Abstract
Based on a qualitative study of two feminist organizations located in Ontario, Canada, this article considers the tensions that state-funded organizations must negotiate in their efforts to engage in anti-oppressive (AO) practice. The rise of neoliberalism and neoconservatism in Canada has produced a political climate that threatens feminist organizations’ social justice mandates. This climate undermines feminist organizations’ efforts to advocate for their communities, to create inclusive organizations, and to provide compassionate service informed by AO principles. However, to argue that feminist service organizations are depoliticized through their relationship with state funding agencies simplifies the complexity of state-social movement relations. This article illustrates the contradictory influence state funding has on AO practice in feminist organizations and examines the ways organizations navigate challenges presented by their political climate. Despite the structural constraints facing AO practice in feminist organizations, I argue that AO frameworks can provide organizations with a renewed focus on their social justice mandates.
Intersectionality has had an undeniable influence on feminist theory. Developed as a much needed response to theorizing which treated gender as a single analytical category, intersectionality accounts for the many ways structural forces intersect in women’s lives (McCall, 2005; Samuels & Ross-Sheriff, 2008). Early critiques drew attention to the complex ways systems of race, class, gender, and sexuality interconnect and sustain one another (Collins 2000; Combahee River Collective, 1995; Crenshaw 1991; Davis 1981; hooks 1984; also see Mianda 2014) and they argued that oppression “…could not be solved by mono-categorical solutions” (Collins 2015, p. 8). Intersectional theorizing examines relationships between various oppressive structures, seeking to understand the ways these structures create and sustain social inequality (Kim-Puri 2005; Samuels & Ross-Sheriff, 2008; Yuval-Davis 1997). Despite the important insights intersectionality brings to questions of social justice, the dilemma of how to translate an intersectional perspective into practice remains.
This article conceptualizes anti-oppressive (AO) work as an example of intersectionality in practice. AO frameworks assert a critical understanding of power relations, recognize overlapping oppressions, and articulate social justice goals. This article draws from a qualitative study of two feminist service organizations to explore how feminist organizations understand and strive to apply key insights from intersectional theorizing in spite of structural barriers. My study questioned how state funding influences the work being done in feminist organizations and examined how organizations negotiate the funding relationship. It asked how AO analyses shape organizational work and whether state funding agencies support, manage, or resist AO practice. I was particularly interested in exploring whether feminist service organizations are able to retain their social movement roots in an increasingly restrictive funding regime. My research found that organizations’ efforts to operationalize their AO frameworks are constrained by the political context. It found that state funding agencies have a seemingly contradictory influence on AO work. Organizations are at times encouraged by funding agencies to diversify; however, their ability to strengthen and foster community and to create macrolevel change is limited by their relationships with state funding agencies. The more liberal goals of AO work receive some support, whereas the radical aspects of this work are undermined by the funding relationship. Despite these structural constraints, I argue that the radical vision provided by AO frameworks can imbue feminist service organizations with a renewed focus on social justice goals.
Research Context
Since the 1980s, neoliberalism and neoconservatism have taken root and flourished in Canada. Both have had troubling impacts on women’s organizations—and specifically on those with feminist politics. Neoliberalism promotes the free market, competition, and individualism. In policy, this translates to the state’s withdrawal from service delivery, privatization, decreases in taxes, and an emphasis on global capitalist relations (Bezanson & Luxton, 2006; Braedley & Luxton, 2010; Cohen & Pulkingham, 2009; Porter, 2012; Smith, 2005). The rise and dominance of neoliberalism can be attributed to several factors including an increasing disillusionment with Keynesianism and government following the oil crisis of the 1970s (Shields & Evans, 1998; Richmond & Shields, 2004) as well as a fear of socialism and other forms of collectivism (Braedley & Luxton, 2010).
Neoconservatism values social order, traditional family structures, and “…a strong role for the state in upholding a particular moral and social order both through its support for religion and traditional family structures and…its emphasis on law and order and the strong arm of the state” (Porter, 2012, p. 20). Although these two ideologies appear to operate in contradiction to each other, they work together to uphold particular political and economic interests. For example, neoliberal policies which download responsibility for social reproduction onto the family align with neoconservative visions of the role of the traditional family (Porter, 2012). Moreover, Porter (2012) argues that, in Canada, neoliberalism and neoconservatism must be understood as political projects that rose to prominence partly in response to the successes of the women’s movement.
One important achievement of the women’s movement has been the establishment of a broad network of women’s organizations throughout the country. These organizations fulfill a variety of roles including advocating for gender equality, acting as cultural and community spaces, and providing important (formerly nonexistent) gender-specific services. Many of these organizations have received support in the form of state funding and thus have complicated ties to state institutions at municipal, provincial, and federal levels. During the Keynesian period, governments provided state resources to civil society organizations with the understanding that this could act as a form of state accountability by facilitating the inclusion of voices traditionally marginalized from policy-making (Brodie & Bakker, 2007; Smith, 2005). Women’s organizations benefited from increased funding for nonprofit organizations in general and from resources provided to women’s organizations in particular in order to advance gender equality goals.
However, with the rise of neoliberalism and neoconservatism in Canada, women’s organizations have experienced changes to the availability and conditions of funding. These changes emerge from a political climate which frames equality seeking groups as “special interest groups,” unrepresentative of the majority of citizens. Feminist organizations in particular have been critiqued as representing an elite group of women, unable to speak on behalf of “ordinary” Canadian women (Brodie & Bakker, 2007; Jenson, 2008; Sawer, 2008, Smith, 2005). Framing groups in this way has successfully undermined efforts to challenge neoconservative and neoliberal policies.
This discourse, combined with a rhetoric which claims that women have achieved equality, has contributed to the weakening of federal and provincial institutional supports for gender equality work. The Women’s Program, created by the federal government in 1974 to provide resources to organizations working to improve the status of women, has experienced funding cuts since the late 1980s (Brodie & Bakker, 2007; Rodgers & Knight, 2011). In 2006, it was further weakened when the then newly elected Harper Conservative government made a number of significant and detrimental changes. These included major revisions to the mandate, the closure of 12 of 16 regional offices, drastic funding cuts, and altered eligibility criteria for funding. Specifically, organizations were no longer able to access funding for advocacy or research (Feminist Alliance for International Action, 2008; Knight & Rodgers, 2012). 1 For many, these changes have been experienced as an assault on the women’s movement in Canada, on women’s rights, and on democracy (Knight & Rodgers, 2012; Porter, 2012). Restructuring at the provincial level has also significantly weakened women’s policy machinery across the country, further undermining the legitimacy of gender equality work (Bakker & Brodie, 2007; Findlay, 2008). However, attention to context is important, as there is some variation in experience across the country. For example, Masson (2012) highlights the differing experience of Quebec’s women’s organizations which continue to receive core funding from some provincial programs and are recognized as civil society organizations.
Feminist service organizations also face challenges due to their roles as nonprofit organizations. The broader nonprofit sector has experienced changes to the funding regime which have left organizations in a state of insecurity due to the dominance of project-based funding, demands for increased accountability, decreases in funding, and increased community needs (Boucher, 2015; Gibson et al., 2007; Phillips & Levasseur, 2004). Women’s organizations are especially vulnerable in this funding climate because, according to Meinhard and Foster (2003, p. 371), they tend to be “…chronically underfunded, understaffed and marginal to mainstream economic and social development.” Furthermore, one can argue that this greater reliance on government funding means that they experience changes to the funding regime to a greater degree (Boucher, 2015; Meinhard & Foster, 2003).
Research Methods
Seeking to understand the implications of this context, I conducted a qualitative study 2 with two feminist service organizations located in Ontario, a populous Canadian province. The first organization provides services and advocacy for criminalized women. The second is a women’s shelter and associated community center that focuses on violence against women (VAW). Although the organizations work on different issues, they share important commonalities. They both emerged from women’s organizing, provide services to marginalized women, and identify gender equality goals. They were selected for the study because of their feminist histories, their AO frameworks, and because they provide services and have equality seeking mandates.
Between July and November 2011, I conducted 10 semistructured interviews at each organization. I spoke with women in a variety of roles including frontline workers, managers, and volunteers. Participants were recruited via an advertisement posted in the organizations and shared through e-mail, and snowball sampling techniques were also used. Interviews were completed when a saturation point was reached. I conducted interviews at a number of locations including at the organizations in question, in coffee shops, and in women’s homes, depending on the participant’s preference. All of the interviews were recorded and transcribed. Participants were then provided with an option to review their transcript. Interview data were coded manually using an inductive approach. First stage codes were descriptive in nature. More analytical codes emerged in the second stage of coding. After the completion of the research, results were shared in accessible formats with the organizations. This provided an opportunity for participants to provide additional input. Furthermore, this allowed me to reciprocate to the women who shared their time and knowledge with me.
Women at both organizations represent varying experiences and social locations. Some mentioned using the organizations’ services in the past, some identified as working class or as having working-class roots, others (specifically volunteer board members) worked in high-status professions. Women at one organization in particular represented a number of different racialized and ethnic groups, and many spoke about this as evidence of their organization’s AO work. At the other organization, the same racial and ethnic diversity was not present. Several research participants noted this gap in their interviews, attributing it to the presence of community-specific women’s organizations in the city and the need for the organization to continue strengthening its inclusivity work.
In interviews, participants were asked to speak about their roles as well as about their organization’s history, role in the community, AO work, and feminist identity. I also asked participants to reflect on the funding and political climate and the potential influences, if any, that this had on organizational work. The majority of participants were able to speak about broad shifts in the funding climate and challenges related to funding; however, management were better able to discuss nuances related to applying for and maintaining funding sources. Therefore, I decided not to ask frontline staff or volunteers specific questions about their organization’s funding. This decision was made after several participants directed me to pose particular funding questions to management, claiming they were ill-equipped to provide the necessary information. In addition to interviews, I analyzed organizational literature, including policies, pamphlets, newsletters, and websites. For the purposes of this article, data collected from AO policies provide information about the ways AO is conceptualized, practiced, and communicated by the organizations in question.
An important limitation of the research to note is the size of this study. While the experiences reported in my research are reflective of trends facing feminist organizations and the broader nonprofit sector in Canada (Beres, Crow & Gotell, 2009; Gibson, O’Donnell & Rideout, 2007; Knight & Rodgers, 2012; Ready, 2016), additional research is necessary to deepen understandings of the pressures state-funded organizations face. Studying organizations situated in different contexts would also enable analyses of alternative models and approaches and help identify contradictory practices within the state. Despite this limitation, my study furthers knowledge about organizational responses to shifts in the funding climate and the capacity of these organizations to engage in social justice work in spite of structural restrains.
Anti-Oppressive Frameworks: Theoretical Roots
During the 1970s, anti-racist activists challenged racism in Canadian society and drew attention to racism in policing, immigration policy, as well as within the feminist movement (Dua, 1999). Anti-racist work managed to gain some legitimacy in social service nonprofit organizations over time. Barnoff (2001) notes that in the 1990s and early 2000s, some funding agencies expected funded organizations to develop anti-racist policies. Recognition of multiple forms of oppression and the need to address intersectionality then led some organizations to develop AO frameworks in their efforts to address integrated systems of oppression. AO work is now common in the social service sector. AO frameworks are characterized by values of inclusion, equity, and social justice and attempt to explain both “…how power works to oppress and marginalize people, as well as how power can be used to liberate and empower them…” (Baines, 2011, p. 26). They apply a structural analysis to power relations and envision a world free from systems of “…domination and privilege” (Barnoff & Moffatt, 2007, p. 57). “Personal problems” are conceptualized as resulting from structural issues which require macro-level change (Barnoff, George, & Coleman, 2006).
The application of an AO framework at an organizational level is complex, presenting many challenges for organizations. Without the appropriate resources and commitment, organizations risk reducing AO work to an individualized approach to social services rather than a structural approach to social change (see Barnoff & Moffatt, 2007; Srivastava, 2005). Barnoff (2011) argues that an organization must ensure the saturation of an AO framework at multiple levels in order for it to be successfully integrated. The organizations must diversify its membership to reflect the communities it is a part of. It must also create and implement AO policies and update existing policies to support AO goals. Additionally, the organization must foster a culture which embraces AO practice. This involves effective AO education and training. Finally, the organization must participate in social action (Barnoff, 2011). This is of particular importance given the transformative vision of AO theory. Applying AO principles throughout the organization can move an organization beyond a superficial approach and ensure that the social justice roots of the framework remain.
Anti-Oppressive Frameworks: Organizational Policies
The organizations in my study articulated clear commitments to AO work and follow well-developed policies. Intersectional analyses guide the organizations’ understandings of power relations in society. Policy manuals acknowledge the complexities of women’s social identities and systems of privilege and oppression. For example, recognizing that all women encounter sexism in their lives, one manual cautions that specific experiences of sexism are shaped by interactions with other forms of oppression, such as racism or classism (OAITH, 2010). The other directs readers to related policies for communities impacted by the intersections of sexism and ableism, and sexism and transphobia. The lived realities of oppression, including unequal access to power, experiences of marginalization or violence, and barriers to participation in social and economic institutions, are discussed in both manuals. Furthermore, organizational policies describe structures of power as interlocking and mutually reinforcing. Readers are reminded that it is necessary to address all forms of oppression in order to work toward greater social justice. Oppression is understood as a systemic problem and policies address both individual and institutional levels.
Social action is presented as central to AO practice. Specific examples of the ways organizations and individual workers at the organizations can challenge oppression are provided. Both manuals discuss empowerment as a strategy to counteract the impacts of oppression, with one policy asserting that “while power can be used to create oppression, it can be used to create liberation” (OAITH, 2010, p. 46). Frontline workers are urged to view service users as the experts of their own lives who know their own needs and realities best. 3 Thus, consultation and inclusion are framed as necessary components of AO work. Increasing organizational diversity is highlighted by one organization as an effective way to be more accountable to the communities it represents and as a strategy to create more inclusive decision-making processes. This is discussed as validating the experiences of those typically silenced in society and creating an inclusive and AO organizational culture. Ongoing learning and self-reflection are also described as necessary when working toward AO goals. Finally, both organizations’ policies discuss broader social justice commitments including participation in community networks and coalitions dedicated to eliminating oppressive structures.
Interpreting Anti-Oppressive Frameworks and Policies
When asked about their organization’s AO work, research participants highlighted a number of important themes and spoke of the ways their organizations engaged in AO practice. Charlotte discussed the everyday realities of AO practice,
4
reflecting on the importance of being conscious of the language used, where services are promoted and equity in hiring. Similarly, Nicole focused on the ways AO practice informs the day-to-day work of her organization, speaking about equality and safety, creating an inclusive workplace, and recognizing differences in privilege and power. She summarized the framework in the following way: “…it’s an acknowledgement that the world we live in is diverse, that women come from diverse experiences…it’s about power, and talks about the limits of that power.” Thinking through the ways a women-centered
5
AO approach influences service provision and programming, Bridget mused: I mean oppression, it’s so big right? We all have our own biases, and our own stereotypes…and I guess it’s just really trying to be aware of the women we’re working with, really trying hard not to put them in a box, having them make their own choices, listening and actually validating their own stories of oppression….
A number of participants emphasized the importance of ongoing learning and self-reflection. Jordan described AO work as involving a willingness to learn from each other. She spoke about accepting and honoring other people’s differences and reflecting on one’s own power, …it goes back to our own cultural competency…What’s internalized for us in terms of oppression? What’s internalized for other people? As well as understanding your own position, status in society and your privileges.
At both organizations, women were able to describe the core values of their organization’s framework and expressed a commitment to AO practice. Importantly, very few of the women I spoke with linked their discussions of AO practice with macro-level advocacy despite this emphasis in organizational policies. Many discussed advocacy as necessary; however, these comments were often removed from their discussions of AO work. This is significant, given the social justice intent articulated in AO frameworks and policies.
Contradictory Tensions
Ties to state funding create complications for feminist AO practice. Many scholars have discussed the dangers of accepting state resources, arguing that by doing so, organizations risk institutionalization, professionalization, and depoliticalization (Bumiller, 2008; Durazo, 2007). These cautions are not unfounded. However, relationships with state institutions are often difficult to avoid. Furthermore, arguments that state-funded organizations are necessarily coopted simplify the realities of state funding relations and ignore the many ways that feminist organizations experience and navigate tensions in their work (see Beres, Crow & Gotell, 2009; Boucher, 2015; Masson, 2012; Matthews, 1994; Ready, 2016; Rodgers & Knight, 2011; Schmitt & Martin, 1999). Analyzing the contradictory influence of state funding on AO practice in feminist organizations demonstrates the “messy” nature of the funding relationship.
Women at both organizations spoke of ways in which state funding agencies appear on the surface to support some aspects of AO practice. In particular, some participants noted that grants are regularly targeted toward programs for specific groups of women. Government funding agencies often include a focus on marginalized populations in their description of the activities that they fund. For instance, while the Ontario Women’s Directorate’s explanation of their grants program describes funds as helping organizations with costs associated with programs and services which support “women’s safety” and “economic independence,” the directorate also sets aside funding for aboriginal women and “at-risk” women (Ontario Women’s Directorate, n.d.). Similarly, Status of Women Canada (SWC), a federal policy body which currently houses the Women’s Program, also identifies particular groups of women as the most marginalized in Canadian society and, therefore, as deserving of attention (e.g., see SWC, 2010).
In interviews, women at one organization in particular connected their organization’s diversity goals to state funding directed at women identified as marginalized. Both Bridget and Maria noted that funding agencies encouraged the organization’s outreach efforts, remarking on a targeted approach to programming. Speaking of the need to tailor programming to women’s specific needs and “barriers” and her organization’s outreach work with newcomer women and sex workers, Bridget made the link to targeted funding, telling me “…sometimes funders will say ‘we will give you money but you need to serve this profile of women, you need to serve this many women….” Maria made a clear connection between her organization’s efforts to diversify at all levels of the organization, asserting that “…they [funders] want us to be able to link, to prove that we are intimate with the communities that we serve….” When asked to expand, she told me that her organization had to report on the make-up of their staff and client base as well as programs targeted toward particular groups of women.
Although some women viewed this influence as a positive development, others expressed ambivalence and questioned the constraints this focus could potentially place on the organization’s efforts to become more inclusive. Sophie articulated some concerns about how funding might affect her organization’s ability to expand services and support organizational diversity. Reflecting on her organization’s goals to increase the representation of aboriginal women within the organization and provide community specific services, she noted that funding could potentially limit these efforts if funding agencies did not identify the same priorities. Similarly, Liz also argued that funding presents challenges for the organization’s outreach and diversity goals, saying …the more populations you target and try and provide programming for…it’s a matter of keeping that money coming to fund the programming…if you don’t have the money, you can’t serve the women….
Several women at both organizations observed contradictory messages about organizational accessibility, specifically discussing the province’s newly passed Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) and issues around multilingual service provision. Passed in 2005, the AODA was created to implement and enforce accessible standards across the province. When speaking about the AODA, a number of women noted that this focus connected with their organizations’ inclusivity goals. For instance, speaking about expectations associated with funding, one participant reflected, …I have mixed feelings because sometimes I don’t think it’s a bad thing that they push certain ideas…the difficulty is the urgency of the request. So the [Accessibility Act] isn’t a bad idea. I think the difficulty is for charities, they don’t have a lot of discretionary—or a meagre overhead income to be able to meet some of those criteria. All those things cost money right? I’m all for them, I’m …again your services have to be accessible. Absolutely, absolutely…but no funding, right? So where does that come from? We have to swallow up the cost which then decreases our service, decreases our effectiveness, efficiency…. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be moving towards that…. I’m saying that we should be …to approach government and them say ‘That’s on you, you have to do it, you have to be accessible’ but there’s no money to be accessible. I mean we don’t have a choice, we’re going to find that money and offer that service but I don’t know where it’s coming from.
Gaps in funding also negatively affect the learning necessary for AO work. Women spoke about the importance of ongoing training, including engaging with the framework, learning about communities they provide services to, and developing new skills to better meet the needs of women. This training requires significant time and resources. Nicole described the organization’s use of consultants in the policy development and training phases, telling me: It’s a lot of work, I think, to do it properly and it involves a great deal of commitment from everybody within the organization and you do need help to do it…one of the challenges is about not having enough resources to train, like to train probably 50 regular people who come here regularly in terms of volunteers…and then our casual staff and not being able to afford to do that.
These comments demonstrate the challenges involved in integrating comprehensive AO training at all levels of the organization. While the education component essential for an organization to successfully integrate an AO framework (Barnoff 2011) was expressed as such by women I interviewed, the conditions of funding place constraints on the training piece. Certainly, this may not be the only source of resistance to training. Importantly, Barnoff, George, and Coleman (2006) note that lack of resources can be used to disguise genuine resistance to AO work. However, the observation about the ways insufficient resources and overwork impact learning are factors that should be seriously considered when studying barriers to AO practice.
Many participants focused on creating inclusive and accessible organizations when discussing AO work. Although inclusion and accessibility are important goals, AO work extends beyond issues of inclusion and involves challenging structural oppression (Barnoff, 2011). A neoliberal and neoconservative environment has made it increasingly difficult for organizations to remain connected to their social justice roots. This reality was particularly evident when women spoke of issues associated with community building and advocacy. Women reflected on tensions produced by the funding environment. In addition to having leaner resources available to facilitate community relationships, efforts to develop connections with other nonprofits are made more difficult under a neoliberal funding regime. A climate of scarce funding has resulted in competition between organizations, undermining some of the community building which is important to social justice work. Some women discussed how this competitive climate disadvantages women’s organizations in comparison to organizations that do not provide gender-specific services. Others also spoke about tensions between organizations providing gender-specific services. For instance, a number of women at one organization referred to larger organizations in the community which received substantial sources of funding. Although many recognized tensions between organizations as a product of the political climate, the organization’s inability to secure similar funding left some women feeling like their organizations’ work is undervalued and unrecognized.
Gail, for instance, discussed her frustrations with organizations being granted monies to start new projects while organizations which had successfully offered similar services for many years were overlooked. She noted that organizations which had never provided VAW services in the past were successfully applying for resources for this work. Gail argued that when a program has “…been proven and evaluated over and over again, where there’s been quality and professional standards delivered, it shouldn’t be a competition.” Another woman described “lots of competition” which made it difficult for women’s organizations in the community to work together. She asserted that “…instead of collaboration, lots of times it’s just this banging of heads together.” Charlotte also described how competition for grants strains relations between community organizations. Reflecting on pressures for organizations to partner, she remarked: We have different ways of going about an issue right?…but we’re told you have to collaborate in order to obtain this goal…or we’re only going to give this funding to one organization…so that creates competition, it creates tension amongst the women’s community…it’s the perfect way to divide and conquer.
At other times, community organizations are discouraged from collaborating. For example, one organization had obtained a grant which it intended to share with partner organizations involved in providing services to the community. However, one of their funding agencies was very resistant to this idea, articulating concerns about accountability. Discussing this experience, one participant expressed the belief that this represented an effort by state funders to deter community building by intervening in relations between organizations. Whether participants viewed these examples as deliberate strategies or not, it was clear from their discussions that neoliberal funding practices can subvert community building by affecting opportunities for alliances or rendering already existing coalitions and alliances ineffective.
Particular kinds of advocacy have also been delegitimized, impacting organizations’ abilities to continue with their social justice work (Knight & Rodgers, 2012; Porter, 2012). When I asked about their organizations’ advocacy, most women immediately clarified that there are limits on the amount and types of advocacy possible because of their organizations’ funding relationships. Nicole explained “…there’s only so much advocacy we’re entitled to engage in because we’re a charity.” Jordan described advocacy as the “invisible work” that organizations do because “funders don’t fund that,” explaining that “They’re gonna pay for the program that I run but not all the other little pieces that I help a woman with.” Margaret informed me that “…many funders, they just
Interestingly, neoliberal messages about activism had been internalized by a few of the participants. Nora told me that “…you can advocate all you want…
The knowledge that particular organizations and projects had experienced funding cuts because of their roles as advocates shaped participants’ perceptions of the spaces available for social justice work. One participant referred to the Sisters in Spirit campaign, which investigated, raised public awareness, and made policy recommendations around the issue of violence against aboriginal women and girls in Canada (Native Women’s Association of Canada, n.d.). The campaign had recently had their funding discontinued. The research participant mused “…they’ve now lost all their funding and all their funding went to police services. And I think probably because they were having a voice and that was too scary for the federal government.” Some women spoke about the changes made to SWC although they were often unclear about the details. A few thought that SWC no longer exists while others discussed the impact of the agency’s reduced influence. Jane recalled SWC enabling women’s organizations’ advocacy work by providing funding and producing strong research: …Status of Women Canada used to allow for advocacy groups to actually apply based on advocacy, like change right? And that’s what Status of Women Canada was so great for…. You got some really great feminist papers out of it, especially around gender analysis…that’s good stuff to change policy right. And also, they used to fund your provincial associations…Well now they’ve made it…well especially the first year that Harper came in…well he cut. He cut all advocacy. You don’t really hear about them anymore, like where are they on the political spectrum? Like what is their role in sort of supporting different initiatives and causes to support women? You don’t hear them anymore. They’re sort of silenced.
Negotiating Challenges to Anti-Oppressive Work and Advocacy
Women I interviewed discussed strategies that they employed to translate AO theory into practice and advocate for women. A number of participants spoke about having to be “creative” in how they define their work. For instance, Rachel described different “levels” of advocacy ranging from working with individual women, to connecting with the community, to advocating at the policy level. This is consistent with her organization’s AO policy which links micro- and macro-level advocacy. Some women also contended that there are ways to go about advocacy outside of formal structures. They mentioned using community networks, volunteers, social media, and committees to engage in this work.
Despite challenges, organizations continue to prioritize their work with other community groups and coalitions. Building relationships with other organizations can facilitate advocacy work which might not be possible otherwise. For example, organizations’ relationships with provincial and federal coalitions are considered necessary in order to continue with some of the broader political work which is difficult for service-oriented agencies. Nicole discussed her organization’s relationship to a national coalition, telling me “…there’s pieces we
Conclusions
State funding relations are complex. My research demonstrates that funding relationships do have an impact on feminist organizations’ AO work and advocacy; however, their role is not always clearly restrictive. At times, state funding agencies appear to support some of the progressive goals associated with AO work, specifically by seeming to encourage organizations’ efforts to create accessible and inclusive spaces, and expand the diversity of their organizations. Women’s discussions suggest, however, that funders’ support for this work is often little more than superficial and participants questioned the motives and commitment funding agencies have to equity work. Furthermore, the more radical aspects of AO work are undermined in a neoliberal and neoconservative political climate.
Examining state support for organizational diversity reveals the tensions which organizations must negotiate. Dominant discourses about difference and multiculturalism are divested of historical context and depoliticized. Diversity is framed as a problem to be managed (Bannerji, 2000) and gender inequality is positioned as “cultural baggage” brought to Canada by “outsiders” (Arat-Koç, 2012). Organizations must balance their needs for organizational resources with the risks that arise when accepting state funding and adopting the language of the state. Many participants spoke about diversity and representation in ways that recognized politics and history, articulating goals related to expanding services to better respond to community needs and the equitable distribution of power within the organization. However, Bannerji (2000) cautions that community organizations must be wary of discourses which reduce problems of social justice to questions of cultural difference. State support for this work must be understood in a context shaped by neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and Canada’s approach to multiculturalism. No matter the progressive goals of an organization, funding targeted at particular groups of women is premised on assumptions about culture, diversity, class, and the root causes of inequality. In neoliberal and neoconservative Canada, inequality is framed as “un-Canadian,” and social problems are reduced to issues of individual responsibility and failure (Arat- Koç, 2012).
Despite the structural constraints feminist service organizations face when attempting to integrate AO frameworks, the radical vision provided can inspire a renewed focus on social justice goals. Although there is a danger that the application of AO can be superficial (Barnoff & Moffatt, 2007; Srivastava, 2005), organizations which are dedicated to integrating AO principles at multiple levels of their organization can resist the pressures to depoliticize their work. AO frameworks apply intersectionality to understand power relations in society and assert a commitment to eradicating oppressive structures. They encourage organizations to look inward at internal dynamics as well as to social, political, economic, and cultural structures which maintain inequality and oppression. Moreover, they direct organizations to think more broadly about social justice work by linking the everyday work of organizations to larger acts of advocacy. In a neoliberal and neoconservative political environment, it is necessary to think broadly about social justice work in order to identify and create spaces for radical social change. For feminist service organizations, this involves negotiating tensions by thinking strategically and creatively about their work and subtlety navigating barriers in their political environment.
Organizations must also remain attuned to shifts in the political context which create new political opportunities. In June 2016, the Trudeau Liberals announced that organizations will once again be able to apply to SWC for funding for advocacy (Smith, 2016). While this is a positive development, it remains to be seen what impact this will have on the overall funding climate for feminist organizations. SWC is an important source of funding for women’s organizations; however, these resources are difficult to secure and relatively few organizations directly benefit from this funding. Furthermore, this change does not alter the structural issues built into a neoliberal funding regime. Challenges associated with project-based funding, a restrictive accountability regime, and competition for scarce resources persist (Gibson, O’Donnell, & Rideout 2007, Philliips & Levasseur, 2004; Richmond & Shields, 2004). However, my study revealed that the delegitimization of advocacy at the federal level resonated deeply with those working in feminist organizations. Therefore, there is hope that this change can begin to unthaw the “advocacy chill” created by a neoconservative political climate.
Footnotes
Acknowledgment
I would like to thank Grace Adeniyi Ogunyankin for her comments on drafts of this article. I would also like to acknowledge feedback from Barbara Cameron, Tania Das Gupta, and Meg Luxton on early drafts of this research.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.