Search results

The opposition, Eszter Kováts writes, should not succumb to Orbán's friend versus foe politics in the European elections.

Arguments over who has a right to speak, Eszter Kováts writes, should give way to discussing what they say.

Progressives, Eszter Kováts writes, need to avoid the trap of a politics which only knows friends and foes.

Western liberals, Eszter Kováts writes, should avoid being seduced by Hungary's authoritarian mouthpieces.

The goal of this theoretical paper is to link right-wing anti-gender claims to real processes of the individualization of gender analysis in light of the critical literature on how neoliberal ideology has been affecting feminist politics and gender scholarship. While there has been reflexion about the co-optation of feminist vocabularies such as choice, liberation, and self-determination by neoliberal ideology for a long time, recent critiques add to this the individualist turn within gender theory, and feminist and LGBT activism too. I argue that uncovering these latter trends can contribute to a better understanding of the resonance of right-wing anti-gender messages among large segments of European electorates but also to (self-) critical discussion within gender theory and feminist and LGBT practice about the individualization of structural problems.

Lilian Hümmler: Wenn Rechte reden - Die Bibliothek des Konservatismus als (extrem) rechter Thinktank. Hamburg: Marta Press 2021. 978-3-944-44271-6

Anti-gender actors in East-Central Europe (ECE) too claim that gender is an ideological colonization. In this article, in contrasting these accusations with actually existing power relations of the global and European gender architecture, I discuss whether they are – at least to some extent – based on social realities. Neither anti-gender campaigns nor the rise of illiberal forces are ECE phenomena per se and should not be treated as such. However, the relevance of the geopolitical embeddedness of gender equality policies, of gender studies and of feminist and LGBT politics needs to be analysed thoroughly in order to better understand the right-wing discourse. This paper offers a theoretical explanation, based on existing empirical studies and critical theoretical literature. Focussing on the four Visegrád countries, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary, it attempts to demonstrate the specific drivers of the anti-gender mobilization in this region and argues that anti-gender discourse is a right-wing language of resistance against existing material and symbolic East-West inequalities in Europe.

Anti-gender actors in East-Central Europe (ECE) too claim that gender is an ideological colonization. In this article, in contrasting these accusations with actually existing power relations of the global and European gender architecture, I discuss whether they are - at least to some extent - based on social realities. Neither anti-gender campaigns nor the rise of illiberal forces are ECE phenomena per se and should not be treated as such. However, the relevance of the geopolitical embeddedness of gender equality policies, of gender studies and of feminist and LGBT politics needs to be analysed thoroughly in order to better understand the right-wing discourse. This paper offers a theoretical explanation, based on existing empirical studies and critical theoretical literature. Focussing on the four Visegrád countries, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary, it attempts to demonstrate the specific drivers of the anti-gender mobilization in this region and argues that anti-gender discourse is a right-wing language of resistance against existing material and symbolic East-West inequalities in Europe.

As early as 1995, Nancy Fraser problematized the shift of justice claims from redistribution towards recognition (Fraser, 1995). Since then, this shift has proven even more pronounced, displacing redistribution claims and reiterating identities (Fraser, 2000). At the same time, we can see how recognition claims in the form of identity politics became overall present in the social justice activism of the Anglo-Saxon countries, stirring heated controversies there, not only from the Right, but from Marxist, liberal and feminist points of view, too. On the European continent, these debates take the form of mostly right-wing movements mobilizing against 'gender ideology' and 'political correctness', portrayed as imminent danger coming from the US and/or the West.
In my paper I critically engage with the widespread matrix of visualizing political positions and fault lines as being on two axes: economic (left and right) and cultural (liberal and authoritarian), and discuss why placing the attitudes towards 'oppressed minorities' on the cultural axis cuts the related issues from their embeddedness in material conditions. I point out that the cultural axes, the recognition shift, and the human rights paradigm type of articulation of injustices are going into the same direction, namely a culturalist interpretation of oppressions. Empirically based on the controversies around the Istanbul Convention (2017) and the Gender Studies MA programs (2017-2018) in Hungary and theoretically on Fraser's concept of 'perspectivic dualism' as outlined in her debate with Axel Honneth (Fraser and Honneth, 2003), I argue that this culturalist interpretation both of prevailing injustices and of the right-wing contestations actually reinforces the cultural war framework of the Right rather than overcoming it.

Since 2012, several European countries (among others Austria, Croatia, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia or Slovakia) have seen the rise of conservative and, in part, fundamentalist social movements against the perceived threat of what they call (depending on the context) 'gender ideology', 'gender theory', or 'genderism'. The movements mobilizing against 'gender ideology' are frequently understood as a conservative backlash against achieved levels of equality between women and men and/or LGBTQ rights. This perspective of 'the patriarchy/heteronormativity fighting back' seems as tempting as it is simplifying. I discuss the transnational movements against 'gender ideology' in the context of the rise of right-wing populism and on the basis of considerations seeking to explain their demand side. On one hand, I argue that the study of this phenomenon provides important clues for understanding the reasons behind the rise of populist forces in Europe and beyond. On the other hand, I propose that 'gender' is not the final target for these movements and that they should not be understood primarily as mobilizations against equality. Rather, I see the emergence of these movements as a symptom of a larger systemic crisis. 'Gender ideology' in this sense embodies numerous deficits of the so-called progressive actors, and the movements or parties that mobilize against the perceived threat of 'gender ideology' react to these deficits by re-politicizing certain issues in a polarized language. Based on Chantal Mouffe's critique of the established hegemonic idea of consensus in liberal democracy, I discuss two consensuses that are characteristic of the so-called progressive actors (including the feminist and LGBTQ actors), namely, the neoliberal consensus and the human rights consensus, and their contribution to the rise of the movements against 'gender ideology'.