Aspiring to a politics of alliance: Response to Sylvia Walby's 'Beyond the politics of location: The power of argument in a global era'

Ann Phoenix’s 2000 article in Feminist Theory responds to Sylvia Walby’s claim that feminism should move beyond “politics of location” toward universal arguments. As a key contributor to intersectionality theory, Phoenix offers a nuanced yet powerful intervention in the universalism-particularism debate from a perspective that weaves together race, gender, and class, advocating for alliance politics built on acknowledging difference.

Core Claims of Walby’s Argument

First, let’s understand the Walby position that Phoenix responds to:

Call to Move Beyond Politics of Location

Walby argues in her original article:

• “Politics of location” overemphasizes difference and locality
• This emphasis hinders feminism from making universal claims
• The global era requires arguments that transcend local boundaries
• Feminism should have the courage to make universal theoretical and political claims

Walby worries that excessive focus on difference leads to feminist fragmentation, preventing effective political coalitions.

”The Power of Argument”

Walby claims:

• Good arguments can transcend specific positions
• Rational arguments have universal persuasive power
• Should value argument quality rather than arguer identity
• Feminism needs strong universal theoretical frameworks

This reflects a certain defense of and trust in Enlightenment rationalist traditions.

Phoenix’s Intersectional Perspective

Phoenix, drawing from her long-term intersectionality research, critiques Walby’s position:

Positionality Is Not an Obstacle

Phoenix argues that acknowledging positionality is not:

• Relativism or “anything goes”
• Abandoning capacity for universal claims
• Hindering feminist solidarity
• Leading to political paralysis

Rather, positional awareness is:

• A requirement for knowledge honesty
• A tool for revealing power relations
• A prerequisite for building genuine alliances
• A way to avoid new exclusivities

Denying positionality often means disguising a specific position (usually privileged) as universality.

Positive Significance of Difference

Phoenix values difference not merely for political correctness but because:

• Difference reveals how power operates
• Different positions provide different epistemological resources
• Marginal perspectives can see blind spots of mainstream perspectives
• Acknowledging difference is a requirement of social justice

The key is not eliminating difference but understanding how differences are hierarchized and power-laden.

Intersectional Methodology

The intersectional methodology Phoenix advocates means:

• Gender, race, class, sexuality operate simultaneously
• Cannot treat these categories separately or additively
• Power relations dynamically configured in different contexts
• Everyone is positioned at intersections of multiple locations

This complexity analysis doesn’t abandon universality but pursues more precise, more inclusive universality.

Critique of Abstract Universalism

Phoenix critiques problems with Walby-style universalism:

Whose Universality?

Historically, “universal” claims often:

• Universalize experiences of specific groups (white, middle-class, Western, heterosexual)
• Ignore or marginalize other groups’ experiences
• Mask privilege in the name of “humanity” or “women”
• Replicate rather than challenge power hierarchies

For example, many “universal” claims of second-wave feminism actually reflected white middle-class women’s situations, ignoring racial and class differences.

Situatedness of Arguments

Phoenix questions the notion that “argumentative power” is independent of position:

• What counts as “good argument” is itself a product of culture and power
• Different epistemological traditions have different argumentative standards
• Arguments’ accessibility and acceptance are affected by power relations
• “Rational” standards often exclude certain knowledge forms (narrative, emotional, embodied knowledge)

So-called “pure” rational arguments often mask their situatedness and power-ladenness.

Colonial Legacy of Universalism

Phoenix reminds us:

• Colonialism was justified through “civilization’s” universal claims
• Western Enlightenment rationality was used to deny non-Western knowledge systems
• “Development” discourse universalized Western models
• Universal human rights discourse can mask cultural imperialism

Feminist universalism needs critical distance from this colonial legacy.

Alternative Vision of Alliance Politics

Phoenix proposes “alliance politics” as a way beyond the universalism-particularism binary:

Alliance vs. Solidarity

Traditional solidarity model:

• Based on common identity (“we’re all women”)
• Assumes common interests and experiences
• Requires consistency and united front
• Often suppresses internal differences

Alliance politics:

• Based on common goals rather than common identity
• Acknowledges different interests and priorities
• Negotiates differences through dialogue
• Maintains plurality and heterogeneity

Alliances are constructed, temporary, and strategic rather than essential and permanent.

Principles for Building Alliances

Phoenix proposes key principles for alliance politics:

Mutual Recognition:

• Acknowledging each other’s differences and specific needs
• Respecting different experiences and knowledge
• Avoiding hierarchizing differences
• Acknowledging power asymmetries

Accountability:

• Those in privileged positions need to reflect on their power
• Willingness to be held accountable by marginalized groups
• Acknowledging historical injustices and ongoing harms
• Shared responsibility for anti-oppression work

Dialogic Practice:

• Commitment to cross-difference communication
• Willingness to listen and learn
• Dealing with conflict and discomfort
• Ongoing reflection and adjustment

Common Action:

• Strategic cooperation on specific issues
• Respecting each other’s autonomy
• Mutual support rather than speaking for
• Flexible, contextualized collaboration

Practical Examples of Alliance

Phoenix might point to alliance practices such as:

• Black feminist critique of and alliance with white feminism
• Transnational feminist networks cooperating on issues like opposing war, trade agreements
• Feminist alliances with other social movements (anti-racism, LGBTQ+ rights, labor)
• Academic-activism alliances

Epistemological Value of Politics of Location

Phoenix argues politics of location is not only politically necessary but epistemologically valuable:

Situated Knowledge

Echoing Haraway, Phoenix emphasizes:

• All knowledge is produced from some position
• Acknowledging positionality enhances rather than weakens objectivity
• “God’s eye view” objectivity is false
• Partiality is a condition of all knowledge

Positional awareness is epistemological responsibility.

Insights from Standpoint Theory

Core insights of feminist standpoint theory:

• Marginal positions can produce unique epistemological advantages
• The oppressed often understand more clearly how oppression operates
• Those in central positions may not see their own privilege
• But this requires critical consciousness, isn’t automatic

Phoenix adds: need intersectional standpoint theory, not a single “women’s standpoint.”

Necessity of Epistemological Pluralism

Phoenix advocates:

• Acknowledging diverse knowledge traditions and epistemologies
• Different cultures have different knowledge production modes
• Western academia isn’t the only legitimate knowledge form
• Narrative, poetry, art, activism are also theory production

This isn’t relativism but epistemological democratization.

Different Understanding of “Global Era”

Phoenix and Walby may have important differences in understanding “globalization”:

Walby’s Globalization Perspective

• Globalization creates common issues transcending locality
• Needs global-level feminist responses
• Global governance needs universal principles
• Localism cannot address global challenges

Phoenix’s Critique

Phoenix might point out:

• Globalization is uneven and power-laden
• “Global” often means Western universalization
• Global governance institutions often serve Northern interests
• Needs “bottom-up” transnationalism, not “top-down” universalism

Transnational Feminism vs. Global Universalism

Phoenix might advocate:

• Transnational feminist networks rather than unified global agendas
• Polycentric rather than Euro-American-centric global dialogues
• Global connections respecting local autonomy
• Opposing “Global North saving Global South” narratives

The key is building connections across differences “from below” rather than imposing universal standards “from above.”

Implications for Feminist Practice

Phoenix’s alliance politics vision has important implications for feminist practice:

Academic Practice

In feminist scholarship:

• Citation and dialogue should have geographic and racial diversity
• Acknowledge one’s research limitations and position
• Avoid universalizing specific experiences
• Support knowledge production by marginalized scholars

Movement Organizing

In feminist movements:

• Build cross-difference alliances rather than assuming unity
• Center marginalized voices
• Address power inequalities within movements
• Allow different strategies and priorities to coexist

Teaching Practice

In feminist pedagogy:

• Teach intersectionality and positionality as core concepts
• Include diverse feminist traditions and voices
• Encourage students to reflect on their positions
• Create safe spaces for cross-difference dialogue

Connections to Contemporary Debates

The Phoenix-Walby debate relates to many contemporary issues:

Identity Politics Controversies

Recent critiques of “identity politics” (including some left critiques):

• Accuse identity politics of causing fragmentation
• Call for return to class solidarity or universalism
• Criticize “cancel culture” and “safe spaces”

Phoenix’s position provides responses:

• Identity isn’t chosen but produced by power relations
• Acknowledging difference doesn’t equal abandoning common action
• Problem isn’t “identity politics” but how to build alliances
• Need intersectionality, not abandoning identity analysis

Transnational Feminist Practice

Contemporary transnational feminism faces challenges:

• How to avoid replicating colonial power relations
• How to build solidarity while acknowledging difference
• How to balance universal human rights with cultural relativism
• How to address North-South feminist inequalities

Phoenix’s alliance politics framework provides guiding principles.

Mainstreaming and Depoliticization of Intersectionality

Intersectionality concept widely adopted but also criticized:

• Becoming buzzword while losing critical edge
• Being institutionalized and bureaucratized
• Simplified to “diversity checklist”
• Detached from political commitment to opposing oppression

Phoenix reminds us of intersectionality’s fundamental political purpose.

Possible Critiques and Responses

Phoenix’s position may also face criticisms:

Practical Difficulties

Critique: Alliance politics is very difficult in practice:

• Ongoing dialogue and negotiation require enormous time and resources
• Power asymmetries hard to truly overcome
• May get stuck in endless identity debates
• Difficult to form unified political action

Response: Difficulty doesn’t mean impossible or unworthy. There’s no easy shortcut to justice.

Action Effectiveness

Critique: Compared to unified fronts, alliance politics may:

• Weaken political impact
• Struggle against powerful oppression systems
• Focus too much on internal differences, ignoring external enemies
• Be too slow in emergencies

Response: Surface unity built on exclusion and suppression will eventually fracture. Genuinely lasting power comes from inclusive alliances.

Theory vs. Practice

Critique: Alliance politics is beautiful theory, but:

• Real movements still need leadership and decision-making
• Can’t satisfy everyone
• Sometimes need strategic essentialism
• Idealism may hinder actual action

Response: Alliance politics isn’t utopia but ongoing, imperfect practice.

Conclusion: Beyond Binary Oppositions

Ann Phoenix’s response to Sylvia Walby provides important contributions to feminist theory and practice. Her alliance politics vision attempts to transcend false binaries of universalism-particularism, solidarity-difference.

Phoenix’s core insight is: acknowledging positionality and difference is not feminism’s weakness or obstacle but the foundation for building more democratic, inclusive, effective politics. True universality is not abstract and decontextualized but constructed through cross-difference dialogue and alliance practice.

In the globalized, digitalized, increasingly plural 21st century, Phoenix’s alliance politics vision is more relevant than in 2000. Contemporary challenges—climate crisis, global inequality, rising authoritarianism, migration crises—all require alliances across differences. But these alliances must be built on foundations of mutual respect, accountability, and acknowledging power asymmetries, not abstract universalism ignoring differences.

Phoenix reminds us that “aspiring to a politics of alliance” is an ongoing process, not a once-and-for-all achievement. It requires us to continuously reflect on our positions and privileges, listen to different voices, deal with discomfort and conflict, and collectively construct a more just world. Such alliance isn’t easy, but it is necessary and possible.

This article was written by AI assistant based on Ann Phoenix’s 2000 essay in Feminist Theory, incorporating her long-term research on intersectionality and race-gender politics to explore debates about universalism and politics of location in feminist theory and the possibilities of alliance politics.