Andrea PETÕ

Professor in the Department of Gender Studies at Central European University, Vienna, Austria, and research affiliate of the CEU Democracy Institute, Budapest

Antiliberal forces are hijacking and appropriating the concept of gender. When ‘gender’ is mentioned, it is not about gender but about seizing language and concepts of the human rights discourse for the creation of an antiliberal alternative.

Hungary is a laboratory that tests policies, narratives, discourses and technologies like face recognition software, to see what works and what can be applied by other illiberal forces in other parts of the globe. Policies and narratives against gender equality are the most well-thought-out products of the present antiliberal turn. The anti-gender rhetoric is a foreign policy tool that positions the Hungarian government at the forefront of the international illiberal forces. These pretend to represent ‘unashamed citizens’ who could do whatever they wanted, ignoring all previous norms, values, laws, or conventions. Proudly ignoring the last liberal consensus, these ‘unashamed citizens’, citizens who build their identity on ignoring previously consensual norms, values, practices, and vote for protest parties and/or far-right parties, are not only undermining the present liberal order but also setting up a new, antiliberal alternative. It fits in the general crusade that the antiliberal governments are waging against science, academia, and critical knowledge production, actively promoting anti gender movements and actors. 

Why gender?

Europe is living in a new cold war, which is not that cold anymore. It is waged along the narrative lines of the gender discourse. The concept of cold war, as the sociologists Laurie Essig and Alexander Kondrakov argued, refers to the process of stigmatisation and exclusion of one part of the population by another along political and symbolic lines. It is not connected to the specific historical period of the Cold War after 1945, but rather it serves to process how images of enemies are being assembled and gendered. So, the New Cold War was not an abstract division line between imagined geographical locations, like East or West or South and North, but rather an active political process of alliance-making and redefining what is normal. The New Cold War is not waged between two blocs of states but inside the specific national boundaries to undermine national unity. Gender as symbolic glue is used to create these new blocs domestically and transnationally and glue together forces that otherwise do not have much in common, to undermine national cohesion, solidarity and trust.

Why is ‘gender a symbolic glue’?

First, for the anti-gender movements, ‘gender’ is not what members of the gender academia (activists, policy makers and academics) use in their work. Gender is and will be at the forefront of upcoming political struggle as gender as ‘symbolic glue‘ refers to a metaphor that can tap into people’s feelings of uncertainty about the world around them and direct them towards equality issues. It binds together different religious and political forces, from fundamentalist groups to even, in some countries, football hooligans. Gender works as a ‘symbolic glue’ in different ways. First, a dynamic is constructed so that the notion of gender is perceived as a threatening concept. The right has united separate contested issues and attributed them to the umbrella term ‘the progressive agenda’. Then the concept of ‘gender ideology’ comes in, which is constructed by those who consider gender as a threat. And the opposition to this ‘ideology’ has become a means of rejecting certain facets of the current social and economic order, from prioritising identity politics over material issues to weakening people’s social, cultural and political security. Second, the demonisation of ‘gender ideology’ has become a key rhetorical tool in the construction of a new concept of ‘common sense’ for a broad audience, moving away from the consensus of what is normal and legitimate. It also glues together and mobilises the opponents of liberal democracy.

It is important to note that anti gender movement is a social mobilisation, based on the opposition to ‘gender ideology’ and political correctness, that does not just demonise the worldview of their enemies and reject the human rights paradigm, but also offers an alternative centred on the family, the nation, religious values and freedom of speech. This alternative is widely attractive because it is based on a political identification, and it promises a safe and secure community as a remedy for individualism and social atomisation. The opposition to ‘gender’ is also a possibility for the right to create a broad alliance and unite various actors that did not cooperate in the past. So the very concept of ‘gender’ has become a necessary element to bind together this coalition of its opponents. One of this coalition’s first centres of attack is directed against gender studies as a scientific form of interdisciplinary enquiry. 

What is the antiliberal playbook?

The antiliberals’ most important weapon is this internal civil war, which weakens the state and its institutions. The illiberal forces are connected through this ‘illiberal international’, an international network of those fighting liberal and progressive values that has existed for decades but has become increasingly successful the past years. They are successful partly because of the sleepwalking of liberal actors, not recognising the fundamental structural changes, and because liberal forces could not recognise the encroachment of these illiberal forces. 

Why are anti-liberals so successful in using ‘gender as a symbolic glue’?

The illiberal forces have succeeded because they have not met any real resistance and because they have adopted a perfect strategy of attacking certain institutions, eliminating what spaces of resistance were left. At the same time, illiberals are creating their own places and their own institutions. Weronika Grzebalska and I introduced the idea of polypore states – parasitic organisms that feed on their host’s vital resources – according to which illiberals are like mushrooms, which take all their energy from the tree. They produce nothing new, but they sustain their existence with resources taken from others. 

Illiberal forces are emptying and instrumentalising the existing institutions, values and resources of liberal forces. They are doing this for two reasons: to eliminate liberal forces and to create and strengthen the illiberal political alternative

It is not (only) homophobia

The anti-gender, anti-equality movement is not (only) homophobia. It is a proxy or substitute for homophobia. It is difficult to explain, especially to the LGBTQI community, because this fight puts their very lives in danger. On the one hand, the anti-gender movement is not about them, and on the other, it is very much about them. 

What can progressives do?

A lesson learned is the importance of networks, international contacts and press relations and the understanding of the surprising weakness of European infrastructure. Traditional forms of resistance, such as petitions, signatures and public protests, no longer work. The anti-gender movement copies strategies and policies that have worked nationally, like in Hungary. Along the same lines, progressives should learn from the successful strategies of others. The main focus should be on resources and ideas. The illiberal forces already recognise the importance of higher education because higher education controls knowledge production, the distribution of knowledge and the construction of new elites. Therefore, an alliance between different actors to invent the ‘glue’ for the progressives is a noble task for the future.

Photo credits: Shutterstock.com/Dan Schachar