Poster design courtesy of Jeanet Alessandra Tapia Huertas for KCL Latin American Society
Dr Ivette Hernández Santibáñez, political sociologist and expert on educational policy, was interviewed on the 24th of May by El Cortao’s Editor-in-Chief, Maximilian Frederik van Oordt, as part of our platform’s collaboration with the King’s MA 2021 Conflict, Security and Development (CSD) Conference.
This year’s CSD theme tackles “The Violence of Global Inequality: A Symptom of a Greater Disease” and is expected to generate considerable analyses of Latin America due to the region’s longstanding struggle with inequality. Dr Hernández’s interview for El Cortao’ examines Latin American social movements and democratic transformations from the lens of feminist revolutionary grassroots politics.
This is Part One of a two-part collaborative series. Click here to read our Part Two interview with Dr Anthony Pereira.
Thank you for providing this interview Dr Hernández. Your approach to feminist social movements has been through the lens of “revolutionary grassroots politics” which, as opposed to institutional, top-down politics, is an approach that is extra-institutional in nature. What avenues exist for institutional feminist reform in Latin American states and why are they insufficient?
When we look at the history of grassroots feminist movements in Latin America, we can see that feminist movements have existed since the early 1920s, particularly around the suffragette movements and education movements aimed at expanding public primary education. Having said that, in the 70s and 80s, women played a key role during dictatorships. They fought against dictatorships and they reclaimed specific human rights demands in terms of political freedoms, in terms of protecting and taking care of life, in terms of employment, etcetera. What happened with the advent of democracy is that the feminist movements split between those feminists who believe they should follow the institutional path for their demands and those who believe they should remain outside the institutions. Throughout years of neoliberal agendas in the region, we see how these regional demands that were institutionalised through democracy have granted terrain for legitimising a neoliberal agenda in and around women’s demands. What we see now with the rise of this new, third or fourth wave of feminist movements in Latin America is that it is a more grassroots revolutionary movement not only because it is on the margins of the institutions but also because it is reclaiming a different definition of political subjectivity that, traditionally, has been disregarded by the left, with the notion being that this was a secondary issue.
“The big question for all feminist movements in the region is “are we willing to create an alternative state” or “are we willing to create an alternative to the state” and that is the key point in discussion.”
In relation to how insufficient the institutions may be, this is a more open question because, for example, we have the experience of last week’s elections in Chile and we see that Chile is going to be the first country that achieves a constitutional assembly with gender parity, and this tells us something. It is not only about the feminist movements that decide to be on the margins of the institutional but also about the movements that decide to put one foot in the institutional and to do something that the feminists in Chile call ‘poder destituyente’ [ousting power] which is about being in both spaces – inside and outside the institutions. The big question, not only for Chilean feminist movements but for all feminist movements in the region, is “are we willing to create an alternative state” or “are we willing to create an alternative to the state” and that is the key point in discussion.
How have neo-liberal, market-oriented economics impacted the pace of reform in those countries where this economic ideology is most present?
Chile was the first laboratory of neoliberalism, so it was not only about imposing specific market driven economic reforms, but also about transforming the whole of society and this has probably been the big challenge for social movements. Overall, talking regionally, there was a period in which each country – not all, but a majority of them – was under dictatorship and through that process, through that really painful period, we see the imposition of structural adjustment programmes. Later, we had the Washington consensus and there were some countries that were more resistant to the imposition of neoliberal agendas. Argentina is a good example of this, although they instead suffered from the imposition of a neoliberal agenda during democracy. Chile was probably the most extreme experiment due, in part, to the fact that Pinochet imposed neoliberalism in the country through a military coup. This neoliberal agenda transformed everything in society, education was radically transformed, the pension system was radically transformed – it is probably the most unfair system around the world – healthcare was literally privatised. There were also many state companies that were privatised. In the long term, this also entails a lot of environmental conflict. Perhaps, forty-eight years since the military coup, we could say that what happened in 2019 with the ‘estallido social’ [mass protests] was the first time that society confronted the key question about how it should continue in order to dismantle this model of neoliberalism. When we look at what happened in Chile and what is happening right now in Colombia, it is quite interesting to see the many similarities. One of these similarities is the idea of reframing the meaning of being a collective, of being together, and that is a key revolution when seeking to build a new alternative. Historically, we have had a lot of experiences, particularly since the 90s, with the Left trying to provide a new alternative but always having to engage with a society that was still thinking in a very individualist way. All of that changed in October 2019 and that is probably the biggest test for the neoliberal model itself.
Your research on Chile’s 2006 grassroots student movements – dubbed the ‘Penguin Revolution’ – again highlighted the deficiencies in state governance and institutions and emphasised the need for extra-institutional approaches to reform. To what extent are general institutional dysfunctionalities – those that go beyond gender issues, such as corruption and general government-citizen disconnect – to blame for the difficulties faced by regional grassroots feminist movements?
Of course, the lack of efficiency by governments in tackling inequalities is the first area where we can identify difficulties. In fact, in the early stages of the Chilean student movement it was about exactly that. When the Penguin movement emerged in 2006, it was about the lack of equal opportunities for accessing quality education – this was the main aim. The set of policies that were implemented since the mid-90s were based on the idea of equal opportunities for quality education and there was a very clear understanding that they needed a reform that could tackle that aspect of inequality. This is also part of the political learning processes by movements because, when you start looking inside the movement, there are also many critical understandings of national issues. One week ago, Chileans went to vote for the delegates of the new 2021 Constitutional Convention, but students had already started talking about a Constitutional Convention back in 2006 although there was a less visible demand nationwide. What is interesting when we look at the links between the student movements and the feminist movements in relation to the dysfunctionality of institutions, is that there has been a widespread legitimation of demands based on what constrains daily life and it is from there that they begin to articulate the political and ideological discourse of their demands. In 2006 it was about having better infrastructure at schools, improving the quality of school meals, and securing equal opportunities for access to quality education. In 2011 it was about free education but also about ending profiteering in education which was key to involving families into the movement because that issue was affecting families. In 2018, when there was a wave of feminist campus occupations across the country, the demands were about denouncing instances of sexual assault and rape at campuses and universities. This is also connected to what we mean when we talk about the idea of ‘free’ education: it is not only about eliminating tuition fees but also about how free we as women felt on campus. What is interesting about the feminist movement in Chile is how it is accumulating all these experiences and converting them into a very basic demand that is about dignity, dignity of life. When we try to understand these movements across the region it is important to see that they have criticised the state, particularly in relation to its inability to accomplish these demands on dignity, and they have been saying “look, this is affecting my life, this is reducing my life”. In Cali, Colombia, for example, the strike is about dignity, it is about fighting for a life worth living and that requires translating all those policies into daily life and that is perhaps the most interesting aspect surrounding grassroots movements. It is not about the ideological analysis imposed on daily life; it is about how daily experiences became the terrain where these demands became political.
“What is interesting about the feminist movement in Chile is how it is accumulating all these experiences and converting them into a very basic demand that is about dignity, dignity of life.”
Certainly, dignity seems to be a running theme across Latin American movements. Looking further at the regional level: with such enormous variations between and within Latin American states, it is unsurprising that the region’s many different feminist movements are themselves diverse. What differences have you observed between mestizo and indigenous approaches to these movements?
That is a highly important question. We cannot talk about just one feminist movement; we need to talk about many feminisms within a movement. For example, in the case of Colombia, we have the indigenous movement, which is perhaps the first movement – the vanguard – behind which you find the other social movements. Within this movement, indigenous women have very different cosmovisions compared to the women belonging to non-indigenous feminist movements, such as mestizo ones. What is interesting here is the capacity for these movements to converge into one demand that appeals to everyone... there is a very nice expression in Spanish: “construyendo el puente mientras caminas sobre él” [building the bridge while you walk over it] and that is very important. The same is found in Chile; you have rural women, indigenous women, particularly Mapuche women, and you have urban feminist movements, and they find each other, and they start talking to each other, and they realise that they see different cosmovisions, they understand patriarchy in very different ways. If you look at the cosmovisions of indigenous women, it is about involving men in the movement, yet for some urban feminists this is still a question to be debated. There are different cosmovisions but I think that this will be a part of the political learning process across the region so as to open up the dialogue and understand that we can work together.
Building on the idea of working together and of converging feminist visions, would you consider there to be a collective ‘feminist identity’ on a national or even regional level in Latin America?
I think the closest answer to this question of identity would relate to being diverse, being absolutely diverse. This is a key question because everyone acknowledges the variations between what is going on in Chile, what is happening in Ecuador, and what is going on in Brazil or in Argentina. Argentina is a very good example because, within its urban feminist movements, you have pro-choice Catholics marching together with non-Catholics and this is a very interesting detail. What I see today is that, because of feminism, because of this idea of being together, building these big alliances around this demand for dignity, Latin America could become the biggest laboratory for experimenting with a more popular, radical democracy, the identity of which would be made of many worlds. I do not think feminism in Latin America has a problem of heterogeneity. On the contrary, when you analyse what is going on with feminist grassroots movements and look at analyses done by many feminist scholars, you see that the region’s feminisms are always fighting for the recognition of the plurinational state because, in this plurinational state, many worlds are possible. A plurinational state would make space for many different worlds so, in terms of approaching your question, a common identity would have to do with seeking a plurinational, non-patriarchal, decolonial state.
Your article “Youth Activism in Chile: from urban educational inequalities to experiences of living together and solidarity” discusses geography as an element of identity that imposes inclusions and exclusions within social movements. How does geography affect Latin America’s feminist movements?
There is a concept, a key political concept in Latin American social movements, which is the notion of territory. The notion of territory can be inclusive, but it can also be a space for disregarding others. I think in the Chilean context, territory has been a major aspect of the political learning process, particularly during the country’s student movements. In 2006, when Chilean students organised school occupations, the political territory – in this case the school campus – was basically only open to students. In 2011, as part of the learning process, they changed this strategy and, rather than just keeping campus occupations and school occupations, they opened these spaces up to the community so they could come in and organise assemblies. It is quite difficult for me to see social movements in Latin America without geography in the middle because it has been a key facet of many, many movements. In 2019, for example, after the huge level of mobilisation and protest seen during the ‘estallido social’, Chilean civil society, feminist movements, grassroots organisations, and some progressive political forces began to reorganise themselves around territorial assemblies and unprecedented neighbourhood occupations. This was about engaging the territory so as to make it an open space where everyone is able to articulate their views.
“It is quite difficult for me to see social movements in Latin America without geography in the middle.”
In the Colombian case, indigenous movements have had a history of struggle in their efforts to demand their own territorial rights. This is not only about the state recognising them as the rightful owners of their lands, but also about how this struggle has led them to develop a unique cosmovision that they expect to be included in the wider struggles seen currently in Colombia. Geography has been key to understanding the political struggles of Latin America since the middle of the 1950s.
Staying with Colombia; on top of the social issues we have already discussed, the country has been plagued by internal conflict and by one of the world’s largest refugee crises emanating from neighbouring Venezuela. These issues have contributed to a considerable number of displaced people whose irregular residency status leaves them less able to rely on government support and who, consequently, find themselves in a state of increased vulnerability. What lessons can grassroots revolutionary feminism provide for advocacy groups seeking to represent these vulnerable, displaced communities?
I am going to approach this question from two different experiences. One is what is going on right now in Chile with the expulsion of Venezuelan immigrants from the country’s north. These immigrants have become quite important in the struggle that emerged in 2019 in Chile, so this is also about going back to the idea of a plurinational state agenda that is being developed by feminist movements. It also raises the fact that immigration should be a right and people should not be deported for not having legal status. I think, in general, that not only Chile but all countries in the region are dealing with similar situations and I think that the role of social movements is to welcome those refugees that may have come from very different countries. The other case of course is Colombia; it has a history of displaced people due to its internal armed conflicts. What is interesting there is to see how, during this one month of nationwide mobilisation, the idea of mobility has been in many ways reconfigured by social actors. I am thinking about ‘La Minga’ for example, a group of indigenous peoples that have mobilised and moved across different areas and cities across the country to show solidarity. I believe it has to do with the idea of understanding that they are not alone, and this is definitely important. In terms of what lessons these social movements could provide to displaced peoples: it is about reframing the political discourse and understanding that when we talk about inequalities and dignity, it applies to everyone, and this is a common narrative that can be seen in the cases of Colombia, Chile and other countries that are facing problems with conflict and migration. Additionally, when we talk about the idea of displacement and when we talk about internal conflict, we need to talk about climate refugees because that is another issue emerging across the region and across the world. We need to rethink about how categories have been used in the past. You need to think about how you are going to approach the issue of displaced people but, at the end of the day, it has to do with showing them that you are not alone; we are engaged in the same struggle, the same problems, with different faces. In Cali, Colombia, it is interesting to see how, by the end of April, the mobilisations had become about poverty, about the exclusion that young people suffer, and about urban spatial inequalities. The improvement of the city’s public transport network meant that some areas in Cali, particularly in the periphery, were excluded from progress. So, in some ways you have other forms of displacement and it is therefore important for social movements to find a common narrative.
