-Concluding part-
Mahendra Sapkota, Ph.D
Central Department of Rural Development, Tribhuvan University, Nepal
Kabita Dahal
Central Department of Gender Studies, Tribhuvan University, Nepal
Regressive role of the state:
There is a debate among the feminists whether to choose the idea of a welfare state or not. In the capitalistic mode of production, some feminists accept the notion of the welfare state, but with some reservations as the dimensions of welfare to be defined and gender-responsive. They argue that the welfare schemes of the state are beneficial to women as they got benefitted from domestic gendered power relations, including cares, incentives and allowances. Hernes (1987, p. 15) holds that a welfare state promotes a woman-friendly society where there is no unjust treatment for women on the grounds of sex. Rather, it has exposed the women in the public sphere, which eventually changed dependency. As the women are employed by the state, the dependence on a male member of the family gets replaced by a dependency on the state for the job and wages. However, Dahlerup (1987) argues that the change is not solely because of the welfare state, but due to the rapid industrialization and socio-economic changes (p. 15). In this context, Borchorst and Siim (2008) warn that only the nature of dependency has changed, but the state which is the biggest patriarchal structure itself continued and institutionalized it. The suppression of women may continue with different schemes of welfare adhered to by the state. Some feminists are critical of universalizing all the states in the world. This is a theoretically impossible and empirically contested idea to define the state in a singular term- as what is it for the women and how it works for them. Therefore, there is a disagreement as to extending the experience of women in one state to the other in a generalized, absolute, and deterministic way.
It then made possible adoption, reconceptualization and remodeling of the welfare state about which the feminists were previously very critical. It is witnessed particularly with the fall of socialism in Russia and the emergence of a unipolar world dominated by neoliberal democracy. One such classic critique is the Gendering Welfare States published which has offered a thorough analysis of the then existing welfare models in the UK, Germany and Eastern Europe, with a feminist perspective (Sainsbury, 1994). In contemporary literature, the other works include Orloff (2009, 2014); and Laperrière and Orloff (2018). In this context, feminists gradually realized that the extreme worldview of either looking at the state as an enemy or as a friend is empirically untenable. As Mottier (2004) has rightly put it as a crucial need for feminist analysis going beyond the sophisticated models. It would then consider the complex, multidimensional and differentiated relations between the state and gender.
Critique of State Power: Power is a contested term. In the Foucauldian perspective, power creates discourse, the discourse then creates hegemony domination (McHoul & Grace, 2015). The subsequent review reflects that there are three broad theoretical categories of power: pluralist approach (liberal democratic society), elite theory (minority-led group-based society) and the Marxist perspective (class society—instrumental approach and structuralist approach) (Connolly, 2017; Stor, 2017). Many studies in feminism have focused on the power of women in the private and public spheres, which are interlinked. However, the feminist studies on the power of non-state actors are less scholarly attempted (Olive, 2017). A critical review on it reflects that power was understood by the feminists in the initial phases in terms of control over resources, later they focused on the institutions and resources.
The feminist scholars are critical to the hegemonic nature of power that disempowers and subjugates women in the state, society, culture and politics. In particular, the power centres on the patriarchal system and, in consequence, it leads to gender inequality and powerlessness of women. Feminists often reject the state power that gives privileges to the male at the cost of the female. Feminists disagree with the use of military power and other repressive organs by the state as history is clear where women become the victims of war and violence most of the time, and they had lost their lives in the name of revolution, emancipation and nationalism.
The political system cannot remain in isolation where it requires power to survive and transform. Feminism is critical of power in a democracy if it exists with gender inequality. The autonomy and sovereignty of power are ever contested from where and to whom is it constructed. Indeed, there is a gender construction of power that is politically legitimatized through the state. It is thus the decision-making power is granted with and exercised by the male member in society. The power in the private sphere gets transferred to the public sphere due to the process of democracy and its norms, including election, leadership, representation and governance. Thus, democratic power is exercised for the domination and suppression of women, rather than making a just and gender-responsive society. However, it is not a generalized notion in feminism that all feminists necessarily negate the role of power in democracy and other political systems (Paxton et al., 2020).
Another perspective of power is worthwhile to note in this regard. Most feminist scholars conceptualized power as the tool of liberation, though it is contested (Hinojosa & Kittilson, 2020). From this perspective, women often want power so that they could be equal to men and enjoy freedom like them. This is a soft version of critique of state power. The harder one perceives power as to mean ‘power for self-definition, ‘power over one’s body and the ‘power of self-determination’. In this line, Segal (1987) defined power in terms of determining the order: ‘we wanted power to participate in making of a new world which would be free from all forms of domination (p. 2).
Feminist Critique of Citizenship:
Citizenship has been a fundamental issue in political science at which feminist thinkers have observed gender bias and an androcentric worldview. They reject the universalized notion of liberal citizenship. The political theory of liberal democracy is dominant and mainstream in the present world order. It assumes that there is equal access and rights of citizenship in a democracy. However, the history of feminist movements critically warned a common feature of modern states, i.e. exclusion of women from public politics, elite-centric male domination and denial of citizenship rights to women. Eventually, the participatory rights of the woman had not been empirically valid. Pateman, Walby, Richardson, and Arno are critical of the mainstream citizenship theory as it is theoretically incomplete and empirically patriarchal.
In this context, Okin, Elshtain, Pateman and others have dealt with the issue of how and why women as a group remained less prioritized in political theory. Even in T.H. Marshall’s conceptualization of citizenship (“Citizenship and the Social Class” in 1949) which narrates the evolution of civil rights, political rights and social rights, there is no issue of women is presented.
Sylvia (1994) has raised objections against Marshall’s theory for not considering gender relations. Following this, Siim (2000) has further criticized the model as it was based on the development of rights of men which eventually could not notice the women’s rights and other subordinated groups though they have had their history and logic. In recent years, however, women’s citizenship has been knotted with the multiple issues of society and state, including migration and women (Dobrowolsky, 2016); women, marriage and the law of citizenship (Bredbenner, 2018); sexual politics and citizenship (Franzway, 2016); and gender, class and citizenship (O’connor, 2018).
Multiculturalism and diversity among women have been another debated issue in feminism (Martin, 2020), which is further questioned whether it is good or bad for women (Okin, 2016). It would add a new dimension of re-gendering citizenship. Lister (1997) has proposed a comparative approach rather than universalizing ‘all the women’ in the world and their issue of citizenship. The needs and rights of specific groups of women and the needs and rights of women in general might of empirically different. She identifies feminist approaches to citizenship into three categories: Gender-neutral model (women are equal with men); Gender differentiation model (women are different from men); and Gender-pluralism model (men and women are members of multiple groups and holders of multiple identities). Lister in her later works as well firmly concludes that the best way is to construct ‘women-friendly citizenship’ by synthesizing all the three models, and urges it to be the responsibility of modern states (Lister, 2008).
As argued by Fierro (2016), it is an urgent need to go beyond the existing heterogeneity among different positions in the feminist political theory. It is thus desirable to identify some common aspects that provide a basis for the critique of the liberal conception of citizenship. This contradicts with the theory of multiracialism and the practice of multiculturalism denying the mainstreaming of feminist agendas of citizenship and political rights.
It is the responsibility of the state to offer a women-friendly citizenship policy by reconciling the needs and rights of all kinds of women in their specifications, whether they be—the refugee women, the migrant women or the women of the host country. Along with this, a notion of differential universalism in citizenship is getting importance in feminist political critique. On the other hand, feminists are also divided at the scope of citizenship: whether it is granted by the state or from the culture and society. Most of the postmodernists and few neo-Marxists tend to involve the idea of citizenship both as to membership of a state and the membership of a community. Patriarchal social structure, androcentric worldview and gender-biased production relations are strongly functional not only in the state’s affairs but also in the day-to-day operations of non-state actors, civil societies and cultural practices. Moreover, feminists severely attack the assumption of a self-interested self, i.e. individuals to cultivate a virtuous self (Connolly, 2002). Unfortunate is that a good citizen is recognized with (and expected to) cultivate typically manly virtues such as self-control, impartiality, and civic courage.
State Feminism vs Market Feminism:
The state vs market contradiction is one of the most contested ideas in political science and economics and development studies. Gender and politics consider it as an engaging topic of scholarship where state feminism and market feminism are contrasted and compared critically.
State feminism is the state-centric notion of feminism that is facilitated, created, or approved by the government of a state or nation. Helga Hernes coined the term in 1987 with particular reference to the situation in Norway (Hernes, 1987) and which then extended to the Nordic counties and Scandinavian countries (McBride, & Mazur, 2010, p. 4). Feminist theorists in the 1980s revisited their assumption about the role of the state (as oppressive) and realized that governments could have positive outcomes for women in terms of quality of lives/ livelihoods, and the mainstreaming in socio-economic sectors. The emergence of this notion was based on government-supported gender equality policies. Franceschet (2003) argues that state feminism is a policy approach when the government or the state adopts policies that are beneficial to women’s rights and the improvement of women’s (p. 7).
The state feminists often look at the effectiveness, efficiency and impact of various government programs, as if these interventions improve women’s rights and their status. Kobayashi (2004) defines the state as a system that could support the interests of different classes, genders and racial hierarchies (p. 17) along with a diverse number of programs that have different levels of support within government or society (p. 19). Thus, state feminism believes that a state program or a policy reform particularly contributes to gender equality, which then opens a possibility of transforming gender relationships. State feminism favours participatory government to enhance democratic governance and gender-egalitarian policies in favour of women. However, it has been criticized that attachment of state feminism with the state is itself a wonder, ontologically, to adapt the patriarchy- the major source of power. Moreover, women’s movements and targeted programs may be prohibited by the government as its hegemonic construction. The state could grant the rights of expression, civic freedom and participation in the political sphere for women to a small scale, though these reforms are often defined and operationalized through the androcentric worldview of politics at large. On the other hand, as noted by Allsopp (2012), state feminism does not talk about why and how the government takes over the role of speaking for and on behalf of women, rather than letting women themselves speak and make demands.
Contrary to state feminism, market feminism adheres to the market and private sector as the reformer, executive, and guarantor of women’s rights. Women are less political and more economic in this worldview. McCloskey (2000) proposes to women why they could not be economic agents and as economists, while there is a dominance of males as economists and economic agents. Scholars increasingly realize that the state could not offer emancipatory measures and interventions in favour of women. Rather, it is the market that dominates the state and society and thus has sufficient room for mainstreaming women’s agendas and improving their lives. Market feminists often believe that free-market economics can improve the position, status and well-being of women. There is a classic work Market, state and feminism: the economics of feminist policy which questions the philosophical basis of free-market feminism, challenging its masculine assumptions about rationality and individualism (Hatt & Watson-Brown, 2000). It is a critical remark on the theoretical validity of the debate, i.e. market versus the state. The authors analyze the nature of the state as being restrictive and intrusive, though it could enhance the individual’s ability to make cost-effective choices. Rather than focusing on dichotomous positions, they thus draw attention to the interdependence between markets and state institutions.
Some feminists have warned of the inadequacy and incapability of the state to promote women’s well-being. Kantola and Squires (2012) argue that the concept of ‘state feminism’ no longer adequately captures the complexity of emerging feminist engagements with novel forms of governance. ‘Market feminism’ could serve as a new strategy for women’s empowerment. It would ease a new conceptual framework to analyze and evaluate the feminist approach (of both private and public sphere) in terms of changed policies, practices and the new form of governance. However, this is less theorized how the market would serve the feminist emancipation instead of the state. Is the market such a powerful and all-embracing institution? In this context, Eichner (2016) seems to be critical of contemporary US feminism. She realized that it has not adequately been theorized the problems with the relatively unregulated market system.
In this context, it is worthwhile to mention the argument of Yeatman (2017) who maintains that progressive politics is centred on the state, which is also implied in the feminist discourse. The notion of distributive justice is essentially privileged to the state, which would also affect the feminist claims of reform, well-being and political participation.
Conclusion:
The scholarly debate and engagement of feminism reflect that the idea of the state is gendered. This paper synthesizes that, in terms of feminist criticism, they construct the state with contradictions in terms of uneven allocation of resources, gendered institutions, androcentric leadership, and male-biased policies. However, it lacks a uniformity to analyze the pattern, trend and structure of gender in the state. While the liberal feminist seems at looking state as a right-based approach, socialists and Marxists view this from the power-based approaches. It is theoretically rational to know feminism with theoretical accounts of politics and its construction, i.e. the state. The state is itself a repressive agent for women, though feminists are divided to view this as they need to abolish it or continue it with some improvements and gender-friendly adaptations. All types of feminists would then link their critiques of state with its structure and function along with power relations and provision of citizenship. Unfortunately, former works were overly focused on the actors of the state that repressed the voices of women. The structural approach was lacking in visualizing the gendered state.
The sociological debate of actor vs agency was less entertained in political science and they also reflected it in the feminist movements. There was an “institutional turn” in gender and politics in the 1980s. Feminist institutionalists are less attractive towards the analysis of the state. It is important to theorize that if there is a wider understanding of institutions in the society as gendered structures, the institutions of the state (i.e. actors, apparatuses, and structures) are also gendered in nature. Equally important is the theorization of how the classical perspectives of feminism (liberal, socialist, Marxist, and radicals in particular) over the state have got severe criticism in recent years. In this context, the paper argues that the rise and imminent scope of new feminist movements, including post-modernism, neo-Marxism, post-feminism and post structuralism, cannot be avoided in contemporary discourse.
Thus, this paper concludes that the state is not a homogenous and women-friendly construction. Rather, it is ever debated and contested in terms of its structure, power and the actors and agencies within it. Three is a need for more research on the ideological dimension (philosophy and discourses of state) as well as in the empirical dimensions (including actors and structures of the state, role of gender and sexuality in constituting those actors and structures, violence and gender equality policies).
Feminist critiques of the state have looked not only at how and why gender inequality occurs or persists in the state, but also how and why gender difference is constructed and gender inequality reproduced through institutions and policies to continue the hegemony of the state. It is also critical not that modern nation-states are adopting particular kinds of reforms in favour of women, but they are gendered and thus reproduce continues hegemony in the name of liberalism, freedom and democracy. The market actors and their forces are too androcentric. In this context, further research works are needed to critique the regimes and institutions of state at the macro-level and identity, self-dignity and citizenship of women of state at the micro-level.
As a final remark, though the states have often criticized in androcentric which avoids the feminist goals, they are also the locus of many of the problems that occupy feminist viz. moral regulation, cheapening of women’s labor, stereotyping, history and contemporary art and aesthetics. Both empirically and theoretically, addressing all these issues from a feminist perspective is still a critical question. Following this, this paper necessitates exploring how the variations in national location and disciplinary compulsions lead to innovative forms of feminist state theory concerning a range of states—agents of neoliberalism, welfare states, developmental states, authoritarian states, aspiring nascent states, and rapidly industrialized states.
# Our special thanks are due to the distinguished authors Mr. Mahendra Sapkota and Madame Kabita Dahal
( Sapkota).
Text courtesy: Published with the straight permission from the authors and the Journal of Political Science, Vol. 22, February 2022 [75-91] 11, POkhra, Nepal: Ed. Upadhyaya. N. P.
# Our own contact email address is: editor.telegraphnepal@gmail.com