Matters of gender and sexuality are at the heart of the authoritarian populist project, according to many experts

Full Answer Section

Kimmel, Angry White Men, quoted in lecture, April 24). This yearning for a hierarchical social order, where gender roles are clearly defined and male dominance is unchallenged, becomes a powerful mobilizing force for authoritarian populist movements. The promise to restore this order, often through nationalist and xenophobic policies that define the "nation" in exclusionary terms, resonates deeply with those who feel displaced by social progress.

Ruth Ben-Ghiat, in her analysis of authoritarian leaders, emphasizes the performance of strongman masculinity as a central element of their appeal. She argues that these leaders cultivate an image of unwavering strength, decisiveness, and patriarchal authority, often contrasting themselves with perceived "weak" or "effeminate" liberal elites. The concept of the "cult of personality" is central to her argument, where the leader embodies the idealized national identity, often through exaggerated displays of masculine power and control. Ben-Ghiat notes, "Authoritarian leaders project an image of invincibility and virility, often through carefully staged performances of power that resonate with anxieties about national decline and social disorder" (Ben-Ghiat, Strongmen, quoted in lecture, April 26). This performance of masculinity extends beyond mere rhetoric; it often manifests in policies that seek to control women's bodies and reproductive rights, reinforce traditional family structures, and demonize LGBTQ+ individuals as threats to the moral fabric of the nation. The promise of a strong leader who can restore order and traditional values, often framed in explicitly gendered terms, becomes a key component of the authoritarian populist project's appeal.

Judith Butler, in her work on gender and power, offers a critical lens through which to understand how gender and sexuality become sites of political contestation and regulation within authoritarian contexts. Her concept of "gender performativity" highlights how gender is not a fixed biological category but rather a social construct enacted through repeated performances and norms. Authoritarian populism often seeks to rigidly enforce these norms, demonizing any deviation from traditional understandings of masculinity and femininity as a threat to social stability. Butler argues that "the policing of gender and sexuality is often a crucial aspect of authoritarian regimes, as these are seen as fundamental to the social order that the regime seeks to control and preserve" (Butler, Gender Trouble, quoted in lecture, April 28). This policing can manifest in discriminatory laws, the suppression of LGBTQ+ rights, and the reinforcement of patriarchal family structures. By defining and controlling the boundaries of acceptable gender and sexual expression, authoritarian populists seek to solidify their power and create a homogenous national identity based on exclusionary norms.

Rebecca Solnit, while perhaps less directly focused on authoritarianism, provides crucial insights into the gendered nature of violence and fear that often underpins right-wing movements. Her concept of "mansplaining," though seemingly a minor phenomenon, reveals a deeper dynamic of male entitlement and the silencing of women's voices. This dynamic, Solnit argues, is part of a broader culture of male dominance that can escalate into more overt forms of violence and control. While not explicitly about authoritarian populism, Solnit's analysis of gendered power dynamics helps to illuminate the underlying misogyny and patriarchal assumptions that often fuel these movements. She observes, "The assumption that men know things and women don't, that men are the authorities and women are the audience, is a pervasive one that shapes our culture and contributes to the silencing and marginalization of women" (Solnit, Men Explain Things to Me, quoted in lecture, May 1). This cultural context, where male authority is often taken for granted and challenges to it are met with resistance, provides fertile ground for the authoritarian populist promise of restoring traditional gender hierarchies.

While each of these authors offers valuable insights into the relationship between gender, sexuality, and authoritarian populism, I believe Ruth Ben-Ghiat provides the most compelling account. Her focus on the performative aspects of strongman masculinity and its direct parallels to historical authoritarian regimes offers a particularly potent framework for understanding the current moment. Ben-Ghiat’s analysis goes beyond simply identifying anxieties about changing gender roles; it delves into how authoritarian leaders actively cultivate an image of masculine authority as a central component of their political appeal. The carefully constructed persona of the strong leader, often contrasted with perceived weakness or effeminacy, resonates with those who feel a sense of national decline and yearn for a return to a more hierarchical and seemingly stable social order. Her historical perspective also allows for a deeper understanding of the recurring patterns in authoritarian movements, where the control of gender and sexuality is consistently used as a tool for consolidating power and defining national identity.

For example, Ben-Ghiat’s analysis of Mussolini’s Italy or Hitler’s Germany reveals striking similarities to contemporary authoritarian populist leaders. These historical figures also cultivated an image of hyper-masculinity, promoted traditional family values, and often demonized minority groups, including sexual minorities, as threats to the nation's strength and purity. The emphasis on male authority and the subjugation of women were integral to their ideologies and their projects of national renewal. This historical context, which Ben-Ghiat expertly illuminates, provides a crucial framework for understanding why issues of gender and sexuality are so central to the authoritarian populist project today. It is not simply a matter of appealing to traditional values; it is a fundamental aspect of the authoritarian playbook for establishing and maintaining control.

In conclusion, the works of Kimmel, Ben-Ghiat, Butler, and Solnit collectively demonstrate the profound interconnectedness of gender, sexuality, and the rise of authoritarian populism. These movements do not simply reflect pre-existing anxieties; they actively construct and manipulate them, offering a nostalgic vision of a national identity rooted in traditional, often exclusionary, understandings of gender and sexuality. While Kimmel highlights the role of aggrieved male entitlement, Butler underscores the policing of gender norms as a tool of control, and Solnit reveals the underlying gendered power dynamics, it is Ben-Ghiat’s analysis of the performative strongman masculinity and its historical precedents that offers the most compelling framework for understanding this complex relationship. The promise of a powerful, masculine leader who can restore order and traditional values, often through the control of women's bodies and the demonization of sexual minorities, remains a potent force in the authoritarian populist project, making matters of gender and sexuality far from peripheral but rather central to its very core.

Sample Answer

The rise of authoritarian populism in recent years has perplexed and alarmed observers worldwide. While economic anxieties and nationalist sentiments are often cited as key drivers, a closer examination reveals that matters of gender and sexuality are not merely peripheral concerns but lie at the very core of this political phenomenon. Drawing upon the insightful analyses of Michael Kimmel, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Judith Butler, and Rebecca Solnit, it becomes evident that authoritarian populism actively constructs and manipulates anxieties surrounding gender roles, sexual norms, and the perceived erosion of traditional family structures to consolidate power and mobilize its base. These anxieties are often framed as threats to a nostalgic vision of national identity, where a specific, often exclusionary, understanding of masculinity and femininity reigns supreme. While each author offers a valuable perspective, Ruth Ben-Ghiat’s focus on the performance of masculine authority and its connection to historical authoritarian regimes provides a particularly compelling framework for understanding this relationship.

Michael Kimmel, in his work on masculinity and right-wing populism, highlights the role of aggrieved entitlement among men who feel their traditional status and power are under threat. He argues that the rise of feminism, changing economic landscapes, and evolving social norms have created a sense of crisis for certain segments of the male population. Authoritarian populist leaders tap into this anxiety by promising a return to a time when men were unequivocally in charge, often employing rhetoric that denigrates women, minorities, and LGBTQ+ individuals as threats to this imagined patriarchal order. Kimmel introduces the crucial concept of "aggrieved entitlement," which describes the feeling among men that they are losing something that was rightfully theirs, even if that "right" was based on historical privilege and inequality. As Kimmel states, "Right-wing populism offers these men a narrative of restoration, a promise to reclaim a lost masculinity, a world in which their authority was unquestioned and their status secure"