Confronting sexual violence while fueling the apparatuses of the neoliberal state? Ambiguities of an emancipatory project

4/15/2015 Confronting sexual violence whil

http://www.labrys.net.br/labrys25/recherches/mariana.htm 1/26

labrys, études féministes/ estudos feministasjanvier/ juin / 2014 -janeiro/junho 2014

Confronting sexual violence whilefueling the apparatuses of the

neoliberal state? Ambiguities of anemancipatory project

Ana Carolina Freitas Lima Ogando , Mariana Prandini Assis

Abstract: The struggle against sexual violence has long been one of themain issues driving the feminist movement worldwide. The criticalexamination of the directions it has taken in other parts of the worldenables us to identify the points of convergence, as well as learn from thesuccessful actions and also the pitfalls. In this paper, we ask suchquestions according to our critical review of an important contribution tothe field, namely the book In an abusive state, by Kristin Bumiller. Byexamining Bumiller's arguments and analysis from a global Southperspective, we hope to shed light on some of the most pressingdimensions of the struggle against sexual violence in contemporaryBrazil.

Key-words: Violence against Women – Critical Review – Lessons –Global South

Introduction

Mapping out feminist struggles and agendas

has long been a task of feminist academics and

studies. As such, there is always relevant



terrain yet to be uncovered by critical feminist

examinations of sexual violence. In this article,

we aim to add some insights to this ongoing

debate by centering our attention on an important

recent contribution to the field, Kristin

Bumiller's In an abusive state (2008). In her

book, Bumiller offers her consideration of the

various agendas and systems operating towards the

goal of eradicating sexual violence in the United

States and provides us with three main

intertwined arguments which connect social

movements, particularly, the feminist movement;

state apparatuses, namely the criminal justice

and social welfare systems; and the pursuance of

solutions for social problems, specifically,

sexual violence. From a feminist perspective,

what makes the book’s efforts most appealing is

the manner in which it casts light on the ensuing

paradoxes and limitations brought forth from

attempts at both framing and dealing with the

problem.

In what follows, we offer both a summary

of Bumiller's main arguments, as they appear in

each of the chapters of her book, as well as

their connections with parallel debates happening

within the field of feminist studies, which

allows for assessing the book's strength and

pitfalls. Moreover, we address the question of

how useful her analytical framework is for

examining the struggle against sexual violence in

Brazil. While we acknowledge the specificity of

each of the two cases, we also believe that the



critical analysis provided by Bumiller about the

American context might shed light on some

dimensions obscured in the Brazilian ongoing

political process, which we aim to clarify

throughout this piece. Reading her from a global

South perspective, therefore, turns out to be an

enriching intellectual and political task, as we

hope to demonstrate in the following sections.

Setting up the stage: Feminists politicize sexualviolence

Bumiller’s In an Abusive State examines

how violence against women was taken up as a

social problem that should be addressed by state

apparatuses in the United States, which, on the

one hand enabled feminist alliances with the

state, yet on the other, led to the strengthening

and appropriation of neoliberal ideology, a path

the feminist movement had neither anticipated nor

supported. Hence, Bumiller constructs her

argument by focusing on the underlying dimension

of how the very framing of the problem evoked

gender and racial stereotypes that did little to

break from ideas about women as victims and

racial minorities as aggressors. Providing us

with a broad reevaluation and historical analysis

of the feminist movement’s goals in relation to

sexual violence, Bumiller is able to capture

important dynamics in the process such as

political and economic shifts, as well as the

various symbolic representations of violence.

In an Abusive State is divided into six



chapters, attempting to capture the transition

from the moment in which feminist ideals and

vindications place the matter of sexual violence

on the public agenda to the transformation of

these vindications into diverse forms of social

and state control. The chapters reinforce the

author’s claim that feminist ideology ultimately

fed into reactionary forces. While this was

certainly not an intentional maneuver, it created

and creates concrete obstacles in terms of

establishing women’s empowerment, as well as

disrupting racial stereotypes.

Bumiller’s first chapter recovers the

feminist movement’s campaigns centered on

recognizing sexual violence and its effects on

women’s lives, impeding women’s autonomy,

equality and recognition in society. Stemming

from the 1960s, the first chapter highlights

radical feminist claims on the need for targeting

violence and rape in a patriarchal society. Such

feminist contributions initiated new selfhelp

approaches that ultimately paved the path for

reforms in the 1970s, when feminists and groups

such as the National Organization for Women (NOW)

began work towards reforming rape statutes and

demanding state actions to protect its citizens.

First Act: War Against Violence Meets RacialHierarchies and Stereotypes

In her second chapter, Bumiller proceeds

to look at how feminist efforts to dismantle

myths regarding sexual violence created a “war”



against violence that stimulated forms of social

control. One of the strong points of this chapter

is the author’s contribution to thinking about

how feminist ideology can be converted into

reinforcing other power structures and relations

operating in society. The gender war on violence

unraveled deeply rooted legacies of racial

tension. Consequently, the author presents one of

the paradoxes of the agenda, which was the social

obsession with a consumption of violent images,

clearly undermining the attempts at establishing

complex discussions and understandings of the

causes for violence, as well as perpetuating a

dichotomous logic that blamed black men for white

women’s fear. Bumiller, by drawing upon icon

representations of violence and rape in cultural

reproductions, calls attention to how the social

imaginary can provoke animosities and

inequalities founded upon gender and racial

stereotypes.

The author’s argument is convincing in

that she shows how such representations have

clear consequences in political terms in at least

three different manners. First, the

representations establish a sexual panic

regarding violence, built upon dehumanizing

imagery that are not based upon facts, but

assumptions that attempt to relate security and

crime with racial and class elements. The

discussions here are important for the arguments

laid out in the following two chapters, which

look at the increase in incarceration rates and



how criminal control primarily targeted

minorities. Second, the author shows that much of

the attention to sexual violence disregarded

domestic violence and the power structures

operating within the private sphere. By doing so,

the gender wars targeting young, black males in

the public sphere gained more legitimacy by

distorting the actual risks. Third, and tied to

this second point, is the fact such

representations associated sexual violence with a

social disorder. What such associations have the

potential to do is turn a feminist concern into

an argument based on morality and the need for

further regulating sexuality. In other words, it

paves the path for morally based, conservative

reactions on how to control the disorder through

prescribed traditional and hierarchical gender

roles and patterns of heternormativity. A clear

backlash can successfully operate upon the

construction of such a narrative premised on a

social imaginary infused by gender inequality and

racial prejudice.

The contradictions the author touches upon

in this chapter seem relevant for considering

sexual violence in Brazil, primarily with regard

to the need for a feminist critique, if not

vigilance, on how feminist vindications can be

distorted and appropriated by conservative

discourses. The rape culture, dominant in our

patriarchal society and media, particularly in

the last few years, can easily build upon common

widespread belief that the fault lies with the



victims. Therefore, rather than transforming a

system of sexgender that frames females bodies

as accessible, consumable and rapable, the answer

for the problem of violence becomes the renewal

of social norms that establish what is the right

and acceptable female behavior. In a context in

which violence becomes associated with forms of

“promiscuous behavior or passivity,” (p. 20)

feminism’s main questioning of patriarchal

structures is distorted and left unheard.

Movements such as “Marcha das Vadias” in Brazil

are therefore crucial for putting into question

hegemonic strategies of “blaming the victim”

while also destabilizing norms of what is the

appropriate behavior and mode of dressing.

Nonetheless, this problematization cannot

be divorced from a critical approach to the

racial narratives which are constructed not only

along, but intertwined with, sexual violence in

Brazil. If racial relations are not only

constituted but also enacted in a very different

way in Brazil when compared to the United States,

the risk of attributing violence to particular

racialized groups of our society is nonetheless

the same. Furthermore, violence is experienced in

quite different ways by women from various racial

groups.

It is worth taking into account the public

evaluation of the Slutwalk made by black women in

the United States (2011). According to them,

black women and girls find no space in Slutwalk



to address rape as they experience it. In a

nutshell, “slut” is a term which alienates black

women as they do not see themselves or their

experiences represented in this label. On the

contrary, by presenting themselves as “sluts”,

black women would be reinforcing existing

stereotypes of black female sexuality bodies as

sexualized objects of property, as spectacles of

sexuality and deviant sexual desire. For them,

these stereotypes have long crossed the

boundaries of their modes of dress to justify the

accessibility and violability of their bodies. An

intersectional analysis as suggested by Creenshaw

and applied by the black women addressing the

Slutwalk (2011), sheds light on one aspect

neglected by Bummiller and particularly important

in a stratified society like Brazil. Politics is

entrenched with power relations; therefore, in

our struggles against particular forms of

domination, we are not devoid of certain

privileges entailed by our class position or

race. White women, when compared to women of

color, enjoy a privilege that allows them to

perform a particular kind of politics in fighting

violence against women, not available to all

women. Thus the need for a different kind of

politics, one which is attentive to the varying

dimensions of power not only between social

groups but also within them.

Second Act: Emancipation turned into forms ofneoliberal control



The third and fourth chapters look at how

the changes in the political and economic climate

of the 1970s and early 1980s, guided by

neoliberalism, evolved into forms of control. One

of the interesting aspects in Bummiler's analysis

is how she expands her critique beyond a gender

framework. Here her work navigates into

sociological and legal considerations of how “the

state’s essential challenge is to create order

and respond to demands for justice” (p. 36). She

starts out by tracing the sovereign response to

crime or, in other words, the way through which

the state reassures its power and protective

role, and responds to demands for justice. The

system of crime control helps to further

strengthen the myth of sovereignty, providing two

different kinds of responses to criminal

occurrences: (i) expressive justice, which

consists in “a political reaction to the

increased levels of insecurity and the actual

rise in crime rates” (p. 37); and (ii) the

expansion of the state apparatus that exercises

forms of control over both victims and

perpetrators.

Chapter three looks at the first response

and more specifically at “how 'expressive

justice' has been employed to respond to sexual

violence under the conditions of neoliberalism”

(p. 37). Here, Bumiller shows how targeting

particular forms of violence such as gang rape,

which have great impact in the public audience,

the state provides a superficial response to the



issue. This response, while legitimating and

reinforcing the state's monopolistic power to

control sex crimes, does not in fact deal with

the problem in its multiple dimensions.

Two of the most notable gangrape trials

in the United States within the last twentyfive

years are thoroughly examined by Bumiller: the

1984 New Bedford, Massachusetts trial, and the

1991 Central Park Jogger trial. Bumiller analyzes

the ways in which the case was framed in the

local media and the various responses it

received from different actors, how much

attention was given to the victim and to the

perpetrators, and how the victim was addressed

(as an individual who had her own specific

responses to rape completely ignored). She looks

both at the representations of the victim and

defendants in the media and in the courtroom,

which complemented each other as well as were

complemented by the description of the crime

scene. Finally, she calls attention to the role

played by the Portuguese defendants and how the

local Portuguese community was impacted by their

portrayal as barbarians.

The second case that Bumiller examines is

the Central Park Jogger trial from 1991. One

black and two Hispanic teenage boys were charged

with the sexual and physical assault of a young

professional woman, in one of the most notorious

interracial gang rape trials in American history.

A spectacle was produced in the courtroom with



the combination of the defendants' confession and

images of the white jogger's body, working as a

cultural metaphor of racial dangers and the rise

of criminality in the city of New York.

In her analysis of the two cases, Bumiller

shows how the female body becomes the terrain on

which the events during the rape trial are

recreated and interpreted, and the crime

verified. If in the first case, the Portuguese

defendants were portrayed as barbarians, in the

Central Park Jogger trial the racial

transgression is represented by the prosecutor in

its most extreme form, through “the jogger as a

'white' symbol” evoking “the special threat of

darkskinned men” (p. 55). The two sensational

trials functioned as sites for the state to

reinstate its role in defending society against

such sexual atrocities, by acting out expressive

justice. In concluding this chapter with a

critical examination of the discovery, fifteen

years later, that the teenage boys convicted for

the Central Park Jogger rape had not committed

the crime, she shows the substantial failure of

the system of expressive justice despite the

observance of the formal procedures. Moreover,

she invites us to question the political decision

of simply criminalizing the perpetrators,

consequently targeting them as incurable evils

incapable of behavioral change.

Kimberlé Creenshaw (1991) had already

argued, from an intersectional perspective, that



in the case of the Central Park jogger racial and

gender stereotypes intertwined to produce a

particular gender narrative that places white

women victims against brutalized black men. This

narrative does not address the position and

experience of women of color – who appear in

cultural stereotypes as bad women therefore

unrapeable or not qualified to be victims of

sexual violence. If Bumiller's analysis sheds

light on one part of the racial story that goes

along with the gendered problematic of violence

and the legitimation of a culture of (racial)

control, it certainly neglects its other side,

that of the life of women of color, only captured

by Creenshaw's intersectional analysis. In this

sense, Bumiller's argument would have benefited

from an intersectional approach, which would

allow her not only to further problematize the

narrative of the brutalized black men by

incorporating the dimensions of class and of

being an immigrant, but also to address the

problem of the invisibility of women of color's

experiences in the prevalent and accepted

narratives of sexual violence.

In chapter four, Bumiller examines the

growth of the administrative control exercised by

the state and its relation to the feminist

campaign against sexual violence. Here, instead

of bringing an alliance with the state capable of

promoting forms for greater autonomy among women,

the emphasis on control led to responses

involving an expansion of the administrative



apparatus, the criminal justice system and other

bureaucracies. The main question brought forth in

this chapter is how the experts and

administrators deal with the issue of sexual

violence. As Bumiller points out, they do so via

a twofold strategy: the perpetrators are treated

as incapable of rehabilitation and therefore

deserving of severe punishment; the victims are

further victimized and targeted as clients of

state services which aim to turn them into

successful survivors.

Shedding light on one dimension so far

neglected by the specialized literature, Bumiller

captures how interventions led to therapeutic

interpretations of violence as well as how the

expansion of services targeting women victims of

violence worked as a mechanism to increase their

surveillance by the state. Consequently, women's

needs were now interpreted by social workers and

other professionals within the structure of the

welfare system (Fraser 2013), and such experts

also claimed the authority to classify which

category the women fit into, either as “rape

survivor” or “battered woman” (p. 66).

If the feminist movement reform agenda

towards the practice of social work in cases of

sexual violence aimed to transform that practice

so it would not serve to revictimize abused

women, this agenda was corrupted once it arrived

in the specialized domains of care providers.

Women not only lost their agency by becoming the



objects of social workers' interpretations of

their experiences of violence, but were also

turned into a special population of clients for

medical practitioners, therapists and social

scientific researchers. By looking at specialized

medical and social work journals dealing with new

approaches to treat victims of abuse, Bumiller

discloses the expert language developed to

characterize women and define their problem as

well as the various strategies applied to treat

them, such as surveillance, professionalization

of the shelters, pathologization of domestic

violence and sexual traumas, among others.

In this sense, through the medicalization

of sexual violence, gender stereotypes were re

coded and refashioned to give rise to an entire

new set of psychological attributes and

conditions characteristics of the disease.

Moreover, this expert narrative also traveled to

the Courts, affecting the reinforcement of

dominant stereotypes of victimized women. And

finally, it deepened the victimcentered health

approach, focused on surveillance practices of

actual victims and public education campaigns

targeting potential victims (read: all women).

The rehabilitation model as well as a more

profound debate about the structural issues

behind sexual violence, were completely left

behind.

Drawing both from the victims’ testimonies

in the Central Park and New Bedford trials



(examined in chapter three) and interviews with

women in shelters, Bumiller shows, in chapter

five, how women frame their interaction with the

state and cope with their socially assigned role

of victims. More specifically, she investigates

the difficult position in which women who decide

to break with sexual violence are put: they face

the dilemma of freeing themselves from “private

patriarchy”, represented by an abusive partner,

by entering a relationship of “public patriarchy”

with the structure of the state. In the case of

rape trials, the victims’ private and sexual life

as well as her social behavior are extensively

debated and evaluated in order to establish the

extent to which she accomplished the duty to

protect herself. In Brazil, despite all the

efforts of the feminist movement, the legal

profession has not been able to completely escape

from frameworks that associate the reliability of

the sexual aggression accusations with a women’s

moral character.

The analysis of the interviews with women

participating in a transitional housing program

for battered women shed light on a different

dimension of “public patriarchy”. Here, the

dependency on the state is created and reinforced

on a daily basis. There is a long process of

victimization to go through and women realize

that the only way of coping with the system and

gaining from it is by assuming the role of the

ideal victim. In the end, by becoming clients of

the welfare state, women learn strategies of



survival rather than ways of strengthening the

possibilities for autonomy and emancipation. Once

again the author forcefully calls attention to

the dangers and paradoxes of misrepresenting and

avoiding the complexity of the problem of

violence.

Third Act: Looking for New Paths in the Struggle

In chapter six, Bumiller ventures into a

more critictheoretical enterprise, by using

Hannah Arendt’s view on violence to argue against

the formulation of women’s human rights (and

human rights in general) that serves to further

extend the power of the state through the

reliance on surveillance, criminalization and

violent responses as means to protect women. In

her view, rather than reinforcing the state’s

apparatuses of security and punishment, an

emancipatory human rights agenda “should seek to

empower women through forms of political action

that support victims’ individual sovereignty” (p.

135). Here, Bumiller looks not only at the

American case through a careful analysis of the

enforcement of the Violence Against Women Act

(VAWA), but expands her scope to the global

level, tracing feminist engagement against gender

based violence in other countries as well as in

the international sphere via the CEDAW.

The main contribution of this chapter is

that it presents the limitations and dangers of

relying on a repressive state apparatus as the

means of dealing with a problem deeply connected



to various other structures of power in society.

By doing so, we may end up placing an additional

burden on the victims during the litigation

procedure, legitimating the claim that funding to

criminal justice is prioritized at the expenses

of grassroots organizations, and targeting

particular racial groups who are labelled as

“sexually deviant”. Finally, Bumiller is also

looking for alternatives, moving away from

homogenizing discourses and inviting us to

investigate the more complex dynamics of violence

in contemporary society.

If we all agree that the problem of

violence against women is one that demands

immediate response, the idea of excluding or

avoiding state intervention is not a choice.

Thus, Bumiller’s admonitions are more than valid

for the Brazilian case. We campaigned hard to

pass the Maria da Penha Act and impose more

severe punishments onto perpetrators.

Nonetheless, we need to maintain a critical stand

in regards to the criminal justice system – which

is racially biased – as well as create

alternatives that promote progressive social

change. Individual punishment within a system

that does not aim to rehabilitate, certainly will

not address the pressing structural issues, which

lay at the roots of gender based violence. On the

contrary, it might reinforce, as Bumiller argues,

the very system of law and order, an outgrowth of

neoliberal governmentality.



A recent suitcase initiated by the

National Institute for Social Security (INSS)

provides some insights into the directions of the

official state policy in regards to sexual

violence and implementation of the Maria da Penha

Act. In an innovative juridical move, the INSS

pursued a civil action against one aggressor in

order to be refunded for the pension paid to the

children of the murdered victim.[1] Justifying

the initiative, the public attorney responsible

for the case argued that the civil condemnation

has both punitive and pedagogical purposes.

Establishing the responsibility of aggressors to

indemnify the state for the expenditures with the

children of a victim works as a powerful

preventive mechanism of sexual violence. In a

way, the institute is driven by the idea that a

violent aggressor would think twice before

attacking his victim if he knows that the

consequences of his actions would also be felt in

his pocket.

Besides its naivité, the argument is

problematic for a more structural reason. By

privatizing the consequences of the violent act

and making the aggressor responsible for the

payment of the social/public pension to which the

children of the victim are entitled, this

strategy reinforces the notion of the aggressor

as deviant aberration. In doing so, it

obfuscates, once again, the deeper structural

roots of sexual violence and turns it into an

individual moral issue. Moreover, it corroborates



with the neoliberal project by denying the

responsibility of the state and, consequently,

the political community at large, to care and

provide for those who are in a situation of need.

Therefore, if at first actions such as this one

taken by the INSS, might appear to reinforce the

system of repression of sexual violence, once

examined in depth, they reveal their limitations.

As it privatizes and individualizes the problem,

it contributes to deepen the wrong view that

gender violence is not a social issue.

Final Remarks

Moving towards our final remarks, let us

critically go back to the three central arguments

developed by Bumiller which demand further

scrutiny. First, she argues that the feminist

campaign against sexual violence advanced in the

United States in 1970s and framed as “gender war”

was appropriated by the neoliberal state,

enabling particular forms of control,

surveillance and punishment of both women and

racial minorities. Bumiller claims that the focus

on law reform and the close relationship

established with the state represented not only

the abandonment by the feminist movement of its

previous agenda regarding sexual violence (self

organized and antistate), but also the

opportunity for state power to transform “sexual

violence into a social, medical, and legal

problem” (p. 13).

While this analysis is appealing and well



sustained by the empirical evidence, it leaves

some dimensions unexplained, particularly, the

relationship between the technologies of

government she discusses and the neoliberal

state. As the literature on governmentality shows

(Foucault 1991), these technologies encompass the

ways in which the government shapes, models and

controls populations. Nonetheless, these are

historical developments, in the sense that they

are modified according to changes in the state,

in the society and in their relationship. In

Bumiller's analysis, we find a brief discussion

of the connection between the particular forms

that these technologies of government take under

conditions of neoliberalism. Yet the author never

thoroughly clarifies the specificities of these

conditions for the circumstances being analyzed.

In other words, what is special about

neoliberalism (in comparison to the welfare

state) and how this specificity gets translated

into governmentality practices that appropriated

the discourse of the feminist campaign?

Moreover, the author’s discussions seem to

dismiss considerations of neoliberalism’s use of

feminist ideology for its own purposes both in

the national and international literature. Nancy

Fraser (2005, 2009) contributed with a critical

rereading of secondwave feminism, with a

primary focus on North America and Europe. Much

in the same light, Evelina Dagnino’s (2004)

thesis of a perverse confluence, stemming from

the rise of NGOs after the 1995 neoliberal state



reform in Brazil, also questions whether the

alliances the feminist movement created with the

government and even new participatory formats did

not end up strengthening a different project

other than a democratizing and emancipatory one.

In essence, other critical international

perspectives (Dagnino, 2004; Teixeira, 2002)

could help broaden Bumiller’s argument,

particularly by illustrating how the very changes

in capitalism can blur the ways in which we

commonly detect forms of depoliticizing social

movements.

The second broad argument made by Bumiller

considers the role played by human rights

discourse in the struggle against sexual

violence. Here, the author raises an important

criticism of the use of culture as a way of

differentiating social groups and practices and

labeling them as 'against women's interests and

rights'. Her claim is powerful and is reminiscent

of Mohanty's thesis on “under Western eyes” to

describe the representation of ThirdWorld women

by Western feminist tradition “as a homogenous

'powerless' group often located as implicit

victims of particular socioeconomic systems”

(Mohanty 1984, p. 23). In this sense, we concur

with the author in her suspicion of a human

rights discourse that, in many situations, serves

as a means to justify military or humanitarian

interventions in which we see “white men saving

brown women from brown men”, to use Spivak's

famous phrasing.



Nonetheless, we cast doubts regarding the

solution she offers for redefining “human

rights”. According to her, “the discourse of

rights is conceived of as contingent, fluid, and

grounded in the deliberation of diverse

individuals and groups rather than derived from

universal principles” (p. 149). Is this notion of

human rights sufficient to guarantee the

protection of individuals not only from state,

but also societal violence? What would be the

mechanisms of enforcement of such human rights?

Who would be responsible for implementing them

and who would be made accountable for their

nonobservance? Finally, is not Bumiller, to a

certain extent, “romanticizing” society and

“demonizing” the state? From a global South

perspective, the studies on social movements,

civil society and transition to democracy in

Brazil have already pointed out the shortcomings

of reinforcing the state versus civil society

dichotomy.

The third issue we want to examine regards

Bumiller's proposition to address sexual

violence. According to her, local, community

based projects, integrated with other social

movements would be able to offer the best

mechanisms to deal with the problem. While

building this argument, the author examines what

she considers to be a successful example of a

nongovernmental organization dedicated to the

type of activism she urges. Here again we find

troublesome the fact that the author is not



critical about the institutionalization of the

feminist movement via their transformation into

NGOs, a phenomena described by feminists scholars

such as Sonia Alvarez (1999; 2000) as NGOization.

According to this scholarship, the prevalence of

NGOs within the feminist movement, particularly

from the 1980s onward, represented precisely what

Bumiller is criticizing: a very close

relationship with the state, in the role of

'gender specialists'.

Moreover, a consistent strand of

literature has called attention to the fact that

NGOs, including the feminist ones, were notably

important for the implementation of the

neoliberal project, especially in developing

countries. The state was able to withdraw from

its social welfare duties by forging forms of

governmental control that champion selfhelp,

individual responsibility for failures,

privatized riskmanagement and techniques of

empowerment (see, for example, Schild’s analysis

for the Chile, 2000). NGOs were crucial for the

advancement of this agenda, as they became the

primary actors (i) delivering public goods and

(ii) encouraging those techniques within civil

society. Along these lines, we believe that a

more critical approach to the roles of NGOs in

tackling social problems is necessary for the

framework offered by Bumiller herself.

In conclusion, In an Abusive State is an

ambitious work mainly for its interdisciplinary



approach at unraveling the contradictions brought

about in the alliance forged between the feminist

movement and the state in facing sexual violence

in the United States. This turns it an essential

read for those interested in a feminist critique

and approach to state policies and outcomes.

Furthermore, it masterfully constructs the

argument for how a broader cultural and social

analysis of gender and racial representations can

reveal underlying tensions and inequalities

present in society. In this sense, it is

important to recognize the author’s efforts at

examining part of the complexity of problem at

hand by navigating through different analytic

dimensions, rather than simply focusing on its

political aspects. Ultimately, we believe

Bumiller’s book serves to prove how important it

is to have a more integrated approach to

understanding gender inequalities. The

limitations of the book further encourage a

perspective that is capable of learning with and

combining the contributions from the South.

References

Alvarez, Sonia. The Latin American Feminist Ngo ‘Boom’. InternationalFeminist Journal of Politics, vol.1, no.2, 1999, pp. 181-209.

______. “A Globalização dos Feminismos Latino-Americanos:Tendências dos Anos 90e Desafios para o Novo Milênio”. In: Alvarez,Sonia; Dagnino, Evelina; Escobar, Arturo. Cultura e política nosmovimentos sociais latino-americanos. Belo Horizonte: UFMG, 2000, p.383-426.

An Open Letter From Black Women to the Slutwalk September 25, 2011.Available at: <http://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/an-open-letter-from-black-women-to-the-slutwalk/>.

http://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/an-open-letter-from-black-women-to-the-slutwalk/



Creenshaw, Kimberlé. Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, identitypolitics and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, Vol.43, No. 6 (Jul., 1991) , pp. 1241-1299

Dagnino, Evelina. Construção democrática, neoliberalismo eparticipação: os dilemas da confluência perversa. Politica e Sociedade,v.3, n. 5 (2004).

Foucault, Michell (1991) “Governmentality”, in The Foucault effect:studies in governmentality (eds. Burchell Graham et al). Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago Press. pp. 87-104.

Fraser, Nancy. Struggle over Needs: Outline of a Socialist-FeministCritical Theory of Late-Capitalist Political Culture. In Fraser, Nancy.Fortunes of Feminism: From state-managed capitalism to neoliberal crisisand beyond. London: Verso, 2013. pp. 53-82.

______. Feminism, Capitalism and the Cunning of History. New LeftReview, 56, March-April 2009, pp. 97-117.

______. Mapping the Feminist Imagination: From Redistribution toRecognition to Representation. Constellations, Vol. 12, no. 3, 2005, pp.295-307.

Mohanty, Chandra Tapalde. Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarshipand Colonial Discourses. boundary 2 , Vol. 12/13, Vol. 12, no. 3 - Vol.13, no. 1, On Humanism and the University I: The Discourse ofHumanism (Spring - Autumn, 1984) , pp. 333-358

Schild, Verónica. 2000. Neo-liberalism's new gendered market citizens:the 'civilizing'

dimension of social programmes in Chile. Citizenship Studies 4, no.3:275-305.

Teixeira, Ana Claúdia Chaves. A Atuação das Organizações NãoGovernamentais: Entre o Estado e o Conjunto da Sociedade. In Dagnino,E. (org.) Sociedade civil e espaços públicos no Brasil. São Paulo: Paz eTerra, 2002. pp. 105-142.

Ana Carolina Freitas Lima Ogando has a Ph.D. in Political Sciencefrom the Federal University of Minas Gerais. Her research interestsinclude feminist political theory, social movements, Brazilian politicalthought and theories of recognition. Past research included understandinghow Brazilian social thought, from the 19th century onward, producedknowledge and discourses on gender roles and the family. Ana Carolinacan be reached at [email protected].



Mariana Prandini Assis is a PhD student at the Politics Department atthe New School for Social Research. She holds a J.D. and a MA inPolitical Science from the Federal University of Minas Gerais. In hercurrent research, she explores the potential of international human rightscourts and commissions in promoting progressive interpretations ofwomen's rights and gender issues. Mariana can be reached [email protected].

[1] [1] The interview with the public attorney responsible forthe case can be read here: http://blog.previdencia.gov.br/?tag=lei-maria-da-penha. As well as the news about it on the Court's website: http://trf-4.jusbrasil.com.br/noticias/100504783/homem-que-matou-ex-companheira-tera-que-ressarcir-pensao-paga-aos-filhos-pelo-inss.

labrys, études féministes/ estudos feministasjanvier/ juin / 2014 -janeiro/junho 2014

http://blog.previdencia.gov.br/?tag=lei-maria-da-penha

Confronting sexual violence while fueling the apparatuses of the neoliberal state? Ambiguities of an emancipatory project

Documents