Feminist polyphony
Indhira Libertad Rodríguez[1]
My skin is black
My arms are long
My hair is woolly
My back is strong
Strong enough
as if to endure the pain
Inflicted again and again
What do they call me?
My name is Aunt Sarah
My name is Aunt Sarah
My skin is yellow.
My hair is long
Between two worlds
I belong
My father was rich and white.
One night he forced himself on my mother
What do they call me?
My name is Saffronia
My name is Saffronia
My skin is tanned
My hair is fine.
My hips invite you
My mouth like wine
Whose am I?
Anyone who has
money to buy me
What do they call me?
My name is Sweet Thing
My name is Sweet Thing
My skin is brown
My way is tough.
I will kill the first mother I see
My life has been very hard.
I'm terribly bitter these days.
Because my parents were slaves
What do they call me?
My name is Peaches
Nina Simone (1966) “Four Women”
Nina reiterates in her song, “It’s a portrait of four different women, four Black women.” Each one shares a complaint, yet each is distinct. An outsider names them all: “What do they call me?”—a thing, a fruit, a flower, or a caregiver. Discourses of knowledge and power, such as those developed by academia, international organizations, and others, use the category “Black women” as universal, rendering invisible the immeasurable narratives of Black women's diversity.
I once heard the saying, “Art speaks for itself.” Nina was anticipating a debate that African American women would bring to the fore in the 70s—a debate that would emerge from political parties, social movements, the arts, and even academia—and which challenged the category of “woman,” in the singular, as it was wielded by a liberal, white, heterosexual, and Euro-US-centric feminism, as the sole and legitimate subject. One of these women was Angela Davis (1981–2005), who brought to light the role of Black women through their enslaved ancestors in the US, and the distance between their lived history, full of rape and exploitation outside the “home,” and that of their white mistresses. She challenged the prevailing understanding of public and private space and the consequent assignment of gender roles, contributing to a deeper problematization of the sexual division of labor.
Lesbian women did the same, unleashing a mechanism of internal questioning within feminism that remains relevant today, since this concept of woman was inherited from Enlightenment reason, with Rousseau's Sophie from Emile being its living image. The distinction between woman as a fictional construct and women, the real historical subjects, was highlighted. Later, other identities of sexual dissidence, Indigenous women, peasant women, and all the feminine diversity created by social class, work, place of residence, age group, race, and sexuality followed suit. Ultimately, they advocated for the recognition of political agency in "other" women. There is no universal woman; one woman's experience cannot be generalized as that of all women (Fischer, 2003). Feminism cannot be singular because women are diverse (Lozano, 2014). "Because if there weren't more than one 'version,' what kind of conversation could it possibly be?" (Oyarzún, 2010: 48). This reflection on the subjects of feminisms deals with common political strategies in diversity, to subvert a modern/colonial heteronormative gender-sex-desire system.
Women, gender and sexualities
In the 1980s, the feminist debate entered a crisis centered on three fundamental, intimately linked themes: sexualities (in the plural), the categories of "woman" and "gender," and finally, the subject or subjects of feminism. Let us briefly recall that "gender" refers to the roles, functions, and expectations assigned to us socially, culturally, and symbolically, according to the sexed body we embody. This is the same as saying that gender is what is understood as being a woman or a man in a given historical, social, cultural, political, economic, religious, geographical, and territorial context. Donna Haraway (1995) criticizes the category of "gender," arguing that it anchors the debate on women's emancipation to the modern nature/culture duality and that, in its development, it has overlooked the study of the category of "sex," of the sexed body. This had already been pointed out by Gayle Rubin (1989), who denounced the fact that feminism lacked a theory of sexuality and, in attempting to develop one, became trapped within the concept of “gender.” A few years later, Judith Butler (1990/2007), through the notion of performativity applied to gender, demonstrated how sexuality is obscured by gender.
However, we cannot disregard the interpretive shift that gave the feminist movement a firm ground for both theoretical and political struggle by including the category of "gender" in its semantics. I agree with the feminist intellectual Magdalena Valdivieso when she points out that: "There can be gender approaches that do not necessarily imply a commitment to transforming relations of domination (...) [however] what we have criticized is the technocratic use of the concept of gender." She is referring to the processes of institutionalization and NGO-ization of the movement's demands, which were accused of stripping it of its radicalism and its apparent depoliticization. Apparent, because one only needs to see the powerful content of this Fourth Wave.
Then, with the emergence of queer subjectivities, intersex, transsexual, transgender, and transvestite bodies within feminism, an analysis germinates that aims to reveal how bodies are produced by complex biotechnologies, by a meticulous biopolitics. As the Argentinian feminist Diana Maffía aptly states: “In short, biological sex itself is the product of a cultural interpretation” (2003: 6). This calls into question the notion that gender ultimately rests on sexual difference, on bodily materiality, and that even the interpretation of that body is filtered through the social. In this way, the understanding of what must be deconstructed to emancipate ourselves is broadened.
The feminist subjectivities of Our America:
In Latin America, these debates had two clear milestones. One was the discussion of lesbian participation in the Latin American and Caribbean Feminist Meeting (EFLAC), and the other, in the same forum years later, was the participation of trans women. This led to an ongoing debate about the subject or subjects of feminism. Not only is it no longer defined by a singular subject, "woman," but the bio- or cisgender woman no longer seems to have a monopoly on this field of struggle.
This in no way implies advocating for a “feminism without women”; women and the feminine remain the core from which the demands of the feminist movement unfold. “The feminine concerns every human being, man or woman” (Izaguirre, 2019: 18), and is often embodied by women’s bodies, but not exclusively. In fact, there are communities that have historically been feminized by their dominators, as the Mexican intellectual Karina Ochoa demonstrates. This occurred with the Indigenous peoples of the Americas at the hands of the Spanish colonizers: “the Indian is not ‘humanized’ but rather feminized; that is, their ‘other’ character (bestial, inhuman, semi-human, etc.) is exchanged or equated with that of being a woman[…] as an inferiorized and ‘penetrable’ subject” (2014: 109). This gives impetus to bringing together anti-sexist, anti-machista and/or anti-patriarchal, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, anti-colonial, anti-racist, anti-hegemonic, and anti-system struggles. Wherever a subject is feminizable in the hierarchical reading of difference, there will be a feminism that fights for their freedom.
I remember hearing a lesbian feminist academic from Caracas, about 10 years ago, say about a trans activist woman who had consistently crossed paths with us in feminist struggles, that we shouldn't form too strong an alliance with her because, although she identified as a woman, she had been socialized as a man. That statement deeply disturbed me at the time, more emotionally than theoretically, because I was developing a close friendship with this trans woman and, through her, was beginning to understand and feel the reality of this community. Since then, she has continued her activism and increasingly identifies as a feminist. Despite her Black and working-class background, she has transcended the apparent destiny for trans women with these intersections; she is alive at over 35 years old and is currently pursuing university studies. So, from my experience, I can only say that if a trans woman identifies as a feminist and/or is drawn to this struggle, then welcome. Otherwise, we would have to think about the gap that exists between decolonizing ourselves in knowledge, but not in being.
Another anecdote. In 2013, we celebrated Lesbian Rebellion Day. They decided that only lesbians would speak. The result was a debate sparked by other lesbian women and women who identified as lesbians. lesbian politicsShe argued that lesbianism wasn't simply about a cis woman's libido being directed toward another cis woman, but rather encompassed the diverse forms of love between women—deep, sisterly, empathetic, contextual, not automatic or politically correct, but consciously felt and driven by instinct. The debate ended up including all the women present, and even the men who attended. The enrichment of the space was immediately apparent, as not only did the lesbians allow themselves to listen to each other and develop questions, approaches, alternatives, or strategies they hadn't necessarily considered before, but those who weren't or didn't identify as lesbians also learned to respect and better understand difference. At that moment, I analyzed the situation not only as the feminist I am becoming—a gerund that denotes the changing, flexible, and questioning state not only of myself but of the movement itself. But not as a Chavista, because I thought that the political subject that had emerged no longer allowed to be excluded from any space of political participation and that he was and is willing to fight for that right.
Multiple places of enunciation
The subject is constructed by discourses, but at the same time has possibilities for action, such as developing policies of self-representation. Feminism experiences a polyphony of enunciative positions, resulting in multiple feminisms. To understand the diversity of existing feminisms, one must consider the relational construction of political subjectivity (Medina, 2016). “Wherever there is a privilege, a right is being denied, precisely because privileges are not universal, as rights are conceived.” (Gargallo, 2014: 19).
With the use of the term agency, linked to reality and contexts due to “the need for greater responsibility and knowledge of one’s own place of enunciation” (Casado, 1999: 82), the feminist debate deconstructs the association between being a woman, having women’s experiences, and therefore being a feminist: “Undoubtedly, these approaches profoundly altered both the orthodox subject of feminism and the way feminism is understood” (Medina, 2016: 128). Both the range of political discourses available to a person and their cultural construction cause personal interpretations of an event to vary, hence “the various speeches that women themselves maintain regarding the role and rights of women, in direct connection with their subjective and social experiences.” (Medina, 2016: 143. Italics mine). Because the processes of subjectivity formation are both social and subjective.
Speaking of feminist polyphony, the Venezuelan intellectual Alba Carosio tells us:
“In our 21st-century Latin America, we face a crossroads, interwoven or bifurcated, between integrated feminisms and feminisms of rupture, between ideologically globalized feminisms and polycentric feminisms localized in our Latin Americanness, between feminisms of equality and feminisms of difference, between universalist feminisms and alternative feminisms (with recognition of ethnicity and class) (…) Thinking about ourselves from Our America implies doing so from the exploited marginality of the global empire, where violence is naturalized based on colonial rape.” (Carosio, 2009: 21)
I believe that the texture of that thought, as Latin Americans, is applicable to women and populations of the Global South: rape, as the exercise of power over the other, the colonized other. The social pacts for the formation of our nation-states involved the denial of rape as a foundational practice of the colonial relationship. There is a very ancient pain and horror in our bodies and our thoughts and feelings. But there is also a very deep joy and celebration of life. That is why I am drawn to the image of the rhizome, as Amalia F. tells us: “According to Deleuze, a rhizome is a root, usually growing horizontally, which in turn produces underground roots and aerial stems.” (2003: 12). Like hot, spicy, and fresh ginger.
Combining redistribution and recognition policies is emerging as one of the strategies:
In 1997, Nancy Fraser opened a debate about justice and how public policies can guarantee it. For Fraser, there are fundamentally two types of injustice: economic and cultural; and two types of solutions to each: redistribution and recognition, respectively. To address socioeconomic injustice, expressed in the unfair distribution of goods and resources, redistribution policies are necessary; but to address legal and cultural injustices that manifest themselves in the cultural sphere, and injustices in representation, related to the jurisdiction of the State and its rules, recognition policies are essential.
As ideal models, it considers four axes of injustice: social class, marginalized sexualities, and ambivalent collectives, including gender and race. No person or identity belongs to only one axis. In every intersection of ambivalent collectives we can imagine, political-economic and cultural-value-based injustices are not clearly differentiated, thus requiring policies of recognition and policies of redistribution.
These are some clues to remember and keep in mind: “It is necessary to think about resistance by understanding the important role of personal vulnerabilities, as well as social and political crises. These elements are precisely the most conducive to women activating strategies of vindication.” (Medina, 2016: 131)
I close with the timely words of our Argelia Laya to reflect on the feminist utopia that involves living livable lives free from violence: “Violence against women, sometimes visible or obvious, and other times invisible or not obvious, is one of the problems that call our organization to humanity. Thus, our strategies must focus on actions, programs, and projects aimed at eliminating all forms of discrimination: sexual, racial, and social. All of this stems from critical, supportive, and participatory action, both among women and between us and the rest of humanity.” (1994) Black woman: five centuries of resistance and contributions to the culture of the Americas
Bibliographic references:
- Butler, Judith (1990/2007). Gender in Dispute: Feminism and the Subversion of IdentityPaidós Ibérica Editions, SA, Barcelona.
- Carosio, Alba (2009) “Latin American feminism and its ethical-political project in the 21st century” in Venezuelan Journal of Women's StudiesJuly/December, 2009 – Vol. 14/ No. 33. CEM-UCV, Caracas, Venezuela, pp. 13-24
- Casado, Elena (1999) “Revisiting the subject of feminism”, Politics and Society Magazine, no. 30, (Madrid: Complutense University of Madrid). pp. 73-91.
- Davis, Angela (1981/2005) Woman, race and classAkal Editions, SA Madrid, Spain
- Fischer, Amalia (2003) “Becomings, bodies without organs, fuzzy logic and intersex people”. In Maffía, Diana (Comp.) Migrant sexualities. Gender and transgender. Feminaria Publishers, Buenos Aires. Pp. 9-30.
- Gargallo, Franchesca (2014) Feminisms from Abya Yala: Ideas and proposals from women of 607 peoples in Our America (Mexico: Cutting and sewing).
- Haraway, Donna (1995). “‘Gender’ for a Marxist dictionary: The sexual politics of a word” In: Donna J. Haraway. Science, cyborgs and women. Cátedra Editions, Madrid, pp. 213-251.
- Izaguirre, María Antonieta (2019). “Phobia and the feminine” in Venezuelan Journal of Women's Studies, vol. 24, No. 52-53, December 2019. CEM-UCV, Caracas, Venezuela, pp. 13-24
- Lerner, Gerda (1986/1990). The Creation of Patriarchy. Editorial Crítica, Barcelona.
- Lozano, Betty (2014) “Feminism cannot be one because women are diverse. Contributions to a decolonial black feminism from the experience of black women from the Colombian Pacific” in Yuderkys Espinosa, Diana Gómez, Karina Ochoa Weaving in a different way: Feminism, epistemology and decolonial approaches in Abya YalaEditorial Universidad del Cauca, pp.335-352.
- Maffía, Diana (Comp.) (2003) Migrant sexualities. Gender and transgenderFeminaria Publishing House, Buenos Aires.
- Medina, Rocío (2016) “Agency and Sahrawi Refugee Women. Collective Identities and Subjectivities from Decolonial Feminisms”. In Bidaseca, Karina Critical genealogies of coloniality in Latin America, Africa, and the OrientClacso, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Pp. 125-146
- Ochoa, Karina (2014) “The debate on Amerindians: between the discourse of bestialization, feminization and racialization”. In Yuderkys Espinosa, Diana Gómez, Karina Ochoa Weaving in a different way: Feminism, epistemology and decolonial approaches in Abya YalaEditorial Universidad del Cauca, pp. 105-118.
- Oyarzún, Kemy (2010) “Latin American feminisms: intersectionality of subjects and power relations”. In Espinosa Miñoso, Yuderkys (Coord.) Critical approaches to the theoretical-political practices of Latin American feminism. On the Border. Buenos Aires, pp. 47-60.
- Rubin, Gayle (1989) “Reflecting on Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of Sexuality”. In Vance, Carole S. (Ed.) Pleasure and danger. Exploring female sexuality. Ed. Revolución, Madrid, pp. 113-190.
- Valdivieso, Magdalena (2014) “Other Times and Other Feminisms in Latin America and the Caribbean”. In Feminisms for a civilizational changeClacso-Celarg-Cem. Caracas, Venezuela. Pp. 23-38.
[1] Sociologist. Feminist working towards a popular, plurinational, Latin American, and decolonial feminism. Founder of the network of collectives "La Araña Feminista" (The Feminist Spider) and member of its Editorial Team. Specialist in Gender Justice and Public Policy (FLACSO Brazil-CLACSO 2020). Member of the CLACSO Working Group "Feminisms, Resistances, and Emancipations." Master's candidate in Women's Studies at FACES-UCV and part of the Women's Studies Center (CEM-UCV). Member of the "Latin American Network Against Gender Violence," "United Organizations Against Trafficking and All Types of Violence," "The Plurinational Secretariat of Insurgent Feminisms of FIEL (Front of Writings for Freedom)," and the "Human Rights Observatory of the Peoples." Caretaker of plants and animals, sower of life.
If you would like to receive more information about CLACSO's training programs:
[widget id=”custom_html-57″]
to our email lists.
