More confrontation than debate
The last Latin-American and Caribbean Feminist Meeting was a controversial event. "Autonomous" feminists claimed that "institutionalised" feminists were dominating the movement, and allowing the state and patriarchy to divide and rule the movement. Ana Canales reports The Latin American women's movement has a long history of continental meetings which bring together the diversity and richness of the movement. Those meetings generally combine a multitude of simultaneous workshops with some "general" themes which are discussed by all participants.
This latest meeting was held in Cartagena, Chile, from 23 - 28 November 1996. The 700 participants came from 24 countries. It had a rather different dynamic from previous meetings, which produced a strong debate during the five days of the meeting
Workshops discussed Latin American immigrant women in Europe; indigenous women; lesbians; horizontal (radial) communications; socialist women networking; political women networking: globalisation; neo-liberalism, co-operation; abortion; reproductive health; and young women. There was also space for theatre, song, video, book presentations, and a health space, with sessions on back massage, Tai Chi, and yoga.
The general themes of the assembly were *the political and philosophical aspects of the various currents of Latin American feminism" and "the hidden and discriminated face of feminism, in being and doing feminism." But this debate was forced into a simplistic, false polarisation, as if there were in the movement two clear main streams: women and groups which are absolutely autonomous and those who are committed to one or several patriarchal institution.
This view of a dual polarisation was not accepted by the large majority of the participants, a large number of them activists in women's organisations within the popular movement, in trade unions and left parties and in feminist groups with a view of building a women's movement linked to the social movements. "Institutionalised?"
To deal with this disagreement, three broad discussion groups were established.
The group of discussion organised by the so called "institutionalised" current was attended by around 90 participants. The discussion concentrated on the financing of the movement, and its general agenda. There was a call for the development of a radical agenda. Speakers outlined a decline in institutional financing of feminist activities, and a marked unevenness in the distribution of these institutional resources between the various women's groups. Apparently, this is a subject of great debate inside the movement, particularly among those groups which have less experience in fund-raising and less information about the sources of finance.
There was also discussion about the relationship of the movement with the state. It was alleged that the state was becoming a "valid interlocutor" of the movement, given that people relate to the state in their daily lives. Dialogue and negotiation with the state, in this period of democratic construction is therefore valid, it was argued. This was considered a natural consequence of the changes in the general political situation from the period of confrontation which was called for in the time of the dictatorships in
The Beijing UN conference on women has created a new challenge, some women argued. The demands raised in Beijing should be implemented in each of our countries, and the UN forum considered as the highest framework for negotiation with the states. "States are only talking about the women question because women are organised!" it was said. The state decides on its interlocutors within the movement and it is they who participate in this arena through pacts, agreements and negotiations.
But how to intervene in this process? Gina Vargas, a well-known feminist from Peru, who was the Latin America coordinator for the alternative women's Summit in Beijing), argued that we should "re-accommodate our subversive" feminist practice. During the debates in the general assembly, the Bolivian group "Mujeres Creando" tried to denounce the risks of this reasoning by unveiled a huge banner proclaiming "Careful! Patriarchy is exploiting women who are hungry for power". Some delegates applauded. Others hissed.
March 1997 #286 31
* BP 85, Paris cedex 11, 75522 France +33 1/43792961
Fax: +33 1/43792961 E-mail: 100666.1443@compuserve.com
• Australia $33 • Britain £25 • Canada $80 • Denmark 380 DKK • Ireland £25 •
• South Africa R100 • Sweden 400 SEK • New Zealand $35 • USA $70 •
* Chile Neither one side nor the other
With 160 participants, the largest workshop was organised at the initiative of a handful of groups, mainly from Brazil and Uruguay (including "Cotidiano Mujer"), motivated by the belief that the polarisation which began the meeting did not express the diversity of appreciation, practice and experience which are present in the movement and certainly could not be seen as summarising the strategic problems of Latin
Participants in this workshop debated two possible approaches; a role of conciliator in the debate which has opened between "autonomous" and "institutional" women; and defining a strategy for the movement, despite the polarisation.
The proposals which emerged from the workshop were based on a reaffirmation of the ethical commitment within feminist principles, and the need to create and revitalise independent, autonomous, wide (but also creative and attractive) space. And, in particular, to think over and put into practice a platform of women's demands that has been neglected in the recent period). It was suggested that being autonomous was not mainly accepting outside funds or not, nor did being autonomous mean not having an ideological-political project. Nor is autonomy a matter of "demonising" the institutions. Rather, it was argued, autonomy is about the capacity to commit ourselves to our demands and our needs as women, in a long term perspective.
The discussion turned towards the question of creating a space where we can evaluate our actions within the movement, of creating a mechanism for representing the movement, so as to allow for confidencebuilding, solidarity, the possibility of interchange and sharing, and coherence. It was suggested that these Feminist Meetings, though the widest forum of gathering of the ment which could generate a global response, from a social base. Emphasising the struggle in the symbolic field , they stressed that feminism is not a long lists of demands, but is a critical process, rethinking the world, reality and culture in a new way. To invent a society, unifying content and form, creating new languages which can bring together and integrate the women of the world.
"Autonomas" stressed the need to create and recreate the subversive language which feminism started, and to impose a new view of the world. This, it was said, would allow many more young women to find a place in the movement. The need to socialise what women have produced, their experiences, their insights: not as the exchange of financial resources and signs of legitimacy, but by creating forms of barter which allow those words and ideas to reach more and more
The "autonomous" participants condemned the policies of financing which, they said, were destroying the democratic system which the movement had built up, and the would-be-rebel thinking which exists in the space it has created. We should be legitimised (or not) by our actions, and not by our legal recognition by the state. They also stressed the need to establish ethical limits and approved methods for acquiring resources, and create new practices for developing our own sources of funds, without depending on foreign aid programmes.
Autonomous feminism is not complementary to the activities of an institutional wing of the movement which would play the role of maintaining the feminist system, it was argued. Because behind the dispute, there are economic interests at play. "Money is becoming the main goal." This kind of democracy is no use to the movement, because it denies women's existence.
They concluded their presentation by saying that autonomous feminism includes opposition to neo-liberalism, against the system, and against discrimination by race, ethnicity and sexual orientation.
They proclaimed that "autonomy defines our relationship with the world but it is not autonomy from history. We are present in the historical processes, where we nourish and deepen our critique of the system and where we introduce our daily subversion of the system.... we cannot be tolerant with those who negotiate and deny our existence; our ethical commitment is not infinite tolerance but relations of respect and recognition".
In fact, the perspectives proposed would in practice mean the total isolation of the movement. This concept of autonomy implies the absolute denial of the efforts and experiences of the women's movement to build alliances with other social movements, political parties, and trade unions: which is the only possible way to link feminism with the building of a global progressive social Looking forward
The next continental feminist meeting will take place in the Dominican Republic. Given the divergent positions expressed at this meeting, it was agreed that the Dominican meeting would continue to work on the basis of the partial agreement and partial disagreement expressed here, in the spirit of co-operation in what we do and in the face of challenges which affect all of us. * For more information about the conference see "Confrontation at Latin American feminist meeting" Jean Dupont, International Viewpoint #284, January 1997.
Analysis with Attitude
Latin American movement, have not yet given the opportunity for the development and elaboration of the necessary debates, despite the fact that they are still a privileged forum for doing so.
Founded by Ernest Mandel, International Viewpoint is the world's largest international Marxist news and analysis
"Autonomous feminism"
Over 100 women participated in this workshop, which called for a feminist move-
Correspondents in over 50 countries report ment which would be a space in which each on popular struggles, and the debates act "expresses the union between the intiwhich are shaping the left of tomorrow.
mate, the private and the public." By starting
Direct from the front line in the fight from this articulation, it was argued, we can introduce a discussion of the intimate sphere, which will take us forward Otherwise we will remain incomplete as women and as a magazıne.
against neo-liberalism.
For a free trial subscription (three issues), call us now, or mention this advert to movement. "What to do as feminists" should be answered by starting from the personal, the "T", which is the only viewpoint from
Britain: Outlook International, PO Box 1009 London N4 2UU © (081) 800 7460 which we can understand the world, the speakers said. The body is both the synthesis
Canada: Socialist Challenge, PO Box 4955, Main P.O, Vancouver V6B 4A6 and a component of existential and political
USA: International Viewpoint, PO Box 1824, New York, NY 10009
"being."
These self-styled "autonomous" feminists called for a feminist analysis which would deny all forms of patriarchal power, public and private, challenge the patriarchal state and its institutions, and build a move-
32 International Viewpoint our local sales agent!
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
VIEWPOINT
Now hear this!
An ambitious conference this month will attempt to knit signs of restlessness among the women of France into a new movement...
Women were massively present during the November-December 1996 public sector strike. And in a whole series of smaller strikes, most of which have not hit the media, others, like the "kidnapping" of the director of Credit Foncier by his staff, supremely public events.
Women are also at the centre of the French movements against unemployment and marginalisation, like AC! (Act Together Against Unemployment). Women have participated in all the recent occupations of the ASSEDIC (offices which pay out unemployment and other social allowances) and the ANPE (job centres). Women have been active in the struggle of the "paper-less"
and a national level, to improve the situation.
It is also a tremendous challenge to bring all these people together; to maintain this desire for unity between militants, men and women, with very different political and trade union trajectories, sometimes with a history of confrontations, and between people with very diverse professional, regional and even generational origins. But if we can bring together these varied experiences and the accumulated experience and thinking of the feminist movement, then this can only help re-launch a women's movement here in France."
Vigan does not exaggerate the difficulties which the organisers have faced in building these Hearings. Many associations were sceptical about the feasibility of such an event, or the utility of taking part. And it was hard to reach beyond the "cartel" of sponsoring organisations, and involve large numbers of potentially interested but unorganised women in the preparation of the event.
But beyond these two organisational difficulties, is an enormous strategic question. Is it possible to have thorough, on-going debates, on the basis of local experiences, which will not be "forced" to a conclusion by the organisers, but which will nevertheless allow the distillation of a minimum consensus, on the basis of which proposals for common action can be generated? In a few weeks we will know.* JD] * Quarterly publication of the Revolutionary Communist League (LCR), French section of the Fourth International. co 2 rue Richard Lenoir, 93108. Montreuil, France