Feminism and the Third Way

8/13/2019 Feminism and the Third Way

1/17

Feminism and the Third WayAuthor(s): Angela McRobbieSource: Feminist Review, No. 64, Feminism 2000: One Step beyond? (Spring, 2000), pp. 97-112Published by: Palgrave Macmillan JournalsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1395705.

Accessed: 28/10/2013 12:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Palgrave Macmillan Journalsis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Feminist

Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 121.52.159.181 on Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:03:04 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=palhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1395705?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1395705?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pal


2/17

emin i sm a n d t h h i r d a yAngela McRobbie

AbstractThis articleargues hatthe 'ThirdWay',as the ideologicalrationale or the NewLabourGovernmentn the UK, attempts o resolvethe tensionsaround women cand socialpolicyconfrontedbythepresentGovernment. heThirdWayaddresses E'women'without'feminism',n particularhosefloatingwomen voters for whom ofeminismholds little attraction.Butaffluent,middleEngland,corporatewomen,thoughcentralto the popular imaginationof the Daily Mail, and thus to Tony zBlair,are in practicea tiny minority.New Labour n office thus finds itselfcom-mittedto reconciling he irreconcilable.t wants to see women as a socialgroupmove morefullyintoemployment, nd on thismanyfeministswouldagree.At the :same time it wants to see throughfurther ransformations f the welfarestate,alongthe lines set in motionbyMrsThatcher.nevitablyhis involves urther utsin spendingand privatizationof social insurance.The formerprinciple s mademoredifficultbythe latterpolicy.Recent eministanalysisndicates he scaleof theneeds of women to allowfull andequalparticipationn work and in society.

KeywordsNew Labour;ThirdWay;socialistfeminism;welfare to work;poverty;employ-ment;TonyBlair

Ambitiousndindependent:NewLabour's ewwomanWe are confronted by a range of problems when, at this point in time,almost at the year 2000, we think about the emergence of the so-calledThird Way. Immediately there is the question of its relation to New Labourand also the question of what it means for our own practice as socialistfeminists. So let's start by trying to indicate the scale of the problem. Firstthe Third Way seems to comprise at least three differentmeanings. It comesinto being primarily through two routes, a lecture given by the Prime Min-ister Tony Blair to the Fabian Society (Blair, 1997) and the short bookauthored by Anthony Giddens titled The Third Way (Giddens, 1998).From here (and Blair acknowledges his debt to Giddens) it begins quite 97Feminist Review ISSN 0141-7789 print/ISSN 1466-4380 online ? Feminist Review Collective


3/17

7 Labour.The functionof the ThirdWayfrom the startis to act hegemoni-cally.It is destined to do the same kind of thing that the 'authoritarianpopulism'of Mrs Thatcherachieved.Thatis, theThirdWaywouldideallyreachout andtouchthe innermostneeds,anxieties,hopesand fearsof the> nation (Hall, 1989). To work, it must tap into disparateand as yet onlyhalf-formed ensibilities.By fleshing hemout andgivingfull form to them,I and thenattemptingo unifythem,this New Labourway of doinggovern-ment comes to be natural o the point that an alternatives unthinkable.Alongside his is the version of the ThirdWaywhich is a prescriptionorGovernment.To'call t a philosophyof governmentwould be perhaps oogrand for the pragmaticswhich are such a key characteristicof NewLabour,nstead t is moremodestlya sociologyof government.Thisis cer-tainly the first time that the once-ridiculeddisciplineof sociology hasgainedsuch recognition.Giddens'ThirdWaytakes key changesin con-temporary ociety,subjects hem to sociologicalanalysisand proposesanumberof modernandmanagerialistocial democraticolutionsunder heheadingof theThirdWay.It does this with extraordinary larity,bringingcomplexideas withinthe graspof a popularreadership. n this guisetheThirdWayis a sociologyof socialchange n the serviceof the centre eft.The third, more flippant,version of the Third Way is that which hasentered nto everyday ife as a cynicaljournalistic lichedescribingNewLabourpractice.This suggestsa kind of balancingact (or politicsof tri-angulation)where strategiesassociatedwith the Tories(e.g. bringing nprivatecompanies o run so-called sinkschools')are combinedwith edu-cationalpoliciesmoretraditionallyinked with the LabourParty(cuttingclasssizes).Theseversionsof the ThirdWayposethequestionof whatexactlya social-ist feministresponseto both New Labourand the ThirdWay mightbe.For a start, are 'we' still in agreementwith each other? We might beexpectedto view therenewedbut still reformist ocial democraticpolitics(symbolized n the hyphenatedcentre-left)advocatedby Giddensas farremoved romthe muchmoresociallytransformative oliticsof socialism.Likewisewe would be criticalof his argument hat becauseEasternEuro-peansocialismand the communiststates havefailed,socialismperse hasno future. For how many years have 'we' argued that the politics ofWesternMarxismweredeeplyhostile to thosepractised n actualexistingsocialist states? And why should the end of the old communistregimesmark the end of socialismas a politicalsystem?But the underlyingssueis how firmdo we all standon our own 'oldpolitics'?Havetheytoo under-gone some sea-changen the lightof the transformations f recentyears?

8 Manywouldagreethat therehas indeed beena crisis n left-wingpolitics.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


4/17

Tory Government, as well as the seeming failure to reproduce the sameenthusiastic socialist feminist politics among a younger generation, has cer-tainly sapped the energies of many of our own generation. Indeed the very Xfact that we can describe ourselves politically as a generation is a sign ofour limited success.How then might 'we' as feminists respond to both the Third Way and NewLabour in office? We have two useful models at hand in this respect. Therecent work by Stuart Hall on the Blair 'project' could be described asoccupying a position of principled dissent (Hall, 1998). The Third Waymarks a reneging on what a modern left politics could be, in favour of acontinuation of what Mrs Thatcher set in motion. Against this is the workof Tony Giddens. Far from critique, Giddens offers a programme forgovernment and a staunch defence of a modernized 'centre left' politicsbased on the abandonment of traditional socialist ideals, which raises thequestion of what is 'left' in the 'centre left'? My own position is a gooddeal closer to Hall's than to Giddens, but with a number of provisos, oneof which is that New Labour seems to me more divided internally than hisanalysis allows and this in itself permits the impact of some socialist femin-ist policies, if only 'by stealth' and at odds with the Third Way. Indeed Iwant to propose here that the figure of 'woman' stands at the centre ofthese new politics. This is partly thanks to feminism. The willingness toembrace the needs of women is both a mark of the 'modernity' of NewLabour and also what distinguishes it from the previous Tory Govern-ments. But New Labour,with the Third Way as its ideological arm, seeksto reach out over the heads of feminists and speak instead to 'ordinarywomen'. At every point 'they' (New Labour) have distanced themselvesfrom feminism, if not actively repudiated it. It has become as Anna Cooterecently put it in the Guardian, the 'f' word, in effect unsayable in NewLabour circles (Coote, 13 May 1999: 15). Likewise the Women's Unit, setup, albeit with some reluctance, by New Labour, is reportedly Blair's leastfavourite initiative (Perkins, 1999: 6-7).I want to argue here that the Third Way envisages a politics for womenwithout feminism. Why? Because feminism was one of the features of theleft which New Labour felt it had to demonstrably distance itself from togain office. In practice however New Labour cannot maintain this distancequite as much as it would like. This is partly because feminism now occu-pies the peculiar position of being seemingly universally disliked, while atthe same time it has crept into the realm of popular common sense. Thephenomenon of the 'made over' New Labour woman MP is an exampleof how New Labour has tried to manage this contradiction. Most of thenewly elected women MPs have sought to embrace a glamorous image, in )9



5/17

despitethe hostilityNew Labourseems to exude towards 1970s socialistfeminism, hereis also a sense,and I will developthis point later,that ithas also been forcedat some level to listen to thesevoices.1oz The make-overs ymbolize he shift,and the desireto airbrushout of thepoliticalpicture hose elementswhichmightmake New Labourunattrac-tive to 'ordinarywomen'.Butwho are thesewomen?Actually heyare notso ordinary. would arguethey arequite specific. They'are the mothersanddaughtersof affluentandwhitemiddleEngland, he relativelyapolit-ical but conservative-oriented omen who now figurein most politicalequations.Theyare ambitious or themselves nd theirchildren.Theyhavespecificneeds n termsof childcare, qualpayand betteropportunitiesoreconomic ndependencerommenfor the simplereason thattheytoo getdivorcedandtheytoo findthemselvesn 'de-traditionalized'amilies.Theyare also the kind of women Giddensseems to be addressingn his book.Oneimagines hemin an electionbroadcastorTV advertisement. londe,late 30s, well groomedand attractive,suburban-living,wo cars, caringabout schools andhealth,butdeeplyconsumerist ndembracing n indi-vidualismwithinthe familyunit. The main concern s narrowly me andmy family'andanynotion of the socialgoodis accessed hrough hisprismof the family.The ThirdWayappeals o thisgroup,buttheproblem or New Labour sthat 'real women' are very different from this 'corporate/suburbanwoman'.Theystill work in the publicsector,earnless money,do not livein a two car family,and have more substantialneedsin termsof welfareand benefitsas they move furtherand furtheraway from the traditionalfamily.Theirteenagedaughtersmighthave a baby out of wedlock andtheirsonsmayhavetrouble indinga job.Thus the secondpartof my argu-ment is that the Third Way seeks to reconcilethe irreconcilable.TheGovernments committed o transformingwelfareby reducingaccess tobenefits,and this finds full expression n Giddens'book as one of the keyplanks of the ThirdWay.At the same time the Governmentneeds thesupportof the femalevoter,even though they remainmost relianton anexpandedsystemof welfare,which means that they are in effectpartoftheproblem.Letmeputthis morestarkly. n thedrive o createanemploy-ment-led society women and girls find themselves at the forefront ofGovernment olicy,with youngwomenincreasinglyargetedon the basisof theirhigh performancen education.At the same timewomen are thetargetof attempts o cut downon benefitsanddramaticallyower thecostsof welfare.Whileit is tempting o explainthis in terms of class and age,with older,workingclass women comingoff worse, as SylviaWalbyhaso recentlypointedout, the reality s a good deal morecomplex.At various0



6/17

marginsof the labourmarketand thuspotentiallydependent n some form ;of welfareor support(Walby,1999: 7). 01=The most likelyresponsefrom socialist feministsto New Labour's om- mmitmentto what has come to be known as ThirdWaypolitics,is one ofundisguiseddisappointment.This is becausea key defining eatureof the ZThirdWayis its combiningelementsof left social democracywith right 3zneo-liberalism.Butthisoughtto have come as no realsurprise.Therewere=many signs along the way well beforethe election in May 1997. Most "socialistfeministswere as dismayedby TonyBlair's ourtingof the highlysexist tabloidpressand thereactionaryMurdochglobal empire n therunup to the election as they were by the approvalexpressed or traditionalfamilyvalues. The LabourParty n office has historically ound itself bol-stering hewelfarestate to curbtheexcessesof free marketcapitalism,butthe currentGovernment'sreferenceor the ThirdWaymarksa clearshiftaway from this, and this is somethingnew and distinct. The decline ofsocialism(in lightof the crumblingof Communistregimes) s takenas afait accompli, and as grounds for inventing a 'modernized'LabourGovernment asedon consensus 'aninternational onsensusof thecentreleft' Giddens,1998: 1) which meanscombiningelementsfromrightandleft. This too is new and distinctive.There is another crucialingredientwhich is what has been learnt from Mrs Thatcher.ThirdWay thinkingrecognizesthat the key to Mrs Thatcher's uccess lay in her ability topresenther 'authoritarian opulistcommon sense' as ' the only possibleframework or the resolutionof the crisis'(Smith,1998: 167). In the late1990s, New Labourhas looked to the ThirdWayto provide hisrationalefor creatinga mode of Governmentwhich is naturalandnecessary.

My argumentwill be that as a suitably 'post-Tory'slogan for a NewLabourGovernment,his newethosattempts o mask andglossoversomeof the divisionsand ambivalencesnsideNew Labour,givingthe illusionof consensus.The modern magecan beeasilymarketedas internationallyrelevant,andappealing o variousGovernments crosstheworldwho arenow also attempting o steer a middleway between the excesses of freemarketeconomicsandthe so-calledrigidityof state-ledsocialdemocracy.This has the advantageof castingBlair n the role of internationaleader,at least in terms of progressiveor 'radical' deology.The need for sucharole is again something learnt from Mrs Thatcher.The Third WayundoubtedlymimicsThatcherism ndborrows rompopularconservatismin its appealto the mantraof 'lawandorder', amilyvalues andconsumerculture.Butthe moreawkward ssues for the modernizers, rise fromthefactthatmanyof thecurrentGovernment'soncernsarealso forgedfroma left-wing agenda which the Tories would never have touched (e.g. 1 1



7/17

quently a deep anxiety and even schizophreniaabout being seen toembrace eft-wingprinciples, or fear of losingthe supportof the 'floatingvoter' andrunning he risk of beingexposedbythe tabloids(alwaysready3 to pounce)as beingold left in newclothing.Thus theThirdWay managesthese dangersand conceals the extent to which at least some socialistc feministdemandsarebeingconsideredand evenimplementedbystealth'.| The ThirdWayoffers a conflict-free ersionof New Labourpoliticsmade

attractive o the electorateand to 'ordinarywomen'.Giddens'ThirdWayTonyGiddenshas come to prominenceas New Labour's avouredtheo-retician.The ThirdWay arguesthat it is now necessary o move beyondrightand left. The book puts its case on the followinggrounds.First thefailureof socialism s describedn termsof the fallof the SovietUnion andthepreferencen WesternEurope or socialdemocracy ather hansocial-ism. Both the Reagan administrationand the Thatcher Governmenthowever heralded he rise of neo-liberalism,with its emphasison 'unfet-teredmarket orces(the)defenceof traditional nstitutionsparticularlyhefamilyand nation' (Giddens,1998: 12). As he puts it 'Thatcherism har-acteristically s indifferent to inequalitiesor actively endorses them'(ibid: 13). The contradiction his ethos produces hinges round the cel-ebration of individualismwhich cannot be comfortablyreconciledwithtraditionalfamily values. Hence the problemsof endorsinga full freemarketpositionwhich endsup promotingantisocialvalues.But old stylesocialdemocracy ould notunproblematicallye analternative,twasper-ceivedbyLabour n the mid-1980s as in needof updating.Socialclasswasno longera stable predictorof political allegiance.Voters now expressneeds other than those merelyconnectedwith wages andincomes.Wide-scale socialchangehas produced he needconsequently o rethink he olddivisionsof left andright.Peoplewant individual reedomsbut theyalsowant safetynets and social security n the broadsense. ThirdWaytheo-ristsconverge n agreementhowever on what Thatcherism et in motion,which is theunsustainabilityf thepost-warwelfarestatein providing hiscushionof security orall.Thisthen is a decisivecharacteristic f the ThirdWay.Increasinglypeople will be expected to provide their own socialsecurity hroughprivate nsurance chemes,with the safetynets thatcon-tinue to exist beingnarrowlymeanstested and targeted owards a smallminority. What Giddens sketches out in relatively reassuring andeuphemisticterms can quite easily be retranslatedback into the anti-welfarelanguageof the previousGovernment.The universalprincipleofI social insurance an be no more.102



8/17

.globalization, ndividualism,he questionof left and right,the placeand >role of politicsand the ecologicalcrisis. Rather hanseeingit as a threat, |or else as dominationby world financialmarkets,Giddensarguesfor a Xpositiveresponseto globalization n terms of the opportunitiesaffordedby new communicativetechnologies. He suggests the transformative 2capacity of globalizationhas also a democratizingpotential. He thencharts he growthof the new individualismtressing his not to be merely za reflectionof Thatcherite aluesbuttheactivedesireon thepartof people Ito exertmore control over theirfutures,andover who theyare.This once xagainmarksan opportunityarising rom the looseningof traditional ies.Thepoliticalrole of individualsmustnow be accentuatedntermsof rights $and responsibilitieswith particular mphasison the latter.The demise ofEast Europeansocialism suggests there is no longer an alternativetocapitalism.How then cancapitalismbecontrolledandregulatedby socialdemocraticGovernments?The centre-left s, arguesGiddens,more thanjustthemoderateeft,' "thecentre" houldn'tberegarded semptyof sub-stance'(Giddens,1998: 45). What then is the role of the centre?Answer,to transformhe welfaresociety But,for fearperhapsof beingseen as toomuch of the centreon this issue,Giddens implycalls for 'radicalrethink-ing'.ThirdWaypolitics are thus a managerialism f the centre-left.A warmwelcome is givento globalizationbut its freemarketeeringxcessesmustbe curbed. Socialjusticemust be a definingcharacteristic f ThirdWayGovernmentbut individualrightsmust also require ndividualresponsi-bility.Theremustbe an extension of democracyat everylevel of societyincluding he local, but insteadof markinga continuitywith old Labourgrass-rootsocaldemocracyhis alsoincorporates lementsof 'philosophicconservatism'.Giddens s vagueabout what thisentails,other thanthat itis 'apragmaticway of copingwithchange',anda 'respect or thepastandforhistory'.Butstill,this choice of words in theaccountof theThirdWaybecomes one of its key elements,for the simplereason that it is exactlywhat those on the left including eministswould most objectto. It marksa pointof mutualexclusion.What then are the otherfeaturesof Giddens'ThirdWay,which areof particular ignificanceo feminists? nhisversionof sexual politics without the 'f' word, the 'democratic amily',arguesGiddens, s based on sexualequalityand co-parenting.Fatherhoodmustnow involvea moreactiveroleand,independent f divorceorremarriage,parentsmustundertake ontractuallyo care fortheirchildrenandprotectthem from abuse. The 'inclusive society' is equally reasonable andunprovocative n its aims. Communitybuildingis, he claims, a betteroption than old fashionedpovertyprogrammesand althoughthe Third 103



9/17

be entitled o benefit,Giddensalso remindsus in an affableandmoderatef kind of way that 'a societytoo dominatedby the work ethic would be ao thoroughlyunattractiveplace in which to live' (Giddens,1998: 110).Overallthen the tone of the book aspiresto fairness,moderationandsoundgood sense.By putting n to the societywe canexpectto get things^ back, as a kind of fair exchange.This is what he means by 'positiveI welfare'.uJ

TheThirdWay or women?Therearevariouscriticismswhich could be raised n relation o thisbook,not least of which,is that whatis gained nseekingclarity s lostin address-ing complexity.Giddens also describes a version of politics peculiarlylacking n antagonism,as StuartHall has put it 'a politicswithout adver-saries' (Hall, 1998: 10). There is nothinghere that suggeststhe intensepower struggleswhich are an inescapablepartof political ife. It is a kindof people-friendly oliticswhich Giddensoffers,quiteout of touch withtheconflict ornworldin which we live and which as a sociologistof 'con-flicttheory' n his earlier ife he mustsurelybe aware of (Giddens,1971).It is not simplygood intentions hatinform he desire o get singlemothersoff benefit, for example. The underlyingdebate around welfare andresponsiblecitizenship s directedat either the disadvantagede.g. singlemothers)or thepoorand antisocial e.g. youngwomenwho getpregnant),and the aim is to dramatically educethe cost of benefitsand,more radi-cally,to shift the wholecultureawayfromthe expectationof welfare.Butthis focus on the sociallyexcludedtakesattentionaway fromothermorepowerfulelements n societywho mightalso be seen as sociallyirrespon-sible.Justhow easyis it to make nationalandinternational apitalismactwith justiceandresponsibility ndhow can the kindof greedy ndividual-ism advocatedacrossthe popularmediabe reconciledwith the pursuitofrealsocialjustice?2Giddens'visionof conflict-free oliticsis also markedby a complete nat-tention to the questionof race.He failsto evenregister he impactwhichracial discriminationand racial hatred have had on black and Asianpeople.This absencebecomesall the more noticeable n the light of theevents (including he nail bombattacksdirectedat black and gay peoplein London) following the publicationof the inquiryinto the death ofStephenLawrence.Somehowthe sufferingand the painexperiencedby awiderangeof socialgroups, ncludingwomen,prior o, butmostevidentlythrough,the Thatcheryearsis now expectedto be forgotten.The Third14 Way ignores the scale of the problemsposed by the socio-economic0



10/17

, .itself ought to remind us how much the Third Way is ideologicallyinflected;as Zizek has put it, the objective s to convince us that 'globalcapitalism s "theonly gamein town"' (Zizek,1999 p. 137). It is aimedto appeasethe anxietiesof the right inclined,businessclasses and themiddleEnglanders.tdemonstratesNew Labour's ealneedforcross-partypopularappealas a strategy or thesecondandthird erm.Hencemy argu-mentthat it smoothesover the realdifferencesn Government nd thescaleof the problemsbeingaddressed.The situation of women in contemporaryBritain s actuallyat the veryheartof the presentGovernment's ey concerns.Amongthe most impor-tant and fraught ssues for New Labourso far have been single parentsand theirentitlement o benefit,welfare to work (againwith particularemphasison lone parents), he provisionof childcareand the questionofteenage pregnancy.The questionis not so muchthe 'democratic amily',as the socialconsequences f thehugetransformationsnfamily ife includ-ingwomen'sdesire(andneed)foreconomic ndependence ndhence theirparticipationn the labourmarket.It is these sametopicshoweverwhichhavelong been theconcernof socialistfeminists n Britainandelsewhere.It is somewhatgallingtherefore o findsocial theorists ike Giddenssud-denlyjumpon this bandwagonand preachthe virtuesof sexualequalityand improved atherhood,as thoughit is somethingnew,or else to comeacrossUlrichBeck(whohasshotto globalfameas thetheoristof theThirdWay)who suggestsratherquaintlythat nowadayswomen who do notattend to theircareersbefore and duringmarriageandmotherhood faceruin on divorce'(Beck, 1999). Giddensborrowsquitedramaticallyromthe feministagendawhilemanaging o producea feminist-free ccountofmodernfamily life, while Beck acknowledges he changingposition ofwomenin societynot thanksto feministdemands or equalitybutas partof the process of individualization.As Zizek points out, neitherwriteracknowledgeshevalueortheimpactof Marxist heoryon thesociologicalaccountsof sexual andsocialchange.It is as thoughtheyareeachwritingin a vacuumwhich negates the very existenceof years of struggleandantagonism n politicsand in theory.As readersof FeministReview wellknow the feminizationof povertyhas been a key issue for over twentyyears.The questionof childcareand the organizationof domestic abourlikewise.Perhapswe should now be relieved hatafter all theselongyearswe are at last beinglistened to by Government hanksto the mediatingvoices of GiddensandBeck.Wecouldwelcome the factthatourconcernsarebeing akenseriouslybyGovernment espite he'beyondrightand left'rhetoricof the ThirdWay.Inevitably it is more complex than this. I would argue that the Third Way 105



11/17

ists and feminists.Thestyleof the ThirdWay s completelydifferent.Thisis as Geoff Mulganhas put, in his attemptto defendthe ThirdWayasdifferent romthe old left,a Government f good ideasand'practical olu-2 tions' (Mulgan,1998: 15). The new role of think-tanks ike DEMOSisalsoinpartto 'think he unthinkable'whichmeansbreakingwith thefaithof old Labour.Thus the ThirdWayin practiceappears o meanpursuingthe politics of triangulationwhich has been a hallmarkof the Clinton

administrationn the US.Rightand left are'appeased'on the basisof theimplementation f bothrightandleft policies.The role of the ThirdWayis therefore o givedistinctshapeand character o New Labour'spolicies,and to 'brand' hem as different rom old Labour.Thereare threekey questionswhich mostaffectsinglemothers.The ThirdWayskirts around themwhile New Labourtackles them head on. First,should loneparentsbe expectedto work?Feministshave been dividedonthis issue. Ruth Lister(seemingly he only avowedlysocialistfeminist is-tenedto by New Labour)has recentlydescribedhow for a long time sheargued hatwomencouldonlyachieve ndependencehroughaccess o andparticipationn the labour market(Lister,1999). It seemsreasonable oexpectwomenwith school age childrenand no other source of financialsupportto work. As Listerhas put it '. .. I have supported he case forrequiringone (andother)mothersof older children o be available or,atleast, part-time,paid work as a condition of receivingbenefit,providingcertainconditionsare met' (Lister,1999:243). Benefits or singlemothersacross OECD countries end to be tied to theirregistering or work, anda similarrequirementwould thereforebringBritain nto line. The issueremainshoweverat what age shouldchildrenbe before this requirementis implemented,s it primaryschool age or secondaryschool age?Listerhas also recently ndicatedherincreasing upport or feministswho arguethat careprovidedby women in the home is necessarywork and shouldnot be overlookedby the compulsion nto the labourmarket.Sherecog-nizesthepossiblecontradictionhere,andadmitsthat 'my positionis nowone of ambivalence' Lister,1999: 244). As it stands New Labour hasintroduceda systemwhere lone parentsare expectedto attend an inter-view to discuss heiravailabilityorwork.The novelfeaturewhichthenewGovernmentspinning tshopeon is the roleof thepersonaladvisorwhosejob it is to facilitatere-entry nto the labourmarket.The abilityto work, Listeragrees,dependson the provisionof affordablechildcare.This then is the secondkey featurewhichaffectswomen's ivesandwhich scurrently majorconcernof theGovernment, hohaspledgedto greatly mprove he provision.Indeedthe new systemof tax credits s10



12/17

es gne e p eas ngand thus overcoming the disincentive to work. It is obvious that the needfor childcare takes on very different dimensions for a lone parent as it doesin a household comprising two parents. For the former it is the scale of theneed and the cost which is almost incalculable.And when these needs cannotbe met and when the needs of children become overwhelming the tempta- ztion to leave the labour market and return to the home despite the loss ofearning becomes a reality. Let me illustrate this with a fictional scenario. 2Imaginetwo sisters who are for very differentreasons lone parents. One hasthree children under 16, the other has two, one of 12 and the other 4. Theyare both teachers and neither of them receives any help in childcare fromtheir former husbands. Although it might be imagined that the local edu-cation authority is a sympatheticemployer,in the current climate of primaryand secondary education the hours are long, evenings have to be spentmarking homework and preparing lessons, and often each sister has toattend training or management sessions held at the weekend. In additionthere are several times throughout the year when the children are at homewhile their mothers have to be at work for 'training days'.On modest teachers' salaries the most they can afford in terms of child-care is a few hours of after school care provided by another local motherwho does not work. Otherwise their systems require and rely on the helpof their elderly mother who now has failing health. Apart from the sheerscale of hard work, day in day out, comprising very early rises, late nightshopping, and cooking and cleaning after a whole day's work, the biggestproblems arise when one of the children is ill. Inevitably with five childrenbetween them this is a common occurrence. What they need is a DEMOStype 'good idea', one which is beyond the imagination of most policymakers, but which I can only describe as a kind of 'flying nanny' service.On a 'sick day' they desperately need to be able to call on somebody tocome and look after the child in their own homes. In other words in theabsence of an extended family or a network of friends through a local com-munity (and how many women are still at home during the day and ableto provide these services?) their childcare needs are enormous and even ifthey could afford them there are no such facilities available. This is surelyone area for immediate job creation, the extension of existing childcare toembrace the full needs of lone parents. In the above circumstances, it onlytakes one thing to go seriously wrong, for example, a frightened child leftuncollected after school because of some mishap and the mother is under-standably likely to feel like giving up work and being at home to cook teaon time for children coming back from school and not being too tired tohelp them with their homework. Part-time work is however not a solutionsince part-time wages alone are not enough to pay a mortgage, run a car I/l



13/17

.which confront two middle-classgraduateswho mighthave endedup asloneparents, hen it is not hardto imagine hescale of theproblems acingunqualified inglemothers.While the ThirdWaysteerswell clearof the3 realityof lone parenthood,New Labourhas only so fartackledthe tip ofr the iceberg.cc

The thirdand final question posed by the needs of women as they seekeconomic independence s the availabilityof work. Job creation mustunderpinall efforts to improve the economic position of women andespeciallysingle parents.Giddens'book on the ThirdWaydemonstratesthe commitment o experimentsand pilot schemes so favouredby NewLabour.Giddens ooks to Brazilfor examplesof local communitybasedjob creation.He has less to say however about the practicalmechanismsof makingjobs for the unemployedespecially n areasof Britainwherethere has been an absence of employmentopportunitiesacross wholepopulationsfor many years.FollowingBeckhe also points to voluntarywork, but that is of little use to women who need to earn a decent iving.In fact there areseveral ssues here.The first is that beforejobs there hasto behighquality rainingand education.Thatis theonlymeansbywhichwomen will beableto earnenoughmoneyto lift themselves nd theirchil-drenout of povertyin the long term.This is costly and it meanspublicsubsidy, n effect a massiveexpansionof furtherandhighereducation.ThustherearemanytensionsbetweentheThirdWayprinciple of gettingwomen off welfare)and the realityof pursuingsuch a policy at groundlevel. A greatdealmay hingeroundtrainingandeducation,butthe intro-ductionof tuition fees has seen a substantialdeclinein the numbersofmaturestudentsenrolledfor courses. So how can this shift into trainingand work happenwithout furthersubsidy?Forwomen with youngchil-dren,student oans areequatedwith debt. Whatis more,thenewlyintro-ducedchildcareaxcreditsonlyapplyto women inwork,not to those whoarestudyingoron training ourses.Onlymassivepublicsubsidywillmakewell-paidwork a realityfor lone mothers,and this will also take time,requiring ong-termnvestment n humancapital,which theprivatesectoris unlikely o contribute o. Inshorttheattempt o transform ocialwelfarealmostinevitablymeansreinventinghepublicsector andcreating obs inthis sameenvironment albeit n its privatizedand 'tenderedout' forms).The unanticipated utcomecould well be exactlywhatwe feministshavebeen arguingfor over the years, betteropportunities or poor and dis-advantagedwomen. Thismeans thatwhat is good for women, and goodfor a Government ommitted o the idea of 'womenworkers', s bad forthose in favour of cuts in welfare. The problemat presentis that the

)8 Governmentavoursboth of thesepolicies.0



14/17

PThere is no discussion n Giddens'ThirdWayof the gains (or losses)for "women asaresultof globalization.Hisoptimistic esponse o thisphenom- 'enon incorporatessome proposals for cross-nationalcooperation on mhumanrightsandon curbing he excesses of multinationalpower, n par-ticular the global financial markets.But surely there are urgentissues Ewhich any left-wingdiscussionof globalizationmighthave at the top of: zthe agenda.For example,New Labourpromisesto prepare our'young -peoplefor theglobalcommunications evolution hrough heprovisionof -computers n schools. But despitethe revolutionof instantglobal com-munications, hey have little to say about tryingto eradicate he use ofcheap labour by women and childrenby the multinationalcommuni-cationscompanies n FreeTradeZone countries.The 'global sweat-shop'is not a ThirdWay ssue.Consequentlyherhetoricof international umanrightswhich is a partof ThirdWaypoliticsfails to connectwith whathavebeenformanyyearsmajorconcerns orsocialist eminists.Thereare a hostof campaigns,againsthome-working,againstthe use of child labour andcheap female labour,which have been documentedextensively by UKfeministsandothersandthesemighthavebeen drawnon in the new poli-tics of globalization,butno (MitterandRowbotham,1994; Ross, 1997).Nor does the ratherdizzyingimage of global movementand culturalexchange allywith therealityof ordinarywomen,who asDoreenMasseyhas argued n practicerarely eave their own neighbourhoods, evermindparticipate n the new world of accelerated ommunicationsand globalnetworking Massey,1994). At presentmost women remaintoo poor todo this. Theywould need the right qualifications,heywould haveto beof theright age (relatively oung)andif theyhadchildren, heirchildcareneeds would extend to allow for regular ravelperiodsaway fromhome.Whatmostworkingmothersneed is not so much theglobaleconomy(orindeedglobalbusiness ravel)as localwell-paidwork withineasyreachofhomeandschool. If this cuts them off fromthenetworkingopportunitiesof theglobalfirm,thenthis is a further ignof the difficultieswomenstillface in competingwith men at workwho remainrelativelyunconstrainedby the needto be nearto home.Toconclude, t wouldbe unfairandunbalanced o implythat New Labourwas indifferentto many of these issues, in particularthe question ofwomen'spoverty.Therehas beena clearcommitment o tacklingpovertyso thatchildrengrowingupnow will not bedisadvantagednthewaytheirparentshave been. In someways the emphasison childrenmightbe con-struedas a commitmentalso to mothers. The subtledistinctionsof theGovernment's olitics are such that tacklingthe povertyof women andchildrenwhich are regardedas too 'old Labour'so they mightbe doing 09



15/17

'eradicating hildpoverty n twenty years'.Meanwhileat the publicrela-tions end of public policy the ThirdWayhas little to say on any of theseissues. This is becauseat heartthe ThirdWayis aboutthe rhetoricof dif-ferentiationromtheold left. Its own triangulationmoveseffortlesslyrom> the aim to appeasethe middle Englanders see Tony Blair'sarticle onteenagemothers n theDailyMail,Blair,1999: 17) to Giddens'affableand'harmonist' ision of a 'niceworld',to thestartlinglyconoclasticblendof

rightand left ideasissuingfrom the think-tankDEMOSand others ike it.Havingsaid this, it is also true that at least some of these initiativeshavethe advantageof succeedingwhere in manyways theold left failed.Whileit may not be the job of critical ntellectuals o come up with 'practicalsolutions' thereis after nearly twenty years of ToryGovernment,morethanever,anurgencyabout at leastcomingupwith some newpolicystrat-egies.Forthis reasonI findmyselfdrawnto the vigourand inventivenessof at least someof the DEMOSpamphlets, or exampleCharlesLeadbet-ter's proposal, which fully acknowledgesthe needs of disadvantagedwomen, for the reinventionof the 'mutualsocieties'(Leadbetter, 998). Iwelcomethe wholerangeof pilotschemeswhich at presentaretestingoutnew policies up and down the country.Nor am I convincedthat old leftandfeministwisdoms werenot in needof somereview, houghto be fairthis was thestartingpointfor MarxismTodayand the New Timesprojectspearheadedby StuartHall from the mid-1980s. So I am not suggestingthat the entireranksof theleftand feministshavesimplyreliedon old cer-taintiesto launchtheirattackson New Labour.Whereboth New Labourand its spinning idekick, he ThirdWayfail, is in refusing o recognize heneedfor publicservices,a publicsector,and a widerpublic spherewhichis less dominated by multinationalmedia companies. They cannotwelcome and embrace he socialgood, whichmight prevailas a resultofbolstering heseprovisionsfor fear of losing the supportof the businessclasses.But, as I have arguedhere, the meansby which women can be broughtdirectly nto the economy requires he socializationof goods and serviceswhich would facilitate this entry.The chances of capitalism becoming'morecaringand more sharing'are frankly tiny. Changes n the labourmarket ncluding he exponentialgrowthof individualization longwiththe privatization ultureof thepreviousGovernmentmeanthat more andmorepeopleare left to their own devices.Evenif, wearingmy most opti-mistic hat, the attemptsto 'transformwelfare'do, on the longer term,succeed in helpingto bringwomen into employmentso that they gainfinancial ndependence,he criticalperiodis the space betweenthen ando now. It finds millions of women facing greatpovertyin old age through1



16/17

getting back into college and university (through lack of grants) and it alsofinds thousands of young, well qualified women forced to put off mother- 0hood indefinitely for fear of losing their place in the competitive career Imhierarchy.And if young women feel they cannot be mothers, unless they 1are exceptionally well off or supported by a wealthy husband (the Spice 3Girls-as-mothers scenario) then we will see a new form of gender inequal-ity emerge, involving the unpleasant choice between a job or a life. |-4

m-4Notes

AngelaMcRobbie s Professor f Communications t GoldsmithsCollegeLondonand author of British Fashion Design; Rag Trade or Image Industry? Routledge1998 and In the Culture Society; Art, Fashion, Popular Music, Routledge 1999.1 Forexamplethe recentlypublished eministcollectiontitled New Agendas orWomeneditedby SylviaWalby(Macmillan,1999) was suggested o the editorandpublisherby ClareShortMP,who also wrote the introduction.2 InApril1999 two businessmenwhohademployedunderage boysto stripasbes-tos were sentencedonly to communityservice,despitemedical evidencethatexposure o this substancewill inevitably esult n fatality.

ReferencesBECK,U. (1999) 'Die zukunftoder the politicaleconomyof uncertainty'ecturedeliveredat the LSE,London.BLAIR,T. (1997) TheThirdWay,FabianSocietyPamphlet,London.(1999) 'Whywe should stop giving lone teenagemothers council homes'Daily Mail, 14 June, p. 17.COOTE,A. (1999) 'The ThirdWayand the "f"word'Guardian,15 May, p. 17.GIDDENS, A. (1971) Capitalism and Modern Social Theory, Cambridge: Cam-bridgeUniversityPress.(1998) The ThirdWay,Cambridge: olityPress.HALL, S. (1989) The Hard Road to Renewal, London: Verso.(1998) 'The great moving nowhere show' Marxism Today, Novem-ber/December.LEADBETTER, . (1998) The MutualSociety,London:DEMOS.LISTER,R. (1999) 'Reformingwelfarearound he work ethic'PolicyandPolitics,Vol.27, No.2, pp. 233-46.MASSEY,D. (1994)Space,Place and Gender,Cambridge: olityPress.MITTER,S. and ROWBOTHAM,S. (1994) editors,Dignityand Daily Bread:New Forms of Economic Organising among Poor Women in the Third World andin the First, London: Routledge. 111



17/17

, . ,ber.PERKINS,A. (1999) 'TakeTwo' Guardian,1 June,pp. 6-7.v, ROSS, A. (1997) editor, No Sweat: Fashion, Free Trade and the Rights of GarmentWorkers,New York: Verso.SMITH, A.M. (1998) Laclau and Mouffe: The Social Democratic Imaginary,London:Routledge.WALBY,S. (1999) editor,New Agendas or Women,Basingstoke:Macmillan.

| ZIZEK,S. (1999) The Ticklish Subject, London: Verso

112

Documents

Feminism and the Third Way