For us, ‘politics’ refers to the totality of the places in which politics is conducted, of concepts, practices and actors in politics. This definition appears to us sufficiently broad to include the variety of forms and areas of initiative undertaken by women in the public sphere, and sufficiently precise on which to base a mutual acknowledgement of the choices, both group and individual, which determine the types of action conducted.

The common and overriding concern which emerged from previous seminars of the ‘Hannah Arendt’ school of politics, was to find means of overcoming, in theory and in practice the fragmentation of the public sphere and the juxtapositions which this creates. These may take various forms: the difference between social action and political action, the opposition of civil society and the state, the decision whether to work within or outside institutions, and within formal organisations or on an informal basis. The seminar in March will again pose the question: how and where do women stand in politics today? We propose discussing, in this seminar, the notion of ‘presence’ as the key to answering that question and to pick out and identify common opportunities for action among women, and between women and men.

The concept of ‘Presence’ cannot simply be reduced to that of visibility, or the mere act of being involved in politics. Instead, it constitutes a conscious involvement, which is both reflective and effective. It raises questions which may perhaps allow us to get at some facets of the difficult and differentiated circumstances of women in the public sphere. What characterises women’s presence? At what levels and in what forms does it occur? How does it interact with existing political institutions and practices?

Also, whose presence? This was the central question posed during the internal discussions at the Hannah Arendt school, which laid the basis for the forthcoming seminar. We set out, below, in a schematic form, questions, points of view, contrasts and analysis emerging from our debate; we propose it as a starting point for the work which we will follow in common during the seminar.

• Identity: how do participants who are present in local government, such as the board and committees of Derby City Council, construct their own identity. There is the risk that they take on an identity and a form of self-representation imposed from outside. This is often the case of so-called weak individuals, who are categorised as immigrants, the aged, the disabled, prostitutes etc, by the specialists and administrators who intervene.
• Rights: the passage from expressing needs to asserting rights is anything but automatic and smooth. It particularly concerns female and male immigrants to Italy, who do not benefit from citizenship rights: it makes a difference, for those without formal rights, whether the possession of such rights, and this will depend on the civil and institutional circumstances, is necessary in order to assert one’s presence. It is possible to take initiatives and to organise opportunities such as Almaterra, but the absence of rights prevents action from becoming ‘presence’, that is, the capacity to change the values and processes which exclude them from real citizenship.
• Sovereignty: in the feminist tradition, many prefer to use language which refers to the sovereignty of all individuals rather than just to that referring to rights. There are many different shades of meaning which can be expressed within this framework.
• Autonomy: what sort of autonomy, and what sort of negotiations are possible for those who are present? We need to escape from the blunt alternative between those active in society, on the one hand, and those who have been co-opted by institutions – the ‘prince’s advisors’ – on the other. For example, faced with a female candidate to the mayor’s office, a group of women in Bologna are considering putting forward a programme which is not the candidate’s but which could be negotiated with her. As an alternative, one could think of the introduction of small elements of political activity conducted by women into the general politics of an institution or an administration, in other words, spaces shared between institutions and society.
• Subjects and contexts: putting the emphasis on female agency requires that ever more attention be given to the dynamics of the current context, that is to say, to globalisation, transition, hidden revolution. There is a need to intensify the process of analysis and research.
• Strong subjects and representation: the existence of presence implies a strong subject if it is defined in relation to acts such as ‘negotiation’ and the ‘introduction of elements of women’s politics’. The problem of how one becomes such a subject is not irrelevant, since this is the way in which presence comes face to face with power. How can we anchor this presence at an institutional level in such a way as to leave a permanent impact? From this point of view, the idea of representation is a means of ensuring the continuing presence of women over time.
• Plurality of subjects: the theme of citizenship, called to mind either when one talks of absence of rights, or of representation, does not exhaust the sphere of rights, nor that of exclusion, nor the possibility of politics. For example, homosexuals, both women and men, may have rights, but there may also exist mechanisms which prevent them from exercising them. By this, we do not intend to place one group which lacks or has only limited rights (for instance homosexuals) against another (for example immigrants), in a hierarchy of subjects.
• Subsistence and living together: what sort of citizenship? It is not possible to discard the links between survival and living in society, or, in other words, to distinguish between social citizenship on the one hand and political and civil citizenship on the other.
• Effectiveness: how to act in such a way that women’s political practices leave a mark on politics as a whole and prevent the reversion, after an initial impact, to the previous equilibrium of forces and political methods? It would be appropriate also to rethink some of the terms which are commonly used today, such as ‘mainstreaming’, which threaten to deprive women’s politics of its original and specific meaning.

As in the preceding seminars, and the debate presented in summary form, in the forthcoming seminar we are asking for contributions in the form of theoretical reflection linked to concrete situations. We also intend to work on, in the light of these reflections, specific cases, initiatives and practices.

Fernanda Minuz