Aksu Bora

I remember we brought up and discussed the question of ‘equality or freedom?’ about fifteen years ago, as a slightly hypothetical issue. It was one of the ‘free’ agenda topics of the Persembe Group and someone from this group had brought up the aim of ‘becoming equal to men’ for discussion, also blending it with the whole issue of ‘difference’ and being different from each other. Another person from the same group had proposed the concept of ‘freedom’ instead of ‘equality’ to think in terms of… At that time, this discussion had seemed quite mind opening to me, but it was also very abstract. I could never have imagined that one day this discussion would gain a quite concrete, actual and urgent political significance.

Now, just as we are in the midst of very concrete, dire and pressing discussions like, can politics be conducted through projects, the relationship/distance of feminism with/to the state, the meaning of domestic violence gaining public visibility, I remember this ‘hypothetical’ discussion from many years ago – apparently, it wasn’t that hypothetical after all!

Of course, this was not particular only to us, but it was a discussion which feminists all over the world were carrying out within different contexts and with different feelings of urgency. I shall try to give a quick and rough summary of this discussion: As you know, the history of women’s struggle for equality with men runs far back – to the feminism of the 19th century which is called ‘the First Wave’. (In fact, if we are to look at individual examples we must delve even deeper into history.) However, we must add that the ‘differentist’ approaches which were named as ‘the Second Wave’ and made specific to the post-1970’s era have actually existed ever since the beginning of feminism. And these were, in short, various feminist approaches which emphasized women’s difference from men, held that this difference was too precious to dispose of for the sake of equality and therefore said that feminists had to work for an appreciation of the value of the difference in women’s experiences (or from another perspective, the difference in Woman). If we base our understanding on this separation, we may place the struggle for women’s suffrage on the egalitarian (equality feminism) and the deconstructionist analyses on language and literature of the differentist (difference feminism) line. Upon closer inspection, one sees that while it is quite easy to relate egalitarian approaches to politics, the same can not be said for differentist ones. This is so because while we can relate the prior with concepts like discrimination/justice/rights which are fundamental to politics, we can only think about the latter in terms of ‘recognition’, which is a much vaguer concept with a much less clear political content.

The reason for the specification of these two lines of thought to the first and second waves of feminism is connected to the belief that the second could actually surpass the limits of the first and add depth to feminist politics. The realization that egalitarian feminism could easily join forces with statism and nationalism also probably strengthened the desire to search for something better.

However, as you are aware, even though saying that ‘women are different’ and ‘women are magnificent’ may have an empowering effect, this was a line of thought whose limits were quickly reached: Women are different from men, women are also different from each other, black women, those from the third world, lesbians, those from the working class… Those who are lesbian workers, upper class blacks, single mothers under social welfare, those who have eyebrows over their eyes, those who break the water jug… There is no point in repeating this tirade of differences which only serves to inhibit politics. However, it is important to remember that unending discussions are continuing on the issue of which differences are political and which are cultural.

Within this general frame it can be seen that feminism’s aim of equality and of ‘recognition’ both have existed over a long period of time, even though at times one became prominent, at times the other. While women placed being able to access every kind of resource equally with men and not facing discrimination at the center of their struggle, they also wanted a position of ‘womanhood’, which included values thought to be related to femininity, to be recognized and accepted. Seeing these as belonging to two different historical periods and one as ‘surpassing’ the other is a certain interpretation of feminism. This is an interpretation I believe to be mistaken.

I have made this long summary in order to be able to see the ‘knowledge of history’, which shapes our thought today, also as part of the question while analyzing the circumstances of our day: The line feminism has followed does not correspond to this tale of First/Second Waves; not in Turkey, and not in the rest of the world… Why is it vital to make this story part of the problem? Because, the discussion on ‘project fetishism’, which is the fundamental discussion related to feminism in Turkey today, is closely connected to the equality/difference argument. How you define ‘the women’s issue’, how you actually put a name to it determines what you do and how you evaluate what is done.

The article I wrote for the previous issue, “Eyleme Güvenmek” (Trusting in Action), carried the meaning of clearing up the platform of discussion from all the noise, for me. Because I believe that the discussion on project fetishism is being carried out in the context of funds and the ruses of imperialism and that this is preventing us from seeing the core of the issue, (and also slightly because of my anger at those who are apolitical but seem very political) I tried to look at the meaning of making a project from a different perspective and I stated that interfering with the flow of things would only be possible through taking action, through acting. Now, I wish to take the bar which I bent way too much to one side in that article back in hand and discuss this topic more thoroughly.

‘The Women’s Issue’: Who Stands Where?

The demands which the women’s movement has been voicing for years have basically been about wanting public policies to notice sexual inequality and discrimination and ensuring that women benefit equally from public services. There is still a lot of work to be done in this context: Equality in the eye of the law has still not been established, we are in need of social policies which take account of sexual inequalities, it is a must that the ‘Public Management Reform’ is considered from a women’s point of view, the inclusion of combating domestic violence into public policies is an urgent need, the inequality in taking advantage of public resources in general still exists… Therefore, we demand that the public management takes sides on the ‘women’s issue’.

The Circular Letter issued by the Prime Ministry, dated the 4th of July can be interpreted as the public management’s taking into account of the women’s movement’s demands in this sense. We know that this circular letter has many deficiencies (like it’s not having any power of sanction, it’s not having a clear description of how monitoring will be conducted), so the problems to arise in practice may also be foreseen (the structural problems of public establishments, the difficulties in the manner of defining public services, etc.). However, all of these do not abolish the historical significance of this circular: Ever since the foundation of this Republic the state accepted that it was a side in the women’s issue for the very first time, it displayed its intention to become a part of the solution. The Prime Ministry’s Circular is the sign of a new era. This is so, together with many other signs: Like the End to Domestic Violence Campaign Doğan Holding is carrying out in collaboration with the United Nations, like the spreading of projects giving micro-credits to women, like the largest campaign on raising the literacy levels of women this Republic has yet seen. As far as I’m concerned, all the discussions on project fetishism can only make sense and be stimulating if considered in this context.

This context defines the aims of equality and difference from a specific perspective and forces us to comprehend, analyze and criticize the politics of these definitions. On one hand, there is a definition of equality within the frame of ‘the human rights of a woman’ and with regards to women being made equal citizens as a part of neo-liberal politics (this definition had been made clear in the International Women’s Conference held in Beijing in 1995). On the other hand, ‘difference’ is being re-constituted, over a point which stands very far away from where feminists are discussing the difference of women (or is this not as far away as we think?!), and that is over the difference of some women from others: Namus cinayetleri are a Kurdish problem.

Therefore, now, the public management, the state, international organizations and the private sector defines themselves as sides on the discussion regarding ‘the women’s issue.’ As they do this, they re-constitute the context of equality/difference from their own perspectives. Feminists had analyzed the critical importance of the classical family setup, that is, the roles of the man as the bread-winner and the woman as the home-maker, in reproducing inequality and had defined the women’s joining of the workforce as a right. Now we see this request come up once again within a new context, within the context of the requests of the market. Similarly, feminists had defined domestic violence as a political issue and had carried out a multi-dimensional struggle against this. Now, this space which we have opened up is turning into grounds for a different politics: as domestic violence is brought down to honour-related violence and this is again brought down to töre killings, this is being made into a means for saying that the Kurds are a tribe which hasn’t got its share of civilization. Therefore the violence which has woven and wrapped itself around all the tissues of the society crystallizes at one specific point and confronts us as a problem of civilization.

Another distinctive characteristic of this context is the change in the definitions of public service and public management. The term ‘governance’ itself summarizes this change. It is not possible to go into detail in this article but, in short, we can mention a tendency which is voiced through nice phrases like ‘increasing participation and democraticization’ or ‘ensuring that the sides involved in a problem are also involved in its solution.’ The present day appearance of the non-governmental field is social groups’ getting organized within the frame of this concept and joining decision-making processes. The handicaps of such an approach which sees democracy as an issue of ‘participation’ and aims to ensure this participation through non-governmental organizations have long been and are still being dwelt upon in many places. I shall just content myself with saying that the new meanings the concepts ‘public’ and ‘public service’ are gaining are part of phenomenon called ‘the erosion of the notion of the public good’ and that they signify the restructuring of the government in this new period of capitalism. Inviting women and women’s organizations to the table as a side in ‘the women’s issue’ and ‘as a part of the solution’ is an inevitable piece of this new context.

The difficulty lies in the fact that this type of constituting the new context also carries an answer to our demands of public policy: Yes, they say, we have also realized that there is a problem, so let us come and solve it together. Are we to accept this invitation?

I prefer defining this as a political problem instead of discussing whether to accept or decline this invitation from an ethical perspective (which is, I see, what is most commonly done). First of all, we must be able to consider this invitation separately from the intentions and secret goals of the inviters – we can ‘actually’ guess, deduce, assume what they want, but political subjects must know what their own intentions and goals are and evaluate other people’s intentions in the light of these; what happens otherwise is, I feel, living happily ever after in the victim position – therefore, we feminists may have a different role than what is written in the scenario, in this story. In my article in the previous issue, I had argued that one of the things that could create this difference lay in the ‘nature’ of the business, that this was the liberatory potential of action itself. That is any kind of action carries much more that the intentions and goals of those who planned it: This extra is caused by the potential for liberation within every individual who joins in that action or demonstration, and this sets that potential into motion.

Secondly, accepting an invitation does not always have to be in the format which the inviter wished for or imagined. A very important discussion regarding the legal form of this relationship had begun, but then it was distorted horribly and was left unfinished. (Here, I mean the traffic of meeting/not meeting between Nimet Çubukçu and women’s organizations.) The state’s desire to make women and women’s organizations into officers of the solution of ‘the women’s issue’ and place itself at their head as a controller is, of course, very hard to miss, this desire also has its foundation in our history, within our political culture. But just because this is so, are we to abandon this huge field, this space which we have toiled and laboured over these long years to open up and create? That is, shouldn’t the feminist movement lay claim to its own demands and be ‘there’ as a political subject? Isn’t it important to search for ways which are right according to us, and carry out the necessary negotiations?

Projects: What Are Their Place in this Context?

I have already mentioned that we are entering a new era, a new context. One of the constituents of this new era is projects. Projects are worth discussing because, just as I mentioned in my article in the previous issue, along with being a way of getting involved in the process, here and now, a way of taking action, they are also, by ‘nature’ a way of limiting this action, of pegging it down. Therefore this is a topic which should be recognized as a problem and in doing so provoke us to rethink our political existence. I had previously discussed projects as an option for taking action; now, after all I have said, I wish to say some words upon the limiting ‘nature’ of projects.

The project format prompts us to get into a certain relationship with a heap made up of multiple problems: Dismantle, extricate, concretize, enframe. This is why it is so seductive, you actually see yourself making progress. While doing this, you have certain assumptions, these assumptions happen to be so ‘natural’ that you never even notice their existence: The society is made up of people/individuals. Somewhere in the middle of these two are ‘groups of people’. These groups of people may be our target audience, our partners or obstacles on our path. Groups of people are made up of individuals. What makes them groups are certain characteristics they have: femininity/masculinity, being an immigrant, illiteracy… These characteristics are generally the source of the ‘problem’ which causes us to make a project. Therefore, the existence of groups of people is actually the problem itself.

Understanding our society as such and accepting our assumptions as ‘reality’ itself is the greatest obstacle in the path of our realization that we actually construct reality in a certain manner through these assumptions. More importantly, this ‘naturality’ in the construction of reality is so frightfully powerful that it is also easily accepted by those we include in these groups of people. Thus we may begin to work towards are common goal: As human beings who speak the same language and assume the same reality. As you know, in projects, ‘participation’ is a value in and of itself and enabling the ‘target audiences’ participation in the process is one of the key criteria of success. So, these people we have defined in relation to a certain problem and therefore have made into a group of people find themselves a place within this reality; we happen to have determined their self-perceptions with this definition and thus we manage to ensure participation.

Maybe I can explain more clearly by sharing the example which has enabled me to recognize this problem in the very nature of projects: We were working to support women’s employment and women’s establishing of new businesses in one of the oldest and most established shanty towns of Ankara. A part of this work was this process of getting informed/empowerment we may call consciousness raising, another part involved a series of learnings geared towards making them more equipped for business life. A great number of women applied, these applications were assessed according to certain measures and some women were not accepted. Then, when we began the group work I had the opportunity to listen to the definitions these participants had for themselves: ‘uneducated’, ‘house-wife’, ‘ignorant’, ‘dependant upon the husband’, ‘has never worked’, ‘barely primary school’, ‘insecure’… A self-hood defined through a certain lack, specifically the lack of education. What they said about those that were not accepted was either that this lack was just too great to be made up for or that it did not exist. (“She already went to many classes”, “She finished a vocational school for girls”, “Her mother-in-law won’t let her out anyway”.) It is not surprising that this is so because these people had applied to join a process of education and they had been accepted. Then, during the second session when I discovered that there were many women among them who had received formal education including two-year graduate school, we discussed their definitions of ‘lack’ in relation to themselves. We elaborated on what kind of a situation of womanhood this was; we added a separate heading called “realizing our own power”, we tried to recognize, to see, our own successes… While I was trying to explain to them that this was something I ran into quite often in the consciousness raising groups I had joined, there came a moment when I suddenly became estranged to my very own words: Yes, the feeling of deficiency is related to being a woman and it is not unknown to us, but hadn’t we just, right there, named it and made this deficiency into the foundation of the existence of a ‘women’s group’?

More importantly, in reconstructing social reality over such problems (ignorant women/immigrant women/unemployed women) what angle are we taking? That is, whose eye is that which gazes; who is the subject in this situation?

It is not a coincidence that projects are the most fitting way of action in this new era (and context). Perceiving politics as a technical ‘problem solving’ activity makes the political subject into somebody (the state, international organizations…) who will solve the problems. Projects, therefore, confront us as the most effective and efficient working tool for this ‘somebody’. The project logic has an important function in the construction of the context I have mentioned above and the definition of inequality as a social problem. Thus, many ‘social problems’ emerge and all kinds of solutions are created to deal with these. Moreover, the participation of all parties is provided through projects. What more could we want?

Where Do We Stand?

The analysis that the inequality between men and women is an inequality which constructs and determines all other differences is the grounds upon which feminist politics stands. It is only possible for feminists to remain as political subjects in this huge space called ‘the women’s issue’ which they have created, if they construct these grounds once again, from its very source. So, this logic of accepting all these many differences as data and ‘problem solving’ without making all the connections between these differences and analyzing all of their relationships with power, which is the logic behind projects, is actually a stranger to feminists.

Oppositional politics contradicts a certain construction of reality in any case, it starts out by seeing and showing how that which seems so ‘natural’ is actually not at all natural when looked at from a different perspective. Hadn’t we, before all else, said it wasn’t true that “women were ‘naturally’ this way and men that”? Doesn’t feminist politics start out not from the oppression of women but from the fact, from the knowledge, that they are oppressed? Isn’t it the difference between these two which creates the political subject? That is, isn’t it our ‘knowledge’ that reality can be seen in a different way which makes us take ‘feminist women’ and not ‘women’ as political subjects? Therefore, we must analyze every ‘natural’ difference, beginning from the difference between men and women, in regards to their relationship with power and the reproduction of power (that is, the distribution of resources, the production and reproduction of power relations within the society); and we must construct the problem of inequality as a political problem (not as a ‘social issue’). This is exactly what separates feminism from ‘the women’s movement’.

If one pays attention there is a basic difference between the ‘political subject’ I have described above and the political subject who tries to solve the inequality between men and women as a social issue. Let me return to the very beginning and repeat that the equality/difference dilemma and creating a history of the feminist struggle in which this dilemma is determinative is an important issue. Because the aim of equality, when separated from the aim of the recognition of difference, can easily be defined within the frame of civil rights and become an aim that can easily be attained within the given context (which is being reconstituted under new conditions). Similarly, the aim of the recognition of difference, when separated from that of equality, cannot escape becoming a constituent of the politics of identity, and especially since femininity/masculinity is the case, can also not escape being trapped into a conservative discourse which makes politics impossible. Just as feminists do not have the luxury of leaving the struggle regarding public policies in the present conditions, separating this struggle from the politics of the private sphere makes feminism into ‘a defense of women’s rights’.

This new context, of which projects are also a constituent, is full of many dilemmas, dead-ends and tough decisions for feminists; and one thing which makes it even harder is, I believe, the abandoning of the equality/difference issue to rot on the shelf of ‘abstract theory’. On the contrary, this is a conceptual tool which we may use to analyze the context we now live within and also to open new paths. Especially, the perspective which equality and difference forms together with freedom may guide us in forming short and long-term political goals. When we can manage to think of equality as a necessity for freedom we may surpass the narrow understanding of equality of today. Similarly, putting forth the demand for a recognition of differences without entering the domain of identity politics may be possible with the perspective of freedom from the mechanisms which create this difference in the first place.

There was a reason for my reminding of that discussion left many years behind; without taking into account the desire for freedom which is an inseparable piece of both the demand for equality and the demand for the recognition of difference, without pursuing this very desire it does not seem possible for us to position ourselves. What makes feminism both oppositional and political is that this desire is an inseparable piece of its existence: This cannot be postponed, de-prioritized or forgotten.

Equality, Recognition, Freedom

It seems like I’ve been a bit too wordy and have diverted from my topic. This is because I am way too deeply involved in this issue to make the discussion about projects into a top-down ‘critique of neo-liberalism’ and because I, myself, experience all these dilemmas and dead-ends. I have tried to see, to analyze this new context, of which projects are also a part, with its many dimensions starting out from my own experience. While doing this I also shared my insight as to how much I believe leaving off of reading the history of feminist struggle as first/second wave – equality/difference would open our path. I reminded us that both of these lines are inseparable parts of the feminist struggle and both are related to the desire for freedom. I tried to show that what makes us political subjects is our knowledge that the inequality between men and women is not ‘a difference amongst many differences’ but one of the constitutive axes of the society and our analysis of the society based on this knowledge. I touched upon some of the frequented places on the political line we would draw starting out from this analysis; I pointed at the points of negotiation and the points of struggle.

Finally, I would like to make a reminder that politics is made not with saying yes and no, but with negotiation and struggle. It is a job in which patience, modesty and endurance are just as important as knowing in what context, with which forces and against which forces we are trying to proceed.

Amargi Issue-1