Women's Movements and Public Policy in Europe, Latin America, and the Caribbean

The Triangle of Empowerment

Geertje A. Nijeholt, Saskia Wieringa, Geertje Lycklama a Nijeholt, Saskia Wieringa, Virginia Vargas, Geertje Lycklama a Nijeholt, Virginia Vargas, Saskia Wieringa

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9780815324799
• eBook ISBN: 9781135629939
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The triangle of empowerment is how this volume's editors describe the three sets of actors involved in women's collective struggles in the political arena: the women's movement, feminist politicians, and feminist civil servants. Original case studies from Europe, Latin America, and the Caribbean analyze the political struggles women are waging to make their voices heard and to place women's issues on the agenda in different societies.

Chapter 1 The Triangle of Empowerment:

Processes and Actors in the Making of Public Policy for Women

Virginia Vargas
Saskia Wieringa

Throughout history women have struggled to make inroads into maledominated arenas where decisions regarding the future of their societies, the well-being of themselves and their loved ones are made. This has been an uneven and, at times, contradictory process. The history of women’s political struggles is not a linear movement from submission to political power. In some cases “modernization” or “development” actually reduced whatever political power women had exercised. In other instances hard-won victories, such as suffrage or an abortion act, did not bring an end to other forms of women’s subordination. Women’s struggles at the turn of the 19th century centred on citizenship rights. The vote formed the major demand of both the socialist and the “bourgeois” women’s movement. Yet women soon came to realize that enfranchisement did not lead to full equality with men. The present wave of the women’s movement was largely fuelled by women’s resentment that the acquisition of legal rights had not effectively placed women’s issues on the agenda of parliaments, political parties, trade unions and other political bodies. The end of the Cold War has transformed the traditional divide between the “radical” and the “socialist” wings of the movement and redrawn the theoretical map. New forms of solidarity are being forged, based on “affinity” [Haraway, 1991] rather than on ties with a labor movement or on appeals to a global sisterhood. Respect for women’s contradictory and multiple identities, complexity and situatedness are at the centre of contemporary feminist debate [Braidotti, 1994; Haraway, 1991].

The Triangle of Empowerment

The present volume focuses on women’s collective struggles in the political arena. Drawing on selected cases from Latin America and Europe, the book addresses the interplay between three sets of actors—the women’s movement, feminist politicians and feminist civil servants (femocrats).¹ Bridging civil society and the state, these three actors interact in a “triangle of empowerment”, which articulates women’s demands, translates them into policy issues and struggles to widen political support for their agenda. The dynamism created between these actors accounts for the relative effectiveness with which women’s interests can be defended. For example, as will be seen in Chapter Two, during the Fourth World Conference on Women and the accompanying Forum held in Beijing in September 1995, a proliferation of teaming meetings generated a dynamism amongst the actors which resulted in a much more progressive final document than observers had first thought possible. For the purpose of this introductory chapter, suffice it to say that the major strategies of the actors in the triangle focus on women’s empowerment.

The metaphor of a triangle does not mean that actors inhabit fixed and stable positions. For a start, the women’s movement informs all “corners” of the triangle. The present analysis focuses on the ways these actors interact; whether they perceive their interests as coinciding or conflicting; how they construct their dialogues; how they advance or withdraw according to political circumstances. The triangle should not be imagined as a construction with three sharply defined angles connected by straight lines. It is located in specific historical and socio-political time and not in abstract space. Its dynamics tend to be contradictory, partial or ambivalent rather than linear. Relations between its three angles are mediated by sometimes converging and sometimes conflicting interests. Although studies exist on the women’s movement, on women’s relations to the state [Bystydzienski, 1992; Dahlerup, 1986; Wieringa, 1995a), on women’s political activism [Nelson and Chowdhury, 1994] and on state feminism [Stetson and Mazur, 1995] the processes of interaction between the three actors which are the subject of this collection have not been studied.

One of the main demands of the women’s movement is for women to attain full citizenship rights so that change can be effected at both the national and the global level. Feminists are seeking to be empowered in order to participate in the decision-making processes underlying these transformations. Both solidarity (with each other) and autonomy (from the male-dominated structures of society) are important strategies for achieving these goals. In both cases the need to strike strategic alliances with other actors in the triangle is of paramount importance. In order for these alliances to be effective, they must be based on mutual recognition of the different location from which each actor speaks.

This collection addresses the processes involved in the interaction between the women’s movement and society, including the state. The case studies presented analyze the political struggles women are waging to make their voices heard, to place women’s issues on the political agenda and to transform the political arena. As mentioned above, this is not a homogeneous nor a linear process; neither do women speak in unison. Recent post-modernist literature stresses women’s different and sometimes conflicting interests, their fragmented identities, and divided loyalties [Barrett, 1991; Braidotti, 1991; 1994; Haraway, 1991; Harding, 1991; Flax, 1990; de Lauretis, 1987; Mouffe, 1988; Nicholson and Seidman, 1995; Trinh, 1989]. Rather than aspiring to be comprehensive, this reader focuses on the relations between three categories of political actor, each of whom from his or her particular corner of the political arena is seeking transformation from a gendered perspective.

Relations between the three groups of actors making up the triangle of women’s empowerment—women’s movements, female politicians working on gender issues and civil servants engaged in policies related to gender issues— have not always been easy. Their different locations have given rise to different discourses and differing degrees of commitment. Yet there are also encouraging examples of cooperation. Some articles place more emphasis on one set of actors. For example, the Mexican case study focuses on the Mexican women’s movement and its attitude towards a rather totalitarian state structure. Taken together the cases presented here illustrate significant variation in the pattern of interaction between the three actors of the “triangle”. In addition, the case studies aim to uncover trends and to identify successful ways of intervening in political processes.

Defining Key Concepts

Before exploring the historical background of the processes outlined here and introducing the case studies, it is appropriate to define the key concepts used in this volume: women’s movements, transformation and women’s interests, empowerment and power, autonomy, sisterhood and society and the state.

Women’s Movements

In this volume a broad definition of women’s movements is preferred. A women’s movement is understood as the whole spectrum of conscious and unconscious action of individuals, groups or organizations with the aim of combatting gender subordination. Parts of the movement may disagree with each other, priorities may differ, and certain streams, groups or individuals may lie dormant at times. Some individuals may openly identify themselves as belonging to the women’s movement; others may not do so yet promote the cause of women through their actions.

Different demands are voiced at different times. The demands themselves are not subversive; their subversive character is determined by the sociopolitical context in which they are raised [Vargas, 1993; Wieringa, 1992; 1994 and 1995b]. For example, the demand for women’s education is commonplace nowadays but a century ago this same demand triggered violent reactions.

One relevant distinction within the women’s movement is that between groups who actively oppose dealings with the state (as a large part of the Mexican movement does), and those who articulate their demands in a language state officials can understand and select issues which the bureaucracy can deal with (as in Brazil, Jamaica, The Netherlands and Norway). The first stream consists mainly of autonomous women’s groups that focus on starting “from the bottom up” by raising the consciousness of individual women. According to this analysis, social change will inevitably follow from their enlightenment. The second group does not deny the importance of consciousness-raising, but does not regard it as a sufficient condition for transforming civil society.² Although aware to varying degrees of the dangers of cooperating with the state, they opt to work directly in the belly of the beast.

Transformation and Women’s Interests

Transforming society is the ultimate goal of the women’s movement. However, there is no consensus on what this transformed world should look like and it is almost impossible to conceive of such a consensus. Transformation should be seen as a process, not a product. Women are striving to have their interests included in this process, to have their concerns taken seriously, and to have a major voice (if not the major voice) in the way these processes are shaped.

Women’s interests cannot be defined or categorized in a homogeneous way. They are determined by the socio-historical context in which they arise. Likewise there is no automatic process which translates women’s needs, pain and frustration into expressed interests [Wieringa, 1994]. Nor can it be assumed that women’s interests are encompassed by other interest groups. Women’s interests should be seen as processes which are constructed in specific historical contexts and in confrontation, negotiation or alliance with men, society, the state and each other [Vargas, 1993]. Interests are by definition flexible and dynamic, although they are sometimes frozen in political slogans.

Women’s interests as formulated by women’s movements are therefore elements in a dynamic process of negotiation. Just as women themselves are determined by class, race, ethnic and age relations, and are located within the dominant ideological discourse of their time, so women’s gender interests too are situated in the intersection of these relations. In addition to the internal strength of the women’s movement, external political factors play a part in shaping this negotiating process. Women’s interests cannot, therefore, be defined in an essentialist way, nor can they be neatly categorized in the way Molyneux [1985] does.³ Rather, as Vargas [1993] demonstrates, it is more fruitful to analyze how interests have been constructed historically in different contexts.

Despite this diversity, there are points of convergence. Many women argue that values which are currently relegated to the “weak” sector of society, such as solidarity, caring for each other and nature, mutual support, playfulness, creativity and the seeking of pleasure, should occupy centre stage. Others regard these aims as unattainable for the moment and argue that feminists should concentrate on demands which are more likely to be met in the near future. A minimum package which most women’s movements would agree on is that an end should be put to subordination on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity and class.

The central focus of this book is on the strategies adopted by the different actors in pursuit of their goals. It examines the processes of interaction between the different actors in the triangle and assesses the success and failure of their efforts. The major strategy employed is the empowerment of women: women must be able to exercise power and authority if they are to help shape the process of transforming society. Consequently, it is important to discuss here the “essentially contested” concept of power [Lukes, 1986].

Power, Autonomy and Sisterhood

One of the most creative authors on the concept of power is Foucault [1980]. In his view power operates on all levels of society, from the level of interpersonal relations to the level of the state. Institutions and state structures are elements located within certain constellations of power, their beginnings lost in the complex web of force relations. Individuals too are caught in this web, being both actors who exercise power and subjects of power games. In other words at the same time as being constructed by the power constellation in which they are caught, individuals help to shape this configuration.⁴ The in tentionality of power structures is not tied to individuals, as power games acquire their own logic. Power as conceptualized in this way permeates all social relations, being an inherent aspect of all economic, political, social and personal relations. The power relations operating at different levels are in eternal conflict. Confrontation and opposition are inherent, they are the inevitable effects of the power games [Barrett, 1991; Gremmen and Westerbeen van Eerten, 1988: 102-13].

Some authors have voiced concern that by locating individuals within constraining webs of force relations, Foucault’s analysis may devalue the conscious agency of subjects. This line of thought has led to a certain relativism (see, for instance, Hartsock [1987]). Haraway [1991] and Harding [1991] by contrast insist on the political relevance of this view of power. Their actors are situated in specific socio-cultural positions and assume the political consequences of this positioning.⁵

Lukes’ theory on the three dimensions of power is another important tool of action and analysis. The first dimension he distinguishes refers to those processes which are manifest in open confrontations. The second dimension refers to those processes by which one group manages to suppress certain conflicts and prevent them being put on the agenda. This is a power conflict familiar to many women’s groups who struggle to get issues such as childcare publicly...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Series Editor’s Foreword
• Preface
• Chapter 1 The Triangle of Empowerment:
• Endnotes
• References
• Chapter 2 The Global Institutional Framework:
• Endnotes
• References
• Chapter 3 The Women’s Movement and Public Policy in Jamaica
• Endnotes
• References
• Chapter 4 Peruvian Women and the Peruvian State
• Endnotes
• References
• Chapter 5 The Women’s Movement and Public Policy in Brazil
• Endnotes
• References
• Appendix: Summary of NCWR Activities
• Chapter 6 The Mexican Feminist Movement and Public Policy-making
• Endnotes
• References
• Chapter 7 Women’s Struggle for Equality and Citizenship in Chile
• Endnotes
• References
• Chapter 8 Feminism and the State in The Netherlands
• Endnotes
• References
• Chapter 9 A Strategic Partnership for Women’s Policies in Norway
• Endnotes
• References