<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="container font-size5 content-width3">
<div class="header reader-header reader-show-element" dir="ltr"> <a
class="domain reader-domain"
href="http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14424">venezuelanalysis.com</a>
<h1 class="reader-title">Socialism Has to Be Feminist or It
Won’t Be Emancipatory: A Conversation with Indhira Libertad
Rodriguez</h1>
<div class="credits reader-credits">By Cira Pascual Marquina –
pril 8, 2019<br>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<div class="content">
<div class="moz-reader-content line-height4 reader-show-element"
dir="ltr">
<div id="readability-page-1" class="page">
<div>
<div>
<p><em>Indhira Libertad Rodriguez is a feminist
researcher and sociologist. A member of the Araña
Feminista (Feminist Spider network), she does human
rights advocacy for women and sexually dissident
groups. In this interview with Venezuelanalysis,
Rodriguez discusses the specificity of the feminist
struggle in Venezuela and the need for Bolivarian
socialism to combat gender oppression.</em></p>
<p><strong>There are some sectors of the Left which
still argue that feminist and gender diversity
claims can only be settled in a postcapitalist
society and thus shouldn’t occupy much of our time
now. The current situation, in which we are under
attack by imperialism, might seem the best case for
this viewpoint which is nevertheless mistaken. How
can we show people the vital links between the
anti-imperialist struggle and the anti-patriarchal
struggle?</strong></p>
<p>There is indeed a tendency that comes from the
traditional twentieth-century Left, a traditionally
which puts gender rights and women's struggles aside,
apart from what is considered to be the main struggle.
The idea is to separate these struggles – our
struggles – from the anti-capitalist or
anti-imperialist one. That was a tradition of the Left
in the last century, both in this continent and in the
West more generally.</p>
<p>But I’m not sure if it is very strong these days...
What I’m seeing now is a surprising willingness to
incorporate our debates. For instance, I have observed
that Left parties are now forming offices and teams
focused on feminist issues, and this has been
happening even in communist parties. So I have seen
these new openings. And it has all been very
interesting to me precisely because there has been –
as you mentioned – a very conservative tradition that
descends from the traditional Left.</p>
<p>The truth is that now the Left cannot ignore the
feminist Green Tide [the color green is associated
with the abortion rights movement in Argentina and
elsewhere in Latin America], the “Ni una menos” [not
one woman less] movement or the 8M feminist strike.
These movements, which have been massive on a global
scale, have forced the Left to question itself. So now
the Left has had to think and debate about feminist
demands, and it has had to introduce such demands into
the emancipatory struggle.</p>
<p>But it is also true that this conservative Left
tradition has continued in some ways. For that reason,
we need to remember that it’s not possible for an
emancipatory process to succeed if half of the
population is not taken into account; or if (even
worse) the Left participates in the oppression of that
half of the population. Socialism must be feminist. If
it isn’t, socialism is not going to be libertory, it
won’t have an emancipatory quality, and it’s not going
to be socialism.</p>
<p>If we think about it, the struggle against
imperialist intervention that is going on right now,
is an anti-patriarchal struggle because imperialism
expresses hegemonic masculinity. Imperialist
subjectivity actually reflects and reinforces
masculine domination.</p>
<p>An anti-imperialist struggle is, by definition,
anti-patriarchal. The concept of “patriarch,” if we go
to the original meaning, is the owner of the wife, the
children and the household goods. Yet he also
dominates the whole space of the family. The patriarch
exercises power and domination not only over women,
but also over younger men, and over slaves, of course.</p>
<p>I think it is important to remember this, because
precisely in imperialism we find this masculine,
patriarchal subjectivity reinforced. Imperialism is
power brought together and imposed on those who are
weaker, and it is power that is exercised through
coercion and violence.</p>
<p>Imperialism also implies the negation of other
beings. The process of colonization was exactly that:
making other human beings into non‐beings. In other
words, imperialism erases the condition of humanity
from other human beings. It takes that premise to new
lengths: imperialism is essentially masculine and
patriarchal.</p>
<p><strong>Caribbean societies may be sexist and
homophobic, but they are also very flexible and
dynamic. Additionally, among the working class,
especially in the barrios, </strong><strong>family</strong><strong>
organization tends to be matriarchal. How do these
specific characteristics of Caribbean society affect
the feminist struggle in Venezuela?</strong></p>
<p>Well, I would put things differently. I would say
that the Venezuelan family is actually <em>matrilineal</em>
(what we find is, in fact, <em>matricentrism</em> [a
society organized around the mother]). The concept of
matriarchy is not necessarily correct, because a
“matriarchal society” would be one in which women
would hold a monopoly on power.</p>
<p>If we talk about matriarchy, we might also be talking
about an exercise of power from the feminine
standpoint. Frankly, we still have to think about how
that would be done, what it entails, how it would
differ from the patriarchal exercise of power. That
means that matriarchy as a conception is “a
construction in construction.” Also, in this open
debate, we must avoid essentialist attitudes regarding
the feminine.</p>
<p>This is a patriarchal, machista, and androcentric
society [dominated by the masculine point of view]. It
turns out that one of the most evident features of our
revolutionary process in Venezuela is that it put
women to spaces of power. That fact, for us, does not
mean the end of machista organization. Women in spaces
of power guarantees nothing. The best proof of that is
the twenty years of the revolutionary process. We find
women in decision‐making roles, in positions of power,
and yet we find that they don’t defend our interests
from a feminist perspective. That is because they
exercise power with the tools at hand and replicate
the existing model, based as it is on the exercise of
power from the masculine standpoint.</p>
<p>Regarding Caribbean culture, it is indeed
tremendously sexist. However, we could also ask where
that’s not the case. But it is true, as you point out,
that here there are spaces of flexibility in general
and, in gender terms, and that is important.</p>
<p>Now, I believe that in Venezuela and in much of the
Caribbean, matricentrality is very difficult to
overcome. That is because the central role of the
mother in our society actually reinforces the
patriarchal system… The struggle against this system
in a society like ours, and particularly in the
popular or barrio sectors with their profound
matricentric organization, leads to two important
problems.</p>
<p>First, as I mentioned before, the mother’s role in
our society is the reproduction of the [patriarchal]
system. That reproduction has no masculine face to
represent it; it is apparently a women’s affair. This
means, as many class-conscious feminists have
observed, that women are the ones who teach in our
society, and so it is women who end up transmitting
sexist values.</p>
<p>That’s not surprising, however, since the mother
assumes the role of reproducing society as a whole:
she does it because that is the role that the system
gives her. Women are oppressed economically and
sexually, and additionally, they are assigned the role
of transmitting sexist values!</p>
<p>The other component is the identification of woman
and mother and that, in general, happens throughout
Latin America (where, by the way, there is also an
identification between woman and nation). That
identification makes it very difficult to untangle the
web of oppression that affects women and mothers in
our society. It includes the fact that we are denied
the free development of our personalities, since the
only legitimate role for women is being mothers.</p>
<p>Thus, <em>non‐mothers</em> are <em>second-class</em>
women or aren’t exactly women in our society.</p>
<p>Then, there is a second issue that is very particular
to the Caribbean. Women here are often forced into the
stereotype of “the Atlas woman.” That is, the person
who can hold the weight of the entire world on her
shoulders: the woman who can deal with it all! We are
talking about a woman who must work, deal with the
house and children, be a community activist, and go to
marches. The woman who can do it all! That may be an
extraordinary strength and may reflect the toughness
that women from the barrio often show. But still, it
is not the same as women being in important
decision‐making spaces in our society.</p>
<p><strong>In Venezuela, there is still much to be done
as far as progressive legislation is concerned,
especially regarding <a
href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14051">sexual
and reproductive rights</a> and gender diversity
issues. Are these struggles making any headway in
the constituent process?</strong></p>
<p>It is not going well. The constitutive process is
very administered and controlled. The decision‐making
processes and the possibility that the final text
might include feminist claims and the claims of
dissident sexualities is remote. So it’s not going
well.</p>
<p>When the call for the Constituent Assembly went out
in 2017, those of us in the Araña Feminista (which is
part of the popular feminist movement) organized a big
debate in what we called the “Constituent Coven”
[Aquelarre Constituyente]. The “coven” had two large
meetings geared toward making proposals for the new
National Constituent Assembly.</p>
<p>Out of those meetings came what I believe to be a <a
href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14051">beautiful
and rich text</a>. That document has a range of
proposals for the new Venezuelan constitution, from
material to be included in the preamble, to a new
chapter on sexual and reproductive rights. We also
propose including new economic and social rights,
environmental rights, political rights, etc. Really,
the document touches upon all aspects of life and
politics. That is because feminism today – after three
centuries of struggle – has something to say about
everything!</p>
<p>And I should add that the Araña Feminista’s text not
the only one incorporated in the document. Yet all the
varied contributions demand sexual and reproductive
rights, the right to adoption by homoparental couples,
the legalization of homosexual unions, the right to
self‐perceived gender identity for trans people, just
to mention a few of our key issues.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, I’m not very optimistic about the final
text of the new constitution. When it comes out, it
will have to be subjected to a popular vote. Then we
will see what happens!</p>
<p><strong>As you pointed out earlier, the last twenty
years have brought with them an explosion in women’s
participation in local, territorial organizations.
Women often play leading roles in communes, communal
councils, and the <a
href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/tag/claps">CLAP</a>.
However, <a
href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14169">women’s
participation in </a></strong><a
href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14169"><strong>spaces</strong></a><strong><a
href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14169">
of power is very limited</a>. What do you make of
this contradiction?</strong></p>
<p>If we have matricentric societies, then it makes
sense that a revolutionary process aiming to overcome
representative democracy, will logically bring women
into spaces of organization, into spaces of
participatory democracy. That is, in fact, what
happened here. Women have been the most active
organizers at the local, territorial level.</p>
<p>At the same time, the cadres of our revolution are
not feminists. It took Chavez a very long time to
connect with the feminist struggle. The first trigger,
the event that made him recognize women as subjects
was the 2002 coup, when he saw that it was working
women, women of the “pueblo,” who most vigorously
demanded his return. They were in the streets and they
were ready to fight.</p>
<p>That made Chavez – who as a military person came from
one of the most patriarchal institutions – recognize
this struggle as legitimate. Also important was the
fact that he was accompanied by women such as Maria
Leon [longtime Communist Party member and former <em>guerrillera</em>
who became an important colleague of Chavez] who
taught him about the feminist struggle… Since Chavez
had a great capacity to rectify, to rethink himself,
he moved away from the machista framework that he had
inherited.</p>
<p>That brings us to the 2006 World Social Forum where
Chavez declared himself a feminist, and he encouraged
Rafael Correa and Evo Morales to declare themselves
feminists too. However that, of course, doesn't mean
that all the cadres of the revolution are feminist.
Far from it! Proof is how women's issues are so often
dealt with by making them into mother’s issues, since
that is the only role that our society’s imaginary
assigns to women.</p>
<p>And so, we still have much work to do reflecting and
verbalizing who we are as subjects, who we are as
protagonists. We must go through a process of
self‐recognition regarding our roles, who we are as
community leaders, who we are as social leaders, and
regarding our capacity to really exercise an influence
in other spheres.</p>
<p>We also have to break with microsexism and the logic
by which one woman is the chief of the UBCh [basic
organizational cell of the PSUV], the CLAP
coordinator, the leader on the street level, but then,
when the party representative comes to the community,
he talks to a guy and not the real community leader.
Additionally, we have to wonder how it is that we can
be protagonists in the political process, but when we
get home, the tasks of reproducing life [homemaking
and childcare] are not shared. Or the husband is
jealous and violent. Why do these patterns remain?</p>
<p>We must break with all this; we must cease to take
over the role of life’s reproducers. We must resist
and creatively build other roles for ourselves, other
paths. In fact, even if this struggle is one that
takes place in small quotidian spaces, it must go hand
in hand with government policies regarding education
and broadcast media. The whole system must be
transformed.</p>
<p><strong>In Venezuela, the patriarchal state
bureaucracy and the capitalist private sphere tend
to co-opt the feminist projects, reducing the
struggle to very limited demands, or interpreting it
through a simplistic “woman equals love equals
mother” framework. How can we fight against this
tendency to appropriate and declaw feminism in our
context?</strong></p>
<p>In effect, the “woman equals love equals mother”
formula has been used to subsume the feminist
struggle... There has been, as Fernando Buen Abad
would say, a process of phagocytosis [one cell
absorbing another]. Buen Abad talks about symbols
being absorbed by modernity, referring to how symbols
become spoils in modernity. It could be compared to
the process of making the symbols and struggles into a
small enterprise, and it has happened particularly
with the struggles that the twentieth century Left
didn't take into account. I’m talking about the things
that the Left excluded, marginalized and oppressed.</p>
<p>A good example of this kind of cooptation is the
emergence [in the US] of the Pink Market in WASP
society: the 1980s phenomenon of integrating gays into
society as long as they were consumers. Similarly,
there has been a process of co-opting women’s demands.</p>
<p>I think we have to be very leery of a feminism based
on downloading [hashtags and slogans]. We have to ask
ourselves if doing that will strengthen our struggles,
or if it is instead about invisibilizing collective
processes.</p>
<p>Here in Venezuela, to struggle against the “woman
equals love equals mother” cliche, we need to mobilize
on the street and we need our own symbolic production.
We have to fight, collectivizing the struggle,
collectivizing alternatives, and collectivizing
solutions. Those are the tools that the feminist
movement has at hand right now.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863.9977
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://freedomarchives.org/">https://freedomarchives.org/</a>
</div>
</body>
</html>