With abortion rights under attack in the United States, activists all around the world are concerned about women’s bodily autonomy and social progress. The urgency for feminism has been increasingly felt in recent years. Activist philosopher Cinzia Arruzza presents us with a new, unprecedented wave of feminism in her 2019 co-authored manifesto, Feminism for the 99% (Verso, 2019). This wave views capitalism as the root cause of women’s oppression and emphasizes an intersectional approach to its abolition. Originally from Sicily, Italy, Dr. Arruzza now resides in New York, where she teaches at The New School as an Associate Professor of Philosophy.
I conducted a virtual interview with Dr. Arruzza over Zoom on April 6th, 2023, to discuss her activism and the principles laid out in Feminism for the 99%. The transcription below has been edited for length and clarity.
PB: I’m excited to be here with you.
Feminism for the 99% offers eleven theses for the newest wave of feminism. These principles distinguish this wave as anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, anti-racist, democratic, and eco-socialist. Please discuss how you integrate these principles into your activism or work with specific organizations.
CA: In the United States, we organized for a few years. We tried to organize the international women’s strike. This was precisely part of an effort to participate in the new feminist wave. In 2017, we organized the first feminist strike here. What we tried to do was precisely to make sure that the question of racism and imperialism were at the center of the strike, and that the strike would especially represent working-class women. In 2017, what we did was organize together with a number of community grassroots organizations that especially center working-class immigrant women, and with Palestinian organizations that center the occupation in Palestine and the situation of Palestinian women. So, the way in which we thought we would proceed was precisely to make sure that the strike would not center, let’s say, middle-class white women.
Bourgeois women?
Yes, exactly. Rather, we would center working-class immigrant women, Palestinian women, and Black women. We also organized together with sex workers. We did this for a few years. Of course, in the United States, this was not as powerful as in other countries where the strike had a really massive dimension with millions of people participating. In the United States, it was much more difficult, but at the very least, we contributed to giving some visibility. In recent years, I’ve been especially engaged at The New School because, since 2020, we’ve had a serious crisis [laughing].
During the pandemic, the administration laid off about 120 members of the staff. We also had a part-time faculty strike in the fall [of 2022]. So, in the last couple of years, most of my activism was in the workplace, at school. But in that case, too, I tried to embody the principles that we discussed in Feminism for the 99%. In 2020, for example, the big question for me was how to try to protect the jobs of low-wage workers who, at The New School, were mostly workers of color. And the same applies to part-time faculty because the majority of part-time faculty are women, gender non-conforming people, and non-white people. So, once again, the idea was precisely to side with the most vulnerable and the most oppressed constituents of the school.
It’s very admirable how you centered so many different identities in your activism. Would you be able to discuss one or two particular gains you made?
Well, not in the United States, where abortion rights are under attack, but the feminist movement in Argentina managed to actually legalize abortion. This was a major victory. In other Latin American countries, too, the movement really made significant steps toward the recognition of abortion rights. There was also a significant attempt in Chile by the feminist strike movement, which participated in the constituent process. In the constituent assembly, the attempt was to enshrine reproductive rights within the Constitution. Unfortunately, the new draft of the Constitution was watered down, but in any case, we can learn a lot from the way in which the feminist strike movement in Chile organized and managed to actually be present in the constituent assembly, voicing these kinds of demands.
More recently, at The New School, I think the greatest achievement probably was last fall. Eighty-five percent of the faculty at the school is part-time, and there is a really big inequity in working relations between full-time faculty and part-time faculty. This has historically created a lot of tensions and divisions between some of the faculty, and one of the greatest achievements of the strike in the fall was that we managed to actually build solidarity. For example, as full-time faculty, we stopped work in solidarity with part-time faculty. We canceled our classes, our exams, committee meetings, and everything. We were actually subject to retaliation from the administration.
I was going to ask if the university’s administration had a problem.
Yes, of course. They threatened to cut our salaries. It was scary. Despite all of this, we really managed to create an unprecedented solidarity, and with students, too, because the large majority of the students were in support of the strike. This was a very important moment where we demonstrated it is possible to create solidarity between [teaching] employees and [other] workers despite the divisions created by the way in which the workplace is organized.
I really appreciate you sharing that. It just goes to show how much they really feel threatened by the consolidation and solidarity of their workers.
My next questions are about Feminism for the 99%. Throughout the Manifesto, you offer important criticisms of liberal feminism. One that stood out to me was about sexual liberation often recycling capitalist values. You mentioned neoliberal discourses pressuring young women and girls to own their sexuality by ultimately pleasuring men and thus “licensing male sexual selfishness in exemplary capitalist fashion.” This criticism was made in relation to hookups and online dating, but how would you also extend it to pornography? In other words, how do you understand the relationship between capitalism, male sexual selfishness, and porn?
I think there is a bit of a danger in the history of U.S. feminism. There has been the anti-pornography stance within feminism, radical feminism especially. This actually caused an alliance with conservative forces in the United States. So, it is a very fine line because the problem is that, on the one hand, we want to criticize forms of sexuality and sexual expression that reinforce sexism and heterosexism. On the other hand, we also need to be careful not to end up with positions that are anti-sex and moralize the way in which people live their sexuality and their sexual desires.
So, my personal position is that I’m not against porn. It has been with us forever. It is part of desire. The problem is creating the social conditions that facilitate ways of creating porn that do not reinforce heterosexism or patriarchal attitudes. In past years, there have been attempts, for example, at creating queer porn and other alternative forms of porn. I side more with these kinds of attempts that are exploring ways in which porn may actually be liberating.
Exactly. Do you see porn being liberating outside of a capitalist framework? Do you think we have to first end capitalism and then discuss sexual liberation?
I think one should do both things at once. There is a danger in saying, “Let’s first address capitalism and then we’ll see.” This was an attitude that was present in, not all, but much of the old workers’ movement. The idea was that because the problem is capitalism, and capitalism creates these oppressive social conditions, let’s focus on capitalism just as an economic system, and then the rest will come on its own. I think this is not the way to go.
Yes, is it class reductionism?
I will call it economic reductionism because I have a broader conception of class, which is not just about economic exploitation. Whenever it’s possible, we should already embody some of those other principles. So, I think we need to do both things at once. Obviously, as an anti-capitalist, I do believe that it is not possible to really liberate sexuality under capitalism. I am aware that whatever work we do to change cultural norms today is constrained by capitalist social relations. But with this awareness, I think it is important to still experiment and go in the direction of changing these cultural and social norms while, at the same time, obviously fighting against capitalism.
I think that’s a perfect answer. Ignoring other forms of oppression was one of the mistakes we made in past waves of feminism.
My next question is about imperialism. I admire your unapologetic categorization of female politicians who promote imperialist policies as “warmongers in skirts.” In what ways would you extend this criticism to the recruitment of the military? Can you elaborate more on your discussion of women being the primary victims of war? How can female politicians so comfortably wage atrocities that so negatively impact their own gender? Is the capitalist war machine that powerful?
That’s a good question. We should ask them [laughing]. The problem with liberal feminism is, very often, the focus of attention becomes representation and diversity. The logic is that you can basically maintain institutions the way they are, with the role they are already playing, but then diversify them by representing the various constituencies and identities. This is exactly what we criticize in the Manifesto. This may lead to advantages for the women who are directly involved, who get promoted, who get into positions of power. But it has really terrible effects on the rest of women, gender non-conforming people, and queer people, especially because it also gives legitimacy to the policies that are indeed patriarchal and heterosexist. Because women, transgender people, or gender non-conforming people are the ones putting them forward, then there is less resistance.
By the way, we are seeing this increasing problem in Europe. For the first time in the history of the Italian Republic, we have a woman prime minister. The problem is that she’s the leader of a far-right party. She has an absolutely anti-feminist and anti-queer agenda. This is probably the clearest example of the fact that it is not sufficient to change the representation or to diversify. So, a woman becoming prime minister is not something to be celebrated in this case. And I’m very angry with the Italian left because how come, for decades, they never managed to advance a woman candidate as prime minister? This is really obscene. But it’s not an advancement for women that Giorgia Meloni is prime minister. It’s actually a tragedy because now abortion rights are under attack and any kind of LGBTQ+ rights are under attack.
Before, we spoke about the danger of focusing only on the economic struggle, but there is also the other part, which in my view is the biggest problem because we have very little class politics, unfortunately. The biggest problem we have today is an identity politics that is completely decoupled from class politics. In the United States, this is really evident. This is what we must address.
Yes, I can’t imagine you were a fan of Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris [laughing].
No, exactly. This applies also to race. In New York, for example, we have a Black mayor today, but it’s somebody with good relationships with the police. There is always this danger, especially in the United States, where what we call neoliberalism is particularly strong. There is always the danger of being captured by the establishment.
Do you ever feel frustrated that people might then attack you for not being progressive? For example, do people ever call you anti-feminist for opposing the first female prime minister? How do you deal with those kinds of criticisms?
Absolutely. It is hard because these kinds of criticisms are very effective in destroying solidarity, creating suspicions, and delegitimizing struggles. I must say, in U.S. politics, this is really an ever-present problem. In other words, this happens systematically. The liberal capture of identity politics has played a really major role in impeding the growth of class politics, with terrible outcomes. Also, the danger is that this kind of liberal identity politics then actually contributes to the rise of the social conservative right because of the association between feminist views and neoliberal policies. So, people then lump them together. I think it’s a dangerous game. At the very least, it doesn’t do anything to stop the rise of the right.
I understand how hard that must have been. I applaud you for being able to surmount those criticisms. Do you ever feel like you have to overcompensate when talking about race, as white feminists have been historically criticized for not adequately seeing and addressing race?
This is a deeply racist society. So, to talk about race is never a problem. But, yes, it can become really frustrating. On a personal level, obviously, I’m white, and especially in the United States, I’m white. I’m also not a white American. I’m from Sicily, which is an extremely poor part of Southern Europe. I find myself very often lumped together with the kind of white middle class that is insensitive to race as we have it in the U.S. But that’s not my identity either. Everybody trying to carry out radical class politics is subject to this kind of instrumentalization.
It’s a way to divide emergent solidarities.
I’ll now ask you my last question. Toward the end of the Manifesto, you discuss how climate change worsens the oppression of women, who make up 80% of the world’s climate refugees. Scientists are now informing us that the global temperature increase is inevitable, with the best-case scenario being to cap it at 1.5 degrees Celsius. How do you see the resulting climate migration, which has already begun, impacting women? What particular vulnerabilities might be exploited in response to this crisis? How can Feminism for the 99% prepare and protect women from the disastrous environmental and socioeconomic effects of climate change?
The question of climate change is really the central political question for the years to come because our survival is at stake. What we tried to do in the Manifesto is argue that while climate change affects us all as human beings, it doesn’t affect us all in the same way. The effects are going to be particularly severe for the populations of the South of the world and for working-class people. At least based on the data, they are going to be particularly severe for women because women in countries from the South have the responsibility of most of the social reproduction of the family, often with forms of small agriculture, which are obviously affected by climate change and climate disasters. So, this really needs to be the central issue.
Ideally, in the years to come, we would need to try to create alliances, collaborations, and common movements between the feminist movements that have grown in the past years and the climate justice movements that are taking place. These include both the global climate justice movements like Fridays for Future and the kind of local struggles that are waged by Indigenous people, by Native people, by small agrarian communities in the South of the world. Very often, it is women who are at the forefront of these fights, for example, against the privatization of water or the building of pipelines. Women are not only most of the climate refugees, but they’re also at the forefront of many, many ecological struggles. So, the goal would be to combine the feminist strike movement and the feminist struggle with these mobilizations that are already led by women in most cases.
Thank you so much for your time. I wish you the best of luck as you continue your activism.
Palakjot Bedi
Palakjot “PJ” Bedi studied political science on the pre-med track at the University of Connecticut. Her passion for feminism was sparked during her last year at UConn as she sought to examine patriarchal capitalism through the branches of socialist feminism and radical feminism. She hopes to be able to use her combined education in social science and medicine to work in a refugee women’s health clinic and advocate for improvements in women’s health care.
