Last April I wrote about neoliberal feminism and, as it is bound to happen from time to time, I was dutifully mocked by white British feminists*. This was not the first time I had written on the topic but I believe it was the first time I had connected this neoliberal feminism to several of the “trends” of the past year, namely, Lean In, “having it all” and the UK feminist backlash against intersectionality. Back then, I wrote (and I am not quoting myself so much as refreshing the working definition that I hope illuminates this aspect of neoliberal feminism):
In The Handbook of Social Geography, edited by Susan Smith and others, Clive Barnett spells out some principles of neoliberalism that I believe are useful to situate my statements further, specifically, he states that “Neoliberalism brings off various changes in subjectivity by normalizing individualistic self-interest, entrepreneurial values, and consumerism”. This neoliberalism is then normalized and presented as “a benevolent mask full of wonderful-sounding words like freedom, liberty, choice, and rights, to hide the grim realities of the restoration or reconstitution of naked class power”.
Last Monday, The Guardian published a piece by Professor Nancy Fraser, How feminism became capitalism’s handmaiden – and how to reclaim it. Professor Fraser writes:
Feminism has also made a second contribution to the neoliberal ethos. In the era of state-organised capitalism, we rightly criticised a constricted political vision that was so intently focused on class inequality that it could not see such “non-economic” injustices as domestic violence, sexual assault and reproductive oppression. Rejecting “economism” and politicising “the personal”, feminists broadened the political agenda to challenge status hierarchies premised on cultural constructions of gender difference. The result should have been to expand the struggle for justice to encompass both culture and economics. But the actual result was a one-sided focus on “gender identity” at the expense of bread and butter issues. Worse still, the feminist turn to identity politics dovetailed all too neatly with a rising neoliberalism that wanted nothing more than to repress all memory of social equality.
One of the topics I systematically bring up is that the internet has facilitated an ahistorical, decontextualized version of feminism. Words become slogans become memes become cliches become empty vessels removed from the original intent or circumstance in which they were created. These words then are repeated and they enter our collective without so much as a memory of who said them and what they mean. I, too, have repeated “the personal is political” often. I, too, believe in the power of those words. But then, a few weeks ago, when I was approached about signing the letter of support for a trans-inclusive feminism, I realized something I hadn’t “seen” before. Or better said, something I had seen on numerous occasions but I had never put together. The letter of support for a trans-inclusive feminism was written in response to a vile open statement against trans* inclusivity initiated by no other than Carol Hanisch, the woman who coined the phrase “The personal is political”. What was once sold to us as political liberation is now clearly nothing but the work of a bigot who devotes herself to exclusion. And it is in the mindless repetition of this phrase that we have lost all context and neoliberal feminism has used this collective memory loss as an excuse to take each individual story, each “personal” into a fragmented, shattered mosaic where there is no longer room for the analysis and resistance to the systemic. If all is reduced to “the personal”, what room is there to stand in resistance to a white supremacist, heteronormative, capitalist patriarchy? In this fragmented collection of “the personal”, all we are offered is individual solutions. The myth of choice where we are supposed to believe the individual can ever pick from an infinite set of possibilities. The myth of choice where we are to believe we all have the same choices to pick from.
When Professor Fraser writes “Worse still, the feminist turn to identity politics dovetailed all too neatly with a rising neoliberalism that wanted nothing more than to repress all memory of social equality.”, I have to ask “which identity politics”? Are we talking about the identity politics that reduce me to the category of “woman” while it forces me to erase my condition of migrant, woman of color, Latina, etc etc? Prof. Fraser’s critique of neoliberal feminism falls into the trap of most critiques that originate within mainstream white feminism: they conveniently forget the “matrix of domination” that many of us are forced to inhabit. While neoliberal feminism reduces us to individual islands, each with our own categories, discouraged from seeking answers in the collective, Prof. Frasier’s critique reduces us to an erasing, universal “woman”. It is not surprising that most criticism of “identity politics” originate within white culture. Identity politics, they claim, are a disservice to “the fight”; we should, instead, focus on a single issue at a time. When you are a person of color, your deviation from the white norm is a hindrance, your multiple issues a distraction, an impediment for advancement. Identity politics, it is suggested, are “divisive”.
In closing her piece, Prof. Fraser writes:
First, we might break the spurious link between our critique of the family wage and flexible capitalism by militating for a form of life that de-centres waged work and valorises unwaged activities, including – but not only – carework.
Again, I have to bring up the pesky “identity politics”: how can we start to decenter waged work when the wage gap between Women of Color and White women** is not only alive but shows no sign of change? On the one hand, neoliberal feminism breaks us down into single units so that we are left with no systemic solutions. On the other hand, this critique of neoliberal feminism fails to address the complexities of being a Woman of Color within a white supremacist, heteronormative, capitalist patriarchy. No matter the angle, it seems that all we are offered is whiteness in lieu of liberation. Or, if I want to draw from a Black feminist that was better than I’ll ever be: all we are offered are Master’s tools. And we know liberation can never come from those.
* Link goes to one of the tweets where, as customary, a link to my piece is included without naming me, a modus operandi followed by many on Twitter to avoid giving credit or engaging those that should be discussed but not promoted. Twitter won’t allow me to get the entire conversation where several white feminists discussed my (lack of) intellectual capabilities to tackle the issue I was writing about. Lest anyone thinks I am bitter about this, yes, I am, especially considering how many times the topics I am mocked for attempting to write about, shortly after, as is the case here, materialize in mainstream media where they are lauded by the same white feminists that mocked me before.
** Using a US fact sheet because it was one of the first links available, however, a PDF of a British report can be found here. I will not research every country in the European Union, but I have written before about unemployment of PoC in the EU with figures, google would provide more data for those interested.
For the past decade and a half I have been making all my content available for free (and never behind a paywall) as an ongoing practice of ephemeral publishing. This site is no exception. If you wish to help offset my labor costs, you can donate on Paypal or you can subscribe to Patreon where I will not be putting my posts behind a lock but you'd be helping me continue making this work available for everyone. Thank you. Follow me on Twitter for new post updates.