Feminist Organisations in Transition: Surviving Under Conservative Government in South Korea and Australia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Paper submitted to the 12th International conference of the International Society for Third Sector Research, Ersta Skö ndal University College, Stockholm, Sweden, June 28 - July 1, 2016 Dr Kyungja Jung Social and Political Sciences, University of Technology Sydney Sydney, Australia Tel: 61-2 9514 2057 Email: [email protected] Title of paper: Feminist Organisations in Transition: Surviving under Conservative Government in South Korea and Australia ABSTRACT Feminist organisations are created to carry out work relating to the women’s movement. Despite the fifteen year time difference, the Australian and Korean women’s movements have seen women’s studies graduates and feminist scholars become the creative force behind new feminist organisations, the circulation of feminist discourses, the initial development of women’s policy machinery and the emergence of femocrats. The women’s movement’s engagement with the state has produced significant advances in gender equality, including legislation and a range of programs in both countries that have seen a partial institutionalisation of feminist perspectives within state policy-making processes. However, during the conservative Howard government (1996-2007) and the current Coalition Government (2013-the present), the Australian women’s movement markedly lost its policy gains and energy. The Korean women’s movement had similar experiences when facing the conservative Lee Myung-bak government (2008-2013) and the current Park Geun-hye administration (2013-the present). Drawing on activists’ accounts in two countries, this paper explores the challenges faced by feminist organisations amid a hostile political context and the ways in which feminist organisations are reinvigorated to overcome them. The paper is an addition to current scholarship on the impact of governments’ shifting relationships with feminist organisations and the broader women’s movement. Key Words: feminist organisations in Korea and Australia; women’s movements; institutionalisation; women’s advocacy Like the Australian women’s movement of the 1970s, the Korean women’s movement from the mid-1980s exploded into action. From out of nowhere, came a plethora of feminist organisations, such as newspapers, journals, cultural groups, rape and domestic violence support services and other women-focused activities – right down to the humble feminist-run food co-op. In this paper, feminist organisations are defined as ‘embracing collectivist decision–making, member empowerment, and a political agenda of ending women’s oppression’ (Ferree and Martin 1995: 5). The impact of the women’s movement can be attributed to the activities of feminist organisations. ‘The women’s movement exists because feminists founded and staffed these organizations to do the movement’s work’ (Ferree and Martin 1995: 4). The women’s movement informs feminist organisations’ purpose, agenda and supply of activists (Ferree and Martin 1995). Drawing on interviews1 with activists in feminist organisations in Australia and Korea and participant observation at a feminist conference in two countries, this paper examines the ways in which feminist organisations have adopted to shifted political environments to survive and remain as the part of the women’s movement. Australian women’s movement under the Howard government Following the election of the Howard government in 1996, the women’s movement lost many of its earlier achievements. There was overt hostility to feminist aspirations under the Howard administration. Ruth Phillips (2006: 205) explains this as a ‘double negative’, which she defines as neoliberalism and neo-conservatism. The Howard government was hostile to the forms of participatory governance which had given more opportunity to social movements, including the women’s movement. Its strong conservatism was apparent in its conspicuous hostility to feminism and the goals of the women’s movement (Phillips 2006). The broader political and economic context also contributed to a downturn in feminist influence and visibility. By the end of the 1980s, a restructured economy had shifted the political focus away from social justice considerations to a neoliberal, market-driven focus on individualism and a winding back of the welfare state (Bacchi 1999). An activist who had worked for a feminist rape crisis centre from 1991-1994 recollected the change in the practice of the women’s movement in Australia: 1 I interviewed with 16 Korean activists between 1998 and 2011 and some of the activists were interviewed several times. Interviews with 11 activists in Australia were undertaken in 1999 and interviews with femocrats in Australia were conducted in 2004-5. We work within an accountable code that can be measured. We have health outcomes. We have performance indicators. We’ve got a government with certain expectations-- the legacy of receiving funding for the centre is that we have to fit into a particular mould that adheres to the government’s guidelines. I loathe using the word, but we are professionals now, which has both its good and bad points. You have to have some piece of paper, some qualification in a health- related or training field, and somehow that may remove you one step from the women who started the service (Cited in Hay 1996: 126-7). As the activist stated above, the women’s organisations became more subject to government supervision and those who were working in the feminist organisation have been regarded as professionals rather than activists. Women’s movement organisations were labelled as non- government organisations, and began to be framed as ‘special interest groups’ under the increasingly dominant public choice rubric as implied by the account of an activist: We’re often at a dangerous place of specialising too much, and see yourself [the rape crisis centre] as, you know, too different, and better than everyone else or something. I think that is dangerous, so I think we’ve got to be really careful not to do that. You know, we’ve come from a position of confidence because we know we do good work. But, we must come from a position of humanity and acknowledging that there is a lot of expertise out there with lots of other stakeholders (Interview with a worker at the rape crisis centre in Australia). The women’s movement organisations became more service oriented and less political, further reducing the pressure on government to listen to the feminist voice and advice. The introduction of New Public Management techniques to reform and reduce the size of government led to a reduction of ‘in-house policy expertise’ including gender analysis expertise (Sawer 2007). Inside government, ‘femocrat’ positions came to be filled by women with no background in the women’s movement (Sawer 1990). Meanwhile, feminists in government continued to grapple with their dual sense of accountability both to the government and to an increasingly diversified women’s movement. Over time, and by necessity, feminists tried to hold on to their gains and resist both a neoliberal onslaught and a neoconservative backlash against feminism itself. The result has been the almost total demise of a feminist presence in the Howard government (Maddison and Jung 2008). The Howard government also dismantled and demoted the women’s national machinery and women’s units such as Women’s Bureau across all portfolios at the federal level. In the first year of the Howard government, the budget of the Office of the Status of Women was cut by forty percent. In 2004, the Office for the Status of Women was demoted from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to the Department of Family and Community Services (Sawer 2007: 30). However, the decline of both Commonwealth and State policy structures and processes has been met with barely a whimper from feminists in the broader women’s movement. The struggle for gender equality—once considered a ‘permanent priority’ in the national capital—began to be wound back (Maddison and Jung 2008). The Howard government refused to become a signatory to the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). There was also a defunding of many women’s organisations, in particular those that had been critical of government and/ or represented constituencies outside the mainstream by the federal Office for Status of Women. The funding for the women’s organisations has been supported mostly for projects not for operation and the funding was also ‘tied to competitive tendering for service provision with no scope for representational or advocacy work’ (Sawer 2007: 25). There was also the successful mobilisation of the idea of ‘post-feminism’, which promoted the notion that the women’s movement was a thing of the past (Andrew and Maddison 2010: 175). Howard viewed the social movement in general, including the women’s movement, as ‘outdated and represent[ing] nobody but an “elite minority”’ (Sawer & Hindess 2004, cited in Andrew and Maddison 2010: 175). There was even the emergence of men’s rights movements from the mid-1990s, well supported by the Howard government (Sawer 2007). Over the following years, the women’s movement appeared to enter a period of abeyance, resulting in the loss of many gains from the previous period. Even under the subsequent Labor governments of Kevin Rudd (2007-2010) and Julia Gillard (2010-2013), the situation didn’t greatly change. For instance, neither the Coalition (the Liberal Party in coalition with the National Party) nor the ALP (Australian Labor Party) appeared to produce a women's policy for the 2010 federal election or any overall plan for achieving gender equality. However, the ALP did eventually release a women's policy - one day before the election. One achievement of the Gillard government was Australia’s first government scheme for paid parental leave. Since January 1, 2012, most workingwomen have had access to up to 18 weeks of paid leave. The scheme sees primary carers, most of whom are women, paid the minimum wage by the government for that period, with the pay administered through their employers.