The Personal is Not Political

As discussed in Wade’s Journal: July 31, 2011, I remain convinced that society needs compassionate communities with members who are committed to both ongoing self-development and regular political action (which might be only occasional letters or phone calls, for one can be a political activist without it being all-consuming).

In response to that post, Marcella Womack offered the following comment:

I'm glad you have returned to the dialogue. It is evident that you are continuing to read and deepen your own understanding of how we make change. In your own paper [Evaluation of the Residence College (1967)]” about the experimental nature of the program you were asked to critique, you said: "Individuals are not encouraged to develop, to create their own vibrant sense of meaning and direction. Inner strength is seen as a threat; so the ground for a stable sense of autonomy is undercut." In other words you seem to be advocating for personal development of the inner self that would result in greater strength and a greater capacity to "act in the world."

Your quoting from one "feminist Leader" about the two dimensions of consciousness-raising (“The Personal is the Political”) leaves one thinking that you believe "the Women's Movement" came to "the" conclusion that it was one or the other. You need to grasp the fact that one "feminist Leader" was sharing what she had discovered for herself and expressing that. She was the one who saw it as "either/or."

My own experience as a feminist leads me to know it is BEYOND either/or and is truly "both/and." Through the experience of consciousness-raising done then with my "feminist” sisters, or later with my therapist, or with my best friend, I continue to find that the personal IS the center from which I come and actually the only place that personal change happens at its most profound level. And always, the personal actions - directed at systems change and greater respect for all peoples - come out of the consciousness that the self-exploration has generated.

Is your call to all of us to take political action in one certain way? Or are you wanting to stress that "political action" must come out of a personal stance that commits to justice and right human relations? Every person must make the individual choice within themselves in terms of where they place both their attention and their action. This, to me, is an integration between the "personal and the political."

Given the definition you have of “the political" (the activities of governments), you may actually be calling for colleagues who are developed, "creating their own vibrant sense of meaning and direction" and who have “inner strength and a stable sense of autonomy." Way back when, you were already out-picturing those who would be needed to make change in the world.

I suspect all of us who read your column would say "yes" to that. And I, personally, would say, "Don't limit this need to people choosing to focus on the activities of governments." All areas of our Earth life need change-makers.

Linked in service,
Marcella R. Womack
NEW DAWN LLC
Project Consultant, Workshop Facilitator, Writer, and Speaker
Kansas City, Missouri

THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
"...to freely bloom - that is my definition of success." Gerry Spence, 1929

I very much appreciate Marcella’s kind words and agree that all areas need change-makers. I also agree that everyone must make their own decision about their priorities. If someone chooses to be completely apolitical and concentrate on other forms of service to humanity, I accept that decision, don’t desire to lay on guilt trips, and don’t want “all of us to take political action in one certain way.”

I do, however, suggest that we ask ourselves, “Should I communicate more with my elected officials?”

Myself, I feel a moral responsibility to vote and let my elected officials know what I think between elections and I regret that I don’t do so more often. Most Americans feel the same way: they wish that others and themselves were more engaged politically.

Concerning the women’s movement, I agree with Marcella that many other feminists in the women’s movement have taken positions other than those articulated by Carol Hanisch in “The Personal is Political.” That’s why I referred to Hanisch and her colleagues as “this element of the women’s movement.” The National Organization for Women (NOW), for example, has definitely focused on governmental policy.

But NOW has not adopted a holistic approach. In fact, as I expressed in “Looking for Holistic Political Organizations,” to my knowledge no progressive political organization in the United States intentionally helps their members support one another in open-ended, self-determined personal-growth efforts.

Hanisch was far from alone in her rejection of individual solutions. Some time ago, in a private meeting a prominent leader of the women's movement in San Francisco commented, “We were not about self-improvement."

In “The Personal Is Political: Widespread Slogan of the Women's Movement,” Linda Napikoski reports that by the time Hanisch’s essay was published in 1970, “‘the personal is political’ had already become a widely used part of the women's movement and was not a quote attributable to any one person.” She also states, “Consciousness-raising was a form of political action... Hanisch noted that ‘political’ refers to any power relationships, not just those of government or elected officials (emphasis added).”

Power dynamics in personal relationships are critical and must be addressed. Social patterns are greatly influenced by governmental policies. And those who attempt to change governmental policies need to deal with those issues.

But “political” refers to activities directly related to the government. The attempt to re-define the word by asserting that “the personal is political” strikes me as a confusing abstraction. In general, we should use commonly accepted definitions, especially when those words are rooted in concrete reality.

More importantly, with its narrow focus on “consciousness-raising,” that redefinition denigrates both politics and self-improvement. It proclaims that only awareness of broad social patterns and collective action really matter. In the meantime, from this viewpoint, incremental political reforms and individual solutions to personal problems are insignificant (or actually undermine prospects for revolution).

Awareness of far-reaching feminist issues and a sense of direction are important. We owe the women’s movement a great deal for its contribution in that regard. But as we move toward long-term systemic transformation, we can pursue short-term political reforms and individual solutions that improve lives and move us in that direction.

Those of us on this path need to find one another so we can better advance our efforts.