A - I n f o s
a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **

News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
Castellano_ Català_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_ The.Supplement
{Info on A-Infos}

(en) Northeastern Anarchist #6 - Book Review: Quiet Rumors: An

From Worker <a-infos-en@ainfos.ca>
Date Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:06:58 +0200 (CEST)

Anarcha-Feminist Reader
Sender: worker-a-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Precedence: list
Reply-To: a-infos-en

A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E

> A review of the Anarcha-Feminist anthology Quiet Rumors.
edited by Dark Star (Dark Star/AK Press 2002); 120 pp. $15
If anarchism 'undefined' is the sprawling body of thought that it is,
reaching such polar philosophical distances as rugged individualism
on one hand and libertarian communism on the other, then "anarcha-femiinism"
also covers such a vast political terrain with fuzzy boundaries. Whether
anarcha-feminism is really Radical Feminism, or Situationism with a
feminist bent, or a post-Leftist post-feminism, one never seems to
know in this anthology. Of course, its contents are only a reflection
of what anarcha-feminism has so far produced, and cannot be blamed.
And it is successful in the publishers' ultimate aim, which is to
reopen the door on the anarcha-feminist question and revive this debate
which never really developed much beyond its once promising beginnings.
So what do we have in this anthology? Well for one it is very beautifully
put together. Despite its lack of chronology, I will start with the
oldest articles - contributions from such foremothers as Voltairine
DeCleyre, Emma Goldman, and Charlotte Wilson - the latter being a hero
of British anarchist-communism at the turn of the century we ignorantly
do not much hear of in North America.

Unfortunately, none of the first
wave anarcha-feminists really write about women in particular or feminism
in these articles, save Goldman. They are fine examples of anarchist
writings of their day: DeCleyre's prose and poetry always well wrought
even when describing something as awkward as the various 'isms' of
anarchism; Goldman's timely "A Woman Without a Country" attacks the
repressive state of affairs surrounding the government's deportation
mania; and Wilson's "Social Democracy and Anarchism" shows once again
how much ahead of her time this woman was. Wilson was a close comrade
of Kropotkin in the late 19th century and along with others in the
anarchist circle of the Fabian Society, brought anarchist-communist
ideas to England. Her prolific writings were exercises in convincing
the average person in the common sense ideas of anarchism, but she
had a thoughtful eye in analyzing everyday social relations as they
related to grander philosophical ideas. This latter part is where she
is especially valuable to feminists, I believe, and echoed sentiments
of the 1970s anarcha-feminists almost 100 years earlier. "The key-note
of the anarchist contention is that the vitiation of social life is
produced by the domination of man by man. The spirit of domination
is the disintegrating element, which, constantly tending to break up
society, is the fundamental cause of confusion and disorder." Similar
to the "Tyrannies" debate found later in this anthology, Wilson writes:
"We are often keenly aware within ourselves of a desire to rule some
fellow-creature, who tempts us by his servility or his feeble defiance;
of a sense of equal social relationship towards another who meets
us on a ground of equality and equal self-respect; or of an instinct
of self-defense called out by the aggressive personality of a third.
It is this personal experience which is leading us to a clearer conception
of the true meaning of the strife we see around us."

We can apply
Wilson's acute understanding of domination to a feminist framework,
with the help of the second wave anarcha-feminists, but it was Emma
Goldman (yes, even despite her often over-glorified position in anarchist
histories) who wrote the most about specifically feminist issues. In
perhaps one of her most famous pieces concerning feminism, "The Tragedy
of Women's Emancipation," Goldman tries to tackle a number of issues
at once, and is sometimes misunderstood for her adoration of the "mother
instinct" and other "woman-nature" attributes that make me cringe more
than a little. Firstly, her criticism of the narrow feminist demand
for the vote is as always, accurate, as is her criticism of the emancipated
woman's "progress" as mere limited access to main-stream society. In
this, Goldman sees women sacrificing their "inner life" in order to
achieve equality. This is no emancipation, she writes, and would rather
women found happiness in love and child-rearing than in the restrictive
conformist unemotional life of the "emancipated woman" as defined by
a few Puritan-like souls. Liken this to a contemporary example such
as the unrealistic expectations of the "Super Woman" ideal of the 80s,
in which women were supposed to succeed in a career, have a happy
marriage, run a household, and raise children - and do this all without
having a mental breakdown. This ideal quickly became transparent to
feminists as being more work for women, and clear to working class
women all along that class lines would limit careers, and they were
juggling working, and raising families, and keeping a house all along
and had never found this very liberating. It becomes clear, then that
it is the economic system that must change if women are to ever find
equality in the public realm and happiness in the private life. This
is what Goldman means when she aims for "the reorganization of our
social life, based upon the principles of economic justice."

Overall, I think better examples of these theorists' position on female
could've been included in this anthology. DeCleyre, for example wrote
and spoke extensively about the oppression and exploitation of women:
"Let every woman ask herself, Why am I the slave of Man? Why is my
brain said not to be equal of his brain? Why is my work not paid equally
with his? Why must my body be controlled by my husband, giving me in
exchange what he deems fit?" Why just include her "Making of an Anarchist"
which is primarily about Kropotkin?

Also, a better example of Goldman'
s true position about her vision of freedom of women could have been
included. In the same collection of essays as "The Tragedy", she wrote:
"Her development, her freedom, her independence, must come from and
through herself. First, by asserting herself as a personality, and
not as a sex commodity. Second, by refusing the right of anyone over
her body; by refusing to bear children, unless she wants them, by refusing
to be a servant to God, the State, society, the husband, the family,
etc., by making her life simpler, but deeper and richer. That is, by
trying to learn the meaning and substance of life in all its complexities;
by freeing herself from the fear of public opinion and public condemnation.
" These words clear up any muddled thoughts on "woman nature" that
may be got from the essay in Quiet Rumors.

The reader rather yearns
for some historical context to these essays, essays which span vast
differences of opinion - it is hard to imagine Wilson's class-based
essay being the theoretical foundation for the resolutely
pieces which begin the book, for example.

These essays, the original 1970s/early 80s era articles remain the
foundations to this thing called "anarcha-feminism" that they have always
been (though this is probably because not enough is getting written
today - but
that's another topic for another day). But often you have to remind
yourself of the historical context of the times and ignore the rhetoric
- "the coming socialist Sisterhood," for example; and suspect definitions
such as "Socialism means all the groovy things people can do and build
together�" But remember how groundbreaking this was at the time:
the inevitable clamoring collision between the New Left and second
wave feminism was bound to produce a little silliness. Let us not forget
how blatant the hypocrisy of sexism on the Left was, how much women
at the time had to put up with just to be part of the movement. This,
I think, is what fueled the rant-like aspects of some of these articles,
a characteristic which tends to discredit them. The utter poverty
of sound political analysis is a rational critique of them, however.
Such as in "Feminism as Anarchism" by Farrow, we have at first a brief
history of feminism as it is co-opted by other liberal or progressive
movements - sound warnings for a feminist movement, but the author
destroys any other possibility of positive advice by romanticizing
anti-theoretical components of Feminism, reveling in "our disinterest
in theoretical speculation" and "our distrust for logic" (see p.19)
. This is horrifying, even more so than the romanticization of midwives
- what next, Goddess worship as a revolutionary act? Farrow's insistence
on "situationist based" feminism was the strong point of feminism, but
this became a pit-fall when the movement has become a liberal platform
for single-issue demands. This anti-Leftist, anti-theoretical slant
perhaps has what has gotten us in this mess in the first place - the
vacuum of new and challenging ideas and action.

Kornegger's "Anarchism:
the Feminist Connection" on the other hand does try and follow the
thread of where history, feminism, and anarchism intersect. Importantly
the author makes the argument of why feminism needs anarchism "Challenging
sexism means challenging all hierarchy - economic, political, and personal.
And that means an anarcha-feminist revolution." Feminism, to succeed,
must become revolutionary and anarchist. Kornegger shows how the
raising groups of the late 60s were "practicing what anarchism preaches"
and rightly shows how they fell short in often restricting their growth
to nothing more than a therapeutic function. This was the context from
which sprung the 'Tyrannies' debate. When groups wanted to move on
and take direct action or organize campaigns, they "found the 'tyranny
of structurelessness' could be as destructive as the 'tyranny of tyranny.
'" I think Kornegger is right to say that "what was missing was a
anarchist analysis. Organization does not have to stifle spontaneity
or follow hierarchical patterns." Most importantly she tackles the
"where do we go from here" question, understanding the long-term process
of revolution and destroying patriarchal attitudes and oppression.

Ehrlich in "Socialism, Anarchism, and Feminism" similarly elaborates on the
meat of the controversy around the "Tyranny" articles, which are of
course included in this anthology. Her over-emphasis on Situationism
is misplaced I think, though speaks kernels of truth in her analysis
of the "housewife as commodity;" the necessity to reinvent social relations
and how this so closely involves women; women as passive consumers,
etc. (women as both the consumers and the consumed). Back to the
again, for they are thrown around even in current debates that it
is essential to understand their context. Depending on what strain
of anarchism one is proscribed to these days, one "Tyranny" critique
may be more favorable than the other. To those trying to build anarchist
organizations, Tyranny of Structurelessness certainly rings true, and
the response in ââ?¬Å?Tyranny of Tyrannyââ?¬Â? misses the mark [no,
I cannot liken anarchism to masturbation, thank you very much!]. Yet
the latter was seen as the "anarchist" response - one which explained
the value of small group organizing and the important struggle against
the "inner tyrannies" of domination, to which radical and anarchist
feminists had biting criticisms. While neither are self-proclaimed
anarchist texts, they are valuable to us because of the central issue
of strategy, tactics and methods. I will not go into the arguments
of both in this humble book review, (and any anarchist should have
read these already!) but to say it is not recommended to throw out
the baby with the bathwater. Even in Levine's rather reactionary and
heavily individualist response in "Tyranny of Tyranny," it does remind
us of the essential anarchist critique of inner psychological dominations
as well as our original effort to "create an alternative to bureaucratic
organization." In the end, I think a much more useful response could
have come from a clear anarchist position, which both Ehrlich and Kornegger
began to do in this anthology but it is not enough.

Finally, one of the best of the more recent articles appears near the
end of Quiet
Rumors: "Make your own Tea" by Alice Nutter. This is like a breath
of fresh air I think because it is clearly coming from a working class
point of view, and from struggling in a class-based anarchist organization
whose feminist work was genuine in its efforts. That Class War's overall
performance in the feminist arena is spotty, as Nutter points out, is
not shocking (what else is new?) but plainly her critique is part of
that organization's development (or demise - it appeared in the last
issue of Class War in 1997). And now I am running out of space to write
about the best things of this book. Maybe because they are not as
republished, but the Rote Zora articles and interviews are rather uplifting,
just as the newer specimens about the Bolivian Mujeres Creando. I
will let the reader discover these exciting tidbits for herself, for
I am certainly not going to critique the bravery and cunning of the
actions of these feminist groups.

To sum up I will refer to the introduction
to this anthology, a piece I was hoping to be more lengthy having seen
the name of Roxanne Dunbar Ortiz as the author. Ortiz is somewhat of
a role model for myself, and someone whom I wish we heard more from.
What she does give us in few words is the core importance of this
book, which is of consulting "our historic predecessors," because they
were indeed "far ahead of anarchist men in their vision of freedom.
" But also, though too briefly, she offers the lens through which we
must look at our present situation: as working class women who must
do nothing less than change the world.

by Red Sonja, Class Against Class (NEFAC-Boston)

This book
review is from The Northeastern Anarchist #6

The Northeastern Anarchist
is the English-language theoretical magazine of the Northeastern Federation
of Anarcho-Communists (NEFAC), covering class struggle anarchist theory,
history, strategy, debate and analysis in an effort to further develop
anarcho-communist ideas and practice.

****** The A-Infos News Service ******
News about and of interest to anarchists
COMMANDS: lists@ainfos.ca
REPLIES: a-infos-d@ainfos.ca
HELP: a-infos-org@ainfos.ca
WWW: http://www.ainfos.ca/
INFO: http://www.ainfos.ca/org

-To receive a-infos in one language only mail lists@ainfos.ca the message:
unsubscribe a-infos
subscribe a-infos-X
where X = en, ca, de, fr, etc. (i.e. the language code)

A-Infos Information Center