The Working Group (WG) aims to understand the relationships of tension and articulation in the struggle for rights around gender equality and full autonomy in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), within the feminist field (and its various currents) and outside of it (in relation to the State, conservative opponents and political groups).

These reflections prove indispensable at a historical juncture where multiple processes converge in the region. On the one hand, Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) is marked by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the economic and social crisis, and the increase in inequalities, as well as by the emergence of multiple identities that demand new emancipatory horizons. The persistence of polarization and the concentration of wealth implies an attack on both the premises of equality and the recognition and respect for people and their differences. (Tabbush, 2021.)

On the other hand, the regional political scene shows the simultaneous presence of progressive governments with agendas that include commitments to expanding rights and conservative governments that undermine the exercise of these rights. Furthermore, the new leftward shift in the region is itself a field for reflection on the convergences and divergences between the left-wing groups in power and the demands for gender justice from feminist perspectives. In light of the work and reflections of previous editions of the Working Group and the current economic, political, and social situation in the region, three scenarios of tension are identified that will be the specific focus of this proposal:

First, tensions are observed within the state sphere in the processes of formulating, legitimizing, and implementing public policies demanded by feminist movements. One example is the tension between the normative advances in favor of decriminalizing abortion in several countries in recent years—Argentina, 2020; Colombia, 2022; several Mexican states—and the obstacles and resistance encountered in the design and implementation of these public policies, both from the state and from the practices and activism of conservative groups seeking to repeal and dismantle these advances. Similarly, it is necessary to reflect on the relationships that arise around other central feminist demands and policies currently being implemented, such as those related to gender violence, parity, co-responsibility, and care work, among others.

The second area of ​​tension is the political sphere, specifically the relationship between feminism and the left, as promoting feminist demands has not been easy for progressive movements in the region. As feminist movements expand and become active within the left, or as left-wing activists become feminists and demand that political groups adopt the feminist agenda, tensions are inevitable. Thus, during the first period of progressive governments in the region this century, the environment was not very conducive to feminist demands, and many left-wing leaders opposed key policies such as the legalization of abortion. While current progressive governments seem more inclined to support feminist demands and even adopt them, as seen in the cases of gender parity and the legalization of abortion in countries like Argentina and Chile, tensions persist between leftist and feminist movements, particularly on doctrinal issues that provoke profound disputes surrounding morality and the prevailing culture in a country, such as the right to choose (Htun and Weldon 2018). The main tension between leftist and feminist movements remains the perception that gender issues are secondary (for example, compared to class inequalities). Furthermore, promoting gender issues can now lead to a loss of votes for progressive projects with a chance of winning elections, given the rise of fundamentalist neoconservatism among the electorate. Therefore, reflecting on this core of tensions is crucial in the region.

The third area of ​​tension is linked to the internal field of feminisms. Following Zaremberg and Rezende (2022), tensions within the feminist field are constituted around two dimensions. The first refers to the dimension of intersectionality, which means investigating the relationships (of tension and cooperation) that are constructed between long-standing, urban, and educated feminisms and feminisms on the margins or in marginalized areas and populations where various inequalities intersect based on race, ethnicity, age, or class. In Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), this implies analyzing the relationships of feminisms with their Indigenous and Afro-Latin American branches (see Carneiro 2011, Cabnal 2010). The second crucial dimension to observe in order to unravel the relationships within the feminist field relates to discussions surrounding the binary (between the categories of man and woman) versus the notion of fluid sexual identities. Currently, especially the confrontations between radical abolitionist positions and positions generally associated with queer theories, have unfolded important clashes (see Valcarcel 2019).

With the aim of reflecting on these tensions and continuing to promote broad debates on gender inequalities in light of shifts in Latin American politics, the Working Group (GT) brings together researchers from ten Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) countries, with diverse disciplinary backgrounds and empirical trajectories. This new nomination proposes a renewal of the GT's coordinating team with the participation of researchers from three member centers in three countries of the region (Argentina, Mexico, and Paraguay) and the incorporation of new members with different professional and generational profiles from various countries. These researchers possess a deep network of academic and public policy connections and social activism, making the GT a highly synergistic network.

Identifying the spaces of tension generated by feminist demands, the types of relationships that arise from these demands, the actors involved, and the dynamics that emerge, constitute a key field of study. Analyzing the relationships of cooperation or conflict that arise from policy proposals seeking recognition of historically excluded and subordinated identities, and the redistribution of power and resources implied in this, constitutes a relevant field for generating knowledge and exchanging experiences and reflections on the multiple scenarios/spaces of dialogue and praxis/action that involve women's and feminist organizations in their relationship with a plurality of actors.

Thus, this proposal is framed within a feminist governance approach and a relational feminist political sociology. These approaches offer numerous contributions regarding the relationship between the feminist movement, the state, and conservative countermovements. Regarding the relationships of tension and cooperation within the feminist field itself, studies characterizing the movement's heterogeneity stand out (De Lauretis, 1990). The concept of discursive fields (Álvarez, 2014) and the recent definition of feminism as an assemblage are further examples of these efforts (Álvarez, 2019).

Furthermore, the relationship between feminisms and the state has also received considerable attention from these perspectives. This is evident in the notable concept of femocracy, which analyzes the role of women who transitioned from the feminist movement to the sphere of government (Eisenstein, 1996), inspiring Latin American research (Zaremberg, 2007; Abers, 2020). Other scholars use triangular notions of women's cooperation in feminist governance, such as empowerment triangles (Vargas and Wieringa, 1998) and velvet triangles (Woodward, 2004). Moreover, Banaszak (2010) dissolves the dichotomy between feminists "inside" and "outside" the state, emphasizing the simultaneous trajectories of movement-based and institutional activism.

Finally, the relationship between the feminist movement and the conservative backlash has also been extensively studied. The very notion of a counter-movement has been debated (see Piscopo and Walsh, 2020), with the relational perspective offered by Roggeband and Krizan (2020) proving particularly interesting. They propose that the tension and opposition between feminists and the conservative backlash necessarily implies a tripartite perspective that includes the dispute over the state.

Taken together, these theoretical frameworks point to different spaces of conflictive or cooperative relationships among a heterogeneous group of actors. To reflect on these tensions, particularly those that develop within the state and political spheres, we propose examining the strategic use of the symbolic polyvalence of rights. This polyvalence varies depending on the actors and their historical and political contexts, which have improved women's opportunities for legitimate political action, but have also been used to limit freedoms and autonomy over their own bodies, as well as to explore the connections and tensions between gender rights and interests. It will also be crucial to consider that the achievements of women's rights are closely linked to the contradictory and fragile relationship between liberal principles and aspirations for equality.

In this context, the key questions that will guide the work of the Working Group are the following:

What theoretical frameworks and heuristics help today in the analysis of the tensions that emerge from feminist demands and struggles in different fields?

With what theoretical tools could the feminist agenda become a priority for the left in the region, confronting the conservatisms that permeate them and gain influence in left-wing politics?

What heuristic tools are needed to explore the convergences and divergences between feminist knowledge and practices and public policy actions?

How can we address the tensions within feminisms so that the debates enrich the movement as a whole?