Social movement is perceived as a process whereby a group of individuals develop solidarity on the basis of shared beliefs, and join forces in opposition to a particular issue or to demand changes in society (Diani, 1992). Diani and della Porta (2006) further maintain that “social movements are a distinct social process, consisting of the mechanisms through which actors engaged in collective action are involved in conflictual relations with clearly identified opponents; are linked by dense informal networks and share a distinct collective identity” (della Porta and Diani: 2006:20).25 It follows, therefore, that, as an integrated network of different individuals or groups, social movements from time to time will coordinate to use collective action either in the form of public protests or other forms of protests to make their demands.
Sustained collective action is a distinct feature of social movements (Tarrow, 1994). Della Porta and Diani (2006:23) argue further that “we have a social movement dynamic going on when single episodes of collective action are perceived as components of a longer lasting action, rather than discrete events, and when those who are engaged in them feel linked by ties of solidarity and of ideal communions with protagonists of other analogous mobilisations.”
Typical of mainstream social science theories is that they traditionally neglected incorporating a gender analysis of social movements and social protests (Taylor, 1999). Gender in social movement theory, as an analytical category, is a recent phenomenon influenced by feminist scholars studying the impact of gender on social movements and protests (Einwohner, Hollander and Olson, 2000; Taylor, 1999). These studies show the centrality of incorporating gender analysis in social movements and social protests research. They highlight the fact that gender hierarchies within social movements, or gender differences between social movement participants influence the social processes of social movements (Taylor, 1999). Einwohner, Hollander and Olson (2000) explain the influence of gender on social movements as follows:
When we say that a movement is gendered, we mean that some aspect of the movement constructs differences between women and men and/or elicits a certain set of social meanings because of its associations, actual or assumed, with femininities or masculinities (2000:682).
25
Scholars of social movements (for example, Tilly 2004; Tarrow 1998 and others) have offered several definitions of the concept. Common to most of the definitions offered is that there is claim being made by the aggrieved, and there is a source for the tension experienced by the aggrieved. Thus they mount a collective action targeted at the source of their frustration. This chapter follows this definition since it can be identified closely with the phenomenon studied in this research.
Gender is a significant element of social relationships (Scott, 1986:1067) that is persistent within social movement organisations. Furthermore, gender is a primary field within which, or by means of which, power is articulated (Scott, 1986:1069). This means that if social movements are gendered, relations within social movements are structured along the axis of power and domination. Men in social movements are often regarded as the powerful and dominant ones as opposed to women.
An analysis of gender relations within social movements, and in particular this research, enables us to show that relations within the South African labour movement are characterized by gender politics or struggles. The gender content of definitions or meanings and goals of social movements are often contested, and are characterized by these gender politics. This means, therefore, that a full account of social movement processes and their outcomes needs to reflect the influence of gender relations on these processes.
Defining women’s movement
Research on comparative women’s movement studies has been confronted largely with a “major conceptual problem” in terms of applying the concept of women’s movement across different contexts (Beckwith, 2000:434). The challenges in defining women’s movements cross-nationally, originate mainly from the differences in the contexts within which women’s movements mobilise (see Beckwith, 2000; Ferree, 2006 and McBride and Mazur, forthcoming). Within these different contexts, women’s organisation and mobilisation has been influenced by a multiplicity of factors (Ferree, 2006; McBride and Mazur, forthcoming).
In her edited book, The Challenges of Local Feminisms, Basu (1991) offers a critique of early comparative women’s movements studies. Basu (1991) underscores women’s movement scholars’ failure to include women’s movements in the postcolonial world in their conceptualisations and analyses. She argues that women’s movements definitions are often derived from Western contexts, and do not take into account the diversity and variations in “the forms of women’s oppression and women’s movements” (Basu, 1991:1). Such conceptualisations have often prescribed women’s issues and women’s struggles, and the prioritisation of these issues, without reflecting on the dynamics of women’s oppressions in different contexts.
Mohanty (1991) is among feminist scholars of colour who have criticized the conceptualisation of gender and power relations that suggests that it is a unitary concept that has the same meanings in different social locations and contexts. The “singular focus on gender as a basis for equal rights,” has largely resulted in the prescription of women’s oppressions as primarily based on gender relations
between women and men, to the exclusion of race, class and colonial domination (Mohanty, 1991:3).
Recently, scholars like Beckwith (2000), Ferree (2006) and McBride and Mazur (forthcoming) have taken account of this short-sightedness and have expanded the definitions in this field. In defining the women’s movement, importance is given to women’s organisation on the basis of their collective gender identity, and taking leadership and decision-making in articulating a discourse that focuses on the gendered identity of women (McBride and Mazur, forthcoming). The definitions of the women’s movement and feminist women’s movement draw distinctions between gender consciousness and feminist consciousness (McBride and Mazur, forthcoming). Rinehart (1992:32) defines gender consciousness as:
The recognition that one’s relation to the political world is at least partly shaped by being female or male. This recognition is followed by identification with others in the ‘group’ of one’s sex, positive affect toward the group and a feeling of interdependence with the group’s fortunes.
According to Gan-Ling Chow (1996), gender consciousness is useful in helping women understand the gender power relations in society, and how these are created and maintained through socialization processes and certain institutions in society. In their definition of the women’s movement, McBride and Mazur (forthcoming) place emphasis on the gender discourse within the movement, and argue that the content of this discourse will be determined by the context in which women organise, their different identities and experiences. Similarly, Beckwith (2000) who identifies the “primacy of women’s gender experiences and women’s issues” in her definition of the women’s movement, points out that “the specific content of women’s issues and women’s gendered experiences, of course, will vary across national and state structures, cultural contexts and women’s intersecting classed, racialised and other experiences and identities” (437).
Feminist women’s movements are defined by features of the women’s movement and a feminist consciousness. Feminist consciousness is characterised by deliberate attempts (through activism, for instance) to challenge the patriarchal relations of power and domination of women by men in all sectors and institutions of society (Ferree, 2006:6). Collins (1990), Mohanty (1991) and hooks (1984) were among the early feminist writers to highlight the intersectionality of women’s oppression on the basis of race and class, and the need to include such struggles in the definition of feminism. For instance, race, class, colonial, and apartheid oppression have been central in South Africa’s women’s movement and in most women’s movements in postcolonial societies.
In the South African context (similar to Latin America or Eastern Europe) the women’s movement initially denounced associations with feminism.26
Feminist movements according to Beckwith (2000:437) are distinguished by their challenge of patriarchy. Feminist movements share a gendered power analysis of women’s subordination, and contest political, social and other power arrangements of domination and subordination on the basis of gender. Beckwith’s definition suggests that feminist struggles are not only focused on gender relations between women and men, but can be also at the political level where, for instance, women raise gender oppressions resulting from race and class positions. In agreement with Beckwith’s definition, Ferree and Mueller (2004) argue that the intersectionality of women’s oppressions and struggles means that, depending on the nature of oppressions experienced in particular contexts; feminism may not necessarily be the exclusive or primary goal of the women’s movement (Ferree and Mueller, 2004:578).
Beckwith (2000) notes that the distinctions between women’s movements and feminist movements can be made at the conceptual level, but empirically these movements’ characteristics often interrelate and overlap. Ferree (2006) has also made a similar observation in arguing that within feminist movements and women’s movements there is a dynamic interaction in terms of the issues that members or the organisation may concern itself with at particular periods. The mobilisation of women’s movements often raises their members’ gender consciousness and advocacy for strategies to challenge gender inequities within their social locations. Similarly, feminist mobilisations are also likely to inspire members to engage in transformative struggles that do not necessarily concern gender equality (Ferree, 2006). It is on the basis of this observation of the dynamic interaction between women’s movement and feminist movements that Ferree (2006:8) concludes that:
In this set of changing relations, to restrict analysis to only those temporary phases in which women’s movements have chosen to focus exclusively on challenging gender subordination or seeking equality with men of their own group marginalizes the ongoing intersectional elements of both.
These new definitions by women’s movement scholars therefore challenge the previous analyses of women’s movements that often suggested that all women’s movements’ primary goals are feminism (Ferree and Mueller, 2004). Ferree (2006:7) argues that how the movement prioritises its goals – “where feminism
26
Feminism as it was defined in the 1970s and early 1980s failed to include the politics of race and class domination, and how these kinds of oppressions affected women differently. It was on this basis that many women failed to see the relevance of feminism to their struggles as black women in South Africa.
stands on the list of priorities…” – is not necessarily a key-defining feature of the women’s movement.
Nor is it true by definition that a person or group that does not call itself feminist does not have feminist goals, since the identity can carry other connotations in a local setting (whether of radicalism or exclusivity or cultural difference) that an activist may seek to avoid by choosing another label (Ferree, 2006:7).
Drawing from their Research Network on Gender Politics and the State (RNGS) longitudinal comparative research, McBride and Mazur, (forthcoming:28) warn scholars that instead of prescribing a specific set of women’s interests or policy goals, scholars need to allow for the women in the movements themselves to define the specific ideas, aspirations, and goals from their own experiences. Therefore, in following the definitions provided, researchers need to use these as indicators and be flexible in applying them to different contexts.
These definitions are relevant within the South African context, as the history of women’s movement and mobilisation shows that women at different periods of colonial and apartheid oppression have prioritised various sets of issues. Women’s organisation in South Africa shows that specific gender discriminatory laws that affected them as a racial gender group have often precipitated the collective mobilisation of women under colonial and apartheid oppression (for instance the struggles against pass laws in 1913 under colonial rule and later in 1956 under apartheid government).
This research argues that COSATU women’s structures indicate features of feminism and feminist struggles based on their conscious activism against gender oppression within their various social settings. Women’s struggles in the workplace and trade unions show that their different identities and social locations within apartheid society are significant in defining their experiences and struggles against gender oppression. For instance, women activists in this research have engaged in workplace and trade union struggles as members of the working class collective; they have also mobilised on the basis of their gendered identity as African women to challenge gender oppression in the workplace, trade unions and society. These intersections are significant in shaping trade union women’s feminism and feminist struggles.