Why there's no reason to fear feminism
With women's rights and gender equality high on the global agenda,
campaigners should reassert the importance of feminism - so long as they
don't try to impose 'feminist solutions'
The focus of this year's Nobel peace prize on women's rights around
the world comes hot on the heels of the publication of the World Bank's
2012 world development report (WDR), which focused on the importance of
gender equality for development. Women's rights have never been so high
on the agenda of the development sector, and this is the culmination of
many years of lobbying and struggle by persistent advocates.
|
Activists from Pakistani women’s
organisations call for better wages
and conditions during a protest in Lahore. Photograph: Arif
Ali/Getty Images |
That women's rights are at the heart of political debate worldwide is
an undoubted political and intellectual triumph. But, as with most
victories won by social and political movements, the taste of success is
accompanied by the threat of co-option.
What does it mean when staunch conservatives express themselves so
comfortably in the language of women's rights and gender equality? Might
the radical nature of the movement be watered down to mean something
more politically palatable but less transformative in its objectives?
One word, in particular, is conspicuous in its absence: feminism. The
word is anathema to conservative or middle-of-the-road politicians in
most countries, who see in it a radical and perhaps exaggerated voice.
But even some of the most ardent campaigners for women's rights
sometimes view parts of the feminist movement with mistrust, thinking
that it represents an agenda for women who are not like them, either in
their own country or in the richer western world. Feminism is
misunderstood if it is seen as an imposition of values. The best in the
feminist movement have been the historic motors of change, precisely
because they do not say what the solutions are, but ask the right
questions and empower women to answer them, in whatever particular
context they find themselves.
Thus, feminism takes the debate well beyond legal and economic
rights, into cultural norms and the transformation of values and
attitudes. The WDR recognises that attitudes are slowest to change,
noting: "Gender differences are particularly persistent when rooted in
deeply entrenched gender roles and social norms."
Feminism is a tool for everyone. The objective should be to help
transform societies so that women can decide what role to play,
including traditional ones if they choose.
Unfortunately, there is little doubt that the overt certainty with
which profound shifts in community or societal norms were promoted in
many parts of the world as part of an overall "development" package, has
been counter-productive in the long term. While the principles of
equality and empowerment at the heart of feminism are non-negotiable,
the ways they play out in different contexts are complex and hard to
predict.
The arrogance of some westerners in the recent era has been
comparable with that of classic western "civilisers", certain that they
know what is best for less developed societies, imposing solutions
worked out for a different time and place. Women in developing countries
who disagree are sometimes assumed to be living in a kind of mental
slavery, unenlightened by modern understandings.
This is a dangerous place to inhabit intellectually. In fact, it is
these women themselves who are the experts on their own situations, and
who need to chart the path of their emancipation.
There is no problem with holding views passionately. The problem
arises when you have the power to impose them, either because you hold
the purse strings or because you wield influence in some other way,
including just being educated and articulate. The imposition of western
norms on less powerful communities has led to deep mistrust of the
movement in some quarters and will take some time to reverse. An Indian
woman whom I was speaking to last month complained that "feminists do
not listen" and pointed me in the direction of this article on Arundhati
Roy for an insight into some of her concerns about "western feminism".
The certainty that has typified feminist struggle in the west, and
has been one of the reasons for its great successes, does not often work
cross-culturally. Certainty can only arise indigenously - and there are
plenty of national feminist organisations across the world that are
leading the fight in their own countries, in their own way (see the
debate about the Gisele Bündchen adverts in Brazil, for example). In the
international sphere, certainty must be replaced with humility about
what the answers are and, crucially, a profound openness to learning
from other cultures.
The consequences for society of shifts in the roles of men and women
tend to be profound and lasting, with progress accompanied by new
challenges to be overcome. Such changes are therefore neither to be
imposed nor entered into lightly.
The feminist critique is radical in the best sense of the word, as it
gets to the root of the issue and thus implies that transformation
rather than tinkering is needed. At its best, it is also responsive and
caring, rather than hectoring and exaggerated, as it is sometimes
portrayed.
So the movement for women's rights and gender equality should
reassert feminism boldly as its theoretical underpinning. But it should
also take a step back and reassess the terrain, in particular the fact
that for some women the word has attained negative associations.
Feminists need to humbly reassert principles of equality of opportunity,
without suggesting we know what responses particular societies should
adopt.
Feminist activists should avoid appearing exclusive, and set out to
accompany poor communities on a journey whose destination may be
unknown, but whose principles of equality and empowerment are solid.
"Embedding a way of thinking, or being, matters more than achieving a
specific set of policy proposals," one feminist academic told me, "and
is much more powerful in the long term."
-Guardian.co.uk
|