Intersectional Politics of the International Women’s Strike

IF 1.6 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Journal of Women Politics & Policy Pub Date : 2023-09-19 DOI:10.1080/1554477x.2023.2249614
Fernando Tormos-Aponte, Shariana Ferrer-Núñez, Carolina Hernandez
{"title":"Intersectional Politics of the International Women’s Strike","authors":"Fernando Tormos-Aponte, Shariana Ferrer-Núñez, Carolina Hernandez","doi":"10.1080/1554477x.2023.2249614","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Increasingly, progressive organizing faces pressures to adopt intersectional forms of solidarity. Intersectional solidarity consists of an ongoing process of creating ties and coalitions across social group differences by negotiating power asymmetries. This approach to organizing is not a static outcome that movements achieve and preserve. Movements that seek to enact intersectional solidarity must engage in ongoing struggles to sustain it. This article focuses on the case of the International Women’s Strike (IWS) of 2017 and 2018 in Spain. We use this case to identify circumstances that can lead to failures to sustain intersectional solidarity and the consequences of the ruptures that follow. In the case of the International Women’s Strike, initial calls to organize around the subject of women and women’s labor mobilized broad support in 2017. Black women in Spain affiliated with a group known as Afroféminas called on expanding the subject of local IWS mobilization to center the experiences of Black subjects. In a broadly circulated announcement, Afroféminas called out this experience and announced that they would not participate in the International Women’s Strike. The case of the International Women’s Strike in Spain showcases an instance under which the search for intersectional solidarity can generate broad intersectional consciousness even when it leads to separate organizing tracks. The development of autonomous Black activist spaces informed the continuity and deepening of intersectional consciousness but limited the magnitude of the praxis (e.g. Afroféminas did not participate in the broader praxis that generated disruptive tactics and mobilized larger masses). In choosing to consider racism as a form of violence within one system of capitalist exploitation, limited notions of subjectivity dominated IWS. On the other hand, Afroféminas’ withdrawal of participation limited the scope of praxis and raised questions about the representativeness and inclusiveness of the broader movement. Thus, intersectional and oppositional consciousness can emerge from the withdrawal of intersectionally marginalized groups from coalition work while challenging the enactment of mass intersectional praxis.","PeriodicalId":46116,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Women Politics & Policy","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Women Politics & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477x.2023.2249614","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Increasingly, progressive organizing faces pressures to adopt intersectional forms of solidarity. Intersectional solidarity consists of an ongoing process of creating ties and coalitions across social group differences by negotiating power asymmetries. This approach to organizing is not a static outcome that movements achieve and preserve. Movements that seek to enact intersectional solidarity must engage in ongoing struggles to sustain it. This article focuses on the case of the International Women’s Strike (IWS) of 2017 and 2018 in Spain. We use this case to identify circumstances that can lead to failures to sustain intersectional solidarity and the consequences of the ruptures that follow. In the case of the International Women’s Strike, initial calls to organize around the subject of women and women’s labor mobilized broad support in 2017. Black women in Spain affiliated with a group known as Afroféminas called on expanding the subject of local IWS mobilization to center the experiences of Black subjects. In a broadly circulated announcement, Afroféminas called out this experience and announced that they would not participate in the International Women’s Strike. The case of the International Women’s Strike in Spain showcases an instance under which the search for intersectional solidarity can generate broad intersectional consciousness even when it leads to separate organizing tracks. The development of autonomous Black activist spaces informed the continuity and deepening of intersectional consciousness but limited the magnitude of the praxis (e.g. Afroféminas did not participate in the broader praxis that generated disruptive tactics and mobilized larger masses). In choosing to consider racism as a form of violence within one system of capitalist exploitation, limited notions of subjectivity dominated IWS. On the other hand, Afroféminas’ withdrawal of participation limited the scope of praxis and raised questions about the representativeness and inclusiveness of the broader movement. Thus, intersectional and oppositional consciousness can emerge from the withdrawal of intersectionally marginalized groups from coalition work while challenging the enactment of mass intersectional praxis.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国际妇女罢工的交叉政治
越来越多的进步组织面临着采取交叉形式的团结的压力。跨部门团结包括通过协商权力不对称,在社会群体差异中建立联系和联盟的持续过程。这种组织方式不是运动实现和保存的静态结果。寻求实现跨部门团结的运动必须参与持续的斗争来维持它。本文关注的是2017年和2018年发生在西班牙的国际妇女罢工(IWS)。我们用这个案例来确定可能导致无法维持交叉团结的情况以及随之而来的破裂的后果。以国际妇女罢工为例,围绕妇女和妇女劳动主题组织起来的最初呼吁在2017年得到了广泛支持。西班牙的黑人妇女加入了一个名为afrofsamina的组织,呼吁扩大当地IWS动员的主题,以黑人主体的经历为中心。在一份广为流传的声明中,affrof米纳斯组织指出了这一经历,并宣布他们不会参加国际妇女罢工。西班牙国际妇女罢工的例子表明,寻求交叉的团结可以产生广泛的交叉意识,即使它导致不同的组织轨道。自主黑人活动家空间的发展使交叉意识得以延续和深化,但限制了实践的规模(例如,非洲人没有参与产生破坏性策略和动员更多群众的更广泛的实践)。在选择将种族主义视为资本主义剥削制度中的一种暴力形式时,有限的主观性概念主导了IWS。另一方面,非洲经委会的退出限制了实践的范围,并对更广泛的运动的代表性和包容性提出了问题。因此,交叉和对立的意识可以从交叉边缘群体退出联合工作中出现,同时挑战大规模交叉实践的制定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: The Journal of Women, Politics & Policy explores women and their roles in the political process as well as key policy issues that impact women''s lives. Articles cover a range of tops about political processes from voters to leaders in interest groups and political parties, and office holders in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government (including the increasingly relevant international bodies such as the European Union and World Trade Organization). They also examine the impact of public policies on women''s lives in areas such as tax and budget issues, poverty reduction and income security, education and employment, care giving, and health and human rights — including violence, safety, and reproductive rights — among many others. This multidisciplinary, international journal presents the work of social scientists — including political scientists, sociologists, economists, and public policy specialists — who study the world through a gendered lens and uncover how gender functions in the political and policy arenas. Throughout, the journal places a special emphasis on the intersection of gender, race/ethnicity, class, and other dimensions of women''s experiences.
期刊最新文献
Gendered Ambivalence: The Structure of Attitudes About Female Candidates Bringing the Ts and (N)Bs to the Table: Estimating Intersectional Candidate Gender Identity and Sexuality Effects on Vote Choice Who is Afraid of More Women in Politics, and Why? An Analysis of Public Opinion in 28 European Countries Feminists, Nationalist, Combatants, Activists. A Conversation with Vjosa Musliu on the Multi-Faceted Role of Women in Kosovo Invisibility or Inclusion? Ethnic Parties, Ethnic Seats, and Gender Quotas and the Representation of Minoritized Women
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1