In recent years, we have witnessed a strong global resistance to the acceptance of gender and sexuality rights. This resistance is theorized to be driven by a clash between pro-liberal international forces and traditionalist local political powers, suggesting a reverse trend from the previously anticipated liberal progression. However, existing literature often overlooks the divergent dynamics between various issues by relying on single-issue analyses. This dissertation aims to bridge this gap by examining the multifaceted nature of this resistance, using the case study of Russia, which has become a key sponsor of anti-gender policies on the global stage. By providing a comprehensive understanding of the broader socio-political landscape of this process, I suggest a nuance to the existing explanation for global political dynamics.The central concept of this dissertation, which I have named strategic traditionalism, explains how political state actors can opportunistically promote traditionalist views on certain issues while avoiding others that do not advance their political interests. I argue that a nation’s stance on gender and sexuality does not necessarily align with purely liberal or illiberal trends but is rather relational and dependent on political alliances and opportunity structures. I develop this argument through three interrelated studies.
In the first chapter, I investigate why the Russian state promotes strategic traditionalism and explain how it relates to anti-Western ideology. Using the logic of a natural experiment in media analysis, I zoom in on the state's role in shaping media discourse on homosexuality and abortion. I analyze the changes in narratives before and after a prominent Russian news agency underwent an unexpected state takeover. I find that pre-takeover, both issues were framed as traditional values versus human rights conflicts. After the takeover, the narrative shifted to a competition between Russia and the West, with Russia portrayed as defending against Western elites using "LGBT ideology" for global dominance, while the abortion discourse remained unchanged. This study highlights the strategic reinforcement of illiberal position on one topic but maintaining neutrality on others to preserve its hegemony, rather than embracing universally traditional or religious views on both topics. This enhances our understanding of how opposing homosexuality aligns with a state's global and domestic interests.
The second study examines the extent to which the public adopts state-sponsored strategic traditionalism by exploring public opinion. Globally, public opinion on homosexuality and abortion tends to correlate, but this is not the case in Russia. Quantitative analysis of a nationally representative public opinion survey reveals that negative attitudes towards homosexuality in Russia are associated with traditional values, religiosity, and anti-Western sentiments. However, negative attitudes towards abortion are linked to religiosity but not to traditional values or anti-Western sentiments, suggesting that the public opinion aligns with the state sponsored ideology. Qualitative findings provide an important nuance, indicating that support for the state’s stance might be influenced by the non-democratic nature of public-state relationships in Russia. Respondents understand and can reiterate the state’s logic, assuming that this conformity is non-negotiable in an authoritarian context. However, when discussing their views on sexuality and gender, they distinguish between public and private spheres. While some respondents support the actions framed in terms of combating foreign influence and defending Russian interests in the global sphere, they reject state intervention in the private sphere, which includes same-sex relations and abortion. Thus, this chapter demonstrates that the state’s propaganda had a significant effect on public opinion, showing that framing in terms of strategic traditionalism was effective but deeper probing reveals limits to this adaptation, highlighting the boundaries within which the state operates. This explains the specific form that state action took, distinguishing strategic traditionalism in Russia from what traditionalist pushback, suggested by the literature so far.
Finally, I delve into the connection between two core elements of the Russian state’s anti-Western politics: political homophobia, as a part of strategic traditionalism, and anti-Ukrainian campaign. Although the link between two might not be immediately obvious for the outside viewers, the Russian state framed both anti-LGBT measures and the Ukrainian conflict as strategies to counter perceived Western influence while upholding "traditional values" and national sovereignty. Here, I establish the correlation between anti-LGBT and anti-Ukrainian sentiments in Russian public opinion, analyzing the period before and after the introduction of anti-LGBT+ legislation and the onset of the Russian aggression against Ukraine. The results show no statistically significant correlation between attitudes toward Ukraine and homosexuality in 2010. However, in 2016, following the anti-gay law and Crimea’s annexation, anti-gay views and anti-Ukrainian sentiments became positively correlated. This suggests that the Russian public has embraced a multifaceted anti-Western ideology promoted by the political leadership.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:columbia.edu/oai:academiccommons.columbia.edu:10.7916/bhcr-5f70 |
| Date | January 2024 |
| Creators | Tsaturyan, Asya |
| Source Sets | Columbia University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Theses |
Page generated in 0.0128 seconds