domination mechanisms and legitimation strategies (Albrecht and Frankenberger 2010, 2011).
Feminist research on autocracy and right-wing populism fills this gap. By focusing on the domains of non-institutional legitimation and power strategies and civil society processes, it provides numerous possibilities for analyses, all of which take into account gender and gender relations systematically and conceptually. Based on an understanding of society aligned with Antonio Gramsci (1991) as the unity of political and civil society, and based on a basic understanding of power relations, feminist research emphasizes the significance and function of hierarchical gender orders and traditional-religious gender roles. In [16] examining the retraditionalization of gender relations resulting from ideological, populist, or materialistic power and legitimation strategies, important knowledge about the reproduction of domination structures, the stability of authoritarian regimes, and the destruction of democratic relations has been acquired. By linking the establishment of political order to social conditions, retraditionalization is revealed as part of a practical life-nexus (Kreile 2016: 11); the focus becomes how phenomena of exploitation, alienation, exclusion, and violence intersect with political authorities in different domains of society. The construction of society as a closed entity inscribing gender relations as power relations becomes the central object of research and actual core of authoritarian politics.
Besides the ambivalent role of civil society organizations, a feminist perspective sees the public and private domains as powerful constructions (Wilde 2012). In this context, regulatory mechanisms are of central importance, as they posit relations between gender groups and distinguish the private from the public. It has been demonstrated that the activities of autocratic or totalitarian systems in the context of social policy, discourses about marriage and family, or the political organization of social reproduction have significant effects on the political inscription of gender relations as social power and domination relations. Signs of authoritarian policies are evident in gender identity constructions and role models in the public domain as well as – under the new negotiations of care work – in the limited self-determination and freedom of women in the private sphere.
Based on these criteria, and from a feminist standpoint, we can recognize the extent to which poverty and social inequalities are connected to the strengthening and establishing of authoritarian politics and domination relations. Also important for this project is understanding processes of socialization and the ideological upbringing of gendered subjects: how do authoritarian discourses and practices – which are in opposition to democratic ideas of equal and just gender relations – tailor gendered individuals to fit into their societies? Or, based on religious-cultural narratives and traditional family images, how is the systematic exclusion of women from the public domain and their discrimination carried out and legitimated (Schneider 2010)?
[17] This background sketch presents new challenges for feminist research on autocracy. Notably, there must be a new examination of theoretical approaches, an elaboration of conceptual foundations, a reformulation of central categories and concepts, and the systematization of research perspectives. The aim must be to obtain concrete information about the dynamic, persistence, and weaknesses of autocracies, as well as systematic knowledge of informal and non-institutional forms of domination, which inscribe gender relations as power relations in civil societies. The anthology contributes to this project.
4. Structure of the book
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
