I have been following with great interest the recent Women and Hellenism conference, organized by the Australia-based Food for Thought Network (Ioannina, September 2-6, 2024). Though I wish I were attending in situ, I e-participated from afar, the United States, watching the selective vignettes featured online, in the social media and youtube.
The fact that I was only exposed to fragments from the proceedings disqualifies me from offering a comprehensive analysis of this gathering.
Still, due to the major importance of this initiative I feel compelled to share a few thoughts, necessarily tentative and partial, with the purpose of contributing, to the extent possible, to the public conversation (I anticipate) toward the understanding of this institution and its future directions.
• The conference was an exercise in polyphony, featuring a variety of points of view (voices), some venturing into questions on gender and identity in depth, others remaining on the surface, uttering platitudes. Theoretical sophistication and cliches co-existed.
• Democratic inclusion was a conscious concern of the gathering, creating an inclusive social space. I am interested in the range of this inclusion. Were contemporary working-class women an element in the polyphony and if so was there deliberation on how to address the challenges they face in the workplace as both women and wage laborers? (could working class women afford the trip to Greece and take time off from their work?) Was there a systemic analysis of the predicament of this demographic and how to institute change? [I saw several stories focusing on individual resilience, effort and work ethic in the overcoming class and patriarchal obstacles.] Were there discussions of issues of non-normative sexualities and their experiences in relation to patriarchal diasporic institutions? Were the voices of men who have been allies in women’s cause for empowerment heard? (women’s issues are a broader gender issue; and class among other social categories)
• The conference featured conflicting perspectives ranging from positions on radical feminism, calls for intersectional alliances with vulnerable populations (indigenous women) to nationalist identity narratives, and to claims about Greek exceptionalism among others. I have no sense whether (or to what extent) this produced an interactive and dialogic public sphere. For example, in an instance when a speaker (from a particular diaspora) celebrated democracy as the core of Greek identity, I wonder whether there were voices attesting that this ideal is often blatantly violated in some diasporas when it comes to representing the “community.”
• This brings us to the issue of meaningful and agonistic exchange and deliberation. In one panel I followed with interest there was no time left for the Q&A session. The speakers spoke but their (often important, and sometime radical) views were not subject to polyphonic exchange. How did members of the audience situate themselves in relation to feminism as a polyphonic phenomenon. [we know there are many feminisms.] In this instance there was no deliberation. Did the voice of a speaker advocating radical feminism make a difference on how members of the gathering understood the issue “women and social change,” and how will they be acting toward this goal in practice?
• A major purpose of the conference was to continue (spark, inspire, assert) the struggle for women’s empowerment, a noble investment for the public good. The quest for change organized the conference, an important call given the power of patriarchy to injure women, both emotionally and economically. The real and symbolic violence of patriarchy needs to be confronted in multiple fronts.
• The justifiable call for change makes this gathering a political community in the broadest sense of the term political, that is distribution of power, engagement with public issues such as gender equality. Regarding this all-important call for action, I am not clear whether the participants reflected on strategies and tactics to pursue change. Is it possible for a collective expressing ideologically irreconcilable perspectives to reach a consensus on this issue? The answer is no, which raises the issue of how the question of change is envisioned (and theorized) by this collective.
I understand the great challenge of sustaining a grass-roots collective operating under the conditions I outlined above. There is a host of potentialities and limits. Difficult decisions on how to frame the polyphony in a politically meaningful manner.
Still, due to the major importance of this initiative I feel compelled to share a few thoughts, necessarily tentative and partial, with the purpose of contributing, to the extent possible, to the public conversation (I anticipate) toward the understanding of this institution and its future directions.
• The conference was an exercise in polyphony, featuring a variety of points of view (voices), some venturing into questions on gender and identity in depth, others remaining on the surface, uttering platitudes. Theoretical sophistication and cliches co-existed.
• Democratic inclusion was a conscious concern of the gathering, creating an inclusive social space. I am interested in the range of this inclusion. Were contemporary working-class women an element in the polyphony and if so was there deliberation on how to address the challenges they face in the workplace as both women and wage laborers? (could working class women afford the trip to Greece and take time off from their work?) Was there a systemic analysis of the predicament of this demographic and how to institute change? [I saw several stories focusing on individual resilience, effort and work ethic in the overcoming class and patriarchal obstacles.] Were there discussions of issues of non-normative sexualities and their experiences in relation to patriarchal diasporic institutions? Were the voices of men who have been allies in women’s cause for empowerment heard? (women’s issues are a broader gender issue; and class among other social categories)
• The conference featured conflicting perspectives ranging from positions on radical feminism, calls for intersectional alliances with vulnerable populations (indigenous women) to nationalist identity narratives, and to claims about Greek exceptionalism among others. I have no sense whether (or to what extent) this produced an interactive and dialogic public sphere. For example, in an instance when a speaker (from a particular diaspora) celebrated democracy as the core of Greek identity, I wonder whether there were voices attesting that this ideal is often blatantly violated in some diasporas when it comes to representing the “community.”
• This brings us to the issue of meaningful and agonistic exchange and deliberation. In one panel I followed with interest there was no time left for the Q&A session. The speakers spoke but their (often important, and sometime radical) views were not subject to polyphonic exchange. How did members of the audience situate themselves in relation to feminism as a polyphonic phenomenon. [we know there are many feminisms.] In this instance there was no deliberation. Did the voice of a speaker advocating radical feminism make a difference on how members of the gathering understood the issue “women and social change,” and how will they be acting toward this goal in practice?
• A major purpose of the conference was to continue (spark, inspire, assert) the struggle for women’s empowerment, a noble investment for the public good. The quest for change organized the conference, an important call given the power of patriarchy to injure women, both emotionally and economically. The real and symbolic violence of patriarchy needs to be confronted in multiple fronts.
• The justifiable call for change makes this gathering a political community in the broadest sense of the term political, that is distribution of power, engagement with public issues such as gender equality. Regarding this all-important call for action, I am not clear whether the participants reflected on strategies and tactics to pursue change. Is it possible for a collective expressing ideologically irreconcilable perspectives to reach a consensus on this issue? The answer is no, which raises the issue of how the question of change is envisioned (and theorized) by this collective.
I understand the great challenge of sustaining a grass-roots collective operating under the conditions I outlined above. There is a host of potentialities and limits. Difficult decisions on how to frame the polyphony in a politically meaningful manner.
What i shared here––observations, thoughts and questions––is what I see as my constructive contribution to this conversation. The leaders of this initiative may wish to consider reflecting and theorizing the social phenomenon they are initiating and the social movement (?) they are keen to mobilizing.
The conference has been universally extolled by enchanted participants, who spoke about the thrill of participating in a collective experience injecting them with exhilarating energy. Even an e-participant could feel the vibe.
But we will benefit enormously, I believe, eventually moving beyond mere praise, and listen to the participants’ public reflections and analysis (their food for thought). In addition, as we anticipate the next iteration of this phenomenon and its future direction, community leaders may wish to consider entering into conversation with highly qualified scholars and activists working on issues of political communities, democratic pluralism, advocacy, and social change––this sort of polyphony is positioned to enrich the understanding of this important initiative for all of us.
The conference has been universally extolled by enchanted participants, who spoke about the thrill of participating in a collective experience injecting them with exhilarating energy. Even an e-participant could feel the vibe.
But we will benefit enormously, I believe, eventually moving beyond mere praise, and listen to the participants’ public reflections and analysis (their food for thought). In addition, as we anticipate the next iteration of this phenomenon and its future direction, community leaders may wish to consider entering into conversation with highly qualified scholars and activists working on issues of political communities, democratic pluralism, advocacy, and social change––this sort of polyphony is positioned to enrich the understanding of this important initiative for all of us.
Yiorgos Anagnostou
September 15-16, 2024
No comments:
Post a Comment