GENDERED NATION – NATIONED GENDER

Feminist researchers have argued that issues pertaining to gender and nation need to be understood in a dynamic relationship, through which they inform and shape one another (cf. Cusak, 2000; Hasso, 1998; Kandiyoti, 1991; Kulpa, 2011;

McClintock, 1995; Mulinari, 2010; Nagel, 1998; 2000; Parker et al, 1992; Petö, 2006; 2010; Rankin, 2000; Taylor, 1997; Yuval–Davis, 1993; 1997). As previously discussed, gendered identities are contingent and subject to a continuous process of definition, contestation, and redefinition. The national construct is similarly situated, bound to specific historical moments and developments in a particular part of the world; furthermore, the aforesaid construct is shaped by shifting nationalist discourses and, in turn, inherently determines the very language that is employed to articulate them (Brubacker, 2004: 116; Pryke, 1998: 532). These nationalist discourses and the nationalist ideology they underpin are developed,

17 The title of this chapter pays tribute to the work of Nira Yuval–Davis in the field of nations and nationalism studies. It makes direct reference to the concepts of ‘gendered nations’, and respectively ‘nationed gender’, her way of emphasising the strong relation of interdependency between the concepts of gender and nation (Yuval–Davis, 1997: 21).

maintained, and contested by different groups in their quest for a hegemonic position within the polity under scrutiny. This imagined national collectivity naturalises the dominant position of a specific group – generally defined in ethnic/‘racial’, religious, and/or linguistic terms. It thereby establishes the group’s monopoly over the polity’s ideological apparatuses. In so doing, it posits the subordinated minority groups as deviant from the normative majority. This is often used as a justification to prevent minorities from claiming, or even gaining access to resources, and in extreme cases to ‘ethnic cleansing’ (cf. Anderson, 1991;

Brubacker, 2004; Saukkonen, 2003).

A pioneer of feminist scholarship of nations and nationalisms, Nira Yuval–

Davis has maintained that the conceptions of femininity and masculinity play a central role in the ideological construction of nationalism and its interpretation of the nation (cf. Yuval–Davis, 1980; 1989; 1993; 1997). Although agreeing with Benedict Anderson in his conceptualisation of the nation as ‘an imagined community’ (Anderson, 1991), she nevertheless developed her own classification of the structuring dimensions of the national project. In her view, the first component is the ‘genealogical dimension’, based on the myth of a common origin and a shared pool of genes/blood, which enables ‘to construct the most exclusionary/homogeneous vision of “nation”’ (Yuval–Davis, 1997: 21). What comes second is the cultural dimension, understood in terms of ‘the symbolic heritage provided by language and/or religion and/or other customs and traditions’ which constitute the national ‘essence’. In addition to this, she detailed on the role of gender in the biological and cultural production of the nation. A third interpretation is what she called ‘the civic dimension’ of nationalist projects, which is inherently connected to the idea of state sovereignty and specific territoriality (Yuval–Davis, 1997: 21).

Attempting a rough classification of women’s roles within the national collectivity, and their place in the nationalist ideology, a first position evidenced by research in the field is that of women as bearers of the national community, at both biological and symbolical level (cf. Charles & Hintjes, 1998; Cusak, 2000;

Stevens, 1999; Yuval–Davis, 1980; 1993; 1997). Such a standing underlines nonetheless the inherent inconsistencies that lie at the heart of the national construct underpinned by ideals of ethnic essentialism. There are differences in terms of class solidarities, differences between men and women, and differences in the valorisation of sexual orientation, with some being considered worthwhile members of the nation, thereby encouraged and protected, whilst some others are, at best, frowned upon if not forbidden outright and persecuted. As such, nationhood appears oftentimes conflated with gender, parentage, and ‘racial’

belonging, in a manner that ties it to a sense of inevitability, which brings forth demands for the individual’s abandonment to a common good and readiness for personal sacrifice. More clearly, nationalist ideology depicts women and men primarily in essentialist terms. This is in turn reflected in the special place women are ascribed in the national community and on the prescribed behaviour they are

expected to display for their acknowledgement as members of said collectivity, which is envisioned as a tightly knit community. In so doing, their membership in the national construct is confirmed as merely being at the side of their men.

Women are consigned to the burden of national parenthood, whilst men are entrusted with the task of leading and defending the nation (Charles & Hintjes, 1998: 6; Cusak, 2000: 543). As a result, the nation’s women are marked off from the Other’s women:

The very language of nationalism singles women out as the symbolic repository of group identity. [Thus,] nationalism describes its object using either a vocabulary of kinship (motherland, patria) or home (heimat), in order to denote something to which one is ‘naturally’ tied. Nationness is thus equated with gender, parentage, skin–colour – all those things that are not chosen and which, by virtue of their inevitability, elicit selfless attachment and sacrifice. The association of women with the private domain reinforces the merging of the nation/community with the selfless mother/devout wife; the obvious response of coming to her defence or even dying for her is automatically triggered.

(Kandiyoti, 1991: 434) A second capacity identified in feminist research has been that of women as signifiers of national differences, in other words as embodiments of and symbols in the ideological discourses that have been employed for the construction, reproduction, and transformation of national categories. It is worth noting that in the context of drawing clear lines of demarcation between one’s national community and its immediate Other, the discussion over the veil worn by women of Islamic faith as a marker of belonging/exclusion has been addressed at length from various viewpoints. At first, feminist researchers have been writing about the importance of gender in the national struggles against imperialism in the former colonies and used as evidence the use of the veil as a political tool for crafting national solidarity underpinned by Islamic precepts of piety and modesty (cf.

Ahmed, 1992; Kandiyoti, 1991;). More recently and echoing the wide socio–

political impact of the September 11 terrorist attacks, feminist scholars have focused on the politicisation of the veil as a sign of radical Otherness and as such a fetishisation of cultural attributes and claims, often connected to alleged Islamic practices such as female genital mutilation, forced marriages, honour killings, and imposition of Shar’ia law (cf. Khiabany & Williamson, 2008; Meer, Dwyer &

Modood, 2010; Mulinari, 2010).

Another perspective on the matter of symbolic difference has explored the distinction operated between the women identified as belonging to a native majority and those of an immigrant non–majority background. For example, Tobias Hübinette and Catrin Lundström have researched the place of radical right populism in the overall political culture in Sweden, which has generally been

considered as a progressive country and a schoolbook example of gender equality.

On this matter, they have shown that radical right populism exploits a racist undercurrent present in Swedish society. In the process, a distinction is made between the native women, who are assimilated into the domain of white men, thereby superior, and the immigrant women, who are suspected of benefitting unrightfully from the European welfare system. The different valorisation of women shows the crucial role that the family plays in the national construct;

family politics being national politics:

Here lies a deep difference between the construction of white women standing outside the labour market on the one hand and the non–white women on the other. While the white woman is expected to reproduce the nation through her household and reproductive labour, the non–white woman is subject to discourses of being welfare abusers. Such a racialised juxtaposition reflects the ideological function that the family plays in the construction of the nation as naturalising gendered and national boundaries, and indeed how the politics of family values nurtures nationalistic ideals […].

(Hübinette & Lundström, 2011: 49) In conclusion, I maintain that the findings of feminist scholarship of nationalism – especially those which pertain to the gendered nature of the imagined national communities, the women’s burden of national parenthood, and the women’s various positions within/outside the national community based on their family ties – constitute valuable theoretical vantage points for the investigation of the hierarchical gender binary at work in radical right populism.