14.07.2016
An old rhythm
With the huge rise in xenophobic attacks and the role of motherhood in the Conservative leadership race, Commissaress argues that the past has come back with a vengeance
It is the end of an era. Or, since Britons are so prone to overestimating their influence on the world beyond the Channel, it is the end of an era in the UK. The UK will be leaving the European Union, and thus delivering a serious blow to, if not shattering, the post-cold war order of apparent European cooperation, harmony and internationalism. The tensions and dischord bubbling in Europe have finally surfaced.
Perhaps this was inevitable. Geopolitics is but another network of human relations, and humans are generally not too good at bottling things up. I am not going to lose sleep over the European Union, since, as a socialist, it would be a bit strange if I had a thing for trade blocs, and for the workers the referendum represented a lose-lose situation. But Brexit does not bode well for the sort of pseudo-egalitarian liberalism which emerged after 1991 in Europe. This outlook - a liberal internationalism, mixing individualist and cosmopolitan rhetoric and epitomised by the ‘love, peace and free(ish) markets’ ideology of the EU - has already been bruised by European’s lukewarm responses to the refugee crisis and the return to open illiberalism of the Hungarian and Polish governments. And, by tossing its metaphorical head and flouncing out of the EU, Britain has proclaimed it dead as a doornail. In the words of Eurovision 2015’s rightful winner (don’t judge me), good, old-fashioned, overt nationalism has got its rhythm back.
So how is this new world order, where faux-progressive internationalism is the distant memory of particularly nostalgic social democrats, going to look? During the referendum campaign, the Conservatives - no doubt fearing the return of the ever-threatening ‘nasty party’ label - were at pains to stress that they were not racist (but...) and that Brexit was in fact a progressive cause. Because Ukip’s ‘Breaking point’ poster was so internationalist and did not dehumanise immigrants in the slightest, and nor did the much-touted idea of a points system to limit immigration to the people who can make the most money for capitalists … right? Given this sort of rhetoric, it seems that - unlike in Hungary and Poland - lip service will be paid to progressive internationalism in the UK, at least by the Tories, for a while yet. As ever, though, rhetoric and reality are wildly divergent; since Brexit there has been a fivefold rise in racist and Islamophobic hate crime.1 It is utterly blind to argue that British society is still (sic!) liberal and tolerant when the xenophobes have come crawling out of the woodwork, feeling that their vitriol and hatred have now been legitimised by Brexit.
But the decrease in racial tolerance which we have seen is not the only way in which tolerance could be called into question during a period of stronger illiberalism and nationalism. In April, the Law and Justice party in Poland, which was elected by a considerable margin on a platform of patriotic values, nudged the country’s already highly restrictive abortion laws in the direction of a total ban,2 causing outrage amongst women’s rights groups and sparking huge protests in Warsaw. While a direct link between Brexit and sexism cannot be established without a few large dollops of hyperbole, it is not too much of a stretch to link a greater degree of fear of ‘the other’, of xenophobia, to a resurgence of belief in ‘traditional values and roles, with regards to phenomena other than just race.
I could just pull a Gove and disregard this as ‘scaremongering’; to his credit, that really is the easiest way to dismiss criticism and score moralism points at the same time. It is not, however, the most productive way to respond to a concern - and there is indeed reason to be concerned. The Conservative leadership race, after Osborne realised no-one liked him and Gove’s surprise leadership bid spectacularly backfired, was momentarily an all-female contest between Theresa May and Andrea Leadsom, before the latter withdrew her bid. It would be understandable to think of this as a step in the right direction for women; although sexism cannot be destroyed from the top down and, as demonstrated by the Thatcher government, female leaders do not necessarily benefit women, having an elected female head of government does show decreased explicit sexism in society and in state bodies, which cannot be a bad thing. But this is not what we saw over the course of the leadership run-offs. Instead, we saw a contest characterised by woman-on-woman sexism: perhaps the most depressing sort there is, if there can even be such a thing.
The endless Thatcher comparisons, reducing female politicians to their genitals in a way which would not be applied to male aspiring prime ministers, and the Daily Mail’s disproportionate focus on May’s cleavage3 were to be expected. What was unexpected was the comment and ensuing row which seemed to have triggered Leadsom’s withdrawal from the contest. In an interview with The Times, a female interviewer asked Leadsom about her children, and about the difference between herself and May, and Leadsom responded by highlighting motherhood and her “greater stake” in the future as a mother.4 This is a classic example of women invoking the very gender roles which restrict them, which put them in boxes. Whether someone is a mother, and thus fills the role which has for centuries been regarded as a woman’s greatest duty, is not relevant in any meaningful way to their skills as a politician, and fatherhood would not be - and has not been - mentioned so blatantly as a method of distinguishing two male candidates. Yet here we are in a female-only leadership run-off, which should be showcasing the complete banality of the gender roles that until recently stopped women from ever being considered for leadership roles, watching women shoot themselves in the collective foot using the gender roles which exist to subjugate them. What a paradox.
The ‘motherhood’ gender role is by no means the most harmful role based on an arbitrary characteristic in existence, although it does categorise and label people in a way that limits their potential and causes insecurity. On the other hand, there is an extremely clear parallel between this particular role and other, much more blatantly damaging roles rooted in traditional structures and ideas: the laziness of immigrants or the violence of black people, for instance. And when those at the wrong end of such stereotyping are the ones helping to further the generalisation of racism and sexism, there is even more reason to worry. You know a destructive idea has taken hold when even the people it hurts cannot see how it hurts them - and the destructive prejudices bubbling above the surface in our society need to be attacked whenever and wherever they are seen before they can root themselves in.
Notes
1. www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/30/police-report-fivefold-increase-race-hate-crimes-since-brexit-result.
2. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35996313.
3. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3675458/Theresa-makes-rare-fashion-boob-unfortunately-patterned-Aztec-print-dress.html.
4. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36752865.