DEMOCRACY & NATURE: The International Journal of INCLUSIVE
DEMOCRACY
vol.9, no.2,
(July 2003)
The
Death of Feminism as an Antisystemic Movement or the Success of Feminism to
Change the System from Within?
Omer Caha
Takis Fotopoulos’
fascinating article “The End of Traditional Antisystemic Movements and the
Need for a New Type of Antisytemic Movement Today”
draws attention to the shift in traditional (socialism and anarchism) and new
social movements (green and feminism) from an antisystemic stance to a reformist
position. For Fotopoulos “replacing” the main political and economic
institutions and associated values with new ones is the dominant characteristic
of the antisystemic movements, while reformist movements are seeking simply to
“change” these institutions. The long and very analytical article (indeed,
one of the most essential ones I have ever read on social movements) sketches
the reasons behind the transition in the role of
the social movements by concentrating on the meaning of the
antisystemism, the type of antisystemic movements and the change in the systemic
parameters in the era of neoliberal modernity.
One of the movements that
Fotopoulos draws attention is feminist movement, which he claims has lived a
shift particularly in the aftermath of the 1980s from being an antisystemic
movement to be a lobby-seeking movement within the system. Fotopoulos discusses
the achievement of the “insider” feminists (i.e.
the liberal feminist groups oriented toward gaining position and power within
the system ) over the “outsider”
feminists (i.e. the
autonomous women’s’ movement oriented to revolutionary change)
)
starting with the definition of an antisystemic feminism. For him, for a
feminist movement to qualify as an antisystemic movement ‘the fundamental condition is that it would see the goal
of equality between men and women as only the first step on the way to achieve
the goal of human liberation—a goal that could only be realised within an
institutional framework and a corresponding set of values that secures the equal
distribution of all forms of power between all human beings, irrespective of
gender, race, ethnic or cultural identity
The abolition of the
conditions that produce the ground for inequality in the distribution of
“political power” through representative democracy and of “economic
power” through market economy is accepted, by Fotopoulos, as the chief task of
an antisystemic feminism rather than to simply equalize the conditions of
inequality
within the present system.
Based upon the observations of the feminists’ lobbying activities in the
aftermath of the post-1980 period, he concludes that similar to the green
movements (once were antisystemic movement, but now seem as integral part of the
system) lobby-seeking feminist groups, have gained victory over the
autonomy-seeking feminist groups (the victory of “insiders” over
“outsiders” with his term) and this has led to the integration of most of
feminist groups
within the
system.
Accepting this argument and
observation as in essence true, I would like to make some remarks about this
important discussion by drawing attention to the Turkish case. Before going to
this case let me have some points about the nature of the antisystemic movements
in respect to their impact over the system. When we have a general overview of
the last two centuries of the West European societies we perhaps will see that
many different antisystemic movements have come to the scene, ranging from
radical socialism to the radical currents within the antinuclear
movements and from radical Green groups to the radical feminists, but
none of them, indeed, has been successful to create an entirely alternative
system. The creation of an alternative system by means of social groups seems
almost impossible in so largely inclusive system based on free market economy
and participatory democracy (But, a radical social movement—the Russian
communist one—has succeeded in creating an alternative system; whether it was
successful or not is a different story). Nonetheless to say, this should not be
expected from social groups which find chance to emerge already as the internal
elements of the system itself. Therefore, more than expecting a revolution
against the system or the creation of an alternative system from social groups,
we should expect from them to make a contribution to the “humanization” of
the system. In fact, this is what West European antisystemic movements like
socialism, Marxism, syndicalism have succeeded in doing during the last two
hundred years or so. The welfare state and distributive justice may be
considered as (indirect) important
contributions of these movements on behalf of man.
The success of the feminist
movements, I think, should be regarded in that respect. Fotopoulos is right when
he claims that the lobby-seeking feminist groups are more influential and
becoming dominant in Western societies compared to the antisystemic feminist
movements. I think the chief reason behind this, among many others, is the
humanization process of the system itself. This leaves no further need for the
fundamental discourses to be promoted by social movements anymore. Despite this
fact we, indeed, still see that feminist groups (particularly those who
emphasize autonomy and difference) continue to be one of the leading movements
in promoting discussions on identity, on civil society, on post-modernism, on
multiculturalism etc.
Among these the contribution of feminism to civil society, in particular, in the
historically male-oriented public spheres as in the case of Turkey, is
noteworthy to be emphasized as an indication of feminism’s ability to change
the system from within.
The
Contribution of Feminist Movement to Humanize the System: The Case of Turkey
Feminism
in Turkey has developed during the post-1980 period as one of the outcomes of
the liberalization of the Turkish economic and political system, clearly as an
insider social movement. Although the feminist movement has risen over the
shoulders of three different feminist versions, some of which are antisystemic
in the case of the European societies (egalitarian, socialist and radicals) its
main characteristics unmistakably define it as a “within-the-system
movement”. This feature of Turkish feminism is probably stemmed from the
historical background, which culturally secluded women from the public domain on
the basis of the norms of gender roles. As it is well known, the Islamic
interpretation in the Ottoman society divided society basically into two
sub-universes: the universe of men and the universe of women. The social
division according to gender resulted in the division between those who hold
authority and those who do not. This division after the sixteenth century of the
Ottoman Empire resulted in the emergence of the harem life which secluded
women from social life and leading them to live among themselves, coming to
contact only with the male members of their family.
This
historical background has led Turkish feminist women to stand as a
“within-the-system movement”. As such, even the socialist and
radical feminists in Turkey declare themselves as “pro-secular/Republican”
and in favour of all other aspects of this system, particularly when the Islam
and tradition are at issue. This could explain the vigorous attempt of the
Turkish feminist groups to represent themselves as an element of public life, as
they stress that the relegation of them to the private realm has created a place
of assault and battery, marital rape and women’s exploited domestic labor.
Emphasizing on the importance of the public realm, they argue that the
relegation of women into the private realm (as for instance Islamic
fundamentalists suggest) will result in the
general withdrawal of women once again from the public sphere and their casting
out of political and economic life. So the “system” is generally accepted by
Turkish feminist groups as the alternative of the traditional Islamic public
sphere and as a positive and open domain for women.
Starting
with this definition of the system, Turkish feminists gave a great credit to the
equality of women with men in the public realm. Participating in public life
means mainly two things for them: preserving their liberty and achieving an
equal status with men. They attempt mainly to develop a democratic theory based
on civil equality that undermines the differences between the sexes so that full
citizenship for women can be secured. The realization of its aim means the
transformation of sexual division of labor and norms of femininity and
masculinity. Although this seems a unique characteristic of liberal feminists,
radical and socialist feminists also articulate this view as the base of
“rights” for women.
This discourse of Turkish feminism is seen as a fundamental
challenge to the sharp opposition
between the public and private spheres in Turkish culture (patriarchal in nature
as elsewhere), which can be taken as the fundamental historical code behind the
system. This culture is clearly based on the perception
of the public sphere as the world of universalism, independence,
equality, reason, rationality and impartiality, which are characteristics
attributable only to men and of the private sphere as the world of
particularism, natural emotions, love and partiality, which, in turn, are
considered as the natural characteristics of women.
Staying within the system, Turkish feminists have created a
new set of politics in Turkey through the success of changing many women’s and
men’s way of thinking about gender roles. Through their focus on
consciousness-raising, on non-oppressive relations between man and woman in the
family and in social life, on creating a counter-culture and on alternative
institutions, Turkish feminists have undermined the traditional values of the
femininity and masculinity institutionalized in the Turkish culture. Feminism in
Turkey, has raised important questions about the distributions and legitimacy of
macro power relations and has challenged the deep-rooted codes of social
interactions. Through the collective action of feminist women in the 1980s
issues such as gender, right, inequality, seclusion and liberation have taken a
large part of the public debate in Turkey. What they have briefly achieved is
the meaning and definition of identity, which contrasts the “man-like”
Republican women.
In Turkish politics the
need for “homogeneity” of citizens, is always emphasised because of
the fear that any differences would tend to undermine the commitment to the
general interest. Therefore, the existence of groups that highlight class,
religion, gender, and ethnic differences are always taken as a threat to the
common interest, with the Turkish state strictly enforcing a politics of
assimilation . The public recognition of these groups
with their own cultures, values and norms has never been an option.
During this period of the gradual development of republican political system,
the Turkish state has implemented a
politics stressing the idea of a public
‘unified’ under the goal of modernisation
, i.e. reaching the level of modern civilization.
This picture in the politics of the Turkish state has
actually been reversed by feminist groups in the aftermath of the 1980s.
Feminist groups have created a pressure over the politics assuming a homogeneous
society by articulating post-modern
discourses developed mainly against universal categories of the Enlightenment.
Moreover, they have opposed the kind of public life promoted by this politics,
which is blind to the specificities of
their
own life. As a part of this struggle feminists support the ‘identity’
groups that promote
various
identities in the public realm. Thus, the feminists’ have supported female
religious students in their struggle concerning school uniforms,
leftist prisoners in their struggle against prison conditions, as well as
homosexuals and transsexuals groups
in their struggle for the public recognitgion of their identity. All these
struggles are clearly serving the creation of a “heterogeneous” public.
The feminist women’s emphasis on difference creates an
area of heterogeneity and multiplicity enhanced by women’s special experience
and value. It could be argued that feminism, by appealing to the notion of
‘difference’, creates a new era
in the public life and at the same time challenges the “unified”
characteristics of the Turkish state. Moreover, feminism, by embracing the
concept of difference, creates the need for a justice sensitive to variations of
gender, race, class, religion, and other sociological categories. Such a justice
will clearly foster a public that will be excluding no person, no aspect of
person’s lives, or issue for discussion. This feature of any social movement
is important with respect to the issue under question since it also gives rise
to the public representation of other social groups having different needs,
cultures, histories, experiences and discourses in public life.
Apart from this contribution of the feminist movement in
the transition of the homogeneous Turkish public sphere, (in other words in
humanizing this political cultural system) it has also contributed to the
development of civil society as an insider movement. Feminists’ contribution
to the development of civil society in Turkey can be seen at least in three
different and interrelated ways. First, feminism brings some important issues
from the back streets into the open and raises them to public discussion. Issues
such as abortion, wife-battering, marital rape and molestation are examples of
this kind. Second, Turkish feminism redefines the deep-rooted codes of social
institutions as in the case of gender analysis, women’s sexuality, etc. and
replace them with new meanings. The feminists’ great impact is, in that
respect, observed on the grass-root structures on socio-cultural fields. The
increasing tendency that has been observed, in Turkey, in the emergence of
“feminine men” and “masculine women”, in the sense of their roles in the
familial life and social relations, is the general outcome of this politics
prevailed in grass-roots in the post-1980.
Finally, Turkish feminism has put pressure on political parties and the
government to take a stand on women’s issues and forcing them to create new
institutions with that respect. The amendment of the Civil Law during the last
months of the 2001 is, indeed, the success of lobby-seeking (insiders with
Fotopoulos’ term) feminist groups.
Are Systemic Movements Necessarily Negative?
What
the case of the Turkish feminism tells us is twofold: It firstly proves the
claims advanced by Fotopoulos that the reformist character of the feminist
movement became dominant in post-1980 period. {Two antisystemic feminist
discourses (socialist and radical) are taking place in the system as the Turkish
example clearly indicates} (What is the meaning of this?). The case of Turkish
feminism secondly and importantly indicates that reformist social movements
might play a more successful role in humanizing the system than
antisystemic ones.
Moving
from the case of Turkish feminism
Fotopoulos’ thesis might also be criticized upon some other points. First,
being an insider movement is assessed negatively by Fotopoulos, therefore the
positive character of a social movement depends on its potential to challenge
the system. But, as the case of the socialist movement indicated in the case of
the former Eastern socialist regimes, an alternative system established as a
result of the activities of an antisystemic movement is not aleays a positive development. The
fundamentalist Islamic regime in Iran is another indication of
the same point.
Second,
the replacement of the system seems not possible by means of social groups,
which emerge and grow within the system itself. Particularly the new social
movements mentioned by Fotopoulos (green,
feminist
as well as human rights, ethnic, religious, gays etc.) are indebted to the
liberal political system since in a non-democratic system such movements may not
even develop in the first place.
However, as the social movements which are grown within democratic systems are
indebted to the system they are necessarily limited within
the systemic parameters.
Third,
the antisystemic character of social movements sometimes gives rise to the
rigidization of the system against social movements and their demands. In that
respect we face with the problem of legitimacy. Once social movements go beyond
the boundaries of the system their demands are treated as illegitimate by the
system and it seeks to protect itself against these demands. The case of Turkish
system against Islamic groups as antisystemic movement is noteworthy to mention.
Since the establishment perceives Islamic groups as antisystemic it narrows the
boundaries of the public sphere and develops very rigid policies against these
groups. While Islamic women’s movement has been excluded from public sphere
feminist groups have succeeded to make a change in the very foundation of the
system, thus humanizing the system, by means of stepping within its corridors.
This tells us that the result of antisystemism generally becomes the exclusion
of these groups from the public sphere. This means that the antisystemic
character of social movements sometimes brings about their end.
Fourth,
there is a need for making a pragmatic-rational calculation between the
“humanization” of the system and “replacing” it to decide which one is
more beneficiary. To my mind, the modern system as a paradigm with its
representative democracy and free market economy is the historical accumulation
of human experience, at least is so for some certain societies. It might be
questionable whether the experience of some societies goes for others too, but
we should consider that the humanization of the system is more important than
its replacement with unknown, empirically untested systems.
Finally,
the humanization of the system seems possible, as the example of the Turkish
feminism indicates, by means of systemic movements more than antisystemic ones.
In addition to the case of Turkish feminism mentioned above the contribution of
social democratic movements in Western Europe became possible when they began to
come to power in the aftermath of the 1960s as the partner of the coalitional
governments.
Among many others the arguments
of I. Morion Young on identity, Nancy Fraser on multi-public sphere, Jane
Flax on postmodernism and Carole Pateman on civil society are worth getting
to mention. (Please provide book references)
Fatıma Mernissi, Beyond the Veil: Male-Female Dynamics in Muslim
Society (London: Al Saqi Books, 1985), p.138.
As feminists stress, the
universal categories of the
Enlightenment are being
constructed as duality categories (man/woman, light/dark, sun/moon etc),
which assume the existence of dialectical and oppositional components, a
part of which is generally defined as positive while the other part is
defined as negative. See for instance Sandra
Harding, “Feminism, Science and Anti-Enlightenment Critique”, in
Feminism/Postmodernism.
ed. by Linda J. Nicholson and Nancy Chodorow
(New York and London: Routledge, 1990).