So, it turns out feminism is a CIA plot to undermine the left

Laurie Penny's eyebrow-raising encounter with a media studies professor at Occupy Wall Street.

My eyebrow-raising encounter with a media studies professor at Occupy Wall Street.

I'm having a major political rethink this week, because it turns out that all along, feminism was a CIA plot to undermine the left. Don't just take it from me. Mark Crispin Miller, author, professor of media studies at NYU, and host of New York's Notes from Underground book event, raised the issue himself when challenged about the all-male, all-white, all-over-forty lineup of his panel on The Future of Occupy Wall Street. Later, a young woman in the audience told me that it felt, to her, no different from watching an all-male lineup on the Hill debate the future of abortion rights in America on television that morning.

To give Miller his due, he did open the whole event with the sort of shrugging, cutesy apology for the homogeneity of the panel - which included David Graeber, Nick Mirzoeff and Andrew Ross - that has become routine at speaking events whose audiences are likely to care. All the usual excuses were trotted out, as questioners for the audience, including myself, pressed the point: it was very last minute. We couldn't find any women, or young people, or people of colour at short notice. We just put the panel together from our friends and from academics we knew.

The thing is that we've heard all of these excuses for the marginalisation of women, ethnic minorities and young people in debate spaces so many times before, and they are often tragically sincere in their intent, and they all have obvious retorts:

  1. Why does the fact that the event was called at 'short notice' matter? (Are there any speaking events that aren't?) Were you asking women and people of colour along at the end, as an afterthought? Why aren't you asking them first, as a natural part of the process of inviting speakers?
  2. If you can't think of women, people of colour and young people to talk about your chosen subject, that says more about what you're reading and who you're associating with than it does about the participation of people who are not old white professional blokes in any particular sphere. In this particular case, I could easily name you half a dozen women and people of colour living in New York City who know more about 'The Future of Occupy Wall Street' than at least three out of four of the people on that panel, and I've been here a fortnight.
  3. If you're just selecting speakers from your friends and colleagues, don't you find it problematic that your friends and colleagues are overwhelmingly middle-aged white blokes?
  4. No, having one woman/minority/young person in your lineup and five doesn't make it all better. Speaking as someone who is regularly invited to be the one woman and/or the one young person on a panel of older white blokes, it makes something twist and ache inside to know that you are valued not primarily for what you say but because of your particular demographic: they could put any of over a billion women under thirty on the planet in your place and feel that they had achieved the same effect.
  5. No, inviting that one woman to chair your debate rather than participate in it doesn't make it all better. This is such a common get-out tactic, and it's a special sort of offensive, because it shows that organisers understand the importance of having a female person present in the debate, they just can't quite bring themselves to allow her to voice her own opinions - her job is merely to manage and make things pleasant for the men as they talk. Seriously. I'm sick of watching panels where the one woman's only role is to facilitate discussion between men, to handle rude or unruly questioners, to lay out the dialectical doilies and retreat into the background when she is not needed.
  6. For fuck's sake, why exactly is it so hard to make space in political discussions - even on the nominal left - for people who are not middle-aged, middle class white men?

Well, between us, the women in the audience extracted the normal platitudes from Miller, but it's always worth asking again, because just occasionally people crack and say what they actually think. In this case Miller utterly lost, as the Americans like to put it, his shit, and - well, just watch the video. The significant quote is:

It's interesting to note that Ford and Rockefeller and the other foundations with strong CIA connections started giving grants in the early 70s to study race and gender. It was a sudden move towards identity politics by these organisations and the theory is that the reason they did this was to balkanise the left and to prevent it from pursuing any kind of a class or economic analysis. Without denying the justice of what you're saying, this is not an irrelevant theory. I don't think, anyway.

My favourite part of the clip is what the other three panellists do when Miller launches into his eyebrow-waggling rant about how 'identity' politics is a plot to distract white male academics from doing the real work of talking about class and economics whilst entirely ignoring the race and gender issues with which they are inextricably intertwined. Mirzoeff looks away. Graeber picks awkwardly at his shirt. Ross writes in his notepad, possibly the words 'honestly, I'm not with this guy.'

The next day, I had a Twitter exchange with Miller, in which he directed me to the theory he was referencing, which is apparently the work of someone called Daniel Brandt. In the essay in question, Brandt's groundbreaking ideas about the duplicitous, damaging role of women's rights on the left include frothing paranoid spittle-flecks like this:

One yearns for the good old days, when issues were big, women didn't want to be imperial spies, and idealism and ethical indignation were accepted from nonvictims. In 1977 the CIA notified eighty academic institutions that they had unwittingly been involved in -- surprise! -- mind-control research...

The Women's Liberation Movement may be considered as subversive to the New Left and revolutionary movements as they have proven to be a divisive and factionalizing factor.... It could be well recommended as a counterintelligence movement to weaken the revolutionary movement." This was from an August, 1969 report by the head of the San Francisco FBI office.[4] Within several years, the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations were pumping millions into women's studies programs on campus.

OH NO, THE CIA ARE USING WOMEN'S STUDIES TO CONTROL YOUR MINDS. THIS IS SERIOUS, CHAPS. For the love of god, someone investigate Planned Parenthood and Abortion Rights UK right now! All that faff about a woman's right to choose might be an attempt to distract the white working class from issues that matter to real people! When I asked Miller to clarify his comments, he responded with the following TwitLonger essay (it's on his Twitter feed, for anyone to read):

Struck by how much time we'd spent on our (the panelists') race and gender, I made the point to note Brandt's argument that, in the Seventies, the student left may have been subtly guided toward race/gender issues as a way to get the movement not to deal with class or economics -- which, if they'd kept that focus, might have led to an alliance with the labor unions.

According to that argument, in other words, the rise of what we call "identity politics" was engineered to drive a wedge between the left and working-class whites, who now perceived the academic left as focused on "diversity" instead of economic justice; and this estrangement also made it easy for the right to woo white workers by playing on their racism and sexual anxieties (which had already started happening under Nixon, and which would soon help put Ronald Reagan in the White House).

By now, of course, the left's race/gender reflex -- what rightists call "political correctness" -- is so well-established that nobody even thinks to ask how it arose. Your persistence in attacking us last night struck me as an opportunity to raise that question, which I think is a good one, and worth pondering.

I could see, however, that it really pissed you off -- and it's clear that you're pissed off about it still. I'm sorry it offended you, but there it is.

In other words, I'm sorry you're upset, little lady, but you can't cry away the truth. The academy - which is, of course, where all the important liberal politics really gets done, rather than workplaces, schools, factories, town squares and the streets - had 'identity' politics and 'political correctness' foisted upon it by non-profits with CIA connections.

Never mind that the students of the University of Columbia, for example, went into occupation in 1996 to demand an ethnic studies department. They must have been funded by the secret service too. It's all a plot to stop the real left - which absolutely doesn't include any women or non-white people - from changing the world.

My mistake: I had assumed it was kneejerk, paranoid throwbackery.

Laurie Penny is a contributing editor to the New Statesman. She is the author of five books, most recently Unspeakable Things.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

No, Matteo Renzi's referendum isn't Italy's Brexit

Today's Morning Call. 

The European Union saw off one near-death experience yesterday, as Alexander van der Bellen - a Green running under independent colours - saw off Norbert Hofer, the far-right candidate, taking 53 per cent to 47 per cent. 

"Turn of the tide: Europeans hail Austrian far-right defeat" is the Guardian's splash, while "Austria says NEIN to far-right" is the Metro's take.

It's a reminder that the relentless march of the far right is not as irresistible as the Le Pens of the world would like to think, and, for the left, a rare brightspot in a year of seemingly unbroken retreat, albeit by a margin that is too close for comfort. 

But on the other side of the Alps, things are not looking so great. Italian voters have rejected Italian PM Matteo Renzi's proposed constitutional reforms in a landslide, resulting in Renzi's resignation. (For a good primer on who Renzi is or rather was, Joji Sakurai wrote a very good one for us a while back, which you can read here)

"Europe in turmoil as Italian PM is defeated" is the Times splash. It has many worrying that Italy made be headed out of the Euro at worst and trigger another financial crisis in the Eurozone at best. Over at the Spectator, James Forsyth suggests that this will make the EU27 reluctant to put the squeeze on the City of London, which is still the Eurozone's clearing centre. Others, meanwhile, are saying it's all the latest in the populist, anti-establishment wave that is politics in 2016.

Are they right?

The reforms - which, among other things, would have ended the Italian system of "perfect bicameralism" whereby the upper house has as much power as the lower, replacing the former with a legislature drawn from the regions in a similar manner to Germany's - were something of a dog's dinner, and although the referendum was forced on Renzi as they were unable to secure a two-thirds majority among legislators, it was a grave error to turn the vote into a referendum on his government. (Bear in mind that Italy is a multi-party democracy where the left's best ever performance netted it 49.8 per cent of the vote, so he was on a hiding to nothing with that approach.)

If there is a commonality in the votes for Brexit, Trump, Hofer, it's in the revenge of the countryside and the small towns against the cities, with the proviso that in Austria, that vote was large enough to hold back the tide). This was very different. Particularly striking: young graduates, so often the losers at the ballot box and pretty much everywhere else post-financial crash, voted against the reforms yesterday.

Nor can a vote that was supported by Silvio Berlusconi, two of the three major parties, as well as Mario Monti, the technocrat appointed effectively on the demands of Italy's creditors, and the Economist be accurately described as a revolt against "the establishment" if that term is to have any meaningful use whatsoever.  

Of course, it could yet lead to a Brexit-style shock. Renzi's Democratic Party could collapse into in-fighting if his departure is permanent - though who knows, he might parlay his graceful concession speech and the likely chaos that is to follow into a triumphant second act - and although his party has a narrow lead in most polls, the Five Star Movement could win a snap election if one occurs.

That raises the nightmare prospect for Brussels of a Eurosceptic in power in a founder-member of the European Union and the single European currency. (That said, it should be noted that Five Star are opponents of the Euro, not of the European Union. The word "Eurosceptic" is perhaps making some anti-Europeans here in the UK overexcited.)

But as Open Europe noted in their very good primer on the referendum before the result that is still very much worth reading, that not only requires Five Star to win an election, but to hold and win not just a referendum on Italy's Euro membership, but to first win a referendum on changing the constitution to allow such a referendum in the first place. (And remember that support for the EU is up in the EU27 following the Brexit vote, too.)

The biggest risk is financial, not political. Renzi had acquired a quasi-mythical status in the eyes of foreign investors, meaning that his departure will make global finance nervous and could result in the rescue deal for Monte Paschi, the world's oldest bank, being mothballed. Although a economic crisis on the scale of the one Italy experienced in 2011 is unlikely, it's not impossible either. And what follows that may justify the comparisons to Trump rather more than Renzi's defeat yesterday.

THE FUTURE'S ORANGE, BUT NOT BRIGHT

Donald Trump, President-Elect of the world's largest superpower, has taken to Twitter to lambast the Chinese government, the world's second-largest superpower, and also a nation which holds both large numbers of nuclear weapons and vast amounts of American debt. 

The cause of the row? Trump became the first President or President-Elect to talk directly to Taiwan's president since 1979, which the Chinese government has taken umbrage to. (China regards Taiwan as a renegade province, not a separate nation.) 

I'LL SEE EU IN COURT

The government's appeal against the High Court's judgement that Parliament, not the Prime Minister, has the ultimate authority to trigger Article 50 begins today. The argument hinges on whether or not triggering Article 50 represents a loss of rights - if, as the High Court accepted it did, then only the legislature can vote to remove rights, rather than have it done through the royal prerogative. Gina Miller, the lead claimant in the case, tells the Guardianthat Supreme Court judges are being unfairly vilified in the right-wing press, who she blames for the death threats against her. 

TANGLED UP IN BLUE

The government is split over whether to continue paying into the European Union after Brexit to secure a decent standard of access to the single market, Oliver Wright reports in the Times. Boris Johnson used his tour of the Sunday shows to signal his opposition to the idea, which has been publicly backed by Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, and David Davis, the Brexit Secretary. Liam Fox is said to oppose any continued payments into the EU. 

PRETTY HUGE DECEPTION

Ukip's new leader, Paul Nuttall, has denied that he claimed to have a PhD from Liverpool Hope University, blaming the claim on a LinkedIn page set up by parties unknown. Andrew Marr also confronted Nuttall with past comments of him calling for the privatization of the NHS in 2011.

ON THE CASEY

Louise Casey, the government's integration tsar, has a new report out in which she says that ethnic segregation in the UK is increasing, and criticizes the government for not doing enough to tackle the problem. The big items: the condition of women in ethnic minority communities, a lack of English language lessons, and recommended an oath of allegiance for all public servants. It's the latter that has the Mail all excited: "Swear oath to live in Britain" is their splash. Anushka Asthana has the full details in the Guardian.

SPECIALIST IN FAILURE (TO PAY TAXES?)

Commons PAC chair Meg Hillier has called for football coach Jose Mourinho to be investigated over reports that he has moved millions offshore to avoid paying tax. (If 1-1 draws are tax deductible, that would explain a great deal.) 

SOUNDS UNNERVINGLY LIKE HOME

Theresa May has told the Radio Times what her Christmas is like: Midnight Mass, sleep, a church service, then lunch (goose) and Doctor Who. She has opened up on the difficulties of growing up in a vicarage (among other things, not getting to open your presents for aaages). 

AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT

It's beginning to feel a bit like Christmas! And to help you on your way, here's Anna's top 10 recommendations for Christmassy soundtracks.

MUST READS

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie on how to respond to Trump

Labour has a horrible dilemma on Brexit, I say

Michael Chessum on why aping Ukip on Brexit is the path to Labour defeat

Jason on how politics makes us human

Get Morning Call in your inbox every morning - sign up for free here.

 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.