As a prototypical image of social movements, we might be reminded of strong forms of protest – “we tend to associate collective mobilization with speeches, raised fists, joyous or angry voices, banners and flags flapping in the wind. We expect moving gestures”.
Assuming this perspective, there is little protest in the Czech Republic or the New Länder in Germany today. This observation applies above all to the women’s movement which is characterized by “institutionalisation without mobilization”. In both countries, the women’s movement had its peak between 1989 and approximately 1993, but seems to suffer from a “mobilization fatigue” now. So can we still speak of social movements, if there is no mobilization?
In order to answer this question we have to take a closer look at the specific characteristics of social movements. An alternative view suggests that the basic repertoire of protest has become modified in the second part of this century. In liberal democratic states the initially powerless activists are no longer confined to private or public spaces – a partial transformation and shift of collective protest has taken place.
This perspective completely reverses the picture of lethargic protest. Endeavouring to consolidate and to professionalize themselves, activists learn to use resources and modern technology to communicate with each other and the public and also how to survive in new party democracies. Among their other main activities we can find out-reach, mutual help and assistance programmes, lobbying, critical scientific reporting and, when possible, negotiations with government and politicians.
In sum, following Flam (2002), I define social movements as social agents who take advantage of and command resources in order to convey issues to the public and to influence the agenda in their polity. As far as the question of the political influence exercised by social movements is concerned, the relation between the movements and the corresponding state within whose territory they operate comes into focus. However, the question of access and political influence is related to social movements which have already gained a certain degree of public and political recognition.
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. Theoretical Background
1.1 Political Opportunity Structure
1.2 Framing
2. Methodology
3. A Comparison of the Women’s Movement in Eastern Germany and the Czech Republic
3.1 The Women’s Movement in Eastern Germany
3.1.1 Testing Hypothesis: Political Opportunity Structure
3.1.2 Testing Hypothesis: Framing
3.2 The Women’s Movement in the Czech Republic
3.2.1 Testing Hypothesis: Political Opportunity Structure
3.2.2 Testing Hypothesis: Framing
4. Conclusion
Objectives and Core Topics
This paper examines the development of women's movements in Eastern Germany and the Czech Republic following the 1989 political transitions, aiming to explain why these movements followed different trajectories despite similar socialist legacies.
- Application of political opportunity structure theory to post-Communist social movements.
- Analysis of framing efforts and the resonance of Western feminist concepts.
- Comparison of the institutionalized, professionalized movement in Eastern Germany versus the lack of a formal feminist movement in the Czech Republic.
- Evaluation of the influence of state paternalism on gender roles and collective identity.
- Assessment of the role of political culture and ideological resistance to feminism.
Excerpt from the Book
3.2.2 Testing Hypothesis: Framing
Within the context of framing it can be argued that the collective action frames of Western feminism lack resonance among Czech women (and men) (Heitlinger 1996; Ferber and Raabe 2003). The Western feminists’ discourse emphasises the ‘dictatorship of patriarchy and capitalism’, whereas the Czech population meets communist thinking with distance and rejection – although they are still to some extent characterized by the socialist legacy of Communism. As a consequence, when implemented into the very different political, economic and cultural context of Czech post-Communism, Western feminist concepts have no credibility and no individual and cultural salience – they have even led to strong rejections and have functioned counter-productive.
The Western feminist discourse, discussing whether women are a social class or not and addressing matters of inequality, reminds the Czech people of the deeply unpopular communist terminology (Saxonberg 2002, 2003). Furthermore, women were faced by the ‘right and duty’ of paid employment and became quite accustomed to a range of child-oriented services and allowances provided by the state. Consequently, demands of Western feminists movements for equal educational and employment opportunities, childcare facilities and extended maternity leaves were already implemented and taken for granted in Czechoslovakia.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Provides the theoretical motivation for studying social movements in post-socialist societies and outlines the research focus on women's movements in East Germany and the Czech Republic.
1. Theoretical Background: Defines the core analytical frameworks of political opportunity structures and framing processes used to investigate movement emergence and success.
2. Methodology: Details the macro-causal comparative method of difference, comparing Eastern Germany and the Czech Republic to identify crucial variables explaining disparate movement outcomes.
3. A Comparison of the Women’s Movement in Eastern Germany and the Czech Republic: Investigates the specific cases, testing how political opportunities and framing strategies influenced the development of feminist organizations in both countries.
4. Conclusion: Synthesizes findings, emphasizing that while both societies shared political transformations, differences in how feminist frames interacted with local ideologies and experiences led to divergent movement outcomes.
Keywords
Women's movement, Eastern Germany, Czech Republic, political opportunity structure, framing, feminism, post-Communism, state paternalism, collective identity, social movements, transition, mobilization, gender roles, socialist legacy.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary subject of this paper?
The paper examines the formation and development of women's movements in Eastern Germany and the Czech Republic after the 1989 political transitions.
What are the core theoretical themes?
The work focuses on political opportunity structures and the analytical notion of framing to explain social movement activity.
What is the central research question?
It seeks to understand whether and how post-socialist civil societies utilized new political opportunities to form feminist movements and why outcomes differed between the two countries.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The author uses a macro-causal comparative analysis, specifically the "method of difference," to identify key variables that explain the success or failure of women's movement formation.
What does the main body cover?
The main body provides detailed tests of the chosen hypotheses by analyzing the specific organizational and framing history of women's groups in both the GDR and Czechoslovakia, followed by a cross-comparison.
Which keywords best characterize the work?
The key themes include feminism, post-Communism, political opportunity structure, and the legacy of state paternalism in determining social movement viability.
Why did Western feminist frames struggle to resonate in the Czech Republic?
The frames were seen as reminiscent of unpopular Communist terminology, and Czech women rejected the concept of being "victims," preferring to identify as independent agents.
What role did the Evangelical church play in the East German case?
It functioned as a vital "umbrella" organization, providing a semi-public space for women's groups to organize and address issues ignored by the state prior to 1989.
- Quote paper
- Christiane Landsiedel (Author), 2004, Comparison of the Womens Movement in Eastern Germany and the Czech Republic, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/31420
