Cindy Milstein, at a recent event in Baltimore, described [feminism] in less negative terms. She said that the anarcho-adjectives symbolized not preference, but passion. That’s fine. If you are extra passionate about injustice related to gender oppression, more power to you. But I am not. I may identify more when I hear about the injustices and abuses faced by women, but I am not more passionate about doing something about those injustices than I am about injustices due to race or class or disability or anything else.
I would take it one step further than Cindy Milstein and suggest that "passions" are best informed by people's individual experiences; and, moreover, our circumstances are to a considerable extent not what we "choose."
People can be passionate about wanting to address every conceivable kind of oppression, and identify themselves in these terms; but in practice they will only have the kind of direct experience to speak, or act, in a leadership capacity on a few. As soon as we step out of what we experience on a daily basis and get drawn into circumstances which primarily affect others, we have to defer on some level to how they understand their own experiences.
We've certainly seen how the tendency to preference our own struggles can assume many illegitimate forms. But that doesn't mean it's inappropriate for middle-class white feminists, for example, to be committed to addressing the problems that they know best. It's inappropriate for them to be completely self-consumed; but it's also inappropriate for them to pretend to be something they're not.
In my view, the harmony between anarchism and feminism is implied insofar as anarchism concerns itself with authority, and feminism is aimed at authority in a particular form (that which subjugates women). People will use whatever terms or labels they like; particular women will distinguish their circumstances from others, etc.; but the principle remains the same.
30 comments:
Everybody is fighting for their own kind of power.
How are "most actual anarchists" fighting power, if "most actual feminists" are not? By insisting that it is so, and congratulating themselves in response?
It is to laugh!
"Everybody is fighting for their own kind of power" is really broadly assumptive, no? I'm not fighting for any power. I don't want it. Already, on a single example, your logic seems shaky.
And I can't even begin to know what you mean with this question:
"How are 'most actual anarchists' fighting power, if "most actual feminists" are not?"
Why do you assume harmony on the basis of a single proposed opponent? Did German fascists and German communists exist in harmony just because both wanted to kill the Weimar state? Do irreligious Wall Street Republicans have an exact harmony with Christian zealots, just because they have a common opponent (the welfare state)?
I think there's an argument to be made that feminism, taken to its logical conclusion, implies a kind of anarchism.
Jack, I don't know that it's fair to call mainstream feminists "statists" strictly speaking. Odds are most of them are responding to not only their own experience, but the world as it is presented to them, in which case it has probably never occurred to them, as it has not occurred to most of us, that not seeking control of the state (or "reform" of it for the benefit of women) is an option. Those who have perhaps thought of it in those terms, are likely making the what they conceive to be the best of a bad set of options.
Richard,
Motive doesn't explain consequence. It explains motive. It may qualify consequence, but there is no precise and perfect overlap, so that a person's desire automatically equals his or her outcome.
I don't care if the editors of Ms. magazine are "just responding to their circumstances" and don't realize that they're a bunch of white capitalists. How they act is distinct, when it comes to consequences, from how they see themselves, or better yet, what terms they use to communicate their beliefs.
Sarah Palin is just "responding to her circumstances" too, right? She's still a statist, whether or not she sees herself that way. Her motives don't necessarily overlap with the consequences of acting on them.
Anyway, my point is that seems shaky at best to assume that a common opponent indicates a harmony or unity. It doesn't.
Respect,
Jack
[also - is there a precise, singular and only kind of feminism, that it alone can indicate a tendency towards anarchism? what then of Gloria Steinem's capitalist feminism?]
is there a precise, singular and only kind of feminism, that it alone can indicate a tendency towards anarchism? what then of Gloria Steinem's capitalist feminism?
Jack:
Yes, as Richard implies, I think that could be called a consistent feminism. In other words, a feminism which advocates independence for all women, not just particular women.
I know I've made this argument before and you didn't like it. But I bring it up as a supplement to what I've already said in my post.
I think, Jack, we have to be clear on who we're talking about when we say liberal or mainstream feminists. If we mean those prominent women who do indeed seem to think placing women in positions of power is important, then they are statists. If we're talking about, say, rank-and-file women, who argue in favor of this or that reform measure to be enacted by the state, I don't think they necessarily are statists. (Sarah Palin is a statist, unquestionably: she seeks power and argues for its expansion.) I'm not sure if I'm being clear, but I do think there's a distinction.
And I'd like to echo what JRB has said. I think the work of Maria Mies is useful here.
JRB,
Please don't attribute like or dislike to me. That's lazy, man. Because I question a statement doesn't mean I have an emotional response to it. I constantly challenge those statements and arguments which lack, or seem to lack, a consistent logic, because that's how I try to understand what a person means. By questioning the logical formulations which hold their precepts and concepts together, testing whether or not those applications of logic and grammar actually do bind the concepts, or whether they are in fact clumsy linkages of if/then propositions which only assume a connection that they never demonstrate. That doesn't mean I have an emotional investment in the argument itself.
And if you have an actual argument for "consistent feminism" and how it evolves into anarchism, I'd read it. But I don't see that argument here, now. I see you telling me it exists, in the same way that Richard stated that an argument "could be made" without actually making it.
If there is a consistent feminism, does it include majority liberal capitalist feminism - and how do reconcile this with anarchism? How so you demonstrate the the feminism subsumes the capitalism, on the way to an anarchist waypoint? I'm not asking you to explain to me that you do reconcile it, for what it's worth. I'm asking that you show how you reconcile it. Make the case, please. Show me please how Gloria Steinem's or mainstream liberal capitalist feminism is "in harmony with" or evolving into anarchism. Not in some phantasmagorical mindspace - but how it actually happens.
Thank you,
Jack
Richard,
Do you have resources which show the opinions of "rank-and-file" feminists not mediated through the lens of capitalist feminism? Do you have a methodology for determining what is "rank and file" and what is "mainstream liberal capitalist feminism"?
Because what I continue to discover is that almost every feminist who doesn't qualify or modify the "feminist" with a prefix is in fact a liberal capitalist feminist. The major feminist sites and publications (Shakesville, Jezebel, Tiger Beat Down, Feministe, Ms. Magazine, etc) continuously advocate statist capitalist positions, however liberal or reform minded. Isn't their domination of the discourse, as well as the market, a fairly decent indicator of a mainstream or widely accepted position? Are you implying that these widespread liberal feminist positions are not the norm - that there's is an unseen and hidden majority which you can reference, but cannot corroborate precisely because it is unseen and unmediated? I of course understand that this pervasive rank and file could exist - but that it could exist is distinct from whether or not you can demonstrate it does, and that it actually represents the mainstream, and not the mainstream sites and lthemselves?
*
How also, gentlemen, do you reconcile the punitive, anti-trans, White centered, privileged, status and hierarchy oriented aspects of actual and existing feminism with anarchism, such that the one can somehow evolve into the other?
Thank you, and with gratitude for your patience,
Jack
I'm not going to explain the history of feminism to you in a comment box, Jack. Can what we're talking about be squared with most of liberal capitalist feminism? Hell no. The latter isn't remotely consistent. Liberal capitalism isn't consistent. I'm referring you to Maria Mies (Patriarchy & Accumulation on a World Scale) because its her work that clarified this notion for me (though she doesn't come right out and say "feminism should be anarchist" but the implications are in there).
My reason for chiming in here has more to do with the too easy elision of someone like Gloria Steinem, with ordinary liberal feminists who may only view the state as a practical, present-day, avenue towards reform (wrongly in my mind). That doesn't make them in love with power.
[My comment was written before I saw your most recent comment, Jack]
Jack, I don't read any of that shit, nor do any of the awesome feminist women I know personally, who are not in favor of liberal capitalist solutions. Those sites, those magazines? yeah, those are virtually worthless. I look at blogs here and there (I blame the patriarchy strikes me as a good example), and Z magazine, and you already know about Feral Scholar's focus on gender, and I talk to the women I know and read books by the real thinkers, Mies being one. That probably doesn't help, but it's the best I can do in this space.
Richard,
You stated that an argument could be made. Not the entire history of feminism. If you don't prefer to make the argument, that's certainly okay with me. I'm just asking what the argument actually is. Not what someone else wrote in a book that I should read because you learned something from it.
What's the argument itself?
And - and this is a very important point: "statist" doesn't mean "in love with power."
I'm not asking you to show how some power besotted nitwit becomes an anarchist. I'm asking that you explain the argument that "could be made," the one which demonstrates how an approach to existence which depends upon and openly advocates a punitive state evolves into a stateless one.
Thank you,
Jack
Richard: "Jack, I don't read any of that shit, nor do any of the awesome feminist women I know personally, who are not in favor of liberal capitalist solutions."
That doesn't show me that you or they are actually mainstream, or that the liberal capitalist feminist don't in fact represent the majority feminist position.
If your argument is that there's a consistent and universal feminism, I'm asking you to show me how it's not what certainly appears to be its most common expression.
Thank you,
Jack
Jack, come on. JRB helped define what "consistent" means: "In other words, a feminism which advocates independence for all women, not just particular women."
No, current mainstream "feminism" is not consistent. There are principles that exist, that if followed to a consistent conclusion would implie anarchism. The rest is irrelevant. I've never said I or the people I know are "mainstream".
"If your argument is that there's a consistent and universal feminism, I'm asking you to show me how it's not what certainly appears to be its most common expression."
How, precisely, would I show you that? It can't be done to your satisfaction. I've recommended a book. That's the best you'll get from me, aside from additional books.
The better expressions of radical ideas are almost never mainstream.
Jack:
I don't have unlimited time to field your concerns, which are 1) almost always uniquely your own, and 2) seem to grow exponentially in volume with each attempted response.
If there is an issue or problem that multiple commenters have in understanding what I mean, I am more inclined to try to work it through than if one person just doesn't get it.
Given the limitations on my time and a growing preference for spending less of it in front of a computer, I am perfectly OK if you or anyone else remains unpersuaded, as is your right.
As I say, your perspective is often unique and, in my view, extremely valuable. But I think it might be good to reflect on how your concerns routinely impose themselves on other people's time and energy.
Richard,
I think we're now typing past each other, a point best illustrated by your final sentence:
"The better expressions of radical ideas are almost never mainstream."
I agree wholeheartedly, but it reveals a truth which applies acid to your argument.
I'm not asking about "best" or "ideal." I'm not asking you to make the case the liberal capitalist feminism is the better expression or a consistent feminism. Or that it is a poor expression of a more consistent feminism.
I'm asking you (and JRB) to illustrate your claims that feminism is itself consistent. On the one hand, you state that liberal capitalist feminism is not consistent (and I obviously agree) and on the other hand argue that a better, more consistent feminism can evolve into anarchism. I don't have any argument with those claims. But I'm not questioning those claims all on their own. I'm questioning those claims in relation to actually existing liberal capitalist feminism, not to the best possible expression of a radical feminist view.
So, what of actually existing liberal capitalist feminism? Doesn't it's prevalence in the social space at least appear to illustrate that it's the mainstream form of feminism? And if it is the mainstream form of feminism, how does it evolve into anarchism, and how is it harmonize with anti-statist activity?
It's on these grounds that I've question JRB's implication of harmony - precisely because he appears to be grammatically harmonizing an idealized position and ignoring the actual, predominant expression of feminist thought and conduct...
cont'd
...and it relates almost exactly to those former arguments between idealist communists (who rightly pointed out the inconsistencies in democratic centralism) and critics of actually existing Bolshevism or Maoism.
*
JRB,
That's one hell of a passive aggressive, wishy washy dismissal. I don't for a moment demand or expect that you reply. I've challenged your assertions because I don't find them logical, not because you owe me any of your time. I'm responding to your public posts, on a public blog. I'm not making demands on your private time.
Really fucking unfair characterization.
Uncool, man. Fucking uncool.
"So, what of actually existing liberal capitalist feminism? Doesn't it's prevalence in the social space at least appear to illustrate that it's the mainstream form of feminism?"
Who cares? Why does this matter? I mean, of course it is. It's irrelevant. None of us are arguing that it's not.
Have you heard of masculinist forms of argumentation? How is your conception of "logic" conditioned by the historical space in which you operate (that is, liberal capitalism)?
Jack:
Of course, you're right to challenge whatever you want, but if you value a response, or a dialogue, you will do it in ways that make it easier for other people to participate, not harder -- e.g. posing one or two questions at a time, allowing space for others to speak, etc.
Richard,
If how is actually existing, mainstream liberal capitalist feminism irrelevant to the assertion that it harmonizes with with an anarchism which is neither liberal or capitalist?
That's my question, reduced down to almost nothing.
*
Have I heard of "masculinist" forms of argumentation? Does my understanding of logic, formal or informal, show material conditioning? Absolutely. Is that conditioning liberal capitalist? No, it's not. I learned logic across a month long discussion with a ridiculously well informed Machetero (and communist) while we lived on the streets and in and out of homeless shelters, in Boston. And in a many years discussion with a British communist by the nom de keyboard of Rosa Lichtenstein. I have some study Wittgenstein, and I reject dialecticism - but my conditioning was neither liberal nor capitalist.
Check your assumptions. I also try to check mine. It's why I ask questions.
Respect,
Jack
You only answer questions asked in a way which pleases or suits you, JRB?
Okay. We all have our needs, and I'll try to respect yours.
But, I'm not asking you to dance to my tune, JRB.
You don't owe me anything, on any terms. I'm asking the questions because they occur to me, not because you must answer them or agree with how I form sentences.
A good day to you.
Jack,
Since you mentioned nitwits who buy into power that evolve toward an anarchist position... I'll take that as an invitation to participate.
The question about how feminism gravitates toward anarchism is something I understand from experience and that is this chain of evolution.
Starting point: No awareness of any problems with existing power structure
Next: Awareness of problems, but believes the power structure is preferable to any alternative.
Next (trend toward liberal feminism): Awareness and resignation becomes a belief in marginal improvements without changing the underlying dynamics. This is liberal feminism, the problem is not the structure, but that power is not equitably shared across gender lines.
Next (tending toward anarchism): A recognition that the power structure itself needs to be destroyed/radically changed. The problem is not necessarily that there are not enough women making decisions or having power over others, but that anyone has power over others.
: mainstream feminism is challenging a particular form of authority, but not challenging the power structure.
Justin,
I genuinely appreciate that response. Thank you very much. That illustrates neatly what I was attempting to understand. [Not that you're a nitwit, in case you implied as much.]
Thank you,
Jack
@Justin - so that's what most people do? it's not just me?
Jack:
Thanks for hearing me out and for correcting some mistaken assumptions I had about your expectations when posing your inquiries. I apologize if I mischaracterized your behavior.
I hope you will remain cognizant of the fact that many people interpret challenges or queries as being implicitly obligatory -- i.e., the motivation for posing them is in the hope or expectation of a response.
That's not inherently your problem, of course, but it can become one insofar as people interpret it this way. It may mean the difference between constructive dialogue and needless acrimony, if such a distinction is important to you.
For my part, I'm sorry -- I see now the ways in which I was wrong. I may not "owe" you anything but I consider you an important friend and my natural inclination is to want to accomodate you insofar as I can.
"but in practice they will only have the kind of direct experience to speak, or act, in a leadership capacity on a few. As soon as we step out of what we experience on a daily basis and get drawn into circumstances which primarily affect others, we have to defer on some level to how they understand their own experiences"
I 100% agree with you on this. I would only add that I think it is possible to be passionate about the things that don't effect you as an individual while consciously deferring to the people whose experience it is. That's especially true when you are talking about people you care deeply about.
"How also, gentlemen, do you reconcile the punitive, anti-trans, White centered, privileged, status and hierarchy oriented aspects of actual and existing feminism with anarchism, such that the one can somehow evolve into the other?"
Are you aware that Shakesville, Tiger beatdown and the like actually support trans rights and call out privilege?
Just read this post and it was so on point that I had to share it
http://www.womanist-musings.com/2010/11/limitations-of-tim-wise.html
A rare blast of common sense. Thank you.
Post a Comment