On November 7th 2024 Professor Anna Krylova delivered a zoom lecture for the Gender Studies Lab titled “Western Feminism and Its Analytics in Neoliberal Times.” Prof. Krylova is a professor of History and Gender, Feminist and Sexuality Studies at Duke University. She is a specialist on the history of gender and feminism, with a particular emphasis on the Soviet Union. She is author of the award winning book, Soviet Women in Combat: A History of Violence on the Eastern Front. Around 25 faculty and students were present, both in person and online.
Prof. Krylova’s lecture was based upon the current book she is writing, tentatively titled History-Writing or Sleepwalking Through History in Neoliberal Times. The lecture assessed the ways that “post-structural” forms of thinking, despite having many generative elements, were disarming both for feminist activism and feminist history writing in the west. As Krylova explained it, post-structuralism, broadly speaking, was politically disabling for feminism because it privileged discourse over structure, micro-level analysis over analysis of larger formations of economic power. As a result, post-structuralism focused more on localized and “everyday” forms of individual resistance and neglected, or even condescended towards, organized forms of resistance to power. This neglect, she argued, ultimately aligned post-structuralism, perhaps unwittingly, with western economic neo-liberalism and Cold War political imperatives. Krylova made her case by focusing particularly on James Scott’s highly influential work Weapons of the Weak as a case study. Scott is widely known for showing the ways peasants in Southeast Asia engaged in everyday forms of spontaneous, often individual resistance in order to survive and determine their own lives. Krylova provocatively suggested that Scott’s work overrates the effectiveness of everyday resistance while ignoring that “organized forms of power” requires “organized forms of resistance.” For Scott, “organized forms of resistance” are themselves repressive and thus his own framework of thought is a dissuasion from systematically organizing against structural injustices such as patriarchy.
The lectured lasted for roughly 35 minutes and was concluded with 40 minutes of discussion between Krylova and her audience. Questions by faculty and students were various. One faculty questioner asked about the recent elections and whether the Democrats had made a mistake by emphasizing identity politics over class-based issues. Another faculty questioner noted that not all aspects of Scott’s work were disarming, but truly generative, while yet student questioner noted (correctly) that Scott had worked for the CIA, and was a thinker devoted to “counterinsurgency” and not to emancipation. A number of other questions were also asked as part of the discussion.
