Mahendra Sapkota, Ph.D
Central Department of Rural Development, Tribhuvan University, Nepal
Kabita Dahal
Central Department of Gender Studies, Tribhuvan University, Nepal
Abstract:
The relation between politics and gender is contentious, which is further implied in the feminist critique of the state. This article assumes that the nature of the state is gendered. With this ontological position of critical worldview, it aims to synthesize the gendered nature of politics. Methodologically, the paper is based on the secondary literature and thus the authors did not offer their empirical data to synthesize the major arguments so far. The paper has first discussed the feminist theoretical debates about the worldview of state and then offered empirical issues of power and citizenship. The paper argues that the state is constructed with contradictions in terms of uneven allocation of resources, gendered institutions, androcentric leadership, and male-biased policies. In this context, the paper analyzes the state as an androcentric construction that is political, coupled with uneven gender relations. The authors also agree that politics eventually makes up the state- the supreme of power and hegemony against the women. The paper finally observes a need for further research works to critique the regimes, hegemony, and institutions of state at the macro-level and identity, self-dignity, and citizenship of women in the state at the micro-level.
Keywords: Citizenship, feminism, gender politics, state, power
The Setting of the Context:
The nature of political science is a contested issue, both as a discourse and in empirical studies. Celis et al. (2013) have therefore made a solid conclusion that politics is a real-world phenomenon and political science has become an academic discipline. A commonality in both is that their nature is gendered. This connotation does not take gender just about biological determinism of sex, which now goes beyond the dichotomous categories of male or female, masculine or feminine, heterosexual or homosexual, and transgendered or non-gendered. Rather, gender in the modern world is a complex whole involving multiple identities of social structure, including culture (race, aesthetics, caste/ethnicity, and religion), politics (nation, states and representation), economy (production, technology, market and class) and the ideological too. Indeed, there is a rare denial that gender seems to be cosmopolitan. Both, gender and politics are interwoven, which calls either gender in politics or politics in gender (Krook & Childs, 2010). But, there are constant debates among scholars about how gender matters in political science and vice versa. It is thus a question of how existing political science would contribute to gender analysis and the feminist perspective of its conventional concepts, theories, subject, and its method.
Though gender and politics have been increasingly institutionalizing as an academic discipline (Celis et al., 2013), it is an interdisciplinary field, drawing core ideas and practices from both the disciplines of political science and gender studies. The contemporary contestations in gender and politics include a variety of scientific issues including feminist political thought, public policy, women leadership and citizenship, nature of the state and political institutions, intersectionality, queer movements and identity politics. In this context, feminism has further scoped as a specific field of study in political science and gender studies which aims to understand the relationship between politics and sexuality and between politics and gender relations (Teelen & Thelen, 2017). In political science, the feminist study engages how political participation and people’s experiences interact with their identity of sex and gender, and how ideas of gender shape political institutions and decision-making (Naples, 2016). Women’s political participation in the context of patriarchal political systems is a particular focus of study including its specific manifestations of race, caste/ ethnicity, class and gender (Dolan, et al., 2021). Following this, various scholars have argued that the nature of the state, its institutions or apparatuses and the power structure within them is gendered (Lovenduski, 2005; Waylen, 2012). In consequence, the state for women is constructed with a full of contradictions in terms of uneven allocation of resources, androcentric leadership and male-biased policies. In this context, the paper analyzes the state as an androcentric construction that is political coupled with uneven gender relations.
Method and Approach of the Paper:
In general, the study of the state in political science is macro-perspective though it is a micro-perspective in gender studies. Moreover, the Feminist political theoretical position is itself critical and transformative. Some recent readings engaging this dilemma include Ackerly and True (2019); Nielsen (2019); and Lowndes et al. (2017). However, this study does not engage with such methodological debates regarding the feminist method of state studies. Methodologically, this paper is rooted in a critical ontological position that critically observes the nature of the state in different feminist approaches, including theories, power and citizenship. The main purpose of the paper is thus to synthesize the arguments and counter-arguments about the state through the eye lens of feminism. Therefore, the authors didn’t engage with their primary data anticipated from the empirical field; rather, they took secondary literature and scientific publications to advance the argumentation and synthesis.
Debates and Discussions:
Feminism: A Theoretical Dialogue:
By the 1970s, feminist discourses got popular with distinct movements and policy approaches. Scholars have categories these movements into liberal, radical, and socialist/Marxist (Nicholson, 2013). However, there are other variants within these three approaches and new categories have been also emerging, including post-feminist and postmodernist perspectives (Ferguson, 2017).
Liberalism is, historically, associated with the individual freedom of the citizens vis-à-vis the hegemony of the state. It advocates for protecting the individual’s freedom, rights and choices from powerful state dominance. Liberal feminism focuses on the entitlement and equality of women, it is not opposed to the legitimate existence and functioning of the state. Though the state was established with a patriarchal society because of historical reasons, it would eventually function to attain gender equality and secure rights and freedom for women. The characteristic features of liberal feminism include right-based claims for women’s equality, political and legal reforms, and policy changes. Ideologically, it analyzes the state from the capitalistic school of thought, which is dominated as a mainstream discourse (Zhang & Rios, 2021). As characteristic, liberal feminism is also called ‘mainstream feminism’, ‘reformist feminism’, ‘equity feminism’ and ‘egalitarian feminism’- though there is not a specific theorization of these concepts. Critically, it is referred to as “bourgeois feminism” (or bourgeois-liberal feminism) because of its elite-centric advocacy. Critics against liberal feminism maintain that it is too much individualistic, which eventually ignores the social and cultural basis of differences and inequalities (Hooks, 2000) or multiple sources of oppression in a postcolonial context (Mills, 1998).
Radical feminism, known as the ‘women-centred approach, aims to abolish the patriarchal structure of society by eliminating male supremacy over the socio-economic and political contexts. Its focus is on unequal power positions in gender relations and the sexual objectification of women in society. Radical feminists assert that global society functions as patriarchy in which the class of men is the oppressors of the class of women (Echols, 1989, p. 139) to maintain the fundamental form of oppression of women since history (Atkinson, 2000, p. 86). The foundation of male power is in the patriarchal system, where differences are celebrated, thus it becomes political. It is the argument how ‘the personal is political’ was emerged and got popularized (Hanisch, 1969). This eventually became a characteristic feature of the feminist movement during its second wave in the 1970s.
Radicalism maintains that the ethnicity, race, class, culture, marital status, sexuality and (dis) ability and personal experiences of the female are not biological or social; they are political (Geoghegan & Wilford, 2014; Millet, 1970). They view women as the “other” to the male norm and have been systematically oppressed and marginalized (de Beauvoir, 2011). However, the essentialist approach to the oppression of women in radical feminism has been contested. Indeed, “the liberation of women and ending of the patriarchy does not guarantee the liberation of all and the women in particular. Interesting is that, as argued by Ellen Willis (1984), radical feminists were accused of being “bourgeois”, “anti-left”, or even “apolitical” within the New Left movement, whereas they saw themselves as “radicalizing the left by expanding the definition of radical”.
Socialist/ Marxist feminism emerged as a blending approach of progressivism and revolutionism in the dialectical historical context (Armstrong, 2020). It laid an anti-colonial, anti-imperial and anti-capitalist worldview in the global context while the class structure of society in a particular context (Luxton, 2014). Class dichotomies precede oppression of women, which results in all kinds of inequalities, including the inequality between males and females. The inequality is perpetuated in terms of the sexual division of labour. The contradictory interrelationship between patriarchy and capitalism is much important for the socialist feminists, while the Marxists further argue that patriarchy and class structure are fundamentally exploitative to disempower and marginalize women. As argued by Skoble and Tibor (1999), the goal of socialist feminism is to abolish the social relations that constitute humans not only as workers and capitalists but also as women and men.
The Socialist and Marxist approach of feminism views the state as it would be androcentric and oppressive. However, it is equally important to note that after the 1980s socialist and Marxist feminism were not taken as synonymous as was earlier. Socialist feminism emerged as a type of New Left movement that focuses upon the interconnectivity of patriarchy and capitalism (Kennedy, 2008). It argues that the emancipation of women can only be achieved by the elimination of sources of oppression against women, including social, cultural, political and economic. Though socialist feminism draws its main tenets from Marxism and materialistic interpretation of history, it is less concerned with the class struggle where women could act as a revolutionary force.
On the other hand, Marxist feminists advance the idea of socialist feminism and materialist feminism by incorporating and extending the Marxist idea of history, class struggle, ideology, emancipation. Marxist feminism analyzes how women are exploited in the capitalistic mode of production and along with the instrumentation of private property (Desai, 2014, p. 119) and the commodification of women (Engels, 1884). Thus, the dismantling of the capitalist systems in which much of women’s labour is uncompensated is a precondition for the liberation of women (Ferguson et al., 2010). Despite this, both socialist feminism and Marxist feminism are less theorized in the changing context of base-superstructure relations, global division of labour and the changing nature of class and production relations.
Since the 1980s, postmodern and post-structural impacts on feminism surfaced to feminism. It eventually formalized the notions of post-modernist feminism, ecofeminism, anti-racist feminism, power feminism, victim feminism, cultural feminism, black feminism, etc. This variation has injected plurality into the discipline of feminism. However, there are contestations in their theorization. Some feminists then cautioned against this kind of categorization, as it creates borders and limits the pursuit of knowledge (Young, 1984). Therefore, today feminists are speaking in terms of ‘mapping feminism’ which challenges any kinds of typologies. Nevertheless, all the feminist movements (and their perspectives) are placing the debates, contradictions and arguments on their own. Following this, the concept of differences becomes the most important concept in contemporary feminist political theory (Brah & Phoenix, 2004). It would allow the emergence of new contexts, implications and critiques of feminism. It means there is a plurality in the feminist perspectives of political science in recent years. Nash (2003) seems to be very logical that in the feminist political theory, the emphasis has shifted from difference to differences with the rise of the twenty-first century. This is taking momentum in recent decades as well.
Feminist Critique on the Mainstream Political Theory:
The feminist thinkers have a varied conceptualization of politics and political concepts which seems to be woman-centric. Despite this, a gender perspective is comparatively flexible as compared to the feminist critiques of politics. The invisibility and passive presence of women in political theory caught their eye and it became their main thesis. Feminism looks at the traditional concepts and theories of political philosophy with doubt and distrust. It is claimed that the political theories are fundamentally male-biased, normative, and androcentric. The concept (and practice) of the state, nation, democracy, king, citizens, leadership, power, legitimacy, authority, governance, policy, judiciary and legislature are constructed by the hegemony of males to suppress the women in an institutionalized and structured way. Thus, there is an unanswered question about how to construct an unconventional theoretical base towards understanding women’s issues in politics. The feminist political theory incorporates a broad scope of approaches in a multidisciplinary. The feminist contentions in political theory include the following, but are not confined to them (Vinod & Deshpande, 2013, p. 394):
Feminist critique of rationality
Public/ private dichotomy
Feminist understanding of the state
Feminism and the concept of power
The feminist notion of citizenship
The blending of feminism into political science and vice versa is a daunting task. The field is comparatively new, inherently innovative, and still expanding, such as it is including the new dimensions, such as the feminist critique of governance and feminist critique of the market.
Understanding of the State: Feminist Worldviews:
The state has been a central idea of political science, which is explained in different characteristics, theories of origin and operational modalities. Its authoritative nature, ruling apparatuses, hegemonic structure and power contradictions are largely contested in political theories. Perceptions of the state in the feminist discourse have undergone increasing attention since the 1970s along which different waves of feminist movements. The ideological critiques (as a discourse) and changing gender relations and feminist issues have also exerted a greater influence on it. Thus, the universal theorization of the state from a feminist perspective is not yet offered that would analyze the global milieu of politics and feminism. As MacKinnon (1983) beautifully narrates it:
Feminism has no theory of the state. It has a theory of power: sexuality is gendered as gender is sexualized….feminism distinctively as such comprehends that what counts as truth is produced in the interest of those with power to shape reality and that this process is as pervasive as it is necessary as it is changeable (p. 635-658).
The fundamental critique of the state adhered by the feminist is that the philosophy of state is power-centric, and the power is often defined, used and operationalized by the male or his representative structures. Accordingly, norms, structures, values, knowledge and realities, etc. are the construction of power. There is a manipulation of male-dominated leadership to hold on to power and take advantage of them. Feminism is critical and resistant to this form of power that legitimizes the hegemony against women. Hence, feminist political theory is constructed around the existing power relations as represented by and constructed with the state. Taking a reference of Vinod & Deshpande (2013), feminist perceptions of the state can be illustrated theoretically with the following four dimensions.
Critique of social contract theory of the state:
The social contract theory of state proposed by Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke has been severely criticized by feminists. According to them, individuals have not consented to be ruled by the state authorities in exchange for protection of their remaining rights (Richardson, 2007). Social order, harmony and consensus in political systems and state functions are often created by man and thus they work for them only, not to the women. Pateman (1988) in her innovative work The Sexual Contract has brought out the gendered nature of the contract, which she calls ‘sexual contract’. She rejects the basic assumption of the contractualism that the individual’s social contract to create the state by consenting is not gender-neutral. Rather, it has reinforced the idea of a ‘masculine’ citizen to keep out and exclude women from the public sphere or mainstream of state apparatuses. The irony is that in the beginning, women’s consent was not taken and, hence, as per the rules of the contract, they remain free, but they are subjected to the authority that was created as a result of the contract. Tracking this gap, she critically argues that the freedom of women in the social contract is ridiculous and androcentric.
Ontologically, social contract theory is deeply rooted in the basis of liberal theory. Pateman (1988) seems to be very critical to various issues of this notion like marriage, sexuality, motherhood, domestic labour and sexual violence remained outside, reaffirmed through actual contracts in everyday life (p. 114). For her, social contract and patriarchy go together, though women are nowhere in this journey. She seems to be very argumentative that “The original (social-sexual) contract creates the modern social whole of patriarchal society. Men pass back and forth between the public and the private spheres and the writ of the law of male sex-right runs in both realms” (p. 12). However, the critics have pointed out that the power relations, as projected by Pateman, ignore the polycentric nature of power and plurality of power centres in society. It is the multiple crises in contract theory (Biesecker & von Winterfed, 2018). The power relations in state and society are not be based on a single factor of male sex rights, but a variety of factors make up it. Postmodern feminists have explored this critique of power, though are not as much as critical towards the social contract as the Marxist and socialist feminists are (Boucher & Kelly, 2003; Walsh, 2015).
Critiques of the gendered role and power of the state:
The patriarchal nature of the state is the central theme of feminist critique. It was epochal largely in the second wave feminism, i.e. during the 1970s and continues to come. The radical feminists maintained that the state’s role is to form patriarchy and to ensure its continuity. But, subsequently, liberal feminists and the postmodernists were ready to accept the intervention of the state in the key areas of concern, like abortion, anti-rape legislation, pornography and such other issues against which there were popular movements. The construction of state power through an engagement of women is an evident artefact in history (Randal, 2012). There has been a gradual realization that the state has a role in curbing such practices, which could not be solved by the social and market forces. In sum, feminists of all levels often criticize the unitary role of the state, which seems to be male-biased, objectivist and instrumental. Summarizing this realization, Geeta and Nair (2013) further maintain that gender, including class and race, are three components to shape the contemporary debates of power, post-colonialism and international relations.
The radical feminists and the socialist feminists are critical of the liberal state, including its democracy and welfare politics. The liberal policies, freedom apparatuses and soft structures of the state are inevitably male-dominated. It is through the mechanism of the state, the patriarchal system is strengthened and the domination of men over women established and legitimized in the name of development, well-being, human rights, and elections. Even the participation of women in the state organs is elite-centric. Mackinnon (1989) in Toward a Feminist Theory of State critically maintains that liberal legalism is a medium for making male dominance. The dominance is invisible and legitimate, as clear by the male point of view in law as is enforced that view on society (p. 237). In this context, Allen (2018) critically urges that state power from a feminist perspective should be analyzed in terms of resistance, domination, and solidarity.
# Thanks the distinguished authors of the article Mahendra Sapkota and Kabita Dahal: Ed. Upadhyaya.
To be concluded.
# Our own contact email address is: editor.telegraphnepal@gmail.com