Routines of Interaction between Latin American Feminists and the State

• Published date: 01 September 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0094582X20943883
• Author: Clarisse Goulart Paradis,Eduardo Moreira da Silva
• Date: 01 September 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X20943883

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES, Issue 234, Vol. 47 No. 5, September 2020, 62–78

DOI: 10.1177/0094582X20943883

© 2020 Latin American Perspectives

62

Routines of Interaction between Latin American

Feminists and the State

by

Eduardo Moreira da Silva and Clarisse Goulart Paradis

Translated by

Luis Fierro

Comparison of feminists’repertoires of interaction in four Latin American coun-

tries—Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and Chile—reinforces the idea that these interactions

may be contentious, collaborative, or even both. The proportions of each kind of interac-

tion are influenced by the dominant political project of the state, the profile of the insti-

tutional mechanisms for the advancement of women, the formal channels for participation,

support for the feminist and gender agenda by presidents, and female presence in the

legislature.

A comparação de repertórios feministas de interação em quatro países da América

Latina— Argentina, Bolívia, Brasil e Chile—reforça a ideia de que essas interações

podem ser contenciosas, colaborativas ou até ambas. As proporções de cada tipo de inte-

ração são influenciadas pelo projeto político dominante do estado, o perfil dos mecanismos

institucionais para o avanço da mulher, os canais formais de participação, o apoio à

agenda feminista e de gênero pelas presidentes e a presença feminina na legislatura.

Keywords: Participation, Protests, Feminism, Institutional mechanisms for the

advancement of women, Latin America

The literature of social movements has sought to theorize the relationship

between these actors and the state. While many studies have focused on con-

tention and produced a very homogeneous view of these actors, some studies

in Latin America have considered this relationship more deeply, examining

areas of political participation, the social movement network, and the political

projects in dispute (Abers and von Bülow, 2011; Dagnino, Olvera, and Panfichi,

2006). Abers and von Bülow have identified forms of interaction between social

movements and the state that justify new approaches to social movement the-

ory, among them efforts to influence public policy through participation and

inclusion in the state apparatus, making the connections between civil society

and political society more frequent and more complex than the previous litera-

ture had envisioned.

Eduardo Moreira da Silva is an adjunct professor and subcoordinator of the graduate program in

political science at the Federal University of Minas Gerais. Clarisse Goulart Paradis is an adjunct

professor at the University of International Integration of the Afro-Brazilian Lusophony and a

researcher at FEMPOS. Luis Fierro is a translator living in the Miami area.

943883LAPXXX10.1177/0094582X20943883Latin American PerspectivesSilva and Paradis / Interaction Between Feminists and The State

research-article2020

Silva and Paradis / INTERACTION BETWEEN FEMINISTS AND THE STATE 63

Studying the Lula government in Brazil, Abers, Serafim, and Tatagiba

(2014) have sought to understand the interactions between society and the

state in the areas of urban policy, agrarian development, and public security.

They argue that new forms of interaction have emerged as a result of the

combination of the inclusion of militants in the state apparatus with the het-

erogeneity of the Brazilian state. With the aim of broadening the focus beyond

contentious action, they modify McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly’s (2004) concept

of the repertoire—the culturally codified ways in which people interact in the

politics of conflict—to develop the idea of “interaction repertoires”that

include collaborative relations between society and the state. This new notion

allows them to “incorporate the diversity of strategies used by Brazilian

social movements and examine how they have been used, combined, and

transformed” (Abers, Serafim, and Tatagiba, 2014: 332).

They identify four interaction routines in the Brazilian case: (1) protest

and direct action (even when there is collaboration with the state and it is

seen as an ally); (2) institutionalized participation (participatory budgets,

public policy councils and conferences); (3) personal contacts with state

actors facilitated by the expansion of links between the executive and these

movements typical of leftist governments; and (4) occupation of positions in

the bureaucracy.

The last of these deserves particular attention, since the research literature

shows its strong presence in governments of the left (Vaz, 2014). Although

some writers see it as the potential co-optation of social leaders (Doimo, 1996),

others have called it “institutional activism”—a strategy for promoting change

through the institutional path but anchored in the previous trajectory of the

actors and in the networks of which they are part (Abers and Keck, 2017; Abers

and Tatagiba, 2016).

Protest is a relationship established by the participants between dissatis-

faction with and explicit rejection of political systems, traditional political

parties, and other conventional forms of organization such as social and

union movements marked by hierarchy and/or relationships with the state

(Bringel, 2013). A similar diagnosis is offered by those who point to a con-

temporary crisis of political representation (Almeida, 2011; Silva, 2013;

Sintomer, 2010).

The most recent protests can be characterized as a “new type of viral, rhi-

zomatic, and diffuse political action” made up of “more mediatic and perfor-

mative repertoires” (Bringel, 2013: 19). Similar approaches are adopted by

analysts seeking to understand the mechanisms underlying the emergence of

a “geopolitics of global indignation” expressed in protests in contexts as varied

as North America, Europe. and Latin America (Bringel, 2013; Mayol and Azócar,

2011; Polanco and Silva, 2013; Valerian, 2013).

This paper intends to examine the interaction repertoires of the women’s

political sector—the relationship between feminist movements and the state—

in the experiences of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and Chile. The research ques-

tions were the following: (1) Does support by presidents positively impact the

agenda of institutional mechanisms for the advancement of women?1 (2) Does

the combination of such mechanisms with infrastructure produce better results?

(3) Does the presence of participatory institutions favor the incorporation of the