captiousbitch-blog

[captiousbitch-blog]

Social democracy as a viable alternative to neoliberalism

Neoliberal capitalism is so widely practiced - the ideology favoured by Australia, the United Kingdom and the US – and thus so ingrained into the Western media we are exposed to that it may be hard to imagine a viable alternative, despite the plethora of evidence that neoliberalism itself is unsustainable. The economic policies on which the structure is built are effective only in theory, and the consequences of this system seep into the social, environmental and political spheres – whether they are publicly attributed to the ideology or not. The consequences of these by-products are too severe to consider the structure capable of prosperity whilst also maintaining a thriving citizenry. Social democracy stands as a feasible alternative, not because of its independent competence, but because of the relative cataclysm of neoliberalism.

Neoliberals identify an array of eco-political policies that theoretically ensure the maintenance of a stable and prosperous economy. The approach theorises that markets function most effectively when coordination of the market is left solely to the price system – a means of organizing economic activity wherein consumers and producers (including owners of productive resources) are led in their economic decisions by the activity of those preceding and succeeding them in the supply chain. On paper, the price system ensures the most effective transmission of information through and across markets and guarantees the most effective use of resources, as financial incentives are provided for individuals to economise on production and consumption. The system underpins the neoliberal belief that the market is organically self-regulating, and thus is hindered in its efficiency by any attempt at regulation on the behalf of the state, as this interference would distort the information transmitted by the price system. (Friedman, 2003). As a result, neoliberals strive for the absence of state interference and the de-regulation of markets and trade, and will argue that any failure of the neoliberal market to behave as designed is due to some degree of governmental intervention. Similarly, proponents of this ideology advocate for the privatization of industries, acknowledging that a competitive industry wherein all corporations endeavour to maximise profit will ultimately benefit consumers. The necessity for corporations to compete against rivals in an industry should enhance both the quality of the output produced and the range of options from which a consumer can choose. Arguably the most publicised characteristic of a neoliberal structure is the calling for corporate tax cuts for the sake of the ‘trickledown effect’. This concept assumes that corporate funds saved from tax cuts will be used for the sole purpose of investment and business expansion, and further supposes that business expansion will result in the acquisition of more employees, allowing the citizenry to be active consumers and therefore driving economic growth (Saad-Filho, 2005). The assumptions on which these policies rely may well be true in theory, but theory fails to account for human nature. With no obligation for players to pursue anything but profit, actions made in self-interest have consistently accentuated the inviability of these neoliberal theories.

Greed, arguably the very characteristic that drives neoliberal capitalism, is also what renders it ultimately inviable – especially with no regulations in place to control that greed. An illustration of the destructiveness of greed, enabled by financial deregulation, is present in the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. American banks lobbied for deregulation of the financial sector in the 1980’s, echoing the neoliberal mantra that deregulation would allow them to compete with global financial firms. With little in place to regulate the actions of the American banks, they invested in high-risk derivatives in the name of self-interest - in this case, in the pursuit of increased shareholder values and an increase of their own profits. As interest rates rose, borrowers on interest-only loans could neither pay off the loan or sell the asset for which the loan was provided (San, M.S, 2009). Progressively, these loans began to default, and many dominant financial institutions found themselves on the brink of bankruptcy. Leading Wall Street firm Lehmann Brothers officially declaring that state in September 2008 with ‘the highest value bankruptcy in US history’ (Marketwatch, 2008). According to countless seasoned economists, the result was a crash that saw a total loss of $19.2 trillion USD in household wealth and a total of 8.8 million jobs lost in the US alone (US Department of the Treasury, 2012)- highlighting the inviability of financial deregulation encouraged by the neoliberal ideology.  Just as greed undermines the assumed success of financial deregulation, so does it sabotage the proposed prosperity resulting from the ‘trickledown effect’. The US Institute for Policy Studies analysed the records of 92 local corporations in the wake of tax cuts between 2008 and 2016. They observed a median job growth of negative 1 percent between the 92 firms, with 48 firms eliminating a total of 483,000 jobs in this period. Simultaneously, average CEO pay within the firms rose 18%(US Institute for Policy Studies, 2017) - a blatant contradiction of the expectations underpinning this theory. In the same way, the corporate benefits of privatisation do not always ‘trickle down’ to consumers. In monopoly and oligopoly industries, players have few rivals and therefore less incentive to compete for the consumer. Hence, they are not as vulnerable to failure if they minimize expenditure or charge more for their outputs at the expense of the consumer in the pursuit of profit. In March, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) recommended regulation of Australia’s four major airports, all of which were privatised at the turn of the century. This came after the ACCC found consumers of all services offered by the airports paid $1.6 billion in excess due to the privatisations, according to ACCC Chairman Rod Sims (Kelly, 2017). These findings exemplify that greed trumps the assumptions underpinning the ‘trickle down’ effect, with regard to deregulation, corporate tax cuts and privatisation, further diminishing the feasibility of neoliberal theories.

The economic theories of neoliberalism may be impracticable, but the ideology’s impact on the people and the environment is what ultimately makes neoliberalism incapable of perpetuity. Proponents of the ideology believe all inputs - whether they be land, labour or capital resources - exist solely to support a stable economy. The system encourages players to pursue profit, and the practice of sustainable and ethical operations comes at the expense of the corporation’s wealth. Consequently, these entities tend to instead engage in activities that maximise profit at the expense of the people and climate (Chomsky, 1999). It is acknowledged in public discourse that the processes of production should be more environmentally friendly, but supply is controlled by demand, so it is necessary that consumers exercise their democratic rights and regulate these processes to promote sustainability. The crux of this matter is that citizens are decreasingly able to exercise these rights, ironically due to neoliberalism itself, as explored in the following paragraph. The same stands for the protection of people – workers’ rights are diminished in the name of profit and humans are increasingly seen as commodities existing to sustain the economy. Neoliberal policies were implemented in Spain in the early 1970’s, including tax cuts and weakened worker protections, with hope that the ‘trickledown effect’ would aid the country’s rates of unemployment. The policies failed in this endeavour, and ‘ultimately reduced the share of wages in the gross national product, worsened working conditions, and saw a considerable increase in unprotected employment’ (Albarracìn, 2000, p.2). Market deregulation also means corporations have access to cheap external labour in developing countries, frequently influencing those governments to decrease the rights of their workers either through conspicuous lobbying or the inconspicuous threat of accessing labour elsewhere and therefore removing the economic benefits of their presence in those states (Oatley, 2012). According to economist Dr Richard Wolff, the widening income inequalities mean citizens are increasingly unable to consume the outputs offered by corporations, lessening their profits and countering the very incentives that drive neoliberalism (Martin, 2016). Because of these factors, neoliberalism is unsustainable not only for the environment and masses, but for the corporations themselves.

The ramifications of a neoliberal economic system are not constrained to the pillar of economics – the democratic system is also being challenged as a by-product of this ideology.  The unprecedented economic success granted to elites and corporations through the practices of neoliberal capitalism has allowed them to undermine the governments capacity to respond to citizens’ concerns in a number of ways. Corporations in competition for consumers and shareholders invest in a range of tactics, from lobbying to political bribes, seeking laws and policies that offer them a competitive advantage over their rivals both locally and globally - resulting in a race for political influence that drowns out the concerns of average citizens (Reich, 2009). States, too, have experienced increased wealth from neoliberal capitalism, through the proliferation of transnational corporations and provision of foreign direct investment as a result of deregulation (Oatley, 2012). Because of this, economic success may be prioritised by the state before the protection of citizens and the environment. This was demonstrated in India, 2003, when ‘community members entered the office of the Regional Pollution Control Board in Varansi, and to protest their inaction (regarding Coca Cola’s dumping of toxic waste in water supplies) dumped sacks of sludge from the plant on the table of the regional officer’ (Wass, 2011, p.123). The corporation is one of India’s biggest external investors, which seemingly eclipses their contributions to water shortages, water and soil pollution, and distribution of toxic waste. Democracy is designed to allow citizens to address issues of concern, including widening inequalities of income and wealth, environmental hazards and heightened job insecurity; all aforementioned by-products commonly associated with neoliberal capitalism. The ideology is designed solely to increase profits, with no obligation for actors to exercise a social conscience, and democracy exists to control and regulate such processes with decisions regarding corporate limitations and resource and profit allocations. As neoliberal capitalism continues to dilute democratic processes, the economic powers that be are increasingly becoming the authors of the rules by which we live; rules which will - like the economic policies of neoliberalism- benefit only those already on top.

Considering the inviability of neoliberal capitalism, the question of where a viable alternative to this economic model can be found now stands, and the answer lies in social democracy. This approach proposes high levels of state regulation, supervision and ownership in all industries and markets, and advocates for high levels of participatory democracy, where power begins at the bottom and is delegated upward. The effectiveness of participatory democracy relies on freedom of information and the transparency of corporations and institutions – not an impossible task given the corporations that corrupt this under neoliberalism do not hold the same power in a socially democratic system, as social welfare is prioritized over the growth of the economy (Hicks, 1999). While the economic policies of social democracy admittedly do not stimulate economic growth as neoliberalism does, they certainly protect against the instability and inequity of a neoliberal framework. A regulated financial sector decreases risk and therefore increases citizens’ trust of the banks, compelling them to engage with - and further stimulate - that industry (OECD, 2016). The nationalization of industries abolishes the promise of profit as an incentive to cut corners or exploit labour, and while efficiency may be hindered with the lack of competition, industries will be more reactive to consumer demands - the focus of the organisation shifts from enhancing profit to enhancing the quality of the outputs, as governments are answerable to the disapproval of citizens through the democratic process. The expansion of businesses may be somewhat inhibited due to high taxes, but these funds are used for the provision of social welfare to all, guaranteeing the eventual benefits that the ‘trickledown effect’ falsely assumes (Morel, 2012). In nationalized oligopolies unnecessary duplication is eradicated, as well as generating much lower rates of resource consumption because of the lessened economic incentive to reduce the lifespan of outputs (Hanke, 1987). As aforementioned, the process of participative democracy is purer given the decreased influence of corporations, and citizens can demand regulations to address the threats facing them using democratic planning - compared to the inevitable ecological degeneration exacerbated by environmental deregulation of neoliberal capitalism.

Neoliberal capitalism has too destructive an impact on our political, social and environmental domains to continue perpetually, despite its relative economic successes. Neoliberals see humans as resources to create a stable economy, and financial prosperity as paramount. Conversely, social democracy views a stable economy as a resource to create satisfied humans, and believes financial prosperity matters only if its translated into holistic happiness and security. Ultimately, the consequences of neoliberal capitalism may eventually render society incapable of engaging with - and thus sustaining - any economy.

 Albarracìn, J. (2000) Neoliberal Employment Policies: The Case of Spain. International Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 30, No. 2, Unemployment in Spain: Theories and Evidence (Summer, 2000), pp. 56-81 p 1

Chomsky, N., & Haupt, M. (2006). Profit over people. Munich: Piper.

Friedman, Milton and Friedman, Rose (2003), ‘The Power of the Market’, in Frank Stilwell and George Argyrous (eds), Economics as a Social Science: Readings in Political Economy, 2nd edition, Sydney: Pluto Press Australia, 126-131.

 Hanke, S. H. (1987). Privatization versus nationalization. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, 36(3), 1-3.

Hicks, A. (1999) Social Democracy &Welfare Capitalism: a century of income security politics. New York: Cornell University Press, 1999.

Institute for Policy Studies, (2017) Report: Corporate Tax Cuts Boots CEO Pay, Not Jobs. Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, viewed 19/7/17, found http://www.ips-dc.org/report-corporate-tax-cuts-boost-ceo-pay-not-jobs/

Kelly, F. (2017) Airports textbook example of privatisation gone wrong: Sims. Aired March 6 2017 8.34 am on Radio National, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, accessed 19/9/17, found http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/airports-textbook-example-of-privatisation-gone-wrong:-sims/8327328

Martin, Abby (2016), ‘Marxism 101: How capitalism is killing itself with Dr. Richard D Wolff’, The Empire Files, teleSUR, last accessed 30 June 2017 from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P97r9Ci5Kg (running time: 35:46).

 Marketwatch, (2008) Lehman folds with record $613 billion debt. Viewed 19/9/17, found http://www.marketwatch.com/story/lehman-folds-with-record-613-billion-debt?siteid=rss.

Morel, N. (2012). Towards a social investment welfare state?: ideas, policies and challenges. Bristol: Policy Press.

 Oatley, Thomas (2012), ‘The politics of multinational corporations’, in International Political Economy, 5th edition, Boston: Pearson Longman, 180-201

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, (2016). Restoring Trust in Financial Markets. Found on OECD website under ‘Finance’ and ‘Financial Markets. Accessed 20/9/17, found http://www.oecd.org/finance/financial-markets/18961363.pdf

 Saad-Filho, A (2005). Neoliberalism: A critical reader. University of Chicago Press.

San, M. S. (2009). Global financial crisis. Plastic Rainbow Book Publication.

 Reich, Robert B. (2009), ‘How capitalism is killing democracy’, Foreign Policy, 12 October, accessed 20/9/17 from: http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/12/how-capitalism-is-killing-democracy/ 

US Goverment, (April 2012) The Financial Crisis in Charts. US Department of the Treasury. Viewed 19/9/17,  found https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/Documents/20120413_FinancialCrisisResponse.pdf

Wass, G. (2011) Corporate Activity and Human Rights in India. Human Rights Law Network. New Delhi: Socio Legal Information Cent

[captiousbitch-blog]

Altering globalisation to correct capitalism’s pitfalls

‘Globalization’-  a process fuelled by and resulting in increasing cross-border flows of goods, services, money, people, information, and culture - and a buzzword used for the past half century by political and economic elites to retain our optimism about how the world is evolving. We’re working towards a borderless society created by capitalist evolution; a burgeoning international system that will bring bounty for all involved... this is the future! But have we truly seen these assertions reflected in the real-world changes brought about by globalization? The establishment of institutions such as the World Trade Organization and International Monetary Fund, promoting the expansion of free markets and economic interconnectedness in the mid-20th century, indicate the belief at the time was that products of globalization and neoliberalism would benefit all participants in an economy. Today, however, the ‘alter-globalization’ movement exists with the aim not of resisting and rejecting the process, but de- and re-constructing the systems in place that facilitate these processes. After decades of embracing the proliferation of neo-liberal policies as the next natural stage in the globalization process, the ‘alter-globalisation’ movement has emerged to signify “the end of the blind, unlimited belief in the rationality of the market, (and) the reappearance in economic thought of the indispensable role of the state” (Pleyers, 2010). The ‘alter-globalization-ers’ seek not to replace the status-quo with unrelated political or economic systems of their own invention, but to modify the systems and processes currently in place to increase participatory democracy, and through this form viable alternatives to ensure this ‘rising tide’ of globalization and free market economies genuinely does lift all boats.

 So, is the movement really just an incoherent and ineffective mess as its critics claim? ‘Incoherent’ and ‘messy’ may well apply. To position oneself as ‘alter-globalisation’ would likely prompt a retort along the lines of; “so, what exactly does that mean?” And, in truth, the answer to that question depends on just how broadly or specifically one chooses to respond. The most notable by-product of neoliberal globalization targeted by the movement has been trade liberalisation, but which exact ramifications of this particular phenomenon are being protested by each individual? Does one person campaign solely against slave labour as a result of the global redistribution of wealth, and another against the destruction of natural habitats brought about by the de-regulation of trade? Or both the former?(Razsa, 2015). Here’s where some say the movement de-validates itself. With no real definition and no real criteria to be met before one can claim to be an ‘alter-globalization-er’ except a common adversary, a logical and common criticism is that the separate factions of the movement can’t unify to generate change without a common end goal (Fotopolous, 2007). How can someone in a position of power listen to - and act on - demands when they’re broadcast by hundreds of voices competing to be heard? In fact, the ‘alter-globalization-ers’ have been heard - and their demands acted on - likely thanks to the diversity of the sub-factions of the movement. Disparity between causes fought for often indicates disparity between how they’re fought; Many economic reform groups rely on the maintenance of their legitimacy as an assembly, and so campaign through legitimate avenues, contacting governmental representatives and organizing petitions to be presented to parliaments. Conversely, anarchist ‘alter-globalization-ers’ strategize being heard by as many as possible, protesting in the street and participating in civil disobedience - projecting passion for their cause with the aim of initiating cultural change in addition to political and economic change (Meyer, 2013). In this way, the messiness and incoherence of the ‘alter-globalization movement’ has lent to it a strength many other movements lack: the ability to utilize a plethora of avenues of campaign and reach as many ears as possible through each individual division, without retracting from the validity of the movement as a whole.  

 Scepticism regarding the effectiveness of the movement may be linked to the same aforementioned reasons; the blurred lines around which individuals or groups are aligned with the movement can make it hard to attribute successes to the movement as a whole, as opposed to simply a success of that one collection of campaigners. If we want to gauge how effective the movement has been, we must look at all successes in combating the negative by-products of globalization - no matter how minor or insignificant they may seem relative to the accomplishments of other movements fronted by a single organization. Generally, scholars agree that the accomplishments of a social movement “can be determined by: 1. the degree to which a social movement gets its programme on the social and political agenda, 2. the degree to which it influences the programme’s passage into policy, or helps to ensure its enforcement, and, 3, the degree to which the legislation has the intended effects.” (Burstein, 2015). Their conclusion signifies the importance of broadening our definition of ‘success’ from legislative or economic change to include changes in the mindsets of societies and leaders. Take the growing rejection of the Washington Consensus -  a list of ten economic policy measures, encouraging a neoliberal economic framework through the liberalization of trade and investment, the privatization of state-owned enterprises and the deregulation of markets, amongst other things – by certain Latin American governments: what began as a collection of alter-globalisation-er civilians vocalizing their discontent escalated to reform of economic legislation in multiples states (Eckstein, 2001). Admittedly, the list of legislative implementations due to alter-globalisation campaigns is short when compared with other movements. But considering the fact that economically significant globalization - and its contenders - have been traced back to the 1490’s (O’Rourke, 2004), and that the movement would consider any hindrance of the spread of its negative effects an achievement, I believe the movement is doing what it set out to do. Who’s to say we wouldn’t already be trapped in the deep inescapable pit of neoliberal economics, it’s by-products having caused damage beyond restoration, if it weren’t for the efforts of the alter-globalization-ers? Furthermore, given their emphasis on the importance of participatory democracy, doesn’t the existence of the faction alone provide a watchdog to monitor globalization and neo-liberal policies worldwide?

Ultimately, the alter-globalisation movement is an easy one to disparage. Its triumphs are hard to measure, proponents difficult to define and its end goals hard to describe, but this does not equate to it being a failure. As long as their voices are heard by civilians and leaders, and each sub-faction continues to fight against the by-products of globalization that concern them, then they’re now in the process of modifying existing systems and processes and ensuring the process of globalization (and all its consequences) are kept in check.

  Burstein, P et al. ‘The Success of Political Movements: A Bargaining Perspective’, in J. C Jenkins and B Klandermans (editors), The Politics of Social Protest: A Comparative Perspective on States and Social Movements, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995.  Page 285 p 2

 Eckstein, S. Power and Popular Protest: Latin American Social Movements. University of California Press, 2001

 Fotopoulous, T. The Multidimensional Crisis and Inclusive Democracy, Ch. 4 'Globalisation' and the Left. The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY, vol.3, no.3, July 2007

 Meyer, D. S. 2013. Movement Society. The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements, 2013

 O’Rourke, K.H et al, Once more: When did Globalization begin? European Review of Economic History, Vol. 8, No. 1 (APRIL 2004), pp. 109-117

 Pleyers, G. Alter globalization: becoming actors in a global age, Published by Polity, Cambridge 2010 , page xv, paragraph 3

 Razsa, M. Bastards of Utopia: Living Radical Politics After Socialism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2015

[captiousbitch-blog]

A brief exploration of the illusion of free will

The assertion that most neurotypical humans are rational individuals capable of reason and logic implies we are autonomous, and therefore able to make free choices constrained by nothing other than our sensibility. The reality is that on varying levels of consciousness, humans are limited in their ability to choose freely by the superstructure – ‘the politico-legal (law and state) and ideology (ideology, religion and ethics)’ (Althusser, 1970) – of a society. Whether it be via regulatory institutions, social norms, or the almost indiscernible shaping of one’s self, societal constructs pervade our identities so much so that even the most non-conformist actions are either manifestations of - or restricted by – society in some way.

The most apparent constraint of an individual’s free choice is that of the provision of legislation and establishment of disciplinary institutions that threaten to punish those who choose to act outside the bounds of law. These are the restraints of which we are most conscious. Legislation clarifies which actions will not be tolerated in a society, and what punitive measures will be pursued if one decides to partake in those actions – as the conspicuous purpose of the application of the law is to limit the supposed wrongdoings of individuals within a society. It can be argued that, by its definition, free will permits one to act outside the law as one’s behaviour is ‘free from internal or external constraints’ (Feldman, 2016). However, it is reason itself that allows these apparatuses to be so effective. In the eighteenth century, Italian politician Pellegrino Rossi heralded institutions of law and enforcement as the ‘penalties of civilized society’ (Rossi, 1829), as they rely on a rational subject’s ability to understand that - in most cases - the cost of the punishment exceeds the benefit of the action, and they should therefore be deterred from conducting said action. the easiest to consciously rebel against. Other subtler constraints, such as social norms, are less tangible and therefore can be more difficult to consciously oppose.

The institutions that administer legislation and penalty may be the officially recognized bodies of human regulation, however all laws implemented were developed to reflect the beliefs and attitudes of the society they protect (Tyler, 2000), and the institutions established to enforce actions in line with those principles. Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci proclaims that the existence of these institutions both establishes and enforces ‘cultural hegemony’- the domination of a ruling ideology over subordinate ones so that the former becomes the socially accepted norm (Bullock, 1994). It can be said, then, that we are in some ways as constrained by the normative standards of a society as we are the institutions that uphold them. Social theorist Michel Foucault asserts the most effective method of governance is to have societies implement rules of normality on themselves (1975), as they operate naturally as ‘mechanisms of selection and exclusion’ (Foucault, 2001) – not only will the individual avoid straying from the norm for fear of ostracism, it’s likely they’d not even consider the existence of alternatives to that convention. Apparent evidence lies in typical conformity of individuals to gender roles throughout history. Many psychologists today agree the categorization of gender is an ‘arbitrary social construction created to fill some human purpose based on socio-political rather than biological (…) considerations’ (Freud, 1994), yet we consistently act both consciously and subconsciously in accordance with what society expects of our gender. Every person with a penis is perfectly capable of wearing lipstick, but societal norms have been so effectively imposed that relatively few have dared to stray from these restraints, again for fears of segregation or - in many cases - belligerent responses from individuals within the society. Gramsci suggests individuals are further limited by linguistics within in a culturally hegemonic society. As language is developed throughout history via social interactions, and social interactions are formed relative to the dominant ideology of the time, even the verbal manifestations of thought are then constrained to a language that caters somewhat to the central ideology (Gramsci, 1971). The result of this is somewhat Orwellian: a society that lacks the language to verbalise certain ideas is restrained in expression of thought, and therefore in its ability to make free choices.

What one considers a ‘rational’ decision is guided by their own morals and values, and Foucault asserts that ‘by “morality”, one means a set of values and rules of action that are recommended to individuals through the intermediary of various prescriptive agencies such as the family, educational institutions, churches, and so forth’ (Foucault, 1985). These - and values - are further shaped by subjective experiences, which in turn are by-products of societal constructs also (Prinz, 2013). In this way rationality, too, is constrained somewhat – even if one believes they’re acting solely per their moral compass, that too has been fabricated by society. This claim does not declare an identity or set of values to be regionally specific – even foreign societies can constrain individuals unacquainted with their norms. Economist and philosopher Friedrich Hayek theorises that social formations - as we know them today - were incepted as primates evolved an instinctual pack mentality based on the advantage of safety in numbers (Hayek, 1978). Although social formations have grown exceedingly complex since that time, ‘once they were genetically established, these attitudes (…) have continued to be part of the natural inheritance of modern humans, even though biological selection pressure has been largely relaxed’ (Witt, 1994). The result of this today can be seen in an individual’s instinctual fear of becoming the ostracized ‘other’. Even if an individual is unaware of the social norms of an alien society, it’s probable they will come to associate their supposedly abnormal behaviour with social rejection, and the instinctual need for social inclusion will likely condition them to avoid those behaviours.

Although we may think we’re acting solely on will, almost every thought or behaviour is influenced by society in some way. The rationality of humans may seem to emphasize our ability to choose freely, but in truth it accentuates just how inhibited we are. Ultimately, it is the rational fear of the ramifications of making choices out of normative bounds that discourages us, on variable degrees of consciousness, from making those choices.

  Althusser, L. (2006). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towards an investigation). The anthropology of the state: A reader, 9(1), 86-98. “the politico-legal (law and state) and ideology (ideology, religion, ethics)”-

Bullock, Alan; Trombley, Stephen, Editors (1999), The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought Third Edition, pp. 387–88.

Feldman, G. (2016) Making Sense of Agency: Belief in Free will as a Unique and Important concept. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, vol. 11 issue 1, April 2016 (quote taken form abstract)

Foucault, M. (1985) The Use of Pleasure, Volume 2 of The History of Sexuality, trans. by Robert Hurley New York: Pantheon Books, 1985.

Foucault (2001). L'hermeneutique du sujet. Cours au Collège de France, 1981-1982. Paris: Gallimard Seuil, p. 173.

Freud, S. (1994). The Social Construction of Gender. Journal of Adult Development, Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp 37-35, January 1994

Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks, edited and translated by Hoare, Q. and Nowell Smith, G. New York: International Publishers, 1971

Hayek, F.A (1979) Law, legislation and liberty: 3, the Political Order of a Free People, London: Routledge

Prinz, J.(2013) Where Do Morals Come From? A Cultural Approach. Empirically informed ethics: Morality between facts and norms. Vol 32, pp 99-116

Rossi, P., Traité de droit pénal, III, 1829

Tyler, TR. (2000). Building a Law-Abiding Society: Taking Public Views about Morality and the Legitimacy of Legal Authorities into Account When Formulating Substantive Law. Hofstra Law Review Vol.28 page 707-739

Witt, U. (1994) The Theory of Societal Evolution; Hayek’s Unfinished legacy. In Hayek, Co-ordination and Evolution - His Legacy in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas, edited by Van Zijp, R and Birner, J. Routledge 1994

[captiousbitch-blog]

The dogmatism of radical feminism

Ask anyone if they consider themselves a feminist in 2019 and it’s unlikely you’ll receive a flat-out ‘no’ - the term has gained traction in popular culture in recent years, with celebrities like Harry Styles Beyoncé vocalising their support of the campaign (the latter to a viewership of 8.3 million at 2014’s Video Music Awards [Gallo, 2014]).  Although feminists share the common goal of socioeconomic and political equality between the sexes (Beasley, 1999), there exist camps that attribute the causes of inequality – and the means to correct it- to vastly different concepts.  Among many sub factions of feminists stand the radicals - these individuals consider an extreme re-ordering of society necessary to achieve gendered equality (Crow, 2000). While structural change may well be essential to this ambition, the foundations of radical feminism have proven to be contrary to the overarching goals of feminism -  endangering and marginalising individuals in the name of supposed ‘equality’.

A distinguishing feature of radical feminism is its emphasis on patriarchal oppression. Capitalism has birthed a social class hierarchy that most major branches of feminism – such as Postmodern, Marxist and Socialist feminists- regard as a commanding force of women’s oppression (Anthias & Yuval-Davis, 1983). Not at all exclusive to this concept, the ‘patriarchy theory’ refers to a social system that is dominated by men - according to Walby (1989), many feminists belonging the aforementioned sectors assert the patriarchy and class system to be interactive in their subjugation of women. Radical feminists instead re-route the blame from class-based oppression almost entirely to the patriarchy. Politics of the Ego: A Manifesto - drafted by the New York Radical Feminists in 1970 – states that

the purpose of male chauvinism is primarily to obtain psychological ego satisfaction, and that only secondarily does this manifest itself in economic relationships. For this reason, we do not believe that capitalism, or any other economic system, is the cause of female oppression (NYRF, 1970, p.2)

This sentiment has severe implications when analysing contemporary social and political issues – when applied to the sex industry, it reduces what many claim to be a viable means of countering class-based oppression to an inherently oppressive void of male supremacy.

Radical feminists proclaim the sex industry to be fundamentally patriarchal, and sex workers as being forced into the job by pimps or as a result of childhood trauma (Stark & Whisnant, 2004). While both instances unquestionably do occur, to apply this theory to all sex workers is reflective of a narrow world view. Research conducted in London in 2009 revealed that only 6% of migrant sex workers felt at all coerced or deceived into selling sex (Mai), while a 2005 study examining the relationship between childhood sexual abuse and sex work found that there was no evidence of sex workers joining the force as a result of early sexualization – instead, ‘this research seems to suggest that these individuals are attempting to flee from chaotic family circumstances and are utilizing prostitution for financial livelihood’ (Abramovich, p. 141).

The radical feminists’ excessive fixation on male dominion finds their theory disregarding two significant facts: that people of all genders both utilize and deliver services within the sex industry; and that many partake in the supply of these services as a means to redistribute wealth (as noted above by Abramovich) - from those with the disposable income to purchase such services back into the pockets of a demographic largely disenfranchised as a result of capitalism (Farley, 2003) Postmodern feminists would emphasize the women’s agency in choosing sex work, liberal feminists would see sex work as the morally neutral and legitimate sale of a service (Jaggar, 1980), and socialist and Marxist feminists would likely empathise with the plight of female sex workers – if an individual is forced into the industry, it is resultant of their socio-economic circumstances and not a symptom of the industry itself (Bernstein, 2010). Radical feminism stands apart from these other major branches in its exclusion of estimates of hundreds of millions of women worldwide (Vandepitte, Lyerla & Dallabetta, 2006).

While radical feminists don’t bar female sex workers from rallying for their cause (although their paternalization of women in the industry would likely discourage them from allegiance), they do advocate for the abolition of sex industries worldwide via the criminalization (and in more extreme cases, illegalisation) of sex work (Miriam, 2005). This target, if achieved, would eradicate any subsequent legal protections and disenfranchise autonomous sex workers – male and female alike. Beyond disenfranchisement is the endangerment that comes with the elimination of industry regulations, and in the sex industry ‘to be female, or to be perceived as female, (is) to be more intensely targeted for violence’ (Farley & Barkan, p. 45). In this way, radical feminists who claim to advocate for the betterment of women are actually working toward a world in which they are far more at risk.

Radical feminist theory both jeopardizes and rejects the credibility of women far beyond those in sex work. Of course, gender exists on a spectrum, as acknowledged by countless reputable scientific bodies and increasingly by society as a whole (Monro, 2005). Radical feminists reject this scientific theory, instead maintaining that the two social classes are that of men and women and thus seeking to abolish the fundamentally hierarchical concept of constructed gender… quite contradictory to their belief of the male class’ ‘inherent predilection for power’ (Willis, 1984, p.8).  At a glance, the basis of this declaration is excusable – to them, transgenderism reinforces socially constructed gender roles and stereotypes, and a male-born person who identifies as a female only wishes to do so because they align themselves more closely with socially constructed concepts of femininity  (Daley, 1978).

Although a select few self-proclaimed radical feminists distance themselves from the majority (like Catharine MacKinnon asserting that ‘anybody who (…) wants to be a woman (…) is a woman’ [Farr & Fakhr, 2019]), many have also faced backlash over their transphobic comments– perhaps most notably Germaine Greer’s recent avowal that trans women are not real women (Germaine Greer: Transgender women are ‘not women’ – BBC Newsnight, 2015). Ultimately, denying the objective experiences of someone who has lived and been socialised as a woman for most of their life - in some cited cases as young as four (Kaltiala-Heino, Bergman, Työläjärvi & Frisén, 2018) – negates the essence of the feminist movement as a whole: to counter the oppression of women in all spheres, including in the social realm (Hannam, 2007). If no one is aware this person wasn’t born a girl, would they not be equally disparaged for their femininity? Do they not deserve the same degree of protection from patriarchal forces as cisgender women? Trans women are an enormously imperilled faction – a 2014 report found the average life expectancy of a trans woman in the United States to be between 30 and 35 years (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights , 2014), while cisgender women can expect to reach 78 (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2015). In fact, it is largely heteronormativity (a concept of which patriarchal gender roles are the foundation) that compels others to commit acts of violence against trans people, so any feminist that seeks to counter patriarchal forces should endeavour to protect trans people also. Instead, trans women are amongst the many excluded from – and who’s safety is threatened by -  the campaign of the radical feminists.

Heteronormativity is arguably quite a toxic notion, and we simply don’t know how common heterosexuality would be if it weren’t as socially ingrained as it is. While social conditioning may well contribute to our attraction to the opposite sex, radical feminists have gone as far as to claim that sexual orientation is a choice… and that being straight is the wrong one (Fahs, 2010). Many are choosing to engage in ‘political lesbianism’- that is, opting to engage sexually and romantically with women only (Bindel, 2004) despite their true preferences- as a political statement and to contribute to the dilution of heteronormativity. The underlying problem with these efforts is radical feminism’s contention that sexual orientation is decided by the individual – an incredibly problematic notion countered by most scientific bodies including the notorious American Psychological Association (2008). If one’s sexuality is a choice, then homosexuality is a purposeful decision. This opinion is held by many figures (usually of some religious denomination) in support of conversion therapy – recipients of which are more than three times as likely to attempt suicide (Ryan, Toomey, Diaz & Russell, 2018). This sentiment not only presents a very serious risk to the wellbeing of homosexuals but also ostracises heterosexual feminists from the radical crusade. Who wants to join a movement that condescends you, insisting you’ve made the wrong choice and are too naïve to see this is the case?

I’m not one to cater to the majority’s fears of exclusion and I won’t put a damper on my fervour for feminist issues at the risk of scaring away those who aren’t already on our team. That being said, the guiding principles of radical feminism are inherently discriminatory and hazardous to the safety of many - sex workers, trans women and hetero and homosexuals included. Forget the ‘fem’ prefix of ‘feminism’. Our campaign’s pursuit of equality corresponds to the betterment of all people, regardless of gender, and exclusionary ideologies like that of the radical’s are not in alignment with – and thus vastly limited in their contributions toward -  the objectives of the feminist movement.

Cited:

Abramovich, E. (2005) Childhood Sexual Abuse as a Risk Factor for Subsequent Involvement in Sex Work, Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 17(1-2) 131-146, DOI: 10.1300/J056v17n01_08

American Psychological Association. (2008). Answers to your questions: For a better understanding of sexual orientation and homosexuality. Washington, DC: Author. [Retrieved from www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.pdf.]

Anthias, F. and Yuval-Davis, N. (1983) ‘Contextualizing Feminism — Gender, Ethnic and Class Divisions’, Feminist Review, 15(1), pp. 62–75. doi: 10.1057/fr.1983.33.

BBC Newsnight (2019). Germaine Greer: Transgender women are 'not women' - BBC Newsnight. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B8Q6D4a6TM [Accessed 6 Apr. 2019].

Beasley, C., (1999). What is feminism?: An introduction to feminist theory. Sage.

Bernstein, E., 2010. Militarized humanitarianism meets carceral feminism: The politics of sex, rights, and freedom in contemporary antitrafficking campaigns. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 36(1), pp.45-71.

Bindel, J (27 March 2004). Location, location, orientation. The Guardian.

Crow, B.A. ed., (2000). Radical feminism: A documentary reader. NYU Press.

Daly, M. (1978). Gyn/ecology: The metaethics of radical feminism. Oxford, England: Beacon.

Fahs, C. (2010). "Radical refusals: On the anarchist politics of women choosing asexuality". Sexualities. SAGE Publications. 13 (4): 445–461. doi:10.1177/1363460710370650. Retrieved October 3, 2012.

Farley, M. (2003). Prostitution and Trafficking in 9 Countries: Update on Violence and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.. Journal of Trauma Practice. 2: 33-74.

Farley, M PhD. & Barkan, H DrPH. (1998) Prostitution, Violence, and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Women & Health, 27 (3), pp. 37-49, DOI: 10.1300/J013v27n03_03

Farr, B. and Fakhr, A. (2019). “Harm is harm, hello”. [online] On Century Avenue. Available at: http://oncenturyavenue.org/2015/03/harm-is-harm-hello/ [Accessed 2 Apr. 2019].

Gallo, P. (2019). VMAs Ratings Down Despite Blue Ivy Surprise. [online] Billboard. Available at: https://www.billboard.com/articles/events/vma/6229363/ratings-mtv-vmas-8-million-viewers-down-18-percent [Accessed 11 Apr. 2019].

Hannam, J. (2007). Feminism. Harlow, England ; New York: Pearson/Longman.

Kaltiala-Heino, R., Bergman, H., Työläjärvi, M., & Frisén, L. (2018). Gender dysphoria in adolescence: current perspectives. Adolescent health, medicine and therapeutics, 9, 31–41. doi:10.2147/AHMT.S135432

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. (2014). An overview of violence against LGBT Persons: A registry documenting acts of violence. Washington, DC.

Jaggar, A. (1980). Prostitution. In Soble, A. (1980) Readings in the Philosophy of Sex. Totowa, N.J: Littlefield, Adams & Co

Mai, N. (2009). Migrant Workers in the UK Sex Industry: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-062-23-0137. Swindon: ESRC

Miriam, K., 2005. Stopping the traffic in women: Power, agency and abolition in feminist debates over sex‐trafficking. Journal of Social Philosophy, 36(1), pp.1-17.

Monro, S PhD. (2005) Beyond Male and Female: Poststructuralism and the Spectrum of Gender, International Journal of Transgenderism, 8:1, 3-22, DOI: 10.1300/J485v08n01_02

Top of Form

NEW YORK RADICAL FEMINISTS. (1970). Politics of the ego: a manifesto for N.Y. Radical Feminists. New York: New York Radical Feminists.

 Ryan, C., Toomey, R. B., Diaz, R. M., & Russell, S. T. (2018). Parent-Initiated Sexual Orientation Change Efforts With LGBT Adolescents: Implications for Young Adult Mental Health and Adjustment. Journal of homosexuality, 1-15.

Stark, C. & Whisnant, R. (2004). Not for Sale: Feminists Resisting Prostitution and Pornography, Melbourne: Spinifex PressBottom of Form

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (29 July 2015). United Nations World Population Prospects: 2015 revision (PDF). UN.

Vandepitte J, Lyerla R, Dallabetta G, et al (2006). Estimates of the number of female sex workers in different regions of the world. Sexually Transmitted Infections. 2006. 82: iii18-iii25.

Walby, S. (1989). ‘Theorising patriarchy’, Sociology, 23(2),  213-234.

Willis, E. (1984). Radical Feminism and Feminist Radicalism. Social Text, 9 (10), 91-118. doi:10.2307/466537