Global Democracy, Social Movements, And Feminism

Catherine Eschle

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9780367098711
• eBook ISBN: 9780429979835
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Gender Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

In Global Democracy, Social Movements, and Feminism Catherine Eschle examines the relationship between social movements and democracy in social and political thought in the context of debates about the exclusions and mobilizations generated by gender hierarchies and the impact of globalization. Eschle considers a range of approaches in social and political thought, from long-standing liberal, republican, Marxist and anarchist traditions, through post-Marxist and post-modernist innovations and recent efforts to theorize democracy and social movements at a global level. The author turns to feminist theory and movement practices--and particularly to black and third world feminist interventions--in debates about the democratization of feminism itself. Eschle discusses the ways in which such debates are increasingly played out on a global scale as feminists grapple with the implication of globalization for movement organization. The author then concludes with a discussion of the relevance of these feminist debates for the theorization of democracy more generally in an era of global transformation.

1
Modernity, Social Movements, and Democracy

No practical component, of ancient democracy has survived intact into the world in which we now live. . . . [W]hat has survived . . . is not simply a word, but also a diffuse and Urgent hope.

(Dunn 1992:256)

Introduction

Democracy has been both one of the greatest aspirations and achievements of modernity and one of its greatest disappointments. The passing of centuries between the collapse of the ancient Greek precursor and the reestablishment of democracy as a vital ideal and viable system makes its recent globalization all the more remarkable. The revival of democracy was achieved in part through the victories of social movements over entrenched interests. For those engaged in such struggles, ancient ideals of self-government, equality of citizens, and civic freedom clearly retained astonishing resonance. Yet as John Dunn recognizes, the liberal form of democracy most widely instituted in modernity retains only the most tenuous of connections with its ancient predecessor. Its contemporary hegemony may be due more to its effectiveness as a system of government in a mass, hierarchical, capitalist society, and its ability to weather movement demands for change, than to its imaginative appeal (Dunn 1992: 239-252). However, much social movement activism and academic theorizing continues to strive to recapture the imaginative appeal of democracy and to put alternative formulations into practice.

This chapter examines ideas about democracy and social movements springing from the four main political traditions in modernity: liberalism, marxism, republicanism, and anarchism. It looks at the ways in which each tradition deals with the nature of power, the location and scope of politics, the role of the political actor, and the possibility of social change. The analysis reveals that some liberals and marxists have carved out a positive, if limited, understanding of social movements and their democratic role, whereas other marxists, liberals, and most republicans are explicitly hostile to movement activity and systematically misrepresent and marginalize it. This tendency, I argue, points toward significant inadequacies in the theorization of democracy in each tradition and highlights the limitations of underlying modernist assumptions that these traditions all share. In contrast, proponents of anarchism offer an innovative, if flawed, approach to the relationship between democracy and movements, which challenges the parameters of modernist politics in ways that continue to inform contemporary movement activism. The chapter begins by specifying the framework of modernity, outlining the ways in which it has shaped both democracy and social movements and pointing to the continuities it has encouraged in apparently divergent traditions of social and political thought.

Epochal Change (1)

The Context of Modernity

Modernity is a highly contested concept. Perhaps the most important point to note is that "whenever we use the term modernity we reiterate the claim that there is a huge gulf—a structural discontinuity—which separates the way the world used to be from the way it is now" (Rosenberg 1994: 1). The nature of this discontinuity has been variously characterized in terms of a shift from community to society from organic to mechanical relations, from a society based on ascription to one based on achievement, or from feudal to capitalist social relations of production. Debate has tended to polarize around the question of whether the state or the economy is the primary source of power and social change. However, as Anthony Giddens argues (1990: 10-12), these orthodox ways of characterizing modernity are being met with an increasingly widespread skepticism. Many contemporary theorists emphasize instead that modernity is a multidimensional, multicausal, and interpenetrating set of social phenomena, emerging originally within Europe perhaps as early as the fifteenth century. It was decisively articulated in eighteenth-century Enlightenment texts, actively disseminated throughout the world, and reached its apogee in the middle decades of the twentieth century (e.g., Giddens 1990; Hall, S. 1992). Its main features can be described under the five headings discussed below.

i. The Economy. The capitalist economy is expanded worldwide, coercively and unevenly A large-scale, industrial manufacturing base develops in the West, oriented toward mass production and consumption and organized in large-scale, mechanized, "Fordist" assembly lines. Populations concentrate in urban centers. Two major class groupings emerge: the property-owning bourgeoisie and the property-less proletariat, both stratified by ethnicity and gender and becoming more heterogeneous over time. States increasingly intervene in the management of the economy. Capitalism and industrialism are bolstered by ideologies of technological optimism and progress (e.g., Hall, J. 1985: 148-152, 171-179; Bradley 1992; Allen 1992a).

ii. The State. The means of waging war and raising taxes are monopolized and centralized by a single authority recognized as sovereign within a territory. State boundaries and institutions reflect and entrench hierarchical class arrangements; national cultural formations; and competitive, militaristic, interstate relations. This system is exported from Europe through imperialism and the subsequent diffusion of principles of self-determination. State regulative capacities and responsibilities for social provision gradually expand (e.g., Held, D. 1992a; McGrew 1992b; Watson, A. 1984).

iii. The Household and Family. The household/family unity shrinks in size. It is formally separated out from production processes through a hierarchical division of labor, which involves female responsibility for domestic work and male responsibility for economic provision, and which is underpinned by ideologies of women's domesticity and the home as sanctuary. Romantic love and sexual intimacy are emphasized as the foundations of marriage. Working-class women continue to combine domestic with productive work, in roles increasingly differentiated from those of men (e.g., Weeks 1981: 24-33, 201-214; Elliot 1986: 34-72, 77-82; Bradley 1992).

iv. Culture. Culture becomes secularized, rationalized, and individuated. Hierarchies emerge between the monumental and the ephemeral, high and popular art forms, masculine and feminine expression, western and non-western ways of life. Cultural dynamism is welcomed and form is increasingly emphasized over content. Cross-class lifestyle convergence is facilitated by mass production and consumption, the increasing reach of the media, and the consolidation of national identity (e.g., Bocock 1992: 120-133; Anderson 1991: 22-46; Harvey 1989: 10-38).

v. Ontology and Epistemology. Notions of the self as unitary, self-contained, and competitively egoistic become dominant. Reality is largely understood to be external to the subject, comprehensible through objective observation and rational logic. Those people associated with such traits are privileged as actors and knowers. Simultaneously, universalizing discourses of truth, equality, and freedom proliferate into different domains (e.g., Touraine 1995; Hamilton 1992; Connolly 1988; Jaggar 1989; Lloyd 1989).

My account here is necessarily partial, even idiosyncratic. Other multidimensional approaches to modernity break it down into different analytical categories. For example, Giddens separates industrialism from capitalism and the surveillance dimension of the state from its military capacities (1990: 55-6.3). Few, though, draw attention to the household and family; this is a feminist-influenced addition. It should also be stressed that the precise details of the phenomena described are heavily contested. Modernity has been disseminated unevenly across time and space and has given rise to contradictory developments and counter-tendencies, including oppositional activisms and rejectionist theoretical formulations. Nonetheless, the above framework delineates significant trajectories and continuities in the development of modernity that help to contextualize the reemergence of democratic ideas and institutions.

The Reemergence of Democracy

The term democracy stems from the ancient Greek words demos (people) and kratos (rule) (Held, D. 1996: 1). A form of government bearing the label first emerged in Athens in the fifth century B.c. It should not be idealized, given that it was originally established by the aristocratic leader Kleisthenes to bolster his position in factional struggles (Dunn 1992: 240). It was also predicated on the political exclusion and labor of women and an enormous slave population, and it drew a sharp distinction between the rights accorded to Athenian-born men and others (Held, D. 1996: 13-15, 23-24). It was in these circumstances that a system of citizen self-rule was established: rule by the people, albeit with "the people" defined in narrow terms. All citizens were equally entitled to attend, vote, and speak at the Assembly. They were also expected to staff administrative, judicial, and military positions, mostly drawn by lot. This system of extensive civic participation aimed to achieve freedom of the individual and to sustain collective political agency (Dunn 1992: 241-242; Held, D. 1996: 15-23). It was also prone to manipulation by informal networks of influence, by those with rhetorical skill, and by emergent factions, and it could generate hasty, unreflective, and unstable decisions. Its duration for nearly two centuries may have been due more to military success than internal stability with defeat in war eventually leading to collapse (Held, D. 1996: 25-28; Dunn 1992: 244).

Although democratic ideals continued to fire radical struggles from tenth-century millennial cults to the Levellers of the English Civil War, they were not systematically rearticulated and institutionalized until the end of the eighteenth century It took another century and a half for democracy to be extended to the majority of the population in most western states, before accelerating in half a century to encompass most of the globe. What interests me here are the ways in which democracy was reconfigured by the context in which it was revived.

One important factor is the close relationship of modern democracy to the development and expansion of the industrial capitalist economy Both share a common foundation in individuation and social mobility, the standardization of literacy and social skills, and the extension of civic rights and social autonomy (Lewis 1992: 27). However, a reductive account of democracy as a product of capitalism, or as straightforwardly functional for it, should be avoided. After all, capitalism continues to operate securely in authoritarian contexts. Democratic institutions emerged in certain contexts only after the protracted struggles of social groups who frequently hoped to mitigate or even transcend the capitalist order and who had to overcome the resistance of elites. Nonetheless, it is indisputable that the specifically liberal form of democracy that emerged in the course of the nineteenth century did not "challenge the modus operandi of capitalism or the economy of modern capitalism but rather helped to stabilize the socio-political conditions under which it operated" (Lewis 1992: 27). Exactly why this particular compromise emerged remains contested. The role of strategic alliances between elements of the bourgeoisie and working classes has been stressed by some (Lewis 1992: 27-28). Others have emphasized the significance of the prior development of liberal ideas about personhood and society These had the potential for a radical political impact in authoritarian contexts but were not specifically democratic and, further, naturalized the operations of the market economy and class-divided society within which they were formulated (Barber 1984: 4-25: Macoherson 1977:10-11. 20-24).

The state system has been another significant influence on modern democracy In keeping with the aspiration to institutional differentiation characteristic of modern social life, democracy has been limited in scope to the sphere of the state. This has two dimensions. First, democracy has been channeled through, directed at, and played out in state institutions; the state may then act on economic, civic, and family life, but these domains have generally not themselves been constituted according to democratic principles. Second, democratic institutions end abruptly at the boundaries of the nation-state. The Janus-faced concept of sovereignty has played an important role here as the "point of intersection ... separating community within from relations between states" (Walker, R. B. J. 1990: 171). The external dimension of sovereignty has changed over time from a claim about the absolute demarcation of distinct political authorities to a more conditional notion constrained by international law but still not dependent on democratic principles. The internal dimension of sovereignty has shifted from an assertion about the absolute power of the monarch to a claim that authority resides in the will of "the people," resulting in an irreducible tension between the demands of state and popular sovereignty (Held, D. 1995: 38-46, 73-98).

Nationalist ideology and identity have then played an important role in fixing the parameters of the people in terms of those within a clearly defined territory sharing ethnic and/or cultural commonalities. Democratic principles have encouraged increasing inclusivity within the national community but they have not challenged its territorial boundaries. Further, militarism and war have frequently functioned to consolidate both national identities and democratic institutions. Citizenship has been tied to military participation, with the extension of compulsory service associated with the expansion of democratic rights to new constituencies and into new social and economic areas (Shaw 1997: 26-32). However, in contrast to ancient Greece, modern war has been perceived as an external matter, its operations largely removed from democratic scrutiny. In sum, the state appears to have triumphed over democracy, converting it "from unruly and incoherent master to docile and dependable servant" (Dunn 1992: 248).

The Rise of Social Movements

Alan Scott claims that social movements "are a product of 'modernity'" (1992: 130). This seems to me to be unduly restrictive. What of medieval millennial cults or groups active in the turmoil of the English Civil War, as mentioned earlier? Many such groups might meet the criteria laid down in the introduction, including mass participation, the formation of collective identity, and commitment to social change. The issue here may be definitional rather than historical. Certainly, my understanding of social movements does not confine them per se to the modern era.

However, it is undeniable that distinctive kinds of movements have developed in modernity. On this point, marxists stress the causal role of the change to a capitalist mode of production and the emergence of a property-less proletariat, working in urban concentrations and possessing the capacity for large-scale mobilization (e.g., Arrighi et al. 1989: 77-83). Others have developed more multidimensional analyses, emphasizing the role of urbanization, state consolidation, and technological innovation, particularly in print media, in enabling national-level and state-oriented movement organizing (Tarrow 1998: 43-67; Anderson 1991: 9-46). There is general agreement among most social movement theorists that the key forms of mobilization that have arisen in modernity are working-class movements and nationalist movements. The relative importance of each and their impact on modernity remain heavily contested. Although nationalist movements have been seen by many as a critical factor in the development of the state system and accompanying notions of identity and community, some marxists have highlighted their reactive and manipulated nature (Anderson 1991; Hobsbawm 1990). Marxists have emphasized instead the revolutionary potential of workers' movements, seeing them as potentially transformatory of modernity. In contrast, other commentators have characterized workers' movements as "integrative," increasingly located within the institutions of state and pursuing the reformist goals of material redistribution and political rights (Melucci 1992: 46; Scott 1992: 140-142). Scott insists that their legacy should not be underestimated:

The impact of workers' movements on the institutions of contemporary capitalist societies can hardly be overstated, even if they did not, or could not, secure the ends imputed to them by orthodox marxists. Modern social democratic parties stem from nineteenth century workers' movements, while the welfare state has, in part at least, likewise been moulded by them. (Scott 1992:130)

Modernist Assumptions in Social and Political Thought

Clearly, the analysis of social movements and democracy is as bound to modernity as movement practices and democratic institutions themselves. Indeed, much social and political thought that has touched on these issues could be called modernist in its commitment to the institutions and potentials of modernity.¹ At least four shared assumptions can be identified. First, there is a tendency to privilege one or two social institutions of modernity as the most important sources of power, usually the economy and/or state. These approaches to power can be described as monist or parallelist, to borrow terms from the work of black feminist theorist Deborah King (1988: 45,51). Second, modernist traditions share spatial and bounded notions of politics and society. Democratic and social movement activity is largely understood to stop sharply at the boundaries of states. It is also located outside of the domestic sphere. The relationship of democracy and movements to economic life is, however, heavily disputed. Third, modernist traditions of thought draw on a view of the political actor as coherent, unitary, and rational. Debate then centers on the relationship of this individual to society and the likelihood and desirability of individuals coming together to pursue their goals collectively Fourth, and finally, modernist approaches share a commitment to social change. In contrast to the circularity, stoicism, and deference to tradition found in premodern thought, society is seen as intrinsically dynamic. Both liberals and radicals consider it possible and necessary to control and direct this dynamism to further freedom and equality (Pieterse 1992: 7-8). Beyond this modernist commitment to progress, however, a major dichotomy emerges between reformist advocacy of incremental change and a revolutionary belief in transformatory social upheaval. Advocates of transformation have tended to stress the necessary role of movements, whereas opponents have been suspicious of them.² Modernists from both sides of the divide have tended to agree that the state is a key site and source of change.

All these assumptions have been subject to sustained criticism from within modernist traditions and from the critiques that developed alongside them. Thus cosmopolitans of all political hues have disputed that the state is the appropriate limit of human community and democratic relationships. Anarchists have rejected the elevation of the state as the focus of political activity and aspirations. Romantics and freudian psychologists have clouded the transparent rational actor with elemental passions and subconscious desires. Feminists have criticized the tendency to replicate the long-standing assumption that the more uncontrollable and irrational aspects of personhood are distinctive to women, who are thus incapable of rational thought, and they have also argued against the exclusion of the domestic sphere from the political. These dissident voices indicate that modernist assumptions have never had an unchallenged empire within modernity and that their social and philosophical bases are, in many...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Tables
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• 1 Modernity, Social Movements, and Democracy
• 2 New Times, New Social Movements, New Democracy
• 3 Constructing a Woman-Friendly Polity
• 4 Reconstructing the Feminist Movement
• 5 Globalizing Democracy, Globalizing Movements
• 6 Reconstructing Global Feminism, Engendering Global Democracy
• Conclusion
• References
• Index