Feminist Futures II – Feminist Socialisation. Some impressions from a participant

The Rosa Luxemburg Foundation and the Marie Jahoda Centre for International Gender Studies hosted the conference ‘Feminist Futures II: Feminist Societies’ in Bochum from 25 to 27 September. The ‘II’ in the title refers to the previous conference held in Essen in 2019, which attracted 1,500 participants and at which the Care Revolution network celebrated its fifth anniversary. For that reason alone, it was only natural for us, as a network, to support this conference as well.

Whilst initial plans were still tentative – with the Marie Jahoda Centre, for example, estimating “around 800 participants” on its website – the final number turned out to be well over 1,000 participants. The programme was correspondingly extensive and varied. Many speakers, some of whom were well-known figures, had been invited from the academic world and, above all, from groups and organisations within social movements. The organising team took care to ensure that the diversity of the movements was reflected in the selection of speakers and that there were plenty of opportunities to learn from activists in other countries where these movements are significantly further advanced. Examples include the strikes by the teachers’ union in Los Angeles, which also addressed demands relating to living conditions and services in the city’s neighbourhoods, and projects aimed at creating ‘caring cities’, particularly in Latin America. It would go beyond the scope of this article to list all the workshops; those interested are referred to the RLS website and to the documentation, which is still to be compiled. Contributions from some of the speakers have also been compiled in a brochure that can be ordered free of charge.

The fact that organising this major conference with a small team and within a relatively short timeframe was extremely demanding – and perhaps verging on the impossible – was hardly noticeable during the conference itself. If there was any commotion at all, it was behind the scenes, and the author of this piece – and, it seemed, many others too – felt right at home in the curious, inquisitive and respectful atmosphere. It was somewhat reminiscent of the founding of the Care Revolution network in 2014. However, the venue did cast a slight shadow over the atmosphere: the University of Bochum, which began teaching in 1965, is a concrete monstrosity, and the lecture theatres, in which almost all the sessions took place, reflected the mindset of the traditional university system: The architecture itself makes it clear who is in charge and who is there to listen, and the fact that the audience were meant to discuss ideas in small groups during the workshops was made rather difficult by the fixed rows of seats facing forwards. Nevertheless, the participants managed to make it work – both during and between the sessions.

As the conference title suggests, the numerous workshops focused on socialisation from a feminist perspective. This entails that all work, whether paid or unpaid, must not only be viewed as part of the economy, but must also be the subject of socialisation. Socialisation can be understood here as the actual control exercised by workers and users over the locations, conditions and outcomes of the work process. However, because unpaid work continues to be attributed primarily to women or people perceived as female, such an expansion of the concept of socialisation is feminist. Socialisation then refers not only to the democratic governance of the macroeconomic process and to control over enterprises, but also to spaces and processes of reproductive labour. This concerns the design of neighbourhoods and housing estates in accordance with the needs of those living there; it also concerns alternatives to the nuclear family.

Although it was frequently emphasised that feminist socialisation applies at all spatial levels, one focus of the conference was on the local level. This prompted Sabine Daams, co-organiser of the conference, to write the following in the conference brochure: “It is striking that many of the most interesting attempts to put such policies into practice are currently emerging at the local level. And they are striking a chord.” On the one hand, therefore, it is a question of power: Will we find ourselves in a position to actually implement our ideas in the face of resistance from those who benefit from the status quo? On the other hand, it is about expanding our capacity for action: can self-organised projects be integrated and supported at this level? Do the proposals spark enthusiasm and a willingness to take action?

At ‘Feminist Socialisation II’, therefore, concepts of socialisation or collective solutions were presented at a wide variety of levels. In the case of support collectives or neighbourhood canteens, for example, these do not, in and of themselves, address the societal level. Furthermore, the projects presented must function within a capitalist environment whilst still pointing beyond it. In most of the workshops attended by the author of this article, it was very positive to see that the contradictions and conflicts associated with this were openly presented and discussed. The support collective or the polyclinic, for instance, rely on funding from the state and social security schemes, which has never been sufficient and is currently under even greater threat of cuts. A highly stimulating – and, like so many things, unfortunately all too brief – workshop entitled ‘The Home as a Social Space: New Infrastructures between Home, Neighbourhood and Community’ explicitly sought to explore the interconnections between family, collectives, local politics and the social welfare system.

Because steps towards socialisation are therefore constantly contested, a second focus of the workshops was on building connections and organising actions to gain the capacity to act. Strikes in the care sectors and feminist strikes that go beyond this framework, action training and showing solidarity with one another were the subjects of such workshops. The workshop on the development of the care movement, delivered by the author of this article together with Liska Beulshausen (Wirtschaft ist Care), also falls into this category. A practical outcome of this focus was that many conference participants travelled together to Essen for a demonstration against cuts to social services – not as an interruption, but as an extension of the conference.

However, during the opening and closing plenary sessions, it was emphasised that we are currently on the defensive against authoritarian and fascist developments – in contrast to Feminist Futures I in 2019, when the global ‘Ni una menos’ protests and the 8 March demonstrations in Germany attracted huge crowds, and a spirit of optimism was also palpable in other areas, such as the climate movement. Accordingly, a third key focus in some workshops was on gaining a better understanding of these developments. In the closing plenary session, the question was then explicitly raised as to how neighbourhood-based care politics can become an anti-fascist practice. Tashy Endres, an activist with ‘DW&Co enteignen’, provided a very succinct answer: life under capitalist conditions is characterised not only by the risk of poverty and heavy workloads, but also, in particular, by isolation and the feeling of being powerless and at the mercy of others. It is precisely these last two points that the far right successfully exploits. Accordingly, the Left, too, must organise around empowerment and community – but in a spirit of solidarity rather than exclusion – drawing on everyday experiences. The fact that both are needed – a sense of belonging and a sense of agency – was emphasised on several occasions. This is where the proposals for care centres, neighbourhood trade unions, care collectives and other initiatives converge.

The workshops and the closing session repeatedly addressed the relationship between self-organisation and the state. In the closing session, for example, it was emphasised that it does matter who is in government, but that pressure from social movements helps to shape state policy. What specific policies result from this has been discussed countless times in the history of the Left and remains unresolved here too. However, two statements are worth repeating, as they provide the framework for the event: in her opening remarks, Barbara Fried noted that we are faced with the question of ‘how we can wage common struggles without trivialising our differences’. And Rebecca Bailin, an American CARE activist, remarked during the closing plenary that there are currently struggles “over the very conditions that allow us to fight at all.”

Given the vital need to gain the capacity to act, it was refreshing that the many unresolved questions and contradictions could be openly identified and discussed – though, given the brevity of the workshops, unfortunately often only in passing. It was, and remains, up to the activists – many of whom travelled in groups – to take these numerous ideas on board and put them to use. There will definitely be a follow-up: a ‘Feminist Futures III’. Perhaps by then we will have gained a few more insights through our practical work and discussions?

An article by Matthias Neumann (Berlin Regional Group)