Conclusion: The Unfinished Revolution?

Abstract

Writing on nationalism and imperialism in South Africa, Anne McClintock made a curious claim: ‘Nowhere has feminism in its own right been allowed to be more than a maidservant to nationalism’ (1997:110). What makes this sweeping statement curious is the use of ‘allowed’ for it infers that feminist and nationalist movements are separate and in competition with each other. The implication is that feminists are without agency, forced to await ‘permission’ to organise, challenge and resist. This misconstrues feminist movement development, both in the context of nationalism and beyond, and elides any holistic stance towards women’s self-determination which acknowledges that structural oppressions are not competing or necessarily separable. McClintock’s claim is consistent with the wider Western feminist milieu, which asserts that participation in nationalist movements seldom, if ever, results in the advancement of women, as nationalism consistently tramples over feminism and serves to further entrench patriarchy.¹ The story of republican feminism recounted in this book, however, highlights the intricate nature of the relationship between feminism and nationalism and argues that some nationalist movements can actually nurture feminism, albeit sometimes in a reactive manner. This research shows that feminism comes out of a process that is not independent of nationalism or separate from it, as feminist nationalism is partly a response to the patriarchal norms found within nationalist movements. It is therefore misdirected to assume that nationalism ‘allows’ feminism to exist or determines its status. Feminism developed and gained strength precisely because of the attempts to marginalise and silence women. It was made meaningful, in part, because of nationalism’s patriarchal tendencies, and any attempts to suppress feminism actually gave it oxygen.