As people reflect on the life and times of former PM Margaret Thatcher, an age old debate has once again arisen, what impact did she have on feminism? I think it is a debate that is worth having.
Now, don’t worry, I’m not going to go down the line of Lionel Schriver and argue that ‘Thatcher was a real feminist’. It is clear that she hated feminism and a lot of what it stood for. She was once quoted to say, “I owe nothing to women’s lib”, and “I hate feminism. It is a poison.” Beyond this, as Jenny Anderson has argued, there are many other reasons Thatcher was bad for women and feminism. Despite this however, many people still argue that despite her hatred for the movement, the mere existence of Thatcher was good for women, and good for feminism. As Irin Carmon argued:
“It’s better to have women in public life, even when we vehemently disagree with them, than to have no women in public life at all. Every single one counts toward the normalization of women in charge, however abhorrent their policies.”
Now, I am not a woman. So I therefore cannot explain how women should and did feel about having Margaret Thatcher rise to the top of the British political class. In fact, it is clear that different women experienced it differently, with many different views out there on her premiership. However, I think this view deserves discussion. It is about a lot more than just feminism – and can reach out into queer (something I can directly connect with), and race politics.
There is a growing trend in these forms of ‘identity’ politics (which is the cover term I will use from here on in) to focus on ‘representation’ – the idea that we need to increase the representation of people of minority groups in political office, boards etc. The basis behind these sorts of arguments are threefold; first that ‘equality’ is inherently good, second that it is important to have a ‘woman’s/queer/person of colour’ perspective in different positions and finally, the argument that Carmon brings up, that having people from these different identities ‘normalises’ the experience of having them as leaders. Using these theories therefore, people would argue that Thatcher was good for women because she brought a woman’s perspective to the premiership, and she normalised the idea that women could be leaders.
However, whilst these theories seem to have merit on paper, when taken in the context of broader identity politics I think, if pursued on their own, they fall down. Identity politics is about a lot more than equality. It is about directly challenging dominant power structures – whether that be the class system, or the heteronormative, racist and patriarchal society. It is these power systems that are holding back equality, and it is therefore these systems that need to be challenged.
The ‘representative’ arguments, again if pursued on their own, however fail to effectively challenge these structures. For example, let’s look at the womens/queer/person of colour ‘voice at the table argument’. In many ways this argument makes sense – that if we bring people of different identities to the table then we will get different perspectives and greater understanding of the issues facing minority groups. The problem is that whilst we may get representatives at the table, they are still operating under the dominant systems of the time. And whilst people from minority groups may be able to change the system from the inside, unless a direct challenge to this system from the outside occurs, they will always be hamstrung by it.
This builds directly into the issues with the ‘normalising’ argument. I agree that having people from minority groups does allow for the ‘normalisation’ of them being in positions of power, and Margaret Thatcher is definitely a testament to that. The question is though, do we want to be normalised in this way? If normalisation means putting yourself into an oppressive power system, and becoming part of that system, then why would we want it? This is what we can see with Margaret Thatcher – yes, to an extent this ‘normalised’ having women in power, but in doing so it also ‘normalised’ the power structures that we should be wanting to tear down.
Turning this around however, this is where Thatcher may have done something good for feminism. As Carmon also stated:
“Thatcher herself was a necessary rebuke to essentialism, to the humanity-constricting idea that women are inherently more collaborative, peaceful or nurturing.”
I think this is an essential point, because it provides and important structural analysis to the issues women, queer folk, and people of colour face. For centuries, people of minority groups have been treated as if they have no capacity to be leaders. As the identity struggles of our times however have gained momentum however, this ‘essentialism’ has started to break down. Replacing it however has been a system which allows a particular few into the power systems that already exist – often those who, whilst as a member of a minority group, have wealth and power in the class system. These people have gained access to a system, but the system still stands. This can be good for identity movements though as it takes away the focus from essentialism, and puts it back onto the power structures we need to challenge.
Finally, I hear you say, what about equality? Isn’t that still important? Well, yes, equality is still important – but I don’t think it is the be all and end all. Whilst equality has some inherent benefits, I don’t think it is worth pursuing it if it means building up the very structures that we should be wanting to tear down. If we want to find the best way to achieve equality, what we are better doing is spending our energy on tearing down these structures. It is the best opportunity we have.
Representation is a good thing. But pursued on its own, I don’t believe it provides an inherent good. It has to be part of a broader campaign, and this is certainly not the sort of campaign Margaret Thatcher was part of.