Resilience In Contradiction: Navigating Internal Politics in the Radical Feminist Movement
Judith Lark explores navigating identity politics & infighting with lessons from dialectical materialism—turning struggle into strength while keeping material goals front and center.
By Judith Lark
The radical feminist movement has long prioritized concrete, material actions to support women. However, a recurring challenge within feminist spaces is the tension that arises around identity politics—particularly the inclusion or exclusion of transgender people, among other debates. When we become bogged down in unproductive argumentation, we spend less time on real issues: women’s access to shelter, healthcare, economic security, etc. We have less energy for educating ourselves and others. These issues need to be addressed, not repressed, but two extremes must be avoided in our approach. Indulgence in identity politics and virtue signaling leads to a loss of effectiveness, efficiency, and clarity of language. However, in avoiding this first trap, we can fall into a second trap by overreacting and ironically adopting the same “cancel culture” tactics with different dogma. The result is the same loss of effectiveness and efficiency in our activist groups because we expend too much energy on infighting.
A deficiency of theory in the modern radical feminist movement is no doubt partially to blame. However, as the hegemonic culture of the west becomes increasingly individualistic, a deficiency of communication among women may play an even larger part. I recently came across the transcript of a speech by Carol Hanisch (a pioneer of the Women’s Liberation Movement) called “Impact of the Chinese Cultural Revolution on the Women’s Liberation Movement”, which can be found on her website. It struck me that the modern radical feminist movement that exists online today has so much to learn from the radical feminists of the past, who were dealing with surprisingly similar issues. The WLM of the past took inspiration from the works of Mao Zedong to great effect, and I wish to reintroduce some relevant elements to current discussion among our communities. Mao’s formula of the relation between theory and practice is sorely needed at a time when we lack both.
There are several tools we can add to our toolbox—tools that can help us cultivate a theoretical framework that prioritizes concrete, material issues and communication among the exploited classes. I will first discuss dialectical materialism and an important distinction between theoretical foundations, then present some main ideas from Mao’s works that are valuable in our context. For further detail, his essays “On Practice” and “On Contradiction” are widely considered the clearest explanations of dialectics (particularly “On Contradiction”) and are short and easy to read. The essay “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People” is extremely useful for understanding how to navigate internal conflicts.
Dialectical materialism is a framework for viewing reality as a dynamic process driven by the contradictions inherent in material conditions. Change results from the internal struggles of a system, not from external forces alone. External forces are not excluded from analysis, but only become operative on the basis of the internal state. In this view, conflicts are not inherently negative, but necessary for development. We should learn to recognize what is and what is not dialectical materialist analysis. Using the language of Mao, a distinction can be made between two world outlooks: dialectics and metaphysics.
The metaphysical worldview assumes stability and permanence, seeing change only as an accumulation of external factors. Cause and effect are linear and mechanical. Everything in the world is static and isolated. This worldview is incapable of understanding dynamic processes and leads to dogmatism. Mao identifies two main formulations of the metaphysical worldview: idealists who view social hierarchies and moral codes as fixed and eternal, and mechanical materialists (of the 17th and 18th centuries) who thought matter operated according to fixed, predictable laws, regardless of context.
A modern analogue to the latter might be reductive materialists, or physicalists, specifically those who believe that all processes can be explained by breaking a system down to its most basic components. For example, an attempt to explain the processes of the brain by exclusively focusing on the level of single neurons would fail without accounting for the macrodynamics of the electrical activity in the brain. Likewise, the oppression of women cannot be understood simply as isolated incidents of violence; violence against women is a symptom of a larger dynamic social system. Such is the distinction between liberal feminism and radical feminism.
In contrast, the dialectical worldview understands reality as a dynamic process driven by contradictions and material conditions. Equilibrium is only temporary. It emphasizes that change occurs through internal struggles within systems, not external intervention alone. Borrowing from Hegel, empiricism (sense experience) and rationalism (internal cognition) should not be thought of as a black-and-white dichotomy, but rather as two parts of the dynamic process that is perception. We learn through a cycle between sense experience and internal cognition via feedback loops (see Active Inference).
You may be wondering what this has to do with feminism. We should emulate this same structure when it comes to practice and theory. Rather than advocate for practice over theory or theory over practice, my aim is to specifically advocate for theory to be informed by practice and vice versa. The two areas should be synchronized—not necessarily on the individual level, but those who work in practice need to implement and test theory, then communicate their findings to those who work in theory. Likewise, those who work in theory need to implement feedback from those who work in practice. Mao developed a methodology for this called “mass line.” For the feminist interpretation of this developed by the WLM, look into “consciousness raising.”
A metaphysical approach tends to oversimplify social struggles, reducing them to moral battles of right versus wrong—a tendency that fuels ideological purity contests in activist spaces. Understanding contradictions through a dialectical lens helps to avoid this trap. Mao’s framework distinguishes between two types of contradictions: antagonistic and non-antagonistic. Antagonistic contradictions occur between fundamentally opposed forces whose interests cannot be reconciled (e.g., feminist movements versus patriarchal or financialized capitalist institutions). Non-antagonistic contradictions arise within a shared framework of common goals, where differences can be negotiated and resolved through constructive struggle. This distinction is crucial for managing conflicts in radical feminist organizing.
Within radical feminist movements, antagonistic contradictions are relatively clear. They include structural forces like patriarchal violence, capitalist exploitation, and reactionary political backlash. These forces must be confronted through struggle and systemic change. However, internal conflicts—debates over tactics, inclusion, or organizational priorities—are often misrecognized as equally irreconcilable, creating destructive factionalism.
Consider debates about trans inclusion within feminist spaces. When framed as an existential threat, these disagreements escalate into antagonistic struggles, fracturing movements and reinforcing exclusion. However, when treated as a non-antagonistic contradiction, this issue can be approached like any other as a conflict within a shared project of ending gender-based oppression. Open dialogue and mutual education should be prioritized. In this way, conflict becomes a driver of collective growth rather than a cause of organizational collapse as we’ve unfortunately seen affect many radical feminist organizations in the past.
Mao’s strategies for managing non-antagonistic contradictions offer practical tools for resolving internal tensions within feminist movements. The first is open criticism and self-criticism, conducted in a spirit of mutual learning rather than punishment. This practice builds collective accountability by enabling members to reflect on how internal dynamics may reproduce oppressive patterns. Second, democratic consultation ensures that all voices are heard and decisions are made collectively, reducing power imbalances that might intensify conflict. This approach aligns with horizontal organizing models already familiar in many radical feminist spaces. Finally, persuasion through ideological education helps align diverse perspectives within the movement’s shared goals. This does not mean imposing a rigid orthodoxy but fostering a culture of critical thinking, where ideological development is part of collective struggle rather than imposed from above. As stated above, we as radical feminists must make it a point to be constantly educating ourselves, reading theory, then sharing it with others. Sometimes we may be missing perspectives from radical feminists of the past that could be helping us resolve internal conflicts that exist today.
One of the most destructive tendencies in identity-based organizing is mistaking non-antagonistic contradictions for existential threats. This leads to purity politics, where ideological rigidity enforces exclusion; call-out culture, where public shaming replaces constructive dialogue; and factional splits that weaken movements from within. Recognizing internal conflicts as potentially generative rather than inherently divisive helps avoid these pitfalls. For example, we’ve seen many fallouts between radical feminists surrounding the transgender debate. Instead of immediately writing other women off, or god forbid even splitting up an organization over such a debate, we can take moments like these as another sign to turn back to our theory and our history. We are not the first radical feminists to ever disagree on something. What did radfems of the past have to say about the questions we’re discussing, and how did they go about organizing with women that they disagreed with?
Treating all criticism as inherently hostile is dangerous. Mao warned against suppressing incorrect ideas through authoritarian means, arguing instead for open debate guided by clear political principles. In feminist organizing, this means resisting the temptation to silence dissenting voices through social ostracism or bureaucratic maneuvering. Instead, movements can build resilience by confronting internal contradictions openly, transforming disagreement into a source of collective strength and growth.
A final insight from dialectical materialism is the concept of the “principal contradiction”—the most fundamental struggle determining the movement’s success. For radical feminists, this might be the fight against patriarchal violence or economic exploitation, depending on the context. Recognizing the principal contradiction helps prioritize struggles without dismissing intersecting issues like racial justice and imperialism. These intersections are best understood as interconnected contradictions requiring strategic attention, not competing claims for dominance. For example, a feminist collective balancing reproductive rights advocacy with anti-racist organizing might face competing demands on its resources. If framed antagonistically, this tension risks splitting the organization into warring factions. But when understood as a set of interconnected struggles rooted in overlapping systems of oppression, the group can strategize how to address both issues simultaneously through mutual support.
By distinguishing antagonistic from non-antagonistic contradictions, radical feminists can navigate internal politics without sacrificing material goals. Conflict becomes not a threat but a necessary process of growth, enabling movements to adapt and evolve in response to changing conditions. This dialectical approach reframes struggle as an engine of progress, fostering resilience through contradiction rather than unity through suppression. We must remember that we are not the only radical feminists that have ever dealt with internal conflicts. When we start to feel lost in struggle, I urge us all to turn to our histories and our texts that have been made increasingly available to us in this digital age. Sometimes we don’t even realize that we’re trying to reinvent the wheel. Our sisters that came before us went through a lot, and we bear the responsibility of furthering their struggle, not repeating it.
As feminist movements face escalating external threats in a world increasingly hostile to liberation struggles, cultivating this capacity for internal resilience is more urgent than ever. Recognizing that contradictions are not obstacles but the very terrain of struggle is key to building a radical feminist movement capable of enduring, transforming, and ultimately winning.