Which feminism(s)? For whom? Intersectionality in Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy
| Published date | 01 September 2020 |
| Date | 01 September 2020 |
| Author | Liam Swiss,Sam E. Morton,Judyannet Muchiri |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020702020953420 |
| Subject Matter | Scholarly Essay |
Scholarly Essay
Which feminism(s)? For
whom? Intersectionality
in Canada’s Feminist
International
Assistance Policy
Sam E. Morton
Memorial University
Judyannet Muchiri
Memorial University
Liam Swiss
Memorial University
Abstract
The Government of Canada introduced its new Feminist International Assistance Policy
(FIAP) to guide its foreign aid programming in June 2017. This feminist turn mirrors
earlier adoptions of feminist aid and foreign policy by Sweden and echoes the current
Canadian government’s feminist rhetoric. This paper examines the FIAP and its Action
Areas Policies to ask what kind(s) of feminism are reflected in the policy and what
groups of people it prioritizes. The paper examines the values, goals, and gaps of the
policy in order to understand what feminist values and goals are being operationalized
and pursued and what gaps and contradictions exist. By examining the FIAP’s Action
Area Policies using a discourse network analysis of the groups represented in the
policies, we demonstrate the failings of the FIAP to incorporate an intersectional
approach. Our results show that the FIAP adopts a mainstream liberal feminism that
excludes many peoples and groups from the core of Canada’s aid efforts.
Corresponding author:
Liam Swiss, Memorial University, Department of Sociology, Arts & Administration Building, A4053, 230
Elizabeth Avenue, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, A1C5S7, Canada.
Email: lswiss@mun.ca
International Journal
2020, Vol. 75(3) 329–348
!The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0020702020953420
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijx
Keywords
Foreign aid, feminism, feminist foreign policy, Canada
In June 2017, the Government of Canada released its Feminist International
Assistance Policy (FIAP) to much applause. Several years and a federal elec-
tion later, important questions and concerns remain rega rding the feminist
credentials of the policy, the lack of additional funding, its implementation,
and overall responsibility for achieving the policy’s aims. In particular, the
FIAP set the ambitious goal that 95% of Canadian development assistance
will integrate gender by 2022. In this article we critically analyse the FIAP
and its six Action Area Policies to explore (1) what kind(s) of feminism are
reified in the policy and (2) which peoples and groups appear to matter most in
the policy.
We begin by briefly sketching some of the background of Canada’s foreign
policy, and the context of how women and gender have been addressed in devel-
opment. Next, we turn our attention to examining the values, goals, and gaps of
the policy in order to understand what feminist values and goals are being oper-
ationalized and pursued, and what gaps and contradictions exist. Then we use
critical analysis, drawing on some of the tenets of discourse analysis, and under-
take a discourse network mapping of the six Action Area Policies. Finally, we
suggest factors the FIAP will need to address in order to evolve its approach to
feminism and intersectionality as a means and ends of achieving international
development assistance that is feminist.
Background and context
The FIAP and Canada’s foreign policy
In June 2017, Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy was released.
As the first dedicated aid policy statement in more than a decade, this policy set
an ambitious agenda to make gender equality and feminism the centre of Canada’s
development assistance programming going forward. Echoing countries like
Sweden, and more recently Mexico, the FIAP ostensibly takes steps toward
Canada embracinga feminist foreign policy supportive of global pro-gender equality
norms.
1
Yet, despite the centrality of gender equality as a Canadian value in foreign
1. Karin Aggestam and Jacqui True, “Gendering foreign policy: A comparative framework for ana-
lysis,” Foreign Policy Analysis 16, no. 2 (2020): 143–162.
330 International Journal 75(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial