Unfortunately, it was the dominant global optimism, rather than the serious caveats, that was replicated by the Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID). From October 3-6, 2002, AWID held their 9^th International Forum on Women’s Rights in Development in Guadalajara, Mexico. The theme of the conference was “Re-inventing Globalization.” The conference published a newsletter summing up its proceedings, and summaries of the presentations can be found on the Association’s web site (www.awid.org).¹¹ The newsletter begins with an article by Alison Symington, who asserts that “globalization is currently the greatest influence on, and threat to, women’s human rights and development” (4). She then identifies two options: “Will we reclaim, reinvent and/or recreate globalization? Or will we oppose, resist, ignore and/or deny globalization?” For those who would choose any variant of the latter option, she has little patience:

Many would argue that the processes and structures of globalization cannot possibly bring about human rights, sustainable human development or a peaceful and democratic world. They would argue that we should oppose globalization in all its manifestations and strive to create a system that is fundamentally distinct and disconnected from the international institutions, technological developments and economic systems associated with globalization. But in this key moment, can we really afford to be nostalgic about romanticized visions of the past or wax poetic about alternate realities?… (4).

Symington prefers to see globalization as an opportunity to “reinvent global feminism” by “using the openings created by globalization and responding to the realities of the modern, globalized world” (6). Later in the newsletter, Zhanna Zhanabekova urges “[u]tilizing the benefits of globalization, including international communication networks, and new employment and educational opportunities” to advance social justice for women (13). Another participant claims that “[g]lobalization can be seen as a blessing in that it has presented the women’s movement with a chance to reinvent itself in a comprehensive fashion” (17).

Frustrated with the level of discussion at the conference, one young woman’s intervention questioned why the parameters had been set as narrowly as simply “reinventing” globalization, rather than reversing it. Needless to say, she did not receive an adequate response. Also unsatisfied with the parameters of the conference, we called our panel, “Reinventing or Resisting? Gender, Globalization and Governance,” and focussed on how women in Canada, Sweden, and Austria were resisting, and trying to reverse, globalization through nationally-based strategies. Our panel (like many others) was not mentioned in the newsletter (the panelists were Kimberly Earles, Maya Eichler, and myself). Another panel, “Globalization & Resis- tance: From Guadalajara to Cuba,” which also did not make it into the newsletter, concentrated on women’s struggles against neoliberalism and imperialism in Cuba. It fit uncomfortably with the conference theme, with one speaker, Cindy Domingo, emphasizing the persis- tence of national conditions: “we cannot transmit recipes because it depends on the context of each country.”

There were many excellent presentations at the conference. For instance, one panel discussed the “Stop Impunity: No More Murders of Women” campaign of a group of Mexican activists organizing in response to the murder and disappearance of hundreds of female workers in the Maquiladoras along the U.S.-Mexican border (“Globalizing Actions” 24). Another problematized the idea that international financial institutions can be made accountable (“Markets” 41). Many speakers challenged the optimistic view of globalization that the conference subscribed to. Nevertheless, this is not evident in the newsletter, which presents a false sense of agreement among the conference participants.

Clearly, the general thrust of the conference was the idea that globalization is unavoidable, and so we had best move on to making it more palatable: “We can have globalization on our own terms… Our strategies must respond to the realities of this historic moment” (Symington 11). Yet this resignation to the inevitable was characterized either as pragmatism or as radicalism. The same article stressed the need for “fair globalization,” but in the very next sentence declared that “we must take radical action” (10). The incongruity continued, acknowledging that globalization is about capitalism and neoliberalism, and yet insisting it can be made “fair,” or can be “re-invented.”

The inability to move beyond a liberal notion of human rights and ‘development’¹² was evident at the AWID forum. Furthermore, the belief that education about the harmful, gendered, effects of globalization would bring about transformation, was persistent. It was stated that we “need to have sound evidence for our positions”; this despite the countless studies that have already demonstrated the gendered nature of globalization.¹³ Related, there was the idea that we simply lack knowledge of appropriate solutions: “we need to determine what trade, investment and tax policies support women’s rights and implement them” (Symington 11). Educating and enlightening international institutions, such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Trade Organization (WTO) through gender mainstreaming, etc., was also a recurring recommendation (11, 26, 36, 46).

It is worth repeating that globalization is neither natural, nor inevitable. There are ways to resist and reverse it. Beyond the apparent acquiescence to globalization, though, plans for a tamer form of globalization, are invariably associated with aims of ‘global feminism.’ This brings with it its own problems, namely, universalizing tenden- cies, and the exaggeration of global feminism as a political force.

Universalizing Tendencies

A famous slogan from the second wave of the women’s movement was “Sisterhood is Global.” This concept was heavily criticized for falsely generalizing about women, but has now been resurrected, in only slightly altered, and still problematic, form. The idea of “global feminism,” global sisterhood,” or a “feminist internationality” assumes a shared commonality among women that is unrealistic. For example, Gabriel and MacDonald argue that NAFTA provides a common context of struggles, and as such it is a valuable point of encounter between women from the North and from the South. Initial organizing links do demonstrate the potential for the creation of a new form of internationality based on respect for difference (1996: 183).

They stress that “NAFTA makes visible the common links that exist between Third World women in Mexico and their counterparts in Canada, within a post-colonial, global economy” (166). While aware of the criticisms by Third World Women of the universalizing assumptions underlying “sisterhood is global” (Gabriel & MacDonald 1994: 535),¹⁴ they are not sufficiently careful to avoid trivializing the relative privilege of women in the North. MacDonald realizes that there is little unity of condition between Canadian and Mexican citizens in terms of race, gender, class, and ethnicity (188, 190), yet advocates a strategy that requires the opposite to be true.

The prospects for unity among women and other workers in developed and developing countries are slim when there is wide variation in conditions and goals. Gabriel and Macdonald note that there are significant “material and ideological power differences between women in the North and South” (1994: 539). In the struggle over NAFTA, the Action Canada Network “focused on demands for abrogation of the FTA and NAFTA,” while the Red Mexicana de Acción Frente al Libre Comercio (RMALC) sought regional trade that incorporated human rights and environmental concerns (Gabriel & MacDonald 1996: 183). The contradictions of capitalism, which mean that “policies to protect female textile workers in Canada through trade restrictions may work against the interests of textile workers in Bangladesh” (Kerr 244), produce conflicting material interests among women that cannot be easily overcome.

Finally, while links between movements may be increasing, women’s movements are still national in nature. Social relations, including gender relations, differ in each national formation. Gabriel and Macdonald concede that “the specific dynamics of women’s subordination varies across nations and within them” (1994: 536). Michael Mann believes that identities based on gender, sexuality, ethnicity, etc., rather than challenging the nation-state, actually act to reinforce it (491). Manuel Castells also makes the essential point that “while feminism is present in many countries, and women’s struggles/organizations are exploding all over the world, the feminist movement displays very different shapes and orientations, depending upon the cultural, institutional, and political contexts where it arises" (198; italics his). Similarly, Joyce Gelb's work on comparative feminism (1989) points to the differing opportunity structures that shape women's movements in various countries. One need look no further than the fragmented women's movement in Canada to see that feminism is filtered through a national, or local, lens. The Canadian women's movement, like Canada's social formation generally, is multinational. There are deeply ingrained national identities through which Canadian feminism has developed. It took a long (and continuing) struggle in Canada, through various constitutional battles, for many in the movement to acknowledge this reality. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC), Canada's umbrella women's organization, now recommends a "Three Nations Framework" of asymmetrical federalism to accommodate a Québec, an Aboriginal,¹⁵ and an ‘English-Canadian’ component to the feminist movements in Canada.¹⁶ These particular social relations mean that political strategies must be uniquely suited to this landscape.

Canada, like all ‘national’¹⁷ contexts, also has a trajectory of development that has resulted in a certain configuration of gender, race, and class relations. A dependent industrial structure and uneven development mean that ‘gender relations,’ for example, take on various expressions within Canada. Marilyn Porter has shown how an economic structure highly dependent on the fisheries in Atlantic Canada, and the resulting strict gendered division of labour, means that gender relations take on definite regional manifestations (72). Others have studied the specific historical political economy of aboriginal women in Canada.¹⁸ Gender relations, and thus women’s movements, must be seen in national historical context. Global feminism effaces this contextual reality.

Global Feminism Exaggerated

One of the effects of the universalizing discourse noted above is that the extent of global feminism becomes exaggerated. Burbach and Robinson make the grand declaration that “most of the new social movements, from women’s rights and gay movements to the environmental and indigenous movements, have a transnational perspective and can even be characterized in many ways as transnational movements or ideologies” (37). But is this actually true? There is a tendency to overestimate the ‘global’ nature of global feminism. What is frequently seen as global feminism, upon closer examination, looks not so global after all.

United Nations (UN) feminism might be said to be a clear example of global feminism. After all, it involves women from around the world using UN instruments such as the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), to forge a common standard of gender equality. These conventions are overseen by a supranational body supposedly beyond the scope of individual nation states. Prügl and Meyer refer to “a global women’s movement characterized by diverse organizational structures, political strategies, and feminist voices focused on one common goal: the empowerment and advancement of the world’s women” (3).

The reality however, is that these instruments have been used to pressure national states. The UN Treaty Body system functions around six committees which include the three named above (CEDAW, CERD, and CRC) as well as the Committee on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), and the Committee Against Torture (CAT). These committees correspond to six international Covenants. After countries (or State Parties, as they are called by the committees) adopt and ratify these treaties, they are required to prepare periodic reports for the committees. The committees respond with “Concluding Observations” that indicate where State Parties are in violation of a particular treaty provision.¹⁹

<<< Previous Viewing Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6| 7 | 8 | 9 Next >>>