socialization | Top down is out

What the feminist future can look like will also be discussed at the second “Feminist futures” conference on questions of socialization. Photo: IMAGO/Christian Spicker The conference “Feminist futures II: Feminist socialization” is taking place in Bochum this weekend. Unfortunately, as an interested layperson, I cannot take part. How good that the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung, as the organizer of the event, has also published a booklet that can be downloaded from its website: »Socialize Feministly. From the criticism of private property to solidarity infrastructures«.

The reader's introduction to the topic is made easier by Sabine Nuss, who appears here as an interviewee. The political scientist, journalist and private property expert explains what is meant by “socialization”. The crucial point here seems to be: socialization does not mean nationalization. The socialized rental apartments, to take a popular example, do not move from the hands of the corporation into the hands of the state, i.e. only into another form of top-down control. »Nationalization means: The state becomes the new owner, as was previously the case with the Federal Postal Service. “The state can sell, convert and privatize its property at any time,” explains Nuss. Socialization, on the other hand, is something different, “a form of common property in which those who are affected by a thing dispose of it together, on the one hand democratically and on the other hand without the intention of making a profit. (...) No corporation, no stock market, but also no Senate administration that alone decides."

From September 25th to 27th, 2026, the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung is organizing the conference “Feminist futures II: Feminist socialization” in Bochum. The question is who keeps life going – and under what conditions. The hierarchical separation of productive and reproductive work and the devaluation of caring activities are the central foundations of our society. Capitalism is based on the fact that care work is marked as “female labor of love” and pushed into the private sphere. But how can this structure of power and exploitation be broken? And what role does the separation of spheres between private and public play in this?

Nobody decides alone. This is a common thread that runs through the publication. Feminist socialization has many voices. Barbara Fried and Alex Wischnewski outline the concept of feminist socialization. Ursula Huws examines how new digital platform providers are further perverting the care sector by capitalizing on what was previously private. Simin Jawabreh addresses the connection between racialization and capitalist exploitation and builds the bridge between anti-racism and feminist socialization. Cari Maier thinks about “violence in gender relations, violence as gender relations.” Yayo Herrero brings ecofeminist perspectives into this debate.

It gets particularly exciting towards the end, when the booklet descends from the lofty heights of theory into the harsh reality of implementation. What does something that could be described as “feminist socialization” look like? Practitioners have their say, who are of course also lobbyists for their own activities. The focus here is on the concept of “caring cities”: these are social, political and administrative restructuring at the local level that pursue feminist approaches. The municipality is no longer thought of as an official, all-powerful organizer into whose prefabricated boxes people have to fit themselves. Rather, it comes back to itself as a community in which people's needs are heard, in which each other is cared for - and not only women* do the care work.

The focus of “feminist socialization” is on the concept of “caring cities”.

Satoko Kishimoto, an environmental activist who was elected mayor of Tokyo's Suginami district in 2022, is an example of such a concept: in her person, the activist sphere and politics are combined. Kishimoto, who has no party affiliation, seems to be so convincing that she was re-elected in June of this year. In the interview we get to know her tried-and-tested theory and her mindset. “Municipalism” is the concept on which it is based, and she explains the basic idea: “It was about regaining democracy at the local level, gaining power in the city councils, bringing representatives of social movements into local government and remaining connected to these movements even after entering government.”

For them, governing means “governing through dialogue.” Behind this is an idea of ​​local self-government: »The residents should take responsibility for deciding on matters in their neighborhood; The task of the municipality is to create the conditions for this. Previously, this responsibility was passed on to a professional administration, to which the most efficient solution and its planned implementation were attributed. But according to Kishimoto, the perspective on public facilities has changed: "Instead of letting the administration decide how facilities should be organized and then informing the residents about it, we have introduced procedures in which residents and the administration discuss their future together."

One of her central themes was the “revival of the public sphere,” and she was not afraid to make loneliness in our cities an issue. “Many residents struggle with difficulties or experience a certain degree of loneliness.” Public institutions could play an important role in combating this problem. Kishimoto wants people to be able to rely on these places accordingly. “But at the same time, the residents themselves are creating many small communal spaces throughout Suginami,” she notes. “I would therefore like to build on what already exists, i.e. support these small places and connect them more closely with each other and with public institutions, so that a network of places is created where people can feel like they belong.”

Belonging is a small, humble, an overlooked word in which resides a great change. “We have to create a society,” says Kishimoto, “in which people can feel hope and security. The city is not primarily a place where we make money, but a place where we live. That is the basic perspective from which I think about local politics. And that is a nice final word. A little hope is always good in a world that has tilted awry. Maybe it can be straightened by a few millimeters in Bochum.