Interview with Magaly Pineda by Margarita Cordero

In a recent interview , Magaly Pineda, feminist activist, sociologist and founder of CIPAF (Center of Investigation for Women's Action) in the Dominican Republic, speaks with Margarita Cordero, a fellow worker in CIPAF and correspondent for the network of Latin American women journalists FEMPRESS, about the feminist movement in the region.

Looking back at the early 1970s, do you think the first feminist declarations echoed too much the speeches of middle-class women in the West?

You must remember that the feminist movement began in the more developed Latin American countries, that's to say countries with much in common with the West. We did incorporate certain aspects of movements in Europe and North America but that doesn't mean that we didn't develop our own characteristics. These were marked by the emergence of great antagonism between feminists and other social groups - an antagonism caused by the lack of mediation.

Can you explain what you mean by "mediation" since I think it may be the key to explaining many problems. Feminists are often accused of trying to alter the course of events in a continent which sometimes seems to be progressing very slowly.

By the absence of mediation I am referring to - and I haven't completely worked out this theory - putting forward slogans and principles without first bothering to make the issues clear and the problems visible to people. For instance, we made a public issue of abortion before our society knew or understood that this was a public health problem and, first and foremost, a woman's right.

It's different today. As part of its process of development and maturity, the movement has succeeded in bringing to light many problems that used to be hidden or avoided by a great part of the population. This, in turn, has made it possible for us to carry out many of our programs and campaigns. In a way we were in the vanguard but we all know the problems of being in that position, with the danger of forging ahead and getting too far away from the people you are trying to reach and represent.

To me this could be the origin of the movement's difficulties in relating with people of the political Left who, in spite of social changes, aren't prepared to accept feminist ideas that challenge authoritarian approaches, hierarchies or basically any forms of oppression which upset the "political realm" and occasionally make them ashamed of their own contradictions.

The feminist movement has been in conflict with the Left as well as with the rest of society. We have to bear in mind the unwillingness of Latin American societies to accept the existence of female subordination stemming partly from women's low access to work and education. The resulting conflict has been aggravated by society's constant demands that feminism prove its legitimacy.

When the Latin American Left was faced with the emergence of feminism, all its ingrained prejudices came out. It based its view about women's movements in economically developed countries on distorted information churned out by the transnational mass media. Not only did the Left fail to develop this information, it also selected only those elements of propaganda which conflicted with its traditional vision of women's participation in the overall social struggle. The emergence of feminism was generally regarded as a divisive plot drafted by the agents of international capitalism.

Nevertheless, the growing crisis in our continent along with the emergence of women as a specific new social force has opened up room for communication with the Left which we believe can be enhanced in coming years.

Let's not delude ourselves. The conflict has been not one with the Left. In the world of women - those to whom and on behalf of whom we speak - relations haven't always been harmonious, especially with women working in political programs whose perspectives don't necessarily tie in with feminist principles.

Perhaps you could say something about the movement in the Dominican Republic where you developed as a militant feminist. Although it clearly has its own characteristics, many of them can also be applied to Latin America in general.

In the first place it's important to recognize that when we speak of the feminist movement in the Dominican Republic we aren't referring to a movement based on strong groups engaged in permanent activities and action. We are referring - and will for some time to come - to individuals and small groups who come together around very specific concrete situations. This may well surprise those who know about some of the successes that we've had in the past five years, during which time wide access to the media has enabled us to spread feminist ideas. This has been very much a characteristic of feminist activity in the Dominican Republic. Starting from the social reality of our country we have worked to influence public opinion, sharing our fight for women's liberation with the whole of society. I think we have been quite creative. We have taken advantage of every opportunity to reach all kinds of people so that today a large sector of the population is aware of women's problems.

But this ongoing growth in consciousness hasn't meant the massive participation of women in feminist activities. As in the rest of Latin America, the survival of traits left over from feudalism, such as the reliance of middle-class families on domestic servants, prevents middle-class women from experiencing the harsher day-to-day aspects of oppression. The existence of maids allows these women to improve their chances for academic study or advancing their careers. As long as this situation persists and there is a wide availability of cheap domestic labor, middle-class women will remain trapped between reality and the illusion of emancipation. If this happens to women socially prepared to understand the tenets of feminism it is hardly surprising when working-class women, in their daily struggle for survival, don't relate to the contents of the feminist manifesto.

The organization of women in the Dominican Republic has had its ups and downs, especially in the urban sector. Nevertheless the spread of feminist ideas over the last decade has led to the formation of many feminist groups, especially in the countryside. Unlike the very earliest groups they have the advantage of being firmly tied to the women's movement. It is our job to continue building various forms of participation to solve women's problems in the popular sectors. Many of us make this the main focus of our work.

I wonder if acceptance by previously hostile groups such as the Left has become a priority for feminists today. If so, could it be interpreted as an abandonment of the radicalism which was so inherent to feminism as it emerged in the early 1970s?

First we need to define whether we have become less subversive or more reasonable, or if we are simply learning how to handle things hitherto controlled exclusively by men, such as tactics and strategies. We must analyze the extent to which this is part of the process by which women are beginning to consider their connection with wider political issues and even the State, without losing sight of our objectives, sacrificing our radical character, or ceasing to respond to concrete situations. I believe this is one of the most creative aspects of our movement.

Look at what is happening in Brazil where, with the move towards the return of democracy, our companeras have the opportunity to participate in government councils on the status of women, and are gaining seats not only in parliament but at the level of state governments. The Peruvian feminists who were candidates among the lists of the Izquierda Unida [see article p. 28 provide another example, even though they were not elected. Such illustrations show how the women's movement is learning to take advantage of situations and decide upon the most appropriate line of action to achieve its objectives.

Its quite possible that this type of action won't be understood in parts of the world like Europe or that those who have a very strict definition of feminism won't perceive it as feminist. But. to me, feminist struggle will and should use as many methods as are found in our countries to achieve social change.

This makes me think of some of the old accusations against research institutions, which were very strongly spelled out at the Second Latin American and Caribbean Feminist Meeting in Lima, on the grounds that they were largely responsible for the movement's tendency toward institutionalization. Personally, I maintain that to leave the production of feminist theory to established institutions involves an enormous risk. On the other hand, women's organizations in most countries are temporary or at least unstable, as are the publications through which we contribute feminist theory. Institutions, being permanent, are more suited to theoretical work and therefore I don't think we should reject them altogether. Instead we need to obtain from them a clear commitment toward supporting and helping to develop the work of organization. Ideally we would create solid ties with certain institutions, turning them into places where our people could come and work periodically on various aspects of theory.

I believe strongly in the importance of theory as a means towards transcending women's situation - theory that grows and confronts other theories while at the same time helping to explain the world we live in. It's about time that we made our presence felt as feminists on global issues. It's not enough to be allocated a specific women's panel at international meetings where economists, sociologists and political scientists are discussing Latin American political issues. We are prepared to present a coherent and overall view through which we can reach many people at the intellectual level and make our presence stronger in all sectors of society.

I see Latin America as a complex of laboratories where the movement is growing. For instance in Nicaragua, a country suffering imperialist aggression and where most economic resources are going to defense, women are for the first time providing solutions to the economic effects of war. Look, too, at Chilean women who have developed a wide feminist movement under the oppression of the dictatorship, including the production of complex theoretical works; or at women in Argentina, in Uruguay and Brazil who are beginning to take advantage of the space opened up by moves toward democracy.

The feminist movement is not centripetal (closing in) but centrifugal (extending outward). It has its own dynamics and, above all, is becoming aware of the need for overall involvement to achieve our radical revolution within the context of all our countries' efforts to build a different society.