This article aims to deepen the understanding of democratic resilience by examining two critical events in Romania: the 2018 "Referendum for Family" and the 2020 attempt to ban gender studies (Băluță O., 2020; Băluță I., 2020; Norocel and Băluță I, 2021; Brodeală and Epure, 2022; Chiva, 2023). Building on Chiva's (2023, 16) conceptualization of democratic resilience as the "successful resistance against conservative and/or autocratic attempts to remove fundamental rights and/or shape existing policy in a more authoritarian direction," we argue for a more nuanced analysis. Specifically, we investigate how the apparent successes of democratic resilience are tempered by the less visible consequences of anti-gender politics, including silencing, epistemic violence, fatigue and sustained attacks on gender scholars and activists.
We address two research questions: How do anti-gender mobilizations, such as the 2018 "Referendum for Family" and the 2020 attempt to ban gender studies in Romania, reveal the limitations and complexities of democratic resilience? In what ways can feminist autoethnography and the inclusion of emotional labor contribute to a more nuanced understanding of situational resilience in resisting anti-gender politics?
By employing feminist autoethnography (Ettorre, 2017; Chapola and Datta, 2023) as both a methodological and epistemological tool, we highlight the emotional labor (Hochschild 1983, Guy et al., Weinberg 2021) and lived experiences of scholars and civil society actors as key, yet often overlooked, components of democratic resilience. This approach not only validates feminist autoethnography as a critical method in anti-gender research but also broadens the scope of inquiry to include situational resilience. We aim to develop the concept of situational resilience, which we believe allows for the recovery and analysis of moments of success, as well as the understanding of the strategies and actions that prove effective - we will convene Kantola and Lombardo’s (2023) analysis of the feminist institutional responses to anti-gender politics. At the same time, this concept facilitates a critical perspective on these moments, acknowledging that they neither guarantee the repetition of success nor necessarily halt, beyond the specific instance, ongoing processes of de-democratization or autocratization. Mapping the actors and strategies deployed during these moments, we propose a reflection on the strengths and limitations of framing these events as successes of democratic resilience.
Our findings challenge optimistic interpretations of resilience to anti-gender mobilizations and advocate for an expanded conceptualization of democratic resilience—one that acknowledges the costs borne by activists, scholars, and marginalized communities in their efforts to sustain democratic processes. This broader perspective invites a reevaluation of resilience to include the enduring struggles that underpin and complicate democratic resilience in the face of conservative and autocratic pressures.
