Skip to content
By Alisandra Abadia and Justine Sircar

AWID was the first big feminist conference we’d been to. New to such circles, we were delighted at the idea of being around many like-minded individuals – women and activists in all their diversity – who were interested in advancing the rights of their people and their communities. Four thousand participants strong, AWID had spaces for people from all political flavors and contexts: from discussions on women’s participation in Rojava, to forums on resourcing feminist movements, to discussions on disability justice, and even workshops on artivism.

AWID was also one of the few spaces we’d been to where organizers considered the inclusivity of the conference, where the pursuit of an environment of care for its spaces was a highlight. Not only did they make a great effort to exercise language justice, but they also ensured that neurodivergent people, as well as people with disabilities, had access. We were pleasantly surprised that they set up a low sensory zone, because we could easily feel overwhelmed by the enthusiastic energy the entire venue reverberated with.

Building Collective Power Within

We tried to provide some of that same compassion and care in our facilitation of JASS’ Live Schools. We considered the Schools spaces to engage in meaningful conversations and creative practices that explored the challenges we face, the dreams that inspire us, and the strategies needed to drive change. Along with embodied storytelling and centering approaches with our sisters from Root.Rise.Pollinate!, we utilized feminist popular education (FPE) tools from JASS’ newly launched activist toolkit “Just Power – A Guide for Activists and Changemakers.” Each of the sessions focused on a different part of the Power Guide, and, while they were designed as stand-alone workshops each day, the themes centered on women through visual artworks, stories, rituals, and bodily practices. 

The first session allowed participants to connect with their contexts. As they drew in their movement ancestors—those who inspired them or those who led them to activism or movement work—participants were also asked to share the ways in which they were defending their bodies, lands, and histories in their contexts. 

The next day, participants talked about their dreams and hopes for the communities they belonged to—a space for imagining and feeling through their sense of what is possible. They were then invited to use colors and textures in groups to share their visions for a just future.

Day three was focused on meaningful conversations on transformative power—both how we strengthen our movements, and how the movements we belong to strengthen us.

On the last day, we talked about what our futures would look like in 25 years. Together, we also answered the question: “What would it take for us to get there?” These were ideas or action points that participants were currently taking on as individuals and organizations, or that they were planning to take on. It was also a conversation on movement strategies. We introduced the seven core strategies from the Power Guide and invited participants to think about which set of strategies their ideas or action points belonged to, or if there were strategies that were not included but were worth exploring. 

The Live Schools were a wonderful opportunity to connect with individuals who were deeply interested in FPE beyond the regions we work in. Coming from diverse backgrounds, identities, and experiences, it was a welcome and exciting challenge to connect and explore ways we can meaningfully collaborate. 

As people deeply interested in popular education and facilitation work, the space was an affirmation of the vital role of FPE in feminist movement building. It also inspired us to think through different methodologies with our team for the FPE processes in the coming year. 

Investing in Collective Infrastructure Throughout 

However, it was also refreshing to see there were panels that discussed the conundrums involved in building and sustaining feminist movements. We thought about the privileges involved in being able to access these spaces. Our Executive Director, Shereen Essof, was able to share insights during the panel “Pan-African and Feminist Philanthropies: Building Alternative Narratives and Practices.” During this panel, Shereen brought up an important point on how we must look beyond the current framework of how organizations are funded and resourced:

Resourcing individual organizations is important, but it is not movement work in and of itself. Building long-term power requires investing in the collective infrastructure that sustains movements beyond project cycles and funding streams.

There is something insidiously colonial about our current framework for resourcing movements. Beginning during the Cold War, Western foreign aid’s supposed purpose was to help “economically backward” states, but it was also used as a tool for soft power, when independence movements were resisting Western imperialism. 

During the conference, some participants posted statements on the plenary floor referencing the power dynamics within the development sector. They referred to the inequalities experienced by organizations within the ‘NGO Industrial Complex.’ What came to mind was an article written by Arundhati Roy on the ‘NGOization of Resistance.’ In her article, she points out the rise of NGOs and its correlation with the rise of neoliberalism in countries around the world. With less social services being provided by the state, as required by many structural adjustment programs, NGOs came in to fill the void in service of neoliberal policies –– whose funds were drastically smaller than the state budgets that had been cut. 

With the recent shift towards more conservative and protectionist policies by European and American funders, we’re witnessing organizations bend over backwards to de-fang and depoliticize their political projects for fear of a backlash from funders. It is important to note that many of these funders’ economic projects and foreign policies are the root cause of poverty, displacement, and environmental destruction in the communities where these grassroots organizations do their work. These NGOs become buffers, arbitrators, and temporary fixes to much deeper injustices, reinforcing colonial power dynamics and racial stereotypes, as well as defusing political resistance.

There is a tendency among organizations to fall into a cycle of submitting proposals that fit within donor parameters that do not address the basic problems of the communities they serve—sometimes even exacerbating problems and repeating colonial patterns and attitudes. While, yes, oftentimes money is necessary in order to move projects forward, it is not the end all be all of why we enter into social justice and development work. 

How, then, do we look at how resourcing and funding affects NGOs and movements? And perhaps a more important question would be: is it even possible to build a new framework for funding and resourcing movements that is not hinged on imperialist and capitalist interests? While we understand resourcing to be vital to strengthening movements, and that for many, it is a way for redressing colonial reparations, how do we move forward towards a way that centers justice, equality, and decolonization? Is it even possible? 

We left the conference with more questions than answers. But we’re glad there continues to be spaces, people, and organizations that are willing to face the uncomfortable realities that challenge our collective position in the political project of liberation and social justice.

Related Posts

Back To Top