Much of the globalization literature does not acknowledge the gendered underpinnings of these processes. There is, however, one significant field of overlap between feminist and non-feminist work in the area: this questionable understanding of globalization and its relationship to the nation-state.

Gender and Globalization

Feminists have been quite successful in expanding conceptions of the political beyond the state to other arenas such as interpersonal relationships, or non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and social movements. While this is a crucial contribution, it has also meant, unfortunately, that the state is largely absent from much of the gender and globalization literature. In this section, I will outline the perspectives of transnational feminism, with specific attention to the politics of Beijing + 5 and AWID. I will then highlight two particular problems with this approach, namely a tendency toward universalism, and the exaggeration of the strength and impact of global/ transnational feminism.

Global/Transnational Feminism

Much feminist work is understandably influenced by an aversion to the patriarchal (as well as capitalist, racist, heterosexist) state. But generally, the feminist work on globalization is less influenced by feminist state theory than by globalization theory. The dominant strain in the gender and globalization community shares the same understanding of globalization as the ‘global civil society school,’ discussed above. In fact, very similar sentiments are echoed in feminist goals of a ‘global sisterhood.’ In the introduction to her book, Isabella Bakker, for example, wonders whether “the state has largely been displaced as the site of struggle for the women’s movement” (24). Gabriel and MacDonald refer to a ‘feminist internationality’ aimed at building “cross-cultural and cross-national feminist solidarity and organizing” (1996: 166). MacDonald also describes the “trinational coalition” of labour unions, environmentalists, women’s groups and farmers’ unions from Canada, the U.S. and Mexico that lobbied for the labour and environmental side agreements in NAFTA (188). She asserts that “the assumptions that the nation-state is necessarily the major tool for progressive change, and that democratic struggles must centre on the state, must be re-evaluated” (190). Joanna Kerr adds that the changes brought about by restructuring are changing the terrain on which struggle for women’s equality should be fought. Feminist activists in alliance with other social movements, academics, and policy makers must now pursue women’s equality beyond the parameters of the nation-state, since transnational dynamics are having such a profound impact on women’s lives (260).⁵

The general problems with the underlying conceptualization of globalization as beyond the state have been identified above. Here, I will elaborate on some of the specifically gendered questions that are raised by this approach.

This view of globalization ignores points made by Marjorie Cohen and Janine Brodie about how these trade agreements have changed the institutions of liberal democracy upon which the women’s movement (at least in Canada) has traditionally relied. There has been a lively debate over the relationship between women and the state within feminism among not only liberal, radical, socialist and Marxist feminists, but also postmodern, post-colonial, anti-racist, lesbian and eco-feminists. Many call for a rejection of the state as patriarchal, capitalist, racist, heterosexist, or any combination of the above. In Canada though, all strains of feminism, at one time or another, have acknowledged the utility of the state, regardless of its many glaring weaknesses. Alexandra Dobrowolsky (2000) eloquently refers to this as “the politics of pragmatism.” Feminists have used various state institutions including women’s policy machinery, funding for women’s groups and projects through the Women’s Program, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, political parties, and the welfare state to advance gender equality. While globalization and neoliberalism have not reduced the power of states, they have definitely shrunk these (already inadequate) spaces for democratic participation through restructuring, downsizing, privatization, and the slashing of social programs, and discourses delegitimizing organized oppositional groups as ‘special interests.’ Aware of the strategic dilemma that the Canadian women’s movement is facing, Brodie notes that “[a]fter a decade of ‘restructuring,’ with its attendant shifts in discourse and state forms, it has become increasingly apparent that the very political spaces within which the contemporary women’s movement found much of its cohesion and empowerment are disappearing” (1996: 47). Instead of resisting this restriction of political space, many feminists seem resigned to it, and/or advocate some attempt to resurrect weakened national democratic structures at a supranational level.

Given this reality, the ‘solution’ is almost always seen as some sort of ‘social democratic globalization.’ This proposal was seen above with the work of Glen Williams. Likewise, Kerr suggests the implementation of regulations for casual and part-time workers, and international labour standards (collective bargaining, minimum wages, health and safety, equal pay for work of equal value etc.) and social programs (249-56). The First Tri-National Working Women’s Conference on Free Trade and Economic Integration advocated the development of standards for health, housing, and labour (Gabriel & MacDonald 165). In discussing women’s policy and the EU, Catherine Hoskyns argues that...

While they are normally deeply rooted in local and national societies (though in a multitude of different ways), some at least are willing to look outside because, on the whole, existing national political systems have not met their needs. A potential has existed, therefore, for different kind of women and women’s organizations to bridge the gap between the national and the EU levels of political activity (79f).

She refers to “a women’s European policy network” (80).⁶

Evident in all of the global civil society/global sisterhood visions, is an implicit or explicit acceptance of globalization. But globalization is not a natural or inevitable phenomenon. It is an interest-led process, filled with internal contradictions. Jenson shows how these contradictions are demonstrated in “the ways in which globalization both generates challenges to existing practices of, inter alia, states and nationalist movements and opens spaces for new political practice” (98).⁷

Regrettably, however, there is a strong inclination toward stressing the strategic ‘opportunities’ presented by globalization. Saskia Sassen’s work is a prime example. She argues that globalization presents the opportunity to “unbundle” sovereignty from the nation-state and confer it on non-state actors such as “transnational legal regimes and regulatory institutions” and “international civil society.” Sassen claims that due to globalization, the state is losing sovereignty, so feminists should shift their focus elsewhere. Influenced by feminist geographers, she emphasizes new spaces of struggle and new spaces of production, such as the Global City. She thinks that strategically, feminists should move their struggles to the arenas of international law and international NGOs. This, she believes, bypasses nation-states, challenges their sovereignty, and paves the way for new forms of political representation and participation (94ff).⁸

Such optimism can be demonstrated more clearly by looking in greater detail at two cases: Beijing + 5 and the Association on Women’s Rights in Development (AWID).

June 2000 marked the fifth anniversary of the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. The UN hosted various activities around “Beijing + 5.” There was also a conference at the City University of New York (CUNY) Graduate Centre entitled “Beijing Plus Five Global Feminist Symposia, Feminisms and Globalization: Women 2000.” A major focus of the conference was on “action strategies,” “new directions,” and “coalition building,” but given the level of discussion there, the strategic prospects do not look promising.

The tone of the conference was set when the opening plenary began with the well-known American feminist Charlotte Bunch declaring that globalization is a reality, “it’s here to stay.” Feminists must, therefore, look into the ways in which globalization might be ‘tamed’ to make it work to women’s advantage. Likewise, while raising doubts as to whether globalization actually exists, Devaka Jain focussed on the possibilities for regulation. She maintained that “there is scope for broadening the cracks in the system by paying attention to the need for regulation, i.e. laws, political and administrative systems, the building of public opinion, and most of all broadening the basis of the international alliances on a feminist platform.” This regulation, according to Jain, is necessary in order to “tame the wild horse of globalization.” The Progress of the World’s Women 2000 UNIFEM Biennial Report also cites Jain as arguing that “there are new opportunities for women to intervene and negotiate globalization in order to enable information and communication technology to be used in equitable ways and markets to be used to serve human needs” (UNIFEM 130).

The prioritization of global struggle, and the downplaying of local or national struggle was a common theme at the CUNY Conference. At a workshop on “Transnationalisms, Feminisms, and NGOs,” Jane Baynes, from the Center on Globalization, Gender, and Democracy, spoke of women organizing globally to “promote norm implementation.” She used the example of the activities of American women (working with the Feminist Majority group) who made cross-border connections with Afghani women in an effort to draw attention to the oppression imposed by the Taliban. Missing from her talk was any discussion of the criticisms of the Feminist Majority, of U.S. imperialism, or of the ways in which Afghani women had been engaged in their own local resistance strategies, all of which would have emphasized the importance of national context. Likewise, Jennifer Disney gave an interesting presentation on women’s struggles in socialist revolutions in Nicaragua and Mozambique. Again, however, rather than stressing the contextual nature of women’s struggles, her talk ended with vague pleas for “international social movements,” “global resistance” and “global feminist civil society.”

One of the most intriguing talks was given by fellow York student, and member of the Japan Preparatory Committee for the conference, Seiko Hanochi. She argued that the “patriarchal alliance” that is the global political economy must be fought, pointing to a lack of gender equality, human security and environmental respect that globalization entails. Her call for “global feminist hegemony,” to make the links between global politics and global economics, was one of the most radical agendas elaborated at the conference. The Gramscian orientation of her project,⁹ which takes the international level as its starting point, however, means that global dialogue¹⁰ and counter-alliances take precedence over national organization.

While few of the speakers challenged the widespread resignation to globalization, Preggs Govender was a refreshing change. Aware of women’s massive poverty, landlessness, un/under-employment and experiences of violence in South Africa, Govender suggested that the discussion turn to thinking of ways that globalization might be turned around. Nimalka Fernando was most forceful in responding to talk of surrender to globalization. The experiences of women in Asia and Africa reinforce for her the conviction that globalization must be resisted. Fernando reminded the conference that women around the world are dying from the poverty, violence, and racism that globalization is intensifying, and so one cannot, she reasoned, be a women’s rights activist if one accepts globalization. ‘Globalization,’ which she preferred to call global capitalism, or re-colonization, is something that feminists must “confront, challenge, and change.” These dissenters reinforced the argument that globalization may create some opportunities for women, but that these are still accompanied by serious threats to democracy.