Читать книгу Civil Society and Gender Relations in Authoritarian and Hybrid Regimes - Группа авторов - Страница 8

In order to address the outlined issues in our anthology we combine theoretical-conceptual contributions and methodological implications (part I) with a set of case studies studying the interrelation of civil society and gender as societal power structures in different non-democratic settings and transforming regimes all over the world (part II). The compilation bonds gender, authoritarianism, and civil society in an auspicious way leading to insights into the whys and wherefores of the persistence of autocratic structures and gender inequalities worldwide. Moreover, in a second step our findings may also help to reassess gender and human rights policies designed to bring forward societal democratization.

The first part of the volume starts with the contribution by Eva Maria Hinterhuber and Silke Schneider, which provides a comprehensive overview of the multifaceted relationship between “Gender, Civil Society, and Non-Democratic Regimes.” The authors scrutinized more than 200 scientific publications with the aim of detecting the ambivalent role of civil society and gender in non-democratic settings. Right at the beginning, the authors underline that civil society itself constitutes a contested terrain where “the struggle for social hegemony takes place” (p. 27). Accordingly, civil society might cleverly be used by autocratic regimes to keep women in their place, which is traditionally closely related to the private sphere and hence to the family. However, it is also true that since the very beginning of the women’s movement, civil society has [18] been “the space where the struggle for gender equality is taking place” (p. 31). Due to its ambivalence, heterogeneity, and multifunctionality, civil society should move into the focus of political science analysis that aims at shedding light on how non-democratic regimes manage to gain legitimacy and stay in power. The review of the literature by Hinterhuber and Schneider highlights that in-depth studies of gender relations in non-democratic settings as well as in societies and regimes in transition are essential for a better understanding of why and how these societies continue moving away from democracy. The chapter covers a wide spectrum of regions and countries ranging from the Middle East and Asia to Russia and Latin America; all in all, the authors draw our attention to a wide range of subtle strategies of how authoritarianism makes use of both civil society and gender relations in order to stay in power.

Annette Zimmer’s contribution “If Not for Democracy, for What? Civil society in Authoritarian Settings” takes a closer look at the nexus between civil society and democracy. Civil society has been linked to considerations of the improvement of social justice and participatory democracy for decades now. Widely referred to in the media, civil society became almost synonymous with a countervailing power, if not alternative to authoritarianism. However, is it indeed the case that a lively civil society in the sense of a societal sphere populated by numerous voluntary and nonprofit organizations constitutes the bedrock of democratic government? Might it also be possible that associational life is lively and striving, although there is no democratic regime in place? The contribution addresses this topic by introducing civil society as a multidimensional concept, highlighting the variety of civil society actors, and finally by discussing from a functional perspective whether and how the concept has been used and interpreted by key scholars of political theory and philosophy. Against this background, she comes to the conclusion that civil society as a societal sphere and hence as an arena for the engagement of voluntary organizations and nonprofits need not necessarily go along with democracy.

In the chapter “The Authoritarian as Discourse and Practice: A Feminist Post-Structural Approach,” Gabriele Wilde addresses a desideratum in autocracy research, which still holds tight to a state- and institution-centered perspective and thus masks the non-institutional mechanisms of securing domination and social power relations as the foundation of authoritarian rule. Starting [19] with the question concerning the nexus between autocracies or hybrid political systems and the inscription of gender relations as social power relations, this contribution presents a feminist theoretical approach grounded in political science. Organized civil society, the public and private domains, and specific knowledge discourses make up the four central areas in which various mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion, as well as social equality and inequality processes, are put into place by regimes. With this focus, the chapter shows how the inscription of social gender relations – in particular their significance for the power and domination of autocracies – can be systematically examined.

In the chapter “Analyzing the Authoritarian: Post-structural Framing-Analysis – a Methodological Approach,” Isabelle-Christine Panreck introduces post-structural framing-analysis as an instrument for feminist authoritarianism research. This chapter aims to show how the post-structural framing approach can be used for the analysis of authoritarian discourse and gender relations as relations of power and domination. Through the example of the Serbian invocation of women as “Mother of the Nation,” Panreck’s contribution demonstrates how framing can be applied to examine the concatenation of different discourse levels as strategies to establish gender power relations in authoritarian regimes.

Katharina Obuch introduces the second part of the volume with her chapter titled “Between Militancy and Survival? The Case of the Nicaraguan Women’s Movement.” She presents findings from her interviews with women’s activists and civil society experts in Nicaragua, a country historically known for its strong and belligerent women’s movement. Examining the movement’s historical evolution, its major wings, and the particular challenges faced by Nicaraguan women’s organizations in the context of today’s hybrid regime structures, she highlights the movement’s ambiguous potential: it is a pioneer of societal democratization yet often promotes traditional gender roles. More precisely, her findings demonstrate that civil society can play an important role in the overcoming of power relations (e.g., as an agent of change, school of democracy, or democratic watchdog) as well as in their reinforcement – in the form of conservative and unprogressive (antifeminist) movements, dubious entanglements with government structures, or simply as depoliticized service providers.

[20] In “The Tunisian Constitution between Democratic Claim and Constitutional Reality” Gabriele Wilde and Jasmin Sandhaus consider the implications and effects of Tunisia’s constitutional process for democratic gender relations. Focusing on the development process of the constitution and constitutional texts, they reflect on the integration of women’s associations and the significance of gender equality and question the prevalence of struggles for gender equality and to what extent the views of actors and interest groups were portrayed and unequal gender relations discussed and negotiated. This chapter concludes that the Tunisian Constitution can be understood as a hegemonic construction using traditional ideas to establish gender relations as domination relations and confirms the subordinate role of women.

The contribution by Joyce Marie Mushaben provides a multifaceted picture of the women’s movement in Turkey. The article draws our attention to the fact that Turkish society is extremely heterogeneous, which is reflected by numerous factions and diverse groups of the women’s movement, as well as by a multitude of very different NGOs and civil society organizations working on behalf of women’s issues. Despite many hurdles and significant difficulties related to class, ethnicity, and regional provenience of women activists and key protagonists, the author clearly identifies space and opportunities for the development of a shared and coherent identity of the Turkish women’s movement. The title of Mushaben’s contribution, “‘I’m here too, Girlfriend …’: Reclaiming Public Spaces for the Gendering of Civil Society in Turkey,” signals a positive development toward a further empowerment of women in Turkey with the goal of standing up for their rights. However, in between the lines there are also indicators of how fragile and vulnerable the Turkish women’s movement still is. It is an open question whether the heterogeneous women’s movement that is furthermore divided along class and ethnic cleavages will be able to speak up and to build a more or less uniform bulwark against repression, nationalism, and arbitrary use of power.

Stephanie Bräuer’s chapter, “Between Provocation and Incorporation – Social Gender Activism in the Hybrid Regime of the PRC,” focuses on the Beijing anti-domestic violence (ADV) movement as a case study of social gender activism in China. Analyzing the evolution and tactical alignment of ADV activists in the capital, she highlights how traditional, professional [21] organizations with well-established links to the political system have laid the ground for the recent awakening of a provocative and confrontational activism seeking to raise public awareness. Still, she concludes that in the given context of autocratic structures and recently increasing hard crackdowns on social gender activists, a non-confrontational, unprovocative tactical approach seems to be better suited to influence policy decision-making in China.

Finally, Patricia Graf shows in her chapter, “The Shadow of Autocracy. Gender Politics in Chile,” how the authoritarian gender regime in Chile was only partially reformed in the country’s transition process, as traditional gender roles are extremely persistent up until today. While access to positions of power and resources have changed, the conservative discourses and gender images of the old military dictatorship were carried over to the new democratic regime. Analyzing the particular role of women’s movements during the transition, she points out how feminist demands were successfully weakened by establishing a state feminism and enforcing the division between radical groups and “institutionalists.”