Libertarianism

[Montmorency1]

From your perspective or experience, have many streams of feminism been predicated on libertarianism?

I refer to both political and metaphysical libertarianism, between which it is important to distinguish, though they are obviously closely related.

I broach this apropos of no single source, but from a general impression that libertarianism is central to most feminisms.

What do you think? Sounds really interesting.

As I said, it's an impression I've gotten. It stems from, for instance, all the talk of "agency" and "ownership", but most markedly from rejections of various scientific perspectives primarily on the basis of "free will".

And yet, feminism in general seems to have a collectivist mindset, which typically is taken to be at odds with the political manifestation of libertarianism. I wonder if there's not in fact some hidden tension between these currents, and wonder how feminism would look with a different theoretical grounding or justification.

If there are examples of such that could be pointed out, that would be nice.

I don't quite get what your perspective is.

Is your feminism grounded in libertarianism? How does that work for you?

If you give me some examples I could maybe help you.

Prostitution is the most obvious example where there is tension between the libertarian (feminism is about giving women choices!) and communal strands (feminism is about freeing women from male domination!) of the movement, of course.

Mmm. Illusory choices, often, IMO.

I make no bones about it - I don't very much like libertarianism from any front.

My feminism is simply that it is economically advantageous to have the full participation of women on equal or near-equal terms to men, and that elements of typical feminist agendas are useful to incorporate into a program of radical social and political collectivization.

Do you mean with regard to contemporary feminism? I'd like to read some more contemporary feminism. I'm guessing a lot of it is on-line. So I hope someone comes along with some answers.

I think if you looked back to earlier feminism, you'd find this topic discussed. I'll bet you would find some good articles discussing French feminism, written by left-wing affiliated Anglo-American feminist critics, suggesting that some French feminism is ideologically descended from libertarian critiques of the collectivist Left. And articles arguing just the opposite. In the interstices of these, I reckon you could discern the outlines of a feminism premissed on something other than the ideal of an autonomous agent.

Mind you, it might get quite interesting because a lot of those French feminists argued that they strategically utilised libertarianism in order to undermine the ideal of the autonomous agent (a patriarchal construct), thus putting two parts of your notion (libertarian = autonomous agent, in possession of free will) in opposition, and putting your supposed opposing ideas (collectivist subject; made up of forces beyond free-will versus bounded subject; with agency; in possession of free-will; libertarian) in a (loose) tandem: (the subject of feminism is essentially collective, in that s/he is intimately structured by socialisation, multiple, and riven by contrary desires - both conscious and unconscious. The idea of the individual agent is male fantasy of the Enlightenment.

I also think that a lot of Left feminists would quite unconsciously have assumed that women were a collective class.

I wonder if what you are looking isn't that widespread (ie. there is not a lot of it) - other than in palimpsestic or fragmentary form because feminism often has a very pragmatic quality. Perhaps that is because it has no ur-text? Maybe it's because it is always "feminisms" so there just isn't quite the impulse to write manifestoes and examine premisses?

I don't know.

I must admit, I'm not sure I agree with your premiss about libertarianism. I loathe libertarianism. My feminism is pretty anti-libertarianism. A lot of my friends have a strong critique of it (well, OK, two of them!! Though one is dead . Though I haven't discussed the issue much over the last 10 years.). Which brings us to the thorny question of what is feminism? Whose feminism is "libertarian"?

For example: If a form of feminism has been selected to be preserved through history and is taken to be the dominant representative of feminism, and if this form of feminism is, say, libertarian in its premisses, is it possible still to be authentically feminist, or to be espousing an authentically feminist discourse, if your discourse is anti-libertarian?

Yes, I agree with all of that, Buffy. I have certainly never spotted a libertarian movement that prioritised increasing genuine choice for the under-privileged.

One of the reasons I bring this subject up for group discussion is that I am not acquainted with the history or historical styles of feminism, to say nothing of its intricate theory.

All I really know about that is that Western feminism has its roots in Enlightenment-era notions that women are "fundamentally rational" in the same manner as men, and so should have at least similar legal standing and intellectual authority.

Hmm. I think some feminisms are quite libertarian in their fundamental premisses. Especially the slightly unexamined ones!

I'm a bit guilty of using libertarian as a dirty word and something close to an insult. I'm not a big fan of lots of the stuff the media liked to hoik out about 10 years ago, telling us it was "feminism with lipstick on!", "good time feminism!!". I think a lot of that sailed close to the libertarian winds.

But, you know, there was valuable stuff there. I think it was wrong of me to be so suspicious that I couldn't profitably engage with it. I think it was wrong of me to be so hostile.

Maybe an ultra-pragmatism was the way to go: worrying less about premisses, origins, parenthood, genealogy, the sanctity of wholeness. Maybe I should have said: "I don't care who or what you are. I am a feminist pirate: I will take what is useful, for a particular task. I will take only what is useful. I will not demand you be ideally good: I will only ask myself: 'What is this good ^for?'. i will carry bits of you off, and put you in new combinations, and patch my vessel. Thus I will bear off bits and pieces to make my own ships and weapons, for battles of my choosing."

Having said that: despite all those French feminists, I still hear "libertine" and think immediately that it signifies a selfish, grabby lack of commitment!!

For example:

Mary Wollstonecraft - A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

Maybe an ultra-pragmatism was the way to go: worrying less about premisses, origins, parenthood, genealogy, the sanctity of wholeness. Maybe I should have said: "I don't care who or what you are. I am a feminist pirate: I will take what is useful, for a particular task. I will take only what is useful. I will not demand you be ideally good: I will only ask myself: 'What is this good for?'. i will carry bits of you off, and put you in new combinations, and patch my vessel. Thus I will bear off bits and pieces to make my own ships and weapons, for battles of my choosing."^

A credible perspective.

Montmorency :

"All I really know about that is that Western feminism has its roots in Enlightenment-era notions that women are "fundamentally rational" in the same manner as men, and so should have at least similar legal standing and intellectual authority."

OK, so we (well, I,) have been discussing feminist history on another thread. I think that sentence is really interesting.

The "roots" of feminism are very hotly contested. Some people argue that "Western feminism" doesn't have its roots in any such place at all. A strand of feminism has its roots there.

For example, some people argue that Western feminism is fundamentally a praxis, and is antithetical to any such theorisation (rationalisation) at all. (I disagree with this. But I'm just saying.)

I'm finding the discussion of feminism really interesting. And the discussion of history.

For example: Today I'm wondering if we over-privilege written sources in feminist history particularly at our peril. If, for example, the above has some truth, and feminism is a praxis - or even just had a very high level of praxis - shouldn't we be looking a lot more at feminist actions and the language/discourse of those actions/activisms? How would we do that?

Sorry. I really didn't mean to sound like an idiot.

Why's it worthy of a biscuit, though?

It might sound a bit Jack Sparrow but it is derived from Gramsci and Spinoza, as well as Zillah Eisenstein.

Why's it worthy of a biscuit, though?

Well, as they say, a good pragmatist has no dietary restrictions.

As for over-privileging written sources, isn't that an issue with all historiography?

OK. I'm genuinely curious now.

You posted a question. I offered an answer. It clearly isn't the answer - how could it be? I suspect there isn't "one" answer. Why such an hostile response?

Fair enough, I'm not a professional intellectual, and I'm not an activist - so what I offer may not be very clever or articulate or useful. It also might just strike you as annoying - and you are under no obligation to be polite. Still, I don't quite understand why anything I posted warrants such a dismissive response.

I answered sincerely, and in a spirit of engaging with someone who might be interested in feminism. I suppose because I started typing out with that intention, I'm a bit nonplussed by your reply. It seems so out of kilter with how I "read" you, and how I hoped my message would be received. Again, I do understand that, just because I intended my message to be a contribution, and hoped it would be received like a contribution to a picnic (which nobody has to eat), it doesn't therefore follow that you have to reply with some kind of benevolent politeness.

Still, I guess I am wondering just why my response warrants a biscuit and a put-down?

I suppose I am asking out of sheer curiosity but also because this is the second time it's happened on the feminist board. And because it is one of the quirks of on-line communication.

You posted a question. I offered an answer. It clearly isn't the answer - how could it be? I suspect there isn't "one" answer. Why such an hostile response?

Wait, wait - what about my response seemed hostile? I thought a biscuit was a positive? In the same vein, in another forum I frequent balloon icons are used to signal approval. Is this a UK-cultural thing? I'm an American, so I may have missed something.

That is to say, I was expressing my good will, not contempt.

Really?

I was really sad. You've cheered me up no end. It's amazing how much it hurts when (you think) someone thinks you're a complete worthless idiot - even if it is someone on the internet that you have never met/will never meet. And, conversely, how nice it feels when people are kind/good-willed.

Or maybe that's just me - and my neediness.

I think the biscuit is hostile.

P.S. I agree about historiography. I guess I'm wondering if it is a particular problem when it comes to feminism - and if so, why.

But that is off-topic.

Why are you a bit suspicious of libertarianism? (Don't answer if you don't want to.)