Summer Institute on Union Women Lacks Necessary Debate
The 28th Annual Western Region Summer Institute on Union Women, held Aug 11th-15th in Los Angeles, has come and gone. As a delegate from my union, I learned a great deal, but perhaps not what you would expect. The institute’s theme was “Women Workers of the World Unite” and I attended multi-day sessions entitled Women and the Global Economy and Communications—Building a New Vision for Labour. Instead of learning about globalization and communications strategies however, I came away reminded of the tremendous hurdles that the labour movement must overcome if we are to succeed in bettering the lives of working people worldwide. The hurdles that I am referring to are not global corporate capitalism or neo-liberalism, but disarray within our movement. Yes, you’ve heard it before, and maybe you yourself have made the appeal for “more unity on the left”. I will not make the abstract appeal for everybody to “work together”. No, I came away absolutely certain that we must stop talking about “working together” and return to the democratic roots and traditions of our movement, in which decisions are made by democratic voting, informed by discussion which is fueled by debate and yes … discord.Let me explain. While I met some amazing women – an organizer in Mexico’s maquiladoras, some inspiring Southern California labour leaders and a great group of Latina activists from Fresno – I was surprised and horrified by the sheer ignorance of many of the delegates. Now you’re thinking that I’m being arrogant and condescending. Of course we cannot expect every aspiring American trade union activist to have an understanding of the workings of the global corporate economy or the role that US corporations play in pillaging the planet and exploiting its inhabitants. Isn’t that why we have a Summer Institute with a session entitled Women and the Global Economy – to educate? And oh, we all know there is much educating to be done, especially among “your average” working class Americans. The problem though, is that the whole spirit of the session was so focused on the equal validity of all our voices that any possible learning opportunity was lost in a sea of confused, disparate, passionate observations, many of which were not remotely based on reality. Maybe you will stop cringing and hating me if I give a particularly horrifying example.
During some small group work, somebody in my group of ten mentioned China, inspiring one young woman to pipe up, “Have you heard what China is doing in Zimbabwe?” According to this young woman, China is “building a big road” through the country and “all of a sudden there’s all kinds of bad stuff happening, there’s men raping men, and stuff.” “So I thought to myself,” she continued, “that sort of thing is totally not okay in Africa, and then I was like, hey, of course, it’s because of China. In communist China that sort of thing is like, totally normal”. I was so taken aback that all I thought to do was refer to some HIV epidemiological data I read recently about the prevalence of anal sex between men in China, compared to other parts of the world. Nobody else in my group seemed to have any problem with the overt racism and heterosexism (not to mention ignorance) of her statement, so I had to duck out of my group and hunt down some “more-worldly” Vancouver women to debrief with.
Yes, this is the worst example of ignorance at the Institute, but there were others, including the brilliant appraisal that the problem with George W. Bush is that he’s too communist and “there’s too much communism in America.” That’ll be the day. I believe wholeheartedly in cooperation and participation; I believe that multiple heads are better than one in every aspect of decision-making. I even extend that belief to the whole economy and the running of each individual workplace. I might even accept that every last woman at the Summer Institute has something to offer to the movement (maybe even Miss China-hater). What I don’t believe and certainly can’t accept is that everybody has something to offer on every subject. I, for example, have nothing to offer in a discussion of the merits of one kind of brain surgery over another. If I wish to participate in a discussion about brain surgery, I should have the right to do so and should be treated with respect while I speak. But there must be a means for distinguishing good ideas from all the fluff. The only way to do this is to encourage debate – meaning representatives of various disparate ideas sparring for attention and support. And when it is necessary to come to a conclusion, make a concrete decision or determine the way forward, the only way to do so is by democratic vote.
Will the majority always make the “best” choice? No. Will the democratic vote always yield the most desirable result? No. But it is the only way for a large and diverse group to move forward united. Discussion followed by democratic vote is a core principle of the labour movement and the foundation upon which it was built. Working people come together in their workplaces and larger sector, discuss the living daylights out of the issues at hand and vote on how to move forward. Certainly, there are groups that are small enough and cohesive enough that they may truly make decisions on the basis of consensus. We know that the labour movement and working class are neither small nor cohesive.
Perhaps the goal of the Summer Institute was not to determine a direction or way forward, but maybe it ought to have been. Participants who I have spoken with since, who haven’t necessarily formalized their impressions to the degree that I have, have expressed feeling disheartened and discouraged that “nothing concrete came of it”. Is it right for the labour movement all along the west coast of North America to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to send delegates to a week long conference that does not result in some kind of direction or way forward? We have entered a world economic crisis unlike any seen before under capitalism. We discussed numerous issues and challenges for the labour movement. Why did we not set ourselves the goal of moving forward on one of them?
I believe that women have more to offer the labour movement than just excelling at “working together” and respectfully listening to each other share our experiences. By falling into old-fashioned conceptions of women as consensus-builders and by idealizing the notion that “everybody’s ideas are equal”, we watered down the content of the Summer Institute to such an extent that it was impossible to learn anything from the program. I didn’t learn anything because I was unable to engage in debate about issues I am passionate and informed about. The women that I have called ignorant didn’t learn anything because too many completely disparate ideas and conflicting “facts” were given equal weight and respect, and they wouldn’t have a clue where to begin determining which to accept or investigate further.
As women at this conference, we were intended to feel united by virtue of being women, and because we all exuded “unity and respect”, and because we are all members of unions. If the labour movement (women or otherwise) is united on the basis of anything other than democratically-decided principles, the result will always be the lowest common denominator. To win real improvements for working people around the world, we need much better than the lowest common denominator.
Miriam Martin
September 1, 2009
