Elvira Banotti Was There at the Birth of Italian Feminism. So Why Was She Forgotten?

While Carla Lonzi is being rediscovered, Banotti forces a more uncomfortable question: what happens to the women who helped found revolt, and were then pushed to the edge of its memory?

If you’re new to this wider project, start here: Feminism in Art Isn’t a Style: It’s a Battle Over Visibility.

You can also browse the full archive in my Feminism category.

The Name That Disturbs the Origin

Elvira Banotti is not a missing footnote.

She is the name that makes the origin of Italian feminism less clean than people often want it to be.

In 1970, Banotti was there. Not nearby, not around the atmosphere of revolt, not as a minor witness to someone else’s thinking. She was one of the three women, together with Carla Lonzi and Carla Accardi, behind the founding gesture of Rivolta Femminile and the manifesto that appeared on the walls of Rome in July of that year.

And yet her name does not return with the same force.

Lonzi has become readable again, necessary again, almost inevitable. Accardi remains protected by the history of postwar Italian art. Banotti, instead, still arrives like a disturbance. Mentioned, yes. Acknowledged, sometimes. But not really absorbed. One of the founders, and yet not allowed to become central.

That absence should not be treated as an accident.

It says something about the way cultural memory behaves when it wants to look radical without putting itself in danger.

A Woman from the Colonial Wound

Banotti was born in Asmara, in Eritrea, inside the long shadow of Italian colonialism. This is not a decorative biographical detail. It changes the temperature of the story.

Italian feminism has too often been narrated as if it emerged from a clear metropolitan room: white, European, intellectual, already authorized to speak. Banotti makes that room less stable. Through her, another Italy enters the frame: colonial memory, displacement, mixed belonging, language, the body, and the violence hidden behind the word “civilization.”

This is why returning to Banotti today cannot simply mean recovering a forgotten woman.

Recovery is too gentle a word.

Banotti does not ask to be added politely to a list. She forces a harder question: what kind of feminism needed to forget her in order to recognize itself?

Rivolta Was Not Asking for Permission

Rivolta Femminile was not born as a polite request for inclusion.

Its manifesto did not ask women to be admitted into the same order that had already named, used, interpreted, and disciplined them. It attacked the symbolic structure that had defined woman through man: woman as complement, woman as lack, woman as service, woman as reflection, woman as the beautiful proof of someone else’s centrality.

It refused the old bargain.

Liberation could not mean becoming like men inside the same unbearable life. Equality, if it meant entering the male world without altering its logic, was only another form of obedience.

But Banotti opens another wound inside that revolt.

She makes it impossible to say “woman” as if all women entered history from the same door. A woman born in the former colonial world carries another archive in her body. She knows, whether the canon wants to hear it or not, that patriarchy and colonialism are not separate machines. They often work with the same grammar: possession, naming, correction, desire, authority.

The woman’s body and the colonial body were both treated as territories.

That is the scandal Banotti brings back.

The Body Was Already Political

Banotti’s work was not abstract. This is the point that matters.

In La sfida femminile. Maternità e aborto, published in 1971, she confronted abortion not as a private shame, not as a moral failure, not as a secret to be hidden in kitchens, clinics, whispers, and fear. She treated it as a political wound. A question of women’s bodies, yes, but also of law, power, Catholic morality, male control, and the terrifying distance between public language and lived experience.

That move was brutal because it did not allow society to remain innocent.

Abortion was not only about the fetus, the family, the doctor, or the Church. It was about who owned the female body. Who had the right to decide what happened inside it. Who could turn pain into guilt, guilt into silence, silence into order.

This is where Banotti becomes difficult to contain.

She was not useful only because she signed a manifesto. She was dangerous because she pushed feminism toward the places where culture did not want to look: sexuality, maternity, abortion, colonial violence, religious power, the obscene confidence of men who believed their version of the world was simply reality.

Rediscovery Can Also Be a Trap

This is why Banotti matters now.

Contemporary feminism, and contemporary art with it, has become very skilled at rediscovery. Archives are reopened. Forgotten women are exhibited. Radical figures return through catalogues, museum rooms, anniversary panels, academic conferences, carefully designed wall texts.

The canon expands.

The missing names are added.

But addition is not transformation.

A canon can include the women it once excluded and still remain almost unchanged. It can celebrate revolt after removing the danger from it. It can turn disobedience into heritage. It can place a woman back into history without allowing her to damage the structure that forgot her.

Banotti does not allow that comfort.

She is not simply another founder to be restored beside Lonzi and Accardi. She is the fracture that makes the foundation less pure, less elegant, less easy to monumentalize.

The Crack in the Story

Lonzi exposed the patriarchal structure of art, culture, philosophy, and recognition. Banotti exposes something the present still struggles to face: the limits of a feminist memory that can reproduce exclusions while claiming to fight them.

This is the uncomfortable part.

Forgetting is not always a mistake. Sometimes it is a method. Sometimes history forgets exactly what would make it responsible.

Banotti’s marginalization, then, should not be read only as biographical injustice. It is evidence. It shows how history was edited. It shows which voices were allowed to become theory, which became myth, which became quotation, and which remained too raw, too contradictory, too entangled with colonial Italy to be safely canonized.

The forgotten woman is not outside history.

She reveals how history protected itself.

Not a Footnote, but a Problem

To return to Banotti today means refusing the soft version of feminist commemoration.

It means refusing the museum of brave women where every conflict is neutralized by admiration. It means asking why some figures become recoverable only when they no longer threaten the story that erased them.

If feminism today wants to be more than representation, it cannot approach Banotti as a footnote.

It has to approach her as a problem.

Not to celebrate her safely. Not to place her in the archive and move on. Not to correct the list of founders and pretend the work is done.

Banotti has to be allowed to make the canon uncomfortable again.

Because remembering her is not enough if the story that erased her remains intact.