WEEK 12
This week, I found the story of the "Madres" to be quite riveting, and is a further example of the consistent theme of the marginalized going up against their oppressors, a narrative consistent in the course. The personal, in this circumstance, is indeed political. The most interesting component of their story is the ideas within the madres expanding their agenda. I find it quite interesting that once members of las madres expanded their rights claims, some would, as the text mentions, balk at the idea of it. It becomes a Ship of Thesus type of situation I suppose, where if the conceptions and ideas of a group begin to morph and shape as time goes by, is this group still the same group? It's a tough situation to figure out. I'd like to think that a group is able to uncover what the core values of the group are and are able to explore it from there. I suppose an organization typically applies themselves to a core ethos, and that core ethos must be informed of many of the organization's actions and decisions. In the case of las madres, I think that though the group applies itself to feminist and feminine rights in Argentina, the core foundation of the group is reliant upon mothers who care for their children. Whilst some members would love to expand their agenda, is it the obligation of other members to carry their notions with them? I'm not too sure what the answer is for that.
I think it's a very interesting question of how much can an organization stray from their initial foundation and still remain the same group. From my own experience it has to do with the overall goal of the organization, and the specifics of how to reach that goal and what their focus is can shift over time. For instance, if an organization is formed with the goal of ending male violence against women they must maintain this as their core goal throughout. BUT how they approach that goal and the work they do must change over time, if the smaller goals of the group remain the same that means they are making no progress. This organization may have different approaches for ending violence by focusing on different aspects of it, such as prostitution, wife battery, rape, etc. It is up to the organization whether the members all follow one approach or if different members can choose the committee they wish to be a part of. Organizations must change with time. Feminist organizations that were began by fighting for women to have the right to vote did not just disband when women were given that right, they simply moved on to other women's rights that needed attention (labour laws, reproductive rights, pay equity, etc.). At its core the organization is still fighting for female empowerment and women's rights, but their agendas and specific goals change according to the demands of the particular time and region. Sorry that was a very lengthy way of saying that I think as long as the core goal and intention of the organization remains the same, members can have different specific agendas and ideas for how to reach that goal.
ReplyDeleteYou've got quite a lot of interesting points in this post! In response to your question, I don't think all members of a group are obligated to follow the flow of the group's agenda, and this may be how splinters of groups emerge. From my perspective, so long as the ideas of certain members follow from the main overarching goal of the group, then it doesn't seem necessary for all members to follow the same path in order to achieve the same ends. It could be that, as splinters of the group, different members could follow various paths to accomplish the necessary steps to fulfilling the group's main overarching goal. Overall, awesome post!
ReplyDelete