The (im)possibility of feminist critique in authoritarianism: Revisiting Western knowledge-transfer in Russia and Serbia

This thesis proposes a critique of the critique of transnational feminism in post-communist Europe. The critique of transnational feminism asserts that the process is, in essence, a unilateral knowledge-transfer, and as such functions as one among many exercises of Othering the West has employed vis-à-vis its Semi-Other since the fall of communism. Using case studies of Russia and Serbia, this research challenges this argument from three angles. First, it shows that it is ahistorical. Transnational feminist encounters occurred in the communist period, and were characterised by Soviet Russian and Yugoslav feminists’ independence and assertiveness. Second, by applying the critical theory framework to over sixty interviews with feminists in Russia and Serbia that were conducted by the author, an empirical examination demonstrates that a critique of knowledge-transfer is marginal in both cases. This acts as a springboard for the third and central claim. Based on a computer-aided, post-Marxist discourse analysis of the interviews, the thesis argues that feminists’ priorities undergo a fundamental shift under authoritarianism. In settings where authoritarian regimes propagate an anti-Western discourse, that relies on anti-gender discourse in attempts at Othering back, the subversion of this hegemonic discourse becomes the priority for feminists on the ground. From this perspective, the argument proposed by critical theory – that transnational feminism is a form of Western domination expressed through knowledge-transfer – resonates with the authoritarian discourse. This is why critique of knowledge-transfer is not only marginal, but rejected in an effort not to become complicit in the authoritarian discourse. As a result, Russian and Serbian feminists focus on formulating alternative signifiers for knowledge-transfer in order to subvert the authoritarian regime. First, they endorse knowledge-transfer but attach positive meanings of agency and empowerment to it. Second, they reframe it as an exchange between equals. Finally, they reject the dichotomous boundaries of West/East associated with it.