by Berta Hiriart
Berta Hiriart was a founder member of the Mexican feminist group La Revuelta. Here she tells the story of the group's development from the beginning, when most of their energy was concentrated on producing a publication of the same name, through to its eventual collapse in 1985.
Today Berta is a correspondent for the Latin American women journalists' network, FEM PRESS. She is also part of the editorial advisory group for FEM, Mexico's leading bi-monthly feminist magazine.
I recall how a few months before the opening conference for the International Women's Decade, which took place in 1975 in Mexico City, we found ourselves, some 40 women, gathered together in the small meeting place which was used by the movement in those days. The discussion raised a mixture of questions: Was it the right time to start taking external action? How could we do it given that we weren't even capable of resolving our own internal problems? Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on strengthening the experience of our own small group?
Participation was uneven. The clear distinction between the "veterans," in other words those who had been longest in contact with feminism, and the "new arrivals" who had only recently joined us, created an awkward situation. The more experienced were doing the talking and leading the decision-making while the others simply felt uncomfortable, not knowing how to participate in this world of unfamiliar topics. There were also personal problems with much talk of pain and betrayal. The "personal" may be "political" but what could we do as a group? According to old patterns of conditioning we soon divided into factions.
That night seven of us left determined to create our own feminist newspaper. We had already been thinking about it, but that meeting made us realize that the right time had come. The very idea filled us with delirious excitement. We had no previous experience to dr«w on. Although we were already familiar with a few foreign publications, our own reality was so very different; everything had to be invented from scratch.
Would we be able to do it? None of us were writers or journalists. Our mood kept swinging from euphoria to the depths of insecurity, but in the end the need to open up a new channel of communication where we, as women, could express our own viewpoints won through.
It took us a year to produce the first issue of La Revuelta. This was the time it took to overcome the first two major obstacles: fear of writing and lack of funds. The fear of translating our ideas and feelings into written words diminished through practice and the benefits of mutual support. 1 doubt if any of us would have achieved it alone. From the beginning, even if we did not read out our texts to the group, the interest we shared in each other's work gradually gave us confidence.
Every piece of writing was discussed and amended by everyone, an experience which not only allowed us to gain personal strength but helped us to progress within a collective vision of feminism which, though never homogenous, always had its roots in certain fundamental agreements.
The financial problem was also resolved through solidarity. A small printer allowed us to delay payment in order that printing costs could be met out of the money received from sales. All the same, money was always our weakest point. We launched the publication doubtful that we would ever be able to recover our costs.
Still, in September 1976 the first issue of La Revuelta. more a manifesto than a newspaper, came out. We sold it in schools, offices, hospitals, parks and at cinema doors, straight into the hands of our readers. This initial method of distribution taught us a lot as it enabled us to receive immediate feedback from people. Some rejected it right away, greeting us with anger and ridicule, and others were simply horrified; but there were also many, above all women, who seized it with enthusiasm and enriched us with their comments.
Some of the most adverse reactions came from the majority of comrades men and women - from the Left. They accused us of importing foreign ideas, diverting attention from great national problems to focus on domestic details, of being divisive, sectarian, petit-bourgeois and of not knowing how to write. All this both amused and radicalized us for we were confident that our publication contained certain truths which sooner or later, would have to be accepted.
The fact is that this first issue just flew out of our hands. True it was only a small print-run, barely 1,000 copies, but its reception gave us all the stimulus we needed to carry on.
Producing publications is only one facet of militancy and. in accordance with the basic concept of feminism, we wanted it to touch on all aspects of life. Some of us did not even want to be recognized as journalists as we were against any form of specialization. The aim was to disseminate new ideas through all the means at our disposal: theater (several of us came from that medium), diaries and calendars, conferences, meetings and street gatherings.
In those days and even later on, we received a lot of criticism for being a closed group. This wasn't deliberate although there was no reason for us to increase our numbers. Our main task was to bring out a newspaper which does not take very many people. Nevertheless, others did become involved in La Revuelta. It is never easy to come in from outside and try to join a strongly cohesive group and there were inevitable problems. Many women just passed through, but some stayed indefinitely and, although the initial core remained intact, the group varied a great deal during the eight years we worked together.
We had no interest in being isolated; like many other companeras, we believed it was vital, wherever possible, to unite our strengths. Therefore, when the idea of creating a coalition of feminist groups cropped up, we were only too glad to join in. This was the first attempt in Mexico to form an autonomous organization within which different groups were to be linked together around very concrete issues mainly rape and abortion - creating a kind of horizontal network.
A basic premise for us was to prevent the emergence of hierarchies which inevitably emerge as soon as a minority starts making decisions for others. Needless to say, this reduced our efficiency, but we were not really worried. We wanted to invent quite new ways of relating and new organizational structures.
The history of this coalition deserves a space of its own, incorporating different versions from those who lived through it from its early development to the end. Here I can only say that we - La Revuelta - began worrying when there were proposals to convert us into a front organization including women from political parties. Certainly during those days -1 think it was 1979 - a few party militants initiated a new position towards feminism. We were very concerned about the threat to our autonomy. The women's movement was not strong enough to establish any alliances which might result in the subordination of feminism to other interests alien to our specific struggle.
When, despite the arguments, the Front for the Rights and Liberation of Women was formed, we decided not to participate and to continue our task of communication. Nevertheless, we were tired. When it came to putting together the paper, going to the printers, distributing and selling all the copies, we no longer had the same enthusiasm. We all felt the need for change.
So it was that we approached the national daily newspaper Uno mas Uno with the suggestion that it should incorporate a supplement dedicated to women. It wasn't easy to muster the determination to abandon our beloved Revuelta in order to integrate ourselves into such an institution, but the advantages of the change were so obvious that even the most reactionary among us became convinced. For a start it would mean reaching many more women (40,000) and we would have more time to research, write and make contact with different groups. We would also be paid for our work.
In the end we weren't granted the supplement but a weekly column which we accepted with the idea of eventually increasing the space. We never did get to produce the supplement, but we did achieve a whole page, thus providing room for a good number of individual women and organizations to express their views. It was often overflowing with material.
This new experience confronted us with some interesting problems. For instance, in La Revuelta no articles were ever signed whereas the newspaper insisted that every piece had to carry the author's name. Some of us flatly refused to do this on the grounds that it would encourage competition and stardom, and that the only public identity which was both valid and inoffensive in political terms was to be integrated with La Revuelta. Others believed that signing our names was quite unthreatening and in fact desirable in terms of allowing room for individual expression; after all the quality of a group stems from the union of people rather than their confusion into an abstract mass.
We never resolved this conflict between the validity of individual and collective identity. Many years later, when we published an anthology, it was still a major controversial point.
It seems to me that the biggest challenge was and remains for the group to somehow encourage the flourishing of each member's own abilities without this meaning disunity or the domination of some over others. Fear of losing the group or of someone seizing overall control can itself lead to individual repression.
This happened several times with La Revuelta. Some thought that if articles were bound to our collective signature it meant we all had to agree with every word. This was a nuisance since anyone who wanted to express something that provoked disagreements either had to keep silent or else the group would feel obliged to pick out and affirm the part we disagreed with. The advantage we had over other groups was that ours was a play of force among equals. Each of us knew how to express and defend our own particular points of view. This created tensions, but also gave us the chance to learn from each other, to reflect and to grow. In addition this kind of ongoing discussion led us to practical solutions, the level of intensity not endangering the group's survival but rather helping to cement it.
In any group activity the question of who assumes power is always one of the most important and delicate issues. It crops up at every turn. When we first took on the responsibility of producing the weekly page our lives were quite overtaken by the work; all of us had jobs in other places and some of us had small children to take care of. Not surprisingly, therefore, it occurred to us that it might be better if two of us were simply paid to work full-time.
The page may have benefitted from this decision, but the group suffered badly. Inevitably, those of us working full-time on the page became a point of contact between the group and those outside for we had more information and contacts. After a while the bad feeling provoked by this situation persuaded us to return to our old way of working when tasks were distributed evenly among us.
The collapse of the episode with Uno mas Uno was finally related to our loss of independence. From the moment when the page began to carry certain weight with the public, as much for the information it offered as for its significance in providing a forum of expression for so many women, those in charge of the paper decided that we had gone too far. Whenever we strayed from their precepts we were accused of dealing with themes absurd for a newspaper, such as sexual dissatisfaction or menstrual problems, and told that we were publishing texts by women who "did not know how to write properly." Of course, our aim was precisely to bring attention to topics which directly affect us and have been permanently obscured throughout history, as well as to provide space for any woman with something to say, especially when they have nowhere else to do it. But it was not our paper and we had to leave.
The loss of our page was followed by several months of disassociation. We couldn't see how to continue our collective work, although in fact there had already been changes in the air. Each of us, according to our personal interests, was becoming involved in other kinds of work, all feminist but diverse. The old band had ceased to exist.
Gradually each of us steered towards other means of communication, working directly with women from other social sectors or else opting for the academic life. Yet we never altered the fundamental aims which had always united us. And when we experience moments of confusion or doubt, we still meet up for heated discussion, as always. It is simply another way of being together.
The ways in which we see the world have also changed. We no longer believe in Manichean solutions, nor are we guided by slogans and dogma. We have become more patient and willing to accept diverse viewpoints. In that sense, we are nowadays more complete.