CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 5
5.4 The South African women’s project
5.4.3 Race and the post-apartheid women’s project
black women. Many whites and some coloureds visited African townships for the first time (Fester 1997:55).
Of course what is not reported is that there was a large sector of white women at the time who considered themselves feminist but who were not committed to the MDM and therefore not exposed to the above debates and experiences fostered in that environment of non- racialism. This is the inherent tension that has continued to be played out in the debates as they have emerged in the 1990s. Nothing can erase the history that is so evident in the women’s political movement throughout the century that shows a lack of will by many white feminists to prioritise basic human rights for all and the racial discrimination experienced by the majority of South African women. The suspicion, anger, and antagonism experienced between women of differing race and class backgrounds during the 1990s has a long history of betrayal that has to be addressed and acknowledged particularly by white women.
that the WNC had a more strongly white and middle-class ethos than did FSAW, WNCO, and the WA because many more academics were involved.
This enhanced the quality of the debates but increased tensions about domination and insensitivity. New ways of working were introduced which some of us found difficult. In building new alliances and new organisations, a new culture emerged. There was an air of “professionalism” and a very fast pace. When delegates had to be elected, confident white women (not with UWO or FSAW history) would quickly nominate their colleagues. There was no awareness of the strategic importance of electing delegates, e.g. having specific and/or representative delegations for specific tasks (Fester 1997:55- 56).
Meintjies (1996) in her analysis of the WNC does not make reference to these tensions.
While providing a useful discussion of the work carried out by the WNC during the years leading up to liberation, it in fact corroborates Fester’s assertion that white academics were nominated into key positions that undertook the necessary research in drawing up the Charter (Meintjies 1996:58-62). Fester (1997:56) pursues her argument by personalising her
frustration that there seemed to be no awareness of race amongst the white women. Racism was only ever raised as an issue by delegates from other race groups. Meintjies (1996) in her assessment of the effectiveness of the WNC since 1994 suggests that its continued existence was hampered by the lack of funds and a lack of leadership. “The leadership capable of drawing women together on a national level have been sucked into Parliament, where energies have been dispersed in national politics and the tasks of the moment, rather than fighting the gender struggle” (Meintjies 1996:61). While there is some validity in this argument, it is an argument that does not raise questions about the representation of the leadership, the very point Fester (1997) is arguing. Meintjies bewails the fact that “the WNC has not turned out to be the long-hoped-for women’s movement which could sustain the struggle for women’s emancipation” (1996:62). There is no recognition that issues of race and class also underlie many of the leadership problems.
This resonates with my own experience of meetings in cross-racial gatherings of women in an
number of different contexts including religious gatherings, academic meetings, or political celebrations. Race is seldom mentioned, at least not by white women. If it is raised, white women tend to act defensively while black women are at pains to explain (or often remain silent) the racial undercurrents and contradictions that exist between them. White women’s refusal to acknowledge their incipient racism remains a stumbling block in the women’s project. During this post-apartheid period, power relations throughout the society are undergoing enormous transformation. White women academics and researchers wanting to work with women who are “other” than themselves have to take seriously their history of privilege and supremacy in their ongoing theorising and praxis. This, I suggest, means a re- constitution of self, foregrounding their race and class, and being willing to let “other” groups set the agenda for the women’s project. If not, I believe, indigenous African women like their African American sisters, will simply ignore white women and get on with theorising about their praxis in ways that are relevant to their life experience. As women, our South African experience is unique to the African continent. Being able to forge a collaborative women’s project in our fractured context, potentially offers the women’s project throughout the world a model for our work together as women in all our diversity.
Confronting “whiteness” and its implications, has not been totally ignored by white women in the difference debate in South Africa (Bennett and Friedman 1997; Holland-Muter 1995).
Holland-Muter attempts to explore the various ways in which white women as individuals and as a groups need to respond to the charges of “racism, ethnocentrism, and white
domination” as presented to them by black women (1995:55). She boldly asserts in keeping with my own view that as white women:
we need to interrogate what it means for us to be told to address our racial privilege and we need to explore the racism that exists because of our reluctance to be conscious of how our views and assumptions are shaped by our whiteness and specificity...we have to interrogate our critique and relationship to our positions within the system of white privilege and
supremacy. As a group, we have a level of skills and expertise that provide us with a degree of power in relation to other women. We have been the group that has mainly done the writing and the theorising (mainly about black
women); we are the group dominating feminist politics and the organisations that have been established, like the WNC (Holland-Muter 1995:58-59).
Holland-Muter (1995:61) is arguing for the importance of “placing differences and
inequalities firmly on the agenda in the construction of political programmes and analyses”.
She asserts that means being willing to recognise the nature and extent of the divisions in the women’s project, even in the “new” South Africa. Liberation has fostered a culture of reconciliation not division. But, as Holland-Muter (1995:61) argues, the fear of what divides us as women has to be dealt with before it is possible to move forward to begin creating
“inclusive visions and practices” that have integrity.
Creating inclusive visions and practices is not merely an academic exercise, but has crucial implications for an authentic, indigenous, and contextual women’s project that is effective in transforming oppressive structures, especially for poor and marginalised women. Of
particular importance to me in my work, is how I as activist-intellectual use my privilege in working with women who are struggling to survive. My work is an attempt to deal explicitly with issues of the re-constitution of identity which I believe is important for the creation of inclusive visions and practices. I contend that this re-constitution and re-shaping of the activist-intellectual is necessary to collaborative work with poor and marginalised women, which in turn enables the women’s project to become more authentically South African (see sections 5.5.5; 8.5.4).
In the search for an “authentic” women’s project, race continues to dominate the post- apartheid agenda. But there are an additional two areas of contention which need to be addressed. The first of these concerns naming the work we do as women and whether or not the incipient racism of white women necessitates the continuation of the academic/activist divide, as some would argue. The second area of contention is the basis on which women organise. Motherhood has been a key rallying point for activist women during the liberation struggle. White academic feminists have, on the other hand, tended to see this as a
conservative move that inhibits the liberatory potential of the women’s project. These divergent views have raised the question as to the legitimacy of using motherhood as a basis for organising in the post-apartheid women’s project. Both these points of contention arise
out of, and are informed by, the above discussion. In the next two sections these debates are outlined.