Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 09:41:41 +0200 (SAT)
From: Peter van Heusden <pvh-AT-leftside.wcape.school.za>
Subject: Re: M-FEM: What kind of list would you like this to be?


On Thu, 26 Jun 1997, Rachel Carey-Harper wrote:
> Meanwhile. . .
> David Stevens wrote:
> 
> >  I agree with everything Rachel says, except the
> > talk about giving "priority to womens' vision
> > and wisdom," which sound like fuzzyisms to me.
> 
> For many thousands of years almost exclusive priority has been given to
> men's vision and wisdom.  Thw world is in a mess in a wide variety of
> ways and I believe we have reached a point in human development where
> ignoring and enslaving over half the population is untenable,  this
> includes any world vision that included marxism.  While ultimately we
> need a balance of male and female,  we have no hope to budge male
> domination until there are a few places where female vision and wisdom
> is given priority. Groups which describe themselves as feminist are the
> logical places for this to occur.
> 
> > Indeed, I don't
> > see anything specifically Marxist-Feminist
> > about excluding sexist behavior, postings,
> > or individuals incapable of elementary
> > courtesy.
> 
> I'm confused.  There might not be anything Marxist about excluding
> sexist behavior(unless there's something in marxism theory consistant
> with interupting oppression) but excluding sexism is very appropriate in
> a feminist setting.

I'd like to address these two points because in a way they seem to be
crucial to a lot of Marxist vs. Feminist argument, and thus imo need to be
addressed.

I find it interesting that on the one hand, David holds up giving
"priority to womens' vision" as "fuzzyisms". Similarly, he considers the
exclusion of sexist behaviour (amongst other things) as something
which is not exclusive to Marxist-Feminists.

On the other hand, Rachel holds up the vision of needing a "balance
of male and female" and states that "excluding sexism is very appropriate
in a feminist setting".

I'd like to argue that what is happening is that on the one hand, David is
applying a critique to the idea of "women's struggle" - asking
(implicit) questions like "is it a struggle just for women?" and "is it
a struggle seperate from other historical struggles?". David would
seem to think that the struggle around "women's liberation" is
organically linked with other struggles, probably particularly the
class struggle. Therefore talking about a "priority of women's vision"
is a "fuzzyism", acting as an artificial distinction in the fight
against oppression, and exclusions of sexist behaviour is not an
action which is the property of just Marxist-Feminists. (Its a lot to
read into a few paragraphs, so David, please correct me if I am wrong)

On the other hand, Rachel is clearly articulating the idea of a
seperate and distinct "women's struggle", which carries along with it
the seperate and distinct "women's vision". As a resolution of the
tension between these percieved different struggles, Marxism and
Feminism, Rachel holds up the argument that we need a "balance of male
and female". Rachel also the idea of excluding sexism as primarily a
feminist one (and seems to question the idea that Marxist theory holds
the interruption of oppression as important). In this analysis,
Marxism is one analysis, which requires feminism to be added to it to
achieve completeness (and to clarify certain issues around Marxism
from this 'dual struggle perspective' - quoting another post of
Rachel's, "a discussion of the historic and comtemporary sexism in
marxist theory and practice"). Similarly, Rachel seems to want to
address 'racism/classism' in feminism. (Again Rachel, this is my
reading of what you think, taken implicitely from your postings - I'd
be interested in any disagreement)

I think I've got problems with both sides of the coin. On the one
side, I think David's opinion has the dangerous potential of
integrating 'feminist' concerns (i.e. concerns about the patriarchal
oppression of women, to use bell hooks' definition) in Marxism to the
extent that they vanish, leading to the classic "you'll be liberated
after the revolution" syndrome.

On the other hand, I think Rachel's ideas dangerously priveledge the
idea of a seperate "women's struggle" waged by women against men, and
fail to integrate this with other analyses of oppression. The reason I
say this is that, since we all have multiple identitities, we all tie
into multiple 'identity struggles'. It seems to me strange to deal
with each 'identity struggle' as if it were a seperate front, a
seperate battle to be had. This leaves rural African women, for
instance, as having to fight, simultaneously, a 'struggle against
racism', a 'struggle against imperialism', a 'struggle against
sexism', a 'class struggle', which sounds like a rather daunting and
confusing task - and does not seem to match how these struggles play
out in reality (I'll see if I can post Terisa Turner's stunning paper
on women's role in the Ogoni struggle in Nigeria to the list)

It would seem to me that what is needed (and is, imo, possible) is a
simultaneous unity of all these struggles, based on their
simulataneous unity in people's lives. (This is why Terisa uses
something she calls gender-class analysis to analyse the situation in
Ogoniland) All our daily experiences of identity and oppression occur
simultaneous, affecting us, and conditioning our response, in a
dialectical unity. And, of course, this simultaneity affects
oppressors as well as oppressed.

An initial step towards understanding the interplay of identity comes
from something Kole Omotoso said at a talk last night (Kole, for those
who haven't heard of him, is a Nigerian writer and friend of the late
Ken Saro-Wiwa, amongst others) - identity is not important in and of
itself, but is rather important in what it gives us access
to. This is clearly displayed in the Nigerian context, where Kole's
tribal identity as a Yoruba gives him access to certain traditional
institutions and mechanisms. Similarly, a person's identity as a woman
becomes important in the *political* sense when that identity grants
them access or excludes them from concrete institutions.

Such an analysis of identity begs the question: What is the nature of
the institutions and institutional arrangements, with their mechanisms
of access and exclusion? What is their history? When examined in this
light, identity becomes a terrain upon which various material forces
play - e.g. the Yoruba, as one of the dominant tribes in Nigeria, were
used by the British for the purpose of indirect colonial rule. That
historical process has had indelible affects on the status of Yoruba
identity in Nigerian society. Similarly, Terisa raises many
interesting questions in her work about the role that particularly the
African peasant women play in relation to the matrix of forces which
makes up imperialism (which of course is an expression of capitalism -
with its clear links to the IMF, World Bank, etc).

Identity is thus not static and immutable (or ideal) and neither is
it infinitely mutable and opportunistic. In approaching the question
of Marxism-Feminism, in our theory and in our practice, we have both
an opportunity and an obligation to clarify a way forward (which of
course, will be a historically specific one) on this crucial
issue. Our conclusions, I believe, will be an important tool in our
multi-faceted struggle against oppression.

An injury to one is an injury to all!

Comradely,
Peter
--
Peter van Heusden |    Computers Networks Reds Greens Justice Peace Beer Africa
pvh-AT-leftside.wcape.school.za | Support the SAMWU 50 litres campaign!