationalism! And even
if the collection is admirably sensitive to westocentrism it is not to
classocentrism. Although labour, socialism and international feminism are
mentioned in the introduction, they seem to be hidden from the following
history. We are dealing here almost exclusively with middle-class feminists
and middle-class women (sometimes aristocratic ones). I find this both
detrimental to the project and somewhat puzzling.
My feeling is that the history of left and popular feminism internationalisms
is likely to provide more lessons for the future than that of the liberal
and middle-class ones. The latter are today abundant: the problem is precisely
making them popular, radically-democratic, egalitarian, and socially-transformatory
(a nice way of redefining `socialism'?). The only explanation I can come
up with for this academic blindspot is the international shift from a social-movement
to a political-institutional feminism, in which primary attention goes
to those who - in the past as in the present - are most politically articulate
and influential, who both read and write feminism…or, possibly, the domination
of feminism (as much else in academia) by discourse analysis, which focuses
on meanings at the expense of doings…?
This does not, of course, mean that the case studies are necessarily
lacking in either historical interest or contemporary political relevance.
Christine Ehrick's chapter on interwar (the European World ones) liberal
feminism in Uruguay has a fine feeling for North-South, South-South and
Argentina-Uruguay contradictions and dynamics, as well as for the class
composition and orientation of her particular movement. My feeling is that
such national/regional conflicts were inevitable in the period of
national-industrial-imperial capitalism. Which does not - as we will immediately
see - mean they will disappear of their own accord during our global-informational
capitalist period.
Ping-Chun Hsiung and Yuk-Lin Renita Wong employ an understanding of
`difference feminism' (my phrase) to identify independent feminist/women's
movement voices in China, which are seeking their own understandings independent
of both Western feminism and the Chinese party/state. Each of the latter
two claims to speak for Chinese women and they are (therefore?) in diametrical
opposition to each other. There is, however, a curiosity here since the
authors associate their Western feminism (which they specify quite distinctly),
with `the confrontational paradigm projected in the NGO model' (ix). In
so far as the Western NGO model, both nationally and internationally, has
been increasingly criticised precisely for its excessive engagement
with the state/interstate (Alvarez 1998), there seems to me a possibility
that this and the Chinese feminist strategy might meet - but at an increasingly
problematic place for the development of a global feminist movement!
Now: most of the earlier-mentioned shortcomings are more than compensated
for in the exchange between Asunción Lavrin (on Latin America),
Leila Rupp (`the Centre'), Mary E. John (India), Shahnaz Rouse (on Islam)
and Jayne O. Ifekwunigwe (on `borderland feminisms'). The 30 or so pages
of discussion do not relate closely to the contents of the book. What they
do is to begin a cross-national/regional/cultural/epistemological dialogue
on women and internationalism that has not previously existed.
Lavrin, who launches the discussion, notes the particularity of
Latin American (LA) feminism in successive periods, but she rather emphasises
its specific contribution to the international (beyond LA) than its participation
in such. She also identifies a sharp debates within LA, between what one
might consider an indigenista feminist (one who tends to fetishise
the indigenous, as distinguished from those that variously express it)
and those more open to the international. She also shows a welcome class
sensitivity where she states that:
It has been argued that theory is necessary to feminisms for
opening channels of understanding across national boundaries because theory
has the universal quality that makes feminism international…Yet, the dilemma
of how to make theories accessible to women without formal education becomes
more puzzling the more sophisticated the theories become…Perhaps the most
important task of international feminism is to find that ample theoretical
framework capable of embracing the largest number of female experiences.
(186. Original emphasis)
This is, again, an important reflection on international feminism but not
on feminist internationalism. And although she echoes the common Northern
feminist admiration of the achievements of the LA and Caribbean feminist
encuentros, she seems to have missed the last (hopefully only the
latest) one in Chile, 1996, at which long-invisible or hidden tensions
exploded in not only a disruptive but also a destructive manner.
Leila Rupp has recently published a book on three or four major international
19th-20th century organisations of what she herself
calls `elite, older, Christian women of European origin' (190). Although
she might seem to be there reproducing the limitations of the collection
under consideration, her ideas on how to approach/understand feminist internationalism
are actually much broader. She argues for looking at this less in ideological
terms than in those of the senses and levels of collective self-identity:
e.g. organisational, movement and gender ones. In such terms, she suggests,
what is important about the conflict Lavrin mentions is less the ideological
difference than the fact that they are talking to each other about it.
If her first remarks suggests an interesting research methodology or project,
The second might be taken as suggesting the increasing centrality of communicational
form to a contemporary internationalism. Rupp concludes on the necessity
for looking at feminisms and internationalism (singular again!) from national,
comparative and international locations. Then, in a wisely iffy sentence,
she argues
optimistically for the promise of global feminisms. If nationalism
and internationalism do not have to act as polar opposites; if we can conceptualise
feminisms broadly enough to encompass a vast array of local variations
displaying multiple identities; if we work to dismantle the barriers to
participation in national and international women's movements; if we build
on the basic common denominators of women's relationship to production
and reproduction, however multifaceted in practice; then we can envisage
truly global feminisms that can, in truth, change the world (194).
Mary E. John, from India begins by recognising South Asian feminist
ignorance of Latin America (an ignorance which, I can assure her, is blankly,
cheerfully or shamefacedly reciprocated). She therefore begins by informing
Lavrin, or Latin America - or in any case us - of the history of Indian
feminisms. She continues with a challenging reflection on the manner in
which globalisation has undermined simple and traditional meanings and
oppositions between the `local' and the `global', given the extent to which
globalisation, even in its early colonial manifestation, helped create
the contemporary `local' manifestations of Hinduism and caste. She then
addresses the problematic concepts of `pluralism' and `diversity', emphasising
(Thank Goddess!) what I earlier suggested, that `If feminism is not singular,
neither is internationalism' (199). She continues with examples of existing
or possible internationalisms rooted in the subcontinent. And ends, again
optimistically, on the possibility and necessity of
more egalitarian and dialogic Western collaborations, new perspectives
on the South Asian region and the Indian diaspora, and attempts to rethink
South-South relations. (202)
Shahnaz Rouse's interrogation of religious difference from what one might
call the-point-of-view-of-internationalism has a particularly sharp cutting
edge. She continues the line traced by Leila Rupp, criticising the academic
shift: 1) from a materialist to `a right of centre, culturalist, even a
"civilisational" focus', b) to a kind of `"orientalism in reverse", and
c) an ontology of difference, and a new "exclusiveness"' (206). This is
fighting talk, informed by a spirit of cosmopolitanism, egalitarianism
and solidarity (i.e. internationalism). But if she may here be criticising
her academic or ethnic sisters, she cuts equally radically into a classist
feminism. Echoing, again, earlier forum contributions, she argues for a
retreat (an advance surely?) from the politics of difference, whether religious
or secular, to a politics of experience:
What is called for is a return to the `everyday as problematic'…The
starting point here is not discourse but experience, fraught as that notion
may be, and implicated as it is, in representation itself (in the dual
sense, figurative and literal)…Rather than posing cultural authenticity
in reified, de-historicised ways, we need to examine how capitalism creates
difference in seemingly totalising ways but which if examined more closely
reveal the close link between existing differences and power relations:
secular and religious discourses themselves being two of these. (208)
Capitalism. Now that is a word, and world, which I would have thought
highly relevant to a discussion about the past, present and future of feminism
and internationalism! I may be revealing my own particular particularism
if I admit that I have, here, no major objection to it being referred to
in the singular. I would only suggest two directions in which it might
be usefully specified if studies of women and internationalism are to be
furthered. The first, already implied, is in terms of its historical phases,
particularly the threats, promises and seductions of its contemporary globalised
form. The second, hardly mentioned, never theorised and barely strategised
is that of money - simultaneously the most abstract and concrete
manifestation of capitalism. This is something which, apparently, the women
internationalists - handing it out or receiving it - still consider it
difficult to talk about, whether in mixed company or in public. While their
grandmothers, in the cloche hats, might have considered this simply bad
taste, the granddaughters presumably see it as a discourse of vulgar materialism.
Introducing the everyday into the analysis, theorisation and strategising
of feminist internationalism may be more difficult than our last author
imagines.
References
Alvarez, Sonia. 1998. `Latin American Feminisms "Go Global": Trends
of the 1990s and Challenges for the New Millenium', in Alvarez, Sonia,
Evelina Dagnino, and Arturo Escobar (eds.), Cultures of Politics/Politics
of Cultures: Revisioning Latin-American Social Movements. Boulder:
Westview. Pp. 293-324.
Bernard, Jessie. 1987. The Female World from a Global Perspective.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 287 pp.
Waterman, Peter. 1998. `Beyond Internationalism: Women, Feminism and
the New Global Solidarity', in Globalisation, Social Movements and the
New Internationalisms. London: Mansell. Pp. 153-97.
[Peter
Waterman, who retired from the Institute of Social Studies, The Hague,
in 1998, is author of Globalization, Social Movements and the New Internationalisms
(Mansell, London and New York, 1998) and co-editor of Labor Worldwide
in the Era of Globalization: Alternatives for Unions in the New World Order
(Macmillan, London and St Martin's New York, 1999). |
