Share

Share this

Share on Facebook Share on Facebook Tweet Share on Twitter Share on WhatsApp Share on WhatsApp

SUBSCRIBE TO THE NEWSLETTER

Punctual and smiling. That's how Judith Görtz on the other side of the screen. The range of topics this Austrian academic (Vienna, 1983) focuses on serves to outline a first outline of her profile: feminist theory and political pedagogy with a gender perspective, right-wing extremism and anti-feminism, patriarchal violence. She meticulously prepared the interview and addressed the questions, both planned and improvised, with a broad technical vocabulary in Spanish, a product of her time in Guatemala and Argentina, as well as a resume that has taken her to universities such as Vienna and Innsbruck, where she currently works. Although she lives in the Austrian capital, and that means she travels some five hundred kilometers each way, she travels at least a couple of times a week.

And the suitcase is packed once again because this conversation takes place as Görtz is about to change her scenery again: a three-month research stay awaits her at the Rovira i Virgili University in Tarragona. This won't be her first time in Spain, as at the end of November she participated with colleagues from different latitudes in the 7th Meeting on Fundamentalisms , organized by Medicus Mundi Gipuzkoa. Specifically, she took part in the panel discussion "Antifeminism and Racism. Hate Speech as Political Flags."

Is hate speech universal or does it adapt its messages to different territories?

Hate speech, which I would call ideologies of inequality, exhibits both universal patterns and local adaptations. It often relies on polarization, the stigmatization of minorities, and moral alarmism to create enemies and foster fears. At the same time, it adapts to regional contexts, taking advantage of local fears and cultural particularities. Local and global dynamics reinforce each other, and that is why, to effectively combat ideologies of inequality, it is very important to consider both their universal structures and their adaptations. The same is true of antifeminism. For example, in many countries, the fight against gender is interpreted as a local fight against Western imperialism.

Do the ideologies of inequality you speak of correlate with the left-right axis?

These ideologies can be found both on the far right and in left-wing discourse. A recent example is found in Germany, specifically in the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht-Vernunft und Gerechtigkeit [Sahra Wagenknecht-Alliance for Reason and Justice] party, led by Sahra Wagenknecht as a result of a split from Die Linke (the Left Party). This party sometimes supports anti-immigration policies, features racist rhetoric, and has recently held negotiations to form a government with more conservative parties, while also being open to talks with the far right.

"The traditional right does not want to lose its privileges, such as male and patriarchal hegemony."

Austria has experience with dialogue and pacts with the far right. The last time parties of that ideology formed a coalition in government was between 2017 and 2019, with subsequent cuts to gender policies. And this year, for the first time in the country's history, a far-right party, Herbert Kickl's FPÖ (Freedom Party of Austria), was tasked with forming a government, for which it met with the conservative ÖVP (Austrian People's Party). Should the traditional right open up to these negotiations? [At the time of the interview, both parties were still in talks, but the negotiations eventually broke down.]

Civil society emphasizes that 71 percent of voters did not vote for the FPO, and this raises the question of the democratic legitimacy of the negotiations. But it is often overlooked that the ÖVP has previously adopted positions that closely align with the FPO's ideology, in key areas such as asylum and migration policy, and also with regard to anti-feminism. It was the conservatives who, through their strategic decisions, have allowed the far right to participate in the government. But the question of whether the ÖVP should negotiate with the FPO is not sufficient. The much more central question is why conservative parties like the ÖVP have such difficulty making social concessions and are increasingly distancing themselves from the possibility of a coalition with the social democratic parties. This reflects a fundamental change in the political landscape, which makes cooperation between conservative and progressive forces increasingly difficult.

To return to the question you yourself pose, why are traditional right-wing parties increasingly struggling to reach out to social democracy, instead opting for more extreme options?

Because they don't want to lose their privileges. It's much easier for them to maintain privileges like male and patriarchal hegemony in a coalition with racist, anti-feminist, and sexist parties.

In this hypothetical collaboration between traditionally majority forces in Europe, would it be positive for social democracy to also move closer to the conservative right?

No, that always comes at the expense of minorities, of vulnerable people. I don't see anything good in the Große Koalition [the grand coalition between the two major parties]. In Austria, that possibility isn't even considered right now because the Social Democrats are so weak.

“Societies are becoming increasingly polarized, allowing authoritarian regimes to gain support by exploiting fears and sentiments.”

The rise of the Austrian far right is not isolated: prominent European leaders include Viktor Orban (Hungary), Marine Le Pen (France), Geert Wilders (Netherlands), Alice Weidel (Germany), and Giorgia Meloni (Italy). Beyond Europe, there are Donald Trump (United States) and Vladimir Putin (Russia). Every major feminist advance seems to be met with an anti-feminist backlash.

Anti-feminism is used as a political tool to mobilize conservative voters and deepen social polarization. The successes of these movements demonstrate that feminist advances often face massive backlashes that are not only culturally motivated but are also used strategically to exploit social fears. They also demonstrate that feminist struggles have been highly successful for years and have challenged patriarchy. That's why the backlash is so harsh, because privileged people have seen that society is changing, that their privileges are not guaranteed and can be lost. The resistance to these movements shows how central feminist struggles have become to the defense of democratic and liberal values.

In Spain, Vox stands out, having surpassed three million votes (12.3 percent of the ballots) in the last general election, behind only the Popular Party (PP, 33 percent) and the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE, 31.6 percent). How do you analyze the Spanish situation from outside?

The Spanish reality is also marked by growing polarization and the rise of far-right forces like Vox, which has gained influence in recent years and established itself as a key political player. The fact that Vox has gained regional influence and is part of PP-led governments in several autonomous communities contributes to popularizing and normalizing its positions, a very dangerous situation. One of the distinguishing factors compared to other European countries is that Vox strongly opposes the issue of autonomous regions in Catalonia and the Basque Country.

“Crises for youth are connected to an experience of fear and difficulties in finding their way around.”

Le Pen in France, Weidel in Germany, Meloni in Italy, and in Austria we can mention Heide Schmidt, Susanne Riess-Passer… Reviewing the list of far-right political leaders, several women appear. At the same time, their respective parties are trying to reach out to female voters. As you yourself point out in one of your publications : Wing Populism and Extremism."

This can be understood from several perspectives. First, these women present a traditional vision of the female role, according to which they should be protectors of the family and also the homeland, so they present themselves as progressive and modern women, but at the same time they reject feminism and support traditional values ​​of family and society. Second, women who align themselves with the far right also benefit from feminist advances to position themselves in the political sphere; their success is justified by their ability to navigate political complexities and leadership, but they often do so using anti-feminist rhetoric to appeal to certain segments of the electorate. These women's embrace of anti-feminist positions reflects a conservative version of feminism that does not seek to challenge patriarchal structures, but simply to defend certain traditional values.

There is a growing tendency toward strong leadership, while at the same time there is a weakening of multilateral and state institutions. Is the world heading toward the replacement or transformation of democracies by authoritarian regimes?

The rejection of multilateral organizations such as the European Union or the UN is presented as a kind of return to national sovereignty, but in practice it leads to isolationism and political instability. Societies are becoming increasingly polarized, allowing authoritarian regimes to gain support by exploiting fears and sentiments. Examples such as Hungary, Poland, and Russia show how the democratic framework is gradually being replaced by authoritarian structures. But it must also be said that there is resistance: in many countries, movements defending democratic values ​​and the rule of law are forming. So the question is not so much whether democracies will be completely replaced by authoritarian regimes, but whether they can successfully defend themselves against these developments. And that depends on the societies themselves, on whether they manage to actively protect the principles of freedom, equality, and participation.

“It is very important not to let yourself be divided, to put what unites above what separates.”

Why do some of these societies and young people opt for authoritarian options over more democratic ones?

Among the younger generation, we've been seeing a backlash , which has a lot to do with the various crises: the economic, the ecological, the energy, the wars... crises that, for young people, are connected to an experience of fear and difficulty finding their way. It's much easier to externalize all these issues onto a powerful figure, a leader who offers all the answers and who also tells you that you are worth more than other people, that you should have more access to society's privileges.

In this scenario, how can we confront reactionary formations?

It's very important to understand that many people vote for the far right not because they don't understand what their ideology means, but precisely because of their ideology. We won't win much in this fight with arguments alone; we must focus on why these ideologies are so attractive to people. We must seek alternatives or responses to the needs that the far right manages to address. It's also very important not to allow ourselves to be divided, to put what unites above what divides.

And is feminism united right now? Issues like trans rights, queer , prostitution, and so on are on the table.

There are many conflicts, not only within feminist movements. But I see conflicts not only as something bad, but also as an opportunity to develop something new. Unfortunately, in recent years, many people have stopped discussing and their only reaction has been to cut off their social media accounts. Moreover, at this time when the counterattacks are so strong that they are curtailing all the rights we have achieved, it is very important to be more united to defend what we stand to lose.

You mentioned earlier the importance of understanding why far-right discourse is appealing. To understand this, do we need to sit down and talk with the far right? Do we need to engage in debate with anti-feminist and fascist movements?

It depends a lot on who you're talking to. If you're confronting a very convinced person, it would be very hard work. But with people who are just sympathetic, it's worth engaging in a debate and arguing. That's why I said before that it's very important to recognize that it's often not about having the best arguments; education is sometimes not effective against these ideologies. People sympathize not in spite of the content, but because of it, and therefore it's important to focus on what benefits people have from thinking in these ways, perhaps analyzing the situations they go through in their lives.

“Feminisms should not adopt a defensive strategy, but rather maintain the initiative.”

These reactionary discourses have found in social media the tool for dissemination and the forum for discussion that best suits their interests. Should feminisms stop fighting in spaces like X (Twitter), or would that mean renouncing a space where part of the public agenda and narrative are at stake?

It's a very, very difficult question to answer. Many people have already left Twitter—my university did—but at the same time, it's very dangerous to leave those spaces solely for anti-progressive people. It would be better to carry out targeted interventions, rather than each individual fighting in a disorganized and individualized manner. Feminist movements shouldn't consider the entire platform as a battlefield, but rather focus on specific issues and groups they can effectively influence. In other words, the focus should be on supporting organizations, projects, and initiatives that effectively work to change the social media agenda.

From a feminist perspective, given the current situation, is it time to adopt a defensive strategy, or is it simply a matter of not relinquishing the initiative?

Feminist actors must put their own issues at the center and actively promote them. Instead of constantly engaging in reactive confrontations, it's about creating spaces where progressive ideas and solutions can be presented. We shouldn't adopt a defensive strategy, but rather maintain the initiative. While we may not achieve new progressive laws or more institutional support in this era, our work must focus on changing mindsets and challenging discriminatory ideologies. The fight against patriarchy and other forms of oppression always requires an active response focused on visibility and exposure. We cannot give up space to those who seek to push back; we must continue to build support networks and alliances with other social movements. The defense of feminist rights is a constant task that cannot be put on the back burner. We will always have new issues because the political situation is constantly changing. The feminist initiative must remain proactive and provocative.